These are my notes from a preaching course I’m taking. Unless otherwise indicated all quotations are from the book:

Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon, 3^rd Edition by Bryan Chapell

Questions for Review and Discussion

1. What are the crucial questions that preachers must answer in order to convert mere lectures to sermons?

1. What does the text mean?

   The reasoning behind the first question is the most obvious: preachers need to do enough research to determine what the scope and the particulars of a text mean.

2. How do I know what the text means?

   The second question begins to orient preachers to their listeners’ concerns. In a sense, this question forces preachers to retrace the steps that led them to their conclusions in order to identify significant landmarks that others will be able to follow. It is not at all uncommon for preachers to feel fairly confident about a text’s meaning without being able to specify what led them to their conclusion. Solid explanations—and the second question—require preachers to identify the particular details or reasoning that establish a text’s meaning.

3. What concerns caused the text to be written?

   The third question requires preachers to determine the cause of a text. This question is related to the first two (and usually is integral to how they are answered), but it is listed separately because its answer is vital to the ultimate development of a sermon designed to minister to God’s people, and enables us to answer the remaining questions.

The Path of Preparation: Six Critical Questions p. 88

4. What do we share in common with those to (or about) whom the text was written or with the one by whom the text was written?

   The fourth question takes us back to the principles of a Fallen Condition Focus (FCF)… By identifying what we share with the people of Scripture, we bring the truths of the text into immediate contact with the lives of people today…

   “…I won’t logically defend any theology that teaches my works will save me, but I sometimes feel and even behave that way. I am always tempted to believe that when I am good, God will love me more.” So is everyone else. We all have moments, or even years, when aspects of our thoughts, emotions, or behavior echo the Judaizers’ theology. We all have vestiges of Babel within us: as a consequence of our fallen nature, we are all trying to build our towers to heaven and claim responsibility for the grace that saves us. Our pride wars against the admission that there is no good in us. Our sinful condition forever struggles with our total dependence on grace. Only when we can identify the humanness that unites us with the struggles of those whom Paul had to warn about the Judaizers do we really know why he wrote and what we are to preach.

   Preaching does not simply point us toward what once happened to others; it primarily points toward how those truths…affect us now.

   …In some sense, we all share David’s guilt, Thomas’s doubt, and Peter’s denial (1 Cor. 10:13).

   No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it [Table].

   Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry [Table]. I speak as to sensible people; judge (κρίνατε, a form of κρίνω) for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply (φημι) then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons [Table]. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (1 Corinthians 10:13-22 ESV)

   Therefore, a solid explanation of a text does not merely display the facts in the text or describe how they support a doctrinal perspective. A full explanation of a text’s meaning begins by identifying how its FCP touches and characterizes our lives.

5. How should people now respond to the truths of the text?

   The fifth question of explanation may not appear to be part of explanation at all… However, this question must be asked as part of the explanation process… Any text of Scripture has near limitless explanation avenues and possibilities. Only when we determine what the text requires of us as a consequence of an FCF the sermon addresses do we know how to focus, phrase, and organize the explanation of the text.

6. What is the most effective way I can communicate the meaning of the text?

   These last questions indicate that a sermon is not merely an outlined description of a text… Since a sermon ultimately answers for listeners, “What does this text mean to me?,” the explanation has to be framed in such a way that it maximizes meaning for listeners… We must exegete our listeners as well as the text to construct a sermon that most powerfully and accurately explains what the text means.

The Path of Preparation: Six Critical Questions pp. 89, 90

2. Why is an exegetical outline by itself usually insufficient as a homiletical outline?

Prior to answering these questions [e.g., 4-6], a preacher has only collected information about a text, and not developed a sermon. Although many preachers may feel that when they have done enough research to determine a text’s meaning—that they are ready to preach—they are mistaken… Answering these remaining questions actually pushes a preacher…converting a textual commentary or an exegetical lecture into a sermon.

The Path of Preparation: Six Critical Questions p. 89

It is beneficial to use the space around an exegetical outline to make notes of textual insights that you discover in your study tools or that come to mind as your sermon research advances… Keeping verse numbers visible in the outline makes this type of notation easier and will help you to quickly find information in the exegetical outline that you will need when later organizing all the sermon material (illustrations, applications, transitions, etc.) into a homiletical outline for the actual construction of the message.¹¹

The Path of Preparation: Four Necessary Steps, #2 Interrogate: Exegete the Passage (What Does It Say?) p. 97

Simply collecting information about grammar, thought flow, and background does not prepare a pastor to preach on a text. Preachers cannot determine how to organize their explanations or how to state their discoveries meaningfully until they consider the impact the information should have on the congregation…

Explanation prepared in the abstract is irrelevant. When each word and every statement of a message are intimately related to the concerns of the people who must apply the biblical truths to their lives, then explanation assumes sermonic form and power.

The Path of Preparation: Four Necessary Steps, #3 Relate p. 99

Although the two may echo one another closely, an exegetical outline is not necessarily a homiletical outline. An exegetical outline establishes what a text says. A homiletical outline establishes how a text’s meaning is best communicated to a congregation…

First, an exegetical outline describes the immediate text; however, an exegetical outline of a few verses does not necessarily contain context and background information. Aspects of a biblical person’s biography outside the immediate text, the usage of a word in parallel texts, the previous argument of an apostle, and many other aspects of a passage may need additional attention in an order supplied by the immediate text for a pastor to explain its verses fully and accurately.

Second, an exegetical outline also does not indicate the pastoral emphasis that the minister knows should be given to the various components of the passage in light of the issues or concerns facing a particular congregation. A preacher must incorporate these features and concerns, which are not supplied by an exegetical outline, into the sermon.

Thus, insights from the exegetical outline, the passage’s background, and the present level of the congregation’s knowledge about these matters must all funnel into a homiletical outline in order for an effective sermon to take shape.

The Path of Preparation: Four Necessary Steps, #4 Organize: Sequence and Order p. 100

A conceit (a unique approach to story and/or character in film writing) is described as follows:

In general, story is content is component. Style is approach is conceit. What happens is content, how it happens is conceit. Imagine watching a sporting event with only one announcer doing play-by-play. If the camera is anywhere near the action, then the announcer is redundant to what can be seen. It’s the color commentator that elevates the significance of the detail being pointed out and brings an overlay to the experience.¹

If I analyze my own conceit in these pages (which I consider as notes to remind me where the Lord and I have been, not sermons), it might be that I tell you my “cheat” straight up: walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.³ To illustrate (Matthew 6:2-4 ESV):

Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you [Table].

This was Jesus’ first application to illustrate and explain: Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them.⁴ It seems like most of the heavy lifting had already been accomplished: they were giving to the needy. Their selfishness and fear for their own well-being had already been overcome. One step further—sound no trumpet, so that your giving may be in secret—should have been no big deal. Right?

Perhaps I’m being naive, too working class, in my analysis. There are people in this world with resources beyond their own needs for food, shelter and clothing, people who are accustomed to spending excess resources for political advantage or social status. It is possible that they give to the needy entirely out of selfishness and/or fear for their own well-being. In fact, Jesus’ stated motivation for such giving—that they may be praised by others—covers an entire universe of scenarios I may never fully comprehend.

Being praised by others is pretty great. I like it. What did Jesus offer instead in this text? Your Father…will reward you. In the past He rewarded you openly (εν τω φανερω), which seemed to offer some of the juice of being praised by others. But at least since NA²⁷ and NA²⁸ openly has fallen under suspicion. Still, the coupling of these statements in parallel might lead one to suspect that God’s reward is his praise, if I only read this passage.

Elsewhere Jesus said (Luke 17:7-10 ESV):

“Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him⁵ when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and recline at table’?⁶ Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank the⁷ servant because he did what was commanded?⁸ So you also, when you have done all (πάντα, a form of πᾶς) that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

Did Jesus confirm here that God is a hard man, reaping where [He] did not sow, and gathering where [He] scattered no seed?⁹ Did He imply that God would take credit ultimately for the righteousness I worked so hard to achieve from the law? Or did He imply, in that way that He spoke to Israel, that the free gift of righteousness¹⁰ is not my work? that when I have done all that I was commanded it will have been done by the Holy Spirit in the power of God.

This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them’ [Table]¹¹

So, to be motivated to give to the needy by the grace offered in this passage alone, I must believe first that my heavenly Father is trustworthy and will follow through with Jesus’ promise of a reward, and second that such a reward, whether openly or not, will be as satisfying as being praised by others. Giving to the needy is law, so maybe I can add a bit of fear, what God might do to me if I disobey his law, into this equation. Sill, I wonder if fear of retribution and faith in an unspecified reward is sufficient to overcome the selfishness and fear for my own well-being that lies close at hand when I want to do right.¹² And if it were sufficient would it cause me to give to the needy out of anything like love for God and others, or would it simply be a righteousness of my own that comes from the law?¹³

I’ve had something like this dilemma almost every time I’ve encountered an application in Scripture since I began to believe that the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ¹⁴ is real righteousness. And every time I’ve stumbled here Jesus has directed me back to: walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.¹⁵ Walking by the Spirit is a skill or knack that is trickier to learn by trial-and-error than sound no trumpet, so that your giving may be in secret. But it is the way Jesus walked: And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness…¹⁶ And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee…¹⁷

Being both led and empowered by his own love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control¹⁸ [Table] is more like the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness.¹⁹ And it’s more like the new covenant as well. So, that is my conceit.

In an expository sermon, the homiletical outline is worded in principles derived from and supported by features of the text in its context. The preacher demonstrates how the text supports these principles and then applies them to the contemporary context of the listeners.

The Path of Preparation: Four Necessary Steps, #4 Organize: Sequence and Order p. 101

How much difference is there between “principles derived from and supported by features of the text” presented for listeners’ obedience and laws? Isn’t this technique designed to result in a “righteousness” of one’s own derived from the preacher’s “principles derived from and supported by features of the text” as understood and elucidated by the preacher? Depending on the preacher these principles may approximate the outcome of the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness as word strings, but obeying word strings to acquire a righteousness of one’s own derived from word strings is not a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness. The whole technique reeks of the old covenant.

Is that the point? Do preachers entice me to wear myself out striving for a righteousness of my own derived from law (i.e., from “principles derived from and supported by features of the text”) in the hope that I will discover a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness more or less on my own with the Bible and the Lord, and then return with a healthy skepticism toward preachers and their preaching?

I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive (τῶν πλανώντων, a participle of πλανάω) you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his²⁰ anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide²¹ in him.²²

3. Why are preachers not necessarily obligated to present the pattern of a text as the structure of a sermon? Why is it most often advisable to follow the pattern of a text?

The most common (and usually the most helpful) expository approach is to advance through the explanation of a text in the order of its ideas. Exceptions may occur, however, for various reasons. Sometimes the sequence of thought in a text does not allow a preacher to introduce background information efficiently… The pattern of a text in its written form may also not communicate well in the oral medium of the sermon… Other aspects of biblical literature may lead us to consider alternative orders for presentation than the original verses presented…Such biblical patterns of organization are appropriate for their original purposes but need not always be presented in lockstep order to expound the truth of the passage. An expository sermon obligates a preacher to present the truths of a text but not necessarily in the pattern of the passage.

Maintaining a rigid and wooden mirroring of the sequence of a text may actually misrepresent the truth of the text.

The Path of Preparation: Four Necessary Steps, #4 Organize: Sequence and Order p. 101

These cautions should not blind us to the usual advantages of explaining a text’s features in the order they occur. This pattern of a text tends to reflect the pattern of the biblical writer’s thought… Still, the advantages of following the pattern of a text are overturned when doing so would overcomplicate the organization of the sermon, miss key thoughts in the text, or misrepresent the text’s purpose.

The more the pattern of the passage governs the truth that the biblical writer wanted to convey, the greater the obligation of the expositor to make listeners aware of that pattern. Still, a preacher has a greater obligation to make sure that listeners understand and apply the truths of the passage than to cover the passage in sentence or verse order.

The Path of Preparation: Four Necessary Steps, #4 Organize: Sequence and Order p. 102

4. What advantages does an expositor have in following the state, place and prove steps? Do these advantages require these steps in this order?

By stating a truth (with a main point or subpoint statement) derived from the biblical text, saying where in the text that truth originates (i.e., referencing the “place” or aspect of the text supporting that point), and proving how the text backs the truth (by using one of the “General Processes” described below), preachers present the discoveries of their textual study in a highly comprehensible form.

The Light of Presentation p. 104

The state-place-prove order of these steps can vary… For the expositor, the order of the steps is not as crucial as the need to make each one.

The Light of Presentation p. 105

By stating what a text means, placing the truth where it originates in the text, and proving how the text establishes that truth, you fulfill the fundamental obligations of an expositor: state what you know and show how you know. By meeting these obligations, we illuminate a path to a text’s meaning so that others can see the truth of Scripture, follow it to the source, and confirm its authority over their lives.

The Light of Presentation: Prove: Confirmation (Exegesis and Argument): More Light p. 111

5. How many proofs should a preacher present in regard to a particular concept in a sermon? Which proofs of a particular concept should a preacher present?

There are actually only four ways that we can explain the meaning of any biblical text. These are known as the “General Processes” of explanation. In order to explain a text, we may simply “repeat” the text, we may “restate” the text (i.e., reword it in more familiar terms), we may “describe” unfamiliar events or terms (i.e., “define” them), or we may “confirm” the truth we have stated by various exegetical or logical means.

How do we choose which of the General Processes to employ in explaining any particular main point or subpoint? We move as far down the list of processes as is needed to be clear and convincing that the biblical text supports our statement.

The Light of Presentation: Prove p. 106

If preachers keep challenging themselves to prove their argument as they make declarative statements of truth principles supported by the text, then natural arguments tend to take shape in fairly good order. Yet some cautions must be considered. First, not all things need to be proven—many are obvious. Second, few things need all the proofs you can muster. Choose what is most powerful and most concise. Third, some things cannot be proven…we should be ready to bow before the omniscience of God when our understanding reaches its finite limits. There is no shame in doing this or in teaching listeners to do the same (see Rom. 11:33).

The Light of Presentation: Prove: Confirmation (Exegesis and Argument) pp. 110, 111

As regards the gospel, they [i.e., those who were hardened in Israel] are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy [Table]. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”

“Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?”

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:28-36 ESV)

6. What cautions should a preacher exercise in presenting exegetical insights in a sermon?

Preaching should never be an excuse to display our erudition at the expense of convincing listeners that they can never really understand what Scripture says because they read only in English. We are obligated to explain exegetical insights in such a way that they make the meaning of a text more obvious, not more remote…

Young preachers often think that heaping exegetical intricacy on their explanation will establish their credibility, when in fact this practice may damage it… Share the fruit, not the sweat, of your exegetical labor.

The Light of Presentation: Prove: Confirmation (Exegesis and Argument) p. 109

When your exegetical conclusions differ in some degree with the translation most of your listeners have in their laps, handle the difference carefully…

Presenting an argument that supports your explanation rarely justifies being argumentative… Sermons are usually prepared for a mixed group of people, including those who are informed and those who are not, those who are able to reason well and those who are not, those who are ready to accept a preacher’s pronouncements and those who are not. Each of these factors must be considered as preachers prepare to support, develop, and when necessary, defend an exposition (1 Pet. 3:15).

The Light of Presentation: Prove: Confirmation (Exegesis and Argument) p. 110

Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? [Table] But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit [Table], in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison… (1 Peter 3:13-19 ESV)

In one of the key debates during the formation of the Westminster Confession of Faith, one scholar spoke with great skill and persuasiveness for a position that would have mired the church in political debates for many years. As the man spoke George Gillespie prepared a rebuttal in the same room. As they watched him write furiously on a tablet, all in the assembly knew the pressure on the young man to organize a response while the scholar delivered one telling argument after another. Yet when Gillespie rose, his words were filled with such power and scriptural persuasion that the haste of his preparation was not discernible. Gillespie’s message so impressed those assembled as the wisdom of God that the opposing scholar conceded that a lifetime of study had just been undone by the younger man’s presentation. When the matter was decided, the friends of Gillespie snatched from his desk the tablet…they found only one phrase written over and over again: Da lucern, Domine (Give light, O Lord).

Over and over Gillespie had prayed for more light from God. Instead of the genius of his own thought, this valiant Reformer wanted more of the mind of God.

The Light of Presentation: Prove: Confirmation (Exegesis and Argument): More Light pp. 111, 112

“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour [Table]. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes [Table]. (Matthew 10:16-23 ESV)

7. Why is profound truth in simple language a mark of pastoral genius?

Whatever arguments we settle on, we must resolve to present them as interestingly and simply as possible…Your tools and your mind will provide you with wonderful proofs of the rich truths in God’s Word. You should delight to proclaim truth as expansively and powerfully as God grants you the gifts to do so. All preachers simply need to make sure that what they preach communicates rather than complicates the truths of God. Doing so will require you to apply all the resources of your mind and heart…keeping matters simple is smart. Saying profound things obscurely or saying simple things cleverly requires relatively little thought, but saying profound things simply is the true mark of pastoral genius.

The Light of Presentation: Prove: Confirmation (Exegesis and Argument) p. 111

Exercises

1. Create a mechanical layout of Philippians 4:4-7.

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice.²³ As an unbeliever left to my own devices I’d probably ignore this, though I might wonder why anyone would do such a thing. As an unbeliever being drawn to righteousness by the Holy Spirit, I would probably respond belligerently: “Screw you, Paul! Who are you to tell me what to do?” But I may have gained an insight into this verse.

The Greek word translated Rejoice was χαίρετε, translated as a 2^nd person plural form of χαίρω in the present tense, active voice and imperative mood. Understood as an imperative it means, “you must rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, you must rejoice.” And in my belligerence I may have understood Paul’s intent better than if I had ignored it or simply wondered why anyone would do such a thing.

As a believer under law, I would accept my obligation to Rejoice in the Lord always as a work that I must do. That is, after all, what the text says: “The imperative mood is a command or instruction given to the hearer, charging the hearer to carry out or perform a certain action.” And I would have probably realized that Paul was just the messenger. My obligation is from and to the Lord Himself. But as I worked diligently to have my own righteousness derived from the law²⁴—[you must] Rejoice in the Lord always—I would encounter many things both internal and external that would dissuade me from rejoicing. Eventually, I would probably realize that I didn’t Rejoice in the Lord always sufficient to meet even my own standards or expectations. And here, left to my own devices, I might give up in despair.

If, however, as a believer under law I was being drawn to righteousness by the Holy Spirit, whether I gave up in despair or not, He might draw me back, even help me to recognize that χαίρετε was not only an imperative. It might have been translated in the indicative mood. It might have been Paul’s statement of fact: “you rejoice in the Lord always, again I will say, you rejoice.” Spurred on by God’s Holy Spirit I might begin to wonder who this Paul guy was: What does he get that I’m not getting?

The Spirit might lead me to read some of Paul’s other writing. Who knows? I might even gain the knowledge of sin from the law (Romans 7:10-18 ESV):

The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure [Table]. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin [Table]. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me [Table]. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out [Table].

Maybe the Holy Spirit would lead me back to consider the original verses in more detail (Philippians 4:5b-7 ESV):

The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

This actually sounds a lot more hopeful than the panic attack I had trying to have my own righteousness obeying a law: “you must rejoice in the Lord always.” It even offers a pretty good reason for rejoicing in the Lord always. What might happen if the Holy Spirit helped me notice this time that the prepositional phrase—in Christ Jesus—seems more like a state of being than I was taking in the Lord?

When I thought in the Lord was the object of MY REJOICING writ large, I found way too many reasons not to rejoice in the Lord as an object of veneration. What if the Holy Spirit helped me to recognize that Lord (κυρίῳ) was in the dative case here, and energized me to search online for its meaning? “The dative is the case of the indirect object, or may also indicate the means by which something is done.”²⁵ I might then understand in [the] Lord as another example of that same state of being—in Christ Jesus—the means by whom I rejoice.

[I]n the Lord [you] Rejoice always; again I will say, [you] rejoice. Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit would draw me into a relationship with this Christ Jesus. Perhaps He would indwell me and become my Savior. Perhaps I would begin then to want the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness.²⁶ Who knows? In time I might begin to realize that legislating unfunded mandates is the work of men, not a loving Father God who supplies whatever He requires. Joy (χαρὰ) is listed second among the aspects of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22, 23). As that guy Paul wrote: For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.²⁷

On Pentecost after Jesus ascended into heaven, Peter preached (Acts 2:16, 17a ESV):

But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh [Table]…

Now is the judgment of this world, Jesus promised, now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.²⁸

2. Create a conceptual outline of Matthew 14:22-32.

According to a note (23) in the NET, Jesus quoted from Isaiah 6:9, 10 in Matthew 13:14b, 15. A table comparing the Greek of Jesus’ quotation with that of the Septuagint follows.

According to a note (25) in the NET, Paul quoted from Isaiah 40:13 in Romans 11:34. A table comparing the Greek of Paul’s quotation with that of the Septuagint follows.

According to a note (28) in the NET, Paul quoted from Job 41:11 in Romans 11:35. A table comparing the Greek of Paul’s quotation with that of the Septuagint follows

(I doubt Paul quoted from either of these versions of the Septuagint and I’m not spending the time necessary to consider an independent translation of the Hebrew.)

According to a note (23) in the NET, Peter quoted from Isaiah 8:12 in 1 Peter 3:14. A table comparing the Greek of Peter’s quotation with that of the Septuagint follows.

According to a note (32) in the NET, Peter alluded to Isaiah 53:11, 12 in 1 Peter 3:18. Tables comparing the Greek of Peter’s allusion with that of the Septuagint follow.

Tables comparing Job 41:11 and Isaiah 8:12 in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and tables comparing the Greek of Job 41:11 (41:3) and Isaiah 8:12 in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor), and tables comparing Luke 4:1; 17:7; 17:9; 1 John 2:27; Matthew 14:24-27 and 14:33 in the KJV and NET follow.