One of the most important observations to make in a passage is the structure. And the way to observe structure is to first identify the parts of the passage (the units of thought) so that you can figure out how those parts relate to one another. In this post I’ll show you some of the ways to recognize the units of thought in a narrative.
What is a Narrative?
Along with discourse, narrative is one of the three text types in Scripture. A narrative is any sort of passage that describes an event or tells a story in prose (not poetry). It could be a brief episode or a sprawling epic. Either way, most biblical narratives record true events.
That adds some complexity, because we don’t typically write history books today in a narrative format. Even biographies and historical “retellings” are more concerned with chronology and sequence than with plot. But ancient writers, including biblical narrators, saw no conflict between writing true history and telling a compelling (though perhaps dischronologized) story. Such stories became an essential part of the Jewish (and later Christian) cultural consciousness. With that in mind, a few tools will help us to discern the units of thought in that narrative.
Scenes
The primary building block of a narrative is a scene. A scene is an interaction between characters in a particular place at a particular time. Therefore, the clearest way to distinguish between scenes is to identify major changes in either characters (the main actors) or setting (the time and place).
For example, in Mark 7, the first scene consists of Jesus speaking with or about the Pharisees (Mark 7:1-23). In Mark 7:24, the setting shifts up to the region of Tyre, and in Mark 7:31 it shifts again back to the Sea of Galilee. So Mark 7 has three clear scenes (Mark 7:1-23, 24-30, 31-37) based on the various settings.
In 2 Kings 4, we have an example of clear shifts in who the characters are. In 2 Kings 4:1-7, Elisha serves a widow of one of the sons of the prophets. In 2 Kings 4:8-37, he serves a wealthy woman of Shunem. In 2 Kings 4:38-41, he serves the sons of the prophets themselves during a famine. And in 2 Kings 4:42-44, he serves a man from Baal-shalishah, who himself wishes to serve the sons of the prophets during the famine. So the chapter divides into four main scenes based on the characters involved.
Sequence of Scenes
Average scenes in Matthew, Mark, and Luke tend to be quite short, when compared to average scenes in other narrative books (such as Genesis, Kings, John, or Acts). In the case of those three Gospels (called “synoptics”), it’s easier—and perhaps more important—to keep multiple scenes together when studying so we can see how one flows to the next and the next.
For example, there is certainly profit to be gained from studying the solitary scene of Mark 2:13-17 to reflect on Jesus’ mission to be a physician to sinners. But we’re more likely to grasp Mark’s main idea when we observe that this scene is the first of four controversies right next to each other (Mark 2:13-17, 2:18-22, 2:23-28, 3:1-6). And shortly before these four controversies, Mark narrated four healings in a row (Mark 1:21-28, 29-34, 35-39, 40-45). And right in between the four healings and the four controversies is a story that is both healing and controversy (Mark 2:1-12), functioning as a pivot between the two four-part sequences. Therefore, the episode with the paralytic ought to cast its shadow over our interpretation of the entire segment of Mark 1:21-3:6.
Narrator Insertions
Most of the time, biblical narrators write about other characters and the events surrounding them. But with some regularity, those narrators step into the story to share their thoughts on what just happened (or what is about to happen). They do this not only through introductions and conclusions, but something through summaries or assessments. When we come across such narrator insertions, it is not enough to consider what the narrator says. We must also account for why the narrator has inserted himself at this point in the story. Sometimes, such insertions mark off units of thought for us.
For example, Mark uses narrative summaries to mark off the main sections early in his gospel. Mark 3:7-12 summarizes Jesus ministry in Galilee as one involving great crowds coming to hear him and be healed by him. Unclean Spirits attempted to name him the Son of God, but he would not permit them. This summary is not here by accident. It is the narrator’s way of bringing everything since Mark 1:16 to a conclusion before he launches into a new idea in the following section (which ends with a briefer narrative summary at the end of Mark 6:6).
Plot
When you’re studying a book with lengthier scenes, such as John, Acts, or Old Testament narratives, the tool of marking scenes will get you only so far. What if a single scene is 20, 30, or 40 verses long? How do you break that scene down further into units of thought to help you determine the author’s main point?
In such cases, the best tool to employ is perhaps the plot structure. Develop the skill of identifying precisely where conflict is introduced, where it is solved, and how the tension escalates on the way from its introduction to its resolution—and you’ll be well-equipped to map out the structure of many biblical narratives.
The bad news is that I don’t have enough space here to elaborate on how to develop these skills. The good news is that I have already done so in another post.
Conclusion
Bible stories provoke the imagination and grip hearts. Bible characters might be used as examples to imitate or avoid (though not as often as you might think!). Bu our chief goal with narratives ought to be discovering the author’s main points in telling them. What is it the author seeks to persuade his audience of?
As you develop proficiency in distinguishing between scenes, observing the logical flow from one to the next, recognizing the structural use of narrator insertions, and tracking plot arcs, you will become equipped to identify the structure of the Bible’s narratives. And once you’ve identified your passage’s structure, you’re well on the way toward drawing credible and defensible conclusions about the passage’s main idea.
