146
An Exegetical Charcuterie Board: My Journey
with Inductive Bible Study
Suzanne Nicholson
Professor of New Testament
Asbury University
My first sense that the Bible plays an important part in the life of
a Christian arose from watching my mom’s daily devotional practice
when I was young. Every morning, she would pull out her Good
News Bible, The Upper Room devotional, and her prayer list. She
would read the Scripture passage associated with the daily reading
and then spend time praying for friends and family. She modeled for
me the practice of spending time with God.
Although I had been raised in church and spent time in Sunday
School hearing the stories of God’s people in Scripture, when I was
in high school, I reasoned that if I were a Christian, I should know
more about what that means. It seemed only logical to read the Bi-
ble, so I opened the book to Genesis 1 and did my best to read a
chapter a day. Some stories were very engaging, and some (like gene-
alogies) were a struggle to finish. Yet even in the struggle I discov-
ered fascinating principles embedded in the text. When Scripture de-
scribed the construction of the Tabernacle (and later, the Temple) in
tedious detail, I learned that the most precious materials were used
for the Holy of Holies, which showed me the exquisite awe one ex-
perienced as one drew near to God. By the time I had made it
through the Old Testament, the New Testament made much more
sense to me. I could see how the OT sacrificial system, with its em-
phasis on atoning for sin, had been fulfilled in the death of Jesus.
Terms like “the lamb of God” came into clearer focus.
When I went to college, I had no intent to study the Bible for a ca-
reer. I was interested in journalism, and I assumed that newspaper re-
porting would lead me into a long and satisfying vocation.
I attended the University of Minnesota, but I realized that this sec-
ular school would challenge my faith commitment. I sought out Chris-
My Journey with Inductive Bible Study| 147
tian groups on campus and found a home in InterVarsity Christian Fel-
lowship. The discussions that took place at our meetings helped me to
sort out and clarify my Christian beliefs. It was here that I first heard
leaders really dig into passages on women in leadership, and the con-
versations about historical and literary contexts made sense to me.
Through InterVarsity I also went on a summer mission trip to
Moscow—in 1991, when tensions in the Soviet Union were high.
Our group returned home just three weeks before the coup attempt
that brought tanks rumbling into Red Square, not far from the dor-
mitory where we had been staying. The six-week mission trip helped
me to see my own culture in a new light and made me more aware of
God’s love and great provision. This deepening sense of the grace of
God played a part in my turning to seminary just a few years later.
When I graduated from college, I started out as a newspaper re-
porter in a small town in southern Minnesota. Although I enjoyed my
job, I didn’t feel completely fulfilled. As I thought about what was
important to me, I realized that my faith topped the list. I took a job
writing internal publications for a trade association in the Twin Cities
so that I could attend Bethel Theological Seminary part-time. The
first class I chose is often surprising to others: biblical Greek. I had
been attending a large church where the pastor regularly explained
Greek words as he preached. I was always fascinated by the nuance of
meaning this brought to the text. This is why I jumped headfirst into
biblical languages at seminary—and loved it! As I began my classes, I
felt a deep peace that confirmed my call to seminary.
As a result, I soon became a full-time student. Although the sem-
inary was Baptist, I discovered John Wesley during my Christian the-
ology classes. The more I read about Wesleyan theology, the more I
became convinced that God was calling me to Methodism. During
this time, I also met my future husband, Lee, who was the son of a
Methodist pastor. Lee was committed to remaining United Method-
ist. Our problem, however, was that Bethel Seminary had just been
removed from the UMC’s approved seminary list. We needed to
transfer, and so we found ourselves at Asbury Theological Seminary,
a school that Lee had always wanted to attend.
Although I had already completed many of my New Testament
courses at Bethel, I was required to take an Inductive Bible Study
course at Asbury. What a blessing this turned out to be! Like most of
the students who took David Bauer’s Matthew course, I too found my
148 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 9/146-153 (Summer 2024)
head exploding as Dr. Bauer explained the structure of the genealogy in
Matthew 1. The beauty of the form, with its tripartite focus on key
movements in Israelite history (Abraham to David, David to the exile,
and the exile to the Messiah) transformed this boring ancient list into a
stylized theological commentary on the fulfilled plan of God. Even
small turns of phrases within the genealogy pointed to God’s unusual
plan—such as using women like Rahab and Ruth to fulfill the purpos-
es of God. Let the one who has eyes to see, see!
I found the analysis of texts scintillating. Instead of describing
what the text meant to me (which differed from reader to reader, a
method that had always frustrated me), here was a more objective
method of discovering meaning. I resonated with the idea that any
author intends to communicate a particular meaning and does so in a
way that is discernible to his or her audience in their immediate con-
text. Our job as readers of an ancient text is not to create meaning, but
to discern meaning. The text itself provides the clues to meaning; analy-
sis of the text is key.
Yet I discovered that inductive biblical study was not only part
science, but also part art. On the one hand, certain key words indi-
cated clear structures—contrasts, causations, and the like. One could
scientifically pick apart the evidence of the text. On the other hand,
some relationships were implied, and there is an art to feeling out the
argument of the text. Yet these implications are always bounded by
the text itself. With this method, you could not make the text say
whatever you wanted it to say. The text speaks, and we must listen.
As I was learning the IBS method, I simultaneously was discov-
ering a call to teaching. I had worked as an adjunct instructor at the
college across the street; my journalism degree had allowed me to
teach a couple of sections of Advanced English Composition. At the
seminary I worked as a grader for my Philosophy of Religion profes-
sor, Dr. Jerry Walls. Both experiences led me to consider teaching as
a career. I weighed my options and decided to pursue a degree in
New Testament Studies at the University of Durham (now Durham
University) in Durham, England. My husband and I packed up our
belongings and took our 7-month-old son to Durham, where we
lived for four years as I considered the implications of Paul’s one-
God language in 1 Cor 8:4–6, Gal 3:20, and Rom 3:30. Learning to
look closely at the text during seminary helped me deeply analyze
these texts as I pursued my PhD.
My Journey with Inductive Bible Study| 149
After four years in England, I received a job offer to teach New
Testament at Malone University in Canton, Ohio. Lee and I again
packed up the family (which now included our daughter, who was born
during the second year of my doctoral studies) and moved back to the
United States. It took another two and a half years to finish the PhD. as
I juggled the demands of small children and a new teaching load.
As a new assistant professor, I had to figure out what to teach my
students. Each semester I usually taught two sections of introduction
to the New Testament, plus two sections of various upper-level
courses. The challenge in introductory NT courses was to give a
broad survey of the content of the New Testament to both those
who had never cracked open a Bible as well as those who had grown
up in the church and attended Christian schools. The latter group
quickly learned they didn’t know Scripture as well as they thought
they did. I confess I did not offer much in the way of IBS instruction
in the intro classes in these early years. Biblical illiteracy has become
so rampant—even in churched students—that the remedial task of
simply understanding the basic story of Scripture and the importance
of historical context became the primary goal.
In my upper-level courses, however, I had more time to dig into
the biblical text. Whether teaching an entire semester on Romans or
Acts or the Synoptic Gospels, I now had a greater opportunity to
help students chew on the wording of the text and consider the rami-
fications. The difficulty, however, was that my department did not
have one standard method of exegetical instruction for its Bible pro-
fessors. As a result, I started each of my upper-level Bible classes
with a few days of overview on how to identify structural relation-
ships and consider their significance. The first assignment for my
students was to write a book survey on the biblical book we were
studying. They would have another two to three assignments during
the term in which they would analyze specific passages.
I felt like I was offering my students an exegetical charcuterie
board. Perhaps I watch too many cooking shows, but the metaphor
seems apt. With a charcuterie board, the chef places a variety of bite
sized meats, cheeses, appetizers, breads, and crackers on a wooden
board for guests to sample. It provides a taste of different foods and
allows the guest to explore dining possibilities. In an undergraduate
context which does not require a single exegetical method to be
taught across the board, I cannot assume that students who have
taken other Bible classes are coming into my course prepared to use
150 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 9/146-153 (Summer 2024)
the inductive method. The concise instruction I give on identifying
structural relationships provides a sample of how to build a rich meal
from the text. The tasting is intended to whet the exegetical appetite
of those who plan to engage in a more rigorous study of Scripture in
seminary and in their ministries.
After 16 years teaching at Malone, I made the move to Asbury
University, where I have taught for three years. Like Malone, As-
bury’s Christian Studies & Philosophy department does not require
all Bible instructors to teach a particular exegetical approach to the
text. But the move gave me the opportunity to reconsider how I
teach my courses. My NT introduction courses, like those at Malone,
include both non-churched and churched students. I now am more
intentional in both my assignments and my instruction to introduce
freshmen to the concepts of inductive biblical studies. For many of
my students—those who are not majoring in Bible, theology, or min-
istry—this may be the only New Testament course they ever take.
They may never be exposed to a more in-depth exploration of
methods of interpreting the biblical text. But whether a student is an
equine major, a media communications major, or a math major, I
want to expose them to the delicacies of the exegetical charcuterie
board. For each book of the New Testament we study, I place rele-
vant texts on the PowerPoints and ask students, “What do you see in
this passage?” I encourage them to find repeated language, contrasts,
causal connections, and other structures, as well as to ask questions
of the text. We consider together how the literary and historical con-
texts shed light on the author’s language. My hope is to awaken stu-
dents’ curiosity about the text. When they begin to understand the
message of the text better as a result of making detailed observations,
they are more likely to continue this process in their own personal
studies long after they finish the course.
One of the courses I have been privileged to teach to ministry ma-
jors at both universities is an introductory preaching course. I am una-
ble to spend the entirety of the course teaching exegetical techniques,
but we spend significant time on the topic. You simply can’t be a good
preacher if you don’t interpret the text well. When students preach, I
weigh their sermon grade more heavily on exegesis than on presenta-
tion (although both clearly are important for an effective sermon). In
this course we also look closely at how to apply the text. Thus, evalua-
tion and appropriation are key components. Students often struggle in
My Journey with Inductive Bible Study| 151
their sermons to give specific examples of how to appropriate the text
into our current context. In our classroom conversations we help one
another consider possible ways to do this effectively.
In my own preaching I have found that the inductive method helps
me to mine the richness of the biblical passage. I spend extensive time
in inductive study so that I can better understand the nuances of the
text. The trick when preaching, of course, is to translate the hard aca-
demic work into lay language. If I start rambling about the interchange
of comparison and contrast in the beginning of Luke’s gospel, I’m go-
ing to lose my audience! But if I describe how Luke intentionally shifts
between the miracle of John the Baptist’s birth story and the miracle of
Jesus’s birth story, I am inviting the audience to explore with me the
ways in which Luke repeatedly points out the greater miracle of Jesus,
even as both stories fulfill God’s plan from long ago.
Unfortunately, many preachers do not take the time to dig deeply
into the biblical passage or to explain their discoveries to their con-
gregations. Instead, they offer a surface-level description of the text
that does not reveal the richness of the biblical message. Often pas-
tors refer to Scripture only briefly and then give a topical sermon
based on a single word in the passage. But this approach does not
help our congregations to understand the depth and beauty of the
message of the text. Worse, it models a disregard for Scripture, paint-
ing the passage as merely a springboard for the preacher’s own ideas.
Rather, our job as preachers is to help people understand the Word
of God and its context more fully. God has given us Scripture so
that we can see how God has been faithful to Israel in the past, re-
deemed believers through Christ, and given the Spirit to the church
to live faithfully until Christ’s return. The better that we understand
and enter into this story, the more fully we will be empowered to
worship the Triune God revealed in Scripture.
As I evaluate how to improve my use of inductive biblical studies
in the undergraduate classroom, several challenges perennially ap-
pear. One of the most common is the need for students to lay aside
their presuppositions and really look at the text. Too often in the
observation stage students read into the passage what they already
know from other books of the Bible. For example, when analyzing a
passage in the Gospel of Mark, students import theology found in
the Gospel of Matthew, not considering that Matthew was written
after Mark and drew from Mark’s own theology (while at the same
152 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 9/146-153 (Summer 2024)
time reshaping it). If we want to hear Mark’s voice, we need to look
at Mark’s wording and not the wording of later authors.
Another common presupposition is the reading of Trinitarian
theology into the passage. Rather than asking how the author de-
scribes each person of the Trinity, students tend to lump these ideas
together in a manner that borders on modalism. It can be threatening
to students to set aside their theological assumptions before looking
at a text, but it is important to help students realize that later theo-
logical formulations arise from the text itself—church theology was
not created in a vacuum! We should not be afraid of what the text
reveals. We need to allow the text to speak for itself. The way that
John talks about Jesus or the Spirit will have different nuances than
the way that Paul speaks about Jesus or the Spirit. But the beautiful
diversity within Scripture cannot be seen as easily if we start our ex-
ploration by overlaying Trinitarian formulas upon the passage in
question.
Presuppositions also can lead to the Mandela effect—a term coined
to describe the phenomenon of a large group of people “remember-
ing” false information about an event. For example, most people re-
member the famous line from Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back as,
“Luke, I am your father!” when the actual line is, “No, I am your fa-
ther.” Similar mistakes occur when students learn inductive Bible study.
Bible stories that students have always loved sometimes take a turn in a
different direction when they look closely at the text. The story of
Samson and Delilah, for example, presents Samson in a much more
negative light than is often taught in church. Students come out of
Sunday School excited about the strong hero Samson, but then they
use IBS and look carefully at the text. They discover that the repetition
of “see” and “eyes” at key points in Judges 13–16 emphasizes the de-
structive nature of Samson’s desires. By the end of the story, the in-
strumentation in 16:28 shows the purpose of blind Samson’s plea to
God to destroy the Philistine building: it’s not to honor God, but for
his own selfish reasons: “so that with this one act of revenge I may pay
back the Philistines for my two eyes.” Even within the book of Judges
as a whole, major sections start with this “sight” theme: “The Israelites
again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” The recurring theme
underscores the author’s argument that the Israelites need a king to
show them the ways of the Lord. The final verse of the book confirms
this: “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what
was right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
My Journey with Inductive Bible Study| 153
Another challenge for students lies in the time-consuming nature
of the IBS method. When students have a heavy workload in other
classes, and social-media culture has shortened their attention spans, it
can be difficult to focus on a single passage for any length of time. One
practice I use to help students see the benefit of such sustained investi-
gation is group exegetical work. Before class begins, I write a passage
on the whiteboard. Then I bring to class a variety of colored dry-erase
markers. As students identify recurrences, I circle each related term in
the same color, and then use a different color for the next recurrence
identified. For other relationships, I underline key phrases and draw
arrows to other connections later in the passage. By the time students
have identified the majority of structures in the text, the board is filled
with multicolored geometric patterns that highlight key connections.
Not only have we discussed as a class the potential implications of
these structures, but the visual array helps to convince students of the
payoff from spending significant time analyzing a text.
Overall, the inductive Bible study method continues to strength-
en and enliven my understanding of Scripture. Although my under-
graduate teaching context does not allow me to serve a seven-course
inductive Bible study meal, the exegetical charcuterie board allows
me to offer my students a sampling of the delicacies of the method.
My hope is that students who participate will acquire a craving for
more.
