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
0.12UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.13UNLIKELY
Fear
0.12UNLIKELY
Joy
0.63LIKELY
Sadness
0.59LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.7LIKELY
Confident
0.47UNLIKELY
Tentative
0UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.93LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.7LIKELY
Extraversion
0.21UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.55LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.74LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
Introduction
-Paul has made in extraordinarily clear that his visit to Jerusalem was in no since his service to the apostles there and that they had made no contribution to his position as an apostle.
However now he takes an extra step to demonstrate his independence from the apostles.
If he had received his authority from the apostles, he would not have rebuked peter but since his authority is from God, he had the authority to correct
Gal 2:11-
I.
The Event V.11-13
Gal 2:
-Scripture does not tell us when or why Peter visited Antioch but the best translation here is when peter “has come” so it was likely that peter had been in Antioch for some time before this event took place,
Paul makes the statement “ I withstood him to the face” meaning he corrected him directly but he wants to be sure that there was understanding that he had good reason for this correction.
Peter was not preaching false teaching or anything like that, but some of the Hebrew Christians had persuaded him to stop fellowshipping with uncircumcised gentile believers.
This disturbed Paul as it was not an issue of separation and could lead to a problematic interpretation of the grace-gospel
again, peter was not preaching, or teaching circumcision was required, but he stopped fellowshipping with those who were un circumcised.
This was even more disturbing to Paul as the rest of the Jewish believers had been led astray with peter in this belief including barnabas.
Paul felt that he had to act quickly that peters decision was one of fear of the Hebrew believers.
The fact that all these had been led astray by the hypocrisy of the Hebrew believers Paul was most certainly correct to correct it.
This is a good reminder for us today there are things to separate over and things not to separate overs, sadly many churches who believe essentially the same things often separate offer minor issues.
This is a good reminder for us today there are things to seperate over and things not to seperate overs, sadly many churches who believe esentially the same things often seperate ofer minor issues.
II.
The Rebuke V. 14
the premise of Paul’s statement here was that peter was neglecting the truth that exists in the gospel, by not accepting Jews and gentiles equally.
weather this was his intent or not, this is what he was communicating by not fellowshipping with the uncircumcised gentiles.
Paul focuses on the fact that this conversation was “before them all” he rebuked peter before the entire congregation
III.
The correction 15-21
Paul begins his correction here with the position of the Jewish Christians making no distinction between a Judieser and a Jewish Christian believer, including himself.
He has already made it clear that he sees no difference between peter and a Judieser.
but
Peter transitions saying even though we are Jews and not gentiles’ sinners we know salvation does not come through the works of the law.
if keeping the law would have been an effective way for God to accept people then Christ would never have had to come, thus the fact is that only the blood can satisfy a righteous God.
Christ made it abundantly clear while he was on the earth that his message was not for the “richoughes” but for those who were aware of their sin.
and therefore, initially all Jewish Christians had initially agreed that it was impossible to satisfy God by just keeping the law.
This had been shown by abandoning this law-keeping and turning to Christ instead.
What Paul is trying to do in this passage is that the belief by the Judaizes is in direct conflict with their own basic belief.
G
Basically, what Paul is saying here is in the attempt to be justifies through the law we have proven to be sinners
Justification beans declared richious.
What Paul is saying here is there is no way we can be declared rightious through the law we tried that it does not work
-remember the purpose of the law was to show that there was no way righteousness could be obtained in itself.
Christ tore down the need for the law to be part of justification, but the judizers were trying to rebuild it
When Christ died parts of the law are still commanded in the new testament, however it has no Bering on salvation we died to the law and we are now alive to Christ.
Christ tore down the need for the law to be part of justification, but the judizers were trying to rebuild it
Christ tore down the need for the law to be part of justification, but the judizers were trying to rebuild it
When Christ died parts of the law are still comanded in the new testement, however it has no bering on salvation we died to the law and we are now alive to Christ.
Through our salvation we are identified with Christ, and we no longer live but we ought to live as Christ would have us to live.
The life we live is one of faith through christ who loves us and gave himself for us.
This is an astounding statement utterly rejecting the law from a former Pharisee.
Paul’s bottom line is that if we could somehow receive righteousness through the keeping of the law Christ’s death had no purpose being it
Application
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9