Bible
in a Reformed School Curriculum:
Its
Place, Parameters and Profile
John
van Popta
1 INTRODUCTION *
1.1 The assignment *
1.1.1 The Question *
1.1.2 Are We Doing Something Wrong? *
1.1.2.1 Community Guilt *
1.1.2.2 Community Response *
1.1.2.3 More Than a Bible Course *
1.2 The scope of this paper *
1.2.1 To Help us Become Better Bible Teachers .. *
1.2.2 .... And Better Bible Students *
2 BIBLE IN THE CURRICULUM *
2.1 Define the place of [the] Bible in the curriculum *
2.1.1 The Word of God *
2.1.2 Devotional *
2.1.3 Discipline *
2.1.4 Identity and World View *
2.2 Define the parameters of Bible in the curriculum *
2.2.1 Drama - Images *
2.2.2 Words, Music, Image, Propaganda *
2.2.3 Word and Picture *
2.2.4 Word - Instruction *
2.3 Aims & Objectives - Scope & Sequence *
2.3.1 Aims & Objectives *
2.3.1.1 Comprehensive *
2.3.1.2 Primary - Intermediate - Junior and Senior *
2.3.1.3 Grade Level *
3 WORKSHOP *
3.1 Assignment *
3.2 Workshop *
3.3 Presentations *
3.3.1 Aims and Objectives *
3.3.2 Scope and sequence *
4 DEVELOPING A BIBLE CURRICULUM *
4.1 Define the profile of Bible in the curriculum *
4.1.1 Canonics *
4.1.2 History of Israel *
4.1.3 History of Revelation *
4.1.4 Historical - Redemptive *
4.2 Reformed Hermeneutics *
4.2.1 Definition *
4.2.2 Example 1 (Globe and Mail) *
4.2.3 Example 2 (Exodus 23:19b) *
4.2.4 Genre *
4.2.4.1 Historical Narrative *
4.2.4.2 Speeches / Sermons *
4.2.4.3 Prophecy *
4.2.4.4 Poetry *
4.2.4.5 Letters *
4.2.5 Language *
4.2.5.1 Tongues *
4.2.5.2 Grammatical Interpretation *
4.2.5.2.1 General *
4.2.5.2.2 Words *
4.2.5.2.2.1 Etymology *
4.2.5.2.2.2 Current use *
4.2.5.2.3 Contextual Use *
4.2.5.2.4 The Thought of the Section *
4.2.6 Historical *
4.2.6.1 General *
4.2.6.2 The Author *
4.2.6.2.1 Who is the Author / Speaker? *
4.2.6.2.2 Context *
4.2.6.2.2.1 Geography *
4.2.6.2.2.2 Political Backgrounds *
4.2.6.2.2.3 Religious *
4.2.6.3 The Circumstances of the Readers - Hearers *
4.2.6.4 What is the Purpose of the Author? *
4.2.7 Conclusion *
4.3 Interpretive Models *
4.3.1 Intellectualist *
4.3.2 Moralist *
4.3.3 Liberal – Higher Critical *
4.3.4 Redemptive - Historical *
4.3.4.1 Christological Thrust *
4.3.4.2 Moral / Ethics - Knowledge / Facts *
4.3.5 Old Testament Illustration *
4.3.5.1 Intellectualist *
4.3.5.2 The Liberal Critical *
4.3.5.3 The Moralistic - Examplaristic Model *
4.3.5.4 Redemptive Historical *
4.3.6 New Testament Illustration *
4.3.6.1 The Intellectualist Lesson *
4.3.6.2 The Liberal Critical *
4.3.6.3 The Moralist / Examplarist *
4.3.6.4 Redemptive Historical *
4.3.7 Other Examples *
5 CONCLUSION *
6 WORKSHOP *
6.1 Primary *
6.2 Junior *
6.3 Intermediate *
6.4 Senior *
When I was asked to speak to this conference I had mixed reactions. On one level I was pleased to accept. I accepted the invitation because I have thought about Bible curriculum at length, especially in the field of Bible Drama. I did, however, accept with some trepidation. I enter this forum with cautious fear. I am not a trained educator. My role as a preacher / pastor is quite different from a classroom teacher / mentor. I am also quite ignorant in the theoretical aspects of curriculum development and the processes involved. In that sense the committee should have asked somebody who knows about these things. My ignorance about the technical and academic aspects of curriculum development would seem to preclude me from being your invited speaker. But the topic intrigued me. I ask your indulgence if I seem ignorant of certain theories or practices.
The CARE Committee, by its very name [Curriculum Assistance to Reformed Education Committee], suggests that it exists to help schools and teachers develop curricula for Reformed education. It has organized this conference to assist you all to develop Reformed Bible Curricula for your students. I suppose that is why they invited a minister. "He should be able to help us! A minister should have some answers to our questions." I hope that proves to be true. We will find out in the next few hours.
I was asked to address some practical aspects with respect to Bible instruction methodology. The invitation came with this paragraph:
Given the fact that we live in a highly technological and interactive environment bathed in the light of active or passive entertainment, do we have to adjust our 'ways'? How can we better 'hook' our students? Given the inherent nature of Bible instruction, are there built-in restrictions which we ought to observe? What does it take to help our children to better walk their talk? What are the implications for the teaching in the schools first of all, but possibly also for catechetical instruction as well as devotions and teaching in the home?
We will explore some of these questions and attempt to formulate some answers.
2.
Are We Doing Something Wrong?
I was told one of the reasons the organizing committee has for hosting this conference on this topic is that from time to time teachers (and I might add parents and students) are heard to ask the question: "Twelve or more years of formal Bible instruction in the home, school and church — does it get us anywhere? Looking at our young people one could ask the question 'Are we doing something wrong?'" It struck me as I was doing my research that similar questions appeared in a paper published more than a dozen years ago! Not much changes!
So first we should address this initial question. "Twelve or more years of formal Bible instruction in the home, school and church — does it get us anywhere? Looking at our young people one could ask the question 'Are we doing something wrong?'" But I wonder if this question even is a legitimate question? Should there be some sort of community guilt involved here? Or do we have too high expectations for our Bible curriculum? Is this a matter of the school doing something wrong?
In a sense this question is one of the primary motives for the organization of this conference. There seems to be a sense of failure among teachers and schools. Or maybe it is among the parents who look at the schools and say, "The school has failed. Look at the life style of the students." But do we then not have too high an expectation of the school and the Bible curriculum? I believe this to be the case. Before we go on I think we need to lay aside the burden of guilt.
Rather, we need a different community response. First of all let us never forget that it is the Holy Spirit who transforms the hearts and minds of people, young people too. This is not something that we can do. I cannot do it as a preacher. I cannot do it as a parent. You cannot do it as a teacher. It is the Holy Spirit, working with the Word, who transforms and renews the hearts of God's own. It is, however, the responsibility of the Christian community to provide environments in which the Holy Spirit can work effectively. That should happen in our homes, in Church, catechism classrooms, inter-personal and intra-family relationships, and of course, in school.
When we try to answer that question, "Have we failed?" then we should not just look at our Bible curriculum but also to the setting in which the students live. That students live godly lives, renewed by the Holy Spirit, and bringing forth the fruits of the Holy Spirit is the result of more than a Bible course.
If there is failure with respect to young peoples' life styles, it is a much broader failure. Perhaps it is a failure of parents in their homes, or a failure of churches. Maybe it is a failure of elders and ministers. It certainly may be a failure of preachers and of preaching. All around, it is a failure of proper role modeling and mentoring. It is partially the failure of the church to proclaim, explain and apply the gospel to the lives of young people. Perhaps the clearest answer to the question, "Are we doing something wrong?" is this: Perhaps the young people are only doing what their parents have already done. They are just buying into the culture of the day.
So right off the start, lay aside the burden of guilt as teachers. As teachers you need not appropriate for yourselves the goal of changing the hearts and minds and souls of the students. Do not lay too high a demand upon yourselves as Bible teachers, expecting that your Bible Curriculum will change the hearts and lifestyles of all students. It takes more than a Bible course to do that.
I am reminded of what J.D. Wielenga wrote: "...a good school cannot correct the damage caused by a bad family, and a bad school cannot destroy the good built up in a good family."
2.
To Help us Become Better Bible Teachers ...
Within the context of our church communities you have been commissioned by the parents to teach Bible. The point of this conference is to make us better Bible teachers. In fact as teachers you should want to be the best teacher you can be. As Christians we must strive for excellence in all that we do. But your goal of excellence and effectiveness in Bible class is not to be measured first of all by the lifestyle or hearts of the students but rather by faithfulness to the truths of scripture and the engaging and challenging way in which the truth is presented.
3.
.... And Better Bible Students
To become better Bible teachers we must become better Bible students. I hope that when we are done today that we can say, "Yes, today we became better students." Only then we can all be better teachers.
I want to look at Bible Studies three different ways. I suppose when you saw the title of my speech you thought, "Oh, there you go! You ask a minister and you get a sermon with three points — and with alliteration no less." I hope you don't get the idea that I am preaching at you, but rather that we will explore this matter together.
We will examine the matter with an analogy from mathematics. The first way of looking at the question — defining the place of Bible — is like looking at a point on a line. The second way — defining the parameters — is looking at the question as a line segment. What are the boundaries, the end points? The third — the profile — is looking at Bible as a course itself. What is the shape?
So we have a point, a line and a plane.
1.
Define the place of [the] Bible in the curriculum
So first: We want to define the place of Bible in the Curriculum. We need to distinguish between the Bible, the Word of God, and Bible, a course in the school curriculum. This is a problem of terminology which must be addressed. The Bible is the foundation of the school. It must be the basis upon which all of school life is built. That is because it is the basis of all of life. No part of life is neutral. The late Rev. J.D. Wielenga wrote, "...what is the most important book in the world, and thus at school?, my answer is: the Bible. But not as a text book." To avoid misunderstanding here, we should see that the Bible is the most important book in the world because it is the Word of God. It is his self-revelation. As the Belgic Confession says: "We receive all these [66] books [of the Old and New Testaments], and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith." The Bible is the necessary and sufficient self-revelation of God and it has authority in our lives. This in itself makes it worth studying in a Bible course. But first of all the Bible has some other roles in the school. I would like to touch on them for a moment. That will help us to delineate the scope of today's workshops.
First of all the Bible has a devotional role. School should be opened everyday with the reading of, and the meditating on, God's Word. Though this is of primary importance, it falls outside today's topic.
There is another way in which I believe the Bible should function in the schools. That is in the area of conduct. I think that here is one place where our schools have failed. We should be much more willing to dictate a standard of conduct that is expected in our school communities. And here I would like to make a concrete suggestion for your reflection.
I suggest that our schools should write a discipline policy based upon the Heidelberg Catechism's explanation of the 10 Commandments. We claim scripture as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity as the basis of our schools. Then let it also function as the basis of a discipline policy. I'm going to go out on a limb here. I don't believe that any and every Canadian Reformed child has an inherent right to Canadian Reformed education. The school is a voluntary association of like minded parents who want to have their children taught in an environment that will enable them to develop their God given talents to his glory and for the benefit of their neighbours. I believe that there are some students who simply don't want to do that. They live in open rebellion against the law of God. They have no place in the school community. School boards must develop clear biblical guidelines for expected behaviour and then empower their principals and staff to execute that policy effectively. If that means that certain students must be suspended and / or expelled then that must be done. The school's standards should not be dictated by what certain parents allow their children to do or not to do. Nor should those standards cater or pander to the rebels in the community. Those standards should be dictated by the Word of God. If the policy is clear and executed in a fair and loving way then the schools need not fear the parents. A friend once told me about raising children, "Fear God, not your children." The same applies here for schools: "Fear God, not the students nor their parents."
I want to talk for a few moments about worldview. I believe that the fundamental difference a Reformed School has from a secular school is one of worldview. I read many papers and articles in preparing this talk and came across many attempts at defining the identity of Reformed Schools. I found myself disagreeing with most of what I read. There were attempts at defining identity as covenantal. The students are covenant children. Therefore, their education is covenantal education and the school is a covenantal school. In January 1991, in Clarion, T.M.P. Vanderven, however, suggested discarding the phrase "covenantal education" since it "might have lost its meaning and therefore its ability to inspire..." Others suggest that the Reformed character of the school is found in teachers. Mr. J. Messelink suggested that the Reformed identity is found in nurturing faith in the students. He writes that it is not anchored in the curriculum. Others will disagree and say it is found in the content of curriculum. Some might even say that it is found in the fact that Bible is taught daily. We can find various other models and descriptions of what makes a school a Reformed or Christian School.
I would suggest that what makes a school a Reformed school is its worldview. A Reformed school will have a distinctive way of looking at and analyzing the world. When a distinctive way of looking at things is shared in a community we could, as Thomas Kuhn did, call it a paradigm. This worldview is the grid of rules into which we place the facts that we assemble. This grid is our interpretive model. We as Reformed confessors have a paradigm, a worldview, into which we arrange our knowledge and within which we interpret information and our experience. That model is based on the Bible as understood within the Reformed Confessions. The Reformed Confessions form the structure of our worldview. When we ask questions about biology and origins then we already have an interpretive framework. When we ask questions about culture then we have a worldview in which we interpret the data. When we ask questions about ethics and morals then we already have a worldview in which we work. When we try to understand our experience we do it within our worldview. We understand the nature of God, man, and the world, as we confess it in the Three Forms of Unity.
Thomas Kuhn, in his well-known book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions shows how, if one analyzes information and experience within different paradigms, the answers are going to be very different. This is the case also for us as a Reformed community. When we analyze and interpret the data derived from our observations and experiences in the world, our conclusions will be different from the conclusions of the secular humanists, or the subjective existentialists, or the rational materialists who are looking at the same data and evaluating similar information.
It is in this way that the Bible has a profound and foundational role to play in our schools. A biblical worldview lays back of (or perhaps better, under) all our work. It is like the foundation of a Toronto high-rise. You can't see it, but its there. It is like the structural timbers and steel of this building, that which gives this room shape and form. We don't, however, think about it often, nor do we worry about it too much. You did not think today as you came here, "I wonder if the Burlington East Church building is going to stay standing." No, you came here assuming — not even thinking about it — that the building was going to be here and that you could work within it.
That, in one way, is how the Bible and our Confessions function. That is the place scripture has. It is located underneath and behind all the disciplines. It permeates all of them but in a quiet and subtle way. And then as you teach math, or physics, or history, or language arts and other core subjects, even phys ed, then you are working and teaching in "the high rise." You are in a room of the building. And sometimes, as you teach, you will want to go to the basement and check the foundations, or open the ceiling or walls, in order to examine the supporting structures. You then show your students how the worldview functions for math or physics or chemistry or language or art, or music, or history. On the whole, however, you work in your room, in your discipline. And because you teach within the Reformed worldview you pass on that worldview to your students.
2.
Define the parameters of Bible in the curriculum
There is one other room in the house. A special floor in the high rise. That is the Bible Class—Bible as an academic subject. We now want to explore the parameters of Bible as a course in the curriculum. Going back to our initial image: point, line, plane — we have located the Bible as a substructure in the school. The Bible as interpreted and confessed by Reformed believers defines the worldview. It forms the framework for all our thought. Now we want to look at the next image: the line. How far does the line go? What are the boundary points of a Bible course and to the methods used to teach it.
At the start of our workshop today I noted that I was asked to address some practical aspects with respect to Bible instruction methodology. The question was posed by your organizers like this: "Given the fact that we live in a highly technological and interactive environment bathed in the light of active and passive entertainment, do we have to adjust our 'ways'? How can we better 'hook' our students? Given the inherent nature of Bible instruction, are there built-in restrictions which we ought to observe?"
One of the first things that comes to my mind is drama. Over the past number of years I have studied the matter of Drama and Bible Curriculum. I perceived it as a problem in the general Christian school my children attended. You can find a paper I presented to the education committee published in Clarion some time ago. In it I discussed the History of Bible Drama. I'd like to bring that to the fore once again in this context. I do so because there is a lot of interest in Bible drama today.
Bible drama has been around for many centuries. In the Middle Ages when choirs would sing passages of scripture set to music, actors began to act out the story. The earliest records of Bible drama in the church appear in the 9th century. Before that, the church had consistently repudiated any contact with pagan drama. The earliest drama consisted of four characters in the Easter story which was set to music. Later, instead of a few isolated Biblical events that provided material for the dramas, whole sequences of events were used. These plays became the basis for the instruction of the town’s folk. Because of the size of the drama, the play often moved out into the churchyard. Because they went out into the churchyard the plays became less liturgical and more secular and were taken over by the quasi-religious trade guilds. The Fishermen’s and Sailors’ Guilds presented Noah and the Flood. The Goldsmiths re-enacted The Visit of the Wisemen. The Butchers graphically staged The Crucifixion. Whole cycles of 30 to 50 dramas were produced. They included material from creation to the last judgment. To fill in the dialogue, all sorts of extra material was added. Many characters, not in the Bible, were introduced for dramatic effect. Because the biblical accounts are brief, additional material was necessary. And all kinds of inaccuracies and error crept in. All this false information, however, was presented as the Word of God. This is the same today. The data in the Bible is usually not enough to fill out the dialogue of a stage production. So our children, if they act out a drama based on the Bible, will have a script that includes all kinds of extra material, actions and characters, as well as inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
Adding to scripture goes against the very command of scripture as we find it in Revelation and Deuteronomy (Rev. 22:18; Deut 4:2). The Lord forbids us to add to scripture. The Bible is God's revelation to us. It is the record of God's acts in history. Re-enacting God's acts as if they were human acts, attacks the very nature of scripture and revelation.
As I was preparing for this talk I borrowed a number of Bible curricula. One of these was "The Story of God and His People." This Bible program for the elementary grades is published by CSI in Grand Rapids. In a recent issue of the CRTA Magazine a review of this program was published. The reviewers noted in passing that "bits and pieces of creative drama" are used. The reviews gave a bit of mixed review on the program. It struck me, however, as I read through the introduction of the program that its conclusion opened up a whole new vista for Bible Drama.
By steeping students in both the overall story and the diversity of biblical literature, we are building their biblical consciousness. This consciousness fosters discipleship by giving students an identity — they too belong to the story. The Bible shapes our sense of who we are, where we have come from, where we are headed, and what we are living for. It is not just a book of history or a book of literature or a book of laws. It is our story, a story which we are living now as many did before us and others will after us, because we too are God's people.
I read this to you because this program was picked up the Ontario Alliance of Christian Schools and with permission they wrote a similar secondary school program. Listen to their introduction. They pick up where CSI left off.
At the heart of this program is the Bible, the story of God and his people. This great story of God's salvation shines through every part of the Bible. It forms the matrix of our lives and gives meaning to all we do and are. We are part of the story — actors in the drama — because it is still going on today in all of the world's events.
Later we can read:
As they study the Bible, the story of God and his
people must enter the hearts and minds of students and shape them in such a
way that they become willing actors in the drama.
This certainly has changed the focus of what the Reformed confessions say about scripture. It is basically adopting the new hermeneutic. Hermeneutics means "interpretation model". There is a new interpretation model, a new paradigm. It rests on experience and feeling; it is founded on a new subjectivism and relativism. It is one, I believe, that basically misunderstands the nature of God's revelation.
Turning to my article on Bible drama once again and drawing from it:
To those who support the new hermeneutic there are two kinds of history. First, there is the external world history, in which is included the story of Jesus’ life, and a record of ideas, reports and beliefs surrounding him from his day, which are found in the Bible. Second, there is our internal personal history. This is the history that concerns me and my spiritual life. The new hermeneutic teaches that it is only in the internal personal history that revelation from God Occurs. Events occur in external history, but events have revelatory meaning only within my internal history.
Revelation and meaning are supplied by me in the revelatory moment. When we read the Bible, this paradigm suggests, we are not reading revelation from God. No, revelation happens when we experience something. The revelation of God is not Word, but Event. This would mean that revelation is not objective, coming to me from God who is outside us. Rather, revelation becomes our subjective personal experience of God. I am an actor in the drama of redemption and revelation. Revelation happens over and over again in our experiences. As Christians rehearse the memory of Jesus Christ, revelation occurs. Now, if this were true, then the Bible which God gave to us through the prophets and apostles is not revelation at all. The new hermeneutic teaches that we can only re-live and experience revelation. This means, therefore, that the written Word of God is not enough. This theory says that God does not actually reveal himself to his people in the Bible. Rather, the Bible becomes the basis of an event. Revelation is an internal event in which we experience God. As Reformed people we reject this.
I believe that on the basis of the following observations we need to exclude Bible Drama from our curriculum.
1. To create drama based on the Bible we will need to add to the words and events in scripture to flesh out the story.
2. Modern Bible drama as a didactic tool, has as a fundamental premise the idea that we are as much a part of the story as the Biblical characters themselves; or conversely, that the Biblical characters have no different place from that which we have today. The rationale for Bible drama in the Christian school classroom includes the belief that there is an unbroken continuum between Abraham & David, Peter & John, and Sally & Timmy in your classroom. This is a poor hermeneutical model.
3. Modern Bible Drama changes the focus from Word based teaching to visual and image based teaching.
4. Who would dare to play God or Satan or Jesus or Judas etc.?
3. Words, Music,
Image, Propaganda
I want to speak a few moments about words and
transmission of information. In a recent publication of the Massey Lectures,
John Ralston Saul said, "One of the characteristics of propaganda is that
wherever possible, music and images replace words. This is particularly easy on
television and in films where words are innately of tertiary importance next to
the picture and the non-verbal sound." "We all know," he
continues, "the uncontrollable, liberating or inspiring effects music can
have on us. As can images in a more direct way. These are effects that language
can only very rarely accomplish." J.R. Saul maintains that "love,
religion, nationalism, patriotism, can be celebrated. But they can also be
manipulated to wipe out thought. Image and music can be used too in a way that
removes self examination."
This use of image and music over words is the primary medium of television. Television watchers have had their ability to think about anything in a concentrated linear fashion eroded away. Visual stimulation is the essence of modern entertainment. Roy Clements in a recent lecture in Vancouver said that we live in a culture where image has become more important than words. But we maintain that the Holy Spirit works with the Word. The Word has priority in working faith in the hearts of God's people. The Word is more important than images.
But this leaves us with the question of images, pictures, and their place in the curriculum. Dr. C. Van Dam wrote on this topic in Clarion. He stresses that the Word has priority but that what is seen is not to be neglected. The visual is not lacking in God's relationship with his people. Yet, we must understand that when God spoke to his people, that was the high point. As Romans 10:17 says, "Faith comes from what is heard." Over against the tendency of fallen man to maintain "seeing is believing," scripture teaches us, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." I agree with J.D. Wielenga and G. Ph. Van Popta that the schools are not in the business of imparting faith. The school's goal is not to lead the children to Christ. Yet when we teach Bible the norms set out by scripture must be maintained. It sets its own standards. C. Van Dam critiques the extreme position of E.W. Schaeffer-de-Wal that bans all visual aspects to Bible teaching. The visual must however, serve the verbal. Not the other way around. We live in an age where picture is primary, but in itself it is an attack on the Word.
This means though, that the word needs to be the primary way of teaching God's Word. You teach math with numbers. You teach chemistry in the lab. You teach phys ed on the field and on the court. You teach the Word by words. That means that Bible teachers need to be storytellers. Tell the story. Tell the story of what God has done. Deut 6:20 ff. Story, especially in the lower grades, must be the foundation of the curriculum. Story — learn to tell it well. [Now for a word from our sponsors — The committee that is organizing this workshop will be putting on a workshop on story telling this time next year. Make sure you register early!]
So we have set out the parameters of a Bible curriculum. It should be word and story oriented with image and music playing a secondary and ancillary role. We have all sorts of picture possibility with maps, encyclopedia, film, video etc. My only caveat at this point would be that we should not get the students to act out the Bible stories as if their experience will enhance the meaning. Nor should we use Bible story videos, or The Jesus Videos or The 10 Commandments with Charleton Heston. I do think, though, that documentaries of the Holy Land or of Paul's travels or of archeological or geographic interest are very worthwhile. (As are some interactive CD ROMs that are becoming available.)
3.
Aims & Objectives - Scope & Sequence
Working from my thesis that the identity of the Reformed school is rooted in its confessional and biblical worldview we need to work out the aims and objectives of a Bible curriculum. We have explored some of the ways that we can examine scripture. But before we go on we need to touch base with the aim and objectives of a Reformed school. I agree with G. Ph. van Popta when he writes that the goal of the school is not to shape the soul of the child. It is not the goal either for the school to evoke a covenantal response to God or to lead the children to Christ. It should be the goal of a Reformed School to give the student a comprehensive body of knowledge and skills. As Van Popta wrote, however, the Reformed teacher cannot help but teach in a way that will affect the hearts of the students. Yet, the goal is to teach knowledge and skills. This holds true also in Bible class. The curriculum should not, in its goals and aims, attempt to lead the students to "an informed commitment to Christ," nor to make some authentic Christian response.
Every Bible course needs to have clearly defined "aims and objectives" as well as worked out "scope and sequence." [See I'm learning the language.] As teachers you first need to develop and work these out. I think that this needs to be done at three levels. First there needs to be a consensus concerning the objective of teaching Bible in our schools. Working with what Rev. Stam spoke of yesterday, I agree that we want the students to leave grade 12 [or whatever the highest grade in your school might be] with certain skills. Those skills will be acquired within a certain worldview. They will flow out of that worldview and will be instrumental in maintaining that worldview. There is a synergetic relationship between these skills and the worldview. They support each other. I suggest the following three levels.
1. The students will develop a deeper understanding of the unique nature of the Word of God. The student must learn, understand and appreciate that scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, reproof and correction. (2 Tim 3:16.)
2. The students should build a base of knowledge about content of scripture, the history of Israel, the history of redemption, and the history of revelation.
3. The students should develop skills in understanding and interpreting the scripture so that they will acquire life long competence in Reformed interpretation of scripture.
4. The students will have acquired a discerning Reformed worldview.
That is at a first level.
2.
Primary - Intermediate - Junior and Senior
A second level would be to divide the 12 grades into 3 or 4 levels: primary, junior, intermediate and senior. Here in Ontario that would perhaps work out to Grades 1-4; 5-8; 9-10; 11-12. At each of these levels the curriculum should have specific Aims and Objectives which take into account the development of the student.
Primary: The students should acquire a fully rounded body of story-knowledge of the Old and New Testaments.
Junior: The students should acquire an understanding of the historical flow and the literary character of God's Word. Knowledge of the surrounding culture and geography of Bible lands should become part of the curriculum.
Intermediate: the students should acquire the skills needed to read and interpret scripture within its historical setting and literary framework and understand its implications for their lives. The historical-redemptive character of scripture should be central.
Senior: the students should acquire (and made as their own) a Biblically informed Reformed worldview with the ability to examine current ethical and theological issues and make sound Christian decisions. Biblical Studies can now include related topics: Church history, Christian ethics, world religions, cults, history of theology. Perhaps in the final term the senior class could have interdisciplinary course on "A Reformed Worldview for the 21 Century" in which teachers in the various disciplines display the foundation structures in their fields. In this way the students will be able to bring the full impact of their Reformed education to all areas of their lives and in all sectors of their community.
The third level would be the Aims and Objectives of each Grade and that would necessarily tie in very closely to the Scope and Sequence part of curriculum development. Here the Grade and Unit objectives become tied very closely to course content.
The assignment for our workshop this morning is to develop a three level Aims and Objectives Document. If time permits you could work out the Scope and Sequence for the various levels. I don't mean that you should have all sorts of units planned out, but that in a very initial way you lay out what you might do in each grade.
1. Aims and Objectives
1. Comprehensive
2. 4 level split
3. Grade level.
2. Scope and sequence.
3.DEVELOPING A BIBLE
CURRICULUM
1.
Define the profile of Bible in the curriculum
We need to now look at the profile of a Bible curriculum. We have located it. We have set some boundaries and limitations; now we want to look at it more closely. We have done some general background work; now we need to define its profile.
We can look at the content of the Bible in various ways. We can take the books of the Bible and examine them and study them from various angles. The Bible is a collection of 66 books: 39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament. We can look at each one individually. When we look at them individually we call that Canonics. But we can also study the History of Israel, or the History of Redemption and the History of Revelation.
These books, being God-breathed, have divine authority and are from God. But as we study them we can look at them separately and in groups. Separately: Genesis or Judges or Isaiah or Mark or Romans. Or we can study them in groups: The 5 Books of Moses, The Gospels. As we study them in this way we can look at them with respect to their human authors and addressees (first readers), their circumstances and the books purpose, contents, time, place etc.
There are different kinds of books; there are narratives like Genesis or Ruth. We can find books of laws: Leviticus or Deuteronomy; prophecies: Isaiah, or Hosea. Poetry in the books of Psalms or Ecclesiastes. There are letters to churches and individuals. So first of all we need to come to grips with what kind of Bible book is the object of our study.
We can also examine the Bible looking at the history of Israel, the life of the Lord Jesus, and the history of the New Testament church. Taking up the Hebrew printing of the Old Testament, we notice very quickly — well it takes a few months to learn how to read it — but I can tell you that in the Hebrew Old Testament the books are in a different order from the order in the English Bible. It was the Greek translation, the Septuagint that reordered the books. The Old Testament in Hebrew is called TANAKH from the first letters of Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim. The Law, Prophets and Writings. In the TANAKH the order of the books is very different.
First we find the Torah - The Law. It consists of the Five Books of Moses. The Prophets run like this. Joshua, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, followed by the Twelve Minor prophets. In this listing, the books of Joshua to II Kings are called The Former Prophets and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve, are called The Latter Prophets. In The Writings you will find Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and I Chronicles and II Chronicles.
I point this out because in this arrangement we see something significantly different from the English arrangement. We have in our English Old Testament, The Five Books of Moses, then the so called Historical Books followed by the so called Wisdom Books followed by the Prophets. But with the Hebrew arrangement we see much of what we consider to be the Historical Books listed with the Prophets. As we noted, Joshua to 2nd Kings are the Former Prophets. II Kings 17 gives us a clue here. There we can read in most graphic terms why Israel went into exile. We have there prophetic interpretation of the circumstances of Israel's and Judah's defeat. This chapter, in a sense, is one of the most crucial and significant of the whole of the Old Testament. There we have history from God's point of view; it is history with divine interpretation. This chapter defines, in sharp relief, the prophetic character of the historical narrative in The Former Prophets. There we read of God's acts, followed by God's words explaining those acts. When we understand that the so called Historical Books are actually prophetic books then we can begin to understand why so much of the Books of Kings — 6 chapters — concerns Ahab and Jezebel, among the wickedest royalty in Israel's history, and so little space is given to some of the other kings. These are not history books as such. They are books which God has given to men that they might come to know him. They are God's self revelation. They are prophetic interpretation of his works among his people.
We have the same in the New Testament. Think of John 20:30 where the Apostle says that the Lord Jesus did many other works but these were written that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing we might have life in his name. The gospels are not biographies, they are not Life of Jesus stories. We have huge gaps in the life of the Lord. Between the time of his birth to about 30 years old we have only one story at age 12. Almost half John's Gospel concentrates on the last 13 days before the Lord's crucifixion. It is not a history book but a prophetic (or better, apostolic) and divinely inspired interpretation of God's mighty acts of redemption.
We can also look at the Bible books another way. We can examine them with respect to the history of revelation. God's way of revelation changed over time. The way he dealt with his people changed. Think of Adam. God walked with him. Or Enoch. But then he began to appear in dreams and visions to the Patriarchs. He spoke to Moses face to face, but later spoke only through the Priests by Urim and Thummim and then through the prophets like Nathan and Elijah and Elisha. Still later the prophets spoke, but also wrote down their words (e.g. Isaiah). By the time of the Maccabees, there were no prophets, only the written books. The study of the history of revelation asks, "How did God reveal himself to his people through out the years?"
This helps us then work within a historical-redemptive framework. We acknowledge that the Bible is the self-revelation of God. It is his Word which testifies of Jesus Christ. It all points to him. It tells of his mighty works of creation - and re-creation in Jesus Christ his beloved Son.
We need to bring all this alive for the students. That is the job of the Bible teacher. The teacher should not first of all try to transform the heart, or lead the little ones to Christ, or elicit an authentic Christian response. Rather, the role of the teacher is to give the students the knowledge and skills to read the Bible in a way that leads to understanding. So to help us do that we need to go back to first principles. Along with what we spoke of this morning, and understanding that we want to impart knowledge and Bible interpretation skills to our students we need to master these skills ourselves. This science/art of interpretation is called hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics is a fancy word which is used to describe Bible interpretation. It is derived from a Greek word, hermeneuo which means, "to translate" or "to interpret" (John 9:7; Heb 7:1,2; Mk. 5:41; Acts 9:36). It can be used of Shakespeare, of Wordsworth, of Homer, or Plato, even of the newspaper or anything else you might read and want to understand. In fact we do hermeneutics all the time.
If you pick up your newspaper, say the Globe and Mail, you do hermeneutics. It is an acquired skill. You know "Page 1" when you see it. And you know that the columns there are filled with articles concerning current events. You know what kind of information they relate. On a side-bar you might have a list of words followed by a letter/number combination (e.g. Comics ..... A13). You simply know that this is The Table Of Contents for today's paper. There will be a series of 2.5 centimeter black and white stripes combined with some numbers — that's the bar code for the automated cash register. The Opinion Page is clearly identifiable too. There you will find a drawing about 12 by 20 cm. That, you know, is a satirical political cartoon. In the left-hand column, in doublewide format, are the editorials in which the newspaper expresses opinion about current news. The rest of the page is letters to the newspaper by its readers as well as an individual opinion piece. You can tell an advertisement simply by looking at it.
You evaluate the truth claims of each of these various parts of a newspaper in different ways. You expect the front page to be giving accurate reports of events. You expect editorials, columnists and letters to express opinions. You expect ads to make great claims about products. With training you know the difference between the political cartoon on the editorial page, and The Far Side which appears with the comic strips. When you pick up a book you can swiftly tell the difference between poetry and prose. When you pick up the church magazine Clarion you can distinguish an obituary from a press release of a classis by the way it looks. We do hermeneutics all the time.
Hermeneutics works with signals of language, context, form, purpose, vocabulary, grammar, geography, genre, author, setting, time etc. The task of hermeneutics is to point out the way in which the differences and distance between an author and the readers may be removed. If we go back to the root word, to translate then this becomes clear. The Bible texts given above were first written in Greek. But the writer refers to Hebrew / Aramaic words and / or names. So the authors who want to give us the Hebrew / Aramaic, also give us the Greek. They bridge the gap so to say. We might do that from Dutch to English. First giving the Dutch phrase followed by its English equivalent. That is doing hermeneutics. The interpreter bridges the gap in language: Hebrew-Aramaic to Greek . But the interpreter also bridges the gap in culture. When we want to re-tell the Lord's parable of The Prodigal Son and mention is made of a "fattened calf" then the interpreter needs to explain what that is. The interpreter bridges the gap in time. When we read of the Roman Governors in Luke 2:1 we need to explain who Caesar is. The interpreter bridges the gap in geography. When the story of Lot is told then the geography of the Holy Land surrounding the Dead Sea needs to be explained. By hermeneutics the differences and distance from author to the Bible student is removed.
Hermeneutics then [in a way] transposes the reader into the time and situation of the author and so attempts to understand the passage as the first readers would have understood it. (When I say author, I mean the inspired author, without denying that God is the primary author and men are secondary authors.)
Here is an example of why this transposition is necessary.
"Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk." (Exodus 23:19b) This law is repeated in Deut 14:21. What are we to make of this? This seems to be an inexplicable law and has eluded interpretation for centuries. Orthodox Jews today, have a kosher dietary law that forbids having milk in the meat pot. Some years ago I worked for a large egg processing company. This company made egg powder for the Toronto baking industry as well as frozen egg products for the local restaurant business. The company developed a new omelette product that had milk as an ingredient. When a new and very large customer in Toronto needed to ensure that its products met Jewish Kosher dietary laws the local Rabbi came to inspect the plant. He was horrified to see that we mixed milk and eggs. Eggs when fertilized and incubated produce little chicks so the Rabbis have determined that eggs are meat, and you may not have milk in the meat pot. This prohibition is based on this law in Exodus 23:19b. Yet, there does not seem to be a rational reason for this law.
With the advance of archeological discovery, historians understand that there seems to have been a pagan fertility practice whereby milk was considered the source of life. Milk was sprinkled on fields and orchards with the belief that this would increase the fertility of the land. If a newborn kid were first boiled in its own mother's milk its life force would be transferred to the milk. This source of life would be stronger and when sprinkled on the land it would ensure better crops and harvests.
Now there is a clearer understanding of this law. The first half of this verse reads, "Bring the best of the first-fruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God" (and then follows the other law), "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." In the context of Ex 23:19a we might paraphrase as follows -- "Bring the first-fruits of your harvest to the Lord... for he is the giver of the fertile land... therefore also do not engage in pagan rituals to ensure fertility."
This interpretation is not absolutely sure, but there are indications from the archeological finds of the last decades that the pagan Phoenicians of Tyre and Sidon engaged in this practice. Their whole religion was a fertility religion. The point I'm trying to make is this: When we understand the context in which something was first written, then we can begin to understand the meaning and so apply it to today.
"Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." Maybe we could work with it in this way. Bring your thank-offerings to the Lord for he is the one who provides for your needs. Do not engage in the practices of the day whereby you would show that you do not trust your God to provide for your needs. E.g. Do not buy lottery tickets.
Here then we come to grips with the historical situation. Understand what the first readers understood. Bring it into our day. Make an application. This then is how we study the Bible. It is not sufficient that we just understand the secondary author's meaning, we also need to understand the Spirit’s meaning and apply it to our life and walk of faith.
Much of God’s revelation is historical narrative – story – history – His Story. It is the history of God’s acts in relation to his people and the world and so self revealing of God himself. Historical narrative must be interpreted as God’s self revelation. Throughout his Word he makes himself known. This is an important principle. This includes the so-called historical books of the Old Testament and the Gospels and Acts.
We can see this principle, for example, in the book of Ruth. It is not a romance; it is not just a nice story; rather it is the account of God's gracious dealings with his people from the perspective of one family. The book also has a prophetic character though not in a predictive way. It is prophetic in that it describes how God preserves his people, individually and collectively, and how he provides a Redeemer as well as a King.
Much of God’s self-revelation is in speeches or sermons — discourse: Deuteronomy or The Sermon on the Mount and much of the book of Acts. These discourses should be interpreted within the framework of their historical context.
Much of God’s self-revelation is prophetic — prophecy being that form of Word which interprets the way of God in the past, reveals his way for the present, and opens broad and bright vistas in the future; all for the consolation and comfort of God’s people. (Of course we have already said that all of scripture is prophetic but here we want to focus on prophecy as a certain genre.)
Much of God’s self revelation is Poetry: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job. Much of the writing of the latter prophets is also in poetic form. The study of Hebrew poetic form helps us to better understand what is being said. Much has been written about this in the past decades.
Much of God’s self revelation in the New Testament is in the form of letters. Paul's letters make up a significant portion. Even the Revelation to John is in the form of a letter from the ascended Lord Jesus Christ to the seven churches of Asia Minor.
The Old Testament is written in Hebrew and Aramaic; The New Testament comes to us Koine (common) Greek. One of the primary tasks of hermeneutics is translating from the original to the modern language of the hearers. Though most grade school teachers will not have the time to learn the biblical languages there are many study aids that can be used to dig deeper into the word meanings of the original languages.
The Bible is written in human language and so we must approach scripture on its own terms. It must be understood grammatically first of all. This can be done starting with the sentence and descending to words, or beginning with words and ascending to sentence, paragraph, section, book, and testament.
We do not read words atomistically. Words and sentences in themselves are not without ambiguity. They need context to give them meaning. Words without context do not convey meaning. E.g. "We dispense with accuracy." If this were written on a sign hanging about the Pharmacy in your drug store you might wonder whether it was safe to have your prescription filled there. But if a mother who bakes all the time says to her helpful child, "Just pour in a splash of milk and a dash of ginger, it doesn't matter much; we dispense with accuracy!" we have a different response.
Here are a few other humorous ambiguities. These are from a collection of newspaper headlines. "Safety Experts Say School Bus Passengers Should Be Belted." "Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim." "Children Make Nutritious Snack." "Red Tape Holds Up New Bridge." Without context these phrases can mean various things. Words in context have meaning. Words without context can have several meanings. Here we are in the difficult realm of linguistics. Without going into the theory of language we will simply begin with words. We have seen that we cannot just begin interpreting words first, then sentences, then sections. Rather we must interpret in a much more comprehensive way. Each level gives more meaning and informs the other levels. Yet we need to begin somewhere so we will first look at words. Words give meaning to sentences; sentences give words context and meaning.
Here the interpreter looks for the source of a word; where does it come from. This may help to determine its meaning. Many theological dictionaries have whole sections on what a word meant in the past. This is helpful but not determinative. English language dictionaries do this also. A good dictionary will give you details of the history of a word as it passed through various language groups before it came into use in modern English.
The current use (i.e. the use at the time the author used the word) is much more significant. In the KJV Elizabethan English of Exodus 34:10 we read, "... for it is a terrible thing that I will do." Or in Psalm 47:2 "The Lord most high is terrible." Compare that to "Dennis the Menace is terrible." Here we need to determine the use of the day to understand the meaning. This is true also in Bible interpretation. A very good example of this is the Greek word skandalon which is translated into the English offence or stumbling block. Any Bible teacher who wants to teach about Romans 9 or 11 or 14 or 16 had better get a firm understanding of what that word meant in Paul's day. The word translated mystery is also incomprehensible if we do not come to understand its use in ancient Greek religions. Neither the word offence nor mystery can be understood properly without understanding the use current in Paul's day.
We must be careful even when using dictionaries. For even dictionaries are built on the exegetical work of others. Their biases can at times shine through when they say a word has as special meaning in a certain context. This means that the interpreter must often do the work and investigate the meaning himself. This can be very fruitful but also very difficult and time consuming.
Words can have several meanings; some are literal, some figurative. Words spelled the same (or having the same root) can have very different meanings (In English the most striking example is: cleave, cleaved, cleaved; cleave, clove, cloven. Here two words, cleave and cleave are spelled identically and have opposite meanings.) Words spelled the same can have various related meanings. (Rivers run, as do boys, clocks, engines, taps, diseases.) This is especially true in Hebrew. Words can also have different meanings in Classical Greek and in Koine Greek.
This leads us to inductive study. We ask where else does a word appear? in what context? in the book? in the body of writings [Paul, Luke, John, Moses]? How the word is used elsewhere, helps us understand how it is used in a particular instance.
Words that appear once in the Bible [there are many] give us special problems. One example is the word translated daily in the Lord’s Prayer. "Give us this day our daily bread." (Math 6:11 and Luke 11:3.) It appears nowhere else in the Bible nor in the extant Greek literature, and so we cannot be completely sure what it means!
Language is not just words, but is made up of words in relationship with each other. This is called syntax. Here we study verbs, nouns, adverbs, adjectives, parts of speech, phrases, clauses, figures of speech. (We could go on and on.) As we explore the meaning of words we also need to understand them in relationship with other words; the inter-connectedness of sentences. This is a very important, perhaps the most important part of understanding the Bible — grammar. We will not do too much here today. The only way to really get a grip on this is to actually deal with it in textual study.
The interpreter must then begin to determine the meaning of an entire section. To do this he must acquaint himself with the general thought of the writer. We must get a firm grip on the thrust of the section, which is of course in part determined by the whole book. But we cannot know what the main point of the book is without understanding the parts.
Language is used in certain historical circumstances and the study of history brings us back to those circumstances. The Word of God originated in a historical way and so can only be rightly understood in light of history. Much of what we read is historically determined and so we need to have historical minds.
We can best understand the original author and interpret his words when he is seen against, and within, his own historical circumstances. E.g. Paul saying he is "prisoner of the Lord" is difficult to understand if we do not know he is in prison. It is hard to know what he means when he appeals to Caesar if we do not know who the Caesar was. It is hard to understand what it means to appeal to Caesar and so be sent to Rome without knowing what was involved in getting to Rome. Each author and character is a child of his people, his culture, his geography and his age.
1. Who is the Author / Speaker?
The first question we should attempt to answer is "Who wrote the book?" If we can determine this (and we cannot always do this) we can seek acquaintance with him. We can do that even if we do not know the author by name. We understand Romans better because we know that Paul wrote other letters and we learn much about him from the book of Acts. He was a Jew of the Diaspora, trained as a Pharisee in Jerusalem, etc. However, we can also understand who the author of the Letter to Hebrews is. We can not know him by name but yet we can know him by the internal evidence about him. He was likely a Jew, well versed in the Old Testament ceremony of the tabernacle and temple. He was a pastor to a church that was having difficulty remaining faithful to the Lord. Knowing these things helps us to interpret the book in question.
We also need to ask, "Who is the speaker?" The Book of Acts is made up of many speeches. The Gospels are filled with the words of the Lord. Or the Book of Nehemiah is a collection of letters and speeches connected by story. We can ask this in John 3:16b-21. "Who is speaking? The Lord Jesus? Or is John giving editorial comment?" The RSV and the NIV do not agree on where the Lord stops speaking and where John begins commenting. Ultimately it is all the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, but yet we still need to ask.
A good atlas is needed in order to understand climate, weather, topography, vegetation etc. For example in the story of Elijah on Mt. Carmel, in the midst of a drought, from where did all that water come? Or we could examine the famine in Genesis at the time of Joseph. We should notice that earlier Abraham had gone to Egypt to escape a famine in Canaan. This means that in Joseph's day there was a catastrophic famine. Egypt gets its water from the Nile; Canaan receives its water only by rainfall off the Mediterranean. The lack of rain in the regions of the Upper Nile in central Africa as well as in the Eastern Mediterranean was a highly unusual event brought about by the hand of God. Studying geography brings the story into sharper focus.
An atlas will help us learn where Babylon, Assyria, Tyre, Sidon, Nazareth, Jerusalem and all kinds of places are.
The history of the nations has a profound effect on the people and the authors. The rise and fall of dynasties, in say Samaria, is important to understanding the North’s relationship with the South. The power struggles between Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. also have much to do with the history of God’s people. Crossing from Ezra / Nehemiah and the Prophets Zechariah and Malachi to the New Testament without understanding the changes in the political situation would render one or the other almost meaningless. "Who was King Herod in Matthew?" Studying the inter-testamental times opens up new understanding of the Gospels and Acts.
The religious circumstance of Abraham was different from that of Moses, and it was different from the time of the judges or of David or of Hezekiah, or of Jesus or of Paul. It is important to know what is happening in the religious life of the people (e.g. Baal worship in the time of Hosea or food offered to idols in Corinth). What God demanded of the people in a certain age is important in order to understand what is going on in the story. When the Lord Jesus is presented in the Temple by his parents then knowledge of Old Testament law is crucial for understanding. When the Lord visits Jerusalem during the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) we need to know about the inter-testamental religious history.
3.
The Circumstances of the Readers - Hearers
We need to ask, "Who were the original hearers? What was their geography, political, religious situation like?" It is important to know that Malachi was a prophet to Judah after the Exile to Babylon, not before.
4.
What is the Purpose of the Author?
"What is the purpose of the author with respect to the first hearers?" This too, is important. We must not think that we can creatively interpret simply to satisfy our own needs today.
So in the end we ask, "What has the Holy Spirit said to us through his human agent? What is the message in light of our historical and grammatical research?" This then is what we call the indicative. This is what is indicated. The interpreter then needs to apply it to us today. That is the imperative. How should we then live before the face of God when a particular passage is opened up to us by our diligent and reverent research? This may never be compromised. We are handling the Word of God. Here God reveals himself. Here we get to know our Creator, our Saviour, our Sanctifier. May all our Bible study and lesson preparation lead us to worship him and stand in awe of his glory and of his mercy to us.
So now we have grammatical - historical structure within which we can understand scripture in a historical redemptive way. Many of you might say, "Yes, but I still don't know what historical redemptive interpretation is!" Well perhaps some counter examples will help us to understand.
The intellectualist method stresses facts and data. God is someone known and studied as one might study an object. God is a rational being and scripture is then God's thoughts and words about himself. Scripture becomes simply a series of proof texts to be memorized, concepts to be learned, and truths to be organized in a systematic way. Man is created in the image of God, a rational being who has to learn the facts. The intellectualist teacher will have the students do intellectual activities. Students will be required to recite Bible texts and to explain doctrine with supporting proof texts. I agree that learning the facts is important, but it is not the final purpose of Bible study.
The moralist looks at scripture a little differently. He sees God not as an object to be studied, neither is the Bible a book of facts about God. Rather, he sees God as judge whom we will all meet someday. God is busy writing down all our faults in a big book. Man is a moral being. He has to choose between the right and the wrong. And the Bible is our case book to guide the way. The Bible is a book of rules. The stories teach us what to do and what not to do. Bible class is to build up moral character. Moralism thrives on drawing lessons from the Bible. The students should learn right from wrong by emulating Bible characters (or by distancing themselves from their behaviour.) I agree that learning moral behaviour is a good thing but this is not the first nor final purpose of Bible study.
The Liberal – Higher Critical method spends its energy trying to find the background sources to the Bible. It asks a different set of questions. "Where did Matthew get his stories? How can we explain the miracles? Where do the folk tales and myths of the Ancient Near East fit into the Bible? Through what processes did the stories come together?" The Bible is not the revelation from God but the account of Israel's religious history and the, perhaps true, perhaps not true, story of the birth of the Christian religion. The Bible is the testimony to, and the account of, the religious experience of various groups of people and of individuals. In the Bible we can find the aspirations and evolution of Old Testament Israel and New Testament Church. It is the product of human processes.
This method is not based on a high view of scripture and so is not beneficial to us. It is however, important to know about it, for it lies back of many books and resources that the Bible teacher will use. Ignorance of this perspective causes many Reformed confessors to adopt very bad hermeneutical principles.
The historical redemptive method studies God's Word as the history of redemption as found in the unfolding and progressive revelation of God's mighty acts for and in his people, in Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. It first of all tells the story and grapples with that story in its historical setting. "Where does the story fit in the big picture?" The Historical Redemptive approach also attempts to deal with the literary character of the passage. For example, Psalm 105 is a song of praise to a covenant keeping God. When it is studied it should be studied as a song, not primarily as a synopsis of Israelite history, even though in a sense that is what it is.
The historical, geographic, political situation will be brought to bear on the matter. We can use good commentaries, encyclopedias, atlases, Bible hand books, dictionaries, lexicons etc.
The historical redemptive method acknowledges and highlights that the whole of scripture testifies of Christ. The Old Testament points to him. The New Testament witnesses of him. The Old Testament anticipates, the New Testament confirms and anticipates his return. Jesus Christ is the center, the focal point of history, but he is also working through history. An interpretation that does not point to him and his redemptive work is lacking in precision and is at best incomplete.
2.
Moral / Ethics - Knowledge / Facts
All this does not mean that there is no moral or ethical lesson in the Bible or that knowledge and fact learning and memorization are unnecessary. There is a role for moral example. We should not approach the Bible as if it were just a history book with no concrete impact in our lives. And don't leave here and go and tell Dr. Gootjes my Dogmatics Prof I said learning proof texts is unnecessary or that Systematic Theology and Dogmatics are passé! Also, always remember that Christian Ethics is based on scripture.
To better understand these various interpretive models we should look at some Biblical stories and see how they might be interpreted and taught in Bible class. First we will examine the story of Joshua and Jericho. Israel crossed the Jordan, marched thirteen times around Jericho and the walls fell down.
The intellectualist might say, "Class, we've read the story of the fall of Jericho. What can we learn? This is the lesson. The destruction of Jericho is proof of the doctrine of double predestination. The wicked are destroyed, but Rahab is saved."
The Liberal critic has another approach. This teacher will say to the class after having read the story, "Of course we understand that this is just an ancient myth. The walls did not fall as a miracle; there must have been an earth quake! If the people of Israel actually did march around the city so many times the shaking of the ground caused the foundations to weaken and the earthquake caused some of the walls to collapse. It is doubtful that this happened when Israel entered the land but is likely just an ancient tale that developed around an event long lost in the mists of time. Perhaps it was told to explain why Jericho was an unwalled city for so many years. In fact, class, the story may have been part of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth as Jericho is situated in the same valley. Jericho was moved by an editor to make a dramatic opening to the story of Joshua to make him larger than life."
3.
The Moralistic - Examplaristic Model
The curriculum from Bob Jones' University helps us illustrate the moralist-examplarist model. Joshua's conquest was the result of obedience. And now I quote from Bob Jones Curriculum.
Your students must recognize that God demands
[obedience] from them. The Bible is not just a book for pastors and Bible
teachers or just a textbook for their Bible classes. It is the rule book for
their lives....With each passage they must ask, "How does this affect my
life?" ... What does God's word demand of me?" God will reward their
efforts; obedience will bring good success.
So the story of the defeat of Jericho is a lesson for obedience.
If you, like the people of Israel, do exactly as told then God will bless you with every success. The story of Achan is a counter example. Disobedience will cause God to withdraw his blessing. The lessons are obvious. The same God who brought Israel into the promised land can meet our every need.
A teacher using the Redemptive Historical model will have an entirely different look at things. This teacher will point out that "God had made his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and now he is fulfilling his promise to bring their children to this land. Jericho is the first fruits. He brings the people across the Jordan in the time that the river was high and miraculously conquers a fortress city guarding the way. Jericho was a pagan city of the moon god, yeriach. God himself was the leader of the army. The people could see that God was keeping his covenant promises and that they could depend on him to conquer the whole land. As God took Jericho through the mediator of Joshua and secured blessing for his people and executed his wrath and judgment on the wicked, so also the better mediator [see Hebrews 4] Jesus Christ has laid claim to the new heaven and the new earth for his people."
We can also use a New Testament illustration. In John 6:1-14 the Lord Jesus feeds the five thousand. You remember the story. Five thousand follow the Lord Jesus into the hills to the other side of the sea of Galilee. They need something to eat. A boy has five little loaves and two fish. The Lord receives them and feeds the five thousand and the disciples collect twelve baskets of left-overs.
The story is told and then: "Well children, what did we learn from the Bible story today? How many people were there on the hillside? Who supplied the bread and fish? How many loaves were there? How many fish? How many baskets left? Very good. Let's open up our arithmetic books."
The Liberal critical method demands to understand how the story came to be written as we have it today. (This lesson would not work well in primary grades but imagine it anyway.) "From where did John get the story? Did a later editor add it? Are the words of Jesus authentic? What actually happened? How does this story compare with the other times that Jesus feeds great crowds? Are the stories repetitions of the same myth but just different versions?"
"Well boys and girls, if Jesus was actually teaching in the countryside (and that's probably not true) it was likely just outside Jerusalem. And even if there were five thousand people, they would not all go out to follow Jesus without food except for one boy. The generosity and kindness of the little boy with the five loaves and two fish shamed all the grown ups and so they all took out the food they had hidden in their robes and in the end they had more than enough because everyone had taken food along."
The Moralist / Examplarist is always looking for a moral / ethical lesson. "Well boys and girls, what did you learn from this story today? Yes, just as Jesus fed the hungry so we too should feed the hungry. What else? Yes, of course just as the little boy was generous, so we too should be generous and share our food. This is a good lesson in sharing. Let's all try to share today."
The teacher teaches a good moral point here but he missed the story. The story of the Lord Jesus Christ was just a launch pad for his little moral application. But the story in John 6 is not about sharing. It is not about selfishness. It is about the Christ, the Lord Jesus. Remember that John 20:31 says that these signs were given that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ. That is why John wrote down the story. The moralist, in trying to build the character of his students, lost the Lord Jesus in whom alone lives are changed.
We need to ask of the characters how they function as prophet, priest or king? How was David responding as king to God? How was Moses, the mediator of the Old Covenant, prophet priest and king? How was Elijah prophet? What of Ahab? Did he fulfill his calling? Or Solomon? Not Solomon as a good example / bad example, but Solomon as the Anointed of the Lord. The Lord Jesus says that Solomon was great, but that a greater one had come.
We must ask, "How was the Lord functioning as prophet, priest and king in John 6?" He was the prophet who taught the people. In his priestly office dealt mercifully with them. He had compassion on them. As King he had authority over all creation. He could do even the impossible in providing for his people. He not only cared for their spiritual welfare but also for their physical, for the gospel is more than just about your soul but also about your body. He himself is the bread of life as he explains in John 6:22 ff. He tells how Moses provided manna but that the Father gives bread from heaven. Jesus by feeding the five thousand was one greater than Moses. And we know that he gave himself as our heavenly food and drink by which we are nourished to everlasting life. This caused a separation among his followers.
We could reflect on other examples. How would the moralist or the dogmatist interpret various stories? How would you do in a redemptive historical framework? Joseph and the Butler who forgot— becomes a lesson against forgetfulness. The moralist will explain how we are not to forget those shut in, not to forget kindness to old folks or poor people or even maybe those in prison. But it is a story of God using the butler's forgetfulness as his means of saving Joseph's life and getting him to Pharaoh's court at the right time so that Joseph can intervene on behalf of God's covenant people. To the moralist, Gideon becomes a lesson on how God can use shy and insecure people to do great things. David and Goliath is a lesson on standing up for God.
The moral of Lot's story is, "bad company ruins good morals." The Liberal Critical interpreter would say the story of Lot and his daughters is simply a nasty bit of negative PR against the Moabites and Ammonites, Israel's mortal enemies. Not really a true story (just a myth!) but the Israelites could gloat and say that their enemies to the east were the offspring of incestuous relationships. A bunch of illegitimate children! We could go on but now I think you get the drift.
We need to root our Bible teaching in the historical redemptive method with the Reformed confessions as our paradigm. You as teachers need to use all sorts of resources to show the mighty deeds of God which he has done for the redemption of his people that they might praise him. Use those resources to explore the BIBLE and to make it memorable and fascinating. You can and must study linguistics, vocabulary, grammar, literature, history, culture, and geography. When you do that within a Reformed World View, informed by Scripture and confessions then you will equip your students with life time skills which they can use to interpret and rightly understand the Word of God. Ultimately that should be your aim and objective as Bible teachers.
Old Testament - Noah Genesis 6 (pre- flood)
New Testament - The Lord Jesus Calms the Storm Matthew 8:23-27
Old Testament - Elijah at Mount Carmel 1 Kings 18
New Testament - Paul at Ephesus, the Riot Acts 19:23-41
Old Testament - The Suffering Servant - Isaiah 53
New Testament - The Heavenly Throne Room Rev 4-5
Old Testament - Futility - Ecclesiastes
New Testament - Marriage and Celibacy - 1 Cor 7
Or work out a Unit plan of an Inter Disciplinary course.