What are the distinguishing features of topical textual and expository sermons? What only does the topical sermon get from the text? It gets only its topic. It gets only its topic. And, again, until you do it, it won't make quite so much sense. But the topic is developed according to its nature rather than the text nature, which is to say, let's say I want to do a sermon on gambling, a topical sermon on gambling. And my first major point is, let me tell you about the history of gambling in our culture. Now, is that going to come out of the text? No. So I'm going to develop that subject according to its nature rather than the text nature. The text may mention something about being caught up in the materialism of the world, but it's not talking about the history of gambling in the United States. So a topical message is getting its topic from the text, but it's developing the topic according to its nature rather than the text nature. It could be a doctrinal subject, right? Would talk to you about the nature predestination as it's found in the old and in the new testament. Well, I'm going to be developing it according to the way which is developed across those testaments, but I'm probably not developing it according to one text. That, again, would be a topical message. A textual message gets its topic and what from the text. Topic and main points from the text. This would be a message in which you would get the idea from the text and even the divisions of the idea. These are the things of the world. The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. These things are of the world and not of God. Now those things are not developed in the text, but they are major divisions. So if I would talk about the lust of the flesh, I might say, in the life of David, this took this shape. Now, David isn't discussed in the New Testament in that text. But I'm developing the text according to other texts. So I get the main divisions out of this text, but its developmental features come from other places. That would be a textual message. Now, I don't want to give you the idea that either topical or textual are wrong things. They're just not foundational things the way we're developing. But in history and preaching, both topical and textual messages have a rich history. Finally, expository messages. And you know this already, right? It gets its main point, it gets its proposition, main points, and sub points from the text. So in that expositors ethic, let me tell you what this text says. I'm forced to deal with this text, main points, and sub points come out of this text. Key point of qualification always. Can I go to other texts for further proof or development? Yes, of course. Yes, of course. But I've got to show it here first before I go over there. Okay. How do you know there is more than one right style or attitude with which to preach? How do you know there's more than one right style or attitude? Because all the multiple scriptural terms, the multiple scriptural terms to describe preaching. Some which are quite strong, like epitomato, which has the notion of rebuke strongly, or just the notion of paramuthia, which is comfort. So all those are different scriptural understandings, and we went through many terms of what those are. And then we talked about some basic advantages of expository preaching. You could multiply these many times, but the ones that you mentioned in class are good ones. Authority, that's one reason for expository messages. You're saying what the text says. The expositors ethic is mimicking a guston when the Bible speaks, God speaks. So if I'm clearly saying what the Bible says, I'm speaking with the authority of God. Variety. How does expository preaching help variety? What are you forced to do, Jeremy? You're forced to preach through a text with its ideas more than your own, right? So it can avoid hobby horses. It can avoid just your opinion ruling as it were. So there's authority and variety. There's also discipline Bible learning, discipline Bible learning for whom? For the congregation as well as the preacher. I'm forced to look at the text and say, how do I know what this means? And to work through a text on its own terms so that the Bible is developed clearly in my understanding, I become better able to look at it. Okay. Those were basic thoughts that we had for review. I would encourage you, I don't have them with me today, to look back over broadest. I gave you just in that previous lecture some material out of broadest. Do you have that with you here just while we're getting this on tape? It might be good to see. If you were to look at the material from broadest, remember that that was at the end of the preceding lecture. The things that he said were advantages of expository preaching. This method first, he said better corresponds with the very idea and design of preaching, which is to explain the text. So expository preaching does that with the authority of the text. B, it is the ancient and primitive method. Remember we questioned that a little bit. Maybe, maybe not. It's the ancient primitive ethic to make sure we're saying what the text says. But in terms of the method of expository preaching, do you see that in the history of preaching? Prior to broadest. Very little. Very little. Most of what you saw prior to broadest was topical or textual preaching, not expository. Broadest really kind of gave us a methodology for expository preaching against the German liberalism that was creeping in to North America. See, it ensures a better knowledge of the scriptures on the part of the preacher and hearers and of the scriptures in this connection. In their connection, excuse me, D, it causes sermons to contain more of pure scripture truths and scripture modes of viewing things. Again, opinion is not ruling. Now, his writing, his writing would have been primarily post-civil war. So just post-civil war. And I can't tell you the dates of his death, but prior to the 1900s, he had died. So his primary writing is going to be 1850s with it kind of hitting its stride in the 1870s. And broadest's multiple volumes and additions continue to be the most used homologics text throughout the 20th century. So now, took many different editions. The final ones to his, I'm sure, great shame later on would have been, were taken over by liberals. So the ethic that he was trying to establish, the later editions had varied little reflection of his earlier ethic. So for years, even here, we use what was called the Witherspoon Edition. If you're out at bookstores at times and looking for what's in the legitimate edition of Broadess, the Witherspoon Edition was kind of the classic edition that took Broadess at his best and melted it down. E. Expository preaching gives occasion for remarking on many passages of the Bible, which otherwise might never into into one's sermons. And for getting important practical hints and admonitions, which might seem to some hearers offensively personal if introduced into a topical discussion. But which are here naturally suggested by the passage in hand. Now that's a lot of words, but it's just wonderful pastoral wisdom. He's saying, you can admonish people without seeming to point your finger at them why. You're just preaching the text, you know? Last week you were in chapter one, this week you're in chapter two, it just came up, you know? And so you seem to address things that might be patternally offensive if you had just kind of picked it this week instead of you're just moving through the text. So you can deal with very touchy subjects in a way that is not so personally offensive and yet still has the authority that you need. And then F. Expository preaching greatly diminishes the temptation to misinterpret texts by excessive allegorizing or accommodation. Now again, allegorizing is where you impose on the text what is not there. You begin to spiritualize or say this means something that you can't prove this text means. And the way that usually happens is imposing on an Old Testament text something from the New Testament. Again, you're not taking the text on his own terms, but isa Jesus bringing something in that's not really there. It's somewhere in the Bible, it's just not what this text says. And expository preaching is forcing us to deal with the text on its own terms. Thank you, Dean. Okay, that's kind of pickup from last time. Let's pray and we'll move forward this time. For those of you who are just coming in, let me tell you where we are. We have major traffic problems on the highways today. We have highway 40 shut down in two places. So when I started this morning, we had about a third of the people here. So what I'm doing is I'm just going to pick up lecture 12 and do it again two reasons. One, we didn't get it taped last time. Secondly, we didn't get it finished last time. So it would be redundant a little bit at the beginning, but then we'll pick up toward the end things you haven't had and have times for questions and answer. But I didn't want to go into chat to lectures 13 and 14 with two thirds of the people not here. So people will keep drifting in through the hour, I'm sure, but at this point we're going to pick up and at least get lecture 12 done. The other thing that gives us the advantage of is we won't break lectures 13 and 14 across fall break. They really go together. So we'll have them together if we're not breaking them across fall break. That's all some way of explaining what we're doing today, which is not a full and good explanation, but it's what we need to do. So let's pray and we'll move forward. Father, thank you for your goodness to us. We pray for the many still on the road. Some we recognize frustrated that they're not here. We recognize others just because some frustrated around them may be in some level of danger. Would you protect them, bring them here safely? Equip us even this day we pray again to learn what you intend for us for your word. Father, as we return here next week, we will be on top of our national elections and we are reminded to pray for those in authority over us. We remember a chief justice who has just been struck with cancer. We remember President who will be chosen now this next week who will be responsible for choosing new chief justices. There are many issues of life and justice that will be determined by the president and his choices for Supreme Court judge in the next few years. Father, would you therefore guide our nation? We know that righteousness exalts a nation and we would pray that the one that you would bring and allow that country to elect would be one who would honor your word. But there would be people more and more gathered around him as well who would reflect the principles of the Bible in the way in which justice affects this nation. We father each of us probably have our preferences. But our greatest preference as men and women of God is that you would do what you know is best. For then we would be most blessed. Help us father even if it is a time of great hardship that would turn us back to you to depend upon you and not to look to our circumstances to determine your goodness. But rather to look to the cross. Their father is the character of our God revealed. We would trust you for eternal things and ask your blessing in these temporal things. In Jesus name, amen. As you see the goal for today's lesson, it is to understand the basic nature and process of the explanation component of sermonic exposition. Now here's where we are. We've been creating this homolytic taxonomies we've been going and now we've got a lot of the pieces together. The scripture intro has the CNC. Can you help me remember what the CNC are that go into the scripture into contextualization and creation of longing, which is the harder of the two for us to do? Creation of longing, everybody gets contextualization, give me a little background on the text. But to say why do you need to read this? Why do you need to go into that with me? That's the harder one to say this is important even as we're introducing the text. Sometimes in contextualization number you have asked me what else you do in the scripture intro. You are slicing out the text. You're saying this narrative goes on 78 verses. We're not going to read the whole thing. What we're going to do is summarize a little bit, read a little bit, summarize a little bit more, read a little bit more. And we'll tell people what we're doing and why we're doing it in the scripture intro. We'll alert them that we're going to be doing some summary and paraphrase and then usually reading those key portions significant for the sermon itself. The other thing we can do when we slice out the text is say you know this is a very complicated text and it's got two major issues going on in it. Next week we're going to deal with the second issue. This week we're going to deal with this issue. So that everybody isn't coming to you at the door afterwards and saying why didn't you deal with that? You say well I told you we're going to deal with that next week. So you can sometimes narrow your purpose in the scripture intro by saying this is all we're going to deal with this week even though I know there's more here. Scripture reading, the introduction that we know has various components leading to the proposition that's made up of principle and application. Then the main points that we have said have their components explanation illustration application all leading to a conclusion. The assignment that you turned in had the subpoint statements so this is just this explanation component had the subpoint statements and the conclusion. What we're doing today is we are looking what comes after the subpoint statement still within the explanatory component. So in essence we're saying what happens in that paragraph under the subpoint statement? If every subpoint is roughly about a paragraph of explanation what actually goes into that that meet in those little bones there? What is that material that goes in and acts the explanation component? If we're doing this if we're saying that explanation component is answering the basic question what does this text mean? Then we're trying to both do and avoid certain things. Stop says them pretty quickly he says to expound the text. Remember we don't exposite the text here is stod a homilitation using the correct verb. We don't exposite the text he says to expound that scripture is to bring out of the text what is there and expose it to view. The opposite of exposition is imposition which is to impose on the text what is not there. What are ways that you can impose on the text what is not there? What are ways that you can impose on the text what is not there? Yes. So if you don't understand the meeting you might substitute the meeting that's not really there. So it might be imposing inadequate understanding on the text. What are other ways that you can impose on the text what's not there? You may be importing information from your experience from other texts. Somebody else told you so it's importing things that are not there from your experience or other texts. It's in some way scripture twisting isn't it? You think it means that you say it but it doesn't mean that something else. Very good. It's choosing text based upon what you want to talk about. It may refer to it in some way but as you look at it your opinion rather than the text is what's ruling. So these are good expressions. My experience may rule, opinion may rule, sadly my ignorance may rule, or other texts may rule. Not saying what the text itself says. How do we make sure we're on the right track? One is to think what explanation's purpose is and explanations purpose breaking into two categories. There's a theological purpose for explanation and there is a homological purpose. The theological purpose of explanation is to confront the people of God with the meaning of God's word. Pretty straightforward, just to confront the people of God with the meaning of God's word. But homiletically explanation has greater purposes or maybe we should say not greater but more explicit purposes. What I'm trying to do is to amplify, explain, or prove the main point or the subpoint that I just stated. So this material is to amplify, explain, or prove the statement that preceded it. Pretty straightforward, except remember we said sometimes the tendency even when you are doing forming subpoints is to form something that doesn't support member of the stool, you put the leg somewhere else. So this material may have lots of good information in it that don't directly support the subpoint statement or if there don't happen to be subpoints that don't support the main point statement. More specifically, here's what we're doing, explanation to find. Generally explanation answers what question, what does this text mean? Explanations answering the question, what does this text mean? But more particularly explanation is doing this. It acts as the proof, explanation acts as the proof of the main point or subpoint statement. Explanation acts as the proof of the main point or subpoint statement and the warrant for its application. It's not either or. It's not only explaining what the text says. We always have this effort behind us. My goal is a preacher is not just a data dump. I'm not just a minister of information. I'm a minister of transformation. So as I'm bringing all this information forward, I am trying to say, how can I with this information now exhort you to do what the word of God requires? It's got an end, a tell us or a purpose behind it. Proper explanation is always, therefore, keeping in mind something that happened very early in the intro. And it is the FCF.
As I am dealing with explanation, am I always coming back and saying, I am dealing with the burden of the sermon? Or is it just again that data dump? Am I just giving you information of some sort? Because the main points are dealing with the FCF, the subpoints are supporting the main point, then the information that is supporting the subpoint is itself taking us back to some exhortation that is going to be dealing with the FCF.
Yes. You're doing two proofs. I mean, actually, you said it very well. You're saying, you're trying to say, first, the text, in fact, says what I just said. That's the first proof. This text says what I just said. But the second proof is also as important. I mean, you picked it up just right, is to say, and as a result, I can tell you to do something about it. So you're doing both things. You are, I mean, that's just very aptly said, you are saying, this is what the text means. And I can tell you to do something about it. And I've got the proof of the text, the authority of the text to do that, where I think people get in trouble, particularly when they start preaching is, they're only thinking of the first side. I can prove to you this text means this. It really does support predestination. Great. So what? No. What am I urging you to do on the basis of that? And that has to be part of the text as well. Excuse me, part of the explanation as well that comes out of the text. You see that therefore, therefore explanation is not merely the transmission of information. It is the conscious establishment of the biblical basis for the action or belief the sermon requires of God's people. Gary Vines just has a good way of summarizing this is when you're reading, but it's a good summary. He says this. Some have understood an expository sermon to be a lifeless, meaningless, pointless, recounting of a Bible story. That's actually kind of the knock on expository preaching. Let me just give you a few thoughts on this text, and people give us information on the text. But you know, what's that got to do with me? And that's often the caricature of expository preaching. Vines says, I can still remember a very fine man deliver such a sermon from John 10. He told us all the particular details of a sheepfold in ancient Israel. We were given the complete explanation of the characteristics of sheep. We were informed about the methods of an oriental shepherd. When the message ended though, we were still on the shepherd fields of ancient Israel. We knew absolutely nothing about what John 10 had to say to the needs of our lives today. He says, this is not expository preaching. So Ed, your point well taken. This text means what I just said, but because of what I just said, I can prove to you with the authority of the word you must respond in this way. So the explanation always has in mind both aspects of that. Just to visualize what we just said, do it this way. Up on the overhead, it says, I think in our minds, when we first start thinking of what expository preaching is, we think of ourselves getting all our organization and exegesis and historical literary information, even the illustrations. And we are trying to move this great stone of explanation. I'm trying to get information into people's minds. But expository preaching, even according to Brodus, is actually this. It is saying what I am trying to do is to get the application into people's hearts. Remember the old line, we are not ministers of information, we are ministers of transformation. So I am gathering the explanation organizing it, doing the exegesis, my delivery, everything, is really on the full term of exposition in order to do application. So this explanation component, this meat of the sermon, is not just for information transfer, it is actually to move an idea, this is what God now requires of you, which is actually the scary part of preaching, isn't it? Not just to say, here is what you need to know, but to say, this is what God requires of you now. Yes. Good. Have you got the quiz? Okay, what is it? Good. First we need to say is the answer to or false to that question. No, that's okay, I am happy to do it. Okay, let's say I don't have it memorized at all. So it says an expository message, which one is it? Three, in an expository sermon, subpoint statements must be taken from the expository unit. Let's just say so far, is that true? In an expository sermon, subpoint statements must be taken from the expository unit, is that true? That's true. Now of course the key is the next, and explanatory material following the subpoint statement cannot refer to other passages, is that true or false? That's the false part. So we're saying the subpoint, I mean just to, it helps me sometimes just to visualize it. The subpoint statement has to come from the text. I've got to be able to say that idea is here. Now is I begin to support that material, or excuse me, support that statement. Surely there's going to be some material in the text that supports that statement, because I said that statement came from the text. But there may well be material from other texts that further supports it, and that's legitimate there too. So what we're saying is, to be truly expository, I've got to show the idea originates here. I just didn't create it. But now to support that idea, there must be something here in the text that supports it, but I can corroborate, further prove, build the case further, by other texts as well. What I cannot do is this, however. I cannot say this becomes some aspect of prudence I confess. You know what justification means here in Paul's letter to the Romans? Well, let's look at James. You can't do that. They mean different things. They use different words. So to try to say what Paul means, exclusively, that's a key way of saying it, exclusively by going to James, is going to mess you up. Now you can start with Paul, further with Paul, then you may say, not only we see Paul saying it here, but we know by what he said in the next chapter even more, I can expand my expository unit, and I might even have to go and say, now James uses the word a bit differently, so you don't get confused here. You may go to James and think, that's not what it means. But I want you to know, I know what James says, and he's using the word differently. So you may actually be referring to James within this material to show that's what Paul does not mean, as part of that explanation. But I'm still saying you're nodding, so am I overstating it here? You're still starting here and saying, huh? You got the question right. Good. It is in my mind something that I think at this level does confuse people, honestly. I mean, we've kind of gone over it a few times, and you hear me say it probably, at least once in each of the last three lectures, right? Because what I'm wanting you to feel is just kind of that, again, that expositors ethic to say, let me tell you what this text means. And then now to run over to other texts to do that is going to break that ethic. In fact, it's going to just lead you astray because it's hermitically not sufficiently powerful to let me prove to you, that's what this text says, by going other places. In fact, I can make the text same thing I want by doing that. So I'm trying to take the text on its own authority, prove support other places, but at least start here to show the apostle or prophet's argument in his own terms. So I'm not doing scripture twisting as it were by doing that. So I mean, important notes just under those graphs, or excuse me, under those diagrams, explanation causes exposition. So what I'm doing when I'm explaining here is I'm doing that unfolding of the text, opening up its meeting. Number two, explanation forms the outline point structure of expository sermons. You all asked me this early on. When we're talking about subpoints, going back to our double helix, we're just talking about explanation. The illustration is not a subpoint. The application is not a subpoint. In fact, we'll see just in the next lectures coming up, that the subpoints language actually goes into the illustration and application. So you've got to support and develop them before you get into the illustration application. Because they're actually the instruments by which you're forming illustration application. After all, what are you going to be applying what you prove was here? So you've got to prove it's here so that you can't apply it. And we'll develop that as we go. But it's just reminding you, the skeleton as it were. Those bones that you hang meat on, the bones are the explanation component. The three stages by which we prepare explanation. And for those of you in university training, I've said before, this is very familiar to you. The three stages are observation. Number one, observation. Two is interrogation. Three is restatement. Observation is saying, what's here? Just looking at the text and saying, what's here? Interrogation is saying, what's it mean? And how do I know that? Interrogation is saying, what's it mean? And how do I know that? Restatement is saying, how do I best communicate it? Now that I know what it means, how do I best communicate it to others? Now what we're going to do for the next several minutes is we're going to take those pieces and begin to explode them and talk about their further implications. So under observation, under identifying what's here. The best way to identify what's here is obviously to read the text. And you all smile again when I say it, although you heard it before, but you heard me say last time. I actually have had the awful experience of standing in the pulpit and as I'm reading the text going, oh, I hadn't prepared to deal with that. Because what I'd done was, I'd begin to focus on a narrow part of the text that I wanted to talk about. And now, when I actually was forced to read the text completely and all together, suddenly I was aware that I hadn't dealt with all that was there. So as simple and easy as it seems to say, the way which we identify what's here is we read the text. We absorb its particulars, we try to get captured by its thought, we try to have it control us rather than vice versa. Spurgeon's famous quote, he said, get saturated with the gospel. I always find I preach best when I can manage to lie a soak in my text. I don't know if it's a very pleasant image to think of Spurgeon sitting in a tub, but anyway, is that I lie a soak in my text. I like to get a text and find out its meanings and bearings and so on. And then after I have bathed in it, I delight to lie down in it and let it soak into me. So I just love the notion of being a sponge and letting the scripture just soak into you. And recognize that that happens primarily as we just let it come. Read, reread, read again. Do I really understand what that text says and am I letting it control me? The second aspect of observation beyond reading the text is to identify the text features, to identify the text features. And when we're reading, we're trying to say, what is here by saying, what words are being repeated? What does that name mean? Do I know what that destination or that city is? Those of you in Ivy training, you were taught observations to use the five W's and the H. What are they? Who, what, when, where, why, how? Who, what, when, where, why, how? Five W's and the H as the way of doing the observation. Now, it folds a little bit into the next piece which is interrogation. Once we're identifying what's here, we say, what does it mean? And particularly as preachers, we're involving these subsidiary questions which is, how do I know? How do I know it means that? And how can I communicate it to others? How can I know it in such a way that others can know? Now what I'm about to do in interrogation is give you one, two, three, four, five, major forms of explanation that again fill up this meat under these bones of subpoints. So what are types of things that we do in these paragraphs under the subpoints? What are the types of things that we do in the paragraphs under the subpoints? How do we, in essence, say, this is what that text means. First way that we show what the text means is by plain statement of the text. In other words, if I say, what does it mean when Jesus says, pray and do not give up? What does that mean? It means pray and do not give up. Plain statement of the text. If plain statement of the text is the way that I'm explaining the text, then the form of explanation is simply repetition. Right? If plain statement of the text is going to make it plain, then what's actually going under the subpoint is mere repetition of the text. It may be some paraphrase, but it's merely repeating. Now, how often will that work for you? You've heard me say before. How often will it work that restatement of what the text says is the way that you would be explaining it? How often will you do that? I think 80% of that's strange. You say, well, why am I in seminary then? Well, because there are other things to do in that 20% of the time. But a lot of the time, the shortest distance between two points, what you know and what they can know, is simply repeat what the text says. Point that portion of the text that will support that subpoint statement. Now, the second major thing that happens in explanation to make clear that that subpoint is in the text is pointing to context features. We're explaining the context of the text. My little rubric again is context is part of text. People sometimes think, can I mention what's around the text and the answer is, of course, if Paul's in prison, it's going to explain a lot of what he's saying and how he's saying it. If we're in the Passover service, you're knowing what the different cups mean, explains what Jesus is doing, as he distributes the elements for the Lord's supper. So context features. Two forms of them. You already know these right. Literary context. You might talk about what genre is it. Is it poetry? Is it a proverb? If it's a proverb, it's not a promise. All that sort of thing. Surrounding verses or chapters. Surrounding verses or chapters. Or maybe author commentary. What's the author saying in a preceding chapter that may bear on this or how has gotten himself commenting in other places on this? The other main form of context beyond literary context is historical context. Historical context. What are the events, the people, the ethnography? You know, one of the famous books dealing with the New Testament is the life and times of Jesus the Messiah. Eater Shime. That for a generation just told people what they didn't know about the life and times of Jesus. So they would talk about when the disciples were going through the fields and they were taking the corn and husking it in their hands saying, what are they talking about there? To begin to talk about how wheat, not corn in our explanation, was actually what they were doing and how they would take the husk off and then eat the kernels. Well, if you didn't have Eater Shime to help explain to you what was going on, you might not make sense to you what was being said there. So understanding the life and times of the people is part of the historical context. What you're expecting everybody expects that explanatory material to be is the third major component and that's exegesis. Exegesis. In which case again, this material that goes in here is giving your exegetical insight, what exegetical insight proves that subpoint statement. And here I have five possibilities of how we do exegesis. There could be many more but these are ones that we do over and over again. The first form of exegesis that's very common is definition. We may give a definition of what that original language term meant often in our contemporary terms. Sometimes in theological explanation, how does propitiation differ from expiation? Propitiation meaning a substitute to turn away wrath versus expiation, a turning aside of wrath. It's slightly different, but very important nuance difference that people may need to know between key biblical terms. So I may need to give definition grammatical insights. It's another form of exegesis giving the tense, the gender, the case, the mode, the modifiers. In Luke, Jesus says to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the reason that we know that there is a resurrection is that God said to Moses. I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Now that's Jesus' own proof for the resurrection. How is that proof for the resurrection? I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The tense, it's present tense. I still am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus actually uses an exegetical argument of the present tense to prove the resurrection. It may be important for you to know that in Galatians 5, the language is singular when it says the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, loving kindness. What do you often hear people say in just common language? They don't say the fruit of the Spirit. What do they say? The fruits of the Spirit, they say it plural. Well, you know what happens when you make it plural? You can create a dodge for yourself. The reason I am not kind is I don't have that spiritual fruit. I have the spiritual fruit of patience, but I don't have the spiritual fruit of kindness. What have you done? You've made these multiple different fruits, but Paul in Galatians says it's all one fruit. Those who have this spirit display all of these things, not this or that. You have all of these characteristics. So you can't dodge, and say I'll take this one and not that one. But there you're simply saying there it's a plural or singular, an exegetical insight that allows you to make some exhortation based on it. Three under exegesis that we will do is we'll do comparison passage usage. Comparison passage usage. We'll look at various places and say, how is this used elsewhere? Or Paul actually uses this word only once? What's another way of doing it? Paul uses the word 13 times in the book of Philippians. The frequency of a word. Or the way it's used other places will sometimes give us insight. Not only looking at that in the original languages, but number four under exegesis is we'll do comparison translations. Don't you hear pastors do this all the time? The NIV says it this way, but the SESV adds this richness. Can you help me just remember this? Help me help you? Is it wise to say the NIV really messed up here? Tell me what happens when you speak that way to people. Say again, Rob. Okay, first of all, it creates doubt about they don't under people normally are not thinking about this translation that I'm looking at being a translation of the word of God. They're thinking, oh, this is the word of God. And what do the preachers just say to me? It's messed up. So I have questions like, oh, it must be messed up other place. How do I know where else it's going to be messed up? What else happens when most of us young people in this room stand up and say these translators really messed up. What else happens? It looks like arrogance. It just plainly looks like arrogance. And so, you know, the Bible's messed up and I'm arrogant. Isn't this a wonderful pastoral approach? Tell me a way to compare translations to actually help people have further trust in the Bible and further appreciate you. What is a way of saying these translations differ but I want to tell you something good about that. How can you say it? Yes. Thank you. This translation even expands our understanding. We gain even an richer understanding by. You know, we even learn more by looking at. You see all the positive ways you can say this as opposed to they're wrong to simply say we gain more understanding and therefore actually feed people's need to know more and desire to know more. The last aspect of exegesis is structural or linguistic patterns. We may point out structural or linguistic patterns. We looked at this in the Sermon on the Mount. How does Jesus indicate his change of subject in the Sermon on the Mount? You have heard it said, but I say unto you, you have heard it said that a man who commits adultery sins, but I say to you a man who even looks at a woman with lust in his heart is already committed adultery. It's the last major giving of the law and is the highest reading of the law. As Jesus not only says what behavior is wrong but is what in your heart wrong as well. That too is going to be judged by God. The reason the Sermon on the Mount occurs so early and by the way how we often take it out of context is we read the Sermon on the Mount as the perfect law of God for the kingdom, therefore you just go do it. Jesus was giving the highest and perfect law of the kingdom so that you would know something. What? You can't do it. Therefore, who must you turn to? Somebody other than you? You must now look to my ministry. So granted it is all the right moral instruction, but if all we've done is just stopped right there, we have not presented the text in its context. What was its intention? What is Jesus doing as he gives this last and highest reading of the law in terms of pointing to his ultimate purposes of redemption? Well, other things we know that Hebrew poetry sometimes follows across some of you have already had some Hebrew in exegesis. How is Hebrew poetry formed? Does it rhyme? Hebrew poetry is not rhyme. What is its form of organization? Why is it poetry? What does it do? He uses parallelism. You want to know what one phrase says? Look at the one ahead of it. It typically will say it a slightly different way, but if you don't understand what this phrase says, you know, look just before just after it because there's going to be some parallelism usually that reflects the meaning of that phrase. It may be, you know, sometimes it may be a contradictory meaning. Sometimes it may be a furthered meaning, but always the way in which the poetry is functioning is tandem statements of chiastic structure, and so knowing that may be part of your explanation. Another form of exegesis is, excuse me, not exegesis, another form of interrogation and explaining is expert witness. So far we've got plain statement of the text, context factors, exegesis, now expert witness, two forms of witness, human commentary, and divine commentary. Human commentary and divine commentary. Human commentary is, I'm going to explain this text means by quoting Calvin, quoting Hendrickson, quoting some other human commentator. What's divine commentary mean? Where you might you look for God to say what this means? Where does God explain Isaiah 714 in Matthew 2? Sure. If God is going to say, how do you know that Alma and Isaiah 714 means virgin versus young maiden? Well, look in Matthew. So there may be divine commentator commentary which is looking at other texts. E is logical proof. So plain statement of the text, context features exegesis, expert witness, and then I may also simply say here is logic that will prove what I'm meaning to say. Now again, there are infinite variations of logical proof, infinite ways that you could do this, but here's three basic ones, cause an effect, cause an effect. The Bible itself says the gospel is true in terms of Christ's resurrection because so many people witness to it and the church grew so fast. So Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 15 is saying this is how you know the resurrection is true. People you still know say it happened. So there's logical cause an effect that's being explained. There may be evidential proof, not only cause an effect, but bringing evidence forward. Some of you may remember from last time Romans 826, many people say that the groanings that are mentioned in Romans 8 are ecstatic tongues speaking in tongues, but the groanings are used three times. Two times what do they refer to the whole creation groans as in the pains of what childbirth waiting for its redemption and the redemption of our bodies. So the groanings are not described as ecstatic language. What are they described as? The crying out pains of childbirth, those kinds of groanings. So it's unlikely that when you talk about the spirit speaks for us with groanings too deep to utter that it's talking about ecstatic language because the very word has been used twice already to talk about screaming, great pain and not ecstatic language within the same passage. Number three, another form of logical proof is necessary implication, necessary implication. That I say the reason you know this means something is it's a necessary implication out of the text. Why do I say that you must be born again before you can believe. What does much of our culture say you must believe in order what to be born again, but what did Jesus say to Nicodemus unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God until he is born again until the spirits at work in him he cannot see the things necessary to believe. So born again regeneration has to proceed justification rather than the other way around justification leading to being born again believing in order for those things to occur. Now you can multiply those things many times but here's what we're saying I'm just trying to help you feel as it were and when you look at the sermon that's in your booklets and many other sermons when you see these sub points and you begin to look at the paragraphs of material under them you'll see that these things are what's going on. Some detailing context repeating the text itself giving some exegesis giving some historical background giving logical proof that's the material that goes into that meat of the paragraph under the sub point statement. Sub point statement summarize it this is the material that supports the sub point. I think a lot of that's just common sense but when you begin to say all right where do we do these things in the sermon this is where we do them under the sub points typically is where a lot of that information that that's why you go to seminary comes. Bill yeah yes that's a great question let me do it for the tape when you sometimes you get divine commentary in the New Testament that's commenting on the Old Testament. And you end up preaching on both texts is that a bad thing to do in answers no that's not a bad thing to do. You may actually for the expository unit now again think of that language not just text but for the expository unit you might actually declare both texts to be your expository unit. I did a sermon about two weeks ago in which I was preaching from numbers but I very much needed first Corinthians to comment on that so I wanted both to be my text. So I'm saying Paul is saying this means this so when I read this I want you to see Paul's direct commentary now that's not isegesis okay I'm still using the authority of God to say this is what this means but here Paul is specifically saying he's commenting on Christ is the rock. So I want to know how the rock is reflected in Paul so I do both or maybe I'll starting numbers and I'll say later on we understand how Paul is dressing this and I may bring it out later in the text. That's a little different than on my authority using a text to explain a text where the Bible itself is not bringing the two together make sense so where the Bible has made this reflection. You know time you almost feel I can't explain it without bringing in both texts you know I need them both in order to do what the Bible says. Let's go quickly on Russell or linguistic patterns there could be sure there could be for instance someone 19 you could say what's the context of it well it's a it's a seven full repetition of the Hebrew alphabet that's its context at the same time that's part of its pattern to so when you say what's happening well I know that the idea of the law of God being perfect is repeated actually in two different places. So I recognize in the second place part of the context is what's already occurred but it's also the pattern of what's occurring so yes there could be I guess in many of these things there could be kind of an infolding of the different distinctions I don't think be almost between exegesis and pattern you know how you could really differentiate those entirely there's going to be categories that implode in those things. Sure. The little note at the bottom of the page realize you can't do all the forms of exposition in any one main point but that would be a long sermon. Do you remember we had the preaching lectures last week and it was even though in the Westminster directory of worship that the person who by the way was Stephen Phillips who was actually writing for what we should do in preaching he said don't feel that you have to prosecute every interesting language prosecute every doctrine of the text. And you don't have to use every method how do you know which method to use by the way if you say I've got all these alternatives by which to make something clear which methods should I use okay thank you lots of things to weigh here isn't what's the most efficient. To make the text plain but also to prove what I need to so maybe the nature of the audience the nature of the text my goal is to be as efficient as possible and once I have proven it to move on not to keep using other methods so I used the one that's. You know most effective and then the and then move on as we go on to restatement which is that last aspect how can I best communicate the meaning this is what we didn't get to in our lecture last time so if you're wanting to start catching up here's where you are how can I best communicate the meaning the three of these first organize. Then be is going to be crystallize and see is memorabilize how can I best communicate things organize crystallize memorabilize organize to points of this usually are we seek to sequence and subordinate to organize we sequence and subordinate we sequence so that we can cover the territory. We sequence so that we can cover the territory have I covered all the verses are you going to cover them all equally by the way. No you can't you have to make the credential choices what needs to be addressed but I still need to make sure that I cover the territory subordinate that is I prioritize what really needs to be addressed. At greater length and what doesn't need a lot of explanation now what you're trying not to do is this this is just one of my favorite cartoons on preaching this is what you're trying not to do the pastor says. Now verse 33 is one of the most difficult and controversial passages in the whole Bible so let's go to verse 34. That's that's when you know you have not covered the territory and it's tempting at times you know because there's there are things that you know you say man and I just don't have time or that's going to be hard to just just move on but of course when you cover the territory it's particularly with respect to problem aspects. What's going to cause people to hang up you just know you got to spend more time there particularly with regard to problem aspects we cover the territory by how we organize B is crystallize that's trying to be as efficient as possible we crystallize our material that is we will divide what is lengthy. We will group what is numerous now you've been in those passages right where there are lists you know the fruit of the spirit would be one example. Or you might deal with the lost parables in Luke 15 and you say there are too many things for me to cover here sequentially so I may find ways to group things together I may have to deal with the brothers who are the things that are lost and the things that are found in Luke 15. Now granted there are many things lost but I may have to group them if I want to deal with the whole chapter and deal only with the things that are found later so maybe a two point message though I recognize there's lots more sequence there Aaron. I think when you're when you are identifying your expository unit if you've got a verse that you know is particularly problematic and it's going to distract from what you want to address in the sermon. That in your scripture intro it is a place to say folks I know that verse three which talks about the unforgivable sin is a very difficult passage. We're going to get to that next week for now this week what we're going to deal with is the assurance that we have in things that are clearly forgivable. Now what I've done is I've sliced out I've said I know this is a problem and we're going to deal with it later so you know allow me at this point just to deal with these assurances that we have. We will come back to this another time where you'll get in trouble if you never get back to it. They'll say wait you know you gave me a false read here. So I think you can slice out narrow your purpose and be fine as long as you've clearly told people why you're narrowing and how you're going to deal with the fact that you narrowed it. After organized and crystallized the third aspect of restatement is memorable eyes just put a just put a hyphen and an eyes at the end it's a made up word right. Why did I make it up it's known as a neologism and it's one of the forms of putting things in memory okay to make it stick in some way. So the way I did is by putting eyes at the end of these three distinctions of restatement organized crystallize and memorable eyes. When I use the word memorable eyes it's an example of what I'm trying to say. You know one of the one of the things that is a mark of really great preachers is they love to communicate. They just love doing it. They love watching people's lights go on. They love learning the tools that make things kind of stick in people's memory. And when we organize beyond just academically saying what's in the text but I really want this to stick with you a bit. I want this to make an impression what we are trying to do is to find ways of making the outline stick in people's memory. So as we are wording main points and sub points so far you've concentrated on using key terms right. We've had parallel statement with key word changes but what we will begin to do over time is learn ways of making those key words stand out. What are some ways that you can make key words stand out kind of people go oh I know that's another key word. What are ways that we do that what's the classic way. Alliteration. That those key words start with the same letter. So that's at least the same consonant. A slight difference is asinance where they start with the same vowel. But the idea they start with the same letter. In this particular outline just gave to you it didn't start with the same sound what it ended with. It ended with the same sound. Organized crystallized memorable eyes was another way of just making it stick. Strong graphical images. Satan's ways are a web. Satan's ways are a trap. Satan's ways are a cliff. Strong graphical expression is another way of trying to make things memorable. So once you get beyond kind of feeling like oh no I've got to use the very words of the text when I make my outline. You begin to say no I'm obligated to the truth of the text. Many times the words of the text will help me do that. I'll say something. I'll tell people look at the text. They'll look down they'll see those same words. That's great. But other times I'm actually using new words not necessarily created words but new words to make the truth stand out in people's minds and then supporting it with the material of the text. So great communicators not only know sometimes they got a group stuff together sometimes they've got to break things apart but always are trying to say how can I really make this stick in your mind. And that's calling upon us not being only academic but creative. This is where preaching starts to take on its artistic form too. How can I really make this stick in a way that actually gives me some joy to see the lights going on when you hear it? Explanations progress. Having talked about creativity. Let's just talk about simple things that are going on when we explain things. There are two steps of explanations progress. So even though we've said there's a subpoint and material that gums under it. If you were to actually break this down conceptually here's what's happening. You are saying state what the text means. That's what the subpoint statement is. You state what it means and material under that is you show how you know. So even though we've gone through all these different material of different forms of exegesis and context really all we're doing is we're saying state what the text means show how you know. That's what's happening in the sermon. Now that's the progress of the thought. Here's the way that we actually present it and that's item V. There are three stages of explanation presentation in the typical main point. You could actually put subpoint as well in your notes there. Here's what we do. The first aspect here which is number one we state the truth. Then we place the truth. You'll hear the preacher say something like look with me in verse two it says. So I state the subpoint statement then I place the truth. Look in the text where that is. Now if it's a context feature I'll say the way we know this is because Paul was in jail. So I place him in jail. I place where I got knowledge. Where did I get that knowledge? State the truth. Place the truth and the number three is prove the truth. State place prove. State place prove. Just a little hints here. What is the hardest thing in academic training to do of those three things? State place prove which is the one that we usually forget. It's place. It's place. We state a truth and then we just start running off with our explanation of doctrine. We just start rolling. Instead of saying where does the text say that? So as you are preparing your sermons you know if you could kind of almost highlight in your notes right now I will just tell you that's the most common trip. Is people will state something that's true somewhere in the Bible and then they will begin explaining it but they will have never shown look with me in verse two. Right in the middle of the verse it says to place it and yet it's the very thing people are hanging on the edge of their seats to have you do. So they're all saying at the end of the sermon but where was that in the text? Right. You're all nodding because you said that to preachers right. But where was that in the text? So state the truth then place it. Now when you do that you put such high hermitatical obligations on yourself that you almost cannot but speak with authority. Here's what I said. There's where the text says it. Now prove to you the text says that. Once you've placed it in the text you have very high authority for the things that you say Ed. Sure. So let's yeah sometimes the Ed asked doesn't the subpoint sometimes ask or answer the question why? Which did you say? Answer the question. Sure. So if I've got a main point and I may actually have an analytical question which is a why question. So the main point might say we can trust God for some reason and then the question is why should we trust God. Subpoint may say well first he knows what's going to happen. So it can be it but I'm still going to say look with look at verse two it says that. So I'm still going to be answering it and then I'm going to be showing where in the text that answer is and then prove that that answer is there. You're not just elaborating on the main point you're supporting or proving the main point exists within the text material. Okay. So listen it's a little rubric but if you get it it just almost makes preaching easy state place prove state place prove. Once you hear that you know how we've already this semester you've begun to think oh I never really thought of sermons being explanation illustration application but once you hear that you start listening to sermons you start hear that pattern. Once you hear this pattern state place prove you will hear it in sermons over and over again my pastor's doing that he's saying something's true he's pointing to the text and saying that's where it is and now he's proving it and once you see that you kind of go I think I can do this. Now I see how this is going it's not just a long essay it's an essay that's proving what the text says in its particular places so state the truth place the truth prove the truth becomes a very standard pattern. After we've done those things we will also illustrate and apply the truth but we state place prove and then in a classical order and we'll vary this some later but in a classical order then we'll illustrate the truth and apply the truth. So I'm just small reiterations for us number one as you're thinking about pulling together your outlines for your major sermons for the semester the anchor clause as we reiterate some small things. The anchor clause is established just before or after the proposition possibly early in the first main point so when you're doing main points you know that the sub points are about the developmental clause the magnet clause. So the still the question hangs where do we develop the anchor clause where do you develop the anchor clause just before or after the proposition or early in the first main point because it's the foundation of all it follows. If it's going to take you five paragraphs to prove the anchor clause should it be the anchor clause no too much material behind it so the anchor clause is usually something pretty obvious pretty plain from the text is the foundation for the rest of the things that you'll now be explaining. There are two very similar the developmental clause becomes the magnet clause that is the side that's changing for the remaining exposition the exposition within the main points focuses on the developmental phrases distinctives the developmental phrase acts as the magnet attracting the exposition which means what the sub points are about which anchor clause or magnet clause they're about the magnet clause. So the sub points are about the magnet clause and then three lengthy explanation is developed with sub points that support or prove the magnet statement of the main point. The explanation is supported by sub points that prove the magnet clause if your explanation has gone on for two paragraphs do you need sub points. The ear will usually say yes your eye will not say yes it's a strange thing again it's different in an essay and a sermon your eye will say well that's easy to read I can go through that but the ear typically will need road signs through that material. So if you've just got a main point without sub points and you've got a long paragraph of explanation under that main point you're okay but if you've got two or three paragraphs you need sub points. Let's do it some things. Domain points have to have sub points they don't they don't but if you've got one sub point what do you have to have at least at least one more all right if you only had one sub point what should it have been. It should have been the main point now very important if you have an interrogative sub point if you have an interrogative sub point. It should be worded in parallel with the other question sub points right what also should be worded in parallel as well as the questions. The answers because the real sub point is the answer. So when you're saying state place prove what you're really placing is not the question you're placing the answer here's where that answer is in the text. And the thing that we will see very shortly is it is the answer that will then be developed in the illustration and the applications that's why the answers need to be in parallel they're actually holding the concept that's most key. That will then go into the illustration when you do bullet sub points it'll be playing to you right because everything leave parallel except the keyword change. But when you do interrogative it might not be as clear to you that's why the answers need to be in parallel as well as the questions because the answers hold the key terms that will go into illustration application question again and again. If you're preaching regularly here's my hint turn it into a question if it is goddess sovereign therefore we should trust him with today goddess sovereign should we get trust him with tomorrow. But turn the anchor clause into a question what's another implication of god being sovereign we can trust him we'll actually do it next semester. We'll take that anchor clause and we'll start turning into a transitional question and then you'll feel the flow works better it'll also shorten down that main point. But we won't do it here yet we'll get our habits down and then we'll start varying in many ways.