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
0.16UNLIKELY
Fear
0.17UNLIKELY
Joy
0.19UNLIKELY
Sadness
0.5LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.63LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.18UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.94LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.68LIKELY
Extraversion
0.39UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.64LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.64LIKELY

Tone of specific sentences

Tones
Emotion
Anger
Disgust
Fear
Joy
Sadness
Language
Analytical
Confident
Tentative
Social Tendencies
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Emotional Range
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”
[1]
Listening to contemporary sociologists, one might conclude that marriage is a dying institution.
Actually, one need not listen to sociologists to draw such a negative conclusion—the incessant push to redefine marriage is indicative of a serious problem in our world.
First, the push was to broaden the concept to permit same-sex marriage.
The argument was that if two people loved one another, how could anyone doubt their love?
The concept of marriage was seen solely as an expression of the means by which one gratified his/her personal desires.
Thus, whether we realised the transformation or not, marriage was redefined.
The natural fallout from this redefinition was as predictable as it was inevitable.
If all that was required for marriage was an expression of love, then why couldn’t multiple individuals enter into marriage?
And if multiple individuals could enter into marriage, who was to say that children should be kept from marriage?
And if children could be permitted to enter into marriage, then why not animals?
The concerns that were expressed by Justice Antonin Scalia in Lawrence v.
Texas [2] are being realised today, and no moral arguments remain to delay the inevitable.
Soon, the western nations will be indistinguishable from Sodom and Gomorrah.
The effort to redefine sexual morality is as old as sin itself.
Similar dangers were apparently looming when the writer of the Letter to Hebrew Christians drafted this missive.
As that unknown writer drew his letter to a conclusion, he pointedly addressed the threat in terse fashion.
The inclusion of this warning should not be seen as superfluous; rather, it arises from a constant danger for Christians.
His cautionary statement serves as the basis for our study today.
*LET MARRIAGE BE HELD IN HONOUR AMONG ALL.*
For marriage to be held in honour, we must know what marriage is.
In order to know what marriage is, we should ask Him who gave marriage what His intent was.
Thus, we find ourselves directed to the first marriage.
When God had completed creating the heavens and the earth, filling the earth with the various animal kinds, He created Adam.
We read, “The LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” [GENESIS 2:7].
The acme of God’s creation was man; the man was unique, though it appears that he didn’t realise his uniqueness.
God revealed man’s unique character through a fascinating means.
The account of that divine revelation is provided in GENESIS 2:18-20.
“The LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’
Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.
And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field.
But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.”
It seems apparent that when this task of naming all the animals was complete, man realised his uniqueness.
As an aside, it is apparent from this account that man did not evolve from an ape; otherwise, Adam would have recognised a bond with the apes when he named them.
Adam was made aware of his spiritual and intellectual uniqueness—and his aloneness; God had caused those animals nearest in “kind” to the man—the livestock, the birds of the heavens and all the beast of the field—to pass before the man.
Moreover, it would seem that Adam was aware that each animal had its mate.
Thus, Adam knew he was alone.
God had stated, “It is not good that the man should be alone,” [GENESIS 2:18]; and the man now knew as well that his state was “not good.”
God had pronounced a benediction at completion of each step of the creation process, saying that His work was “good [3] Ultimately, the Lord God pronounced His work as “very good” [GENESIS 1:31].
However, there was one aspect of creation that was “not good”; the lack of one who was man’s complement was “not good.”
The statement that this deficit was “not good” was for Adam’s benefit rather than being an “Oops!” from the LORD God.
One should not imagine that God was suddenly forced to resort to “Plan B,” as though somehow he had forgotten something.
Politicians demonstrate the Law of Unintended Consequences whenever they craft legislation without considering the consequences.
Thus, we witness the sorry spectacle of Presidents forced to invoke executive action to remedy oversights or to avoid politically unpalatable aspects of signature legislation.
However, that was not the case with God; God was creating realisation in the man of his unique position, thus permitting the man to realise his deficit.
God remedied man’s pitiable condition of aloneness, acting in divine fashion to create one who was uniquely like man and yet was not man.
This is the account that is presented in the Word.
“The LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Then the man said,
‘This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.’”
[GENESIS 2:21-23]
The Hebrew quite emphatically presents Adam as saying, “Wow!” Quite literally, Adam said, “This is the right step!”
The thought conveyed by his exclamation could be summed up, “Finally!”
It demonstrates that Adam was led through God’s instruction to recognise his deficit.
The man could not be complete without the woman.
This is not to say that singles are somehow incomplete, but it is to acknowledge that marriage is focused on mutual complementation.
God then appends this assessment of the first marriage: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” [GENESIS 2:24].
There is then given this enigmatic statement that some imagine to be unconnected to the rest of the account.
“The man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” [GENESIS 2:25].
It is only apparently unconnected to the remainder of the account.
The couple was not ashamed because they were not sinning.
Husband and wife are permitted intimacy that others are not permitted, in contradistinction to the playboy morals so prevalent in this day.
The man and the woman were at ease with one another, without fear of exploitation; they trusted one another.
As an aside of some considerable significance, why do we talk about sex so much in our culture?
Compared to many cultures, we are obsessed with sex.
At one time, not so long ago, “don’t ask, don’t tell” was the standard for all intimate relations.
Decent people did not talk about their intimate moments.
I suggest that decent people still don’t talk to others about their intimate time with their spouse.
So, why do we talk about sex so much?
Is it not because we recognise that we have no intimacy?
Is it not because we think that in being “free” about discussing the most intimate facets of life we will somehow make the moments more intimate?
I find that the more we expose our intimacy, the less intimacy we enjoy!
Perhaps we should consult the one who made us to discover how to utilise the gifts He entrusted to us.
What we know of marriage from this account is several-fold, and it is significant.
/Marriage was given to mankind by God/.
That this is the case was emphasised by the Master on an occasion when He was queried by the Pharisees.
The account of that interrogation is found in the first Gospel.
“Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’
He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?
So they are no longer two but one flesh.
What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate’” [MATTHEW 19:3-6].
Again, /marriage is between a man and a woman in union throughout this life/.
God created one who would be a complement for the man.
God spoke within the Godhead, saying, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” [GENESIS 2:18].
A couple of points must be emphasised.
God chose to make a woman for the man.
Thus, woman is the divine complement for a man.
God did not make the woman to function solely as a companion for the man.
Though wife and husband should enjoy one another’s companionship; a dog, a budgie or a turtle, could have met the need for companionship.
God presented the man with one who would ensure that his life was complete.
God presented the woman to the man with the knowledge that both the man and woman were sexual beings, created thus by the hand of the LORD God.
The LORD did command them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion” [GENESIS 1:28].
It is a command, and a blessing, that would be repeated shortly after the Flood had subsided.
Following the Flood, we read, “God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’” [GENESIS 9:1].
After assuring Noah and his family of God’s requirement to take the life of those who shed the blood of others, the LORD God again gave His blessing, openly approving of mankind’s sexual nature, “Be fruitful and multiply, increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it” [GENESIS 9:7].
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9