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
0.14UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.07UNLIKELY
Fear
0.11UNLIKELY
Joy
0.54LIKELY
Sadness
0.47UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.7LIKELY
Confident
0.23UNLIKELY
Tentative
0UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.97LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.77LIKELY
Extraversion
0.12UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.42UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.73LIKELY

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
Announcements
Denys Potgieter - cancer
Sermon Text
Introduction
Many of us have heard about the “unforgivable sin”.
Perhaps you’re not entirely sure what precisely the unforgivable sin.
Perhaps you’re concerned that you yourself have committed such a sin, and that there is no way that God is ever going to forgive your sin, because it is beyond forgiveness.
Well this morning’s text deals precisely with this issue of the unforgivable sin, and what it is.
Although it’s perhaps somewhat obscure.
I do trust however that by the time we come to the end of this study, you will have some clarity (and hopefully some peace) concerning the unforgivable sin, and whether or not you’ve committed it.
Thus far in our study of the Gospel of Mark, we’ve noted the clear demonstration of the authority of Jesus Christ as He came into the world in order to establish His kingdom reign and rule.
But we’ve also noticed the opposition that he’s started receiving as a result of the works that he was doing, and the words that He was speaking.
He received opposition:
For performing healings and miracles
For claiming the authority to forgive sins
For claiming to have authority over the Sabbath Day
In essence, He received opposition because he simply did not fit in with the religious systems that had been developed by the Scribes, Pharisees and other religious leaders.
And so it was that we saw this opposition to Christ mounting, as the religious leaders confronted Christ.
In Mark’s record, this opposition was focused on the five confrontations that we considered in .
And at the climax of that confrontation, we found the Pharisees going out and conspiring with the Herodians how they might kill this man Jesus.
But what we didn’t see in that opposition was a direct and heated face-to-face confrontation between Jesus and the leaders themselves.
I say that in the sense that the opposition to Christ took the form of questions being asked - Christ was challenged by means of questions directed either at His followers, or at Him directly.
But any accusations brought against Christ were implicit.
They were implied in the questions, but they were not stated explicitly.
But in our current text, we find that the Scribes now begin to confront Christ by means of explicit accusations and criticisms.
This was no longer taking the form of raising questions, and trying to create doubts.
Rather, here were accusations being made against Christ, and specifically the accusation that Christ was driving out demons by the power of Beelzebub - the chief of demons.
This morning, we are going to consider a number of important and encouraging aspects concerning Christ’s response to the accusations that these Scribes brought against Him.
Just before we get there, a comment in passing.
We are not going to be considering verses 20-21 this morning.
Those verses actually tie in with verses 31-35 - which we’ll consider next week.
Verses 20-21 indicate that Christ’s family heard about what was happening with Jesus, and they leave their place of living in order to go and take charge of him.
At that point Mark breaks away from that scenario, and introduces another account that happens in the interim while Christ’s family is travelling on the way to take charge of Him.
This is a literary device known as intercalation or bracketing or sandwiching, and it is used to indicate a lapse of time, heighten tension, but most importantly to use two accounts to interpret each other.
So verses 20-21, and then 31-35, we’ll consider next week, but they have similarities to what we’ll be considering this morning.
1.
The Accusation
Before we get into actually considering our text this morning, let’s just get the context again.
It would seem that Jesus is back in Capernaum, or perhaps he is
1.
Point 1
As we turn our attention now to the current text, we will notice firstly the accusation that is leveled against Christ.
The Accusation.
In our text, verse 22, we read that the teachers of the law had come down from Jerusalem.
It’s as they’ve come from Jerusalem again (most likely with the express purpose of finding further fault with this man Jesus), and as they’re in the area where Jesus is ministering and performing these various miracles, that they see Jesus performing another healing on a demon-possessed man.
In Matthew’s account of this event, we read:
Again, it is the common people who are overawed by the work of Christ, and they even go as far as to ask if this could be the one who is the “Son of David”.
The title “Son of David” here was a Messianic title - it was the name for the One who would come to sit on the throne of David forever, as God had promised them.
It’s through these miracles of Christ that they suggest, and entertain the thought, that this man may truly be the King that was promised to them.
The religious leaders, on the other hand, who should have known better, were blinded by their own air of authority, and so they refuse to acknowledge that this One who has come is indeed the promised “Son of David”.
I want you to notice that nothing is said here concerning Christ doing this on a Sabbath Day.
The opposition to Christ that is coming from the Scribes has nothing to do with breaking a Sabbath rule or command of their own.
But they proceed nonetheless to flagrant accusations against Jesus.
There really is no basis for their accusations.
It would appear that the accusations flow out of pure hatred towards Jesus and the works that He is performing.
Instead, they level flagrant accusations against Jesus.
There really is no basis for their accusations.
It would appear that the accusations flows out of pure hatred towards Jesus and the works that He is performing.
The Scribes and Pharisees are acting out of jealousy because they are losing their following.
How often do we not find people who have no basis on which to argue against someone that they disagree with, that they begin to level insults on the person without any reason.
I recall an incident...
And so here we have these teachers of the law, who level these accusations against Jesus.
And so here we have these teachers of the law, who level these accusations against Jesus.
And so here we have these teachers of the law, who level these accusations against Jesus.
In verse 22 we read the accusation that they bring:
The first accusation is that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebub (or a demon)
The second accusation is that Jesus is driving out demons by the power of Beelzebub.
They further refer to Beelzebub as “the prince of demons”.
Two accusations there.
Firstly, that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebub.
Secondly, that it is by the power of demons that he is driving out demons.
Here was a venomous attack on Christ.
There is some dispute as to where this name “Beelzebub” comes from.
Most likely, the name Beelzebub is a slight modification of the name of the Philistine god (idol) at Ekron, in the time when Ahaziah was king over Israel.
In that account, Ahaziah fell through the lattice of his roof, and injured himself, and then sent men to enquire of this idol Beelzebul as to whether he would recover or not.
He was then confronted by the prophet Isaiah, who asked him, is there no God in Israel, that you must go and seek counsel from false gods who are in fact no gods..?!
But the Scribes in this instance clearly intended the name to mean more than simply an idol with no power!!
They were stating to Christ that He was in fact possessed by Satan.
They were telling Jesus that it was in fact by Satan’s power that He was driving out the demons.
That is clear when considering Christ’s response to them, where he says “How can Satan drive out Satan?” (v.23).
How wrong they were!!!
So wrong, in fact, that the end up receiving a stern word of condemnation from Jesus.
2. The Analogy and Condemnation
But notice secondly with me the Analogy.
We’ve seen the Accusation, we’ll consider secondly the Analogy from Christ.
Christ responded to these accusations of the Scribes by means of a parable, or an Analogy.
Christ responded to these accusations of the Scribes by means of a parable.
This is important, because the thrust of the reasoning behind speaking in parables is that the truth behind what is said may be veiled to them.
There are 3 distinct parts in the response that Jesus brings here.
2.1.
Christ Refutes the Accusation
The first part of Christ’s words in response to the Scribes is that he rejects the notion that Satan will drive out those who belong to Satan.
He asks “How can Satan drive out Satan?”
He goes on to say in verses 24-26...
The message is quite simple.
It is an absurdity that Satan would be the force at work in Jesus to drive out the demons in those who were demon possessed.
Indeed, it would be entirely counter-productive.
Would a kingdom deliberately set out to destroy itself by initiating a civil war?
Those possessed by demons were under the power of Satan himself.
Why would Satan now release them from his own power by driving those demons out of the person?
This would do nothing more than to render the kingdom of Satan powerless, since it would be working at cross purposes with itself.
Christ rightly remarks that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
As Christ responds to the accusations, the absurdity of it all would have been abundantly clear.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9