The benefits and curse of Asbury style IBS

I'm teaching "Bible as Scripture" this week for Wesley Seminary. My Asbury training always shows up in this class when we get to what Dr. Bauer calls, "structural laws." I try not to call them that but try to use more informal language. I really enjoyed IBS at Asbury but I think many students left those classes feeling like they had learned some secret technical language that no one else would ever understand.

Even new Bible professors there, I got the sense, if they had not studied at Asbury as a grad student, could be mystified at a completely unique language used scarcely anywhere else in the academy. What do you make of a label like, "recurrence of particularization with filial language"? I don't think I really got a sense of what all that stuff was about until I adjuncted for Asbury a few times 10-15 years ago.

But I continue to find these categories incredibly helpful. I'm also teaching Romans online right now. I try to spare the lingo and of course these observations are spread out over weeks. But when I look at Romans, I am now cursed to see:

• Romans 1:16-17 as the key verses of this book ("generalization of 1:16-17 in 1:18-11:36"). 
• I can't help but see 1:18-5:11 as a movement from the problem--"all have sinned" (1:18-3:20) to the solution--"the faithfulness of Jesus Christ" (3:21-4:25)
• ... with Romans 3:20-31 as the greatest encapsulation of how salvation works in the whole Bible ("generalization of the solution in 3:21-4:25") 
• ... and Romans 5:1-11 as the conclusion to this whole section ("generalization with logical causation"). 

And what am I to say of all the sub-patterns I am cursed now to see? Romans 4 is a substantiation of 3:21-31. Within Romans 4, 4:1-3 is a general statement that is "particularized with a recurrence of substantiation in 4:4-25."

Who will free me from this body of IBS-eze??? I'm convinced that these are all valid patterns. But who will have a clue what I am talking about?

Best Interpretation Course for me ever...

... I'm not at all saying the class experienced it the same way.  But for me, it seemed like the best balance I've ever experienced in this sort of class.  My thanks to the class for their great spirit!  I felt like we had an exhausting but good time together. I enjoyed being with you.

From my perspective, this sort of a class is probably the hardest to teach.  It is partially about Bible study method, which can feel cold and boring.  You run the risk of the Bible becoming a dissected frog. It's a whole lot more enjoyable to study the Bible than study about studying the Bible.

It also digs into Scripture's original meaning, which sounds great until we begin to experience culture shock.  We may discover that some of what we thought was the Bible is actually our tradition or contemporary culture.  This can be painful, even disorienting. I think it's good in the end but not always pleasant along the journey.

Here is where my outline is now, having changed it a little more even since the class ended.

Monday
1. Devotional
We read through Psalm 23 the first morning of class and prayed together.

2. The three worlds of the text
This is the hermeneutical framework I use.  The key point at the beginning of class is increased awareness of the world in front of the text.  Thus the quote from class, "Scripture is beautiful, but I'm stupid," and that changes everything.

3. Spiritual interpretations
The Spirit can and does speak through Scripture however he pleases, always in keeping with his character. Any speaking of God has the authority of God, no matter how it comes.  The hard part is being certain you are hearing God. Can happen communally too--as denominations... could it be true of what we call "common Christianity"?

4. NT Letters
After lunch, a quiz over interpretive and applicational issues in NT letters, based on pre-course reading/viewing.

5. Following a Train of Thought
In the afternoon, it seemed helpful to give hermeneutics a break and shift to an IBS topic. The basic framework of exegesis was reviewed--literary evidence, historical-cultural evidence, conclusion. I think next time I would introduce train of thought with a one page template I have created for putting an analysis of a train of thought on paper. I usually go through a "things to look for" PowerPoint too--this can be an observation exercise where you copy a page of the Bible and mark it up.

I used Philippians 3 as an example this time, but it didn't work well for some reason.  I fear my brain was too exhausted to be interesting that afternoon.

Tuesday 
1. Devotional
We walked through Hebrews 11 the morning after looking at train of thought.  This does double duty because it not only has a great train of thought, but I think there are some great possible insights that come from historical/situational background.

2. Appropriation Strategies
With the goal of keeping things interesting and poignant, we looked at different strategies scholars have suggested for connecting the biblical world with our world.  The goal was to uncover the underlying dynamics of what we already do on issues like eating pork, adultery, buying on Sunday, homosexual sex, polygamy, etc.  How do we apply Scripture on different issues?

3. The Gospels
After lunch, a quiz over interpretive and applicational issues in the Gospels based on reading/viewing.

4. Surveying
In the afternoon, shift to IBS again.  If the train of thought process had to do with immediate literary context and a focal passage, surveying is a tool for looking at the broader literary context of a passage. The Sermon on the Mount seemed to work well as a learning sample.

Wednesday
1. Devotional
Some reflections on Jonah, especially 4:2 and thinking of the possibility it was written after Assyria had destroyed the northern kingdom.

2. Sample Passages
First thing Wednesday morning, we spent the first part of the morning looking at passages of interest to students in the class, trying to follow the train of thought in those passages. I segwayed into word studies by using blueletterbible to find the other places in the OT where the material of Jonah 4:2 appears.

Hebrew 6 was on one person's mind this time.  Another person asked about Judges 19. Romans 7 is always a nice one to think about broader literary context.  Isaiah 7 can anticipate later issues in the week.  Every sample involves some engagement with historical-cultural background, just by the nature of engaging a passage.

3. Word Studies
I started out with a template I created for putting a word study down on paper. In class, I walked them through by talking about the word "saved" in Acts, my quest one morning to try to decide what it primarily meant in Acts 2:47.  I showed them how I looked through the occurrences of sozo in bed one morning early using blueletterbible.org.  It was nice because I was able to distinguish between uses in Luke that were distinctly Lukan and places where he had simply copied Mark (so the former would be more representative of Luke's own style while the latter would simply be style borrowed from Mark). Unfortunately, I ended up getting my answer from the broader context of Acts, from a passage that does not even use the word sozo--Acts 17:31.

4. Sample Word Studies
Leading up to lunch, some of the class looked at 'alma based on Isaiah 7:14. Some of the class looked at teleios in the NT in general. We walked through them afterward together.

5. OT Narratives
After lunch, perhaps a quiz over reading/viewing in relation to interpretive and applicational issues in OT narratives.  I debate about using this material, not because it isn't likely to bring insight but because it seems like such a downer sometimes.

6. Word Fallacies
It was helpful to look at word fallacies after having done some mini-word studies together.

7. The Overall Exegetical Process
I think next time I might end the day on Wednesday going over the whole exegetical process in more detail, from literary context to historical context to conclusions.

Thursday
1. Devotional
I didn't get to give a devotional on Thursday morning this time, but I think perhaps one based on the use of the word mishpat, "justice" in the Prophets, might be nice, probably using Micah 6:8 as a base camp.

2. Fitting Passages Together
Continuing the pattern of hermeneutics in the morning, I went through a number of slides Thursday morning in which we strategized how to fit various passages together. For example, does God change his mind or not? Does God tempt others or not? Do children pay for the sins of their parents or not? What happens after death?  The climax would be some strategies for mapping out a biblical theology on a particular issue. References were made throughout the class to the iconic "integration paper" of the seminary praxis courses.

3. Applying OT Law
To shift to something a little less challenging, looking at how the NT appropriates OT legal material is a little lighter.  It feels more like organizing what we already do rather than blowing our minds.

4. OT Law and Prophets
After lunch, perhaps a quiz over reading/viewing in relation to interpretive and applicational issues in OT legal and prophetic material.  I ended up alternating open ended quizzes with more objective ones. There is also some reading on textual criticism that might be appropriate for this quiz, given the schedule for the day.

5. NT Use of the OT
Our brains were so fried, we wrote this paper together, moving from easy uses (Hebrews 11) to more difficult ones (Matthew).  It was intended to be a homework assignment for the evening. I reaffirmed my sense that spiritual interpretation is perhaps even God's primary mode of operation, based on the polyvalence of texts.  I rejoiced in coming from a revivalist tradition that was comfortable with the Bible's own hermeneutic and poked fun at Wheaton, Gordon-Conwell, and Trinity for their need to distinguish typology from allegory--a distinction invented by high Protestants to distinguish themselves from the "four fold senses" of Scripture used in medieval catholicism and to hide their embarrassment at the fact that the NT used a type of interpretation that they were rejecting.

6. Textual Criticism
This time it worked better to do this segment on Wednesday afternoon, but I think I might try to do this one on late Thursday afternoon next time. I think beginning with a handout to fill in various items is again a good way to start.  Mark 16 can serve as a concrete way of seeing how it works. End out the day with them in groups analyzing Deuteronomy 32:8, with some relevant biblical passages on the screen.

Friday
1. Devotional
1 Corinthians 15 was a God-send, I thought, for a final devotional.  It reaffirmed some bed-rock at the end of a week of a number of new ideas. We got into how to minister to those undergoing faith crisis (including the elderly).  We talked about experiential and historical "benchmarks." We talked a little about millennials and the issue of how a young person's spiritual transmission can catch gear rather than idle without engagement.

2. Scripture as Sacrament
I thought it worked fairly well to spend the final morning talking about Scripture in more sacramental categories.  This ended up taking us into the afternoon with the traditional categories of inspiration, authority, infallibility, and inerrancy.

3. The Writings
Final quiz over poetry, wisdom, and apocalyptic in the Bible.

4. Post-course work
We went over the post-course assignments--a theology of Scripture paper and an exegetical-application paper.

5. Issues in the Writings
We ended class light, looking at issues like parallelism in Hebrew poetry, how proverbs work, etc. What do we do with imprecatory psalms?  Do they contradict loving one's enemy? What does it mean to love someone?  Should we preach all of Scripture today or are there parts that are less appropriate to preach at various times in history or in certain contexts?

Difficult class, but I am very thankful for what I think turned out to be a profitable and engaging journey together this time...

Prima Scriptura by Clayton Croy

I ordered a copy of Clayton Croy's new Prima Scriptura: An Introduction to New Testament Interpretation.  I love it!!!  My only complaint is that it only addresses the New Testament.  I believe I will start using it in my Bible as Christian Scripture course as soon as possible!

Inductive Bible Study Received!

I received a desk copy of the long anticipated Inductive Bible Study, the updated and expanded version of the late Robert Traina's earlier Methodical Bible Study, edited and expanded in conjunction with David Bauer, who was my primary mentor at Asbury.



In my mind, this should replace any seminary using Grant Osborne's Hermeneutical Spiral for its inductive Bible course.  I thumbed through the book and found the familiar strengths of the IBS method they teach at Asbury with the distinctive style of David Bauer.  David and Traina worked out the revision just before Traina passed away last year.

I'll have to carefully consider whether to adopt it as the standard of Wesley Seminary.  It seems to me now to be the best book of its kind, and I think our adoption of it may be inevitable.  The problem of the book relates directly to Dr. Bauer and Traina's great strength.  They are so methodical.  On the one hand, make no mistake, this version is much better than Traina's original, in my opinion.  I just wish I could chop out about a fourth of it where Bauer's predilection for filling in every logical blank has taken over.

Some of you will know that I wrote a little book called Making Sense of God's Word.  It is basically the Reader's Digest version of this new book.  But my book does not put enough flesh on inductive method for a full seminary consideration.

Baker, I may be contacting you soon for permission to translate that 3/4 part into Spanish for our Spanish MDIV ;-)

Even John Meier can illustrate...

... how hard it is to get into the world of the text, rather than bring the text into your world.

Since I've read Charles Taylor, I have been using this lens to try to help students see the difference between inductive Bible study and theological interpretation as I define it. I consider both approaches valid, with theological interpretation as the default Christian approach (I won't take the time to clarify). The problem I see with evangelical hermeneutics is that it can't tell the difference between the two. It pretends to do the former to get the latter, when in fact the two are logically distinct and both legitimate.

Inductive Bible study aims to read the biblical texts on their own terms in their own categories. Theological interpretation brings the text into the Christian world of the interpreter. IBS is exegetical. Theological interpretation has an element of eisegesis that is not only appropriate but is necessary for biblical theology even to exist. Theological interpretation is the ground floor of the Bible as the living word of God. Inductive Bible study is the basement of the original, ancient meaning.

The distinction I am getting at is very hard to convey by telling, as I continually try. It is much easier to show by example. When talking about outlining biblical texts today, another example popped up, and this by the brilliant and renowned John Meier.

Meier and others see a chiasm in Hebrews 1:5-14. (It has occurred to me that the tendency to see chiasms is in certain individuals a tell tale symptom of "bringing the text into my world" rather than "getting into the text's world.") A chiasm is an A-B-B-A pattern and I have heard astounding papers that see ingenious ABCDEFGGFEDCBA patterns in a text. Such papers reflect the ingenious active mind of the interpreter--and the interpreter's complete inability to listen to the text on its own terms.

Back to Meier. His chiasm sees something like the following (I'm doing it from memory, so I'm sure I'm messing it up a little, but you'll get the picture)

1:5 exaltation (A)
1:6 pre-existence (B)
1:8 eternal God (C)
1:10 pre-existence (B)
1:13 exaltation (A)

This seems to me a wonderful example of an eisegetical outline. It brings the text into Meier's theological world and connects the words of the text with ideas in Meier's head.

But an outline that is inductively driven looks for literary clues in the text to discern the structure of argument rather than imposing ideological labels on the text. Topical outlines of biblical books are thus always impositions of meaning on the text.

Here is an outline that is based on the text itself and its categories:

1:5a To which did God say... (inclusio with 1:13)
1:5b And...
1:6 And...

1:7 On the one hand (contrasts with)
1:8-12 On the other (quote one and quote two)

1:13 To which did God say (end of inclusio)

Outlines that follow the ideas a reader sees in the text are always eisegetical rather than truly inductive. And I tell my students that once they truly understand what I am saying, they can easily be a better scholar at some points than some of the most recognized scholars out there.

In and Out Hermeneutics

I don't know if it's helpful to you (you can tell me), but nice little ditty came to mind this week to try to explain the difference between inductive Bible study and default pre-modern way Scripture is used (and I might throw in here the postmodern way it is used in theological interpretation). We were talking about the book of Matthew at the time.

"What I see you doing in this assignment is bringing the book of Matthew into your world. Inductive Bible study aims to get you into Matthew's world."

What I was trying to say here is what I have said elsewhere about the fact that we inevitably provide most of the "glue" that holds the individual bits of the Bible together into a coherent whole. The question that sparked this comment was an assignment in which we were going through the Great Commission and asking questions of Matthew's text like "When does Jesus receive all authority in this text?" I was expecting to have a dialog over whether the resurrection that has just taken place has brought Jesus this authority.

But understandably we got into a theological discussion about Jesus as the second person of the Trinity. Thus the comment, we can easily find ourselves bringing the words of Matthew into our theological world. The much more difficult skill--and one that often does not come naturally or easily--is to be able to get into the world of Matthew, to read Matthew as it stands in its own right without blurring its thought with thought from elsewhere.

This gets back at the question of theological interpretation. To me, it's perfectly appropriate--but don't confuse it with the original meaning.

Interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:4

I did some spade work in relation to an assignment my Thessalonians/Corinthians class did for today. The following are PowerPoint slides for class discussion today, going through much of the evidence and doing the exegetical process. Very difficult question! Hard to know the answer!

2 Thessalonians 2:4

Interpretive Question: What does it mean for the man of lawlessness “to sit in the temple of God, showing himself to be divine”?

I. Preliminary Look at Immediate Context
a. Thessalonians 2 seems to deal with events prior to the Day of the Lord.

b. This man of lawlessness would appear before the Day and do whatever this verse is talking about.

II. Broader Literary Context
a. 1:7-10 speaks of the “revelation” of Jesus from heaven with his angels, when he will come and visit judgment on those who trouble the Thessalonians.

b. So we observe 1) a context of Jesus’ return to earth in judgment and 2) an apparent expectation that it will happen while the audience is alive.

c. 2 Thessalonians 2 then goes on to speak of the parousia, arrival of the Lord… apparently the same event.

d. Chapter 2 thus would seem to be about events that Paul expects to take place within the audience’s lifetime.

e. The “Day of the Lord” would seem to be another way of referring to the same judgment.

III. Genre and Critical Issues
a. Some argue that 2 Thessalonians is pseudonymous, perhaps meant to balance out the immanent expectation of 1 Thessalonians.

b. If so, we can ask how much later than Paul it would have been written, something to keep in mind.

IV. Historical-Cultural Background
A. Intertextual Evidence
1. The “Day of the Lord” evokes Old Testament imagery of a day of visitation when God judges some group (e.g., Amos 5:18). There the judgment is more local or epochal. In 2 Thess. more universal.

2. Daniel 11:36--in reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, who “will exalt himself over every god.”

B. Other texts by Paul
1. The parousia for Paul refers to Jesus’ return in salvation and judgment. “Gathering together” in 2 Thess. 2:1 would seem to refer to the same event as 1 Thess. 4:17.

2. The idea that the “letter as through us” might refer to 1 Thessalonians seems incredible. Paul elsewhere says nothing about this “man of lawlessness” or any such action in a temple.

3. Temple in Paul
a. 1 Corinthians 3:16--“You are the temple of God.”

b. 1 Corinthians 6:19--“Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.”

C. Contemporary Literature
1. The rest of the New Testament
a. Mark 13/Matthew 24--“When you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be”--AD70, possibly end times as well

b. Luke 21—Jerusalem surrounded by armies--AD70

c. Revelation 13 and 17
Beast from the sea and beast from the land have some similarities. Beast from the sea makes war on the saints and takes imagery from Nero. Beast from the land performs wonders. No mention of temple in Revelation.

2. Outside the New Testament
Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-12 (2nd cent.)
"After it is consummated, Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother: who himself (even) this king, will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.

"This ruler in the form of that king will come and there will come and there will come with him all the powers of this world, and they will hearken unto him in all that he desires. And at his word the sun will rise at night and he will make the moon to appear at the sixth hour. And all that he hath desired he will do in the world: he will do and speak like the Beloved and he will say: 'I am God and before me there has been none.'

"And all the people in the world will believe in him. And they will sacrifice to him and they will serve him saying: "This is God and beside him there is no other.” And the greater number of those who shall have been associated together in order to receive the Beloved, he will turn aside after him. And there will be the power of his miracles in every city and region. And he will set up his image before him in every city. And he shall bear sway three years and seven months and twenty-seven days."

D. Other Historical Evidence
1. Temple echoes?
a. Desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes (167BC)

b. Entrance into Holy of Holies by Pompey (63BC)

c. Desired desecration by Caligula (40BC)

2. Contemporary Events of Interest
a. Martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome (AD60’s)

b. Jewish Revolt against Rome (AD66-73)

c. Destruction of the Temple (AD70)

V. Immediate Literary Context
Vs. 1— “concerning the arrival of Lord and our gathering”
context of parousia, meeting him in air

Vs. 2– “Day of Lord has come”
Sure seems like some situation must be prompting… too many potential sources of such a belief involved. Could it be over-enthusiasm for Christ’s return? Nero’s persecution? Of Paul? Of Roman Christians or Peter? The revolt?

Vs. 3—“apostasy” and “man of lawlessness”
Apostasy—Acts 21:21: “turning away from Moses”; Jeremiah 2:19—turning away from God; 1 Macc. 2:15—the apostasy as the forced Hellenization of Israel; Seems most likely to refer to Jews or Christians turning from God.

Vs. 4—opposes everything being called God
Evokes images of Antiochus, Caligula. Not obviously a Jew, although how otherwise would he be part of a turning away? Turning away seems to be in the direction of the man of lawlessness, so probably not Jewish revolt.

“sits in the temple to show he is divine”
Everything thus far has seemed literal—real parousia, real gathering, real individual opposing God, real turning away. So probably should take temple literally. The temple was standing at the time, so probably pre-AD70.

So likely resonances:
a. apostasy—like the turn away from God at the time of the Maccabees, turn toward the Romans?

b. man of lawlessness—like Antiochus or Caligula (if a specific person was in view, Nero is the best suggestion)

c. sets himself in the temple—like the desecration of Antiochus or Caligula, but in person like Pompey

d. signs and wonders will accompany

VI. Conclusion
Similarities to Mark 13/Matthew 24, possible blurring of contemporary events with end time events

Expectation of desecration of temple by political figure, perhaps literal originally, metaphorical now?

Writing an Interpretation Paper

I did a final vidcast summary for my students to write up the mini-interpretation I assigned them. It is on Writing It Up.

You can access the growing collection of exegetical review material here on my archive site.

Gathering Evidence from Historical-Cultural Context

Here are the three vidcasts I've made so far in the series on "How to Answer Interpretive Questions:"

3. Gathering evidence from historical-cultural context

2. Gathering evidence from literary context

1. Asking good questions

Gathering Evidence from Literary Context

Here is a vidcast I just shot on gathering evidence to answer questions in the interpretation of a passage by drawing on literary context. If you'd like some controversy, I use Romans 7:25b and Philippians 3:12 as my examples.

The first vidcast in this series was on what constitutes a good (original meaning) interpretive question.

More to come.

Theological Hermeneutics Versus Inductive Bible Study

I was reflecting this morning on the difference between inductive Bible study and the latest craze, "theological hermeutics." I'm not at the office to grab some books off the shelf but I associate this movement with names like Kevin Vanhoozer, Joel Green, and Anthony Thiselton, each in their own way.

Vanhoozer has put together The Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Green has started the Two Horizons commentary series with its launching volume, Between Two Horizons, and his own book, Seized by Truth. I am sure those who are further ensconched in this literature could add other books. Mike, if you're out there, I'll go ahead and mention Jeannine Brown's, Scripture as Communication.

I had three thoughts today on the contrast between the theological approach to interpretation and the inductive approach I learned at Asbury Seminary and that is the stuff of the historical critical method. Here they are in brief:

1. Its fundamental method is deductive rather than inductive.
A deductive method primarily proceeds from certain assumptions and then plays out the likely consequences of those assumptions. Certainly theological hermeneutics interacts significantly with the vast data of the biblical text. Yes, certainly there is no "inductive" method to be found that does not proceed from certain assumptions as well--all thinking does.

However, the assumptions from which theological hermeneutics often proceeds are quite large and debatable from an evidentiary perspective (this of course fits the postmodern Zeitgeist and fits with the theological work of James Smith and Nicholas Wolterstorff).

2. It does not aim at the most likely interpretation given the evidence but on the interpretation that best fits with its presuppositions.
In other words, theological hermeneutics does not operate in the same way that ordinary truth pursuit does. It does not gather evidence and generate hypotheses to explain that evidence, hypotheses that are then evaluated on their simplicity, clarity, and ability to account for as much data as possible.

Its logical process is more akin to prejudice, bias, and any -centrism whose primary operating principle derives from unexamined and unprovable assumptions rather than from the most probable reading of the data.

I have given concrete examples of this logic before. From an inductive standpoint, one would not infer that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in its current form. Genesis never mentions him. He is always discussed in the third person rather than the first person throughout the Pentateuch, including the narration of his death. No one following an inductive method would infer that Moses was its author.

However, the traditional and often hotly affirmed Mosaic authorship functions on the basis of theological assumptions derived from a certain reading of the New Testament.

3. Theological hermeneutics is a species of reader response criticism.
The final implication of what we have observed above is that theological hermeneutics is in fact a species of reader response criticism. In the case of Vanhoozer, this is ironic, since he himself puts great impetus on the meaning of Scripture in its original speech-act. He rejects drastically the validity of reader response approaches.

I do not, nor do I think does Joel Green. However, I would strongly affirm that inductive study remains valid and a significant element in the theological process. Most of all, I contend that theological hermeneutics should not be confused with inductive Bible study. Further, while theological hermeneutics may be a more appropriate Christian reading of the biblical texts, we should be clear that it is not the reading likely to tell you what Paul or any biblical author was actually trying to say.

Vanhoozer's method is confused when it tries to equate the meaning of the original speech act of any portion of Scripture with some divine speech act in the whole of Scripture. The first is the stuff of inductive Bible study and the original meaning. The second is valid but it is a reader response approach to the biblical text. Vanhoozer confuses the two.

Summing Up a Semester of Inductive Bible Study

Today was the last day of Inductive Bible Study. I spent it going through the process we had learned all semester and asking, practically, which parts of the process they thought were useful for real ministry (as opposed to ivory tower academic classrooms).

Here is our review with comments:

1. Pray...

a. not just for God to help your mind correctly understand the original meaning (like what Paul was trying to say to the Corinthians),

b. but your mind to know what your audience (congregation/children/youth/self/family) needs to know and

c. how their/your heart needs to be formed (conversion of the imagination)

d. how their/your behavior (feet) needs to change/act.

2. Decide what text you are going to use.

a. This is not just a matter of which translation you will preach from (assuming you are not facile with Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). I suggested that when you have in mind what the text meant and what your audience needs to hear, you use the translation that best expresses it.

b. This is also a matter of textual criticism. Using a text that has or doesn't have a certain reading or certain verses is also an implicit decision.

I did have a couple who wanted (unless they were yanking my chain) to use the KJV. I suggest three possible rationale for doing so: 1) it is the version the congregation uses, 2) you think it represents the truest textual tradition (one should probably still shift to the NKJV if one thinks this), and 3) you think it represents the church's tradition! If it was good for God for 1500 years, maybe it's not too bad :-)

3. Tool #1: Survey the book or unit the text is in (observation--what did the text say)
4. Tool #2: Do a detailed observation of the passage (also observation)

I now asked them to caucus on what benefit these tools might bring, really, when you don't have to turn in an assignment.

For surveying, one student suggested it was a useful tool at the beginning of a sermon series, getting the big picture of the material you will be preaching on for the next several weeks. I suggested the themes you observed in your survey could become the sermon topics.

For detailed observation, we agreed that "blowing up" a text and then circling key terms and making key observations was not time consuming and very helpful not just for the leader but for people in their devotions (minus of course the categories I had given them--syntax, grammar, etc...).

5. Identify the right questions for interpretation.

There are other right questions too, ones that are ultimately more determinative for any specific sermon. But when determining what it meant, good questions come straight from your observation of the text, whether you did it formally as in this method or informally by just reading it.

Good big picture questions have to do with the key themes and patterns your survey identified. Good questions of specific passages come from detailed observations.

6. The Interpretive Cycle 1: The Immediate Context
7. The Interpretive Cycle 2: The Broader Literary Context (including genre)
8. The Interpretive Cycle 3: The Historical-Cultural Context (including especially the rest of the relevant testament)

One can only proceed through layers of context in a cycle. You have to start with the immediate context of the passage that your are "questioning" (see 5). You inevitably bring certain pre-understandings and presuppositions to the text. This is not all bad, since otherwise you wouldn't be able to connect to the passage at all.

The immediate context may seem to answer your question adequately without need for any further investigation. However, you really should glance at the broader context, the rest of the book in question, to make sure. In instances like Romans 6-8 or 9-11, looking only at Romans 7 or Romans 9 will throw you off track. The broader context is necessary to keep you from false conclusions.

Part of the broader context is the genre context, which blurs into the final context category, historical-cultural context. This is the "world behind the text," both the cultural background and the specific situational background. Sometimes, again, one is convinced from the text alone that you know what the text means, only to find out from the background that you were looking at the text through anachronistic lenses. Commentaries are some of the best sources for such information.

We might also add that the most immediately important background context is the rest of the testament in question. If you are asking a question in the Old Testament, look at relevant background information from the OT. If you are asking a question in the NT, you have not only relevant background from the NT but from the OT as well.

We go through this cycle over and over again. Each time we pass around the circle, our pre-understanding is in theory either confirmed or changed. Then we proceed through the "hermeneutical circle" again.

A word study is simply a type of interpretive study that goes through the cycle to define a word. In other words, it follows this procedure where the question you are asking is one of definition--What does this word or phrase mean? So you look at the immediate context where the word is used. Then you look at places where the word is used in the broader context. Then you look to the background context, most prominently the rest of the NT or OT.

Other kinds of interpretive questions include how questions, why questions, and many more.

So then we caucused again. What of these tools might someone use in actual ministry?

We suggested that hopefully they would pay attention to the evidence of the immediate context. The counter method is called "proof-texting," where you simply read the words of a verse and pay no attention whatsoever to the words that come before and after.

They all showed enthusiasm for Blue Letter Bible and strongly indicated they would use it. I suggested they should at least hit the C button on a verse they were using to see if there was anything quirky about the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that jumped out at them.

I suggested they should all at least look at one commentary on the passage they were using to see if there were any blind spots about the text, something you couldn't possibly know without background information or because their pre-understanding was getting in the way. Of course we all know that no commentator can eliminate their own pre-understanding either.

9. Reach a Conclusion

on the answer to your interpretive question, at least as far as the original meaning of the text is concerned. We will be wrong very, very often. But fear not. As long as you preach the law of love (God and others) and the rule of faith (the consensus beliefs of the church), your audience will be edified. Misinterpret boldly that the Spirit may come. But preferably misinterpret unintentionally rather than on purpose :-)

10. Integration

a. Perhaps the first step toward integrating biblical texts is to understand each individual text fully in the light of its particular historical situation. We have already addressed this context in interpretation, but it is not the particular situational aspect of a text that we connect to other texts but its underlying dynamic, dare we even say principle.

Here we cannot move directly from any individual text to application because...

b. The texts of the Bible are in a "flow of revelation." The NT often sends us in a significantly different direction than the OT does. Even within a testament, we can find differing trajectories. Did God or Satan put it in the heart of David to number the children of Israel? Should Priscilla teach Apollos or shouldn't we let a woman teach a man?

This flow is not as simple as dispensationalism or covenantalism might suggest, at least not if we listen to the way the NT authors use biblical texts. We...

c. find the biblical center on a particular topic not simply from the Bible alone, which does not tell us how to prioritize its teaching. In general the NT gives us the authoritative lenses through which to read the OT. In ethics, it has set the final filter for behavior--love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

But to find the center of doctrine is more difficult. On issues like the sinfulness of humanity, the nature of the Messiah, the resurrection, the nature of suffering, the NT significantly redirects or modifies the OT. Yet on these topics God has continued to clarify and extend Christian understanding. Creation ex nihilo, the Trinity, our continued existence between death and resurrection, these are at best shadowy teachings in the biblical text. In such cases the tradition and consensus of Christendom help steer us to the proper texts as biblical centers on such topics.

But before these "orthodoxies" emerged, the other side had biblical texts at least equally supportive of their positions.

The class today agreed that everyone integrates biblical texts together whether they intend to or not. There are verses that seem to say conflicting things. Everyone choses, usually on the basis of the tradition they are from. In such cases it is best for us not to pretend that we are simply following the Bible but admit that we are Wesleyans or Baptists, Lutherans or Reformed, charismatic or Catholic.

11. Identify the right questions for appropriation/application

The right questions for your congregation, children, youth group, self, family are not only a matter of their needs and desires. God's word stands over us even when we don't want to listen.

But sermons and Bible lessons usually have an address, and this address has much to say about the questions with which we come to the Bible looking for answers.

a. What do I/we/you need to learn from the Bible this week?

b. How do I/we/you need to be formed and changed in my/our/your heart and imagination?

c. What do I/we/you need to do this week?

In practice we will come looking to the text for answers and begin the process here rather than with some arbitrary text. We will start asking the Spirit to bring us to the right text for the needs of our audiences.

Answering such questions is a matter of wisdom and the Holy Spirit. The Spirit just as often helps us through the wisdom of others rather than by investing us with wisdom that we do not normally possess. If you are a preacher without wisdom, you must seek out the wisdom of others.

12. Appropriation/Application

The goal of appropriation is to join the questions of appropriation with the relevant biblical center of integration. We too are in the flow of revelation. We too are the people of God. There are...

a. points of continuity and discontinuity between our time and the time of the biblical center. These can change the way teaching and ethics are appropriated today. These differences between then and now often help us clarify cultural aspects of biblical times and transcultural aspects. Aspects of biblical teaching that were different from the culture of the time seem particularly transcultural, while teaching that is the same as what everyone was saying at the time often turns out to be cultural.

On the other hand, there is always the danger of assuming that our culture is always right too. God's word ultimately has to stand over us.

b. Ultimately the task of appropriation is both a spiritual and an ecclesial task. The trajectory of Christendom is set by the Holy Spirit working through the church catholic. The lone Christian is less likely to recognize prophetic correction. We best decide the big issues in dialog with as many "Spirit-filled" believers as we can.

There's the whole course (and a little more, I fear)...

1 Peter 1:10-12, IBS, and Inspiration

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours made careful search and inquiry, inquiring about the person or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things that have now been announced to you through those who brought you good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look! (NRSV)

This is yet another biblical passage that, at least initially, seems to pose quite a problem for inductive Bible study. 1 Peter seems to say that prophetic texts about the Christ were understood by the biblical authors not to be about their own times but about the time when Christ would come.

The difficulty here is of course the fact that inductive Bible study leads us to conclude that most of the texts that NT authors read in relation to Christ had a first meaning that related to the time of the prophet. As is often said (even in Osborne's Hermeneutical Spiral), the prophetic genre was far more about forth-telling than fore-telling. There was a lively debate in the 1900's over whether it made sense to speak of a "fuller sense" to such texts (double sense, progressive fulfillment, analogous fulfillment, etc...), a "near" and a "far" interpretation.

Yet 1 Peter 1 seems to take a posture similar to Paul when he finds it difficult to believe that God really cares about cattle (he was a city boy, after all: 1 Cor. 9:9-10). 1 Peter seems to picture the prophets as recognizing that they were not talking about their own time but about the time of the Christ.

The problem is solved by applying the "incarnational truth" principle even here. It is easy for us to apply it when it comes to hair coverings or holy kisses, that is, to recognize that the Bible gives us incarnated truth in the categories of its original audience. Yet the principle applies to ideas as well, as when Paul speaks of everything under the earth bowing to Christ or being taken up into the third sky.

Another factor to take into the equation is the fact that pre-modern exegesis blurs the "characters" of the biblical text with the historical individuals of the biblical text. In that sense, 1 Peter is as much thinking of the "implied prophet" in the text as about what the "historical prophet" was thinking.

The affirmation that 1 Peter is making is the surety of salvation that the audience has despite their current sufferings, and it bolsters this affirmation by recourse to the collection of prophetic texts from Scripture that must have been part of early Christian proclamation. The incarnational aspect is the fact that the early Christians did not follow "inductive Bible study" methods but the methods of interpretation common to their day. These methods paid varying degrees of attention to the original context of the passages in which they heard God's voice speaking to them about Christ.

So I find no fault or error in 1 Peter. But what we do have is yet another serious undermining of the sole legitimacy of contextual exegesis, the idea that "it cannot mean something now that it did not mean then." The NT itself deconstructs this hermeneutic.

Integrating Scripture: Case Study in Matthew 25

After a person has interpreted a particular biblical text, the next step is to integrate it with the rest of Scripture, to find a Scriptural center, as it were. I've been working on a sample "advanced Bible study" for my classes at IWU. I've already created a sample "introduction" to Matthew of a couple pages (I'm aiming at Sunday School literature lengths) and a sample of the "interpretation" of Matthew 25:31-46 (Sheep and Goats).

Here is my sample integration section for the Bible study lesson:__________

We find the idea that God’s people should help those in need both explicitly and implicitly in both the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in the Old Testament, the prophetic idea of justice repeatedly centers on the failure of Israel to care for the downtrodden in its midst. In Isaiah 1 the LORD expresses His disinterest in the multitude of sacrifices brought to Him (1:11). What He wants is for Israel to “learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow” (1:17). Micah 6 similarly expresses the LORD’s apathy toward sacrifices—even the sacrifice of one’s firstborn child will not get His attention. What the LORD wants is for Israel to “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (6:8).

The book of Deuteronomy roots such an attitude toward the disempowered and the stranger in part in the memory that the Israelites were also once slaves in Egypt. “You will not deprive a stranger in the land or an orphan of justice. You will not take a widow’s garment as a pledge. Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there” (Deut. 24:17-18). As virtuous ancients, both Abraham (Gen. 18) and Lot (Gen. 19) take strangers into their homes and protect them from potential violence at the hands of others. By contrast, the Benjamites (Judg. 20), not to mention the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), experience severe penalty because of the way they treat strangers in their land.

The theology of Joshua and Ezra do stand in some tension with the bulk of Old Testament Scriptures in relation to the stranger in the land. For Joshua, all non-Israelites must be obliterated: women, children, and even animals (e.g., Judg. 6:21). From the point of view of the book, it is disgraceful that the Gibeonites trick Israel into making peace with them (Judg. 9). Similarly, Ezra enjoins Israel to divorce foreign wives and put away the children from such unions (Ezra 10). Yet even as we integrate the Old Testament teaching on the stranger—before we ever get to the New Testament—these passages at best relate to key transitions in Israel’s history. In terms of the Old Testament as a whole, they do not reflect the normal mode of Israel’s operation. They certainly cannot survive the universal scope of the gospel in the New Testament, where in terms of potential salvation there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28).

When we get to the New Testament, we find a unanimous verdict with regard to what a believer’s attitude should be toward those who are disempowered such as the poor, widows, and orphans. In this regard, certainly James stands in closest relation to Matthew and may in fact allude to the same Jesus material. James 2:14-17 ponders a person who would simply tell a naked or hungry “brother or sister” to “Go in peace; keep warm and be filled”—without actually doing anything about it. Such a person has as much faith as the demons have and, by implication, has as much reason to shudder as the demons do. James here seems to have believers in particular in mind. 1 John also emphasizes the need to “love” the Christian brother in a material way (2:10; 3:14-15): “Whoever has the materials of the world and sees his brother in need but turns off his compassion from him, how does the love of God remain in him?” (3:17).

Luke-Acts presents concern for individuals like the poor, the disempowered, and women as a major theme for both Jesus and the early believers. While Matthew and Mark tell of Jesus’ visit to Nazareth further on in his ministry, Luke presents a visit at the very beginning where Jesus gives a sort of “inaugural address” for his earthly ministry. He draws on Isaiah 61 to declare that “The Spirit of the Lord is on me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to preach release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to send off those who have been oppressed in release, to preach the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19). With this statement at the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry, Luke has edited the rest of the gospel to bring this theme out with greater prominence than even Matthew and Mark do.

So Luke has a few parables on the topic of the rich, the poor, and women, that are not in the other gospels: The Rich Fool, The Rich Man and Lazarus, The Persistent Widow. We should probably see Luke’s noticeable attention to women in this same vein, since they were certainly among the disempowered of the ancient world. When John the Baptist sends some of his followers to Jesus to inquire if he was the Messiah, Jesus recaps the topics of Isaiah 61 again: the blind see, the lame walk, good news is proclaimed to the poor (Luke 7:18-23). And while Matthew’s version of the Beatitudes says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3), Luke bluntly has “Blessed are the poor” (Luke 6:20).

The book of Acts continues this theme in its portrayal of the early church. The Jerusalem believers hold their possessions in common and sell their possessions to help those who are in need (2:44-45). Peter and John, as well as Paul, continue the healing ministry of Jesus through the power of the Spirit (e.g., 3:1-10; 14:8-10). In Acts 6 we learn that the Jerusalem church has systems in place to take care of widows in its midst. When a problem in this distribution arises, the church moves to address the situation (6:3).

Even the apostle Paul, who arguably had more significant resources to draw on than most people in his day, pays attention to the poor. When he visits Peter and James for the second time, they encourage him to remember the poor (Gal. 2:10). Paul claims strongly that he was already inclined to do so. Indeed, Acts includes a story where he and Barnabas take famine relief down to Jerusalem from Antioch (Acts 11:27-30). Paul himself went to great pains to raise an offering for “poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom. 16:26). This offering seems to have created a good deal of pain for Paul in his relations with the Corinthian church (2 Cor. chaps. 8-9; 12:17-18). But Paul articulates the general idea to them: “At this present time your abundance will supply what they are lacking so that their abundance might supply what you are lacking" (2 Cor. 8:14). Each in the church has something to share with the other parts, and we are obligated to do so.

The only potential wrinkle in this New Testament consensus comes in 1 Timothy, whose tone and teaching with regard to widows stands in significant tension with things Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7. 1 Timothy 5 draws a distinction between “true widows” and younger widows whom the church begins to support, only for them to remarry, apparently breaking a vow to remain unmarried for the rest of their lives (5:11-12). Yet even here, 1 Timothy does not negate the importance of their material needs being met. He simply shifts the responsibility to the families of younger widows until they remarry (5:8, 16). The fundamental need to care for “true widows” remains (5:3).

The unanimous concern of the New Testament for the impoverished within the Christian community does not surprise us when we remember that the love commandment stands as the central ethic of the New Testament. Jesus himself in Matthew 22:37-40 indicates that all the Law and the Prophets—in other words, the entire Old Testament—hangs on the commands to love God and one’s neighbor. Jesus commanded love of one’s neighbor. Yet he also commanded love of one’s enemy (e.g., Matt. 5:43-48). These two categories effectively cover all humanity, which is made in the image of God (cf. Jas. 3:9).

Paul also reduces the law to “one word: You will love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom. 13:8-10; cf. Gal. 5:14). James 2:8 refers to this command as the “kingdom law according to Scripture.” Although there is debate, James probably included the commands he then mentions—adultery, murder—as subheadings of this “law of freedom” (Jas. 2:12). 1 John similarly defines God as love (4:7-8) and indicates that the person who does not love by implication is someone who remains in death (3:14) and is not destined for eternal life (3:15). 1 John explicitly understands such love in terms of material assistance to brothers in need (3:17).

The command of believers to help Christian brothers and sisters in need is pervasive throughout both the Old and New Testament. Indeed, it is so pervasive that it is difficult to find any passages that might qualify or temper this injunction. While most of the biblical texts aim at helping either those within Israel or those within the community of faith, those texts that impinge on the topic of outsiders almost without exception point to the same course of action. We are not surprised at this fact, for love of one’s enemy would demand that we treat those outside our community with the same manifestations of love that we show toward those within our fellowship. In the case of Matthew 25 and the story of the sheep and goats, this need to show mercy to the needy in general is particularly clear.

Before we end our integration of Matthew 25:31-46 with the rest of Scripture, we should mention the matter of justification by faith versus works. The Gospel of Matthew often presents difficulties to those who have a certain understanding of Paul’s theology, particularly the idea of justification by faith. Certainly Matthew, like James, is far more concerned with human deeds than with faith--particularly faith as some belief that does not manifest itself in life (cf. Jas. 2:14-26). Yet it is important to realize that works play a role in justification for Paul as well—final justification. Believers may initially be justified before God strictly on the basis of faith, but Paul also has expectations of human works thereafter. On the Day of Judgment, “God will give to each person according to what they have done” (Rom. 2:6), and each will receive appropriately “for the things they have done in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 4:10). The conflict thus does not lie with Matthew’s theology so much as with a prevalent misunderstanding of Paul’s.

Is "Inductive Bible Study" Appropriate for Scripture?

I value the tools of inductive Bible study. I believe that I am a competent scholar of the original meaning of the Bible because Asbury Seminary equipped me with the tools of inductive study. Inductive Bible Study is the evangelical method of choice in relation to the Bible. Grant Osborne's The Hermeneutical Spiral is now a classic evangelical Bible method book, and its first section is straight inductive Bible study.

What is inductive Bible study? It is a "scientific" method for determining the meaning of a text. It asks, "What is the most probable original meaning of this passage given the way words work in historical and literary contexts?"

So what is the problem? It is three-fold:

1. We can observe that evangelical scholars do not actually practice what they preach with regard to inductive method. They regularly go through the motions of the inductive method. But when the data approaches certain "boundaries" (pre-suppositions, Hays and Duvall would say), they shift from the most probable interpretation of the data to a possible interpretation that fits with their evangelical faith.

Of course many evangelical scholars might deny this practice, but I observe it time and time again. Even Osborne's book exemplifies this practice. His presentation of inductive method in the first 180 is highly technical and scholarly. But as soon as he gets to biblical genres, his theological beliefs begin to color his presentation in a noticeable way.

2. The Protestant drive to read "the Bible alone," led, in the modern era, to an emphasis on the original, historic, literal meaning of the Bible as the locus of God's word in the Bible. Ironically, however, attention to the literal meaning of the New Testament leads us to the realization that the New Testament authors themselves did not practice inductive Bible study method. Rather, the NT authors regularly read the OT texts to various degrees metaphorically, allegorically, in short, not in terms of what it actually meant originally.

There is a kind of crisis in "biblical theology," which has historically been oriented around the original meaning. The book by Joel Green I've been reviewing is moving in the right direction (final installment on Friday). The driving forces behind his argument are 1) the polysemy of textual meaning coupled with 2) the impossibility of objectivity anyway, and 3) a conversion of ways of thinking to an orientation to hearing/seeing Christian meanings. His result is to argue that it is not necessarily the original meaning of the biblical text, arrived at by objective inductive study, that is the meaning of the Bible of interest to us as Christians.

But the question I find myself asking even after Green's book is whether he would allow that the most likely original meaning might find itself in serious tension with the "converted mind" of the Christian reader. I must admit that I ultimately find myself drawn back to the medieval multiple senses of Scripture--literal, figurative, allegorical, anagogical. I cannot deny the validity of inductive Bible study as a method for determining the most probable original meaning of a text. Yet I cannot deny with Green that this is not at all necessarily the meaning most important for the believer.

Reading the Bible as Scripture does involve a mind converted and oriented around Christian meanings, but there is no set rule as to what level of meaning it turns out to be. The IBS meaning is a valid meaning, and it is an important meaning in the "flow of revelation." But it is not necessarily the most important meaning for believers. This is a meaning that comes from a converted mind and the mind of the Spirit.

It will be interesting to see what happens to IBS in the days to come and what happens to evangelical hermeneutics.

The Perfect Bible Course?

I have never taught a Bible course that I have been really satisfied with. Much of it is my difficulty in getting feedback back. But there is also a real sense in which I am conflicted about what the goals of such courses are. I have generally taught these courses at Christian institutions whose primary goal is to equip future or present ministers. Or survey courses are usually meant to in some way largely to fortify the spirituality of future laypeople.

Yet from my perspective, those who set the curriculum usually have a bit of a misconception of how biblical meaning works. For example, those who put survey courses into the general education curriculum of Christian colleges usually operate under the assumption that learning the Bible's content is the same thing as learning how to live or think. And it is often assumed that learning this content automatically equates to a deeper spirituality.

Sometimes these goals are accomplished if the course is taught by a non-biblical specialist or someone with a pre-modern understanding of the Bible, usually adjuncts. The text is used to mirror the spiritual values, beliefs, and ethics of the Christian culture in which the text is taught.

Yet there is also a strange irony that the biblical specialists who usually teach such courses have been trained to know the original meaning. They've been trained to deconstruct the "what you see is what you get" Sunday School approach. They teach about genres and ancient culture. The student learns that Jeremiah 29:11 was not written about them but that the "thoughts I have toward you" were thoughts about Israelites who had been taken as prisoners to Babylon in 586BC.

What's even worse is that evangelical colleges sometimes restrict their Bible courses to those who have passed through the fires of an "inductive Bible study" (IBS) course to teach them how to read the Bible in context. Indeed, the scandal of Bible teaching at Indiana Wesleyan University is that the overwhelming majority of its students will never be able to take a Bible elective because they have to take the IBS course first! It's absolutely outrageous, if you think about it.

Well, I've gotten off topic. For now I'm teaching future ministers of one sort or another, and I agree that ministers need to study the Bible on a different level than laypeople need to. So what are the skills that I should incorporate into my "upper level Bible," "for future minister" classes? Here's my shot as I finish my syllabi for the Spring.

1. They should know the content of the biblical books in question.

2. They should know the major themes of those books and have integrated the themes in those books with the rest of the Bible.

3. They should have located those themes and that content in relation to the commonly held beliefs and ethics of the universal church and their "local" church (including their denomination, if they have one).

4. They should have appropriated this integrated content into their personal and corporate lives, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

5. They should be equipped to teach and proclaim this integrated content both to Christian and non-Christian as appropriate.

These seem to me to be the most essential outcomes of an upper level Bible course. But there are others of lesser priorities that I think are also completely appropriate for a minister. Indeed, some of the following are skills that help one achieve those that precede.

6. They should rehearse and extend their skills at observing the biblical text both in survey and detail.

7. They should rehearse and extend their skills of interpreting the biblical text in the light of its original context.

8. They should know the major critical issues that relate to the biblical texts in question.

The difference between undergraduate and graduate level courses lies in scope and depth.

To the extent that my ponderings might affect future curriculum wherever, any thoughts, suggestions, or critique?