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
0.1UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.1UNLIKELY
Fear
0.1UNLIKELY
Joy
0.47UNLIKELY
Sadness
0.55LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.64LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.48UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.99LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.56LIKELY
Extraversion
0.18UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.14UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.8LIKELY

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
Text
Lev.
16:20-
Atonement for the altar which is before the Lord (18) was the next step in the cleansing rituals.
Both bull and goat blood were used to smear the horns of the altar, and to sprinkle it as a means of purification and reconsecration.
The rather vague nature of the wording has led to questions as to which altar was meant.
Jewish commentators have taken the reference to indicate the golden altar of incense in the holy place (cf.
Exod.
30:10; Lev.
4:7, 18), but most Christian writers think that the passage refers to the altar of burnt offering, on which sacrifices were also offered before the Lord (Lev.
1:3, 5; 4:24, etc.).
The former interpretation seems more probable, however, since the altar to be atoned for is intimately related to the holy place and the tent of meeting (20).
The altar was smeared with blood as part of the ritual for the sin offerings (Lev.
4:7, 18), and would therefore need to be purified.
Once this had been done, the high priest was to bring the goat to an open area in the tabernacle court, and confess over it all the manifold transgressions of the Israelites, which were then transferred symbolically to the animal by the imposition of Aaron’s hands.
The iniquities, transgressions, and sins of the people represented the consequences of ignorance or inadvertence.
But this was not all.
Because the Hebrew term peša‘ (21) not merely means ‘transgressions’, but also carries with it a consistent sense of revolt or rebellion against an overlord, some of the offences for which atonement was to be made would have been committed despite the known will of God.
These latter would be regarded as sins of error or accident if the sinner by true penitence showed that his misdemeanours were mostly the product of ignorance.
The goat was then sent out into the wilderness area beyond the camp from which it could not return, typifying the complete removal of the nation’s sin and guilt.
The rituals are entirely correct psychologically and spiritually in connecting the forgiveness of sin and the removal of guilt.
The antiquity of this passage is indicated by the fact that in later periods of Israel’s history, the goat was hurled to its death from a steep cliff in the wilderness.
God’s loving nature is such that he delights in being able to cleanse the sinner and effect complete removal of the sin, whether in the old dispensation (cf.
Ps. 103:12; Mic.
7:19) or the new (1 John 1:7, 9).
Confession of sin leads to divine forgiveness
Under the old covenant
See also Part of the ritual of the Day of Atonement involved the high priest confessing the sins of the nation, while laying his hands on the head of a sacrificial goat;
; ; ;
Under the new covenant
See also
Confession of sin accompanied by acts appropriate to repentance
See also ; ; ; ;
Examples of confession of sin
On behalf of the nation
See also ; ; ; ; ;
By the people as a whole
See also ; ; ; ;
By individuals
See also ; ; ; ;
Confession of sin to other people
See also ;
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9