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
0.15UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.14UNLIKELY
Fear
0.1UNLIKELY
Joy
0.52LIKELY
Sadness
0.51LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.68LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.08UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.96LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.77LIKELY
Extraversion
0.27UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.2UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.81LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
Blind Traditions
For the next several weeks we are going to look at texts where Peter was the spokesman for the group.
Matt 15:
Illustration of the spokesman:
So many of us go on blindly accepting traditions w/o comparing them to scripture.
Not all traditions are bad:
Christmas eve
Birthdays
Special Holidays
Peter would watch Jesus confront the religious leaders from Jerusalem.
Jesus had little time for those that would pervert and add requirement to God’s Word.
Jesus would get back to the basics and the traditions of man that had crept into the religious system of the day were overshadowing the Word of God.
Peter lived as a disciple of the Lord Jesus.
For the next three years, Peter lived as a disciple of the Lord Jesus.
Being a natural-born leader, Peter became the de facto spokesman for the Twelve
Being a natural-born leader, Peter became the de facto spokesman for the Twelve
he would say what others were thinking.
he would speak for the 12 “what does this mean”
Explain to us
I Quibble (15:1–6)
I Quibble (15:1–6)
A. A Quibble (15:1–6)
Background:
The Pharisees’ Challenge to Christ Regarding Rabbinical Tradition (15:1–2)
The Lord, we must remember, had just fed the five thousand in the wilderness.
The Lord, we must remember, had just fed the five thousand in the wilderness.
Thousands of people had eaten bread with unwashed hands, and with the Lord’s evident blessing.
The small-minded Pharisees did not care about the miracle.
All they cared about was that the Lord had broken one of their religious taboos.
Moreover they had probably seen the disciples eating some of the leftovers without first going through the ritual ceremony of washing hands.
Thousands of people had eaten bread with unwashed hands, and with the Lord’s evident blessing.
The small-minded Pharisees did not care about the miracle.
All they cared about was that the Lord had broken one of their religious taboos.
Moreover they had probably seen the disciples eating some of the leftovers without first going through the ritual ceremony of washing hands.
We must also remember that these Pharisees were from Jerusalem.
The authorities in the capital were already disturbed by news of Christ’s continuing activity and popularity in Galilee.
Their purpose in making the journey to observe Him was to find some cause of offense in Him.
“Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” the Pharisees quibbled, “for they wash not their hands when they eat bread” (15:2).
“Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” the Pharisees quibbled, “for they wash not their hands when they eat bread” (15:2).
This challenge to Christ was no small incident.
Three reasons the Jews wanted to get rid of Jesus :
1) His scorning of the Jews’ traditions was one of the major reasons for their leaders’ determination to get rid of Him.
His scorning of the Jews’ traditions was one of the major reasons for their leaders’ determination to get rid of Him.
2) A second reason was that He ignored their sabbath laws and was therefore “not of God” and consequently a deceiver and a sinner (, , ).
3) A third reason was that, according to them, He was a blasphemer in that He claimed to be God’s equal.
The Pharisees had already written off His miracles as being the work of Satan.
A third reason was that, according to them, He was a blasphemer in that He claimed to be God’s equal.
The Pharisees had already written off His miracles as being the work of Satan.
From the days of Ezra, the Jews had begun to amass explanations and traditions that they added to the law and regarded as more important than the law.
This so-called oral law was already voluminous; in time it would become as large as the Encyclopedia Britannica and be known as the Talmud with its Mishna (text) and Gemara (commentary).
For centuries, however, the oral law was preserved solely in the remarkably capacious memories of the rabbis.[1]
The Pharisees from Jerusalem were experts in these additions to the law.
They did not accuse the disciples of breaking a specific Mosaic command.
Their schools, which differed about almost everything else, agreed that water had to be poured on the hands and allowed to run down to the wrist.
This and similar rules, which were “intended to separate the Jew from all contact with Gentiles,” were “of the most violently anti-Gentile, intolerant, and exclusive character.”[2]
Their schools, which differed about almost everything else, agreed that water had to be poured on the hands and allowed to run down to the wrist.
This and similar rules, which were “intended to separate the Jew from all contact with Gentiles,” were “of the most violently anti-Gentile, intolerant, and exclusive character.”[2]
Traditions become Law - service time , schedule business meetings, Lord table, teen fund raisers,
Put Bible in pew with page numbers
Be sensitive with time
understand that not everyone is going to understand position on music/dress
There could be no modification of the rule for hand washing.
There could be no modification of the rule for hand washing.
Any rabbi who disregarded this tradition was excommunicated.
The Pharisees regarded this and other ordinances of the scribes to be “more precious, and of more binding importance than those of Holy Scripture itself.”[3]
The rabbis taught that tradition was weightier than the words of the Law and the Prophets.
Christ’s Challenge to the Pharisees Regarding Revealed Truth (15:3–6)
2. Christ’s Challenge to the Pharisees Regarding Revealed Truth (15:3–6)
The Lord countered the accusation of the Pharisees with a challenge.
They asked Him a question; He asked them a question.
“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?”
He said (15:3).
Note the word “your.”
The Lord was denying their claim that Jewish tradition went back to Moses when He bluntly called it their tradition.
The Lord did not deny that the disciples had transgressed the Pharisees’ tradition;
He simply swept it aside and vindicated the disciples for ignoring it.
Not only was the tradition worthless; it violated the law of God.
The Lord referred the Pharisees to the fifth commandment of the Decalogue: “Honour thy father and mother” (15:4).
says it is “the first commandment with promise.”
The Lord referred the Pharisees to the fifth commandment of the Decalogue: “Honour thy father and mother” (15:4).
says it is “the first commandment with promise.”
The word translated “honour” includes the idea of supporting aged parents, as in .
It is not enough to give verbal respect to parents.
Honoring them means providing for their physical needs where necessary.
The rabbis, however, had come up with an evasion of the demands of the law ().
To get out of this obligation a Jew simply had to say the word “Corban” over all that he possessed ().
The word meant that he had dedicated his possessions to God.
He could vow for instance that upon his death his savings would go to the temple.
That vow absolved him from the present duty of helping his parents.
He had put his material possessions under a sacred umbrella, so to speak, and the claim of the fifth commandment was superseded by the vow.
However, he could still use his material means for his own personal enjoyment.
Thus the rabbis, in the name of the most punctilious regard for religious duty, voided God’s clear-cut law.
The Lord’s thrust went home.
Thus the rabbis, in the name of the most punctilious regard for religious duty, voided God’s clear-cut law.
The Lord’s thrust went home.
How do we view brethren when they change something that is merely custom?
Do we criticize them?
Are we ready to disfellowship them?
Shall we “write them up” as liberal?
This is the spirit of Pharisaism.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9