How do you determine thought flow and structure in Scripture?

This text is from a letter written by David Gooding in 2008.

Let me try to answer your question concerning thought flow and structure.

Advice on determining thought flow

My first answer is that thought flow in narrative portions of Scripture is not inherently different from thought flow in the Epistles; and everybody seems automatically to understand why it is necessary to trace the flow of thought through, say, one of Paul's chapters, and indeed throughout the whole of any of his Epistles. Determining thought flow in an Epistle is not without its difficulties, as you will see by reading the various commentaries. It is basically a question of asking 'what goes with what?' Does the second sentence in a paragraph have anything at all to do with the first sentence? Or, are the two sentences isolated statements with nothing in common?

The same is true when it comes to paragraphs. We have to ask, is a second paragraph continuing the theme of the paragraph that precedes it? Or, is the writer now beginning a new theme? In the early manuscripts of the Epistles there is little or no paragraphing, and therefore deciding how to paragraph a translation in English inevitably involves—as it does in writing English itself—considering what the importance of paragraphing is. It could be, to take just one example, that a succession of six paragraphs are all related as being a succession of arguments to prove a common thesis; but each particular argument will be expressed in its own paragraph. Or it could be that a second paragraph starts an altogether different theme; and in a modern work, that would be the beginning of a new chapter.

These same considerations apply to narrative books, like the Gospels and many of the Old Testament books.

Thought flow is more basic than structures. Take as an example chapters 7 and 8 of Luke.

We have first of all to ask: Of the various stories in these two chapters, have they anything in common? Or: Are they self-contained units with very little to do with each other? If the latter turns out to be true, we have no ground for complaint. Theoretically it could be that a Gospel writer has assembled a number of incidents that happened in the life and ministry of Christ, which have nothing much to do with each other particularly. They simply share the common fact that Christ is the one who said and did the things which these separate incidents record.

Our first task, therefore, is to expound each story in its own right, taking note of all the details and the pace at which the story is told. Where it begins and how it ends; how it gets from the beginning to the end; how to account for every word and every sentence; and how every word and every sentence contributes to the meaning of the whole incident.

But in Luke 7 and 8, we may notice that the first story is about our Lord's healing—but the Greek word means saving—of a centurion's servant. We notice that the last story in chapter 7 is a story which only Luke has, and comes to its climax in the word of Christ to the woman, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace' (Luke 7:50).

Chapter 8 contains the parable of the Sower, and verse 12 interprets 'Those by the wayside. . .' and what they represent: 'then comes the devil and takes away the word from their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved'.

Then at Luke 6:27ff there comes the story of the demoniac. Mark tells the story as well; but according to Luke the bystanders told the crowds that came out of the city how he that was possessed with demons was saved (see Luke 8:36). And since Mark does not use the word saved in this connection, and Luke does, we may conclude that Luke sees this story as a salvation story. In saying so, we are not indulging in any fanciful thought: it is Luke himself who says so. He says the same in the next story: 'Daughter, thy faith has saved thee; go in peace' (Luke 8:48). And the very same in the next: 'But Jesus hearing it, answered the person who came from Jairus's house, Fear not only believe, and she shall be saved' (Luke 8:50).

When Mark tells this same story, he says simply, 'Fear not, only believe' (Mark 5:36). Mark does not add, like Luke does, 'and she shall be saved'. And the addition of these words in Luke shows beyond any doubt that, for Luke, this is a salvation story.

This, then, is what I mean by thought flow. In chapters 7 and 8, in many of its separate stories, Luke himself says that they are salvation stories.

What, then, about structure?

First, if we have a string of stories that are said to be salvation stories, we have to ask: Are these stories simply repetitive, in the sense that they all preach the same simple message, salvation, without differentiating the kinds of salvation? Or: Are they chosen by Luke to represent different aspects of salvation? In other words, is there a progression of thought on the topic of salvation running through these incidents?

Secondly, one notices that only Luke has the story of the woman in Simon's house. It is the story of a woman who came behind our Lord and touched him; and it records the conclusion that Simon reached, 'This man is no prophet, for had he been a prophet he would have known what kind of woman it is that touches him' (see Luke 7:39). Only Luke has this story. But, reading it, how can anybody not see its similarities with the subsequent story of the woman with the haemorrhage, who came behind him and touched the border of his garments, whereupon Christ said, 'Who is it that touched me?' (Luke 8:45).

Now, it could be objected that we are elevating this question of touching to an importance that Luke did not see in it; but the answer to that objection is that Luke himself records the discussion that went on when this woman touched him. Christ said, 'Who is that touched me?', and Peter observed that this was a silly question, because so many crowds were milling around him. But Jesus answered the protest by affirming, 'Someone did touch me, for I perceive that power has gone forth from me'. Whereupon the woman came and confessed why she had touched him. It is not, then, a question of isolating one detail and giving it an importance that Luke did not intend. One would have to be both blind and deaf not to see the fact that the woman touched him and he knew it is a central part of Luke's own story.

If, then, we look back to the story of the woman in Simon's house and notice that the conclusion Simon arrived at—that Christ was no prophet because, if he had been, he would have known what kind of woman she was—is answered in the story of the woman with the haemorrhage. Christ knew that someone had touched him; and touching him had been the means of the woman's cure.

Certainly, it is possible to read the story of the woman in Simon's house, and then the story of the woman with the haemorrhage, and fail to see that they have anything at all in common. But one has not understood the point of the two stories completely, without seeing the similarity and contrasts between them.

And then there is a further thing. The stories are not merely about people touching Christ; they are both stories of salvation. On that same principle, therefore, we have to enquire whether the aspect of salvation was the same in both cases. Immediately it is evident that it was not so. Salvation with the woman in Simon's house meant forgiveness; but nothing is said about forgiveness in the case of the woman with the haemorrhage.

Then we have to ask yet another thing: Are these two stories about salvation simply matters of history, recorded so that we shall know that Christ performed these two acts of salvation long ago when he was here on earth, with a result that our faith in the historicity of Christ's actions is strengthened? Or: Are these two stories instances, examples, illustrations, of the salvation that is available to us nowadays? Obviously, in the case of the first woman, the fact that she got forgiveness is immediately relevant to us. Forgiveness is a fundamental part of our salvation too. Well then: Has the story of the other woman's salvation nothing to do with us at all? Or: Is that also illustrative of some aspect of our salvation?

Now, forgive this long diatribe. What I have been seeking to do is to give an answer to your question on how to determine thought flow. I find it easier to answer the question by using a particular example.

Yours sincerely,