Introducing the Psalms

The Psalms are the Bible’s model prayers. About half of them are written by the famous king David, as well known as a musician and worshipper as he was as a warrior and giant-slayer. There’s a psalm for almost every occasion we’re likely to experience in life. In the Psalms, we find beautiful songs of praise, testimonies to God’s goodness, pleas for help, and questions asked when things don’t work out as they’re supposed to. The Psalms are really meant to be prayed—sung even—rather than just read. I find that I get the most out of them when I adopt them as my own, praying them as my own prayers. I tend to pray them verbatim—doing so aloud and with gusto whenever possible seems to improve the experience immensely—but I know other people who use them as jumping off points into further prayer in their own words. You might even want to try occasionally reading a psalm aloud together with someone else. Take turns reading stanzas aloud. At the end of the psalm—or in the middle of longer psalms—you could jump off-book to pray further about the ways the psalm connects to your own current life circumstances.

If you’re like me, praying two common types of psalms might initially make you a bit uncomfortable:

• Extravagant claims of righteousness—occasionally, I find myself gulping when, aloud and with gusto, I end up praying something like, ‘I have led a blameless life; I have trusted in the Lord and have not faltered’ (Psalm 26:1). I wonder if the proverbial lightning will strike me down. Despite the fears of divine punishment, a few things have kept me praying these absurd boasts:
  • First of all, I’ve noticed that my praying of these psalms take on a tone of aspiration: it makes me want to be the kind of person who can pray those things without blushing. That seems like a pretty good result to me.
  • Secondly, I get the feeling that the psalmist doesn’t mean that he has never made any mistakes. I think what he’s saying is that he has never abandoned God. That’s still a pretty gutsy thing to say, but it’s not quite a claim to perfection. While the ‘not faltering’ thing still kind of trips me up, I think I can honestly say that ever since I met God I’ve taken my relationship with God seriously.
  • Thirdly, I have a growing suspicion that these extravagant claims to righteousness have less to do with my moral report card, as it were, and more to do with how God sees me. I noticed that sometimes in the same psalm the author will ask for God’s forgiveness and will make one of these audacious claims to utter blamelessness. Once he’s confessed and been forgiven, it’s as if he never even took a mis-step. Perhaps these psalms are saying that, because of God’s goodness, we can be certain that God likes us, sees the best in us, and wants the best for us. If that’s the case—and I’m beginning to believe it is—then we can pray those crazy things with confidence and excitement.
• Calls for violent retribution—some of the psalms seem like they’re more suited to a Quentin Tarantino movie than to the Bible. While I sometimes still find myself a little squeamish at the sheer bloodthirstiness of some of these ‘crush my enemy’ psalms, I’ve been surprised to find them among the most helpful psalms to pray, for a few reasons:
  • They help me prepare for the difficulties of the day—if I start the day with one of these psalms, it reminds me that not everything is going to go my way. I can prepare myself, and ask for God’s help in facing the difficulties that are sure to come;
  • It’s a faithful and non-violent way to vent—it’s extremely liberating to unabashedly express just how I feel about the people who treat me poorly and unfairly. But in the end, it’s harmless. I’m expressing it to God, not letting it leak out in my interactions with people. I express my anger and my desire for revenge; then I leave it in God’s hands to protect me and to vindicate me when appropriate. Once I’ve expressed my feelings and left action in God’s hands, I can much more easily let it go;
  • I primarily focus the prayers on my true enemies—the New Testament author Paul tells us that our real enemies aren’t other people, but destructive spiritual forces whose entire purpose is to do us harm (Ephesians 6:12). I have no problem praying that these enemies die a gruesome death.

1 and 2 Samuel

Originally a single work, 1 and 2 Samuel are a collection of stories by an unknown author that highlight the period of time when the Israelites transitioned from a loose coalition of tribes connected by a common religion to a unified monarchy. Up until this time, God considered himself the direct ruler of the Israelites. He governed through occasionally raising up people called "judges" to rescue the nation and keep it in order. However, the people of Israel wanted a king because they were jealous that other nations had their own kings. God was pained by their rejection, and he warned them that having a human king wasn’t as wonderful as they thought; but, he still granted them their wish. The story of this complex period of political and social change features the main characters Samuel, Saul, and David.

The scene begins with Samuel -- a priest, a judge, and one of God's messengers (also known as prophets). Samuel was tasked by God to find and anoint the first king of Israel. The king was not to have absolute power – instead, he was to be subject to God and the word of his prophets. Saul was brought into contact with Samuel and was made king. Saul's rule was characterized by an unwillingness to observe the rules set up for the king. Because of this, Samuel had to go find the next king, David, and begin the transition of power to him. The period of time between Saul and David was anything but smooth. While initially friendly, they became dramatic enemies as Saul's reign came to an end.

David is one of the most celebrated Old Testament characters and author (or inspiration) for many psalms. His story occupies the bulk of 1 and 2 Samuel. During his time as king, David gained great power and influence because of his many military victories and effective use of politics to unify the Israelites. However, his reign was tainted by murder, adultery, and ethical leniency within his family. Even though he fell short of the ideal, David's rule would become the standard against which all future kings would be measured.

Some questions to ask as you read 1 and 2 Samuel: Why do you think God granted Israel a king even though he considered that desire to be sinful? What about Saul caused his reign to fail? In what ways do you find David's great passion to be helpful during his reign? In what ways was it harmful?

1 and 2 Corinthians

1 and 2 Corinthians are two letters (of as many as four) written to the church in the city of Corinth in Greece in about 55 A.D. They were authored by Paul, an early church founder and author of most of the other letters in the New Testament. At the time, Corinth was the political and commercial center of Greece. It had a typical Greek culture, especially its philosophy and wisdom. The citizens of Corinth were engaged in the worship of Aphrodite, the goddess of love, which brought a great deal of prostitution to the city through the temples dedicated to her.

Paul had founded the church in Corinth, personally knew many people there, and his writing to the congregation was specific to their current situation. In 1 Corinthians, Paul specifically addresses issues including division within the church, sexual immorality, questionable practices (such as eating meat previously offered to idols), and proper use of spiritual gifts. This letter has a mission to build up the followers of Jesus in Corinth while stemming behavior that's gotten out of control.

2 Corinthians has a different structure and tone than the other. The structure seems fragmented and some speculate that it might be parts of two different letters. In it, Paul deals with issues of a more personal nature to him rather than the general issues in 1 Corinthians. Paul uses the first part of the letter to heal any rifts between himself and others in Corinth and to talk some about his current situation. He continues with a call for a collection for the poor. The end of the letter changes pace as Paul defends the authority given to him by God, probably in response to "false teachers" challenging his message.

Some of the material in 1 Corinthians can be challenging to apply today. What do you think about Paul’s advice on marriage? What principles can be learned from his example of eating meat to idols? How would you encourage people to use spiritual gifts in the church?

Introducing Acts

Acts is the story of what happens to and through Jesus’ followers after his death. It’s the sequel to the gospel of Luke, written—no big surprise—by Luke, a traveling companion and teammate of Paul, the writer of Romans (you can read more about Luke in the introduction to his gospel below). One interesting feature of Acts is that it may well have been originally intended for publication—it contains the acknowledgement of a patron, and it’s written to be just about exactly the length of mass-produced scrolls

It’s a gripping story, full of stirring speeches, dramatic action, plot twists, and amazing miracles. The book of Acts is written to explain how a small group of people in an obscure corner of the Roman Empire ended up starting a movement that spread throughout that entire empire and to Rome itself within a generation. Luke didn’t experience it himself, but he probably wouldn’t be surprised to discover that eventually the good news of Jesus spread throughout the entire world.

The book of Acts attributes this quick spread of Jesus’ message to an entirely new experience in the history of humanity: the widespread pouring out of the Holy Spirit—the very essence of God—on people who hear that message. This arrival of the Holy Spirit gives people a whole new access to the presence and power of a living and active God. As we read Acts, it may be worth it for us to focus on the Holy Spirit. What is it like to be filled with the Holy Spirit? What does the Holy Spirit do? How is life with the Holy Spirit different?

Introducing Luke

As we mentioned in the introduction to Acts, the book of Luke is part of a two-volume set with the book of Acts. The book of Luke tells the story of Jesus’ life and teachings; Acts tells us what happens to his followers later. The author never gives his own name, but from very early in church history the books of Luke and Actshave been ascribed to Luke, a traveling companion of Paul. Luke was part of a small company who worked with Paul, sharing the good news and starting churches throughout the Mediterranean world. Luke was a medical doctor by profession, and he was almost certainly the only non-Jewish author of the New Testament (and quite possibly of the entire Bible). The audience for Lukemay have been cultured, highly-educated Greeks (Greek was the dominant culture of the eastern Roman Empire): he writes in the same formal historical style that was fashionable in Greek society at the time. There is some evidence that Luke intended his writings for wide publication: the Gospel of Lukeand Acts are almost exactly the same length, which happens to be the length that was common in scrolls used for publication (IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament 187: InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1993).

Luke’s gospelwas probably written after Mark’s gospel, another of the four biblical gospels, and is apparently based upon it. Lukefollows the same basic storyline as Mark, and about 40 percent of the material is drawn directly from Mark. But Luke also has much material that isn’t found in any of the other gospels. Luke’s unique contributions show up particularly in his stories about Jesus’ birth and the teachings of Jesus he shares with us. Perhaps because he is outside of Jewish society himself, he also shows a particular concern for Jesus’ interaction with people who would be outsiders in ancient Jewish society: non-Jews, women, and the poor.

Introducing the Gospel According to Mark

Mark was one of the early followers of Jesus. He may or may not have known Jesus himself, but he was probably a traveling companion of the apostle Simon Peter. Simon Peter never wrote a history of Jesus himself, but John Mark collected and wrote down Simon Peter’s story. I’m sure that as you read you’ll see that Peter’s perspective comes out strongly, and that it’s a really valuable perspective to have. Mark’s gospel was the first one written, about 30 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. It seems that both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark’s. They took the basic plot from Mark, and added inserted additional teaching and stories. Mark’s story itself is very terse and quick-moving. Jesus is seen here as a man of action.