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
0.11UNLIKELY
Joy
0.47UNLIKELY
Sadness
0.6LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.85LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.02UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.84LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.35UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.07UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.25UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.64LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
I. Indirect vs. Direct confrontation
Notice the courage it must have took for Nathan to obey God.
Nathan takes the indirect approach.
His parable isn’t intended to make a logical point, but to tug on the heartstrings.
It is meant to stir sympathy, sympathy that David ought to have had but cared more about his own image than the life of a man he was responsible to protect.
The story is also meant to be different enough from the situation that David wouldn’t identify himself in the story until later, but similar enough that David will get the point when the trap is sprung.
Compare with Daniel’s appeal to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:19-27
Jesus also takes the indirect approach Luke 7:36-50
the direct approach isn’t wrong - God takes it with Cain Gen 4:6; Samuel takes it with Saul 1 Samuel 15; Paul takes the direct approach with the church at Corinth and the Galatian churches.
Which is appropriate depends on the situation, so it therefore requires wisdom (but see Genesis 3:9).
Notice that all the examples above are from an established authority, whereas Nathan and Daniel are both under the authority they criticize, and Jesus is a guest in the house of the man he gives that mild rebuke.
Galatians 6:1; Matt 18:15
II.
Justice vs. Emotional Damages
David’s response is emotional - death is not an appropriate punishment for killing a lamb, because the law isn’t about just emotionally reacting, it must be about impartial justice.
David’s first response, in effect, is to inflict enormous emotional damages on the rich man.
David’s second response is obviously a second thought.
It is very difficult to restore a lamb when you’re dead.
David’s second thought is accurate, a fair and impartial judgment of the case he believes he is deciding.
Exodus 22:1.
Exodus 22 has multiple penalties for different degrees of theft.
An ox = 5x; If the sheep/ox is still alive, then double; if any other item, double.
If the item is accidentally broken, then there is no restitution.
In other words, animals are not as valuable as people, so a human life cannot be traded for an animal’s life, even if that animal is a favored pet.
But God does believe in private property, and demands that people’s property be protected.
Larger thefts have bigger penalties, and more egregious thefts have bigger penalties.
Accidental loss, even if it is as big as a deliberate one, is not wrong and doesn’t carry penalty.
That means it’s primarily about the intent, and less about the actual loss.
Killing a stolen sheep is a really careless disregard for someone’s property, for there’s now no possibility for the owner to recover the loss.
that’s why it carries almost the highest penalty for theft under the law.
Thus, the law of God knows nothing about “emotional damages” that our law sometimes permits.
Restitution of lost items isn’t about making the owner happy again; it’s about punishing the thief and making him restore in accordance with objectively measurable standards of the degree of evil to his actions.
According to www.torhoerman.com,
the website of a law firm, emotional damages for injuries usually amount to 2-5x the total cost of medical bills and lost wages.
III.
Chastening vs. Punishment
The consequences for David’s actions
The Sword will never depart from your home (during your lifetime), because you killed Uriah with the sword of the Ammonites.
Probably had not a little to do with the reality that his children lost all respect for him after this, except for those who hadn’t been born yet.
Ammon raped Tamar 2 Sam 13:1-22
Absalom murdered Ammon 2 Sam 13:23-33
Absalom started a revolt that nearly killed David 2 Sam 15-18
Adonijah also started a revolt, when David was too old to fight back.1 Kings 1
Someone from your own house will lie with (some) of your wives publically, because you lay with Uriah’s wife privately.
Fits with the Biblical idea that justice mean suffering more pain than you inflicted.
Fulfilled 2 Samuel 16:20-23.
Bathsheba’s first child will die.
(More on that later).
Nathan specifically states that David’s sin is removed, after having laid down very painful consequences.
Forgiveness means that the sin is gone, there is no condemnation Rom 8:1; Ps 103:12; Isa 1:18
It is often described that God forgives but doesn’t remove the consequences.
This is true, but doesn’t go far enough.
God built these consequences into the universe.
They aren’t just floating out there independent of God’s will.
God has two roles - Judge and Father
As judge God can and does postpone full punishment, but he does not and cannot fail to recompense the full measure of your guilt.
David’s sin has only one stated punishment in the law - death
For adultery Lev 20:10
For murder Gen 9:6
All sin is mortal, for all sin is an offense against a holy God.
The punishment must either fully be paid or fully absolved.
As father, God can and does require consequences for his children’s misbehavior.
Those consequences can be quite severe, however, they are for a very different purpose than God’s punishment as judge.
God promised to do this in the Davidic covenant 2 Samuel 7:14-15
God promised to do this for Israel Jer 31:35-37; Deut 30:1-4
God promises to do this for us.
Heb 12:5-11
IV.
Repentance vs. Remorse
Comparison between different people who were confronted by God
Cain Gen 4:9-13
Saul 1 Sam 15:24-25
David Ps 51
No mention again of lessening the consequences
Does ask for restoration of full fellowship
Asks for forgiveness
Asks for sanctification
Acknowledges that we sin because we are sinners
Defining repentance
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9