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
0.11UNLIKELY
Fear
0.1UNLIKELY
Joy
0.57LIKELY
Sadness
0.49UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.67LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.27UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.94LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.62LIKELY
Extraversion
0.17UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.73LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.64LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
Introduction
Pray
Read
We live in a culture of people who are far less religious than those of some 2000 years ago.
An example of this can be found in that in the first and second century, to be an atheist didn’t mean that you had no belief in God.
Instead, it meant that you refused to worship another god besides that of your own.
In our generation, to be an atheist means that one doubts the complete existence of any god in any format.
There is a drastic distinction between the two.
In the first century, finding someone with an absolute disbelief in any form of god would have been rare.
There were those who had beliefs which found themselves centered around Greek mythology.
Those who vowed an oath to the Roman Pantheon and so much more.
Those who found their gods inside of Greek mythology were those who would have centered their lives around pleasing false gods such as Zeus, Hera, Poseiden and even Artemis.
In fact, we find an account of this type of religion over in where Demetrius, who was a silversmith made silver shrines of Artemis.
To say that the first century world was engrained in paganism and idol worship would be a drastic understatement.
In fact, most people miss this when they read the account of Matthew talking about the Lord Jesus Christ but Matthew addresses this from verse 1-18.
Matthew takes careful consideration to present Jesus as a historical person.
He does this first by laying out the genealogy of Jesus through His would be adopted father Joseph.
But Matthew doesn’t end there.
Look with me at verse 18.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.
What we find in this verse is His birth.
In Greek this is the word Genesis.
It means, To be, To become, or To Happen.
What Matthew is doing here is twofold.
He is giving legitimacy to Jesus from His lineage, but also promoting Jesus within the framework of history instead of mythology.
Removing confusion and grounds for treating Jesus like some other god.
Now you don’t need to be a Greek scholar to pick this up by any means, but this is once again one of those reasons why it is paramount for us to try to understand the original culture of Scriptures.
We don’t walk out of door into a culture of shrines and idols being made, at least not as recognizable as what it was in the first century.
We do have this in our culture, I just think that Satan has done a very good job at disguising the mythology of our time.
What Matthew sets out to do using the language of his day was vital and I would argue that he accomplished it rather well.
He set out to defend the legitimacy of Jesus in History, the supernatural work of God in bringing about the Messiah, as well the Purpose of the Messiah.
As we walk through this text today, those three aspects of Christ will be the issues which we address first.
So the first point was the legitimacy of Jesus in History which we have partially covered and will now continue looking at.
Now this question would be better suited in this way.
Was Jesus born of a divine manner or not?
Is it possible or even plausible that a young teenage woman named Mary chose to have pre-marital sex with someone who was not her betrothed?
I’m saying this in a sarcastic way but there are literally thousands if not millions who believe just that.
Often-times they try to pin their belief of a young woman fooling around on their lack of belief of miracles.
In-fact, for many, they would hold to the belief of Thomas Paine who said that for every one miracle, there are one million lies.
Therefore, it is a one million to one chance that the Gospel’s account of the virgin birth being true is about as likely as being struck by lighting three times, on three separate occasions in the very same spot.
As one who believes that all of mankind is totally depraved, I could understand why he would say such a thing.
People are absolutely wicked!
Even those who try to live their lives in moral ways can often be those who show their wickedness the most.
So in thinking like Thomas Paine who would deny any form of miracles or anything supernatural, from their perspective, I could see why they wouldn’t believe the virgin birth.
Here’s the problem though, the first thing that men like Paine didn’t think about was that this life is not the material that we can visually see.
In all of God’s creation, there is not a naturalistic view taught at all.
Yet that’s what Paine was promoting.
A completely naturalistic approach to understanding all of human existence removes any possibility of a God who reaches into His creation.
This is what man has been trying to do to the Christian faith since the very time of Christ.
There is an entire movement which aims to reduce the Christian faith to a mere natural humanity.
A religion that is like that of all other religions.
Something man-centered with nothing supernatural.
With no God truly reaching into humanity but merely men desiring these things.
Yet all of creation screams that God does just that.
History itself shows that God intervenes through His creation.
If you examine the Exodus and look at the Plagues, it should be evident enough.
Time after time, God reaches into the course of His creation and guides and directs events and people for His glory.
So why would it be so hard for anyone to believe that God would supernaturally impregnate a righteous young woman for the sake of redeeming humanity.
On top of this, look at the evidence given to us from the text.
V.19 says that Joseph, who was her husband by betrothal was a righteous man.
What does that mean?
In Biblical terms, it means that he was a Jew who was a man which loved the Lord and the Law.
And as a righteous man, when he believed that the woman he was set to marry had been unfaithful, he knew that in order to stand right before the Lord, he would have to divorce his wife.
Now several things have to be addressed here real quick.
The first is that a betrothal in the first century was not like an engagement in our time.
In today’s generation, you can break off an engagement and there would be no issues or complications.
Yet in the first century, a betrothal was so set in stone that it was just as a marriage.
When you were betrothed to someone, you were set apart for that specific person.
The dowry had been given and the agreement had been reached.
The only thing that was lacking was for the bride to move out of her fathers house and into her husbands home to actually make the marriage complete through the sexual union.
And in order to break off an betrothal, a certificate of divorce would have had to been granted.
And in this specific case, Mary would have been presumed to have committed adultery.
Which, per the Old Testament Law would have required her to what?
Death!
Leviticus 20:1
It specifically states that the punishment for adultery is death.
This means that Joseph had to make a choice.
He could have flaunted her to all the world so that the Law of God would be magnified.
Yet instead, Joseph’s mercy and love for his wife was so great that he didn’t want that for her.
Yet, he also didn’t want to dishonor God in any way.
So instead of flaunting her publicly to all the world to be put to an open shame, he decided to show her mercy and put her away quietly without dishonoring God.
Think about this mans character for a minute.
He not only cares about the glory of God and walking in obedience to the Law, but he also has mercy on this woman whom at this moment, he believes to have committed adultery.
I have no doubt that as a righteous man, as Scripture explicitly calls him, that he went before the Lord moment after moment seeking the wisdom of the Lord.
And in all of this, he felt the most righteous thing to do to glorify the name of the Lord and walk in obedience to the Law was to divorce her discreetly without making a scene.
I have no doubt that this was an extremely difficult choice for this man.
Yet he felt it to be the most admirable and God honoring move to divorce her.
So here is my question, what would make a man of such great conviction change his mind to something that he felt might dishonor God?
Look at verse 20.
But as Joseph considered these things, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”
Now I’m not sure about y’all, but I think an angel of the Lord appearing to me in a dream would most definitely make me change my mind about something.
And that’s precisely what it did to Joseph.
Prior to the appearance from this Angel, there was no question in the mind of Joseph about what Mary had done.
Yet here we find a righteous man being forced to make a choice.
Is he going to believe in the naturalistic approach such as men like Paine?
That the odds of a miracle in this situation is one million to one?
One million lies for every one miracle.
Or, is Joseph going to submit to the miracles being laid out before his very eyes and believe that there is much in this life that deals with the supernatural.
The very end of verse 20 answers this question for him.
“For that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9