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
0.16UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.13UNLIKELY
Fear
0.1UNLIKELY
Joy
0.61LIKELY
Sadness
0.46UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.79LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.4UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.96LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.85LIKELY
Extraversion
0.28UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.55LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.82LIKELY

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
Introduction
When people are in pursuit of what they truly believe is something good, they will do some pretty terrible things in order to achieve it.
Recently there was an example of a documentary on Elizabeth Holmes, who started up a massive tech company named Theranos.
She got a string of big names on the board of the company, and sold the idea that they had a device that with just a few drops of blood, they could test just about everything wrong with a person, and could be used in the comfort of your own home.
It was posited to be the next greatest thing in medical advancement.
Elizabeth Holmes managed to raise close to $1 billion dollars in investments, and had a massive company going, with a product that couldn’t even come close to giving the kind of information she claimed it could.
In another example, in the United States, according to a NY Times article I read, it is permitted for police officers to outright lie to suspects during interrogation in order to obtain a confession to a crime committed.
According to the article:
In Frazier v. Cupp (1969), the Supreme Court made it lawful for the police to present false evidence.
“The victim’s blood was found on your pillow,” “You failed the polygraph,” “Your fingerprints were on the knife” and “Your friend said she wasn’t with you like you said” are some common but brazen lies told.
There is almost no limit to the type or magnitude of deception permitted — one lie or many; small lies and whoppers; lies aimed at adults or anxious and unwary teenagers.
Lies in the name of what they believed to be a good or noble pursuit.
And this is where we find the religious leaders that were engaging with Jesus at this time in Jerusalem, in the Temple.
We’ve seen over the last number of weeks just how heated the tensions have become between Jesus and the religious leaders.
Last week we saw that Jesus told a parable about the vine-growers that would beat and cast out the messengers of the owner, and who would ultimately put to death the Son that wa sent by the owner of the vineyard.
In Luke 20:19, we read…
That is the context of the encounter that we read of between Jesus and the religious leaders in this passage.
As religious leaders, they wanted an immediate arrest!
They knew he had spoken this parable against them!
At various points through Luke’s Gospel, we’ve seen the animosity growing, but at this point, it is particularly strong, and they are looking for an immediate solution.
As we work our way through this passage, we see a stark comparison between those who would plot evil, and who walk down a path of evil, and Jesus Christ, the righteous Son of God who will respond in wisdom and purity.
With that in mind, let us consider firstly…
1.
The Plans for Evil
Keep in mind that these religious leaders were utterly convinced in their own hearts and minds that they were honouring God.
However, they were utterly self-deceived.
But because of their self-centered natures, their hearts filled with selfish desires, they would pursue Christ through lies and deceit.
Notice…
1.1.
The Heart of Evil (v.20)
In verse 20, we find what it was that they were seeking to do now in light of what Jesus had said to them.
The first thing that we see is that they were “keeping a close watch on him...”
This is not something that was unusual for the religious leaders.
They would do this regularly through the course of Christ’s ministry in the world in an attempt to catch Him out.
Jesus lived a life under constant scrutiny from these leaders.
Their goal was that they would catch him.
The only difference between the previous incidents and this one is that they were now far more hostile.
The hostility has increased.
And so, we find in our text that they plot to send spies.
They are going to send spies to Jesus in order to trap Jesus in his words.
This was again not a new thing.
That’s exactly what they were now seeking to do in this instance.
They were sending spies with the purpose of trapping Jesus.
It is interesting to note what David wrote in some of the Psalms, in terms of how He was pursued by wicked men who would devise evil.
One example of this is Psalm 140:1-5
That is exactly what the religious leaders were doing in this instance.
Notice that they have this Evil Desire, just as the Psalmist wrote.
They had devised evil things in their hearts.
But we see in this passage that they went “pretending to be honest.”
The word used for “honest” here probably has the meaning of being righteous.
They were pretending to those who walked in integrity.
They were pretending to come to Jesus as those who were for him and supportive of Him.
They were going to come with the approach of uprightness and integrity with their question.
This is the manner in which evil works.
Satan disguising himself as an angel of light.
But we must see the extent of this evil in terms of what they were now trying to do.
And this is very important in terms of the context here.
It says in our text that they wanted to trap him so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor.
The setup was like this.
In Mark 12:13 we read of who this group of spies were made up of…
The “Spies” that were sent to Jesus were made up of a group of Pharisees and Herodians.
Pharisees were part of the pious religious leaders of the Jewish people.
The Herodians were those who were partial to Herod, who was set in place to govern that region.
These two groups of people were not friendly to one another.
They simply came together in this instance because they had a common enemy in view - Jesus.
Here was an unholy alliance of parties, set up and structured in order to trap Jesus.
The Pharisees in the group would approach Jesus in order to ask him a question of conscience.
They would ask him a question that had to do with their devotion to God (or so they would claim).
But it would be a question so structured that they hoped Jesus would give an answer that would allow him to be accused before the Roman authorities.
And that’s why they needed the Herodians as part of the group.
We must take note of the phrase in Luke 20:20 that they wanted to “hand him over.”
Just by including this statement in this form, Luke is highlighting and intensifying the role of officiaul Judaism in Jesus’ death.
In Luke 18:32, Luke has already recorded Jesus’ words that he would be handed over in this manner...
In a couple of weeks time, when we Lord-willing consider Luke 23, we will find that they had indeed handed Jesus over, and they would accuse him before Pilate.
But already this plot is in their hearts.
As this plot unfolds, we find...
1.2.
The Act of Evil (vv.21-22)
In verse 21 we read…
Immediately we must see the utter guile of these leaders.
The extent of the hypocrisy is shocking.
Notice the way that they approach him.
Firstly, they call him “Teacher.”
Now, while this is an accurate (although not a full) description of Jesus, they would never listen to what this Teacher had to say.
At least they didn’t agree.
They listened to find fault and catch him out.
But they go even further.
They say to him, “we know that you speak and teach what is right.”
In their hypocrisy they seek to flatter Jesus by telling him that he speaks and teaches what is right.
Later on in the same verse, they say that he teaches the way of God in accordance with the truth.
What they were really saying is that Jesus is a dependable teacher, and one that the people can follow because of the integrity of his words.
The only problem is that they hated him, and they despised his teaching.
In fact, they wanted him dead because of his teaching…
As much as they were saying the right things, they were doing so only as a form of flattery, and with malicious and evil intent.
They had no intention of actually listening to the teaching of Jesus.
In fact, they were utterly repulsed by it.
They cared nothing for what He taught, and saw Him only as a menace.
One further thing that they comment here is that Jesus does “not show partiality.”
In other words, they say to Jesus that it doesn’t matter who he’s with, whether rich or poor, slave, free, sick, healthy… you name it… Jesus, you’re not partial in this accurate teaching.
You just teach everyone consistently the truth of God.
Now the statement they make is certainly true.
But they certainly did not believe what they were saying.
One of the reasons that they hated Jesus so much is because he ate with tax collectors and sinners, and even showed mercy and grace in his teaching of them.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9