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
0.51LIKELY
Disgust
0.15UNLIKELY
Fear
0.09UNLIKELY
Joy
0.54LIKELY
Sadness
0.57LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.46UNLIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.4UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.84LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.65LIKELY
Extraversion
0.08UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.74LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.55LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
*The Gospel of John XV: God’s Mercy & Justice*
*John 7:53-8:11*
*/September 14, 2008/*
*Prep: *
· Read leftovers (really)
· Phil.
12 (Legalism), unChristian
· Textual Criticism in NAC
· Memorize 8:9-11
*Opening: *
Announcements and mom & dad
*prayer*
· Mom and dad
*A textual Question*
Enjoyed a *break* to talk about the Bible, next week *Jay* *speaking*, following week is the *MIssion* of *TGCC*.
But today we get to read one of the *best* *loved* passages in the Bible.
· I liked the *Q & A*, so we will do it again.
Before we read, we need to look at the opening note:
“The earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.”
It does *not* *belong* *here*: not in earliest mss, moves around, interrupts the story, does not fit John’s writing style.
Q Does this belong in the Bible?
I think so.
It probably preserves an *early* *account* of Jesus life.
The fact it *moves* *around* suggests they knew it to be *authentic*, but weren’t sure where to put it.
Perhaps it was written by Luke (similar style) or just held in oral tradition.
It clearly reflects what we know about Jesus.
Ä It holds a *beloved* and well-deserved *spot* in our hearts as we see Jesus love and mercy, not in *words* but *actions*
· It has *comforted* many people who wonder if they have gone *too* *far* for God’s mercy.
*8:2-11 *At dawn [Jesus] appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.
They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.
Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they?
Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared.
“Go now and leave your life of sin.”
*The Pharisees set a trap*
In this story, there are *three* *characters*: The Scribes and Pharisees, Jesus, and, *caught* in the *middle*, this woman.
She is a *pawn* in the *trap* the Pharisees are setting for Jesus.
For some time now, they had been trying to get rid of Jesus, but rather than *kill* him and make him a *martyr*, they would have preferred to *discredit* him.
This situation was meant to be a “*no* *win*” situation.
If he said “*stone* *her*” he could be charged with *sedition* and also would have *lost* his *support* with the “*sinners*.”
If he said *let* her *go*, he denies the *law* and shows himself to be a *false* *prophet*.
· Up until now Jesus had only contradicted *statutes* added to the OT law, not the law itself.
*Mercy vs. holiness*
The Pharisees were “right,” *ignoring* her sin would *contradict* God’s law, and an *affront* to his *holiness* and *righteousness*.
Jesus, as holy God, *could not* “that’s no biggie.”
For him to ignore the sin would be saying *sin* is *okay*, that the *evil* is not really *bad*.
But it is it is *destructive*.
· From *adultery* to *lying*, from *genocide* to *oppression*, sin *sucks*, and sucks the life out of us.
Without realizing it, they are setting up one of the *fundamental* *problems* of theology: How can God be *just* and *holy* yet *loving* and *merciful*?
Of course, they did *not* *care* about the answer to that question.
They were not saying, “We really *want* to show mercy, but...”
· This story does not answer that question through carefully *developed* *theology*, but rather we see the answer in *actions*.
Ä This is a *drama* that continues to play itself out *through* *history*.
*We* are *now* the *players* and we play the role of the Pharisees, the woman, or Jesus.
*Legalistic morality*
In the Pharisees, we see a *legalistic* *morality* that is neither *holy* and *just*, nor *loving* and *merciful*.
This is still true of today’s legalism, which is *too* *common* in the *church*.
/1.
//It is a callous and impersonal /
These guys were incredibly *calloused* to this woman – her life was *expendable* as they tried to trap Jesus.
· They did not care about her.
Perhaps one of the most important steps to leaving legalism is to stop seeing them as *dysfunctional,* *sinful* *individuals* and start seeing them as *individuals* that *God* *loves* as much as you.
/2.
//It is focused on punishment/
In contrast, God’s holiness is *redemptive* – it takes those who are *broken* and attempts to make us *whole*, because he *loves* us.
· There’s a huge difference *punitive* and *redemptive* acts.
/3.
//It is selective /
First thing we notice that that only *one* *person* is brought before Jesus.
Adultery is kinda a *team* *sport* – where’s the guy?
This is indicative of their attitude and modern legalism’s: Choosing *certain* *sins* to *focus* on, and *ignoring* your own.
· No one can live up to the *real* standards, so *edit* them.
Ä It is on this last point that Jesus catches them.
*Calling them out*
So they present them with this tough case, and he seems to *ignore* them, and just writes on the ground.
They pester him, he says, “If you are *without* *sin*, throw the first stone.”
He lets that sink in while he writes some more.
Q What was he *writing*?
There are lots of *theories*.
· I think he may have been writing out *names*, *dates*, and *times*.
· They left *without* a *fight*, which tells me that they wanted to get *leave* *without* any *attention*.
Jesus point seems to be asking if they want to be *judged* by the *same* *standards*.
Do you really want God to be *holy* *without* *love*?
· No one who truly understands *God’s* *standards* does.
Jesus had *challenged* their *behavior* and *motives*, and they knew they *failed* the test.
· The *oldest* left *first* because they had the *wisdom* to recognize the truth of Jesus words.
Ä And so we are left with just Jesus and this woman.
*Guilty as charged*
She is *guilty*.
That is an *important* *point* to understand.
She knows it, and Jesus know it.
She is probably still very tense – what will happen next?
*John 8:10-11a* Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they?
Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said.
He shows her *tenderness*, stands up and *looks* *directly* at here and speaks to her with *kindness*.
“Woman” is an *affectionate* *term* – Jesus used it when speaking to his *mother* and *friends*.
Ä But it is what comes next is what floors me.
*Neither do I condemn you*
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9