Episodic characterization as the real reason for supposed "contradictions"

Episodic characterization differs enormously from novelistic characterization, a common expectation modern people project on the Word of God.

Episodic characterization involves things like the stories of Ananzi in Africa, where he will face first one challenge then another; but not really 'remember what he did last Friday'. Or again, it involves things like Archie Comics or X-Men or Donald Duck: do these characters 'remember what they did last Friday'? 

Or do they more seem to have the memories of goldfish and live for the first time in each story about them?

This sense that the character has the memory of a goldfish is one of the defining features of episodic characterization, which typically uses characters to express a definite moral or spiritual message; not to worry about character consistency between different stories, especially not as much. For sometimes there will be traces of both characterological consistency and memories of goldfish in the exact same text. 

A concrete example of this is the fun stories about David and Saul! Because, if you look carefully, you will see King Saul speaking of David as though he has not met him before! Understand this, because it is an answer in your quiver of sons to defend the Word's honor before common objections.

Here it is: 

"And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said unto Abner, the captain of the host, Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell" (1 Samuel 17:55).

And here we have another quote from the past where Saul has been well informed as to David's identity and parentage:

"Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the Lord is with him.

19 Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep" (1 Samuel 16:18-19).

Now, I referred to the past there, and even this should be qualified: for the spiritual matters represented by these stories are in a definite series even if we cannot see it. There is a line of argument behind the enigmatic language of the Word which is perfect and consistent and runs through the apparently disjointed and separated episodes. This is what the New Church means when it refers to something's being "in series". 

But this series or definite and hidden argument within the literal sense is not the same thing as 'the past" in a contemporary novel; it should be understood in this nuanced way.

That is to say, in episodic characterization there is no particularly developed past. You will see some signs of consistency that obviously link other aspects of Saul and David's stories; signs of consistency that are more closely aligned with how modern novels do things. But the episodic characterization element is predominant and the key here.

Here is another example, since one wants this to be very concretely presented. This is the Lord using a character to express a positive spiritual message and a negative spiritual message, not to give us any real grasp of some character in a novel Peter:

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17).

"22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matthew 16:22-23).

Here it is again, this time in the Old Testament:

"I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob,

3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness" (Malachi 1:2-3).

So does this mean the Lord simply has no other setting now than hating Esau? It certainly does not. It means that Esau, which has to do with the will and heart of people, has here been used in the tails position rather than the heads position.

What do we see in the cycle of stories about Esau and Jacob? We see episodic characterization which represents how truth takes the leading role in the first stage of a believer's walk; even as good takes over the leading role in the second stage of a believer's walk.

We first learn all these truths about good and love, sure, and even a great many of them. But putting them into practice is so much thornier than learning those truths about good and love!

It takes time after God says in our lives, "Let there be spiritual enlightenment as to my existence and that of Heaven and Hell and much else" before there is a Sun of Love and Moon of Wisdom worth writing home about.

We start out as Jacob or faith/truth in the understanding, usurping the birthrate of the firstborn which is love in the will; and if we are genuinely trying to practice that faith/truth in the understanding in our actual behavior and inner lives, then we are making that transition between Jacob on top to Esau on top.

Notice the way that Jacob showers Esau with the ancient equivalent of wealth at the end of their relationship and shows every sign of fearful subordination to the new boss.

So we do not see characterological consistency between the "hate Esau" remarks in Malachi and the cycle of stories which expresses the above message; but we do see spiritual consistency, in that the Lord has used a character having to do with the will and the heart (Esau) to express messages about healthy and unhealthy hearts.

It is the same with those verses about Peter above in which he is blessed one moment and then compared to Satan the next! Peter has been very pointedly compared to a stone here in this choice of name that the Lord makes. God thereby indicates spiritual messages about truth and faith and their healthy and unhealthy forms; for Peter and stones both have to do with the truths of faith. 

Armed with information of this kind, you can dispel common objections which project modern standards of character development and narratological consistency onto the Word. You can understand more and defend the Lord's honor thereby.

That way, if we see the same name used positively or negatively in our Writings or the Old and New Testaments, you can be prepared to ask: is this really about characterological consistency? or is it here in the heads position or the tails as to the spiritual message it contains for me and others in relation to love and the thoughts appropriate to love? 

This is why one makes teaching about episodic characterization so recurrent and developed a topic here. Because it is all about getting to know the real Word of God! And having something to say to outsiders other than 'Um' if they ask difficult questions.

You can really leave someone with a new attitude towards the Word, a less automatically dismissive attitude, if you prepare to answer such questions in a sane, spiritually healthy manner.

That is the victory to be had in the fields white with harvest.