Understanding the content of the gospels as being by nature kerygmatic, testimonial and didactic, assists in formulating and establishing an important a priori in the exegetes approach to drawing out plain meaning, interpretation and accurate application of the Biblical material to a contemporary setting.

It would be fair to suggest that formulating a 'view' of Scripture constitutes, to a large degree, much of the exegetical process. There needs to be considered one's view of history, literature, theology, cosmology, belief system, the nature of Scripture itself, life experiences and the contingencies relating to these plus a range of other factors. All this 'creates' or formulates a frame of reference through which Scripture will be 'viewed'. It would therefore be impossible to emphasis enough the importance a fortiori the cruciality of correctly 'exegeting' the authors own view of Scripture to adequately undertake the task of exegeting the text with integrity. To therefore have a "well-thought-out approach" (Klein,1993:3) to Scripture several tensions must be wrestled with and several 'gaps' bridged. It is the task of this paper to address the issue of content as it relates to the gospels, and the bearing that this has on the exegetical process. In this sense the focus is not on methodology, but on presupposition. Whereas establishing and identifying the content is the primary goal it is noteworthy to mention that in identifying this content there is also a recognition of the function of these aspects of the content which are; proclamation, witness and teaching.

From a pastoral perspective it seems to be a misnomer to label the content as primarily kerygmatic, but that is exactly what it is. The term relates specifically to the manner in which the message is conveyed, and because this is important to the author it continues to be stressed even though the writing was primarily ecclesiological. The message which continues to be relevant to the church is relayed to them in the form which it was originally communicated to them. In doing this the author could easily be mistaken for being primarily an evangelist and the gospel relegated to being expressive of an evangelistic tract, which to a degree it is but it is also truncating the gospels to leave it there. The content does however carry that sense of appealing the those 'outside' the ecclesiastical realm by virtue of the manner in which the message of the kingdom of God is communicated for it functions in a mode which relates to and meets the needs of both those 'inside' and 'outside' the rule of the kingdom being proclaimed.

If the kerygma relates the to method or manner of communication then euangelion relates to the substance of the message being proclaimed. It is mentioned at the very beginning of Mark's gospel, in verse one he uses the noun euangeliou which is mentioned 15 times in the synoptics, 9 of those in this gospel. The verb euangelizo is mentioned 12 times in the gospels, 11 of which are cited in Luke. The verb carries the sense of kerygma, as one of it's meanings is "proclaim" and principally denotes "preaching the gospel" (Gilbrant,1989:623). The noun, according to it's Hebraic and Greek background, describes "a good report from the battlefield, a message of victory" (ibid). The substance of the message is therefore one of Christ's victory, the strong one has been overcome by the One who is stronger and the form this takes on is expressed in the idea of the kingdom of God. The rule of God has now appeared and all who will to shall enter into that very victory and self same rule. It is only as the gospels continue that it is discovered that the instituting of this is through the suffering of the Messiah upon the cross, which seemingly comes across as a message of defeat. It appears this way only because of the reconciliatory process involving a reversal of the things which are not by the things which are, and in doing so 'cancels out' the effect of sin replacing it, legitimately, with the gift of God being eternal life in Christ.

It was important for the writers to retain the original method and substance of the message, for in this the reader is able to encounter the proclamation in the same way the original hearers had this communicated to them. Also important to the writers, and particularly John, was to validate the claims of the written form, for to be actually present at the giving of the message in it's proclaimed form became in a sense a testimony within itself as to the reality and validity of the claims and of the one experiencing the benefits of such a claim. The writers, however, were beset with the task of conveying this in the written form, it was therefore important for them to argue for the claims by way of witness.

The content of the gospels as witness served two purposes, firstly to establish certain facts, and secondly, and more importantly, to give meaning to those facts which in essence conveyed truth. It therefore concerns both historicity and the "meaning and truth of that historicity". Barclay (1975:188) defines a witness as "a man who says of something: 'This is true, and I know it'. There can be no witness without personal experience. We can witness for Christ only when we have been with him". This is exactly what the writers capture, that is, their personal experiences with and of Christ which serve to allow the reader to make the claims of the witness his own and therefore be convinced of the content of the writing.

The gospel which reflects the witness motif as being inwoven into the content of the material is John's account, of which Carson (1992:170) says, the fundamental question the forth gospel addresses is not Who is Jesus? but Who is the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God? In its context, the latter is a question of identity, not of kind: that is, the question Who is the Christ? should not here be taken to mean "What kind of Christ are you talking about?" but "So you claim to know who the Christ is. Prove it, then: Who is he?" Admittedly, this comment seems to once again relegate his account to an evangelistic tract, which is not primarily the function. For if an individual were to testify to the valid-ity of any claim others would by nature want to know that this is a reality in the writers own life, whether for the church or not. It also gives the writing itself an authority which may be easily recognised by those who can also testify to the same truth, which becomes important within the church milieu particularly in terms of praxis and teaching, yet for the the individual 'outside' the witness motif becomes crucial in substantiating the validity of the kerygma.

The content of the material also becomes important in the on-going life of the community of faith in as much as it is a rule of faith and practice, this refers to the didactic nature of the content of the writing. Ferguson (quoted in Elwell,1984:602) explains that, Kerygma is often distinguished from didache, the former being the message of God's act in Christ calling people to the decision of faith and membership in the community of faith, the church, the latter being the instruction in belief and morals which the new converts received within the church. It gives us the idea that this aspect of the content exclusively relates to those within the community of faith, whereas proclamation and witness relate mainly to those outside the ecclesiastical realm, but at the same time embraces those within. In the gospels Jesus is identified as referring to all these three elements which ultimately became paradigmatic when the authors came to construct and write their gospels. In Luke 4:43 he says: "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.", referring to 'preaching'. In John 5:36 he says: "I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that Father has sent me", referring to 'witness'. Finally, in Matthew 11:1: "After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee", referring to his teaching. From this it observable that these three elements were important to Jesus and shows that the content of the writing is unquestionably Christological.

The word used of Jesus in the gospels teaching is the verb didasko which appears 59 times in the gospels (Gilbrant,1989:116). It can relate to both the act of teaching and the content of the teaching. In Jesus' ministry this was expressed in three distinct ways, those being instruction, disputation, and mentoring. The writer is concerned primarily with the first of these as instruction and understanding about Christ, his words and works lays an effectual check on anything contrary to the beliefs and practices of the community of faith. The following two methods of teaching are not foremost in the mind of the writer for his aim is not to argue or 'get-along-side-of' because this is not possible. He addresses false perceptions of Christ simply by instructing his audience as to the truth which is grounded Christologically. Disputation is present in portions of the Pauline corpus but not so much in the gospels. It is present only in so far as the writers record certain events which highlight some form of conflict with opposition which in of itself is teaching more than merely the words present in the text.

Having discussed these, how does this bare upon the exegetical process of interpretation? Firstly, it needs to be mentioned that the discussion has been focussing on the nature of the content of the gospels, therefore solidifying an understanding of this will be crucial to the task as the exegete appeals to the content to draw out plain meaning. In terms of establishing the nature of the writing the suggestion here is that the authors were essentially Christological in terms of approach. The work of Christ has been completed and put into effect and this the individual can 'enter into', but the instruction of this still needs to be communicated to the person so that, one; he may understand, and two; he may perpetuate that teaching and understanding. This is in essence what the writers have done by addressing contemporary church issues they have in effect enshrined the life of Christ in proclamation, in witness, and in teaching that his 'word' to us may be perpetuated to guide and direct the church. The exegete comes to the text with this in mind understanding the nature of the content so that his invest-igation is geared toward meeting this end, that is drawing plain meaning and eliciting guiding principles for the on-going life of the church.

In the end the final task of exegesis is essentially the point of departure for the life of the community of faith, and their growth, maturity and guidance in matters pertaining to faith and practice. The task is enhanced by the knowledge that the material being treated comes to us ultimately christologically, the writers were concerned with capturing the elements of Christ's approach which were essential for ultimately engendering salvation and the on-going growth process which takes place within the rule of the proclaimed King and his kingdom.

Barclay,W., The Daily Study Bible: John ch.8-21 , (St. Andrews Press,1975).

Carson,Moo,Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament , (Apollos,1992).

Elwell,W.A.(Ed), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology , (Baker: Michigan,1984).

Gilbrant,T&T.I., The Complete Biblical Library , (The Complete Biblical Library,1989).

Klein,Hubbard,Blomberg, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation , (Word,1993).

Martin,R.P., New Testament Foundations: The Four Gospels , (Eerdmans: Michigan,1975).

Articles:

Ferguson,D.S., "Kerygma" in Elwell.

More Essays

Back to Home