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
0.11UNLIKELY
Fear
0.14UNLIKELY
Joy
0.2UNLIKELY
Sadness
0.53LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.65LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.18UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.97LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.42UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.42UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.47UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.53LIKELY

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
Andrew Hodge                                                                                                     2nd March 2007
 
 
NTES 111 New Testament Survey
 
Seminar 4
 
The Gospel of Luke
 
Jensen, Irving L. /Jensen’s Survey of the New Testament /1981, Moody Press, Chicago pp 155-173; Guthrie, Donald  /New Testament Introduction  /Apollos, Leicester, England 4th Ed  1990 Ch 4; /Libronix DLS/; /Gospel of Luke/
/ /
/ /
/Examine the theme of Luke with the other two Synoptic Gospels:/
            Luke states something that the other two Synoptics do not.
His Gospel was to be consecutive, chronological, full and exact (Jensen p 159) which Jensen derives from 1:1-4: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."[1]
This passage also implies that others had attempted to do this beforehand but Luke found them unsatisfactory.
A comparison of Jensen’s Charts 17, 21, 35 and 44 shows that Luke did not achieve this even though half of Luke’s material is not found in the other Gospels (Jensen p 161 footnote 10); for example he includes a reference to the Ascension (24:50-51).
It is in fact the longest book in the New Testament.[2]
However it must be born in mind that "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Amen." (John 21:25).[3]
Jensen states (p 159) that the theme of Luke concerns “Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people” (Lk 24:19).
Jesus is presented as the Son of Man among men (19:10), the perfect God-man (eg 1:35), who alone offers to all nations (24:47) the salvation of God (3:6).
None of the Gospels offers a complete picture of our Saviour, and all four must be taken as complementary.
In any case, knowledge of all the details of all the Scripture is not a substitute for a personal relationship with Him.
The two previous Seminars have explored Christ as the prophesied King of Israel (Matthew) and as the Suffering Servant (Mark).
John portrays Him as the Son of God.
The readerships are for Jews, Romans, Greeks and the World respectively and the prominent ideas are Law, Power, Grace and Glory (Jensen p 159).
Additional details re prominent words, writer outlook and style, and outstanding sections can be had from Jensen’s Chart 18 p 108.
All of these descriptions are complementary but even when taken as a whole in synthesis they offer only a small part of what might have been written.
We can trust God that we have all the writing we need to be able to appreciate enough of Who Christ was in order to point the whole of humanity toward salvation, and to appreciate the complete trustworthiness of Him Who saves.
/ /
/ /
/Compare the genealogy of Luke with that of Matthew’s Gospel:/
/            /A brief summary of this is given in Jensen Chart 15 p 100.
Luke describes Jesus’ physical descent through Nathan and Mary; Matthew Jesus’ legal descent through Solomon and Joseph.
Both Nathan and Solomon are ‘legal’ sons of David and Bathsheba hence Jesus is a ‘son of David’ in terms of both His “parents”.
He therefore inherits the promises made to David, especially with regard to his throne and kingship.
He was commonly known as the ‘son of David’ in His earthly ministry eg Mark 10:47; and Romans 1:3; Hebrews 7:14.
The genealogies bind Jesus firmly into both Testaments.
This simple construct has problems.
Jesus is the Son of the Father, not the son of Joseph.
This is explained by the interruption of the legal Solomonic line at the individual called variously Jehoiachin~/Jeconiah~/Coniah~/Jechoniah~/Jeconias.
This son of Jehoiakim acceded to the Davidic throne in Jerusalem in 598 BC at the age of 23, reigned for three months, then ‘voluntarily’ surrendered himself, his family and court to the besieging Babylonians.
They were taken into captivity, ultimately being restored to ‘grace’ in Babylon by the new king, Evil-Merodach in 562 BC.
This indicates that both the Babylonians and the exiled Jews regarded Jehoiachin as the legitimate claimant to the throne in Judah, a view which must have persisted to NT times even though the ruling Jews had the Book of Jeremiah to read and understand.
God had a different idea, and although Jehoiachin had sons, God regarded him as being childless, and in particular that no descendant of his would sit on the Davidic throne (Jeremiah 22:24-30).
Therefore the legal line of Jesus’ Solomonic descent does not confer on Jesus any right to fulfil God’s promise that He would sit on the throne of David.
This is important to the readers of Matthew’s genealogy if they kid themselves that Jesus had this right because he was a fully fledged Royal Jew.
[In fact He does have this right because He is their Messiah, not because of His ‘legal’ descent].
Nevertheless, Matthew still pointed traditional Jews toward Jesus’ putative heritage, clearly establishing that He *was* Jewish and that his descent legally began with Abraham.
The issue of Mary not being Jesus’ genetic mother has previously been covered (Dogmatology Seminar 16 “The Incarnation of the Son of God” 13th January 2006).
Searching the genealogies of the descendants of Nathan and Solomon demonstrates another problem.
Both lines of descent have two common named individuals - Shealtiel~/Salathiel and Zerubbabel.
On the side of Nathan Shealtiel’s father is listed as Neri (Luke 3:27) and on Solomon’s side Jeconias (Matthew 1:12).
Both genealogies then show Zerubbabel as Shealtiel’s son, from whom descend two sons Rhesa (for Nathan’s line) and Abiud (for the Solomonic line).
The order of these names may be confused by skipping generations in the inaccurate Hebrew tradition,
 
 
 
 
but it seems clear that the two lines of Jesus’ descent merge and then separate again 3a, unless there are two different Shealtiels and two different Zerubbabels from different families who happened to live in the same places at the same times and did the same things.
There is no place in scripture which resolves this problem as the descendants of various individuals are almost always listed as single sons, in the line the writer happens to be interested in, according to God’s purpose for that particular list.
In the Solomonic descent there are 24 named individuals between Solomon and Joseph inclusive.
In the line of Nathan, there are 39 between Nathan and Joseph (Mary).
In Matthew’s genealogy there are 13 individuals between Abraham and Jesse, 14 between David and Josias, and 13 between Jechonias and Joseph, all inclusive, a total of 40 between Abraham and Joseph.
Matthew 1:17 calls these 14 generations in each of the three groups (which would make a total of 42 names.
There are only 40).
Luke’s genealogy counts 54 names between Abraham and Joseph, inclusive.
Matthew is said to have used the Septuagint as the source for his list (Youngblood)[4].
Luke is also said to have used this source, as it is in his native language and in v. 36 he inserts Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah[5].
Both lists contain names not found elsewhere in Scripture; both lists contain identical names from Abraham to David.
The difference in the number of names in the lists cannot be easily resolved.
It is not reasonable to assume that for some reason they were made up.
It is also unclear why the genealogical lists are so different if similar sources were used to compile them.
It is also unacceptable to avoid the question by/ /saying “different writer”, “different readership”, “different dates and circumstances”, or “God knew what He was doing” -which of course He did but to my mind His reasons for such big differences remain obscure.
Matthew’s genealogy mentions four women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba) and includes Mary as the wife of Joseph.
Luke’s genealogy mentions none - interesting in view of the popular opinion that Luke describes Mary’s - a woman’s - heritage.
The omission may be merely cultural or philosophic, reflecting the position of women in society at the time, but in my view still not consistent with Luke’s likely Christ-like ethos.
If Matthew could mention women, so could he if the reason were merely cultural.
In addition, Luke’s Gospel includes 13 women that are not mentioned in the other Gospels, [6] further confusing the issue.
If Luke intended to show that Mary’s line was Davidic, he could easily have been much more explicit.
The ‘disclaimer’ in Luke 3:23 only goes part way to indicating his intention, and in addition gives the impression that the truth is actually only hearsay.
In a sense, the Lukan list is apt in demonstrating the origin of Jesus as far back as God and therefore that He has a mission to all people rather than just Jews - illustrating again the complementary nature of the Synoptics and their different readership.
/ /
/ /
/Explain the characteristics of Luke the writer:/
            Only the bare bones of Matthew’s character can be discerned from scripture (Jensen p 112).
Jensen has already claimed to describe the character of Mark on the basis of internal scriptural evidence (p 137) given the assumption that Mark is the John Mark of Acts and other places.
The scriptural evidences of the character of Luke are larger in volume and more specific than those for Mark and a reasonably accurate characterisation can be made.
Luke was born about the same time as Jesus and Paul of Greek parents, which makes him the only Gentile writer of the NT.
Birthplace was possibly Antioch of Syria or Philippi of Macedonia (Jensen p 156).
His ‘Christian’ name was Lucas, a shortened form of the Roman ‘Lucanus’.
His medical training might have been received at Athens, or Tarsus (‘a citizen of no mean city’ as Paul describes himself to the Roman Chief Captain of the Guard in Acts 21:39).
From the content and style of Luke and Acts, it is speculated that history and literature were two of Luke’s favourite subjects.
Luke was not a disciple of Christ during His earthly ministry and therefore does not write a personal eyewitness account.
He may have been converted under Paul’s ministry, possibly at Antioch (eg Acts 11:26).
Jensen lists four important talents~/callings (p 157):
* Physician: “the beloved physician” Colossians 4:14.
Jensen claims Luke’s Gospel employs ‘medical terms’ eg “fever” (4:38),  “issue of blood” (8:43), ”infirmity”, “bowed together” (13:11) and “sores” (16:20-21).
Although these terms are more ‘medical’ than plain ‘ill’ or ’sick’, in my view they are not more than an intelligent layman might use, even in Luke’s time, as these words in the /koine /Greek were available for use by anyone.
Those who do have medical training might infer from Luke’s description what the disease process might have been, but there is far too little specific information to diagnose the exact problem.
In any case, Luke is reporting what Jesus did or said as part of His supernatural ministry.
Luke contains six unique miracles, five of which are of healings.
The issue of what exactly was cured is not relevant, particularly as God has allowed substantial advances in medical knowledge and technology since Luke’s era which has permitted some of these putative medical conditions to be ‘cured’ by men and therefore no longer belong to the realm of the miraculous.
Jensen notes that Luke and Paul may have met at the same University in Tarsus (p 157 - but it is also possible that at the age when Paul would have entered tertiary studies, he was sent to Jerusalem to Gamaliel Acts 22:3).
* Historian: multiple historical times~/dates~/events~/rulers throughout eg 1:5 (Herod), 1:26 (the sixth month), 1:56 (three months); see also 2:1-2, 21-22, 36-37, 42, and especially 3:1-2 ("Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness").[7]
It’s difficult to be more specific than this!
Especially as Luke was writing to one individual who was living at the same time and who was presumably aware of regional politics.
In God’s providence it certainly helps us today to be accurate about times back then.
* Writer: Jensen notes: “Luke’s gospel is considered by many to be a literary masterpiece” (p 157).
That this is so in the original /koine /Greek is testament to the quality of the KJV translators in being able to reproduce this in a different language.
Jensen states “It reveals a highly trained composer, who had a very large vocabulary, vivid style, historical outlook, and gift of communication” (ibid).
There is more content concerning Jesus’ ministry in Luke and Acts than from any other NT writer.
* Evangelist and Pastor: Paul’s co-labourer on the missionary journeys, staying with him until his death (eg 2 Timothy 4:11 et al).
Jensen assumes that Luke shared the ministries of preaching and pastoring with Paul.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9