Hope in the Fragments

As we have said - the Gospel is communicated by a diverse group of texts (including the gospels). They are not a single work, yet they form a unity of subject matter and purpose. They seek to bear witness to Jesus Christ in a particular context to a particular group of people. But the thing here is that that context has reached across the ages and those people groups have spanned culture, geography, history and time. The New Testament is a remarkable document which has inspired a vastly diverse collection of people to proclaim the Gospel. It has confronted, convicted and transformed people like no other document I can think of.

So, in conclusion of these introductory posts let me revisit our opening metaphor - building a computer. Hopefully by now you see that Callum's approach to building his computer is the better parallel for what our study of the Bible should be. We need to intimately know all the bits and pieces that comprise the work we believe to be the New Testament Scriptures. We need to know what each contributes. We need to know their limits. We need to know how to engage them to maximize their effect. Just as Callum maximized the performance of his computer we seek to maximize our biblical proficiency. That then is what we must be engaged in as we work through the gospels to hear the Gospel. As we work I believe we find our greatest hope in the fragments.

Not one, but a unity

If you look closely at this picture you will see this image of Jesus is created using more than 1000 smaller images of Jesus. The individual pictures are fitted together based on colors to create the single larger picture. Each of the component pictures is a work of art unto itself - each of the component pictures presents some aspect of Jesus's nature and His life. Each of the component pictures contributes to the whole. The New Testament is like this mosaic; it made of components pieces which when fitted together tell us all we need to know about Jesus.

The New Testament is not a single work - but we will still recognize it as a unified document. The gospels, prophecies and letters are not single genres, nor are they chapters of a book advancing a single story line - I would argue however, they all contribute to the advancement of a unified thesis. The New Testament (I contend) is unified by its purpose -  that purpose being the revelation of Jesus Christ.

For us then, the line of examination will be to explore the text by asking finite questions like who wrote each component of the New Testament, where, why, for whom and when? We will consider what the human author's purpose was in writing this text. However, we will also ask how the Divine author uses the text to reveal Himself.

Once we establish this base understanding, then we might explore how we in our moment in time, given our history and within our social setting might hear text. We will challenge our reading against our known biases. We will seek and examine the impact of our blind spots (those assumptions and presumptions which we bring to our reading that we may be unaware of). Our blind spots can significantly distort our hearing of God's Word. This draws us back to remembering we must always closely examine and challenge our hermeneutic.

One interesting side-point here is to remember that we read the New Testament as Scripture. We must remember the human authors and the first readers did not. These documents were written and heard as instruction, histories, rhetoric or letters. Surely the presumption of "Scripture" greatly impacts our reading and understanding of the text. This illustrates the point that I am trying to make - our presumption that what we are reading is Holy Scripture given us from God impacts the authority and character we give the text and so impacts our reading.

Also remember the documents we have compiled, collated and called the New Testament did not exist in their current form in the early Church. In fact, there were other documents kicking around that if read with, before or after what we call the New Testament, they could lead us to different conclusions and understandings. All the authors (because of the subject matter) certainly would have attached significance to their work - but few would call these writings Scripture.

Here is another thought. The gospels are all very different works in terms of their literary style. John is certainly more poetic, lyrical and ethereal than the others. Luke seems more bent on providing testimony.  Matthew seems intent on illuminating the Messianic Jesus predicted by the Hebrew Scriptures. Mark is a narrative that orbits around revealing the messianic secret like a divine mystery novel of some sort. All the gospels use the Old Testament in some way, but not always in the same way. Some works will lean more on imagery, analogy, metaphor and idioms; some may use the songs and poetry of the early Church - so recognizing and identifying these literary genres, and how and why they are used will impact our reading.  How these all fit together impact the mosaic we come to see; so care must be taken as we fit it all together.

Much like the bits and pieces of this blog - the bits and pieces of the New Testament are intended to fit together for the purpose of communicating something. The New Testament is a mosaic - bits and pieces that may be very different, yet when taken together reveal a single image. As I have said - I believe that image is of  Jesus of Nazareth.

Be blessed

HE

Should we critically analyze Scripture?

Let us be clear. We are talking about hearing God's self communication in the Bible. Not using bits of the Bible to advance a personal agenda. Bible study is a study in the art of listening ...

So as we attempt to hear the Gospel:

• we will ask questions of the text
• we will make judgments 
• we will begin to research the historical context of the writing (how would the first hearers have heard this text)
• we will ask what the authors (Divine and human) are/were wanting to communicate. 
• we will ask what readers across the ages have heard

We are not trying to excuse ourselves from the text nor set aside its authority - our goal is to hear what is being said. Using our brains and reason we engage the text in what is called the historical-critical method. Not critical in the sense of tearing apart - critical in the sense of hearing precisely.

We emphasize again that our intent is not to take authority over the text, but rather to draw out its authority over us. If we confuse this point we are in big trouble - so please, let us take care.

Should we critically analyze Scripture?

Again, our motivation matters. Are we looking to destroy the Gospel? Are we looking to excuse ourselves? Are we looking to twist the Gospel to a purpose for which it was never intended? or Are we trying to find Jesus? Are we trying to hear God's self-communication? Our motivation matters.

I would argue the Gospels entice, perhaps even lure us into looking deeper. "If salt has lost its taste, how will it be made salty again." That one line demands research and insight because salt cannot be made unsalty; unsalty salt is frankly not salt! What was Jesus saying? That is a huge question, but this is certain - He reached across the ages and sent me on years of exploration and research. At the end of it I found a brilliant statement defining who Jesus is, and who His followers are.

Or, Paul tells us he preaches the Gospel, but never actually lays out for us the Gospel he teaches. He never fully answers the question: who is Jesus? As we engage Paul's letters we have to work backwards to hear what he is presuming in his letter. As we search out "Paul's Gospel" we come to hear important things that bear witness to the life, death and resurrection of this man, Jesus.

So to answer our opening question - most certainly we should (in fact must) critically analyze and engage Scripture.

Next we should consider the nature of the New Testament which we call Scripture and (we claim) bears true witness of Jesus.

be blessed

HE

Our lens

Please remember what I said in the first post. Our focus in this Gospel study is to look at the Gospels from both their historical origin and their Scriptural contexts.

So we will be asking how the Gospel sat in the time and place it was written, and we will ask how it sits with 'us' 'here' today. I put 'us' and 'here' in quotes. Why? Because people in this world, in every age, in every place bring context and history which shapes how they read and understand the Bible. This creates a lens that draws certain words and ideas forward and pushes other back; it causes us to dwell and ponder certain passages and skip merrily over others. This is called our hermeneutics - it is similar to bias. Anyone who claims to be unbiased is lacking self awareness - we bring our experience to every text and this can shape our reading and understanding. 

Some people will suggest we need to eliminate bias. You can't. I am not even sure you should. We gain insight into the Gospel by exposing our bias and asking how it shades our understanding of the Gospel. Equally we gain insight into the Gospel by considering other's bias and how it shades their commentary.

So for now - begin to think about the things that might color your understanding of the Gospel.

Be blessed.