Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.17UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.46UNLIKELY
Fear
0.12UNLIKELY
Joy
0.51LIKELY
Sadness
0.5LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.69LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.65LIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.81LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.59LIKELY
Extraversion
0.04UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.6LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.66LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
December 6, 2015
*Read Lu 14:1-6 *– “What one thing will keep more people out of heaven than any other?”
What one thing?
I can tell you without reservation what I think it is.
It is people’s good works.
Most people are counting on their goodness to get them there.
And the Bible is unequivocal.
That simply won’t do.
Paul specifically says in Titus 3:5, “he saved us, NOT because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy.”
He says “not of works, lest any person should boast” (Eph 2:9).
Good works are ghastly works when someone is counting on them to earn favor with God.
Good works and ghastly look exactly the same – only difference being motivation.
It’s like someone once said.
Good works are like wearing a hospital gown.
You’re never as covered as you think you are! Good works are great for demonstrating faith; they are useless for covering sin.
If that is what motivates a good act, it just became a ghastly act because it’s not doing what you think it is.
None of us can buy God off.
There’s not enough coverage.
People trying to earn God’s favor are legalists, or moralists.
To them, life is an accounting system.
My goodness puts God in my debt.
I lose a few points when I slip off the wagon, but I earn it back with some extra credit later.
That is moralism – the belief my goodness puts God under obligation.
That is the problem Jesus addresses here -- showing moralists they all come up short.
Their books say one thing; God’s books say another.
The solution to sin is not moralism, but repentance.
Jesus here gives 3 ways moralists fall short.
*I.
Moralists Lack Comprehension*
Their authority is human wisdom.
They rely on their own intellect rather than on God’s revelation – a common issue in our own world.
Background: V. 1: “One Sabbath, when he went to dine at the house of a ruler of the Pharisees, they were watching him carefully.”
Friendly start, right?
Jesus is invited to lunch at the home of a leading Pharisee and He accepts.
Warm and cozy!
But ominously, at the end of the verse – “they were watching him carefully.”
They who? We’re not told.
Probably friends of this big wig, other like-minded individuals who make up the party.
They are watching Him carefully.
Because they revere Him? Quite the opposite.
Luke has just told of Jesus’ mourning over Jerusalem for its lack of repentance.
Then he moves directly into this account.
He is showing us a real life example of Israel’s failure.
This is rejection leading to destruction.
So when he says, “they were watching him carefully (lurkingly, suspiciously),” it’s not for a good purpose.
It’s a trap.
In fact, the very next verse show the means by which they hope to get Him to break the Sabbath so they can accuse Him.
“2 And behold, there was a man before him who had dropsy.”
Dropsy is a buildup of excess fluid in body tissues caused by something else.
It could be cancer or liver or kidney or even heart problems.
Whatever it is, this man has a serious physical condition.
He could be an uninvited courtyard guest, but I think he’s invited.
Either way, it’s a setup.
They spotlight a needy person and they expect Jesus will do what He always does – heal the man – and then they can bring charges that He has broken the Sabbath regulations against work.
It is a setup all the way.
Jesus sees right thru the ruse.
It’s not hard.
This man, whose condition the Pharisees believed is brought on by sin, would not normally have been invited.
They have placed him where Jesus cannot miss him, so while Jesus views him with compassionate eyes, they view Jesus with something else in their eyes.
Jesus sees human need; they see rules.
That’s how you know you’re a moralist.
Rules mean more to you than people.
So the trap is set.
Even as they pass the potatoes, they are waiting for Jesus to act so they can accuse Him.
So, v. 3: “And Jesus responded to the lawyers and Pharisees.”
Jesus responds?
To what?
No one has said anything.
No, but this shows Jesus sees thru the setup.
He responds to the situation knowing exactly what they intend.
As they wait with eager anticipation, he dashes their plans with 1 question.
“Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?”
Not “Wouldn’t it be compassionate to heal on the Sabbath?”
That would have led to fruitless debate.
Jesus goes to the core of the issue, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?”
Their reaction is telling.
“But they remained silent.”
Jesus has put them on the horns of a dilemma.
If they say, “Yes it’s lawful”, they could not object to a healing.
But if they say, “It’s not lawful,” they would be the heartless bad guys and Jesus the good guy.
Jesus had them in a bind!
But Jesus has caught them out on an even deeper issue.
When Jesus said, “Is it lawful?”
everyone knew He was asking, “Does God’s law revealed thru Moses prohibit healing on the Sabbath?
Would healing violate God’s law?”
And they all knew the answer.
Nothing in the Mosaic Law to prohibited healing on the Sabbath.
Nothing!
The only thing healing would violate was their own additions to God’s law to define it according to their own liking.
Healing would violate them – not God!
By this one question Jesus has pointed out a major issue of all moralists.
They lack comprehension.
They misinterpret and abuse God’s revelation by their own additions that they keep and that others don’t to make themselves look good.
For them, it’s about a religion they’ve defined, not a relationship that God defines.
They turn God’s Word into a list of do’s and don’t’s rather than the living invitation to a relationship it’s intended to be.
You say, “Well, wait a minute.
Aren’t the Ten Commandments found in the Bible?
Seems like a list to me!”
And that’s true.
But they were never intended to save anyone by keeping them.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9