Thread: Arcing and Exegesis

I already read the thread regarding Piper and the arcing method. Seems to have went a bit nowhere. So, from Justin Taylor's blog, I am posting a website that gives a primer on Arcing and what it is. On the website, in upper left, is a PDF of Piper's booklet, Biblical Exegesis - which goes through arcing. Enjoy.

BibleArc.Com::Graphical Exegesis

Click on ARCING 101 above the video to access the content and find the PDF.

so much for that. I am going to bump this a few times because I think it is a good tool for everyone to use, and being that everyone is not on at once, there you go.

I hope you can use it because it has worked for me.

Some of us don't have the application to access this page correctly. The video doesn't work on my computer at all. Is there a totally non-video page? My computer tries to install something when I click on your link.

Piper learned it from Dan Fuller (who subjected generations of Fuller students to learning it). When I get back to CA tomorrow, I'll tell Dan it helps you.

Originally Posted by turmeric

Some of us don't have the application to access this page correctly. The video doesn't work on my computer at all. Is there a totally non-video page? My computer tries to install something when I click on your link.

if it is trying to install something, it is most likely a codec for viewing it. i will send you the PDF.

I attached the PDF of Biblical Exegesis here. The website does not give a lot of information regarding problems with viewing.

Isn't this just a new term for basic sentence diagrams?


Sure, it is a helpful tool, but it seems kind of fadish. ("Arcing" brings to my mind either welding or electrical fires).

But then, I learned to diagram sentences in English and French a long time ago, when it was routine. Anything to bring back an understanding of the parts of speech, subordinate clauses, etc., is a good thing.

I've got to agree with Vic on this one. Of course they aren't even teaching sentence diagramming in many schools now, so this may help a lot of folks.

I scanned through most of the videos, and while there are certain benefits that can be taken from this approach, I think that it would need some serious supplementation as an exegetical method in order for it to be of any use.

First, it is a highly mechanical and detailed process that focuses upon propositional statements and their interrelationships. An analytical approach of this sort will work well when breaking down statements in most of the epistolary literature, as well as in portions of the Gospels, but it does less well outside of that realm. If I remember correctly, all of the passages of Scripture used as examples in the forty-part video series were from the epistles and Gospels, with the exception of a single passage from Psalm 68. That is a telling limitation regarding this method.

Second, and related to the first point, is the question as to when broader studies come into play with this method. It is possible that it was mentioned that these forty steps are only one stage of a larger exegetical process, but if so then I missed it. Questions that would need to be answered (and which would then remedy the omission of OT exegesis) would be related to genre studies and how this method could be applied to narrative and wisdom passages without always sounding like a hyper-analytic Edwardsian outline that might miss the forest through the trees. If this method is applied to, say, the discourses in the book of Job, or the narrative cycles in the book of Judges, will it embrace and incorporate into the sermon those broader literary themes and formats, or will it produce a sermon on the particulars of a speech from Bildad that misses the larger context, form, and purpose of the book as a whole?

Third, can a method that looks at passages in such a particular manner ever produce a sermon on the broader underlying issues of theology that may be framing the passage (such as the theological covenants, sacramental structures, etc.) if those issues are not made explicitly stated in that passage, but would be understood by one who has a broader grasp of theology. This might apply more to the younger preacher, or the less well trained minister, but it would seem that it could also eventually produce a certain type of biblicism in any minister who placed too great an emphasis upon the method itself to the eventual exclusion of broader matters.

Fourth, where does the person and work of Christ fit into the method? Is it considered "reading Him into the text" if we assume from the outset that his person and work should be featured in the passage in some manner? If we are preaching from the Psalms, or from the Abraham cycle, do we just speak propositionally of, say, the Psalmist's hope or Abraham's faith, or do we ever get to the point of showing the fulfillment of these things by Christ and/or in Christ, and how these things then apply to us through Christ?

Finally, would a method such as this find any room in its program for incorporating the creeds and confessions of the Church into its study. It would seem that having a grasp of them, and how they relate scripture to scripture in producing their doctrines, would in some way rectify a few of the questions that have been raised above.

I think that it is a helpful start, but I wouldn't think that a minister would want to make it too big a part of his prep time, and certainly not the center of his exegetical practice. (I also agree with Vic - "arching" sounds a bit too faddish for something as humble as the practice of sentence diagramming.)

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

I attached the PDF of Biblical Exegesis here. The website does not give a lot of information regarding problems with viewing.

I'm not certain if this document is produced by the same fellow who put the video clips together, but it still suffers from the same problems - no mention is made of the importance of understanding genre, larger literary themes and structures, or of the incorporation of a broader dogmatic theology. As well, there remains a conspicuous absence of any mention of Hebrew/Aramaic studies, or of passages taken from the OT.

Could this possible be a reflection of the emphasis placed upon the NT in many Baptist/Non-denominational bodies, and a difficulty in understanding what to do with the OT apart from a covenantal and Redemptive-Historical understanding?

I would recommend the book Interpreting the Pauline Epistles by Thomas Schreiner. He uses a form of arcing that he calls "Tracing the Argument" and makes that Chapter 6 in his book. As the title suggests, it is designed for dense literature, not narratives or poetry. Although, a modified form of it can be utilized for tracing the logical relationships in Hebrew poetry.

Schreiner's chapters are:

1. Understanding the Nature of Letters
2. Doing Textual Criticism
3. Translating and Analyzing the Letter
4. Investigating Historical and Introductory Issues
5. Diagramming and Conducting a Grammatical Analysis
6. Tracing the Argument
7. Doing Lexical Studies
8. Probing the Theological Context
9. Delineating the Significance of Paul's Letters

Originally Posted by Archlute

I scanned through most of the videos, and while there are certain benefits that can be taken from this approach, I think that it would need some serious supplementation as an exegetical method in order for it to be of any use.

First, it is a highly mechanical and detailed process that focuses upon propositional statements and their interrelationships. An analytical approach of this sort will work well when breaking down statements in most of the epistolary literature, as well as in portions of the Gospels, but it does less well outside of that realm. If I remember correctly, all of the passages of Scripture used as examples in the forty-part video series were from the epistles and Gospels, with the exception of a single passage from Psalm 68. That is a telling limitation regarding this method.

Second, and related to the first point, is the question as to when broader studies come into play with this method. It is possible that it was mentioned that these forty steps are only one stage of a larger exegetical process, but if so then I missed it. Questions that would need to be answered (and which would then remedy the omission of OT exegesis) would be related to genre studies and how this method could be applied to narrative and wisdom passages without always sounding like a hyper-analytic Edwardsian outline that might miss the forest through the trees. If this method is applied to, say, the discourses in the book of Job, or the narrative cycles in the book of Judges, will it embrace and incorporate into the sermon those broader literary themes and formats, or will it produce a sermon on the particulars of a speech from Bildad that misses the larger context, form, and purpose of the book as a whole?

Third, can a method that looks at passages in such a particular manner ever produce a sermon on the broader underlying issues of theology that may be framing the passage (such as the theological covenants, sacramental structures, etc.) if those issues are not made explicitly stated in that passage, but would be understood by one who has a broader grasp of theology. This might apply more to the younger preacher, or the less well trained minister, but it would seem that it could also eventually produce a certain type of biblicism in any minister who placed too great an emphasis upon the method itself to the eventual exclusion of broader matters.

Fourth, where does the person and work of Christ fit into the method? Is it considered "reading Him into the text" if we assume from the outset that his person and work should be featured in the passage in some manner? If we are preaching from the Psalms, or from the Abraham cycle, do we just speak propositionally of, say, the Psalmist's hope or Abraham's faith, or do we ever get to the point of showing the fulfillment of these things by Christ and/or in Christ, and how these things then apply to us through Christ?

Finally, would a method such as this find any room in its program for incorporating the creeds and confessions of the Church into its study. It would seem that having a grasp of them, and how they relate scripture to scripture in producing their doctrines, would in some way rectify a few of the questions that have been raised above.

I think that it is a helpful start, but I wouldn't think that a minister would want to make it too big a part of his prep time, and certainly not the center of his exegetical practice. (I also agree with Vic - "arching" sounds a bit too faddish for something as humble as the practice of sentence diagramming.)

I really think that you missed the point. The point of arcing is not to build a theology, contain a sermon or to be used at the exclusion of creed, confession or other references. Not at all. Like it was said, it is a help-tool, not the only tool or system to use when trying to figure out verses that one finds challenging. I don't see any fad in it because there is no popularity in it - it has neither gained incredible fame nor waned - it is a method to help, again, help with determining.

There is no reason whatsoever that this could no be applied to OT scriptures. Why could this not be done with Exodus 19, 20? The Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Ezekiel? I don't see why not. Because of what is exampled? Try it out and see if it works.

Not everyone is a super-exegete as well. This method may help them see the ways a sentenced is phrased, what is said when in what order to help them determine why in reference to the context of where it is being said in the scripture. If one were to use this on its own sans context, it would be dumb and irresponsible.

Your fourth point I really don't understand because of the idea that arcing is meant to - start looking at the verse, arc it, figure it out, preach it and that's it because that is what I gained from your points. The attached PDF was created by John Piper and I know that he is Christ-centered. If one were to not preach Christ and link all that he preaches to Christ because of arcing, as if arcing is the cause of not preaching Christ, he should not be in the pulpit.

Again, it is a help-tool and that's it.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

I attached the PDF of Biblical Exegesis here. The website does not give a lot of information regarding problems with viewing.

I'm not certain if this document is produced by the same fellow who put the video clips together, but it still suffers from the same problems - no mention is made of the importance of understanding genre, larger literary themes and structures, or of the incorporation of a broader dogmatic theology. As well, there remains a conspicuous absence of any mention of Hebrew/Aramaic studies, or of passages taken from the OT.

Could this possible be a reflection of the emphasis placed upon the NT in many Baptist/Non-denominational bodies, and a difficulty in understanding what to do with the OT apart from a covenantal and Redemptive-Historical understanding?

I get the feeling that you are very, very against this arcing method.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

I would recommend the book Interpreting the Pauline Epistles by Thomas Schreiner. He uses a form of arcing that he calls "Tracing the Argument" and makes that Chapter 6 in his book.

This was practically done by David Dickson in the 17th century. It is remarkable how often modern exegetes only differ slightly from his analysis.

Wow. Who is David Dickson?

David Dickson 1583-1662 Scottish

See bio at Rev. Robert Wodrow Bio of David Dickson

Very interesting.

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

Originally Posted by Archlute

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

I attached the PDF of Biblical Exegesis here. The website does not give a lot of information regarding problems with viewing.

I'm not certain if this document is produced by the same fellow who put the video clips together, but it still suffers from the same problems - no mention is made of the importance of understanding genre, larger literary themes and structures, or of the incorporation of a broader dogmatic theology. As well, there remains a conspicuous absence of any mention of Hebrew/Aramaic studies, or of passages taken from the OT.

Could this possible be a reflection of the emphasis placed upon the NT in many Baptist/Non-denominational bodies, and a difficulty in understanding what to do with the OT apart from a covenantal and Redemptive-Historical understanding?

I get the feeling that you are very, very against this arcing method.

I'll make brief response to both of your posts here.

First, I am not "very, very against this arcing method" if it is seen merely as one small part of the sermon prep process, I just think that it has some deficiencies that need be addressed. I did not get the impression from either the videos or the attached file that this is just one small and basic part of exegesis, but it was presented as the "meat and potatoes" of the process from which one would then derive many of the points of their sermon. The file in particular, which you said was written up by Piper (although I thought I had noticed a different name was listed for the author), was presented as if it were the whole of the process.

Second, this method is indeed deficient when it comes to preaching from the narrative, prophetic, and wisdom portions of the OT (as well as the Gospels and the Apocalypse in the NT) because it treats these phrases in an atomistic manner that will repeatedly fail to grasp the big picture, and therefore will end up distorting or missing the underlying redemptive or covenantal themes that will lead to a good exposition of Christ and the Gospel.

There is a great deal that I don't have time to get into when it comes to preaching well from the OT, but that is exactly why I would encourage men to go to a good Reformed seminary like WSC or MARS to learn their preaching. There is so much more to read and to contemplate regarding the subject than can ever be condensed into a forty point mechanism.

The best preaching in the history of Christendom has drawn upon a deep historic and theologically based well of knowledge, and to place too much emphasis upon mechanical methods (as I believe this approach has done) is to impoverish one's preaching. I didn't mean to rain on your party, but I feel that preaching is such a sacred task and a high calling that to trivialize it through "proven methods" that also have silly links like "share your arcs with others!" is merely a reflection of the ecclesiastical egalitarianism that is so characteristic of this country, and is unfortunately even reflected in some of the ministry output found by Piper.

John is a great fellow, has a great passion for his work, and has put out some great material. I just wish that the popularization of things such as this would be avoided. Well trained ministers don't need it, and those who should otherwise be taking up these studies in a good Reformed seminary will instead hop onto something like this and feel that they have a leg up on preaching, when in fact all that they have done is to cement a practice of tertiary importance (at best) into the center of their thoughts on sermon preparation.

Originally Posted by Archlute

I just wish that the popularization of things such as this would be avoided. Well trained ministers don't need it, and those who should otherwise be taking up these studies in a good Reformed seminary will instead hop onto something like this and feel that they have a leg up on preaching, when in fact all that they have done is to cement a practice of tertiary importance (at best) into the center of their thoughts on sermon preparation.

My friend, I did not see the videos, but the method itself is quite valuable. Perhaps it has been popularized incorrectly, but it was originally designed for detailed exegesis of dense literature. It is a method stemming from the "close reading" school of literary criticism.

I am quite proficient in Greek and do my NT sermon preparation directly from the Greek text. I have found this method to be very good at bringing out the underlying structure of a passage, often with a rich exegetical harvest. After all, figuring out how propositions relate to each other is a large portion of understanding any argumentative or dense explanatory text.

The end goal of such a method should not be a homiletical outline, but an exegetical outline. From there, I move to a homiletical structure and add the insights of biblical-redemptive and systematic theology, as well as broader contexts which may need to be addressed.

I agree with you that this is not sufficient for sermon preparation. I hope that people do not try to make it so. All the other things you mentioned are indeed significant.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

My friend, I did not see the videos, but the method itself is quite valuable. Perhaps it has been popularized incorrectly, but it was originally designed for detailed exegesis of dense literature. It is a method stemming from the "close reading" school of literary criticism.

I am quite proficient in Greek and do my NT sermon preparation directly from the Greek text. I have found this method to be very good at bringing out the underlying structure of a passage, often with a rich exegetical harvest. After all, figuring out how propositions relate to each other is a large portion of understanding any argumentative or dense explanatory text.

The end goal of such a method should not be a homiletical outline, but an exegetical outline. From there, I move to a homiletical structure and add the insights of biblical-redemptive and systematic theology, as well as broader contexts which may need to be addressed.

I agree with you that this is not sufficient for sermon preparation. I hope that people do not try to make it so. All the other things you mentioned are indeed significant.

LOL. I feel like I'm on the receiving end of a seminary student's lecture about homiletics and exegetical method. Oh, wait...

Adam, it is true, I am only a seminary student. I made my remarks only because you seemed to dismiss offhand something that has come highly recommended from many strong exegetes.

Ones I can think of who require their students to employ a structural analysis method:

Daniel Fuller, Fuller Theological Seminary
Thomas Schreiner, SBTS
Randy Leedy, BJU
Sid Dyer, GPTS
Tom McEnroe, Western Seminary
WJ Larkin, Columbia International University
Jay Smith, DTS
Gordon Fee, Regent College

In fact, I don't know of a reputable NT department anywhere that doesn't employ such a method. Do you thing WSCal and MARS would be exceptions?

I could not imagine NOT using such tools. For a fact, the pastors that I know, who are the worst at preaching, use nothing like this during prep, or anything close to it and end up completely topical. I also could not imagine using this tool as an end instead of a means. If there are other ways to do this, they are possibly just as valid to use because we are expressly looking toward Christ in all that we do. The tool is only as good as the person using it. If the preacher's sermon prep and insight suck, the sermon will suck.

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

I could not imagine using such tools.

Did you mean to say you could not imagine NOT using such tools?

Changed. Thank you brother. If the hammer becomes more than what it builds or what it serves, you have a problem. And if a hammer is the only tool you use, you have a problem.