The Word

Introduction

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” - Matthew 4:4

It is well known by Christians everywhere that the Word of God is of critical importance to our faith. And that without it’s instruction and direction - the church of God would cease to function, and the individual would be lost.

And while nobody would disagree with that statement - I find that not many Christians know how to tackle simple questions like: How do you know the Word of God hasn’t been altered over time? How did they even decide on which books to put in it? How do you know it’s an authentic document historically?

And even further to that - we know that the bible is full of different styles of writing, surely we can’t read into it all the same? But if so - how do we interpret different parts of scripture.

So the aim of the class today would be to go through these things:

The bible’s authenticity as a historical document

The origin and composition of Scripture

How to read specific parts of Scripture appropriately

The Origin of Scripture

2 Timothy 3:16–17 “16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

The term for God breathed is theópneustos, θεόπνευστος. It seems like Paul may have made up this word because we do not find it in other ancient writings except for the ones that are actually quoting Paul.

The early church interpreted this term to mean that the Spirit of God rested on and in the prophets - and used them as intermediaries to write scripture.

That is - the writers of Scripture were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of His mind and His will.

The Traditional evangelical view believes in the Verbal Plenary inspiration of scripture.

This means that every WORD of Scripture is inspired by God (VERBAL)

And that all parts of Scripture are equally inspired (PLENARY).

This is as opposed to Dynamic Inspiration which states that God inspired the ideas or the concepts - but the human authors chose the specific wording of Scripture.

It is also opposed to Partial Inspiration which means that only spiritual or theological teachings are inspired; historical or scientific details may contain errors.

The latter two views are attempts to reconcile the Bible with modern crtiical scholarship.

The reasons we believe in Verbal Plenary Inspiration is multifold - however most importantly the clarity of 2 Timothy 3:16 in stating that ALL scripture was Godbreathed.

But also things like how in Matthew 5:18 “18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” - Jesus Himself seems to affirm that even the smallest parts of the law carry significant authority. Which supports the verbal view.

And on top of this the multiple different writing styles of the 40+ authors over a period of 1500 years in 3 different languages, and yet maintaining remarkable theological unity seems to indicated that God was indeed behind the writing of ALL scripture.

2 Peter 1:21 “21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

This passage gives us another angle of insight into the phrase God-breathed. It indicates that the men spoke from God however they were guided along by God so that the final result expressed His full intention.

The Authenticity of Scripture

But now comes a question that many people, especially athiests want the answer to - is the bible even trustworthy as a historical document? How do we know that it was not just written by a bunch of random people after Jesus died?

Can we start of with the statistic that I just provided you with? The bible was written over a period of 1500 years, in 3 different languages by over 40 different authors and yet remarkably retains the same theological unity throughout its entire composition?

Recent studies such as Shlomo Argamon et al. 2010 and Moshe Koppel & Jonathan Schler 2004 used computational analysis to study stylistic patterns and confirmed that different books of the bible do indeed reflect distinct authorial voices. Making the above statistic even more incredible.

But let’s get some concrete statistics behind this. Take a look at this table *show table*.

This table shows notable historical documents which are highly regarded in not just academia but in society. You might recognise some names from this list like Plato, and Caesar, Aristotle, Homer. Note that out of all of these writings, the originality of an item has never been questioned anywhere near as much as with Scripture. In other words there is significant doubt cast on Scripture with regards to its transcription accuracy and its authenticity when compared to original sources.

In order to do this historians would often cite the suspected date of writing, and cross check that with the earliest copies found of the original writings. They would then compare the two to determine whether there is statistically significant variation between the two (and if there was, that would show that the original has not been preserved well).

As you can see - Scripture is in a league of its own. With the time span between the original and the copies being less than 100 years apart, and the sheer volume of copies that were found - the originality rating is at over 99.5% with differences accounted being small things like use of conjunctions and errors in grammar.

There can be no doubt cast on the originality and authentic transcription of Scripture without casting doubt on any one of these other famous historical writings or more.

To further confirm this we have the advent of the dead sea scrolls which were discovered only in 1947. Which provide powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Old Testament because they contained some of the oldest known copies of biblical texts which dated as far back as 3rd century BC. When these manuscripts were compared to much later copies such as the Masoretic texts from the 10th century AD they were found to be remarkably consistent, again with the minor differences not affecting meaning or doctrine at all. This demonstrates that the Old Testament was transmitted with exceptional care over centuries, reinforcing the confidence that the Scriptures we have today closely reflect original writings.

Historical Accuracy of Scripture

But just because a document has been transcribed through the ages accurately and preserved it’s originality - does not necessarily mean that what is contained within it is factual. However Scripture has that covered too because it is inherentely a book about history - which can be made subject to tests of whether it aligns with world documented history.

You will find that the bible describes places, people and events in various degrees of detail. Much of these can be verified from archaeology and historical archives.

For example - the Bible records in Luke’s gospel that a man called Lysanias was the tetrarch (a ruler of a province) of Abilene in around AD 27 (Luke 3:1 “1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,” ). Now for years scholars would use this factual error to prove that Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but a ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. However an archaeological inscription was found that said that Lysanias was in fact a Tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time Luke had said - and it turns out that there had been multiple people named Lysanias.

At Ephesus parts of the temple of Artemis have been uncovered as is mentioned in Acts 19:28 “28 When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!””

Taxation-census procedures were common and people were in fact required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process and these procedures were employed during the reign of Augustus which puts it well within the general time frame of Jesus birth (37BC-AD14)

The walls of Jericho have been found, destroyed - just as Scripture records.

Critics used to doubt that Nazareth existed and yet archaeologists have found a first-centry inscription at Caesarea that verifies its existence.

The Apostle Peter’s house has been found at Capernaum

High Priest Caiaphas’ bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box to store bones).

A host of ancient cities such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus etc. have been either found or archaologically acknowledged.

There have been scholarly studies done notably by Richard Bauckham called onomastic (name based) studies which looks at what is called “onomastic congruence” which demonstrated that the naming patterns in the biblical gospels match what would be the historical frequency of names accounted for by other historical documents at the time.

For example the most common names in 1st century palestine were Simon, Joseph, Lazarus, Judas and John.

Not only do the names match - but the frequency in which they even appear in the gospels is closely aligned to the suggested historical frequency which is something no biblical author could have fabricated even if they wanted to.

The Composition of Scripture

So how was the canon of Scripture (the Bible as we know it) put together?

The Old testament was the far less controversial of the two testaments. Hebrew believers recognised God’s messengers and simply accepted their writings as the inspired Word of God. By AD 250 there was pretty much universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture.

The only issue being the inclusion of the Apocrypha (a collection of ancient Jewish books written in the intertestamental period). Which is generally excluded from protestant bibles but included in catholic and orthodox bibles.

The New Testament was far more complex. The process of recognition and collection began in the first century of the Christian church - amongst the biblical authors themselves. We can actually see Paul, Luke and Peter refer to each other’s writings in scripture, affirming their status as Scripture.

2 Peter 3:15–16 “15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

The first proto-canon was the Muratorian Canon compiled in AD170. This included all of the New Testament books EXCEPT Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John.

In AD363 - the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in churches.

In AD393 the Council of Hippo and AD397 the Council of Carthage affirmed the 27 books that we now know as the New Testament. (not the council of Nicaea - which many people mistakenly think is the first time we see the full NT)

BUT it is important to know that the books we consider canon in scripture were actually being read and circulated in churches hundreds of years prior to this decision.

The councils had specific principles which they used to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle?

Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large?

Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching?

Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

While knowing the history of the formation of the original canon is important - it is important to remember that the entire process was orchestrated by God, through man. This is what we believe (refer to above).

This is simply God imparting to us what He has already decided. The human process of collecting th ebooks of the bible was flawed, but God in His sovereignty brough the early church to the recognition of the books that He had inspired.

Explaining Bible Translations/Versions

Here’s something that many people ask - what’s the difference between bible translations and versions? Which is the best one to use?

A bible translation is the process of rendering original texts.

Remember that the Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew with a scattering of Aramaic.

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek.

Both of these have to be accurately translated into other languages.

Now at this point I want to just mention that a translation is not just a copy of a copy of a copy. It is based on critical editions of thousands of ancient manuscripts. Scholars compare these manuscripts to reconstruct the most reliable original text before translating.

It is not a matter of just sittting down and finding the best word to translate to etc.

But naturally - if we are translating scripture a core question comes up necessarily: Do we translate word-for-word or meaning-for-meaning?

The answer to this gives rise to three broad translation approaches that we know nowadays.

The first: Formal Equivalence

This is the closest thing to a word-for-word translation of Scripture. The goal of formal equivalence is to preserve the structure and wording of the original texts as much as possible.

Formal equivalence is usually better for studying scripture because it is closer to the original grammar and sentence structure.

The problem with formal equivalence is that it is slightly harder to read than modern translations which aim at ease-of-comprehension. And things like idioms and certain expressions may be unclear because there is no equivalent in the English language so they may just appear nonsensical when translated word for word.

But if you’re after word for word accuracy and arguably the closest meaning to the original texts then this is where you would look

Examples of Formal equivalence are - KJV, NASB, ESV.

The second: Dynamic/Functional Equivalence

The goal of dynamic equivalence is actually to capture and translate the meaning of entire phrases rather than exact words.

The pros of this being that dynamic equivalence usually sounds a lot smoother, and more natural in english. And it is able to interpret idioms for the reader by translating them into english equivalents.

So for personal usage it is good. It’s usually more readable and clear, and easy to understand. Great for new believers looking to get into the Word and not be too confused by specific wording which would take a lot of contextual knowledge to understand.

The cons are really that there are more interpretive decisions taken by tranlsators. So for those striving to read scripture as “purely” as possible with as little man made input, these versions may not be for you.

Common examples of Dynamic Equivalence are - NIV and NLT

The final: Paraphrase/Free Translation

These are basically translations that focus entirely on translating the overarching meaning of passages and not only that but contemporising them for ease of understanding as well. They are usually highly interpretive and expands on the ideas presented in original scripture for clarity.

Strengths of these translations is that they are usually very easily readable - they would read just like a normal book nowadays which make ideas far easier to digest and draw out, which may make them good for certain people who struggle to read the scripture as is.

However they are not ideal for doctrinal precision - and they are strongly viewed through the lens of interpretation.

Examples of Paraprase/Free Translation - The Message, The Living Bible.

Think of the various Translations on a continuum going from more literal to more readable. *SHOW IMAGE* It would be KJV->ESV->NIV->NLT->The Message.

If I were to suggest translations (mind you I am highly biased towards ESV). I would say that if you’re going to study scripture, use a formal equivalence (ESV). If you’re a younger Christian or you perhaps just want to use it in a more general setting where there are varying levels of english comprehension - then i think Dynamic Equivalence (NIV) is appropriate. I don’t generally suggest using Paraphrase much - but it does have its place. Let’s just say you capture an idea in scripture but you aren’t really sure how to expand on it and want another view then sometimes I find it useful to refer to the Message version for an expansion of an idea for preaching.

The Authority of Scripture

So ultimately the question becomes if we do decide to trust that the Word of God is theopneustos - and thus a source that we need to be drawing from to live our Christian walk; what kind of authority does this hold over our lives?

Well authority flows from authorship - if we believe that scripture contains the Words and commandments of God then it should absolutely hold a place in our lives that dictates everything from our thoughts, perspectives through to our actions.

Hebrews 4:12 “12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

Here are two rules I think that speak straight to the authority of scripture in our lives:

1. Scripture does not sit under culture - but culture is to be evaluated through the lens of Scripture.

John 17:16–17 “16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”

This is quite a big area, especially I’ve noticed in more ethnic churches - where the Word can be used to SUPPORT cultural ideas and preferences. This is a huge no go. Scripture must always stand above the prevailing culture of any country.

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for this exact thing very harshly. Mark 7:8–9 “8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” 9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!”

We have to be very careful that we do not conform scripture to sit under our cultural and societal beliefs but make sure that we are evaluating our cultural and traditional practises through the lens of scripture.

2. Experience does not override Scripture, scripture interprets experience.

2 Peter 1:20–21 “20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

2 Corinthians 5:7 “7 for we walk by faith, not by sight.”

Scripture governs the way that we walk. We do not walk be our own human sight and experience.

Walking in faith quite literally sometimes means walking according to biblical instruction that we may not as yet understand, that we may not yet fully have come to believe - this is what it means by walking in faith. And for the Christian - that is the instruction, that we would walk by faith.

Sight is the human experience, it’s our own undertanding and interpretation, our own perspectives and the result of us processing what’s happening in life.

Scripture must be the final say in the way we interpret what is happening in our life and in the world. We do not use our experiences to write off, or disagree with certain portions of scripture just because that is not our preference or personal experience.

How to Read Segments of Scripture

As we know, the Bible is made up of many different books, many of them have different authors, are written for different occasions, and have many different genres as well.

It’s important to know this because it affects the way that we read scripture - and necessarily affects the way that we interpret scripture.

For example let’s take Luke 18:22 “22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”” and 1 Timothy 6:17 “17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy.”

Both are Scripture and equally authoritative - however one is Jesus giving a specific command to a specific indivual’s heart issue, the other is Paul giving a general instruction to believers.

So no - you don’t need to go sell all that you have and give it to the poor unless the Lord is prompting you to do so. But Timothy’s advice is sound for any believer, especially the rich, to prescribe to.

Another example from the book of Revelation 1:16 “16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.”

Now Revelation is a weird book in general but it is a book filled with symbolic imagery, not literal anatomy. The book uses imagery to communicate truth, these are not always literal descriptions.

Another example which is probably a bit more relevant to us Romans 3:28 “28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” and James 2:24 “24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

These are two passages that seem to be slightly contradictory in nature and present a dilemma. One says we are justified by faith, the other says we are justified by works - is that not blatant contradiction?

Well - no because they are two different authors addressing two different problems. Paul is addressing legalism, a congregation who is obsessed with works-based faith and he is revealing to them what the work of the cross has done. It’s no longer about works! And James is addressing dead faith. People who say they believe in God but nothing in their life reflects that belief. Paul is confronting works without faith, James is confronting faith without works.

The context becomes the key to unlocking our ability to interpret and understand certain scripture. And while there is no way that I can go through the whole of scripture and break down how to read it - let’s go through certain parts and see what we can come up with.

The Epistles

The Epistles are split into 2 broad categories. Pauline Epistles (Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) and General Epistles (Hebrews, James, 1&2 Peter, 1&2&3 John, Jude)

Every Epistle was written in the first century AD

The key thing to understand with Epistles is that every Epistle is an OCCASIONAL document. What that means is that they are written in response to a specific occassion.

1 Corinthians 1:11 “11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.”

This makes it slightly harder to interpret because sometimes the original problems are stated, and other times we sort of have to infer what was going on. But knowing the original problem is key to understanding because the Epistle is a response to that original problem occuring.

Another point of difficulty is that Epistles are not primarily theological treatises, and they’re not theological summaries. The theology included within them is implied but it is always theology written due to a task at hand.

So the first thing when you are studying an Epistle is that we have to make an informed reconstruction of the situation that the author is speaking into.

Nowadays this is far easier - you can simply google the contexts of the books, the backgrounds of the author and the type of people that the document was aimed at. In many cases you can actually read theological deductions on what they believed the original problem was - to a great degree of accuracy too.

This is the first thing I would do before reading an Epistle - because the document will make far more sense before you do.

Epistles are often logical arguments - and not disconnected, individual verses. They are often best read in their full thematic flow.

Eg. Romans 1-3 Sin Romans 4-5 Justification Romans 6-8 Sanctification Romans 9-11 Israel Romans 12-15 Application

When we isolate the verses in the Epistles we can often lose the meaning of those verses because they are now separated from their larger context.

So a good tip that I always try to do with the Epistles more than anywhere else in Scripture is: Interpret the principle - don’t just imitate the practise.

Because the Epistles are addressing a specific people, for a specific occasion, they do not always speak into us verbatim. We need to interpret the theological principle behind the explicit instruction.

eg. 1 Corinthians 8:13 “13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” Now if we extract this verse on its own - it becomes deranged. Nobody should be a vegetarian (jokes).

So we don’t imitate the practise - but what is the principle that we can draw from this? Well if we read the passage at large it’s actually a conversation not about food but about love and Christian Freedoms.

1 Corinthians 8:9–13 “9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”

I would always say especially of the Epistles - try not to build doctrine off one verse. Consider the evidence of the passage and cross references between letters in order to make sure that we are not just copying practises but interpreting principles.

Remember that Paul was a very educated man and he has a very good grasp on the language. So in the Epistles it’s very important to observe the literary structure.

Paul uses a lot of literary markers such as “Therefore, So that, But, In order that” And these are all great cues for us to examine the passage through.

Eg. Romans 8:1 “1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” - the therefore connects this statement with the previous chapter.

Old Testament Narratives

More than 40% of the OT is narrative in format and the OT is 3/4 of the bible.

OT Narratives are: Genesis, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Jonah, Haggai and then partial narratives are Exodus, Numbers, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and Job.

Narratives are essentially stories. They are purposeful stories that retell historical events of the past which can give meaning and direction for peopl in the present.

Should go without saying but Narratives are DESCRIPTIVE in Nature, Not PRESCRIPTIVE - and this is probably one of the greatest differences between OT Narrative and the Epistles.

What this means is that Narratives are designed to tell us what happened - not what SHOULD happen.

eg. 2 Samuel 11:2–4 David sees Bathsheba bathing and sent for her and lay with her - the bible records this, but certainly does not endorse it.

OT Narratives are not actually intended to teach moral lessons explicitly. In biblical narratives it’s important to note that not every main character is actually a hero. Narratives are about real people - not about ideal people. It’s not like the Gospel accounts where we can observe the person of Jesus and follow in His likeness. In Narrative format we usually learn more from the lesson of a person’s story rather than their character.

Narratives record what happened not what SHOULD have happened, or what OUGHT to happen. Therefore not every narrative has a moral application.

I find that it does not help to moralise every story that we read from the Narratives - “be brave like David” “don’t be like Saul” because it limits certain lessons that we can draw from their stories and can even lead to theological confusion later down the track when we realise that a “main character” like David - did not actually end His life very well. These characters are not meant for us to model after.

The only main character in any OT Narrative is God.

As with Epistles, when it comes to Narrative we should still do our basic research around what is the PURPOSE that this book was written? Who was it written to? Who was it written by?

For example the Exodus Narrative was written to Israel and it’s purpose was to reveal God as a deliverer and a covenant keeper.

Exodus 34:10 “10 And he said, “Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the Lord, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.”

The entire story of the book of Exodus reveals time and time again that God is faithful, that He delivers His people and that He keeps His covenant to them time and time again despite their waywardness.

A great insight when it comes to reading narratives is to watch for Repetition and Patterns. Because Narratives are effectively stories - and stories have cycles. The authors often use these cycles to emphasise the points they are trying to draw out.

eg. The book of Judges there is a clear cycle of sin -> oppression -> repentance -> deliverance -> relapse.

And the core reasoning that the author keeps drawing us back to is summed up in literally the last verse of Judges. Judges 21:25 “25 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” The author is teaching us about human nature and the cylce of sin and our ultimate need for God to prevent the cycle from recurring.

But maybe the greatest thing in the OT Narrative that we need to remember is that even though it is in the OT it always fits into the overarching theme of redemption. And this can be seen in so many stories in the OT where God foreshadows (he pre-empts) salvation through the cross.

Think of Joseph in Genesis - he is a foreshadowing of our redemption through Christ.

He was betrayed by His own (Christ was betrayed by Judas), he was sold for silver (just as Christ was by Judas), he suffers unjustly (Christ was sinless and suffered), he was exalted to a high position so that he could bring salvation (just as Christ is exalted to save).

Think David and Goliath

Israel is powerless to stand on its own, a representative David fights on their behalf but the victory is credited to the entire nation.

We are Israel and Christ is our Champion.

Boaz and Ruth

Ruth is vulnerable and without covering - Boaz comes and redeems her and restore her future. His title is even kinsman redeemer. This is a foreshadowing of Christ.

Dan actually has a really good rule when it comes to reading scripture that I like to apply to OT Narrative especially - which is to learn how to read not just explicit but implicit theology. Meaning don’t just look for what is explicitly stated in scripture as almost like an easy way out, learn to read into implicit theology - which means consider what the overarching flow of scripture is like, and narrative is a great way to learn that.

OT Narratives often illustrate what is taught explicitly throughout the rest of scripture. eg. It never actually says in David’s story of adultery that adultery is wrong.

The Gospels

And finally I want to go through how to read the gospel accounts because by and large this is where everyone starts when they read Scripture.

The gospel accounts are not biographies. They are not trying to tell you everything that Jesus did.

They are trying to reveal to you who Jesus is. In that sense they are far more like theological narratives.

John 20:31 “31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

The gospel accounts are written so that we may encounter God through scripture.

There are 4 gospel accounts: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And each writer presents Jesus from a different perspective - and writes to a different audience as well. This means that each gospel ends up emphasising a particular aspect of Jesus’ identity.

The Gospel of Matthew has the symbol of a Lion and emphasises Jesus as King (Messiah).

It is written to a primarily Jewish audience.

It focuses on Jesus as the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy which is why you will see this particular phrase repeated “this was to fulfil what was spoken…” and Matthew 5:17 “17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

It has a bit heavier use of the OT and a genealogy that traces to Abraham.

The Gospel of Mark has the image of the Ox and emphasises Jesus the Servant.

It is written to a likely more Roman audience.

It does not feature long teaching but shows Jesus more in action and focuses on Him serving people.

Mark 10:45 “45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.””

It’s the shortest and fastest paced gospel with a focus on the deeds of Jesus as oppose to the discourse. Great for starting out.

The Gospel of Luke has the image of a Man and emphasises Jesus the Perfect Man.

It is likely written to Gentiles

The key focus of this gospel is Jesus’ humanity and compassion.

Luke 19:10 “10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.””

It contains detailed historical accounts and focuses on Jesus ministering to the marginalised - women, the poor, outsiders.

It shows that Jesus is not just for Israel - He came for the world.

The Gospel of John has the symbol of an Eagle and it is about Jesus’ Divinity.

It appeals to a wide audience.

John 1:1 “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

It features the I AM statements, with long theological discourses. There are fewer miracles outlined but John goes deeper into the meaning.

The book of John doesn’t really focus on what Jesus did - it’s trying to reveal who Jesus is, as in His divine nature.

Out of all the gospels - John is the most different. There is much more theological reflection on the life of Jesus as opposed to the other gospels that more outline the life of Jesus.

This is why Matthew, Mark and Luke are referred to as the synoptic gospels (from the greek synopsis or “seeing together”) because they share a similar overview of Jesus’ life and ministry and parables.

Whereas the Gospel of John stands alone with different stories, different time line and far more theological focus.

As you can see the gospels are so largely focused on the person of Jesus - so don’t make the mistake of reading the gospels solely focusing on lessons instead of learning and seeing the person of Jesus.

Until we see Jesus clearly - we won’t be able to follow Him correctly. Understanding the gospels and Jesus is key to understanding and unlocking the rest of the bible - including the Old Testament.

So is it worth reading all the gospels or is it just a double up? I would actually say it’s more than worth it, it’s actually necessary. Each provides a different perspective on who Jesus is and different aspects of His nature. Jesus Himself says that He is a revelation of the Father (John 14:7 “7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”” ) and so seeing God from these different perspectives is incredibly foundational to Christianity.

As a bonus point I will give you a simple rule about the gospels when you’re interpreting parables in particular: Parables usually only have one main point. They are symbolic - and it’s not to say that you can’t draw more than one point from them; but when Jesus told parables - they are almost always to reveal a single point. Don’t overcomplicate them.

SOAP

I want to finish off by giving you a structure to do your devotions just in case you guys don’t have one. There’s no one single way to do devotions - but it does help to have a bit of structure sometimes. So I want to teach you a classic structure called SOAP.

S - Scripture.

Select a passage of scripture. If you are lost or don’t know where to start then I suggest one of two things - going through a book (start with Gospels or with an Epistle). Or follow the pulpit with a passage there that may have stood out for you.

O - Observation

Study the text - reading has its benefits but studying the passage and meditating on it will reveal more to you and go deeper than if you are just reading superficially.

Ask questions: What’s this? (context, time, author, history, location), What For? (Why was this written? What’s the original purpose of th edocument?)

A - Application

What Now? The application step - how do we take what the author was writing originally and make it relevant to us now (if even possible?)

What does the text say about me?

P - Prayer

If you want to learn more about prayer - come next week to Forge where Sharon will be teaching on it.

Discussion Questions

How would your life look different if Scripture had final authority in every area?

What is at stake if Scripture is not authoritative?

Do you believe Scripture alone is sufficient to live a healthy faith - or are there other things required?