Since no one wanted to post on my blog below, I thought I'd change it up. I was lucky enough to see these guys in concert last night and it was amazing! For anyone who loves accapella, voices blended together, it doesn't get much better than Rockapella.
We never go to Tallhassee. We were disinvited from Doak Campbell the year that Mark,sr. beat up a guy who threw a drink on him...we haven't been back since, although I'm sure 38 years later, we could sneak in without getting arrested! It's just not our intent to ever go back to Doak...ick!
Isn't it great when you are reading the bible or you hear a sermon on a passage you are sure you had studied before, but for some reason everything just seems "new?" It's like the lights go on and you realize things that you had never noticed before. Well, that happened for me recently while listening to Craig's sermon on Sunday morning. The text I'd like to look at with you this afternoon and to hear your thoughts on is Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30.
These two texts read:
Matthew 15:21-28 Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
Mark 7:24-30 From there He arose and went to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And He entered a house and wanted no one to know it, but He could not be hidden. For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed.
For me, these texts raise a lot of questions. Some of them I think we can answer and others we can only speculate about.
First of all, what was Jesus doing in the region of Tyre and Sidon? Jesus did interact with Gentiles, but the vast majority of Jesus' ministry was spent in and around Galilee and Judea. Tyre and Sidon was an area of Phonecia and would have been mainly populated by the Greeks with very few Jews. So if you are Jesus, why, in the middle of your ministry would you travel a good distance from "home" to go to a place where most people won't even understand your message of salvation?
Perhaps Jesus was simply tired and wanted to be alone for a little while. Previously Jesus had fed the 5,000 and walked on the water. He was being constantly hounded by the mobs who were looking for food and healing. Maybe he just needed a break. Mark's account tells us he "entered a house and wanted no one to know." It does seem like an odd detour though.
Next, I'd like to take a look at Jesus' interaction with the Syro-Phonecian woman. If you look at how Jesus interacted with those who came to him looking for help, he almost always treated these people with the utmost compassion and love. Christ's feelings towards those who were searching for him were always obvious. But look at how he treats this woman.
When she first approaches Jesus pleading for help, Christ simply ignores her. Jesus' disciples have obvious disdain for her, as they often did towards Gentiles. They urged Jesus to send the woman away so that she would stop bugging them. As the woman persists, Jesus responds by telling her that basically, she is not a "priority" right now. He says that he was sent to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." The woman then falls at his feet, worshipping him and begging for the Christ to heal her daughter. If Jesus followed his normal pattern of how he treated those sincerely seeking him, he would have shown compassion and told the woman that her daughter was well.
But Jesus goes and says, "“Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” Wow! Talk about adding insult to injury. Essentially, Jesus called this woman a dog, which is what the Jewish culture thought of those people who were "unclean." You would have expected the woman to give up. To be insulted from the verbal abuse she was receieving and to just leave. But she doesn't. She persists and tells Jesus that "even the dogs eat the crumbs from the Master's table."
Christ then tells the woman "great is your faith" and heals her daughter. Ultimately, Jesus did have compassion and rewarded the woman's faith. But why did it take so long? Why did Jesus insult this woman, multiple times? I think there are many different possibilities and I'd like to hear what you think.
Our Lord is great and this story is just another example of the great love that he had for all men. But it is a little different than normal. Please discuss and let me know what other interesting observations you have.
I wrote a post about this a little while ago. I called it "Let the Little Dogs Eat."
I think Jesus wanted a rest (I mean, He fell asleep in a boat in the middle of a storm that seasoned fishermen were afraid of), but you look what happens every time He sat down; it seems like a multitude of people just pop up out of nowhere to listen to Him.
Plus, with everyone going out and spreading the news of how great Jesus was, I think He realized that it would be impossible for Him to get any peace in the area.
Phoenecia, like you said, wasn't populated with very many Jews, so that is where He went to get some peace. Yet, His fame was so great that He was even "bothered" (I use that term accomidatively) there.
With that said, I think it is important to note what Jesus said to her. He does call her a "little dog." When someone is called a dog today (or worse), it could be good or bad. He Greek word "KUNARIO" or "KUNARIOIS" means "little dog(s)." It holds the connotation that the "little dog" was a house pet, a part of the family. Jesus was not insulting her by calling her a "little dog."
Really, He said that about all the Gentiles; they were the family pet to the children (which is to be understood as the Children of Israel, the Jews).
The point of this distinction was to point out that Jesus came to specifically convince the Jews (who had been waiting for over 400years for the Messiah) that He was the Christ and the Begotten Son of God and the Prophet Moses spoke of and they should listen to Him because of it. He did not come to help the Gentiles directly. Remember that Jesus went to Phoencia to take a rest, not to preach and convince people of His Godship.
However, when Jesus sees her faith (without witnessing any miracles) and gives her a "crumb" by healing her daughter. It was only a "crumb" compared to what He was about to do for the whole world, namely save them from the punishment for their sins.
I'm sure most everyone has seen the hilarious pictures from lolcats.com and icanhascheezburger.com. They are funny pictures of cats with bad grammar captions like the one to the left.
Well, Sunday night on our way to church, we were getting on the interstate and saw someone by the "on ramp" holding up a sign looking for a lift. Guess what the sign said?
I CAN HAS RIDE?
He obviously has had access to the internet at one time or another :)
I have written before about this group that I really like. They are called the Zoe Group and are from Nashville, TN. Their most recent album was just released and is entitled "Fearless." The track by this same name on the album is wonderful. I am doing a Wednesday night talk this evening on how we need to be "fearless" in going out our father's business. After my talk I am goint to play it for the group since I definitely cannot do it justice just reading the lyrics.
This song as well as another from the CD can be heard below. I HIGHLY recommend the group to everyone. Just Google "Zoe Group."
Kevin, thanks for your thoughts on my blog. I finally found time to respond, and I posted my thoughts on my own blog. I would appreciate your thoughts.
As of last Friday (10/3) I began experiencing TERRIBLE lower back pain. So excruciating that I literally was not able to get out of the bed until Sunday night. I am usually really good dealing with pain. I am not one to go to the doctor when I am hurting. I realize that the human body was made to heal itself and I usually just "tough it out." This, however, was pain on an entirely different level. Multiple times I almost called the paramedics to take me to the hospital. Needless to say, I survived and am at least mobile now.
I spent the majority of this week working from home and was finally able to go to the doctor on Tuesday. Without an MRI or other advanced diagnostic, the doctor believes I had a severe muscle strain. To complement the 10-12 ibuprofen per day I have been taking, he also perscribed muscle relaxers and a steroid. So I was reading the information that came with the steriod and found a list of "Adverse Reactions." Needless to say, I think I'd rather have severe back pain than some of these "side effects."
Here's just a list of the "highlights."
-Sodium Retention
-Congestive Heart Failure
-Muscle Weakness
-Osteoporosis
-Aseptic necrosis of femoral and humeral heads (not sure what this is but it sounds bad)
-Peptic ulcer with possible perforation and hemorrhage
-Pancreatitis
-Impaired wound healing
-Thin fragile skin
-Convulsions
-Vertigo
-Headaches
-Development of Cushingoid state
-Supression of growth (probably don't have to worry about this one)
-Menstrual irregularities (I'd be really worried if this applied)
-Cataracts
-Glaucoma
-A whole host of others that I have never heard of before
But, my back is feeling better!
Holly and I leave on Monday to go on vacation to visit some friends in Florida. I think a week at the beach is just what the doctor ordered :)
Kevin, you certainly bring up some good thoughts that are difficult to answer in one short little post. None the less, it seems to me you are being more genuine in your thoughts and your curiosity than others have been. I appreciate that and thank you for your respectfulness. It is certainly much easier to discuss something and not get so frustrated as I have been here lately when that attitude of curiosity is present. Your thoughts on Nadab and Abihu are noted and it is a good question. The thought I want to question you on is your definition of explicit commands. I believe the command to sing is fairly explicit. What would be unexplicit would be if God said to worship Him and not tell us how to do it. In this case, God commands worship in spirit and in truth. And in the epistles, Paul, Peter, and John all talked about different examples of how we do that. With singing, certainly God doesn't go into detail about how many songs to sing each service, what kind of tool to use to provide for the singing (song books/powerpoint,etc), but He is specific on one thing, and that is the type of music we are to use...singing.
Also, the parellelism you are wondering about between our command to sing and Nadab and Abihu is simply this. God told them what type of sacrifice to make. He didn't go into detail about which other kinds of sacrifices were unacceptable. He just said, do it this way. Similarly, in the NT, He tells us to sing. He doesn't go into detail..you can't use a guitar or piano. He just says to sing. Therefore, based on what happened in the OT when someone did something not explicity commanded as wrong...but at the same time not authorized, would it not be a reasonable assumption that singing is the only acceptable form of NT music for worship?
Also, your question concerning fellowship with brethren. First you have to determine what you mean by fellowship. I love everyone. I want everyone to go to heave regardless of what they teach. Your example of the covering is a perfect thing to analyze. My wife does not wear the covering, while many women (especially in the south do). For myself, I can worship with women who wear the covering and not be bothered. However, in respect to the, I could say why they would have a hard time with it if they thought it was truly required. I personally don't believe there are salvation and non-salvation issues. For those that wear the covering, it is a salvation issue to them, or else why would they feel the need to wear it.
It is a real truth that rarely will two people ever agree 100% on the scriptures. Where I draw the line of a point of seperation is when you disagree with your brother on an issue such as baptism. They are shown scripture of the necessity of it, but yet will not listen. Beyond baptism even, we have a responsibility to live faithfully until death (Rev. 2:10). Part of living faithfully is worship that is done in spirit and truth. NT worship by music certain falls into that category. Now, like I said, this will cause you to question my post more I'm sure. Its not something that can fully be explained in a short post. But maybe you'll find some of what I've said beneficia.
Well, the issue with the covering is more clear than we make it. For your interest I will make a post in the near future about that passage. However, I believe in both situations, there is one right answer. Like I mentioned, if a woman wears a covering...to me, it is no different than her dress. However, for those that deam it necessary, I could understand why they would feel the need to tell me to change my teaching because they believe it is an issue of salvation. I will wait to explain that passage more in detail in my most however.
As far as worshipping with someone that believes in instrumental music I will say this. I do believe use of them in the worship is unauthorized. I do believe even listening to that type of contemporary worship music is in vain because it is empty. I also do believe that teaching that it is ok would be a problem in the scripture. But as long as it is neither taught nor practiced, I see no problem with Josh having thoughts. Teaching it as truth brings on bigger problems.
Do you see the difference in questioning something and teaching it as truth? What was claimed as a question was presented as truth. That's where I drew the line. However, questioning is not wrong but rather encouraged.
And also I want to question this thought you had..."If we find out on judgement day that we needed coverings for the women during worship...you don't think they would go to Hell." If you believe something is commanded in the Bible, it is something to show reverence to. A command to do something is just as important as any other command. I think we will both agree coverings are not commanded in that way, but commands such as modest dress, worship, prayer, etc. are all necessary. About the greet one another with a holy kiss comment, I'd love to hear you elaborate on that a little more, maybe in the form of a post? Let me know if you are willing to do so.
About your thoughts on Eph. 5:19 not being a command. The phrase "addressing one another..." is not the command, you are right. What is the command? Rather than be filled with wine, be filled with the Spirit (v.18). How does one do that? The answer is verse 19. Colossians 3 though I think is more straightforward. The context talks about how we are live as God's chosen ones. The whole passage is a list of things we ought to do as Chrstians. Again, the command is "to let the word of Christ dwell in you richly"...one way we do that is by singing.
The commands we are given is to praise, to admonish, to teach one another, to be filled with the Spirit. Those are the commands, and singing is how God has specified us do that. What are your thoughts?
Like I said on the other blog, Ephesians and Colossians do not exclude instruments. However, the point is they don't include them. I will never say they are excluded, only not included. I am curious as to your differing thoughts for either side, care to share?
I guess my thing is that you (or I), have determined the scripture doesn't authorize somethin, how can you accept someone else believing it? I don't think this is a Romans 14 issue, but I don't think that is what you are saying either.
Well...I do believe proper worshis essential to salvation just like any other command. I disagree that it is a Romans 14 issue. I don't think the covering is a Romans 14 issue. A Romans 14 is something not covered in the NT scripture. NT music is. The covering issue..is. A Romans 14 issue would be, a man thinks it is sinful to play Spades, because cards are used for gambling. Another man doesn't see a problem with it, but should try not to play cards in the presence of the first man out of respect. As far as I'm concerned, the silence of the scriptures concerning instruments and the specific command to sing is fairly black and white. I think people of the world just try and attempt to make it more of a gray area than it truly is.
