Tentative Outline of Isaiah 40-66

I.  Introduction to the book of redemption  40:1-11
	A.  The prophetic commission (double impv)  40:1-2
	B.  The coming of God  40:3-11   (new exodus)
		1.  Preparation for the coming of God (-)  40:3-8
		2.  God appears on behalf of Jerusalem (-)  40:9-11
II.  The court case against idols addresses unbelief 40:12-49:26   (judgments on Babylon as new Egypt?)
	A.  Resume of the court case  40:12-42:12    (contest with Egyptian gods?)
		1.  The “principal”: God who comes  40:12-31	(vs. idols)
			a.  Identification of God  40:12-26
				(1)  God as incomparable ( מִי )  40:12-17
				(2)  Comparison with idols ( וְאֶל־מִי )  40:18-20
				(3)  The sovereignty of God  40:21-24
				(4)  The resourcefulness of God ( וְאֶל־מִי )  40:25-26
			b.  Nonrecognition by Israel (-)  40:27
			c.  Commitment of God to his people  40:28-31
		2.  The evidence: God acts in justice for Israel's vindication  41:1-20
			a.  The contest with respect to evidence  41:1-4
				(1)  Judicial contest before the nations (-)  41:1
				(2)  Performance of God with a king as instrument ( מִי )  41:2-4
			b.  Response in trust or lack of trust  41:5-16
				(1)  Idolatrous response of the nations (-)  41:5-7
				(2)  Encouragement for Israel to trust  41:8-16
			c.  The commitment of God: water for the needy (-)  41:17-20
		2.  The polarity in evidence: only God performs  41:21-29
			a.  Formula for judicial contest with the idols (-)  41:21-24
			b.  Evidence of performance (-)  41:25-29
		1.  Identification of God in his instrument the servant 42:1-12
			a.  Identification of the servant: servant song for justice ( הֵן ) at 42:1-4
			c.  Purpose in God's commitment to the servant ( כֹּה ) at 42:5-9
			b.  Song by all the earth (recognition of God) (double impv)  42:10-12
	B.  Elaboration of the court case, with specific (new way through the sea)
	identification of key witnesses; demonstration by making a way in the wilderness  42:13-45:25
		1.  The “principal”: God who comes  42:13-43:7
			a.  Identification of God: warrior theophany (-)  42:13-17
				a way in the wilderness
			b.  Nonrecognition by Israel as servant (impv)  42:18-25
			c.  Commitment of God to protect Israel ( וְעַתָּה כֹה ) at 43:1-7
		2.  The evidence: God makes a way in the wilderness  42:8-44:5
			a.  The contest with respect to the evidence  43:8-21
				(1)  Israel is called to witness what God will do (impv) 43:8-13
				(2)  God makes a way in the wilderness, from Babylon ( כֹּה ) at 43:14-21
			b.  Response of Israel in lack of trust ( וְלֹא ) at 43:22-28
				(1)  Jacob has wearied God  43:22-24
				(2)  Judicial case against Israel (-)  43:25-28
			c.  The commitment of God: water and renaming in blessing ( וְעַתָּה impv)  44:1-5
		2’.  Polarity in evidence: God's performance vs. the idols  44:6-23
			a.  None like God ( כֹּה ) at 44:6-8
			b.  Critique of idolatry  44:9-20
				(1)  Folly of idols (-)  44:9-17
				(2)  Lack of understanding on the part of idolaters (-) 44:18-20
			c.  Remember (understand), Israel, and rejoice (impv)  44:21-23
		1’.  Identification of God in connection with his instrument, his servant Cyrus  44:24-45:25
			a.  Identification of the servant: prophecy of Cyrus in the context of creation claims of God ( כֹּה ) at 44:24-28
			c.  Purpose in God's commitment to Cyrus ( כֹּה ) at 45:1-13
			b.  Recognition of God's work among the nations  45:14-25
				(1)  Recognition by near neighbors, e.g., Egypt ( כֹּה ) at 45:14-19
				(2)  Nations judge and turn to God  45:20-25
					(a)  Judicial contest with the nations (impv)  45:20-21
					(b)  Nations, turn to God (impv)  45:22-25
	C.  Pronouncement of sentence on idols: judgment of Babylon; conclusion of the polemic against idols
		(new overthrow of Pharoah's army)  46:1-48:22
		(For an alternative subdivision, see III.A below)
		0.  Preliminary sentence on idols (-)  46:1-2
		1.  The “principal”: God who comes  46:3-13
			a.  Identification of God over against idols ( שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי , impv)  46:3-7
			b.  Nonrecognition by Israel ( זִכְרוּ , impv)  46:8-11
			c.  Commitment of God to save Israel, despite unbelief ( שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי , impv)
		2.  The evidence: God overthrows Babylonian captivity  47:1-48:11
			a.  The contest with respect to the evidence: Babylon will fail (impv)  47:1-15
			b.  Response of Israel in lack of trust ( שִׁמְעוּ , impv)  48:1-8
			c.  The commitment of God to his name (placed on Israel)  48:9-11
		2’.  The polarity in evidence: God vs. Babylon  48:12-22
			a.  God's purpose against Babylon ( שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי , impr) 48:12-16
			b.  Lack of understanding of man ( כֹּה ) at 48:17-19
			c.  Rejoice in exodus from Babylon (impv)  48:20-22
			*Refrain marking a fissure 48:22
		1’.  Identification of God in connection with his instrument, the servant (Messiah)  49:1-26  (or all of 49:1-66:24 under this category)
			a.  Identification of servant (servant song of self-identification)  ( שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי , impv)  49:1-4
			c.  Purpose in God's commitment to his servant ( וְעַתָּה ) at 49:5-13
				(way in the wilderness, water provided)
			b.  Recognition of God’s work internationally  49:14-26
				(1)  Recognition in Israel overcoming doubt  49:14-21
				(2)  Aid of the nations ( כֹּה ) at 49:22-26
III.  Aspects of God's salvation  46:1-57:21	(new international Sinai,
recreating Israel, international salvation, righteousness)
	((A.  Hearkening to the judgment-polemic against idols  46:1-48:22
		1.  Introductory sentence on idols  46:1-2
		2.  First address  46:3-11
			a.  Hearken; birth and creation ( שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי ) at 46:3-4
			b.  Idol polemic  46:5-11
		3.  Second address  46:12-47:15
			a.  Hearken; announcing salvation to nations ( שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי ) at 46:12-13
			b.  Idol polemic (impv)  47:1-15
		4.  Third address  48:1-11
			a.  Hearken; necessity of righteousness ( שִׁמְעוּ ) at 48:1-2
			b.  Idol polemic (-)  48:3-11
		5.  Coda: summation of quarrel with idols  48:12-22
			a.  Hearken; creation ( שְׁמַע אֵלַי ) at 48:12-13
			b.  Idol polemic  48:14-22
				(1)  Creation  48:13
				(2)  Dealing with nations  48:14-16
				(3)  Righteousness  48:17-18
				(1)  Birth and creation  48:19
				(2)  Announcing salvation to nations  48:20
				(3)  Righteousness  48:21-22
	B.  Contending with doubt  49:1-50:3
		1.  Servant song ( שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי ) at 49:1-7
		2.  Birth and creation  49:8-21
			a.  Assertion ( כֹּה ) at 49:8-13
			b.  Objection ( וַ ) at 49:14
			c.  Reaffirmation  49:15-21
		3.  Announcing salvation to nations  49:22-26
			a.  Assertion ( כֹּה ) at 49:22-23
			b.  Objection 49:24
			c.  Reaffirmation ( כִּי כֹה ) at 49:25-26
		4.  Necessity of righteousness  50:1-3
			a.  Assertion ( כֹּה ) at 50:1
			b.  Objection (-)  50:2a
			c.  Reaffirmation  50:2b-3
	C.  The giving of comforting promises  50:4-51:8
		1.  Servant song (-)  50:4-11
		2.  Hear: promise of birth and creation ( שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי ) at 51:1-3
		3.  Hear: promise of salvation extending to nations (impv)  51:4-6
		4.  Hear: promise to the righteous ( שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי ) at 51:7-8
	D.  Arousal to salvation  51:9-52:12
		1.  Song of the arm of the Lord (double impv)  51:9-16
		2.  Arise (birth imagery) (double impv)  51:17-23
		3.  Arise (announcing salvation to the nations) (double impv)  52:1-10
		4.  Arise (necessity of righteousness) (double impv)  52:11-12
	E.  The depth of salvation  52:13-56:8
		1.  Servant song ( הִנֵּה ) at 52:13-53:12
		2.  Birth and creation of the saved (impv)  54:1-17
		3.  Announcing salvation to nations  55:1-13
		4.  Necessity of righteousness ( כֹּה ) at 56:1-8
	((F.  Wicked opposition to salvation  56:9-57:21
		1.  The false shepherd (false servant) (-)  56:9-57:2
		2.  Wicked offspring (birth imagery) (impv)  57:3-8
		3.  Wickedness spreading abroad (to the nations) ( וַ ) at 57:9-10
		4.  Wickedness vs. righteousness  57:11-21
			a.  Idolatry and wickedness, false righteousness  57:11-13
			b.  Preparing the way for God to overcome  57:14-21
	*Refrain marking a fissure  57:21
IV.  God's salvation as just conquest and new paradoxical prosperity  56:9-66:24
	A.  Conquest leading to one-sided prosperity  56:9-62:9
		1.  Indictment of unrighteousness (of Canaan?)  56:9-59:15a
			a.  Irresponsible shepherds  56:9-57:2
				(1)  Uncaring shepherds (-)  56:9-12
				(2)  Righteous die for their good (-)  57:1-2
			b.  Waywardness of the people  57:3-21
				(1)  Indictment of idolatrous waywardness  57:3-13
				(2)  Redemption of people in opposition to waywardness  57:14-21
			c.  True and superficial righteousness  58:1-14
				(1)  Sins not discerned (impv)  58:1-2
				(2)  The true fast  58:3-7
				(3)  True doing righteousness and its reward  58:8-14
			d.  Mischief and separation from salvation ( הֵן ) at 59:1-15a
		2.  Warrior theophany: God acts monergistically ( וַ ) at 59:15b-21
		3.  The supply of riches, glory, and blessing  60:1-22
			a.  A general statement on God’s glory and kings’ coming (impv)  60:1-3
			b.  Detailed results (impv)  60:4-22
		4.  Prosperity of harvest and land (-)  61:1-11
		5.  Prosperity of the city  62:1-9
			a.  New names for Jerusalem corresponding to the reversal into righteousness  62:1-5
			b.  Oath of eternal protection  62:6-9
	B.  Conquest leading to two-sided punishment and prosperity  62:10-66:24
		1.  Prepare for the Lord (cf. 57:14) (double impv)  62:10-12
		2.  Warrior theophany: God as treader of grapes of wrath.  63:1-64:12
			a.  The divine warrior as treader of grapes ( מִי ) at 63:1-6
			b.  Comparison with the exodus  63:7-64:12
				(1)  Warrior acting in old exodus (then)  63:7-14
				(2)  Look on our distress (now)  63:15-19
				(3)  Call on the Lord on the basis of past pattern and present devastation  64:1-12
		4.  Effects of God's recompense on men, with focus on harvest and land  65:1-25
			a.  Indictment: repayment for hypocritical holiness  65:1-5
			b.  Verdict: two-sided judgment  65:6-12
				(1)  Condemnation ( הִנֵּה ) at 65:6-7
				(2)  Vindication of the true people ( כֹּה ) at 65:8-10
				(3)  Repayment to the false (reversal)  65:11-12
			c.  Contents of the recompense  65:13-25
				(1)  Details of two-sidedness ( לָכֵן ) at 65:13-16
				(2)  Long life and peace in new earth ( כִּי הִנִּי ) at 65:17-25  (new Canaan?)
		5.  Effects of God's recompense, with focus on the city of Jerusalem  66:1-24
			a.  Indictment: externalism of sacrifices and sanctuary ( כֹּה ) at 66:1-3d
			b.  Verdict (bipolar reversal)  66:3e-6
			c.  Contents of the recompense: the state of salvation  66:7-24
				(1)  Jerusalem  66:7-17
					(a)  Prosperity and children to Jerusalem  66:7-14
					(b)  Fire of judgment on idolatrous opposition  66:15-17
				(2)  Nations round Jerusalem  66:18-24
					(a)  Gathering the nations to glory  66:18-21
					(b)  Enduring state of prosperity and curse  66:22-24

EPHESIANS Outline

I.  Opening Greeting 1:1-2

II.  What God has done for you in Christ  1:2-3:21 (doctrinal section)

	A.  Appreciating God’s spiritual feast of blessings  1:3-23
		1.  Contents of the feast: you receive all blessings 1:3-14    key: 1:3
		2.  Pray that you may know 1:15-23     key: 1:18

	B.  Entering God’s feast  2:1-22
		1.  You go from death to life  2:1-10     key: 2:5
		2.  Gentiles as well as Jews are brought to God  2:11-22       key: 2:15

	C.  The “waiter” at God's feast  3:1-21
		1.  God revealed Christ's work to Paul  3:1-13      key: 3:5
		2.  May he reveal Christ to you  3:14-21     key: 3:19

III.  What you are to do in response through God’s power and provision  4:1-6:20 (ethical section)

	A.  Your new life with one another in unity and diversity  4:1-16
		1.  You all are to bear the same fruit  4:1-6      key: 4:3
		2.  You each are to exercise particular gifts for others’ benefit  4:7-16    key: 4:16

	B.  Your new life in Christ contrasted with the old  4:17-6:9
		1.  You can put off the old and put on the new  4:17-5:2        key: 4:24
		2.  You must live in light and not darkness  5:3-14     key: 5:11
		3.  Understand the Lord’s ways, including submitting to one another  5:15-6:9   key: 5:21

	C.  The battle in your new life: you need God’s armor  6:10-20     key: 6:11

IV.  Closing greetings  6:21-24

Vern S. Poythress, 1981

X.  D.  How to pay attention to the flow of thought:
An Introduction to Propositional Relations
and Rhetorical Analysis

1.	Our purpose

		Within a long sentence or a paragraph, people’s thoughts are usually not randomly thrown together.  They occur in a coherent sequence.  We understand what someone is saying better when we know what assumptions he has made earlier and where he is headed.  We can test and improve our understanding of difficult material by asking ourselves explicitly how one thought is connected to the next.
How shall we do this?  A number of analysts of literature have developed special techniques for focusing attention on connections between thoughts.  The most fully developed systems for practical use are to be found in John Beekman and John Callow, Translating the Word of God, Chapter 18, and in Poythress, “Propositional Relations.” The latter will be the standard of reference.  But the system used there is a little too complicated for the use of the average pastor.  I have therefore undertaken to simplify it in the following analysis of propositional relations.
		If you wish to have a fuller and more exact explanation of the different propositional relations, you should consult Poythress, “Propositional Relations.”  In the advanced paper, “Propositional Relations,” some of the propositional relations introduced here are further divided into subtypes.  Hence the labeling is slightly different and more complicated.  For your convenience, as I introduce each propositional relation below, I give in parentheses the standard abbreviations for the corresponding relation or relations which are used in the advanced paper “Propositional Relations.” You may refer to this paper if you desire to have more examples.
		First, briefly examine the following examples of all the types of propositional relations, together with the simplified labels.

	He sawed the branch off.				¯   Result
	As a result, the branch fell.

	He sawed the branch off				¯   Intending
	in order to make it fall.

	Though he sawed off the branch,		¯   Although
	it did not fall.

	The branch fell.					¯   Hence
	Hence, he must have sawed it off.

	If he saws off the branch,				¯   If
	it will fall.

	Either the branch fell				Or
	or he did not saw it off.

	He thought						   Complement (Cpt)
	that John was crazy.

	I will meditate on your law;			In other words (//)
	I will think on your statutes.

	Bill farms						But
	but John teaches.

	He charged me					   Like
	like a mad bull coming on a red flag.

	Bill bought apples					And
	and sold oranges.

	We talked.						¯   Afterwards
	Afterwards I remembered what we said.

	He constantly talked				¯   Simultaneously (Sim)
	and flitted his eyes.	

	When night came,					¯   Setting
	he sawed off the branch.

		Every relation between propositions can be analyzed as one of these types.  But the relationship is not always as obvious as it is in these paradigm cases.  To be able to recognize all the relations, we need to define each type of relation more closely and to give examples.
The examples below are taken from the Revised Standard Version.

2.	What is a proposition?

		A proposition, in my usage, is one of the units of thought.  It is a semological unit, that is, a unit in the referential hierarchy.  It is not to be confused with the concept of “proposition” used in logic.  More specifically, a proposition is the smallest unit that says something about something.  Generally speaking, it has a subject (it is “about something”) and a predicate (it “says something”), as well as possibly other elements.
		Look at Mark 9:26,

	And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out.

“It came out” is a proposition.  The clause “It came out” is about something, namely the subject, “it” (in this case an evil spirit).  And the clause “says something,” namely that it “came out.” “Came out” is the predicate.
		Less evidently, “crying out” is also a proposition.  It has a predicate, “crying out.” What about the subject?  There is no explicit subject given.  But this is the regular practice in English with clauses after + verb + -ing.  The construction as a whole furnishes a subject implicitly, namely “it.”  Such implicit or elided subjects count as a part of the proposition.  By similar reasoning, “convulsing him terribly” is also a proposition.
		Generally speaking, a single proposition has one and only one “main” verb.  That is, there is only one verb, when auxiliaries like “have,” “will,” and “should” are not counted.  Of course, “have” or even “is” can also function as the main verb at times. (“I have a stereo.” “I am his friend.”)  In Greek and Hebrew, the copulative “is” is frequently omitted.  A clause with a missing (but “implicit”) copulative “to be” still counts as a proposition.  Other verbs can also be elided, if they are clear from the context.  In the process of analysis, you should restore any elided verbs in order to see the full proposition.  For example, consider Mark 14:1-2.

And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him; for they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people.”

“Not during the feast” represents a whole proposition.  When we restore what is implicit, the full proposition is “We must not kill him during the feast” or “We should not kill him during the feast.”
		For somewhat similar reasons, it is well to take a special approach to rhetorical questions.  Rhetorical questions are questions that do not expect an explicit answer, but, as it were, “contain their own answer.” For example, consider Mark 13:2,

Do you see these great buildings?

The disciples are not expected to answer yes or no.  It is obvious that they can see the buildings.  What Jesus means is something like “Take a look at these great buildings.” A rhetorical question, of course, frequently has “more punch,” in a subtle way, than does a corresponding direct statement.  But the two are roughly equivalent.  The statement form is easier to “process” when we are looking for propositional relations.
		The first step in analyzing the flow of thought is to break a text down into its constituent propositions.  If you have doubt about whether a certain complex is one proposition or two, break it in two.  You will always be able to tie the parts back together later on.  Now copy the text onto a column on the left-hand side of a fresh sheet of paper.  Begin a new line for each new proposition.  Now begin doing an Outline of the text.
In dividing a text into propositions, and in doing the outline, remember that your primary concern is to be with the author’s thought and the sequence or flow of that thought.  Grammar is secondary.  However, it is largely by means of the grammar that we learn about the flow of thought.  You must return to look at the grammar again and again, in order to establish objectively what the flow of thought is.  But you let the grammar tell you, not merely about itself, but about what the author is saying, what he is thinking, what he is meaning.

3.	Cause-effect relations

Now we are ready to consider one by one the different types of relationships between successive propositions in an Outline.  Cause-effect relations are relations in which one proposition talks about an event (the cause) which is temporally earlier than the event mentioned in the second proposition (the effect).  In addition to this, the author indicates that the earlier event, the cause, actually causally influences the later event, the effect.

a.	Result (in the paper “Propositional Relations,” Mns-E, Rsn-Rst, Stm-Rsp)

		“Result” is the basic cause-effect relation.  Consider Mark 5:34,

	He had compassion on them,
	because they were like sheep without a shepherd.

The event of the first clause is the causal effect of the situation in the second clause.  Label the connection like this:
	He had compassion on them,					   Result
	because they were like sheep without a shepherd.

The arrow points upward because the causal influence is from the second to the first proposition.  Suppose that the sentence had been reversed:
	They were like sheep without a shepherd.
	So he had compassion on then.

Then we would reverse the arrow in the labeling:

	They were like sheep without a shepherd.			¯   Result
	So he had compassion on them.

Here are some futher examples:

	But Jesus made no further answer,				¯   Result
	so that Pilate wondered.		Mark 15:5

	But he cried out all the more, “Son of David, 	have mercy on me!”	¯   Result
	And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.”					¯   Result
	And they called the blind man,		Mark 10:48-49

As in Mark 10:48-49, responses to questions, commands, etc., should be viewed as loose instances of cause and effect.
		One can test for the presence of the Result relation as follows.  Put the proposition designating the “effect” second, while the proposition designating the “cause” is first.  Then you should be able to insert the words “as a result” without substantially changing the meaning.

	They were like sheep without a shepherd.			¯   Result
	As a result, he had compassion on them.

b.	Intending (Eng-Pur)

		“Intending” is a causal relation, somewhat like “Result,” except that the causal connection takes place in the intention of some personal agent active in the “cause.”
Here are some examples.

	And they were bringing children to him,			¯   Intending
	that he might touch then.		Mark 10:13

	What must I do							¯   Intending
	to inherit eternal life?		Mark 10:17

	He sent a servant to the  tenants,					¯   Intending
	to get from them some of the fruit …		Mark 12:2

	The man must take the wife,					¯   Intending
	and raise up children for his brother.		Mark 12:19

The arrow points towards what is the goal of the intention.
		The relation of “Intending” can be tested for by inserting the words “in order to” or “in order that.”  One should be able to insert these before the “goal” proposition, without substantially changing the meaning.  Thus:

	And they were bringing children to him,			¯   Intending
	in order that he might touch them.		Mark 10:13

c.	Although (Ccs-Cex)

		The “Although” relation holds when the effect is surprising, or when it is exactly contrary to what might be expected to follow from the cause.  Here are examples:

	And Pilate again asked him, “Have you no 		answer to make?		¯   Although
	But Jesus made no further answer,		Mark 15:4-5

	The man who had been possessed with demons begged that he might be with him.	¯   Although
	But	he refused, …		Mark 5:18-19

		One can test for this relation by seeing whether “although” can be inserted in front of the “cause” proposition, without substantially changing the meaning.

And although Pilate again asked him,			¯   Although
Jesus made no further answer,		Mark 15:4-5

4.	Reasoning (argumentative, logical) relations

		Next, there are propositional relations for doing reasoning.  The chief focus or concern in this case is not on causal relations “in the world,” but on establishing or confirming the truth of some proposition on the basis of another.  The most common such propositional relation is the “Hence” relation.
a.	Hence (Grd-Imp)

		In the “Hence” relation, the author wishes to convince the reader of the truth of one proposition on the basis of or using the support of another proposition about which there is already relative certainty.  Here are examples:

	Take heed, watch;					   Hence
	for you do not know when the time will come.		Mark 13:33

	“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two
		shall become one.”					¯   Hence
	So they are no longer two but one.			¯   Hence
	What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.			Mark 10:7-9

	Certainly you are one of then;				   Hence
	for you are a Galilean.			Mark 14:70

		Note that the “Hence” relation is quite similar in some ways to the “Result” relation.  Do not confuse them.  The “Result” relation is more likely to occur in narrative.  In instances of the Result relation, there is no argument going on, and neither proposition is being regarded as more certain or as confirming the truth of the other.  On the other hand, the “Hence” relation is more likely to occur in expository discourse or persuasive speech.  There is reasoning going on, sometimes based on causal connections, sometimes not.  If there is no clear temporal order to the events involved, the relation must be logical (“Hence”), not causal (“Result”).
Consider Mark 14:40.

	And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy.

Is the author trying to persuade the readers that they were sleeping, by appealing to the (known) fact that their eyes were very heavy?  Hardly.  Heaviness of eyes is introducing a causal explanation for what happened.  Therefore it is a case of Result.

	And again he came and found them sleeping,			   Result
	for their eyes were very heavy.

		There may still be some borderline cases, where you feel that there is both reasoning and causal connection.  As a rule of thumb, label such cases “Hence.”  Remember that reasoning sometimes appeals to an underlying causal connection.
		You can test for the presence of a Hence relation by seeing whether “hence” can be inserted without substantially changing the over-all meaning.  Thus:

	So they are no longer two but one.			¯   Hence
	Hence, what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.	Mark 10:8-9

		If the conclusion is given first, and the supporting evidence	second, try 	inserting “In support of this conclusion, note that …:

	Take heed, watch.						   Hence
	In support of this conclusion, note that you do not know when the time will come.	Mark 13:33

		Or reverse the order and try using “hence”:

	You do not know when the time will come.		¯   Hence
	Hence, take heed, watch.			Mark 13:33

b.	If (Cnd-Cq)

		The “If” relation is similar to the “Hence” relation, except that in this case the supporting auxiliary proposition is viewed as uncertain rather than certainly true.  This propositional relation is almost always easy to identify, because of the presence of the word “if.” Here are examples:

	And if the Lord had not shortened the days,			¯   If
	no human being would be saved.		Mark 13:20

	If I must die with you,						¯   If
	I will not deny you.		Mark 14:31

	If the salt has lost its saltness,					¯   If
	how will you season it?		Mark 9:50

		In the few cases where “if” does not already occur explicitly, you can test for the presence of the If relation by seeing whether you can change the construction into one involving “if,” without substantially changing the meaning.  (Note: When “if” occurs meaning “whether,” it is not an instance of the “If” relation.)

C.	Or (Et-Or)

		The “Or” relation is the relation between two propositions either one of which is asserted to be true.  This propositional relation is also easy to identify, because almost always an explicit “or” is present.  Here are examples:

	Should we pay then,				Or
	or should we not?		Mark 12:15

	They ought to be here before you and make an accusation …			Or
	Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found …		Acts 24:19-20

		Note that no arrow accompanies the “Or” symbol.  Unlike the previous propositional relations, the reasoning here does not “flow” specifically in one direction, from one proposition to the other.  Hence the arrow is omitted.
		The test for this propositional relation is the presence of an “or.” (But not every “or” joins propositions; some join pieces of propositions only.)

5.	Completive relations

a.	Complement (abbreviated Cpt; in the paper “Propositional Relations,” Mtx-Cmp and Nom-At)

		When one proposition furnishes further information about one element in a second proposition, so that the second proposition is incomplete without the first, the relation is called “Complement.”  An arrow is drawn with its head pointed toward the “outer” proposition, the one in which the other proposition is embedded.  These ideas are best understood by examining examples.

	Most of then said,				   Cpt
	“He is dead.”		Mark 9:26

	They were afraid				   Cpt
	to ask him.		Mark 9:32

	They had discussed with one another		   Cpt
	who was the greatest.		Mark 9:34

	Whoever receives one such child in my name		¯   Cpt
	receives me		Mark 9:37

	We saw							   Cpt
	a man casting out demons in your name		Mark 9:38

	Truly, I say to you,						   Cpt
	this generation will not pass away …		Mark 13:30

	Is it lawful							   Cpt
	for a man to divorce his wife?		Mark 10:2

	You will find a colt				   Cpt
	tied										   Cpt
	on which no one has ever yet sat.		Mark 11:2

		Verbs of saying, thinking, fearing, hoping, etc., that have a clause or a sentence as object are instances of the Complement relation.  The arrow points toward the proposition associated with the main verb (“said,” “thought,” etc.).
		There is no simple test for the Complement relation, other than the fact that one proposition is incomplete without the other.

6.	Other relations of topical association

a.	In other words (abbreviated in the paper “Propositional Relations,” +1 +2; +  +; +  --; and Gn-Sp)

		When one proposition is a paraphrase of another, the propositional relation is “In other words.”  The two propositions say roughly the same thing, though one may say it more fully than the other, and though one may say it positively and the other negatively.  Some leeway must be allowed here, since almost never does a restatement of the truth simply repeat.  It reinforces or highlights differently.  Here are examples:

	Let the children come to me,			//
	do not hinder them.			Mark 10:14

	… how much the Lord has done for you,		//
	and how he has had mercy on you.	Mark 5:19

	(The Son of man came)
	not to be served					//
	but to serve.		Mark 10:45

	But Jesus rebuked him,				//
	saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!”	Mark 1:25

	What are you doing,				//
	untying the colt?	Mark 11:5

		An instance like Mark 10:45 must be clearly distinguished from the “But” relation discussed below.  Even though the word “but” occurs, there is no tension between the two propositions, “not to be served” and “to serve.”  Rather, they are saying basically the same thing, first negatively, then positively.
Instances like Mark 1:25 and 11:5 need some explanation.  “Untying the colt” is much more specific than “doing,” but the two propositions are talking about the same action.  It is simply that one is much more specific.  Such cases, as well as cases of summaries, are instances of “In other words.”
		One can test for the presence of the “In other words” relation by seeing if “in other words” can be inserted without substantially changing the meaning:

	Let the children come to me.				//
	In other words, do not hinder them.		Mark 10:14

	(The Son of man came)
	not to be served.						//
	In other words, (he came) to serve.		Mark 10:45

	What are you doing?
	In other words, (why are you) untying the colt?		Mark 11:5

		Some flexibility must be allowed in this test.  Sometimes, when “in other words” is added, some further explanatory phrase must also be added in order to make the grammar come out right (e.g., Mark 10:45 and 11:5 above).  Sometimes there is still some remaining awkwardness, because the two propositions do not say exactly the same thing (e.g., Mark 10:45).

b. But (- +)

		The “But” relation is the relation between two propositions in tension with one another, in contrast to one another.  Frequently it is suggested that there is some difficulty in seeing how both could simultaneously be true.  Here are examples:

	For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.		But
	But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and ~fanale.”		Mark 10:5-6

	The disciples rebuked them.							But
	But when Jesus saw it he was indignant,		Mark 10:43

	… their great men exercise authority over them.				But
	But it shall not be so among you.		Mark 10:43

		Note that the “But” relation is similar in some ways to the “Although” relation.  It differs from “Although” by the fact that with the “Although” relation there is a surprising twist in a temporal causal sequence.  With the “But” relation, no such temporal causal sequence is present in any obvious way.  Usually, in fact, neither proposition refers to an event temporally prior to the other.  Neither the presence of the word “although” or the word “but” is a good test for discriminating between the two.
		The “But” relation is also similar in some ways to the “In other words” relation.  The “In other words” relation includes instances when the same truth is stated positively and negatively.

	(The Son of man cane)
	not to be served								//
	but to serve.			Mark 10:45

There is no “tension” between the two propositions of “In other words.” In this it differs from “But.”
The “But” relation can be tested for by seeing whether the phrase “by contrast” can be inserted without substantially changing the meaning.

	For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.		But
	By contrast, from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.”	Mark 10:5-6

	The disciples rebuked them.							But
	By contrast, when Jesus saw it he was indignant.		Mark 10:14

c.	Like (IV-DV; Gt-Ls; Std-TC)

		The “Like” relation holds between two propositions that are said to be analogous to one another in some respect.  Usually this propositional relation is easy to identify, because it is indicated by the use of the words “like” or “as,” or by the occurrence of a comparative adjective, “more,” “greater than,” “faster than,” “better than,” etc.).  Thus:

	As his custom was,						¯   Like
	he taught them.		Mark 10:1

	You, therefore, must be perfect,				   Like
	as your heavenly Father is perfect.		Matt 5:48

	It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle		Like
	than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God~3		Mark 10:25

	It is better for you to enter life maimed					Like
	than with two hands to go to hell …		Mark 9:43

		When the words “as” or “like” are used, you will find generally that the proposition introduced by “as” or “like” is a “fixed” or “known” point, while the other, main proposition provides the new information.  Hence an arrow is used to point from the subordinate point in the comparison to the main point.  No such arrow is appropriate when comparative adjectives + “than” are involved (Mark 10:25, 9:43).
		There is no simple way to test for the presence of the “Like” relation with a test phrase.  The most adequate test expression is probably “it is analogous to the fact that.”  But, to use this expression, one must sometimes be prepared to alter the grammar.
	His custom was (to teach).						¯   Like
	It is analogous to the fact that he taught them.			Mark 10:1
	If is not easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.			Like
	It is analogous to the fact that (it is not easy) for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
							Mark 10:25

d.	And (Cr-Cr)

		The “And” relation is the relation between two coordinate but nonidentical propositions.  The two propositions are not saying the same thing (this would be “In other words”).  Rather, they are saying two things topically connected to one another.  Thus:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;			And
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.		Mark 10:11-12

	And he took them in his arms,					And
	and blessed them …		Mark 10:16

	Do not kill,								And
	Do not commit adultery,						And
	Do not steal,								And
	Do not bear false witness …		Mark 10:19

	At that saying his countenance fell,				And
	and he went away sorrowful.		Mark 10:22

		The “And” relation is a kind of “garbage can” into which one can throw any loose connection of thought not classifiable under the other propositional relations.  Thus many of the sequences of proverbs in the Book of Proverbs have no obvious connection other than being proverbs.  The propositional relation is then “And.”
		To test for the presence of the “And” relation, see if you can insert “and” without substantially changing the meaning.  Often the “and” is already there (e.g., Mark 10:11-12, 10:16, 10:22 above).  However, the presence of “and” or the ability to insert “and” is not a very decisive test.  Often the word “and” will occur concealing other propositional relations.  My rule of thumb is this: because “And” is the “garbage can” relation, use it only when it seems artificial to classify the relation in any of the other categories.  When you have to decide between the topical relation “And” and the temporal relations “Afterwards” or “Simultaneously,” use “And” only when it seems that the topical connection is a fairly close and important one (e.g., Mark 10:16).

7.	Relations of time, space, and circumstance (co-occurrence)

		Finally, we must consider three types of propositional relations having to do with connections in time, space, and circumstance.  All three of these relations are found almost exclusively (a) in narrative discourse (an account of a series of events in the past, showing some interest in temporal order), (b) procedural discourse (instructions about how to do something, again with focus on temporal order), and (c) short narrative or procedural sentences or paragraphs embedded in other types of discourse.  Therefore, if you are not dealing with narrative or procedural discourse, try first to see whether a given connection of propositions fits one of the other categories.  Only if it doesn’t appear to fit should you have recourse to the three propositional relations of time, space, and circumstance.
a.	Afterwards (An-Sb)

		The “Afterwards” relation holds between two propositions when the events that they describe are temporally successive; one comes after the other.  Here are examples:

	And he sat down opposite the treasury,					¯   Afterwards
	and watched the multitude …		Mark 12:41

	And he took with him Peter and James and John,			¯   Afterwards
	and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.		Mark 14:33

	And he came								¯   Afterwards
	and found them sleeping.			Mark 14:37

	And the disciples set out							¯   Afterwards
	and went to the city,							¯   Afterwards
	and found it as he had told them.		Mark 14:16

	But after I am raised up,							¯   Afterwards
	I will go before you to Galilee.		Mark 14:28

The head of the arrow points toward the event which is later in time.
		Note that the “Afterwards” relation is quite similar to the “Result” relation.  The difference is that in the “Result” relation there is at least a suggestion of a significant causal connection.  Thus consider Mark 14:47,

	and struck the slave of the high priest						¯   Result
	and cut off his ear.			Mark 14:47

Is the propositional relation here an instance of “Afterwards”’?  It should be considered as “Result,” even though there is no explicit connective like “so that” or “so.”  The causal connection is obvious even without a word more explicit than “and.”  As a rule of thumb, I prefer in doubtful cases to use “Result,” because the alternative, “Afterwards,” is a less specific description.
		The presence of the “Afterwards” relation can be tested by seeing whether the word “afterwards” can be inserted without substantially changing the meaning.  Occasionally the temporally subsequent event will be mentioned first, and then this test will of course not work.

	And he sat down opposite the treasury.						¯   Afterwards
	Afterwards (he) watched the multitude  …		Mark 12:41

b.	Simultaneously (abbreviated Sim; in the paper “Propositional Relations,” Sim-Sim)

		The relation “Simultaneously” holds between two propositions in narrative or procedural discourse when the major connection between the two events is that they take place simultaneously.  Here are some examples:

	Sit here,							Simultaneously (Sim)
	while I pray.			Mark 14:32

	Remain here,						Sim
	and watch.		Mark 14:34

	I was with you in the temple teaching,			Sim
	and you did not seize me.			Mark 14:49

		This “Simultaneously” relation cannot usually be confused with “Result,” because temporal simultaneity is incompatible with the causal connection indicated by “Result.”  However, there is some danger of confusion with “In other words.”  Consider Mark 14:39,

He prayed,
saying the same words.

“Saying the same words” is a more specific description of the same event as “he prayed.”  Unless there are two distinct events, the relation is not “Simultaneously.”
		The “Simultaneously” relation is also similar to the “And” relation.  Two simultaneous events are related by the “And” relation when the connection is primarily topical rather than temporal.  Consider Mark 14:31,

	But he said vehemently, “If I must die with you I will not deny you.”			And
	And they all said the same.		

It is not clear whether these events are viewed as basically simultaneous or successive.  Whichever may be the case, the relation is clearly primarily topical, concerning avowing loyalty to Jesus.
		The “Simultaneously” relation can be tested for by seeing whether the word “simultaneously” can be inserted between the propositions.
	Sit here.							Sim
	Simultaneously, I (will) pray.		Mark 14:32

	Remain here.						Sim
	Simultaneously, watch.		Mark 14:34

But this is not a very decisive test, since it will not discriminate some cases of the “And” relation.

C.	Setting (TSet-Hap; LSet-Hap; CSet-Hap)

		The “Setting” relation holds between two simultaneous propositions when one gives the setting in time, space, or circumstance in which the other takes place.  Here are examples:

	And when they had sung a hymn,					¯   Setting
	they went out to the Mount of Olives.		Mark 14:26

	And when it was evening							¯   Setting
	he came with the twelve.			Mark 14:17

	And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table,	¯   Setting
	a woman came with an alabaster jar.		Mark 14:3

	And going a little farther,							¯   Setting
	he fell on the ground and prayed …		Mark 14:35

		The “Setting” relation is similar to the “Simultaneously” relation.  The two are distinguished from one another by the fact that (a) in the Setting relation, one proposition is much less prominent than the other, and (b) the main reason for introducing the less prominent proposition at all is to indicate the setting in which the main activity takes place.
		The “Setting” relation can be tested for by seeing whether the phrase “in these circumstances” can be inserted without substantially changing the meaning.  Thus:

	They had sung a hymn.							¯   Setting
	In these circumstances, they went out to the Mount of Olives.		Mark 14:26

	It was evening.								¯   Setting
	In these circumstances, he came with the twelve.		Mark 14:17

Now we are ready to summarize the complete set of propositional relations, in order to have a reference chart for convenient use in analyzing new texts.  Along with the standard label (e.g., Result”) I provide in each case the “test phrase,” if this phrase is different from the label itself.  But one must remember that the test phrase is a limited, fallible tool, especially in some cases (“In other words,” “it is analogous to the fact that,” “by contrast,” “and”).
Types of Propositional Relations: A Summary
I.abel; Test Phrase.				Example
A.	Cause-effect relations (includes movement  ®  in time)
Result;				®N	He sawed the branch off./ As a result, the branch fell.
	“as a result”			N¬	The branch fell / because he sawed it off.

Intending;				N®	He sawed the branch off / in order to make it fall.
	“in order to”

Although				®N	Though he sawed off the branch, / it did not fall.
					N¬	The branch did not fall, / even though he sawed it off.

B.	Reasoning (argumentative, logical) relations
Hence					®N	The branch fell. / Hence, he must have sawed it off.
					N¬	He must have sawed off the branch,/ for it fell.

If					®N	If he saws off the branch, / it will fall.
					N¬	The branch will fall / if he saws it off.

Or						Either the branch fell / or he did not saw it off.

C.	Completive relations
Cornplement (Cpt)			¬	He thought / that John was crazy.
					¬	He presented a gift / tied with ribbons.

D.	Other relations of topical association
In other words (//)				I will meditate on your law; / I will think on your statutes.

But						Bill farms / but John teaches.
	“by contrast”

Like						He charged me / like a mad bull coming on a red flag.
	“as; it is analogous to”

And						Bill bought apples / and sold oranges.

E.	Relations of time, space, and circumstances (co-occurence)
Afterwards				®	We talked. / Afterwards I remembered what we said.

Simultaneously (Sim)			He constantly talked / and flitted his eyes.

Setting				®N	When night came, / he sawed off the branch.
	“in these circumstances”	N¬	He sawed off the branch / when night came.

A.	1 Thes. 4:1-18 R2 Progressively larger circles of Responsibility
for the Thessalonian Christians

4:2-5	Personal and family life
4:6-8	Touching on the rights of the brother
4:9	Love for the brotherhood
4:10	The whole of Macedonia
4:11-12	Pagans
4:13-18	The dead in Christ

Structure of Paul's Letters
(Grammatical Analysis)

Vern S. Poythress, 1978
1.	Opening (salutation)
	A.	The participants: X to Y
	B.	Greeting: xai/rein
II.	Body
	A.	Body-opening: Thanksgiving or wishes
	B.	Body-middle (Peak discussion)
		1.	Primarily historical
		2.	Primarily hortatory
	C.	Body-closing (Post-peak discussion) Why I have written
		1.	Why I have written
		2.	Future visits
		3.	Wishes
III.	 Closing
	A.	Greetings, wishes (Closure)
	B.	Benediction (Finis)

I.	II.						III.		
									
	A	B1	B2	C1	C2	C3	A	B	
									
R 1:1-7   	1:8-12	1:13-11:36	12:1-15:13	15:14-22	15:23-29	15:30-33	16:1-23	24 or 25-27	
1C 1:1-3	1:4-9	1:10-4:21	5:1-16:4		16:5-12	16:13-18	16:19-22	23-24	
2C 1:1-2	1:3-7	1:8-6:13	6:14-12:21	13:10	13:1-9	13:11	13:12	13	
G 1:1-5	(4-5)	1:6-5:12	5:13-6:10	6:11-16	(6:17)	6:17		6:18	
E 1:1-2	1:3-3:21	(2:1-3:21)	4:1-6:20	6:21-22	(6:21-22)	6:23		6:24	
P 1:1-2	1:3-11	1:12-26	1:27-2:18		2:19-30				
			3:1-4:9	4:10-18		4:19-20	4:21-22	4:23	
C 1:1-2	1:3-20	1:21-2:5	2:6-4:6		4:7-9		4:10-18b	18c	
1T 1:1	1:2-10	2:1-3:13	4:1-5:24				5:25-27	28	
2T 1:1-2	1:3-12	2:1-17	3:1-16		(3:17)	(3:16)	3:17	18	
1Tm 1:1-2		1:3-17	1:18-6:21a					6:21b	
2Tm 1:1-2	1:3-5	1:6-18	2:1-4:8		4:9-18		4:19-21	4:22	
Ti 1:1-4		1:5-16	2:1-3:11		3:12-13	3:14	3:15a-b	15c	
Pm 1-3	4-7	8-16	17-20	21	22	(22b)	23-24	25	
Jm 1:1		1:2-15	1:16-5:20						
1P 1:1-2	1:3-12		1:13-5:11	5:12			5:13-14a	14b	
2P 1:1-2	1:3-15	1:16-2:22	3:1-18a					3:18b	
2J 1-3	4		5-11		12		13		
3J 1	2-4	5-10	11-12		13-14	15a	15b-c		
Jd 1-2		3-16	17-23					24-25	
Rv 1:4-5a	1:5b-8	1:9-22:7		22:8-11		22:12-19	22:20	22:21	

An Abbreviated Outline
Taken From Rhetorical Analysis of Ezra 1

The Lord stirred restoration
I.	The Lord stirred Cyrus to issue a decree for restoration  1-4
	A.	The Lord stirred Cyrus  1a-c
	B.	Cyrus issued a decree for restoration  1d-4
		1.	Cyrus made proclamation  1d
		2.	Cyrus says God has charged him with restoration  2-4
			a.	Thus says Cyrus  2a
			b.	Content of the saying  2b-4
				(1)	The Lord has charged me  2b-d
				(2)	The exiles are to return with aid from others  3-4
					(a)	Exiles are to return  3
					(b)	Others are to aid  4

II.	The people of God responded, being aided by others  5-11
	A.	The people of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi responded  5
		1.	The people rose up  5a-b
		2.	They intended to go to rebuild  5c-d
	B.	Others aided  6
	C.	Cyrus aided with vessels from the temple  7-11
		1.	Cyrus had the vessels brought out  7-11a
			a.	Cyrus had them brought out  7-8
			b.	Here are the numbers and types  9-11a
		2.	Sheshbazzar brought them to Jerusalem  11b

A.	A	Sermon  on the POWER OF CHRIST TO FULFILL GOD’S PLANS FOR YOUI.	The issuing of the decree (Proposal)
A.	God plans
B.	He commands the redeemed
C.	He makes commands for their resources

II.  Response                    (Execution)
A.	God promises that there will be a response
B.	The redeemed respond
C.	The resources are provided

AN ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF ISAIAH 52:11-12

I. Separate from uncleanness        (How
A.   Remove yourselves from the vicinity of contamination

	Recognize what is unclean (How do I identify sin?)
C.	Fulfill your responsibility for holiness to the Lord (How

II.	God's promise of protection is the basis for your responsibility (How
A.	Your response is not governed by the enemy
B.	It is so because God is with you

Common Rhetorical Subdivisions in a NARRATIVE Episode
Vern S. Poythress

The following categories are defined using slightly modified versions of the definitions in John Beekman, “Toward an Understanding of Narrative Structure” (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1978) 7-8.  I wish to give credit to Beekman for their invention.  But I have introduced my own clarifications.

SETTING.  Setting is composed of statements about static facts, location, time, circumstances, or movement in location.  Usually such information comes at the very beginning of a new episode.

PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS.  Preliminary Incidents are events (not descriptions of static states of affairs) relevant to what follows, but before the problem or tension has been introduced into the episode.

OCCASIONING INCIDENT.  The Occasioning Incident is the event which introduces notable conflict or tension.  In the nature of the case, there is seldom more than one such incident.

COMPLICATION.  Complication is an event increasing tension, making a solution (apparently) more difficult.  There can be more than one paragraph devoted to complications of various kinds.  (Unlike the Occasioning Incident, Complication can and often does occur more than once in a single episode.)

CLIMAX.  Climax is the incident of maximum conflict or tension.  It is where, in a melodrama, one would expect the music to play the loudest.

RESOLUTION.  Resolution is the event or events which solve the problem, release the tension, and unravel the tangles—or at least they contribute toward the solution.

ADDITIONAL INCIDENTS.  An Additional Incident is a further event that is a consequence of the climax or resolution, but is not a significant part of the climax or resolution itself.

COMMENTARY.  A Commentary contains the narrator’s comments on, evaluation of, or moral for the story.  Unlike Additional Incidents, it does not contain events continuing the straight line of the narrative.

In addition to the above, we often find a second simple pattern, composed of the following two units.

	PROPOSAL.  A description of action commanded, planned, or suggested.
	EXECUTION.  The carrying out of action previously described in a Proposal.