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
0.13UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.08UNLIKELY
Fear
0.09UNLIKELY
Joy
0.61LIKELY
Sadness
0.53LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.61LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.69LIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.97LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.51LIKELY
Extraversion
0.2UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.28UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.45UNLIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
Well Said, Teacher
Life is full of hypotheticals...
Levirate law...
Section is full of teaching about “this age” and in “the age to come.”
Not heaven…but the age to come.
luke 20:27
These are the צדוקים which means the righteous or holy ones.
They are descendants of צדק the high priest of the period of the exiles.
They derive their history from him.
This is the only place in the gospel of Luke where this group shows up.
Luke does speak of them a few times in Acts.
Matthew too speaks of them in parallel with the Pharisees.
They are part of the scholar-class and likely aristocratic.
They had differing views on the value of the Hebrew bible, favoring the Pentateuch, the Torah, and lessening the value of the prophets and writings.
Which will be interesting in that Jesus is going to respond to them from the Torah, from the books of Moses.
BUT…MORE INTERESTING TO ME IS that there was a debate in this time about the resurrection of people after they had died.
The Sadducee’s are more like OUR MODERN scholars, who look to scripture to RETAIN THE MORALITY, but leave the SPIRITUAL component out.
In other words, they don’t really adhere to the supernatural aspect of scripture.
The question is: Can they come back up from Sheol?
But it is not likely they believed in Sheol or Heaven or Paradise.
Keep that in mind when Jesus gives his answer.
This idea is strange to our ears.
But, this did not come about as an act of oppression, rather it came about as an act of PROTECTION and PROGRESSION.
Progression: In that it kept the family progressing with progeny.
Protection: In that it kept the widow, any children she may have, in the family, keeping them fed and alive.
Levirate marriage was a matter of survival for most widows and children.
ANCIENT MARRIAGE: and some marriage around the world today, is FAR MORE than just romance and love.
It is that, yes, but there is a contract between the two and between the families.
An ancient married couple HAD TO WORK TO SURVIVE.
Each had to contribute.
Men were far more prone to an early death, leaving a woman to fend for herself.
The LAW was made (ancient law that preceded scripture) to protect women.
Men were pressured to care for more members of a family, it was not easy for them either.
In that vein, it was not about romantic love.
That is a WESTERN, Shakespearian concept that has been ELEVATED.
Romantic love is in scripture, but it comes in two contexts: It is taken for granted and it is earned through deception.
They got him!
Numerous premises stand behind the question: (1) Relationships in the afterlife will be like those in this life.
(2) The absurdity of the woman’s dilemma reveals the absurdity of resurrection.
(3) With the possible exception of levirate responsibility, monogamy was recommended—a key point since this woman has been committed in marriage seven times!
Another note: This is NEVER a PROBLEM with MORE THAN one WIFE!
Again, this whole episode just seems OUT THERE!
BUT, please notice this: They are using the NATURAL WORLD, the WORLD they EXPERIENCE and can OBSERVE, to ARGUE AGAINST the SUPERNATURAL.
Okay, this statement can stand on its own, but there seems like there is a “but” coming.
However, this statement alone is going to set Jesus apart from some ancient, recent, and existing belief systems.
***** But in the age to come...
Those worthy of being raised from the dead…we are not told what this criteria is.
***** And they will never die again...
Death is the expiration of the body, and if you are resurrected, then you are resurrected to a life that cannot be taken
***** In this respect they will be like angels...
In form, in spiritual form, but we different in other ways.
***** They are children of God....
We will be “sons” of God, like the angels, but we are sons of the RESURRECTION.
***** But now, as to whether...
Jesus is going to make an argument from one of the five scrolls they accept.
***** Long after Abraham...
The text of Exodus 3:6 “And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”
And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.”
Luke quotes this as Moses wrote that God said…he is using their language.
But what a climax.
Jesus kills their argument with something that is obvious in the text, but we miss because we observe our world.
***** So he is the God of the living...
God is the God of the living...
He just shut them down on the whole discussion.
Here is the key....
This is quite a statement
There are many references to God as the “living God” in the TANAK
We have a temporal view of God.
God is “up there”
We are “down here”
But it would seem that our location and body form are unimportant in the context of the Living God
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9