Restoring Apostolic Faith

Why the New Testament Often Teaches Recognition Before Definition

One of the quiet habits modern readers bring to Scripture is the expectation that clarity must arrive immediately—preferably in the form of precise definitions.

What is this?

What category does it belong to?

How do we explain it cleanly?

These are not illegitimate questions.

But they are not always the questions Scripture asks first.

The New Testament frequently teaches by recognition before explanation, by story before system, and by allegiance before abstraction. Rather than offering immediate conceptual definitions, it trains the reader to see, follow, obey, and confess—and only then to reflect on how all of this coheres.

This is not carelessness.

It is pedagogy.

Narrative Before System

The Gospels do not open by defining Jesus.

They open by presenting Him.

He is introduced through action, authority, obedience, conflict, faithfulness, rejection, death, and exaltation. Long before readers are asked to articulate who Jesus is in philosophical terms, they are asked to decide something far more personal:

Will you follow Him?

Will you trust Him?

Will you transfer allegiance?

Meaning unfolds through encounter.

This pattern should not surprise us. Israel’s Scriptures operate the same way. God is known through His acts in history before He is described in conceptual terms. Identity is revealed through covenantal action long before it is reflected upon abstractly.

The New Testament stands firmly within this tradition.

Why Modern Readers Feel the Tension

Many of our theological debates feel urgent because we begin by asking questions Scripture often delays.

We want:

• Immediate definitions

• Clear categories

• Systematic coherence upfront

But Scripture frequently asks something else first:

• Who has been sent?

• What authority is at work?

• Where does obedience now belong?

When readers invert that order, frustration is almost guaranteed. Texts begin to feel ambiguous when they were never written to function as abstract treatises. Passages strain under questions they were not yet addressing.

This does not mean theology is wrong.

It means timing matters.

Formation Before Formulation

The early Christian movement was formed before it was formalized.

Believers learned who Jesus was by:

• Hearing His words

• Witnessing authority

• Participating in obedience

• Confessing allegiance under pressure

Only later did the Church begin the slow, careful work of articulating how these convictions should be expressed in precise theological language.

That trajectory is not a problem to be solved.

It is a pattern to be respected.

When later formulations are detached from the biblical order that produced them, confusion follows. When that order is honored, theology gains depth rather than losing clarity.

A Posture Worth Recovering

Reading Scripture well sometimes requires resisting the urge to settle everything at once.

Instead, we allow the text to:

• Lead with narrative

• Press for recognition

• Demand allegiance

• And only then invite reflection

This posture is not less faithful.

It is often more biblical.

In the next post, we will look more closely at how this pattern operates in one of Scripture’s most central claims—how authority, sending, and obedience frame the way Jesus is presented long before later debates enter the conversation.

For now, it is enough to slow down and ask:

What if Scripture is forming us before it is defining things for us?

Sometimes the most faithful reading begins there.