We continue to explore the implications for Art of the varied literary forms used by the Biblical writers (and thus by the Inspiring Author of Scripture) in this column.  Last issue, we saw that the elements of the story-form of literature (plot, character, and setting), which have so influenced Western literary, musical, dance, and visual art forms are drawn from, and are recapitulations of history as seen through the lens of the Biblical Narratives.  We concluded that, since all of Life is God’s Story (His Art), we who are made in God’s Image as sub-creators may legitimately represent, render, and interpret any and all of life’s aspects artistically in the imitation of the Maker.  

That being said, a question arises concerning interpretation and emphasis within history or narrative in the development of the plot of a story, or the retelling of history: Is it legitimate for us to use artistic elements in such an effort to emphasize some point or interpretation we want to make against the backdrop of a story or historical narrative? Or are we limited to simply retelling the story or history exactly as we received it?

The reason this question arises has to do with our current situation as people whose perceptions have been blurred by the Fall to the point that we are, in many ways, unable to perfectly share each other’s perceptions, much less see things as they should actually be seen, e.g., as they really are.  For though those of us who are Christians are being steadily subjected to the process of Sanctification by the Holy Spirit, we still see in a fragmented and broken way until the Resurrection (I Cor. 13:9-12).  This means, of course, that we are unable to see, or even to report perfectly to each other, the way the world truly is, unless God performs a miraculous intervention into the perceptions of men, as He did in a unique and unrepeatable way when He inspired the Biblical Writers to perfectly see and report Reality as He intended it to be in the Scriptures (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Peter 1:20-21).  It was largely because of mankind’s blindness that God caused His Word to be recorded infallibly, so that men could begin to see things rightly by the Power of His Spirit, with His Enscripturated Word as the corrective Lenses through which we could look at the world to see it as it truly is.  

That is not to say that fallen men never represent the truth of things rightly, however.  Though men are fallen, we are still the bearers of God’s Image, and, as such, still have imprinted deep upon our beings some concepts of the Reality of things, though we twist and pervert much of this in our rebelliousness to God’s Truth (Romans 1:18-23;  anyone interested in some of the effects of this may profitably consult J. Budziszewski’s “The Revenge of Conscience” or Cornelius Van Til’s “The Defense of the Faith”) and, consequently, men not infrequently represent things rightly, though usually in a fragmentary way.  

Those of us who are Christians, though, have been changed in our natures to desire God’s Will and Viewpoint, to want to conform our hearts, minds, and actions to God’s Word, and to represent Jesus in all we are and do.  By the steady influence of Christ’s Spirit, we are gradually being conformed to His Image and Word, “from Glory to Glory” (II Cor. 3:14-18), and thus are gradually coming to our senses, as it were, from the insensibility of our depravity.  

As we submit ourselves to the Spirits’ Ministrations, our viewpoints concerning Reality are gradually corrected, and we begin to form a vision of the world that reflects the uniqueness of our individual history and perspective, cleansed and corrected by the washing of God’s Word.  This cleansed perspective is the basis of the artistic vision of the world that the Christian artist is called to share with others, so that hopefully the perspectives of those others can be broadened and corrected to see the world as God wants Reality to be seen.  

The legitimacy of our corrected and sanctified individual visions of God’s Reality as the basis of our art is demonstrated in the very structure of the Biblical Narrative Forms themselves.  This is by way of what modern Bible scholars call redactors, or editors.  We frequently see in Scriptures’ Narratives the work of an author who reworks or rearranges extant written or oral narratives to form his own emphasis or interpretation, e.g., to make a point that the author wishes to make.  

For instance, Moses arranged and edited the Accounts of his Godly ancestors under the Inspiration of God into the Text that we know as the Book of Genesis.  Remember, Moses was not alive until after all of the Events of Genesis had taken place, and he took the ancient accounts (called toledothim) written by Adam, Seth, Abraham, etc., and smoothed them into a whole, actually retelling Genesis 1 so that it was a refutation of the pagan gods of the peoples who surrounded the fledgling Hebrew nation (for this, see Allen P. Ross’ “Creation and Blessing” and Henry Morris’ “The Genesis Record”).  In doing so, Moses did not change the facts (which God had providentially arranged to be interpreted as Moses did); he simply told and emphasized them in such a way as to refute the pagan nature-gods.  

The author of the Histories of I and II Chronicles, during a time in Israel when the priesthood was under attack, simply retold the histories of I and II Kings, adding fuller information about, and specially emphasizing, the role of the Priests and Levites, to establish more fully their legitimacy.   

From early in the Church’s history, the four faces of the cherubim (ox, eagle, bull, and man) have been interpreted as symbols of four different Aspects of Christ’s Ministry, reflected in the four different emphases of the Evangelists.  Using the exact same Events of the History of Christ’s Life, they all providentially emphasized editorially different Aspects of His Earthly Ministry.  

Matthew used frequent Old Testament Messianic references, obviously writing primarily to convince Jewish readers of Christ’s Messiahship.  John’s Gospel records huge blocks of Jesus’ Teaching designed to bring men to belief, and frequently describes the Jews in an extremely negative fashion, aiming by this at Gentile conversions.  Luke sought to provide men with as much detail as possible, emphasizing the Humanity of the God-Man, while Mark (probably writing Peter’s memoirs) shows Christ primarily in His Actions as the Servant of God and men. 

All these differing emphases about the one True Gospel Story are valid, each aiming at a slightly variant emphasis of the same story.  God sovereignly used the intentions and emphases of all the Biblical Writers to achieve, with great Artistry, the Inspired Book that He wanted in all its complex completion.  

This should tell us that, even though we don’t have the benefit of Inerrant Inspiration in artistically expressing our own visions and emphases, it is still legitimate to present interpretations and emphases to wake the dead to God’s Truth, so long as we do not contradict or violate the bounds of God’s Word.  Our individual perspective matters, and is a legitimate basis for artistic expression.