Theomythology as a Framework for Biblical-Theological Preaching
Story matters. It may be the most powerful way God communicates to his people in the scriptures, yet many modern preachers engage the Bible exegetically, searching for propositional truths about God. This is how seminaries classically teach hermeneutics–the careful parsing of grammar to derive surface-level meaning. Yet, the way a preacher engages the story exegetically and how it is presented homiletically will affect its response. Theomythology, to be defined herein, provides a framework for narrative analysis in the context of biblical theology for preaching biblical-theological messages to theopathically engage listeners. Terms must first be defined before theomythology can be analyzed in the context of biblical theology. Further, biblical theology's place in preaching must be addressed before comparing the teaching and doing of theology.
Logic, Myth, and Aristotle’s Rhetorical Appeals
Though this may seem patronizing for some readers, the definition of several Greek words and their relation to one another is pertinent to this discussion. The Greek word theos means god or deity. In classical and Hellenistic Greek, it was generally used to refer to gods or supreme deities. In the New Testament and early Christian writings, theos often refers specifically to the one true God of Israel. Theos is found in compound words like theology (the study of god or the divine) and theocracy (a system of government by divine guidance). Mythos means story, narrative, or myth. It refers to any traditional tale or story, typically involving gods, heroes, or supernatural events, but is frequently taken in modern parlance to imply a story with symbolic, metaphorical, or cultural significance. Mythos is connected to the tradition of oral storytelling, rooted in ancient Greek literature and culture. Theos and mythos can be used together as theomyth, suggesting a narrative involving gods or divine figures, though this term is not commonly used.
Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals—pathos, ethos, and logos—offer a framework for understanding how persuasion operates through emotion, credibility, and reason. Pathos, meaning suffering, experience, or emotion, appeals to the audience’s emotions to persuade by evoking sympathy, pity, or compassion. A speaker might use pathos by sharing a moving story or describing an emotional situation to connect personally with the audience. Derived from the Greek verb paschein (to suffer or experience), pathos ties closely to terms like pathetic (arousing pity) and pathology (the study of disease), emphasizing the role of emotional and experiential resonance. Ethos refers to character, credibility, or moral nature and establishes the trustworthiness of a speaker or writer. In Aristotle’s rhetoric, ethos builds authority through demonstrated knowledge, ethical integrity, or a reputation for honesty. For Christians, ethos often depends on external evidence like the authority of Scripture or the Church, lending credibility beyond the individual speaker. Logos, meaning word, speech, reason, or logic, appeals to the audience’s rationality through reasoned arguments, data, or logical evidence, such as presenting research findings to support a claim. Found in words like logic and logistics, logos carries significant philosophical and theological weight, particularly in Christian theology, where it can refer to the divine Word, principle, or proofs, bridging the rational to the divine. According to Aristotle, pathos, ethos, and logos are foundational to the art of rhetoric and form the three primary modes of persuasion.
Theology is derived from theos (god) and logos (word, reason, or study). It can mean “the study of God,” “reasoning about the divine,” or even “the science of God.” Theology often refers to the systematic study of divine nature but extends to religious beliefs and spiritual principles. In biblical studies, theology is essential as it provides a philological framework for interpreting the Scriptures, discerning doctrinal truths, and understanding God’s nature and purposes as conveyed throughout the Bible.
Theopathy is derived from theos (god) and pathos (emotion, experience, suffering). It refers to a deep emotional or experiential connection with God, often characterized by religious feelings, mystical experiences, or spiritual passion. One may be said to have a theopathic experience, for example, whereby they have an experience of God in the process of theological exploration (study, meditation) or theological reflection (worship). Theopathy can also imply sensitivity or susceptibility to divine influence, as God himself is a theopathic being, perfectly experiencing the divine essence at all times. In biblical studies, theopathy explains how individuals in the Bible experience the divine emotionally or spiritually—such as prophets, psalmists, or other mystics who express profound emotional or religious experiences with God.
Mythology, from mythos (story, narrative) and logos (study, word), refers to the study of myths. It encompasses the collection, interpretation, and analysis of stories, especially those that convey symbolic meanings or cultural values and often involve gods, heroes, or supernatural elements. The stories of ancient cultures are often referred to as mythology. However, the stories are actually myths. Mythology requires study, analysis, or reflection on myths. It is relevant to biblical studies when examining ancient narratives and cultural stories, including Israel’s neighboring cultures’ myths. It further helps scholars compare and contrast these stories with biblical narratives, shedding light on shared themes and distinct theological messages. In biblical studies, mythology is also relevant when examining biblical myths–though many take offense to the idea of biblical myths due to the false implication that myth refers to a historically fallacious or manufactured narrative.
Mythopathy comes from mythos (story) and pathos (emotion, experience) and refers to an emotional or experiential connection with myths or narratives, where stories deeply move, influence, or shape a person's worldview. It can imply a strong psychological and emotional resonance with cultural myths or narratives. In biblical studies, mythopathy relates to how people respond emotionally or experientially to biblical narratives. It might explore the impact of stories like the Exodus, the Flood, or Christ’s resurrection on individual or communal identity and how these stories shape the lives of Christ’s people. The reading of biblical stories as myths does not necessarily imply they are unhistorical but rather that they function within the Scriptures as narrative expressions theological ideas. Mythopathy is related to mythopoetics in that the field of mythopoetics (and theopoetics) focuses on crafting stories that communicate mythopathically.
One final significant term, and the focus of this paper, is theomythology, a compound of theos (god), mythos (story), and logos (study, word). Theomythology suggests the study or collection of stories about gods or divine figures, explicitly focusing on narratives that include theological themes and divine characters. It also implies examining how myths function within a religious framework to convey truths about the divine. Critical scholars often classify supernatural presence as myth, by which they mean a literary fabrication that cannot have significance or value in a contemporary understanding of reality. However, in biblical studies, theomythology evaluates the content of biblical texts containing both historical and symbolic narratives to convey theological truths about God regardless of the narrative's historicity. (Don’t take this to mean the Scriptures bear no historical significance; rather, in a theomythic reading of the Scriptures, historicity plays little role in the biblical theology). Further, theomythology involves analyzing stories with symbolic or mythic elements—like creation, the fall, or apocalyptic visions—to understand how these narratives reveal divine characteristics, purposes, or the human relationship to God. A theomythical approach to biblical studies could help bridge the gap between historical and literary analysis without falling prey to the fallacies of critical scholarship, offering a way to explore how certain biblical stories communicate theological messages in mythohistorical (historical narrative with symbolic meaning) forms, perhaps alongside or in place of a merely historical reading.
Theomythology as Biblical Theology
Biblical theology is often contrasted and compared with systematic theology and thus stands above the field of biblical studies. But there is more to biblical theology’s interrelation with other disciplines, internally–in how Biblical Theology operates–and externally–in how biblical theology relies on and informs neighboring disciplines. Internally, biblical theology produces a meganarrative from the Scriptures and peripheral sources, which informs the metanarrative, creating a framework for the practice of theomythology.
Meganarrative comes from mega and narrare. The Greek word mega means great or large. It signifies something of extensive scope or significance, often denoting extremes. Narrare is Latin for narrative, meaning “to tell” or “to relate.” It implies a structured account or story, often detailing a sequence of events or an overarching storyline. Thus, meganarrative denotes a “great story” or “large-scale narrative.” In biblical theology, it refers to the expansive narrative arc encompassing the entirety of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. This narrative addresses the text’s surface-level content, answering questions about ‘what happened,’ without theologizing, and organizes it into a continuous, cohesive story of God’s redemptive acts throughout history.
Correspondingly, metanarrative comes from meta and narrative. In Greek, meta means beyond, above, or alongside. It implies a level of abstraction or a viewpoint that transcends or coexists with the meganarrative. As mentioned above, narrative implies an organized story or account. Metanarrative can be understood as the narrative above the narrative. Within biblical theology, it represents the overarching storyline that provides a God’s-eye view of the meganarrative. This is not just a retelling of events but rather an interpretation that reveals the event’s meaning and purpose from the divine perspective. It shapes how God’s redemptive plan is understand as a unified whole. Much of biblical theology regards the text itself as representing the tangible world that humans inhabit and relate to. But much of the meganarrative is also analogous, expressing intangible realities. In this way, the sign (meganarrative) and the thing signified (metanarrative) often become conflated. But the meganarrative must be distinguished from the metanarrative for biblical theology to be able to make any reasonable observations on God’s perspective.
In this framework, theomythology connects closely to biblical theology by providing a means of understanding the mythic or symbolic layers that connect the metanarrative to the meganarrative. In the meganarrative, theomythology offers a lens for examining symbolic or mythic elements within the storyline of Scripture, helping to reveal how divine themes are interwoven into the events and characters. It recognizes that some biblical events may (and likely do) carry mythic or archetypal significance beyond their historical occurrence, connecting these narratives to universal themes such as good, evil, kingship, redemption, and divine presence. In the metanarrative, theomythology complements the God’s-eye perspective by exploring how the symbolic elements of biblical stories reflect divine truths, purposes, and the spiritual principles governing the universe. It involves adding layers of meaning to the stories, showing how they convey God’s ultimate story in ways that transcend the historical details, and invites readers to experience the broader spiritual realities of Scripture. Theomythology is a bridge that allows biblical theology to explore how symbolic and divine storytelling deepens an understanding of God’s redemptive work and the spiritual themes that define the Bible's grand story and protects us from adding spiritual understanding to narratives that God didn’t intend.
An example might be helpful at this point. Much significance is placed on the temple in the Old Testament as the place where humans experience the presence of God. It is described as God’s house, where he dwells (1 Kings 8:13, Isaiah 56:7, Matthew 21:13). Yet God does not dwell in temples made by human hands (Acts 7:48–50, cf. Isaiah 66:1–2). Jonah attempted to flee God’s presence by getting as far away from the temple as possible, yet he could not escape God’s presence. The temple, therefore, serves as a story element of the meganarrative–though a historical one–that points to a higher reality. This reality becomes evident in New Testament teaching when Jesus says that the gathering of the saints reveals God’s presence (Matthew 18:20), the Apostle Paul says that individual believers are the temple (1 Corinthians 6:19), further, the Saints assembled are the temple (1 Corinthians 3:16–17), and the Saints will be with the Lord forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17). This higher reality points to the metanarrative, where God ultimately rests with his people. The other images symbolically pattern this reality through various levels of abstraction in the meganarrative to point to the metanarrative.
The patterns are not always easy to find, and many have argued for symbolic patterns that compromise historic church orthodoxy and/or tradition. Therefore, care must be taken in this process; it’s not an interpretive free-for-all. Consider a needle and thread analogy for tracing theological themes throughout scripture. The thread shows how ideas interconnect across the Old and New Testaments and ultimately converge in Christ. When the thread of kingship is pulled, it can be seen how it is anchored first in Adam's role as the image-bearing representative tasked with dominion over the Garden (Genesis 1:26-28). This kingship motif is then stitched into the life of David, whose covenantal promise (2 Samuel 7:12-16) points forward to an eternal kingdom. The theme continues to echo through the narratives of Israel’s flawed kings. With each pull, the thread reveals the failures of human kingship—as seen in oppressive rulers and their inability to honor God’s covenant and the promise of a true King in Christ. In the New Testament, this theme reaches pinnacle fulfillment as Jesus is revealed as the ultimate, faithful King, who reigns forever, as proclaimed in John’s Apocalypse (Revelation 19:16). Each instance where the thread is tugged on uncovers layers of meaning that contribute to the metanarrative of God’s redemptive Kingship and reveal a cohesive vision of the divine and human kingship of Christ.
The way a text is read within the narrative framework of the Scriptures matters. More than the superficial meaning of the text alone is needed to develop biblical theology. The Old Testament authors speak with an authentic voice to a troubled world. The New Testament cannot merely be read; all scripture must speak to biblical theology. Therefore, methods of reading the scripture exist to develop higher thinking. Prosopological (from the Greek prosopon, meaning face or person and logos) exegesis, for example, is one method of interpreting scripture that identifies and analyzes different voices or persons within biblical texts, especially in passages where a speaker may represent God, the Messiah, or another character. This approach assumes that the text may contain dialogic or multi-perspectival elements, often reflecting conversations between divine and human figures or among divine figures (such as between God and the Messiah in the Psalms). Prosopological exegesis is commonly applied to passages in the Old Testament that are later interpreted in the New Testament as messianic or Trinitarian dialogues, mainly when early Christians read the Psalms and the prophets as conversations involving Christ or the Spirit. (For an example of prospological exegesis, see The Gospel is Bigger than You Think, pp. 184-187).
Prosopological exegesis can be seen as a tool contributing to the development of the metanarrative. Augustine and other Church Fathers constructed Scripture’s metanarrative by identifying the voices and roles of divine and messianic figures across the Testaments. By uncovering dialogues between God, the Messiah, or other divine figures within specific texts, prosopological exegesis allows interpreters to glimpse the broader divine narrative. These voices within the text contribute directly to the metanarrative, revealing insights into God’s nature, his redemptive purpose, and messianic expectations. Early Christians engaged in prosopological exegesis, often interpreting Old Testament passages as conversations within the Godhead or as anticipations of Christ. This interpretive approach connects passages across the canon, threading together the biblical theology–a unified narrative of God’s redemptive plan through Christ, present both implicitly (metanarrative) and explicitly (meganarrative) throughout Scripture.
Biblical Theology and Preaching
Theopathy (and potentially theomythopathy) can frame the task of preaching, especially considering the emotional and experiential nature of belief formation. Theopathy, which involves an emotional or experiential connection to the divine, mirrors what many people experience in the act of belief. In preaching, the preacher’s task often involves delivering theological truth and helping the congregation feel and experience the divine reality being described. This aligns with the idea that belief is more pathical (related to emotions, experiences, or feelings) than strictly logical. Pathical describes processes or aspects of belief, perception, or response rooted in emotions and experiences rather than pure logic. Pathical processes, therefore, are an effective and historical tool for teaching theology. Preaching becomes a theopathic activity when it connects the listener’s emotions and experiences to the truths of Scripture. It encourages a response transcending rational argumentation, appealing to the heart and soul to foster a deeper, lived response to God. It should be noted that pathical preaching is not an excuse for presenting irrational or illogical ideas that compromise historic Christian orthodoxy; rather, pathical preaching develops historic Christian orthodoxy through experience and connection to the heart.
Emotional appeal in preaching is common; however, this preaching style is often only loosely connected to theology and exegesis. A better way to accomplish pathical preaching is by emphasizing the narrative framework of scripture and focusing communication on the narrative and symbolic understanding of the text through theomythopathy–an appeal to the God-myth or the development of Scripture’s metanarrative. Theomythopathy focuses on the way preaching not only communicates doctrine but also immerses listeners in the mythic or symbolic dimensions of biblical narratives. This approach respects the power of stories to resonate on a deep, emotional level, allowing biblical stories to shape the beliefs and worldview of listeners as they engage emotionally with the divine realities embedded within these stories. But it undergirds such narratives with the power of logos–the preacher still performs and communicates a certain degree of biblical exegetical work.
As every preacher knows, very little of the exegetical discovery performed in the study makes it to the pulpit. Therefore, the role of logic in preaching is not so much logical but ethical–to bring credibility to the pathical mode of preaching. The place of logic in preaching should not serve substantially to convince, as conviction is a pathic process. Rather, logic undergirds ethos, giving the hearers the confidence that the preacher has rightly understood the Scriptures. Therefore, emotional appeals to loosely biblical principles are not theomythological preaching, as this preaching style lacks ethos.
Ethos in preaching is critical, particularly in traditions that emphasize the authority of Scripture. If Scripture is God's reliable, inspired Word, it grants preachers a derived ethos when they demonstrate their faithfulness to it through their logical efforts. It should also be noted that a preacher’s credentialling and moral integrity also play a role in reinforcing the audience’s receptivity to the message. Preaching involves embodying the ethos of Scripture, where the preacher reflects the values, convictions, and character of the biblical message. This ethos gives weight to the theomythopathy (experience of God through biblical mythology), reinforcing trust and receptivity in the listener, which is central to both understanding and faith formation in preaching.
Ethos serves as a grounding framework in theology and theopathy by providing a foundation of credibility and moral integrity that focuses believers on the narrative of Scripture. In theological processes, ethos shapes the authority and reliability with which the truths of Scripture are conveyed, urging readers or listeners to trust the story and character of God as presented in the text. Ethos is not just about the preacher’s or teacher’s trustworthiness but also about the intrinsic credibility of the biblical narrative itself, which draws believers to trust in God’s redemptive acts and promises. In theopathy, ethos further deepens this trust by inviting believers to engage emotionally and experientially with the divine character they perceive in the biblical story. In this, ethos derived from logos can help skeptical listeners with pathos. The narrative of Scripture becomes not only a source of doctrinal knowledge but a compelling encounter with God that invites hearers into a relationship with him, grounded in both faith and experience. Therefore, using theomythopathy to describe the task of preaching highlights how preaching works not only as a rational and ethical endeavor but as one that taps deeply into the emotional and experiential dimensions of belief. These elements are vital in engaging listeners on a pathical level.
The difference between teaching theology and doing theology
The preacher understands the correlation between the message proclaimed, and the message lived. If thinking rightly, the preacher seeks to live the truths of Scripture before proclaiming these truths to hearers, not just for ethos, but as a convictional Christian ought. Therefore, theology is both an academic discipline and a lived experience. This final section will explore the difference between conveying theological knowledge (teaching) and engaging personally and communally with theology (doing) in the church context.
The teaching task focuses on knowledge transfer. It emphasizes an accurate understanding of the text, structured doctrine, and theology. The goal is to provide intellectual clarity on the beliefs and principles found in Scripture. Ethos establishes trust and authority in the teacher, ensuring reliability in theological content and grounds the teacher’s authority in the tradition and credibility of the biblical narrative as opposed to his own skills, credentials, or charisma. Theological teaching often emphasizes logos—logical structure, reasoned arguments, and systematic explanations–where students are guided to grasp the internal coherence of theological ideas and biblical doctrines. However well this may serve a seminary professor, a preacher must go further.
Doing theology focuses on experiential engagement rather than logical description. A sermon’s introduction often lays a pathical foundation for teaching and doing theology so that hearers engage with the divine, where theology is felt as much as it is understood. This is what theopathic preaching means—an active, relational encounter with God. Theology can be taught from outside the community–over the internet, by guest teachers at a church, etc.–but theology must be practiced in community. That is why the role of ethos is emphasized. The community (the preacher with the hearers) must together embody the theological truths, mirroring the integrity and character of God.
Further, doing theology engages both the meganarrative (redemptive history) and the metanarrative (biblical theology) as a lived story. The believer experiences and interprets personal and communal life within the larger biblical narrative, transforming theology into a practice of living in Christian community. Too many preachers refuse to engage the text deeper than asking what should be done or not done (mere logos) when the real question is, “How should this be done?” Teaching theology informs and structures belief while doing theology actualizes and transforms it to be performed in personal and communal life. True theological understanding must encompass both knowledge (teaching) and experience (doing), reflecting the pathos and ethos of the biblical narrative, not merely the propositional facts extrapolated from the text (logos).
This is all to say that the story matters. How a preacher engages the story exegetically and how it is presented homiletically will affect its response. Theomythology provides a framework for practicing biblical theology in the church and for preaching biblical-theological messages to theopathically engage congregations as the narrative of Scripture demands.
