Lesson 6 | Identifying the Main Point
Beyond the First Level
Lesson 7 will be entirely devoted to the aspect of connecting second level arcs and beyond. As groundwork for that topic, it is important to understand how the main point of a relationship works as you bring it out to the next level.
A Main Point That Completes the Idea
The basic principle for making connections beyond the first level is to relate the main point of each piece. And yet often times the supporting propositions will need to partially come into play as well. The tension is that on the one hand we can only hold so many dynamics in our heads at any given moment, but on the other hand leaving supporting points aside can sometimes alter the meaning of the text or leave it non-sensical. Galatians 2:15-16 demonstrates this well.
When choosing which relationship is appropriate to connect 15a-16c with 16d-h, we would be hard-pressed to try and hold all the ideas of 15a-16c in our minds along with all the ideas of 16d-h as we consider how they relate. At the same time, if we merely take the single main point proposition of each piece, we still have trouble.
The main point proposition of 15a-16c is 16a: “we know”
The main point proposition of 16d-h is 16e: “to be justified by faith in Christ”
Clearly, the main point propositions above are not going to help us determine the logical relationship.
The key, rather, is to start from the main point proposition and add aspects of the supporting propositions that are necessary to complete the central idea of that piece. Doing so with 15a-16c and 16d-h yields the following.
Main point of 15a-16c: we Jews know that a person is justified through faith in Jesus Christ
Main point 16d-h: so we also have believed in Christ Jesus to be justified by faith
Thinking it through this way, we see that Inference is the clear choice.
Guidelines and the Need for Experience
Ultimately, practice is needed to learn this skill of knowing when to bring the main point forward alone, and when part of the supporting propositions must tag along to capture the idea. So do not get discouraged if you find this aspect challenging.
That being said, there are some helpful guidelines. Typically, you will not need to carry the idea from the supporting proposition along for Action-Manner, Comparison, Negative-Positive, Ground, Inference and Concessive. The same goes for Idea-Explanation unless the explanation side is acting as the subject or object of the idea proposition. Question-Answer, on the other hand, could go either way, while the rest of the subordinate relationships usually will require you to bring the idea of the supporting proposition into the main point, at least in part.
You can see these general rules playing out in my main point summaries of 15a-16c and 16d-h above. For the first half of the passage, I did not include any mention of the concessive found in 15a-b, while I did bring in the explanation of 16b-c since it is the object of what “we know.” Within that explanation, my main point mentions the positive side, but not the negative.
As for the second half (16d-h), my main point leaves the Ground aside, but does represent both pieces of the Action-Purpose relationship. Within the purpose side, however, the negative portion of the Negative-Positive is left out.
The First Level Aided by the Second
Another important dynamic to mention is how sometimes the choice of relationship on a first-level arc is determined by what must be the main point for it to work with the second level arc. This is a common occurrence with the conjunction “but.” We can see an example of how this works in Philippians 1:15-18.
Note the “but” that connects 15a to 15b. Typically, “but” will indicate one of three relationships—Alternative, Negative-Positive or Concessive. But in this case, reading only verse 15 does not answer the question of which relationship we have here, as each of them is a viable possibility.
Alternative “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but on the other hand others [do so] from good will.”
Negative-Positive “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but by contrast others [do so] from good will.”
Concessive “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but nevertheless others [do so] from good will.”
How then can we determine the correct relationship? One way is to figure out which proposition must be the main point, given second-level arcs and beyond. Thus, we first observe that (1) Paul reiterates these two types of preachers again in verses 16-17 and (2) he begins to make his final point in 18b based upon the presence of both types. Given those observations, it then becomes clear that both propositions in verse 15 should each stand as their own main points. And in this way, we have determined that Alternative must be the relationship, since it is the only Coordinate relationship among our options—that is, it is the only choice that makes both propositions separate main points.
Finally, you will recall that Action-Result is the one relationship where the main point can switch, sometimes being the action and sometimes the result. It turns out that the way you determine this is by going beyond the first-level relationships and looking at which proposition most directly relates to the rest of the passage.