How to Study the Bible III - Rhetorical Writing
Vern Peterman · May 1, 2016
How to Study Bible (2016), No. 17
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926532216878

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

We have this topic, rhetorical writing. Rhetoric is the art, so it's an art, right? Rhetoric is the art of effective and persuasive speaking or writing. And just like, what kinds of speakers or writers would use rhetoric? And what's the reason for that? There were different kinds of writers and speakers.

Okay, one is political because a part of what you're trying to do is to persuade, right? Persuade and inform, right? And what else? Can you think of some other? Essentially pastors, ministers, teachers are in a sense wanting to do that because you want people to be informed and you want them to absorb the information and it's also a matter of persuasion. So there is that. You certainly see, and we're going to be looking at it, a lot of the Bible contains rhetoric. That is, it's there to inform and persuade. So that would be another instance.

If you hear of a motivational speaker, somebody who's there to get people stirred up and encouraged in a particular direction, motivated in a particular direction. And so we have people writing and speaking that are trying to get things across so people will remember it. People writing and speaking in order to persuade them. in order to bring insight and understanding, motivation. So those are all ways in which you use rhetoric. And so rhetoric employs a lot of figures of speech. And why figures of speech? Why are figures of speech an important part of rhetoric?

Clarity. OK, clarity. All right, it gets the point across clearly. And it relates the topic to the listener in a different way. It appeals to them. It appeals to them. Figures of speech oftentimes make things more interesting. Figures of speech make things more understandable. It personalizes it. It personalizes it, right. And that's something we're going to be taking a look at here. Yeah, that personalizing thing is important. Sometimes you'll have whole sentences that are a figure of speech. One of them we'll be looking at here first is a rhetorical question.

What's the difference between a rhetorical question and a literal question? I already know the answer. If I ask a rhetorical question, I'm not looking for somebody to inform me what the answer is. So a rhetorical question is making a statement in the form of a question, rather than just asking because you don't know.

Now, so let's put it this way. Down in Mike's class, or over in Mike's class, what do they do? They teach using a number of questions. Essentially, the whole class is rhetorical questions. The questions are asked not because the teacher doesn't know the answer, but the questions are asked to get people to get involved with the question. So they use the Socratic method. Here we tend to spell things out directly and then use the Socratic method, questions, as a secondary method and orally rather than written. OK, so let's take a look here. Here's an example in the middle of page 1 from Isaiah 40, 27-31. Why do you say, O Jacob, and assert, O Israel, my way is hidden from the Lord, and the justice due me escapes the notice of my God?

Now, is he looking for an answer? No. No. What's he doing there by putting it that way? He's making them think of the answer that he already knows. Yeah, in other words, they've apparently either said this or their living expresses this, and he's wanting to say why. What's the reason for this? So he's asking it, he's asking it not because he doesn't know the answer, he's asking it to get them to think why. And it's the why question that he wants them to move on to, not just make an assertion, not just live as if this is true.

So he comes back, the everlasting God, the Lord, the creator, the ends of the earth, does not become weary or tired, his understanding is unscrutable, and so what does he do is he begins to inform them And verse 29, He gives strength to the weary, and to him who lacks might He increases power. Though youths grow weary and tired, and vigorous young men stumble badly, yet those who wait for the Lord will gain new strength. They will mount up with wings like eagles. They will run and not get tired. They will walk and not become weary. Then, alright, here's Romans 6, 1-3. Here's one where He has several questions. that are all rhetorical questions.

What shall we say then? Does he want them to give him an answer? It's not his intent at all. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin, and actually, are we to continue in the sin, or I would say the sin nature, so that grace may increase? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? What's the right answer there?

May it never be, okay? May it never be. How shall we who died to the sin nature still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death? So, what does he have there other than may it never be?

It's all questions, isn't it? For the first three verses of Romans 6, questions, questions, questions. Yes. And let's ask something else. Do you not know, does that have a yes answer or no answer? Do you not know? It has a yes answer. It has a yes answer. And how do we know it has a yes answer?

He's told them before. It's rhetorical. Yeah, it's rhetorical. He's told them before, or at least, see he's never been to Rome. So at least he knows they've been taught this. He knows they've been taught this. And here it says, do you not know? And then in verse 6 it says, because you know. In verse 9 it says, because you know. So that's one confirmation that it's a positive answer. Do you not know is yes.

The other is in the next passage there, Romans 7.1, or do you not know, brethren, for I am speaking to those who know the law. So there you have a confirmation again in the context that yes, do you not know and yes you do.

And very interesting what he does here, who knows the law, which law is he talking about? Is this Mosaic Law or is this Roman Law? Mosaic Law. who knows the law. Here's what's interesting. He picks an example in which the Roman law and the Mosaic law are consistent. Ding! And here's why. Here's why. We'll see this in just a minute.

Under Roman law, the wife was to remain faithful. There was no requirement for the husband to remain faithful under Roman law. Isn't that weird? How about mosaic law? Did one or the other of them have to be faithful under mosaic law? The wife had to. The wife had to be. Did the husband have to be faithful? The husband could divorce her if he wanted to. Yes, but he had to remain faithful to her under the mosaic law, right? Because what do you do with adulterers? You stone just the woman? Both of them.

So what Paul picked for his example is one where he picked the woman because under both Roman law and Mosaic law, the woman had to remain faithful. And so he picked that example. So whether you were of Jewish background or whether you were of Roman background, if you knew the law, you would follow his train of thought. So let's look at what he says here. that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as it lives.

For the married woman is bound by law under Roman law and under the Mosaic law to her husband while he is living. But if her husband dies, she was released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man."

So he picked the woman because that was something both the Romans, who had no exposure to Judaism, and the Jews, who would read their law, the woman would have to be faithful under both laws. And so he didn't have to differentiate. He picked the woman so that both of them, the Romans and the Jews, would see his example. So do you not know, brethren, for I'm speaking to those who know the law, Moses and Romans, that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? And then he says he, and then he switches, for the married woman is bound by law to her husband. OK, let's take a look at the top of page 2. Here's another example, Genesis 44, 14-19.

And when Judah and his brothers came to Joseph's house, he was still there. OK, so who are we talking about here? Judah and his brothers came to Joseph's house. This is Joseph when he was the second in command in Egypt, right? So this is Judah among the other sons of Jacob. also named Israel, that he was still there. And they fell on the ground before him. Joseph said to them, and you may recall the account where Joseph had his servants place a cup in Benjamin's food sack, because that would draw them back, make them come back.

So do you not know? So here's this, do you not know again, right? that such a man as I can indeed practice divination? So Judah said, what can we say to my Lord? What can we speak? And how can we justify ourselves? So there is a series of rhetorical kinds of questions, right?

God has found out the iniquity of your servants, and we are my Lord's slaves, both we and the one in whose possession the cup has been found. But he said, far be it from me to do this. The man in whose possession the cup has been found, he shall be my slave, but as for you, go up in peace to your father. Then Judah approached him and said, O my Lord, may your servant please speak a word in my Lord's ears, and do not be angry with your servant, for you are equal to Pharaoh. You realize this guy is very powerful, right? My Lord asked his servant, saying, Have you a father or a brother? Is that question rhetorical? That's not a rhetorical question there, because he's wanting to actually get an answer. Earlier, we had a rhetorical question. Here, it's not a rhetorical question, because he's actually looking for an answer.

So we said to my Lord, we have an old father and a little child of his old age. Now his brother is dead, so he alone is left of his mother and his father loves him. Then you said to your servants, bring him down to me that I may set my eyes on him. So here you have an example of rhetorical questions and non-rhetorical questions in the same Same setting. How do we know the difference between a rhetorical question and one that's not?

The rhetorical question has an obvious answer. Ah, okay. And how do you know the answer? By something previously stated. It's context, right? It's context that tells us whether or not this guy's fishing for an answer or he's making a rhetorical question. So we look at context to determine one or the other. And some rhetorical questions have an obvious no answer, some have an obvious yes answer. And you know the difference by context. So here's Luke 13, 18 through 21.

So he was saying, who's he? Christ. Here's Christ and he says, what is the kingdom of God like and to what shall I compare it? He was not expecting that the disciples would give him an answer to that question, right? So it's a rhetorical question. So what you find here is rhetorical questions are used a lot. They're not specifically set in one culture. It isn't just this is a Hebrew thing or this is a Greek thing. You find them in different environments. Earlier we just read something in an Egyptian context, right? And then we saw here in Luke, And now he's got a rhetorical question, and Jesus is asking it of the disciples.

So it is like a mustard seed. So it is like, what figure of speech is that? It says like or as. It's a simile, right? A metaphor makes for direct equivalence, right? So this one's a metaphor. So which a man took and threw into his own garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air nested in its branches. And again he said, to what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like, there's the simile again, right? Like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.

So you have this rhetorical question pattern. Again, you know, some figures of speech are specific to a language or a culture. We're going to be looking at, in the main service here following, we're going to be looking at a particular figure of speech that was used among the Jews. And so we'll see that. Now here's another one, Paul's use of I, me, and mine. When I was over in Uganda, and I taught over there at the, I'll call it the pastor's school, several different times. And when I was over there this last time, true to form, lots of questions. Lots of questions. Poland, no questions at all. Everybody's scared to death to ask a question. Because that makes you look, it's embarrassing, makes you look stupid. That's their thought. Africa is a completely different.

Questions just keep rolling and rolling and rolling and rolling. One time I went on for two hours just answering questions. So lots of questions and one of the questions I came up with, one of the guys said, what's Paul doing? He sits there and talks about himself for verses and verses and verses. What is this? Why is he talking about himself?

Well, and so I was able to answer and say, using some of these examples right here, and one of the reasons for Using I, me, and my is one, for emphasis, two, a variation in perspective. Instead of just having monotonous speech that is always I, me, and my or always you, you, you, to switch it around and have variation in the speech. So Christ gave himself for you, and he loved us, and he'll mix those pronouns like that. Okay, so now, then you also have for the readers to personalize the truth for themselves. If Paul says, I, about a universal truth, then that means I can read it and say, I, and make sure it applies to me personally.

If I tell you, for instance, the cross was crowded, you and I were all there. People looked up and they just saw Jesus and that's just one guy and they're finally getting rid of him. But the cross was crowded, spiritually speaking, because you and I were there. It's possible that someone doesn't get that And so I can turn that around and say, I have been crucified with Christ.

And you can say that too. And so that definitely personalizes it and makes sure that I apply it to myself personally. It's also putting it in first person. Yes. So it becomes a lot more personal. It becomes personal. Paul would use this for a sense of intensity. There's something else too. If I say I, and I use that as a universal truth, then you look at it and it may be that you look at it and say, oh, I can relate. I can relate. I understand. And so I may be drawing you in for that purpose.

And we're going to see that in a minute in Romans 7. It's like this cousin of mine, she writes Christmas letters and they're always in the third person. far removed from what's going on. Christmas cards and things like that, we expected those to be an I or We or Us, right? That kind of form.

So if you say I, I can say I. If it's a universal truth, then yes. And so he elsewhere has said, you know, that we have been crucified, but here he personalizes it, and that way I can look at it, and I personally can say I, when he's stating universal truth, right? And then, that way I'm not thinking, well, yeah, you're crucified with Christ, but I'm not so sure about me, you know. But to say it more specifically, each and every single believer, the rhetorical questions don't have, some rhetorical questions don't have a yes or no answer. But Jesus is saying, what is the kingdom of God like and what shall I compare it?

You know, there was no yes or no. That's right. So there's yes and there's no, and then there are those rhetorical questions, you're correct, that don't have a yes or no, and he's asking the question and then following it through with a description. In this case he has a simile. that he puts forth to answer it. So a rhetorical question is always a figure of speech, and he answers it with another figure of speech. So it's almost like he's asking this rhetorical question, not to get a yes or no answer, but to stimulate their thinking again. He wants them to get to thinking about the kingdom of God and what it's like. And then he tells them what it's like. Here at the bottom of page 2 is Galatians 2 19 and 20.

For through the law I died to the law so that I might live to God. Through the law I died to the law so that I might live to God. Does that mean Paul is the only one for which this is true? No. Not at all. He is intending to state it personally for each of his readers to likewise think it through personally. So that's his intent.

So through the law, I died to the law. Through the law, I kind of moved away from the law. Is that what he meant? I moved away from the law and a little bit towards God. About two yards. That's not what he meant. How do we know that? Because dying is a separation. Yeah, dying is a finality. It's a separation. It's a complete dying to.

And it's the same thing that he used, remember, in the rest of Romans 7, 1 through 6, he says essentially the same thing with a little more explanation. I've been joined to Christ in order to die to the law. And he uses the marriage analogy. That's why he introduced the marriage.

If one partner dies, the other is free to remarry, right? So through the law I completely, totally, permanently died in relationship to that law. Well you know that's true because people understand that when they die, They are no longer in this world. They died to this world. So if you die to the law, the law has no jurisdiction over you. This world has no jurisdiction over a person who is dead. That's right. We don't punish criminals if they're dead.

We're going to put you in jail for 40 years, right? That's not going to do any good. And why did you die to the law? What's the purpose? So that we might live. So that we might live to God. Now let's ask the question, if I don't think I'm dead to the law, if I don't think I'm dead to the law, what does that do with my living to God?

You can't. You're under the law. Yeah. So living to God, for the Christian believer means you really need to see yourself as dead to the law, completely. Not holding on to 10 or 9 or 11. A lot of people like to take 10, take off the Sabbath thing, because they don't quite understand that, and then add tithing, so they end up with 10.

Paul was saying in Romans 7, if you're bound to the law, you have to obey the law. But if you've been released from the law, you're no longer bound to the law. Now, what if someone says, and there are people who say this, you only died to the ceremonial law, but you didn't die to the moral law. There are Christians who teach that.

Does that fit here? No. And what's the problem with that? Did you only partially die? The death was complete, wasn't it? Yeah. Plus, it doesn't break it apart. I mean, if that was the case, in our mind, they would have said that the law is divided into different parts, and you died in this part, but not that part. Yeah, and does... Moses go through and say we've got this part and that part. No, they're all mixed in right together. Yes?

Well, if there's a definite article, it would most likely be the totality of the law. Yeah, there's nothing in the structure, there's nothing in the example to try to break out a part of it and keep you under another part. There's nothing in the way it's written, there's nothing in the way Moses wrote it. that you can say, well, I'm still into this, but not that.

Let's have somebody die two-thirds. I've been crucified with Christ, but about a third of me didn't die. And the other two-thirds did. See, that doesn't make sense, does it? There's nothing in the crucifixion, there's nothing in this text, and there's nothing in the Law of Moses that allows me to do that, that makes any sense at all. Yes. I'm trying to think, those people who say you're under the moral law, do they know what the moral law is? What is the moral law?

Well, they would start with the Ten Commandments, as typical. Thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not commit adultery, and thou shalt not covet, and things of that sort. And they'll do that. And they say, but that stuff about doing sacrifices in the temple and all that, that you died to. But you still got to keep this other part.

So that's a common reformed teaching. that you're still under the moral law, you're just no longer under the civil and ceremonial law. So that's a common Reform teaching, is they'll break it out. If we're not under the moral law or the Mosaic law, then we're not under the law. We're letting Christ live through us. We're not under the Mosaic law. By the way, there's no basis for breaking any to the Galatians, what did he say? If you so much as keep one law, circumcision, you're bound to keep it all. And James said if you break one law, you've broken it all, right?

It's like the picture when you're going through Law and Grace, I put a video up on the screen, and it showed this guy tapping tempered glass on the corner with a hammer. And what happens when you tap tempered glass in the corner? The whole thing just BOOM! and comes apart. Right? It's not just the corner snaps. It's not just I made a little crack. I go TAP and the whole thing just pops and it falls into pieces. So one law and you've broken it all.

So let's look at the rest of Galatians 2.20 there.

I have been crucified with Christ. And what percentage if I have been crucified? 100%. I've been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, and I like to carry this out, it's no longer I who do the living. To get it across, it's no longer I who do the living, but Christ does the living in me. And the life which I now live in the flesh, and that's not the flesh like the sinful flesh, but in this human body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me." Notice, even the, he loved me and gave himself up for me. If you were the only person to be saved, would Christ have died for you? Isn't that amazing? He loved me and gave himself up for me.

So that personalizing, once I understand Paul isn't just talking about himself, like the Ugandans were thinking, you know, they were really confused by it. Why is he talking about himself? He's doing this on purpose, so that we can look at it and say, oh, well if that's true of Paul, it's also true of me. I need to very much personalize this truth for myself.

It's a universal truth, so I can take this I, I, I, and me, me, me, and apply it to myself, and most certainly, it's not just a generalization. Well, most Christians are crucified with Christ, and most Christians, you know, Christ can live through them, and for most Christians, you know, he loved me and gave himself up for me. That's not the way it is, is it? It's a universal truth.

And one other thing, I have been crucified with Christ as written in the perfect tense. So that's a completed past action, ongoing results from in the present and on into the future, and unless the context says otherwise, it implies permanence. And that's exactly the same tense Jesus used when he was on the cross to tell us to die. It's all paid, perfect tense. It's not all paid until 5 o'clock. It's not all paid until January 1st, 2017. It's all permanently paid. Paid off. Boom. Debt canceled. So let's take a look at page 3. Here's Romans 7, 7 through 25. And so what I have here is slightly expanded and explained basically just to carry out a few Greek details into the English. So what shall we say then? Here's another what shall we say then, right? Is the law sin? So what's his answer? It may never be. On the contrary, I would not have come to know the sin nature except through the law. For I would not have known about coveting if the law had not said you shall not covet.

But the sin nature taking opportunity through the commandment, how many commandments? Just one. Just one. How many commandments does it take for the sin nature to take advantage? One. One. So some people say, I don't follow the law that much. One. You want us to have the sin nature? One. That's all it takes. Yeah, if you give it 613, like the whole law of Moses, if you give it 10, if you give it one, that's what he says, one. One law is all it takes to get the sin nature really stirred up.

So, he says there, but the sin nature taking opportunity through the commandment, one, produced in me coveting of every kind. variety. For apart from the law, sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the law, and when the commandment came, the sin nature became alive and I died. And this commandment which was to result in life proved to result in death for me. for these in nature taking an opportunity through the commandment deceived me and through it killed me. So then the law is holy and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Anything wrong with the law? What's the problem? It's us. And how many laws does it take? One.

I think it's interesting here that, again, first person, because it seems like Paul's talking about himself as far as coveting being his primary or besetting sin. He's not talking about all the other sins out there, but the one that really concerns him the most, and being a Pharisee and being in the upper class of the Jewish people, this probably was one that he dealt with all the time. Let's ask this question.

Of the ten, You've got several of them that have to do with the relationship with God, and you've got about six of them that have to do with the relationship with others, right? Of the ones that have to do with the relationship with others, which of them is not apparent to other people necessarily? Coveting. Coveting is the one that is not necessarily apparent to other people.

And so he's expressing this I because he can testify personally He says, you know, I look at this one commandment and all of a sudden the sin nature is just cranking and is producing coveting of all kinds. And I know it, even if nobody else does. So one of the reasons here is it's not a universal truth as much as a universal experience. And other people, if you've ever had that, somebody tells you don't do something, right? What's the reaction? Yeah, it produces compulsions, right? And so, part of what he's doing here is he is personalizing it here, not primarily for the sake of universal truth, but universal experience. So, the listener or reader then says, yeah, I've been there. I've been there, done that, and maybe for me it's not covening, but it's something else. Which is kind of what Jesus did on the Sermon on the Mount. He did exactly the same thing.

And he also took it to heart, because that's the problem that a lot of the Jews had, is they would externalize everything. And you say, nope, take it to the heart. If you're lusting after that woman, you're committing adultery in your heart. From the inside to the out, it needs to be consistent. Covenant seems to be the easiest to cover up and the easiest one to deny by the person himself. Lust, probably the same way, but not so easy to deny. But Covenant seems to be the easiest one to deny. And he was just attacking that right there.

And the other thing that I did in here, there are certain places where the Greek word namos, which is often translated law, is I think better translated as principle. And what you see here, for example, in verse 21, I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.

And principle is either the way things work, a fundamental truth, or both. fundamental truth, the way things work, or both. So it's those two things. And so here you have this principle, this is the way things work, that evil is present in me, and it's also true, right? So you have that, and I think that's better in several places I translated principle, because law, you'll have things like the law of Christ, instead of, well, what's that about? Instead of saying, oh, it's a principle, right? So there are several places in this passage where that seems to come out better.

So following that, for I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different principle in the members of my body, waging war against the principle of my mind and making me a prisoner of the principle of the sin nature, the way the sin nature works, in my members. Wretched man that I am, and then here's this rhetoric here, who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord, so then on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other with my flesh a principle of sin. I never saw this before, but this is interesting, the part that the law of God and the inner man, that almost sounds like the millennial kingdom where there are going to be the law is internalized. Yeah, but let's look at it. He looks at the law and he says, is this all good stuff? Yeah, I should live that way. And so he on the one hand will agree with it, but on the other hand he finds himself wrestling with carrying it out. Why? It's because the sin nature gets involved, gets stirred up and all of a sudden I've got this battle going on.

So what's the difference with the Millennial Kingdom? Well, with the Millennial Kingdom, God has done something with the heart of the Jews such that they, by the Holy Spirit's indwelling, universally, they know the law, all 613 laws, and are empowered to live it out. What did we say earlier? What's the problem with the law? Is the problem with the law? The problem isn't with the law, it's with us. And so both we and the Jews in the Millennial Kingdom have a common need. and God answers it in a different way.

For us, we were identified with Christ and died to the law and given the Holy Spirit to empower us to live out righteousness apart from the law. The Jews will have the Holy Spirit to be enabled to know all 613 laws by heart. No rabbis. Don't need it. all 613 laws by heart and be empowered to live it out. So we and they have a common need, God just answered that need in different ways.

Right? Radically different. And so what happens, Christians can get confused when they look at, well here's this law thing, and you know, and so they'll try to put some of the law in there, and in so doing they kind of trim down grace too. instead of recognizing it's this grace in which we stand. That's perfect tense, by the way. This grace in which we stand. We have stood there, initially, as a continuing grace on into the future, implying permanence. So, here's chapter 5 saying this grace in which we stand.

Chapter 6 says you're under grace, you're not under the law, you're under grace, chapter 6, 14 and 15. And then I get into chapter 7, and I've died to the law, I've been joined to Christ, but then I find this horrific experience. Just one law, I agree it's moral, I agree that coveting is not a good thing to do, but I've got this signature thing involved, and how am I going to deal with that? Chapter 6 and Chapter 8, we're talking about the Spirit, deals with exactly that problem.

Thanks be to God. So I am in Christ, and Christ is in me. I am in the Spirit. Chapter 8, and the Spirit is in me. John 17, I'm in the Father and the Father's in me. Those all sound like the same thing, but that means entirely different things for each one. Yes? So, the law helps you recognize it, but by grace you turn it over and it's taken care of.

The law helps us see objectively, here's the error. But the law provides no empowerment, right? There's no empowerment. And so how does life get lived if I died to the law? Life gets lived through Christ. Right? This is Galatians 2.20. It's no longer I who do the living, Christ does the living in me. Does Christ need the law to be righteous? He doesn't need it. He is fundamentally righteous. It's we who are fallen creatures who need some kind of an objective measure, unless Christ, the fundamentally, eternally, and infinitely righteous one is indwelling us, living life. I don't need the law.

So again, for the I, we could substitute all believers. Each believer could say I, right? Both of them, I've been crucified with Christ, and what's spelled out there at length in chapter 7, starting with verse 7. Now, in verse 14, with all those I's, I think last time I looked that up, in the Greek, there's different words for I, is there not?

I mean, ego-ami, or however you pronounce that. Paul even uses that in your personalizing, right? Yes, and that's one thing. Ego-ami, which we've talked about before, is used frequently as a claim for deity. Paul uses it here, why? It's to intensify the I. He actually uses ego-ami not to try to claim deity, but to intensify the I. I, I am. So that's again, how do I know the difference between egoe me when Jesus says it and egoe me when Paul says it? I don't know the difference. It's context. So we don't just kind of cookie cutter, oh that always means deity, no it doesn't.

He does it for the sense of focusing on the intensity. That's one of the things we've said in rhetoric, Paul uses I on purpose. He doesn't just casually jump there, but he uses it for the sake of intensity, and even uses intense language. I, I am. To super emphasize that, and to get people to understand the intensity with which he's saying these things.

Alright, let's take a look at one more thing, and that's if. There is, in the Greek language, something that takes a little bit of explanation, extra words, and they would just use certain words, and it's usually a pair of words. And so you have, on top of page four, four class conditions of if. And so this is rhetoric that invites the other person to think along with you, in some ways similar to the I statements of Paul. But this was built into the Greek language.

So you have first class is if, and it's assumed to be true, assumed reality. So therefore, if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. What does the if mean? Is he wanting them to doubt that they've been raised up with Christ? No. It's assumed to be true. Therefore, if you have been raised up with Christ, and that's assumed to be true, keep seeking the things above where Christ is, so you are at the right hand of God.

Here's Mark 4.23, if anyone has ears to hear, let him hear. If, and it's assumed to be true. So that's reality. You have the next one here, second class, if and it's assumed not to be true.

And so here's John 4.10, Jesus answered and said to her, if you knew the gift of God, and this is Jesus speaking to the woman at the well, right?

If you knew the gift of God and who it is who says to you, give me a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water. If you knew the gift of God, but is he saying that she does or doesn't? She does not, right? And that's because of the particular word combination that Jesus used. And so it's, if you knew the gift of God, you don't right now. Is she going to come to know? Yeah, so it's a current statement, you don't know. Matter of fact, here's why I'm here. I want you to know, right? But you don't know now.

So here's another one, Galatians 1.10, For I am now seeking the favor of men, or of God, or am I striving to please men? Here's again rhetorical questions, right? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. If I were still trying to please men, am I? And I am not. Right?

So this is where, if we just look at the English, we don't really have the full answer, but the Greek is very specific. Very specific. Third class. And this is one where it's a statement of possibility. Instead of, it's assumed to be true, or assumed not to be true, this is, it could be and it could not be. Right? And this is often the way we use it in English. We'll say if, and there's sort of probabilities. Yeah, remember? What is op-o-dis? This is looking at the structure of the sentence. In other words, you have the first part and then the second part. So that has to do with the structure of the sentence, which Craig went into earlier.

Okay, so here we have 1 John 1.9.

If we confess our sins, and what's the assumption? Is it saying yes, if and we will, or if and we won't? Might. Might. It's a possibility. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. And by the way, that confess, what does that mean? It's agreement, not sitting there spilling the beans. It's agreement, that's what it's looking for. That's what confessment is.

Hebrews 10.38, But my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him. So if he shrinks back, and he may or may not. So then the last one, I wish it were truth. So we've got first class, it's assumed to be true. Second class, assumed not to be the case. Third class, may or may not be. Fourth class, here is, and I wish it were true.

So Acts 17.27, that they would seek God if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. If perhaps, and I wish it were the case, that people might grope for God and find Him.

So, and here's 1 Peter 3.14, but even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And what does he want them to do? And would that you would suffer for the sake of righteousness. I wish that you would. I hope that you will. So this is expressing not just a statement about what's a possibility out there, but it is a statement of the author or speaker's desires.

So all four of those are in there and are used throughout the Bible in rhetoric. What's interesting is, I have it below, I won't go over the detail. In John chapter 15, this is the chapter that starts with, abide in me and I in you, right? My father's the bind dresser. That chapter includes, in John 15, all four classes in different places. I'm taking it back, one exception. It doesn't seem to force. So 1, 2, and 3 are present. So those are examples from John 15. Well, Craig said that the optitude is very rarely used. Yes. Yeah. It's not as often used because it's an expression of I wish or would that kind of thing.

So Burns, could 15, 22, and 24, instead of negating the first class, if, could they use like the second class there? Yeah, let's examine that. That's a good point. 1522, if, and it's first class negated, if I had not come and spoken to them, then they would not have sinned, but now they have no excuse for their sin.

So let's turn that around the way we could state it. If I had come, and that would be, that's the reason why he states it. So if I change that to a second class, then if I had come, but it would say, but it's assumed not to be true, because he did come, right? So that's why he puts it the way he does. So that's interesting.

You can't just switch a sentence around and flip it. So that's why I put first class negated. So we can't just switch it around and put a second class in there and take the knots out. It gives the wrong meaning. So that's why you'll have sentences like that where it will say if and then there's a bunch of knots in order to give it the correct meaning.

Okay? So anyway, and have we explored everything in rhetorical writing? No, we've not. But what you'll find is from Genesis to Revelation is rhetorical writing. There are questions asked in different places. Rhetorical questions are fairly common in different parts of the Bible. Rhetorical writing in some cases has particular cultural aspects to it, but what we find is all cultures expressed in the Bible, and even our own culture, use rhetorical writing or speaking in some way.

Because why? We're wanting to communicate effectively, we're wanting to persuade, we want to encourage and motivate people, and so that's what rhetorical writing and speaking is all about. So, we've just scratched the surface, and then the other point is rhetorical writing and speaking very frequently have figures of speech or directly are figures of speech. So, we went through two weeks of figures of speech, and now we've got a way of speaking and writing that includes lots of figures of speech. And figures of speech, in some cases, make things more clear. Figures of speech make speech more interesting. and oftentimes more memorable.

You read through the descriptions of Jesus in Revelation chapter 1, really intense, you know, his hair like wild wool and eyes like fire and just really intense symbols, and you kind of look at that, and once you've read it a time or two, it sticks in your mind. Because it's really intense. And so the intensity will oftentimes make it more memorable, which is good. So John uses rhetorical writing, as he describes these symbols, in order to get the point across, make it more memorable. And if we understand his figures of speech, it's Jewish, not Greek. Jewish figures of speech and Jewish symbols, then we understand clearly and memorably what John's writing about. Okay, other thoughts, comments, questions? Yes?

I'd like to relate a story. When I was in Austria, I stayed with an exchange student who was there when I was in high school, and they would write down things I say, and they collected American Yeah, and that's interesting. Figures of speech in different cultures.

It's amazing. Nancy's maternal grandmother was born and raised in Indiana on a farm. And she had so many, I wish I'd written them down, because it was, you know, this is like so and so, and it'd be, oh man, what an amazing thing. And I don't remember but a very few of them, but just very colorful figures of speech, all having to do with growing up on the farm. And it's just really astounding. A lot of similes, you know, this is like that, you know.

And then she expressed something like, wow, I've never heard that. So I wish I'd recorded it or written it down at least. Because she really used some amazing things that probably just with the change in culture, I'll never hear again. But she used a lot of them.

Other thoughts, questions? OK. Alright, let's pray. Lord, we do thank you as we look at these very interesting ways of writing and seek to gain more insight, and what's more, all the clearer understanding of what you've written. And we see that the end purpose in all this is not to just know a lot of stuff, but to know you, and to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord. And so we thank you for this time. We thank you for the insights that we can have. And we pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.