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
0.13UNLIKELY
Fear
0.62LIKELY
Joy
0.54LIKELY
Sadness
0.56LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.67LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.6LIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.98LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.28UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.09UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.12UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.5LIKELY

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
Trouble in Paradise
The story of the Fall of humanity in Genesis 3 seems straightforward, perhaps because we’ve heard it told so many times.
The truth is that this passage presents a lot of interpretive questions.
We’ve covered some of those earlier, but now it is time to look at one of the main characters in the text, the serpent.
Once again, there is more going on here than meets the eye.
One of the things that always bothered me about the story was why Eve wasn’t scared witless when the serpent spoke to her.
There is no indication that she thought the incident unusual.
I’ve heard some odd explanations for that, such as, “Maybe animals back then could walk and talk.”
That sort of speculation is aimed at preserving an overliteralized view of the text, and it’s often accompanied by an appeal to science - a claim that snake anatomy shows snakes once had legs.
It’s a bit misguided when someone tries to defend biblical literalism by appealing to the evolutionary history of snakes.
And the whole approach misses the point.
It also presumes that the villain was an animal — he wasn’t.
The truth is that an ancient reader would not have expected Eve to be frightened.
Given the context - she was in Eden, the realm of YHWH and his elohim council - it would have been clear that she was conversing with a divine being.
The biblical author has telegraphed that Eve was on divine turf.
Genesis three in context
In ancient Near Eastern literature of the Old Testament world, animal speech is not uncommon.
The context for such speaking is that of magic, which of course is tied to the world of the gods, or direct divine intervention.
No Egyptian, for example, would have presumed that the animals they experienced in their normal lives could talk.
But when the gods or magical forces were in view, that was a different story.
Animals were often the vehicle for manifesting a divine presence or power in a story.
The kind of animal would often depend on characteristics associated with that animal, or on the status of that animals in a cultures religion.
Consequently, the point of Genesis 3 is not to inform us about ancient zoology or a time when animals could talk.
We are not in the realm of science by design.
Genesis telegraphs simple but profound ideas to Israelite readers: the world you experience was created by an all-powerful God; human beings are his created representatives; Eden was his abode; he was accompanied by a supernatural host; one member of that divine entourage was not pleased by God’s decisions to create humanity and give them dominion.
All that leads to how humanity got into the mess it’s in.
In some respects, we know that the Genesis “serpent” wasn’t really a member of the animal kingdom.
We have other passages to help us grasp that point, particularly in the New Testament.
We understand that, even though the New Testament writers refer to the serpent back in Eden, they are really referring to a supernatural entity - not a mere member of the animal kingdom.
This is how we need to think about the story of Gen. 3.
An Israelite would have known that the episode described interference in the human drama by a divine being, a malcontent from within YHWH’s council.
The vocabulary used by the writer reveals several things about the divine enemy that has emerged from the council.
If we are only thinking of a snake we will miss the meaning.
My task today is to help you think beyond the literalness of the translated english language.
If it’s true that the enemy in the garden was a supernatural being - -then he wasn’t a snake.
But it is also true that the story is told as it is for a reason.
As odd as it sounds, the vocabulary and the imagery are designed to alert readers to the presence of a divine being, not a literal snake.
We will compare Gen. 3 to other Old Testament passages.
And we should be able to see that they are conceptually linked to Gen 3.
But we need to remember some of the things we have learned
The two sources for this episode are Gen 3 and
We covered this in Ezekiel but to review… the prince of Tyre considers himself a god (el) who sits in the seat of the gods, a term associated with the divine council.
(these are verses in Ezekiel 28) The prince called himself El…it means god.... the Phoenician religion had a divine counsel led by El, who was also called elyon (most high) and consider the creator of the earth.
For biblical writers this idea is offensive.
YHWH is the Most High — the true king of all the gods and creator of heaven and earth.
the arrogance of the prince of Tyre is an affront to the God of Isreal.
God deals with the prince … “will you say I am god before the face of your killers?”
You will die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers (v 10) BUT the prince is an uncircumsized gentile anyway --- seems to be incoherent.
But later … Sheol calls him the place of these people… but then we get the text on the screen… fall on the earth and under the earth… Questions == prince not in Eden…an older story is used.
This being is not Adam … it can only be the scene in Gen 3 a divine shining rebel among the stones of fire.
signat is troubling … (most troubling in fact) … the word there is “perfect model” or “signet ring” is the crux of the issue… it is a participle as a such means the sealer.... it is not an object but a person.
lumnious
adorned can mean divine
cast out of Eden …stones of fire are the mountainous dwelling of God and the council
divine being are also noted as stars… stones of fire
ALSO… the word sealer where it is used … sometimes a letter is silent and if so =serpentine..now
a taunt or comparative parable … who is the king of Babylon being compared to?
like in Ezekiel 28 this guy goes to Sheol underworld — the shades that are waiting are Rephaim — dead warrior kings … then Isa goes
the divine council is transparent .. the king of Babylon is compared to the fallen Day Star son of the dawn… literally means shining one, son of the dawn … remember Job where they were called morning starts… this being enamored of himself… declared above stars of God — other members of council
sit on the mount of assembly/// “the north” … this guys wanted to be like God .. this being ...
punishment to live in the realm of the dead, the pit, brought to earth...
The Nachash of Genesis 3
This word is both plain and elastic.
no vowels … so if these vowels it means serpent or serpentine… but if other vowels the noun is a verb and means “diviner” foretold oracles .. or an alternative noun used like adjective … bronze .... shining one..
like running in english … exercise, diesal paint
The use of Nachash here is more complicated it points to all three meanings..
This is a divine being, serpentine and diviner that shines like bronze…he gives an oracle an omen … you won’t really die, you will be like god.. we all represent the creator don’t we....
This does not excuse the primal pair.
they are judged .. entire libraries on this so I am selective
The curse leveled at Adam
did not supersede the mandate to subdue the earth and take dominion..
It did make it harder.. it turned a glorious mission into mundane drudgery (and too often churches do the same)… We are to continue the task!
We have an inner sense of the need to restore something lost, but Eden cannot return on human terms — need a savior.
Eve … look already had pain… but she must still bear children since her decedents would have something to do with the nachash
this wording, like all messianic prophecy is veiled… by intent … an heir will come and undo the damage done by the nachash...
This threat is fitting!
The seduction to sin means God must keep his word and humanity must die.
The nachash counted on this to eliminate his rivals.
God was just in this regard.
Sin did mean death, but not immediate annihilation.
It’s going to get worse before it gets better
Questions?
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9