If you were thinking about midterm questions, the first one on your review is what are three major components of exposition, so three major components of exposition, evident in Old Testament models that were systematized in synagogue worship patterns reflected in the New Testament. That's a very long question that says, what pattern do you see established in the Old Testament that continues into the New Testament for presenting and preaching biblical texts? You have presentation of the word, then what? Explanation of the word and then exhortation based on the word. Remember that pattern that you saw from Nehemiah that picks up and moves through? So you have presentation of the word, explanation of the word, and then exhortation based upon the word. Now that's those components of biblical pattern that follow through. The next question, what are three essential components of exposition? So now you're just looking at that explanation component, right? So what are three essential elements of exposition that are to be included in every main point, and we, of course, have to say, of a formal traditional sermon we recognize this will be varied, but if you're looking at a formal main point, you have what? Always included explanation, illustration, application, explanation, illustration, application of the three formal elements. And the next question is very, which I say stereotypical, and we have to acknowledge that, what is the proportion of these expositional elements for a general audience? You know, that's kind of saying for a very generic sermon, what proportion would explanation, illustration, application have? A third, a third, a third, but of course, the next question is even more critical, which is, how may a double helix represent the expositional structure of a sermon's main points and how may this structure vary depending on target audience? Which means, of course, explanation, illustration, application may do what? Very tremendously. So if you're looking at that double helix, those bubbles may swell or shrink accordingly to the nature of the subject, the nature of the audience, the nature of view, all the nature of the situation. So many variables there that we recognize. I will just tell you straight out almost every year, I simply ask for people to reproduce the double helix and begin to explain its components. Okay, so we're going to keep adding to it, but it's very common that I'll say, all right, tell me what the components are, tell me how they vary, and we will see they get more involved as we go, but it's very common that I ask people to reproduce that. And then just to get us into today, it's not on your questions, but I think you'll have it in your brain. To distinguish, it's often important to distinguish the scripture intro from the what, the sermon intro. The scripture intro is introducing the scripture, the sermon intro is introducing the sermon, and sometimes we confuse those two things. It's where we actually deaden the beginning of the sermon by confusing those two elements. To let you know where we are and where we're going, I think you recognize next week are the preaching lectures. So let me give you a quick schedule there again. The preaching lectures start actually on Tuesday morning. So Tuesday morning in chapel at 930, so that's the first of the preaching lectures. Alistair Begg will be the one who is here and Alistair will be speaking on Tuesday morning, that's at 930. Then Wednesday, you remember that classes are called off and all day long is the preaching conference, and everybody who's in a homolytics course through the semester is required to come. So those are the times again, chapel is at 830 that morning, so the chapel period starts at 830 on Wednesday, 830 to 11 is the first lecture series portion, then 1030 to 12, lunch is 12 to 1, and then 130 to 3. So it's pretty much the entire school day starting from 830 and going to 3 with an hour's lunch break. So again, that's Alistair Begg now. You have work assignments, you can't come, etc. They will be reproduced on tapes for you to receive. You will be tested on that material though, just so that you need to be aware that that will be part of the midterm is you're being tested on the material that's presented in the preaching lectures. So if you absolutely cannot come again because classes are not being held, the assumption is that people can come, most of you, but if you can't, the tapes will be made available to you. So that's next Tuesday and Wednesday, and then a number of people were asking about Tim Keller. Tim is actually speaking at the pastor's conference, which has gotten so large that we've had to do it off campus, but we will ask him to come and speak on Thursday morning and actually host a special chapel for students who are not able to go out to the pastor's conference because we've had to move it off campus. We've asked Tim to come on Thursday morning and there will be a special chapel, not usually scheduled for Thursday mornings, but when which we hear Tim Keller then on Thursday morning as well. So that's coming, actually, it looks like it's tremendous week ahead, so that's a great blessing to have them in town. Michael, good question. Do you have to sign up for the Wilson lectures? No, unless you're doing it for a separate credit. There are very few people who take it for elective credit and they have extra assignments to do. So unless you're signing it for elective credit, no, you just attend and you do not have to sign up. If you're going to the pastor's conference, that not only you sign up, there are registration fees, et cetera, if you're participating in the pastor's conference, I think some of that's been in your boxes and you may know more details than I do on that. But again, you don't have to sign up for Tim Keller on Thursday morning, he'll be here for us. But Michael, that's right. The Thanksgiving break is you're planning for it. I mean, we just can't cancel classes on both sides of that. So we will continue to have class on both sides of the Thanksgiving break, is the way to say it. Thanksgiving break starts Thursday and we will be doing devotionals, that's the sequence that we will be in, where we will actually be broken into small sections and being devotional, doing devotionals, presenting to each other across the campus. So in order for us to sequence, we need to keep that in effect at this point. Now, I think what I said was if you know you absolutely have to be gone, then you'll have to make sure you trade with someone if you happen to be scheduled to be speaking on that day. Does that make sense? On the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, if you're scheduled to be a speaker on that day, you'll have to be careful of trade with someone. Well, I'm sorry, the Thanksgiving break is Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. So there's no classes in that period, right? There's no classes Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. So there's no classes. It's the Wednesday that I typically get concerned about, that people make their travel plans to get away at that point. And I'm saying, you know, I can't say never don't do that, but I'm saying there will be assignments due on that Wednesday because people have to be preaching to one another on that day. Well, it wouldn't be the day after Thanksgiving, it would be the Wednesday following, right?
The way people often work, I know this would never happen with anybody in this class. But the way people think is I got this four days in the middle of that week, why not just take the whole week? And that's what I'm saying you can't do. I mean, you can do, but there will be consequences because you won't be able to get your assignment done because we are speaking to one another and being graded on that on the Wednesday before and what would then be the Wednesday after Thanksgiving.
It's just regular chapel time. It starts just during regular chapel time. The Thursday is it. Ah, good question. I don't know. Correct. There is chapel the next Friday as well, but you know, that's a good question. I don't know what anybody know this, anybody from student services in here at the moment? No, I actually don't know what on that special chapel that was I was told was on Thursday. I just assumed it was at the normal time, but I don't know that for sure. So it's got to dodge classes somehow. So whatever it is, it's a sequence after the class time. Let's pray and we'll move forward here. Father, we call you our Lord and Master. We do so because you give us direction and requirements, but you also provide what you require. So you are not merely our Master, but our Redeemer. And we would ask this day that you would teach us to be dependent on you. Not merely for matters great and the times of extremity, but Father, in the ordinary course of life, this class period, what we do the rest of this day, what we think about as we are preparing these messages for your people long-term. Would you help us even in our hearts now to be saying, Lord, don't send us up to do this task if you don't go with us. Send your spirit even now to equip us for the purposes to which you call us. We ask your aid, your blessing, your enablement through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Here's what we're doing today. Under the goal for the lesson is to understand the basic subdivisions and the key there is the word sub. We're understanding the basic subdivisions of a sermon in standard expository development. Just to give you the big picture of where we have been and where we are going, it's this. We're zooming in from where we've been, right? We start by saying, what's the general nature of preaching the word of God? What's the nature of the servant of the word of God? What's the idea? What's in the text? What's the text like? What are rules and ideas for selecting text? Then tools for interpreting the text, but at some point we had to start dealing with the text, and so we began constructing sermons which we said are taking that exogetical material that comes out of the exogetical outline and other research and beginning to unfold it into a homological outline. And we've seen the structure take some form now over the course of these weeks in which we recognize that there is a scripture reading and the preaching is based upon that reading of the word. There's also, we learned last time, now, a scripture introduction and we begin to move in an taxonomy here and get terms to deal with the anatomy of the sermon so we know that the scripture intro actually has elements in it like the CNC. Remember contextualization and creation of longing. It's fairly brief but we're trying to get people into the reading of the word. We know that after the reading of the word there will be an introduction and this is the sermon introduction and we begin to recognize this itself had various components like it was to arouse attention, introduce the subject, make an identifiable F-C-F, prepare for the proposition and concept and terminology and bond description. So we recognize there were these various components of the introduction which was getting us ready for the proposition and the proposition we recognize had its own components. It was a component of what is true and what to do about it. Remember principal plus application so the proposition had its own components. Now we begin to look at the body of the sermon and we begin doing that by just thinking of the skeleton, the main point structures so we see that there are these big ribs as it were of the sermon of this main point structure but then we say we've got to define the meat that's going into these bones here so we begin to look at main points and we recognize they have a configuration themselves and we described it as this double helix which was explanation, illustration and application. We know that these components can flip they don't have to be in that standard order they usually are but they don't have to be explanation illustration application. And where we are today is this, we're now doing some micro surgery and we're going right into there and we're saying what are the components of the explanation? So what are the components of that piece right there and begin to think of them? Of course we know later on we'll be looking at the components of illustration and application but for today we are going to look at the components of the explanation particularly it's minor ribs okay so we're going to be beginning to look at kind of the some of the filamental structure as it were in the sub points and that pretty much gets us ready by the way just for a page two of your outline that you're reading with me today so everything that I was just saying is those divisions of the sermon reviewed okay that's what that material was that I was just drawing in picture form for us here and you see then we are ready now to begin analyzing the divisions of explanation within the main points but I do want to back up just a little bit before we go in and begin to look at that filamental structure and remind ourselves what are the guidelines for the main point divisions themselves so as we think of these big pieces we need to think again the strategy that we were dealing with when we consider the number and nature of the main points there'll be three of these okay so things that we need to consider for the number and the nature of main points now again you're going to hear it and you're going to go of course I mean these are these are kind of common sensical things but they help us get ready for thinking about what sub points are so the first thing is this in determining the number and nature of main points we use the number of divisions necessary we use the number of divisions necessary to present the thought of the passage key phrase here is present the thought we use the number divisions necessary to present the thought of the passage so whatever is necessary to get the thought of the passage in front of us that's how we're choosing the number we've said there could be three point messages that's kind of standard but we know there can be two point messages there can be four or more point messages sometimes we'll discover later that can be one point messages but we'll choose the number of divisions necessary to present the thought of the passage number two we'll use the number of divisions necessary to cover the territory we'll use the number of divisions necessary to cover the territory the expositors ethic is to open the Bible and say let me tell you what this passage says let me tell you what this passage means now when I do that if I say so I'll explain verse one and I'll explain verse two I'll explain verse four now explain verse five what did I just fail to do I didn't explain verse three that's what covering the territories about the passage that I present as the expository unit I will cover that territory because I'm said to you as an expositor I will explain what this means and if you just skip portions then you can't do that now does that mean you cover every portion equally no some is going to need a lot of attention some will need a little attention right some you might take three verses and group it into one main point you might take another verse and divide it into four sub points you know it will vary the amount of attention you feel is needed to explain the passage but the goal is to cover the territory the old language and you'll still see it in a lot of homologous textbooks is to exhaust the passage that was the old language why is that a little problematic to our ears so when you look at the text you should exhaust the passage the answers you might exhaust the people that's true we I mean we typically think about the inexhaustible riches of the word of God right that you're never going to get to the bottom of it you'll never plum the full depths but that really wasn't what the old language meant it really meant cover the territory so that's what we're going to mind ourselves to do as well is cover the territory now both of these were about presenting the thought of the passage and covering the territory of the passage the third reason that we determine the number of nature of main points is this we use the number divisions necessary to organize the thought of the sermon we use the number divisions necessary to organize the thought of the sermon present the thought of the passage cover the passage but now we have to organize the thought of the sermon itself so there's the the communicative obligations as well and that organization will be things like I need to choose the number to make the number of points necessary to make this logical and proportional and progressive I'll choose the number of points necessary to make the sermon logical proportional and progressive proportional because we don't want one main point to last 30 seconds and the next one to last 30 minutes okay it needs to be roughly you know not exact but roughly proportional and to not feel like we're just stuck in one place that we're progressing as we move through the message so we choose the number divisions necessary to make the sermon logical proportional and progressive but now I think you begin to feel if I'm a 30 minute message or so then having these main points coming every eight to ten minutes they made themselves get lost how do I connect these pieces and the answer is we have subdivisions that are themselves anchored by sub points so this explanation portion of the main point itself has navigation signs in it and those navigation signs are sub points that move us through that main point and get us to the next main point so we're going to talk about for a while the nature of sub points and their key characteristics first or area in your outline here 3a sub points compliment sub points compliment that is support or prove their specific main point now is obviously that is we look at the sub point and we're saying does it deal with my main point because the tendency is to develop a main point that's somewhere in the passage and then as you're simply moving through the passage begin to identify sub points but they don't conceptually link to that main point you're moving through the pattern of the passage but not developing the thought of your main point which may mean that you have to move that sub point to another main point whatever it is you want to make sure this sub point compliments or supports its specific main point remember the little stool with all the legs under it for proposition and main points same stool works for main points and it's sub points right the main points is the top and all the sub points have to conceptually fit under that main point number two sub points relate to their main point in the same way sub points relate to their main point in the same way that is they can answer a similar not same necessarily but a similar diagnostic question or support the main point in the same way now if you hear it you'll automatically know what I'm talking about let me give you a main point and sub points and you tell me which one doesn't fit okay because it doesn't develop the main point in the same way as the others let's just listen to it in your ear we'll tell you because God is sovereign we should honor him main point because God is sovereign we should honor him sub points we should obey him we should trust him prayer leads to godliness which one is not like the others number three now it may be a very true statement prayer leads to godliness it may be within the text it is even something about honoring a sovereign God prayer leads us to you know it even conceptually may fit but it is not worded like the others it does not develop the main point in a similar or same way let me just read it again because God is sovereign we should honor him we should obey him we should trust him prayer leads to godliness what question is being answered by we should obey him
so how question right how should we honor him because God is sovereign we should honor him how should we honor him we should obey him we should trust him prayer leads to godliness now convert it how could you take prayer leads to godliness and make it fit as a sub point we should trust him we should we should obey him we should trust him prayer leads to godliness make it fit we should we should pray to him. You word it in such a way that it will answer a similar or same diagnostic question. What you just noticed was strong parallelism, right? The parallelism will usually make you word things in such a way that they are developing the main point in the same way. Now, they may be answering slightly different questions, but they're developing the main point in the same way. See, again fairly obvious, sub-points are about the one thing the main point is about not new subjects. Sometimes people confuse that. Oh, here's a sub-point. I'm talking about something else now. No, the sub-points are subdivisions of their main point. They're not about new subjects. They're about the development of that subject. Okay, so they stick on point. D, sub-points ordinarily support the development or develop the developmental clause. We also call that the magnet clause, right? Sub-points ordinarily support or develop the developmental clause that is the magnet clause of the main point. Now, let's just remind ourselves again. The magnet clause is the one with the keyword change, right? That triggers the ear. Oh, there's something different in that parallel phrase. So those sub-points are dealing with what attracts the attention of the ear in the main point. What's different in the main point? The sub-points are about that, which means they are supporting or developing the magnet clause. The very point of the magnet clause was to draw attention to itself. And therefore, it draws the explanation of the sub-points. The sub-points are about the magnet clause. Quick reminder, where did you develop the anchor clause? Just before or after the proposition. That's a magnet clause, the anchor clause. The anchor clause of the main points. Remember the thing that doesn't change? Remember, that's the basis of the sermon. So the anchor clause is getting developed way up here, possibly early in the first main point. But the magnet clauses, the developmental side, are the ones that are getting the attention of the explanation. The anchor clause typically is kind of a taken for granted. Understand very quickly thing that is developed very early. And then the magnet clause is what is drawing the attention of the explanation. For this reason, e, sub-points are brief. Sub-points are brief statements of principle, see the double underline there, or application. Not both. Propositions were principle and application. Main points were principle and application. But sub-points are only going to be about one side of the main point. Only about the magnet clause. So sub-points are going to be principle or application, because they're only developing the one side. So whatever that one side was, you typically know that's what the sub-points will be. Just to continue in there, sub-points are generally not weddings of principle and application, because only the magnet clause. Because only the magnet clause of the main point is being proven, which is either principle or application. This means sub-points are usually short sentences, short sentences, as I was important as the next villain. They are usually short sentences or sentence fragments. They are short sentences or sentence fragments. We'll see more why that isn't just a minute. How you set them up will depend if, whether, will determine whether they are sentences or just portions of sentences. And we'll talk about it in just a minute. But sometimes sub-points are not complete sentences. They may only just be sentence fragments. Here's the idea of what you're doing with sub-points. For the average listener, the sermon is coming to them. I think of that mud wall of words just coming at them. All these words, words, words, words coming at them. And what sub-points are trying to say, here's a way to navigate through there. And the way I'm doing it to change the metaphor now is I'm going to be hanging a lot of thought on these sub-points. Instead of just telling you the nature of the erus tense of the Greek is completely, you know, why is he telling me all that? Sub-point, bang, a hammer and peg on the door. And now I can hang lots of information on it. Now I know what you're taught. Why are you telling me it's completed action? Because I need to know you're saying because God has taken care of this. Look, even the wording of the verb is. When I say God has taken care of it, that was my thought peg. Sub-points are the thought peg that we begin to hang on our exegetical explanatory information upon. Free-fuel of thumb, if the explanation is longer than a long paragraph on a page, you know, if you're getting beyond a third of a page or so, you're going to need another sub-point. Just kind of general rule of thumb. Now you don't always need sub-points. Sometimes you can function without them because main points may be fairly clear. Just move on. But usually, if you know you've got more than a long paragraph of explanation, you're going to need another sub-point. Sub-point say, here's a large paragraph of thought. I'm going to give you the general thought first, the peg on the door, before I start hanging all this information on it. So sub-points are giving people a way to navigate through as we give them that information. Let's go on with some of this other material that will help us, and then we'll begin to look at lots of examples. F sub-points exhibit unity. That is there about one thing. That is whatever the sub-point is. Unique-ness. Exhibit unity and uniqueness. That is, they're not coexistence either. You know, we shouldn't say, I thought you just said that. You know, they are unique. They exhibit parallelism. Parallelism. They reflect one another in wording and progression. They consistently lead to the larger concept. This plus this plus this, I understand the whole. So they're progressive as well. Sub-points are not required. Well, that's an interesting thought. See, the not, that's the one thing to underline. Sub-points are not required. But if they are given, they must be multiple. If you had only one sub-point, what should it have been? It should have been the main point. Sub means sub. It's a subdivision. You don't have just one subdivision. They have to be at least two. So if you have sub-points, there should be at least two. If you have only one, re-look at your main point and reward it somehow. So that you don't just have one sub-point. You may simply say, I don't need sub-points. You know, this is so clear. God says you should pray and not give up. What that means is, regardless of your circumstances, you should not give up seeking God. Now, I probably don't need to tell you the iterative nature of the Greek present tense now. I don't need a paragraph. I just probably need to say that. It's time to illustrate and apply and move on. So not all main points need multiple paragraphs of explanation, which means not all main points need sub-points. But if they do have multiple paragraphs of explanation, they typically will need sub-points for our hears to navigate through. Each sub-point usually point to a specific portion of the text. Sub-points usually point to a specific portion of the text. That is, we often show the verse after the sub-point in our outline. We'll say, you should honor God. Perynthesis, verse three. What portion of the text supports what I just said? Can you think of some exceptions where there might not be a verse reference that is supporting your sub-point? What other information might you import that might need to be a sub-point? Context is the key thing. There may be some historical context. There may be some literary context that is not a verse in this passage. But it's something that you're going to need to know this in order to know what that main point's about. Most of the time, most of the time, there will be a direct verse reference in the text to every sub-point. We'll talk more on that later, but I'll show you some examples here in just a bit. Sub-points usually are symmetrical and proportional. Sub-points usually are symmetrical and proportional. They are similar in length to each other under a main point. And proportional, that is, they fairly evenly divide the explanation. Right? I don't have one sub-point that runs a third of a paragraph and another sub-point that runs five paragraphs. Right? They're roughly evenly divided in the explanation of a main point. And J, the really tough one here, sub-points develop the homological outline. Sub-points develop the homological outline rather than outline the text that is merely describe the text. The classic word of homilitations is sub-points are stated as principles, not mere statements of fact. Stated as principles, not mere statements of fact. I'll say because I know that's often confusing just what that means. When you say that they are not merely describing a text. Here's an example of sub-points that merely describe the text because God blesses faithfulness, we should obey Him. My first sub-point is Israel confronted Jericho. My second is Israel marched around Jericho. My third, the walls of Jericho fell. Is it true? Yes? Is it taken from the text? Yes? Does it describe accurately what happens in the text? Yes. But they are simply statements of fact. There are no principles being developed, such as this would show. It recognizes the same passage. Because God blesses faithfulness, we should obey Him. Faithfulness requires confronting God's enemies. Do you hear the principle? What's the fact that supports that? Who did Israel go up against? They went up against Jericho. So I'm going to bring those facts into this explanation paragraph, right? But the sub-point itself is where is a principle of biblical truth. It's not just a regurgitation of the facts of the text. It's the principle, the facts will support. Because what you're ultimately developing is, we should obey Him, right? So you're developing the principle up here. It has to be these things where this principle. Faithfulness requires obeying God's word. What was the simple fact? Israel marched around Jericho. Who told them to do that? God told them to do that. The walls of Jericho fell. Faithfulness requires obeying God's word, faithfulness results in seeing God's hand. Now, faithfulness results in seeing God's hand, what facts will support that? The walls came tumbling down. So it's not merely stating the facts of the text again. Homological outline is developing the principles the facts will support. Now, the place that will deal the most with this is actually a semester from now when we begin dealing with narrative passages. As we begin to look at the accounts of Scripture, that's where people are tempted to make the facts of the text the points of their outline. This semester, you're dealing with didactic passages from the epistles. So you typically won't fall into this of only describing the facts of the text. And that's okay, but I just want you to kind of hear that language begin to develop in your brains. And that is, wait, we are developing the message. We are not merely describing the text. Description of the text will go into the sermon, for sure, to support the principles that we say are there. Okay, let's go to some basic types of sub-points to begin to think how this is going to occur for us. And the reason we're doing this, everyone, is what's ahead of us? You know that we're putting our sermons together for the semester, right? So here's where we're going in assignments. You've done main points, you've done propositions, you've done introductions. We're moving toward conclusions and sub-points. So you won't do it for next time. But your next big assignment is to return in your outlines with sub-points and conclusions. Okay, so as we continue to build the sermon. So what we're doing today is kind of saying, what are the nature of these sub-points, even as we're moving toward what's the nature of conclusions? So let's talk about some of the specific kinds of sub-points that there are. The first very basic form of sub-point in your notes there is analytical question responses. Analytical question answers or responses. What happens in your notes? I'm just going to read there first. For all sub-points in a main point, we ask, and you almost want to put in your notes, we ask out loud, we ask out loud a question. And overarching question like, how do we know that this is true? Well when should this supply in our lives? And then we answer the question with short statements that introduce the explanations. Here you go. Here's the main point. Because Jesus provides the only hope of salvation, we must present Christ to spite our difficulties. Then we ask a question about that. This is known as interrogating the main point. Okay? We ask a question about it in analytical question. In what types of difficulties must we present Christ? In circumstantial difficulties? In relational difficulties? In spiritual difficulties? Are these sub-points complete sentences? No, they're sentence fragments, right? But they are answers to this question that is a complete sentence. Okay? So that's what makes the thought complete. The answer to the analytical question. So we ask a question about the main point, and then we answer that question with the sub-points. You see what gets its name? Analytical question responses. Okay? So the analytical question and the sub-points are the responses to one overarching analytical question. Great question, Aaron. Is the analytical question considered a sub-point? No. The analytical question is only getting the sub-points ready. Okay? So the analytical question is just setting up the sub-point answers.
Now that was an analytical question response. Very similar, and the next major type of sub-point are interrogative sub-points. Interrogative sub-points. On your notes again for interrogatives. For this, for each sub-point we ask a new question. Rather than having an overarching question that we answered with the sub-points, for each sub-point we ask a new question. Now in your notes, it's really important even though I've underlined it that you underlined it too. We answer it immediately. We answer the question immediately with a concise statement. Then show where the statement is derived and give the explanation that supports the statement. Do not delay the answer until after the explanation. The ear does not have the patience of the eye. Again, where sermons will differ from essays. Many of you have been taught to write essays with that very powerful way to ask questions, then develop the answer, then give the answer. So the eye is saying, well now here's an important question. Why is the population of Greece diminishing today? And then you begin to say, this happened to Greece, this happened to Greece, this happened to Greece. Well it's because of the wars that have gone, so we get all these explanations and then we get the final conclusion. And the conclusion comes at the end of the paragraph or maybe two or three paragraphs. We don't do that in preaching. In preaching we say, what types of difficulties may we face? Christ enemies, look in the verse it says, then I begin to explain my answer. So the question sets up the answer that is given immediately in an interrogative sub-point. And then we begin to explain how we got that answer. Air now asks your question again. Is the question a sub-point? Thank you, what a good question. Is the question a sub-point? No. The answer is the sub-point. The answer is the sub-point, which means we're going to try to keep our answers as well as the questions as parallel as possible. Not just the question is parallel. We need the parallelism of the question. So the ear is saying, oh he's beginning another subdivision here. So we have what types of difficulties may we face? Christ enemies. What helps us face these difficulties? Christ armies. Here why I'm striving to get parallelism? Where am I going to explain what Christ armies means? Now in the paragraph that follows. And looking at the text and developing, what is there about Christ armies? But the questions are as parallel as possible. And the answers are as parallel as possible too. Because technically the answer holds the sub-point. We're getting to the sub-point by the questions. So again I didn't even read this main point because Jesus provides the hope of salvation. We must present Christ to spite our difficulties. Underline would be the anchor clause. So we're developing. We must present Christ to spite our difficulties. If that's the main idea, we must present Christ to spite our difficulties. They've got obvious questions. What types of difficulties may we face? Christ enemies. Another main question. Well then what helps us face those difficulties? Christ armies. So it's a way of moving through the explanation by repetitive questions. It's actually a very engaging way to preach. It's typically not the way you think of developing outlines when you write them. You know you'll do an outline, you'll kind of do bullets most of us do. So the way we write outlines is as bullet statements. But you'll find the way often to present them very engagingly is to keep asking questions. Ask questions out loud and then respond to your own questions. It's dealing very sympathetically to the hearer. If I were sitting in your seat, what question would I be asking? Then go ahead and ask it. And people you know he knows what's in my mind. That guy reads my mail. He knows exactly what I'm thinking. All you're doing is you're asking the questions you would naturally ask if you were the listener but you're asking the questions for the listener. And then answering them as the way of developing the thought of the passage. The last form, basic form of subpoints is what we probably thought would be the first form and that is bullet statements, bullet statements. These are sentences or sentence fragments again that are not set up by questions. They are simply statements in themselves. So because Jesus provides the only hope of salvation, we must present Christ to spite our difficulties in the midst of busyness, in the face of fear, in the storm of anger. So I'm simply moving as bullet statements, developing what we do to present Christ to spite our difficulties. Now there's something, I just want to show you conceptually, the difference between analytical question responses, interrogatives and bullet statements. But I think you recognize if we were actually developing this in an outline, what's missing, verse references. There'd be verse references going with each of the subpoints so that they would typically look more like this. Because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must present Christ in difficult situations. Facing circumstantial obstacles, verse 12, facing spiritual obstacles, verses 13 through 14. Now of course, just seeing it here in outline doesn't mean we're going to say it all that way. We've got paragraphs of explanation now to explain verse 12 and to explain verses 13 and 14. And we'll begin to develop those in that paragraph of thought that falls under that subpoint. But the subpoint again is the fought peg we hammer on the door so we can now hang lots of information on it. Let me show you some examples and then take questions because I know you'll have them. But let me show you some more examples and we'll show you positive things and then negative things and begin to consider them. Here as we're looking at this first set of subpoints, I've already mentioned two, they are bullets, right? There's not a question above them and there's not a question that goes with each one of them. So you know that these are bullet subpoints and they will answer similar diagnostic questions like when are our difficulties or what are our difficulties, right? Circumstantial or spiritual. It's a different ways of answering those things. Look at these next and tell me what type of subpoints are these. Because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must preach Christ to difficult people who are these people, those without mercy. How must we deal with those people as those with mercy? What type of subpoints are they? They're in derogatives, you've got a different question setting up each of the subpoints. Now are the subpoints exactly parallel? They're not but you do see there's an attempt to make them as parallel as possible to try to make them similar in wording as we can. So the first was without mercy, something about without mercy. The next is kind of a contrast parallelism, right? Without mercy, with mercy. And we're trying to get that ear working to hear the concepts behind the main point. We recognize the difficult people are those without mercy. How do we deal with them? And those who have mercy, we with mercy, okay? So we're trying to get parallel wording as much as possible. This, what is this? Because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must preach Christ despite our difficulties. What sorts of difficulties may we face? What sorts of difficulties? In the face of present frustration, in the face of past failure. What kind of subpoints are those? They are answers to analytical questions, that's right. So they're analytical question responses, one overarching question, and then the responses to that one question. So those are the different types. Let me show you some negatives and then I'll take your question, okay? Show you some that may have some problems. Just look at the main point if you would, because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must preach Christ in difficult situations. Peter ignored the authorities, Peter spoke from jail. What's the problem here? He's describing the texts rather than developing the message, okay? Is it true in the text that Peter ignored the authorities and that Peter spoke for all true? But these are not homilitations word, these are not principalized subpoints. The principle is not developed. We've described the text, but we don't have wording that enables us to deal with, we must preach Christ in difficult situations. What might be something Peter ignored the authorities? We must preach Christ in difficult situations. Peter ignored the authorities. Can you make it into a principle? We must preach Christ in difficult situations. We must preach Christ when opposition comes. I've got a principle now. How do I know that? Because Peter went ahead and preached despite the opposition of authorities, okay? So we must preach Christ despite opposition. How about Peter spoke from jail? What's a subdivision there? Against all odds. Against opposition, against all odds. If you've got some asinance going with O's, with the O's there going. So Peter spoke from jail against all odds. Any other ideas? Against opposition? Despite circumstances? Despite constraint? There might be various ways that we could talk about it, but we're looking for principles. So that would be how we would just identify the proper way to go there. What's the problem here? Because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, and you have to answer this by looking and finding what's the magnet and what's the anchor clause. Because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must preach Christ to difficult people. First, Jesus died to save the ungodly. Second, Jesus alone can save. What's the problem here? Aaron is saying it, but Michael is saying it, I think even more scientifically. Which clause are the sub-points developing? The sub-points are developing the anchor clause, what should they be developing? The magnet clause. Now Aaron, your point is so on target here. He said it's not developing the obvious question. It's not, because the obvious question comes out of the magnet clause. The magnet clause is what the ear says, that's what the issue is. Why aren't you dealing with the issue? So there you have somebody developing the anchor rather than the magnet clause. Try one more. Because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must preach Christ despite our difficulties. Number one, our preaching will bring hate. Number two, prayer overcomes opposition. What are potential problems here? What's lacking in those two main points? No parallelism. Thank you, David. That's it. I mean, we would say it's true, but now here's something, once you see it and begin to speak to people regularly, you're automatically here. Most ears would not even have picked these up as sub-points. Wouldn't even have heard them. They're part of that mud wall of words coming. And because they are not distinguished by parallelism, we don't even pick them out of the mud wall. They're just part of the mass. We don't hear them as anything different because they're not worded in parallel. They have no audio flags to make us say, oh, that's the point you're making. Because they are not worded in parallel. They're just like every other sentence that's going by.
Questions that you have about sub-points, Stephen? Should you be very concerned in the intro to establish the anchor clause? I think the answer is not real. The anchor clause is typically something that everybody sees right away. If you're having to spend three or four paragraphs to develop the anchor clause, it probably shouldn't be the anchor clause. I think it's something that your instincts will kind of tell you. This needs to be kind of very obvious from the text. People are almost going to agree from the first time you say it, rather than need a lot of proof. So if you're statement of something like, because God is sovereign, we should honor Him. If you're real message is saying, what does it mean for God to be sovereign? Then that's probably all to be the message. And not we honor Him. Maybe you just need to say, you know, the anchor clause now is going to be, we should honor Him. So the introduction is about, we should honor whoever is sovereign. Well, people agree with that. That doesn't need a lot of proof. We should honor who is sovereign. So you establish, I think, when I actually use the word establish more than I use the word prove, establish the anchor clause just before or after the proposition. If it needs a paragraph fine, you know, what does sovereign mean? It means God's in charge and you're not. That's what it means. Well, okay, ready to roll now. I probably don't want to spend a whole lot of time more on sovereign. But if I'm dealing with a congregation that has no concept of what sovereign means, I may have to deal with a whole sermon on what does it mean for God to be sovereign. And then I'm really going to be particularizing that a lot more. I think I over-answered your question, which you were saying just basically, do I need to be real concerned about developing the anchor clause in the introduction? And I want to say, establish it, but don't spend it, you know, sentence upon sentence upon sentence doing it. If you're doing that, it's probably not the right anchor clause yet. Yes, question. Good. Good. It's a great question. What's the real difference between bullet statement, subpoints, and analytical question responses? Because if you actually look up them on paper, they're pretty much the same except for the fact that there's been that overarching question. And really the only answer is the difference is the overarching question. It's the way you get into them. Bullet statements typically are not being set up by questions, whereas analytical question responses are set up by that overarching question. And remember that language of you interrogate your main point? You've got a main point and you actually ask a question about it and it shows why you're developing this bullet that you are. Bullets without the question, without the overarching question, are usually just subdivisions of thought that don't need questions to set them up. Again, a good question. Would you ask the question again explicitly before every subpoint? And I think it's your option. If it's the same question over and over again though, it's again that overarching question and you might very well ask it two or three times within the development. You might very well. By the way, you'll see this and I think you all kind of probably rushed by it in chapter six as you're getting so much information coming at you. It's the standard way of also developing propositions in main points. Proposition, we interrogate the proposition, we ask a strong statement, we should honor God. Well, how do we honor God? Well, because he's sovereign, we obey him. Because he's sovereign, we trust him. Because he's sovereign, we worship him. But that first question, what should we do in response? Was the overarching question even a set of the main points? What I'd love for you to do and you're not in a sense, our English essays have trained us not to do it is just to get in that all medium of just ask lots of questions. It's kind of the way you proceed through the message question upon question. I'm a very question preacher. Does that make sense? Ask a lot of questions. And I often find when I'm in Presbyterian circles and I'm asking questions in a sermon, people start talking back to me. And then they get embarrassed because they're in Presbyterian circles and they don't think they ought to be doing that. But it's actually in a certain sense my mark that I'm communicating. Because there's so much listening now that they're starting to throw the answers back to me. And I actually in like that engagement a whole lot. So I think the more you communicate, the more you'll find the value of again sitting in the listener's seat and asking out loud the questions they would ask if they felt they could. So analytical question responses is just a way of getting us into that. I saw questions over here. Doug. Yes. Doug's question is in the interrogative sub points particularly. How important is it to have parallelism in the question as well as the answer? Just kind of tell you that what standard happens when you're writing sermons almost everybody puts the questions in parallel. The ear just knows to do that even as you're writing out. To make this question kind of stand out I need but what they don't do is they don't put their answers in parallel. So you've actually moved beyond and you've said well I know the answer needs to be parallel does the question when you're writing the sermon it's typically the opposite that occurs. People almost always know to make their questions parallel but they sometimes forget to make their answers parallel. So my big emphasis is on making the answers parallel I think your instincts will tell you to make the questions parallel. Thank you. What if what I need to do in my sub points is not only identify what I am saying but what I'm not saying. Just say exactly that. It's very powerful. I mean everybody knows exactly what you're doing it and why in fact I think you will find yourself over and over in the future as you're preaching finding here's what I'm not saying to be a very important technique to learn because so often what people do is they impose upon what you have said their thoughts and you know they're going to do it. So for you as a preacher to actually anticipate not only objections but aberrations actually anticipate and begin to say I'm not saying this I'm not saying this I'm not saying this I'm saying this is actually a very powerful strategy for communicating truth. That would fall under the sub points well I'm not you could even make it a main point I'm you not not yet in prep and del I mean you're kind of going down where we're going here ways but you could even say in a in a two point main point sermon you could say here's what I'm not saying here's what I am saying I mean you could set up that contrast in the overall sermon. So it's it's often very powerful to do just exactly those things yes yes it are the sub points the places that you can begin to introduce text from other passages references to other passages and the answer is yes definitely with this big qualification so long as you prove the idea was here first before you went over there. So if you said we should honor God and you're preaching from first first Corinthians five and when I see in that parenthesis is first that's longians four I'm going to go now I know there's something in first that's longians four that backs you up but I want to see it in first Corinthians five first before you jump over there. So it is supporting what this text says not establishing what this text says by going somewhere else it is as you just said it's supporting references which means I've got something here first that gets me going down this path. So yes we definitely will recognize the power of supporting texts we will also recognize the danger of ice of Jesus importing text on this one to make it say what it doesn't say. Okay so establish it here and then support it over there but establish it here first. Okay question. Yes great question you hear it everyone if you use interrogative in the first main point do you have to use interrogatives in the second main point and the answer is absolutely not. Okay you can in fact this is really a good technique to move different kinds within the sermon itself same question number of some points if you have two some points in the first main point do you have to in the second main point absolutely not. Okay each one is autonomous what what allows it to do what allows you to best explain that main point it may have no main sub points it may have three it may have two it may be interrogues may be bullets maybe anything whatever enables you to best explain that main point it can operate autonomously from the others. Great question because I know that cause a confusion Aaron thank you Aaron says when you talk about the sub points being parallel are they parallel to each other or they parallel to each other. Or they parallel to the main point in proposition and the answer is to each other they are parallel in wording to each other not necessarily to the main point in proposition. Michael you hear the question if you're if you're just dealing with one text one verse and you're subdividing it and then develop in the idea from other text is that inappropriate it is not inappropriate actually will look at in just a bit that what you what you actually technically just described is called a textual sermon not an expository sermon so we won't do it this semester. Okay we won't say it's wrong it's got a place but we're first going to do expository messages and expository messages take by definition main points and sub points from this text. Textual messages by definition take main points from the text and developmental sub points from other text. Okay so not wrong got a rich history but what's the danger of them. Making this text say something it doesn't by pulling in those other text first so we're really just you know we're doing this semester we're just kind of locking ourselves down hermenutically is our interpretation correct. So we're looking at this text and we're saying what is true and what to do about it can I prove that from this text. From this text can I establish this outline can I preach this measure now we know we'll do lots of other things in the future but right now we're just kind of making sure I want to make sure I can say what God says. I'm going to explain this text to you that's what I'm going to do today I'm going to explain this text to you and that's the goal that we're striving for knowing more to go in the future but right now we're just saying I want this expositors ethic to be my own. Let me explain this text to you and that's where we're going let me just get other information in front of you this next is just kind of general order things that I want you to be aware of. As you think of the standard order of the divisions of the text you now kind of see how the pieces come you announce the text scripture intro we announced the text we might say at times then scripture reading prayer for illumination introduction proposition main point statement now look at that first main point statement. You'll have some point some point some point that is get to be back on our kind of board here some point some point some point with dividing the explanation right so we have three some points could be two could be four but anyway we have some points that divide the explanation we're then going to move into illustration then application and that's exactly what it shows under main point development number one there but look at the second one. You have one sub point then you have the illustration then you have two sub points then you have the application anything wrong with that no not a bit we might say you know what these second two sub points are going to flow very easily if they get the first one the first one's really the foundation that sets up the next two. So I actually want to spend my illustrative nickel as it were on making sure this first sub point really locks into their brains and then I'll go back to the sub points so we're back to the there's not a canonical order you know they have to do just this this and this and this we can move these things around. What I am going to ask you to do this semester and next so that you just are prepared is I will say one illustration per main point. Some of you will not like that because you won't like doing illustrations just not your personality in nature you won't like doing illustrations others of you love doing illustrations you know and I will get you you know some of you will do an illustration for every sub point and every sub sub point and every subset and they'll be illustrated you know I'm going to say well okay that will come but for right now one illustration per main point okay but spend that nickel where you think you make best use of it okay so it might be. After the first sub point you know right in here before you get to the next two it might not be there it might be after all three. As a matter of fact you now begin to know it might actually set up all three okay fill up the preacher just as one who is everyone who preaches so the idea is wherever you can make best use of that illustration great all right. Now we'll talk a little bit later how illustrations do fit and ways that we find to make the mesh with the sub points and the explanation but for now I just want you to recognize you got options okay where they might fit it doesn't always have to come right after all the explanation it might come after the portion that you think is most significant. Reminumal six is just I guess for your field how sermons fit together how they fit together what are the standard links of the major divisions of a sermon you're now beginning to get a sense of these different pieces of a sermon maybe in a way you never thought of before there are these different components of this taxonomy of the sermon and some of you said to me after class you know I'm listening to sermons these days hopefully without a critical ear but more analytical ear right you begin to hear all that was the
proposition you know I'm hearing how he's putting that illustration in there with those explanations you begin to hear sermons for their divisions but now you begin to think what is actually tiny it takes to move through all these things how long are the components as you begin to think about that final project that you're producing even for this semester this may surprise you it's kind of fun to go through the first time. The text announcement and scripture introduction well you know around a minute maybe less is what that usually takes that little piece right on top so that's on a page if you look at the way your final sermon is typed the example in your books you know if you just kind of looked I mean that's a third or less of a page the scripture reading those on one or two minutes so it's you know half a page if you had typed it all out the prayer for elimination another minute a third of a page sermon introduction to three minutes so a half to two thirds of a page sermon conclusion two to three minutes so again you've got a half a page or so closing prayer what minute or two there to another half a page now look at what that means you have even got to the body of the sermon and how much of your 30 minutes is gone a third of it a third of it is gone and you have you got to the body of the sermon but these are all necessary components in terms of what's going into the normal preaching occasion I recognize you all are in different denomination some of you and so I'd things can flip a little bit in terms of where they fit but it's kind of interesting to see you know what just the scripture reading the prayers the introduction the conclusion everything that's around the body itself takes about a third of my time Zach that's that single space I think if you again I don't quite have to do because we have so many different fonts on our computers these days but if you look at the example that's in the back of your book I'm kind of going off that kind of standard formatting of that example that said the back of your notebooks. So if that's the way it is if a third of your time is in that surrounding material then you think what are the average time and page lengths for the body of the 30-minute message just for the body itself. itself. Well, of those 20 remaining minutes, each main point in a three point message is roughly what? Six minutes. So, you know, if you got three points, standard sort of thing, about about six, seven minutes a piece, which means each main point in all its components is about two pages in length. It's about how long it goes about two pages in length. How long do you think a sermon was when you heard it? Poor you thought about it, you know, 20 pages, 25, 30 pages. You know, what's it going to end up being? Seven and a half, eight pages. You know, that's about, if you type, now most people don't type it all out, right? We're doing it for a project that we're doing this semester, but it's just getting our sense of proportion here. Each main component, therefore, if each point is about two pages or six minutes, then each main point component, again, if you just kind of went on a standard, a third, a third, a third proportion, the explanation is about two minutes. So, you know, two-thirds of a page, illustration, two minutes, two-thirds of a page, application, two minutes, two-thirds of a page. Each subpoint. So, if you're dividing down now that explanation that was going two minutes or two-thirds of a page, that means each subpoint, if you got two of them, would be about a third of a page. Or what did we say? A good long paragraph. If it's getting longer than a long paragraph, you need another subpoint. But it's just kind of breaking down fairly naturally. I'll say if you got a long paragraph, that typically is a subpoint. Then, of course, got your various extemporized comments. And they're always, by the way, would get you in the most trouble. But the various extemporized comments, another two minutes or so. So, the conclusion of all that, the written content of the 30-minute sermon that includes only the scripture introduction, sermon introduction, sermon bodies, sermon conclusion, which you're writing out, will run seven and a half to eight pages. So, as you're thinking about your project for the semester, it's kind of a way to think about it, in terms of how those components fit together. Subpoint note, I've said it a few times now, but just so you can get it in your notes. In order to accomplish the a third and a third exposition symmetry of a main point, the subpoints of explanation are usually, how many paragraphs apiece? One. So, just to fill in your notes, they're usually one paragraph apiece. As a rule of thumb, explanations longer than one paragraph need subpoint divisions. Now, one more important set of thoughts. What's the standard conceptual progression of a subpoint? So, now I'm saying, get some of this off the board here. If I'm developing subpoints of that explanation, what usually happens first? So, I've got subpoint one, subpoint two, subpoint three, under a, under a main point. What will happen is we will say, we should honor God. Look with me at verse two. It says, in all your ways, acknowledge him. Now, what that means is that wherever we go, whatever we're facing, whatever ways God takes us in life, we should be honoring God. Acknowledge God actually in the Hebrew means. I just did something. I said, first, it means we should honor him. And then I said, look with me at verse two. And then I begin to explain what acknowledge means as it relates to honor. This is a standard progression, which is state. I state the truth, place, show where it is in the text, and then I begin to prove it with the explanation. So, the standard conceptual progression of a point is this. Number one, we state the truth. We make the main point or the subpoint statement. Two, we place the truth, show where it is in the text, and then three, we prove the truth. We prove that that text says, that statement that I just said. Further on, you know, we'll begin to now illustrate and apply, but the subpoints themselves are following this pattern. State, place, prove. We'll talk more about that as we go. There are various ways to do that. Just at the bottom of that page, where you see a caution, do you see that caution down at the bottom? You now begin to know, you can start a main point with lots of different things. You can start with a principal statement, or an illustration, or even a particular application. What is the one thing, however, you cannot start a main point with? The wording is, balled as in without hair, balled explanation, balled explanation. Here's what you can do in preaching that people will understand precisely what you're doing. You can begin with an illustration and then show its implications. You begin with an application and then show how you got that. You can begin with a principal statement and then show what proves the principal. What will just throw people for a loop, though, is if you just begin to throw explanation out them with no particular to anchor it, and you just begin to talk about the airst, or you begin to talk about the history of Israel, or you begin to talk about the imprisonment of Paul and they're going, why are you telling me this? It has no particular to anchor it. You can anything will serve as a particular statement of truth, statement of application, or an illustration. But what you can't do is you start throwing information to people without such a particular. That is called balled explanation, just throw material, and it has no basis for why they're getting it. That's the one thing you can't start with. The next page is just showing you variables of the things I've talked about today, and I don't want you to concern about that. I almost never test on it. We'll talk a whole lot about the variables in future semesters. What we're doing is we're doing a fairly formal approach now, learning the pieces, and seeing how they unfold. Where we're going, just so you're thinking about how you're planning, because you know we've got the preaching lectures in the middle of next week. So if you're thinking about how can you get kind of a jump on where we're going, you know that where we're heading is your main points with sub points and conclusion. So if you want to begin working toward where we're going, begin to think about now sub points. What am I going to be to do to develop sub points, anchoring them in the text? By the way, I won't ask you to write out your sub points yet. I just mean the statements of the sub points, and I'll ask you to attach a conclusion to it. We'll have a future lecture on conclusion. But you've got some time now. I do probably feel that there will be another quiz at the end of next week or the beginning of the next. So you've got a gap here and my goal is to get you caught up again. Okay, so cut up on your readings. Another quiz is coming and the idea is start working on your sub points. You know you're going to be hooking them to a conclusion and there'll be a quiz coming either toward the end of next week or the beginning of that next week. You've got some time to get caught up, and that's my goal for you. Where we are in the readings, we will be next week will be at lecture 10. So it'll be reading number 10. Excuse me? I'm sorry. This Friday is lecture 10. Then you know you're going to be getting kind of a week's break till the next Friday, right? All right, see you next