Practice Exam and Integrative Assignments

Why this matters

You’ve gathered a library of concepts: authors, dates, audiences, structures, literary features, historical settings, and the five big theological themes (Christology, kingdom, salvation, church, eschatology). This final week converts that library into exam-ready performance. You’ll get: (1) a full practice competency exam with time boxes and scoring, (2) model outlines and rubrics so you know what an “A” looks like, (3) a set of integrative assignments that mirror how graduate-level readers synthesize Scripture and scholarship, and (4) a study plan for your remaining 10–12 hours. The goal isn’t cramming; it’s integration—moving fluidly from text → context → theology → practice (Carson & Moo, 2005; deSilva, 2004; Gorman, 2017; Keener, 2012; Hays, 2016; Wright, 2003; Beale, 1999; Koester, 2014; Burridge, 2004; Moo, 2015).

Learning outcomes

By the end of this article, you will be able to:

1. Sit a realistic practice exam under self-timed conditions and evaluate your answers with a transparent rubric.

2. Write concise, well-scaffolded essays that cite Scripture and major scholarship (APA in-text) even under time pressure.

3. Demonstrate integrative competence with project-style assignments that braid literary, historical, and theological analysis with pastoral application.

4. Diagnose your weak spots (book profiles, OT use, apocalyptic genre, Pauline theology, etc.) and remediate them with targeted drills.

Method mantra (use on every task): locate the text → observe features → interpret the author’s aim → integrate with the five themes → land in church practice (Gorman, 2017; Hays, 2016; Koester, 2014).

Part A — Full Practice Competency Exam (3 hours, 100 points)

Instructions: Close notes. Use a clean Bible (any standard translation). Cite Scripture parenthetically (e.g., Rom 3:21–26) and scholarship by author-date (e.g., Koester, 2014). Aim for clarity and structure over ornament. Time boxes below are recommendations; don’t exceed the 3-hour total.

Section I: Rapid Recall & Mapping (25 minutes, 15 points)

A. Book Profiles (choose 3 of 5, ~4 minutes each, 12 points total).
In 5–6 sentences each, supply: author/tradition, audience/setting, date-range, purpose, structure cue, signature text, non-interchangeable note (what this book uniquely contributes). Options:

1. Matthew

2. Luke

3. Romans

4. Hebrews

5. 1 Peter

B. Micro-Match (3 points). Match five statements to books (e.g., “Royal priesthood as public apologetic” → 1 Pet 2:9–12).

Grading notes: Accuracy, completeness, and the one-sentence “non-interchangeable note.” (Carson & Moo, 2005; deSilva, 2004; Burridge, 2004; Moo, 2015).

Section II: Text Identification & OT Echo (20 minutes, 10 points)

Prompt: You will be shown two short NT pericopes (e.g., Mark 1:2–3; John 7:37–39). For one pericope:

1. Identify the most likely OT source(s)/motif(s) influencing the text (quotation, echo, or typology).

2. In 5–7 sentences, explain how the OT context strengthens the NT author’s argument (not just a lexical overlap).

3. Name one secondary source that supports your reading (e.g., Hays, 2016; Beale & Carson, 2007; Beale, 1999).

Grading notes: Accuracy of the OT link; use of context (not proof-texting); one credible scholarly anchor (Hays, 2016; Beale & Carson, 2007).

Section III: Short Integrative Essays (40 minutes, 30 points)

Choose 2 of 3 prompts (15 points each; ~600–700 words per response). Each must (a) state a thesis, (b) marshal two primary texts and one secondary, (c) show the already/not-yet or text-to-theme connection, and (d) make one practical implication.

1. Kingdom ethics: Show how Matt 5:43–48 and Rom 12:14–21 converge on enemy-love as kingdom practice, and how this relates to God’s identity revealed in Christ (cf. Phil 2:6–11). Cite Ladd-influenced or equivalent scholarship (Ladd summarized in Carson & Moo, 2005; Gorman, 2017).

2. Justification and participation: Reconcile Rom 3:21–26 (forensic) with Rom 6:1–11 (participation). What would a church that takes both seriously look like? (Schreiner, 2008; Dunn, 1998; Gorman, 2017).

3. Temple trajectory: Trace Temple → Jesus → church → New Jerusalem using John 2:19–21, 1 Cor 3:16–17/Eph 2:19–22, Rev 21:22. Add one OT anchor (Ezek 47 or Isa 60). (Beale, 2011; Koester, 2014).

Grading notes: Clear thesis, textual engagement, integration across corpora, and a plausible ministry implication. Concise APA in-text cites.

Section IV: Exegetical Case Study (45 minutes, 25 points)

Choose one prompt (write ~900–1,000 words):

A) Hebrews 10:19–25 — Show how priestly Christology grounds communal perseverance. Analyze the “since/therefore” structure; relate to Jer 31 and Heb 8–10; propose two practices for congregational endurance (deSilva, 2004).
B) Acts 15:1–21 — Explain how Spirit, Scripture, and community make decisions. Analyze Amos 9 in James’s ruling. Apply to a modern cross-cultural dilemma at the Lord’s Table (Keener, 2012; Hays, 2016).
C) Revelation 13:1–18 — Read the two beasts in their imperial-cult context. Define “mark” in worship/economic terms; relate to Rev 14:12; offer two church practices that resist Babylon (Koester, 2014; Beale, 1999; deSilva, 2009).

Grading notes: Literary structure, historical setting, intertext, theological integration, and pastoral realism.

Section V: Synthesis Map (20 minutes, 20 points)

Prompt: On one page, create a “five-theme rope” map (Christology, kingdom, salvation, church, eschatology) through one of the following arcs. Use bullet-clusters plus 6–8 sentences of connective prose. Include two scholarly anchors.

Options:

• Mark 10:45 → 1 Cor 1–2 → Phil 2:6–11 → Rev 5 (cruciform lordship)

• Luke 4:16–21 → Acts 2 → James 2 → Rev 18 (Jubilee, economics, and worship)

• John 1:14 → Heb 1:1–4 → Col 1:15–20 → Rev 21:1–5 (incarnation to new creation)

Grading notes: The map must show flow (not a list), with explicit relations among the five themes (Bauckham, 1993; Gorman, 2017; Koester, 2014).

Scoring Rubric (global)

• Accuracy (30%): Facts, contexts, and intertexts are correct (Carson & Moo, 2005; deSilva, 2004).

• Integration (30%): Clear ties among text, context, and the five themes.

• Argumentation (20%): Thesis-driven, well-ordered paragraphs.

• Scholarly Anchoring (10%): 1–2 judicious sources per major response.

• Pastoral Plausibility (10%): Concrete, non-trivial implications.

Part B — Model Outlines & “What an A Answer Shows”

Use these as templates, not scripts. Note the thesis first approach, strategic use of Scripture, then one or two scholarly anchors.

Sample A-Level Outline (Section III, Prompt 2: Justification & Participation)

Thesis: In Romans, justification (law-court verdict) and participation (union with Christ) are distinct yet mutually interpreting frames of the one saving reality God accomplishes in the Messiah by the Spirit; the first secures status before God, the second supplies transformative solidarity—together they create an assured and holy people (Rom 3:21–26; 6:1–11) (Schreiner, 2008; Gorman, 2017).

• Text 1 (Rom 3:21–26): “But now,” righteousness apart from law; Christ as hilastērion; God just and justifier → status and Jew–Gentile unity.

• Text 2 (Rom 6:1–11): Co-crucifixion/co-resurrection language; newness of life; sin’s dominion broken → embodied holiness.

• Synthesis: The verdict (3) grounds the vocation (6).

• Practice: Churches that preach assurance and train habits (baptismal catechesis; Table-ethics) show both frames at work.

• Anchor: Schreiner (2008) on justification; Gorman (2017) on participation as cruciformity.

Common pitfalls to avoid: Collapsing one frame into the other; ignoring Jew–Gentile stakes; no ethics.

Sample A-Level Outline (Section IV, Prompt C: Revelation 13)

Thesis: Revelation 13’s beasts symbolize imperial power and cultic propaganda that brand bodies and economies; John calls the churches to patient, non-violent endurance that resists worship-economy entanglement, anticipating Babylon’s fall (13:10; 14:12; ch. 18) (Beale, 1999; Koester, 2014; deSilva, 2009).

• Locate: After dragon’s war (Rev 12), sea-beast (state power), land-beast (ideology/propaganda).

• Observe: Parody of Trinity; mark (13:16–17) tied to buy/sell; number 666 as symbol of counterfeit perfection (Nero allusion as first-horizon).

• Context: Imperial cult in Roman Asia; guild feasts as economic-religious mesh (Koester, 2014).

• Integrate:

  • Christology: Lamb’s way of conquering (12:11) governs saints.

  • Church: Endurance = worship fidelity + economic integrity.

  • Practice: Two community disciplines: (1) alternative economies (mutual aid; honest labor), (2) counter-liturgy (hymns that rehearse Rev 4–5).

• Anchor: Beale (1999) on recapitulation; deSilva (2009) on rhetoric of resistance.

Common pitfalls: Treating the mark as mere tech; ignoring Rev 14:12; ripping images from their Asia Minor setting.

Sample A-Level Outline (Section V, Rope Map: John–Hebrews–Colossians–Revelation)

• Christology: Word tabernacles (John 1:14) → Final Word (Heb 1:1–4) → Cosmic Christ (Col 1:15–20) → Lamb/Lamp in New Jerusalem (Rev 21–22).

• Kingdom: God’s rule revealed in the Son’s authority (Heb 1:3) and reconciliatory reign (Col 1:20); consummated as “God with us” (Rev 21:3).

• Salvation: From incarnation to atoning priesthood to cosmic reconciliation; judgment clears for new creation.

• Church: Temple-people (Eph 2) implied: the community becomes the dwelling site now, then the city-bride.

• Eschatology: Already (Word among us) → not yet (all things new).

• Anchors: Bauckham (1993); Gorman (2017).

Part C — Integrative Assignments (choose one major + one minor)

These mirror graduate-level synthesis and can double as teaching artifacts.

Major Assignment Options (2,000–2,500 words each)

1) Motif Dossier — “Temple to City-Bride”
Task: Trace Temple from Exod 25–40 → 1 Kgs 8 → Ezek 47 → John 2:19–21 → 1 Cor 3:16–17/Eph 2:19–22 → Rev 21–22.
Deliverables:

• Annotated map (one page): texts, key motifs (presence, holiness, access, mission).

• Synthesis essay: show continuity/discontinuity and a practice plan (how a local church enacts being a Spirit-temple).
  Rubric: Intertextual rigor (30%); theological integration (30%); pastoral specificity (20%); scholarly anchoring (20%).
  Sources to anchor: Beale (2011); Koester (2014); Wright (2003).

2) Paul in Stereo — “Justification and Participation”
Task: Exegete Rom 3:21–26 and Rom 6:1–11; add Gal 2:15–21.
Deliverables:

• Two mini-exegeses (600–800 words each).

• Synthesis (800–1,000 words) with a church praxis appendix (baptismal catechesis + Table discipline).
  Rubric: Textual depth (30%); synthesis clarity (30%); praxis plausibility (20%); sources (20%).
  Anchors: Schreiner (2008); Dunn (1998); Gorman (2017).

3) Pastoral Apocalypse — “Resisting Babylon”
Task: Read Rev 17–18 with Isa 13–14/21 echoes; analyze one modern economic practice through Babylon’s lens; propose three congregational disciplines.
Rubric: Historical-rhetorical reading (35%); intertext (25%); praxis (25%); anchors (15%).
Anchors: Bauckham (1993); deSilva (2009); Koester (2014); Beale (1999).

Minor Assignment Options (800–1,000 words each)

A) Gospel Harmony without Flattening
Compare Mark’s passion predictions (8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34) with John’s “hour” theology (12:23–33). Show how each gospel’s angle guards against reductionism (Burridge, 2004; Brown in Carson & Moo, 2005).

B) Exilic Ecclesiology
Expound 1 Pet 2:9–12 as an identity script; propose a one-month catechesis (Scripture, habits, hospitality) (Moo, 2015; deSilva, 2004).

C) Luke–Acts and Jubilee
From Luke 4:16–21 to Acts 2:42–47: what economic/pastoral practices constitute Jubilee now? (Keener, 2012; Wright, 1996).

Minor Rubric: Textual handling (40%); integration (30%); concrete practice (20%); source use (10%).

Part D — 10–12 Hour Study Plan (this week)

Hour 1–2: Diagnostic Sprint

• Take Section I & II cold. Grade with rubric. Mark precision gaps (dates, structures, OT links).

Hour 3–4: High-Yield Remediation

• Build/refresh a two-axis grid for weak books (rows = books; columns = author, date, audience, purpose, structure, signature text, non-interchangeable note). Use one-line bullets (Carson & Moo, 2005; deSilva, 2004).

Hour 5–6: Intertext & Genre Drills

• Do three OT-in-NT quickwrites (7 minutes each): Matt 2/Hos 11; Rom 10/Deut 30; Rev 21/Isa 60–66; check against Hays (2016) and Beale & Carson (2007).

• Review apocalypse-prophecy-letter triad for Revelation; summarize in 8 sentences (Koester, 2014; Beale, 1999).

Hour 7–8: Long Essay Rehearsal

• Write Section III prompt 2 or 3, full length. Swap with a peer or self-assess via rubric. Tighten thesis-first structure.

Hour 9–10: Case Study & Synthesis Map

• Write Section IV option B or C.

• Build a rope map (Section V). Read aloud; each line must show flow.

Hour 11–12 (optional): Major/Minor Assignment Drafting

• Sketch your chosen major assignment; produce an initial outline + bibliography. Draft one minor.

Part E — Self-Diagnostic Checklists & Triage

If you miss dates/structures:

• Rehearse elevator summaries (30 seconds each).

• Attach signature texts: Matt 5–7; Mark 10:45; Luke 4:18–19; John 20:31; Acts 1:8; Rom 3:21–26; Phil 2:6–11; Heb 10:19–25; 1 Pet 2:9–12; Rev 12:10–11; 21:3–5.

If OT echoes feel fuzzy:

• Use Hays’s triad: verbal link + thematic fit + narrative coherence (Hays, 2016).

• Practice with clusters, not single words (e.g., water + light + feast → John 7–8 ↔ Zech 14/Ezek 47).

If Revelation overwhelms:

• Keep the control rooms central: Rev 4–5; 12.

• Name Babylon’s triad: idolatry, luxury, violence (Rev 17–18) (Bauckham, 1993).

• Repeat the endurance line: “Here is a call for the endurance of the saints” (Rev 14:12) (Koester, 2014).

If Paul feels fragmented:

• Hang Romans on two nails: 3:21–26 (verdict) + 12:1–2 (vocation).

• Remember the Jew–Gentile horizon; ethics emerges from reconciled worship (Gorman, 2017; Dunn, 1998).

Part F — Writing Under Time Pressure (APA & Structure)

1. Thesis first. One sentence naming text(s), claim, and why it matters.

2. Two primary texts minimum; keep citations short: (Rom 3:21–26; 6:1–11; Phil 2:6–11).

3. One or two scholarly anchors per essay: “As Koester (2014) argues…” Avoid showy bibliographies; use reliable monographs/commentaries (Koester, 2014; Beale, 1999; Gorman, 2017).

4. Paragraph template (repeat): claim → textual evidence → intertext/context → integration with one of the five themes → practice line.

5. Conclusion: re-state thesis in light of your evidence; add one sentence of pastoral implication.

Part G — Sample Answer Stems You Can Reuse

• Integration stem: “Taken together, these texts present X as the form of Y (e.g., enemy-love as the form of kingdom power), so the church practices Z.”

• Revelation stem: “Because the Lamb-logic (Rev 5) governs the conflict, conquering is non-coercive witness (12:11), not domination.” (Koester, 2014; Bauckham, 1993).

• Paul stem: “The verdict of justification creates the vocation of cruciform holiness; status produces solidarity.” (Schreiner, 2008; Gorman, 2017).

• OT in NT stem: “The NT writer doesn’t pluck a line; he imports the scene (Hays, 2016). In context, [OT passage] does A, so [NT text] uses it to do B.”

Part H — “What Not To Do” (Top 10 Pitfalls)

1. Dump facts without a thesis.

2. Quote long passages instead of analyzing.

3. Treat Revelation as a timeline rather than recapitulating cycles (Beale, 1999).

4. Equate “kingdom” with heaven; it is God’s reign now/not-yet (Carson & Moo, 2005).

5. Collapse justification into sanctification (or vice versa).

6. Ignore Jew–Gentile stakes in Paul.

7. Use anti-Judaism to explain continuity/discontinuity—don’t (Rom 9–11) (Wright, 2003).

8. Treat OT uses as proof-texts without context (Hays, 2016).

9. Give abstract “applications” with no plausible practice.

10. Over-cite; two strong anchors beat five superficial ones.

Part I — Mini Key for the Practice Exam (for self-check)

• Section I: Profiles should reflect standard intro consensus (e.g., Matthew’s five-discourse structure; Luke’s Jubilee/Spirit angle; Romans’ righteousness + Jew–Gentile unity; Hebrews’ priestly Christology and better covenant; 1 Peter’s exilic holiness) (Carson & Moo, 2005; deSilva, 2004; Moo, 2015).

• Section II:

  • Mark 1:2–3: composite of Exod 23:20; Mal 3:1; Isa 40:3; introduces new exodus frame (Hays, 2016).

  • John 7:37–39: Zech 14/Ezek 47 water-from-temple imagery; Jesus as new temple source (Hays, 2016).

• Section III:

  • Kingdom ethics must name already/not-yet and show enemy-love as God-revealed power (Phil 2) (Gorman, 2017).

  • Justification/participation essay must keep 3:21–26 and 6:1–11 in productive tension (Schreiner, 2008; Dunn, 1998).

  • Temple trajectory should land in Eph 2:19–22 and Rev 21:22 with Beale/Koester anchors.

• Section IV:

  • Hebrews 10:19–25: three imperatives; assembly is soteriologically functional, not optional (deSilva, 2004).

  • Acts 15: Amos 9 re-read Christologically; Spirit precedes Torah; pastoral table-code preserves unity (Keener, 2012).

  • Rev 13: mark = worship-economy allegiance; endurance (14:12) is the point (Koester, 2014; Beale, 1999).

• Section V: Rope maps must show flow and cross-corpus resonance (Bauckham, 1993; Gorman, 2017).

References (APA)

Bauckham, R. (1993). The theology of the Book of Revelation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Beale, G. K. (1999). The Book of Revelation (New International Greek Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Beale, G. K. (2011). A New Testament biblical theology: The unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Burridge, R. A. (2004). What are the Gospels? A comparison with Graeco-Roman biography (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An introduction to the New Testament (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

deSilva, D. A. (2004). An introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, methods & ministry formation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

deSilva, D. A. (2009). Seeing things John’s way: The rhetoric of the Book of Revelation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Gorman, M. J. (2017). Apostle of the crucified Lord: A theological introduction to Paul and his letters (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Hays, R. B. (2016). Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

Keener, C. S. (2012). Acts: An exegetical commentary (Vol. 1). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Koester, C. R. (2014). Revelation: A new translation with introduction and commentary (Anchor Yale Bible 38A). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Moo, D. J. (2015). The Letter of James (2nd ed., Pillar New Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Schreiner, T. R. (2008). New Testament theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Wright, N. T. (2003). The resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

(Helpful companions used throughout the course: Brown, 1997; Yarbrough, 2008; Osborne, 2002.)

Final encouragement

Treat this week like a dress rehearsal. Sit the practice exam once, full-length. Grade with the rubric. Then, write one major and one minor integrative assignment in outline. If you can state a thesis first, trace the intertexts, integrate the five themes, and land in concrete church practice, you’re not just ready for the exam—you’re ready to teach the New Testament with clarity, charity, and joy.