In his own words (2 Peter)

Much is said about Apostles Peter and John throughout the New Testament.  However, we do not hear things from their perspectives until the end of the Bible.

Peter makes some interesting statements in 2 Peter to put the New Testament together.  

First, Peter affirms the Apostleship of Paul in 3:15-16.  He talks about the letters from Paul as being inspired by the wisdom of God.  He also associates the letters from Paul to "other Scriptures" that people ignore at their own peril.

This is a big statement.  Peter was left in charge of the church by Jesus.  Paul and Peter also had numerous public disagreements about the role of the Old Testament law as the Gospel goes to the Gentiles.  Paul even publicly rebuked Peter in Acts.

Second, Peter briefly talks about the personal account of being with Jesus.  In particular, he talks of Jesus' transfiguration.  He states that he was there "on the sacred mountain" and heard the voice from heaven identifying Jesus as "my Son".  

Peter also throws out a few ideas that seem to focus on the free will of the believer.  In 1:5-13, he focuses on the effort of the believer to make their "calling and election sure".  In 2:20-21, Peter discusses how people can know Christ, be free of the world, and then fall back into it.  For them, it is better to having never known righteousness at all.

Peter also discusses the role of prophecy, including the prophecies about the return of Jesus.  He says that there will be people in the "last days" who scoff at the return of Christ.  To them, life continues on as it had from the moment that time began.  If we remember from Acts 2, Peter himself interpreted of prophecy from Joel in that "last days" seemed to mean "after Pentecost".  There seems to not be any indication that Peter is introducing a new "last days".

I focus on this now because I think it is relatable.  Sometimes, it is hard to keep in mind that Jesus can return at any moment "like a thief".  If 2,000 years have gone by without the return of Christ, who is to say that another 2,000 years will pass before Christ returns.  

But alas, Peter anticipates this sentiment and reminds Christ will come back like "a thief".  

Likewise, Peter introduces a very interesting concept - to God, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day.  What does this mean?  That God stands outside the parameters of our the human understanding of time. 

Colossians

Paul does not refer to his time in prison in the book of Colossians.

From the context, it seems like he has never met the church of Colosse.

The central thrust of the letter is to dissuade people from feeling that they are forced to observe various rules and regulations.  These include the dietary rules, the Sabbath and holiday observance, and of course, circumcision.  These rules were all nailed to the cross with Jesus.

Chapter 3 begins a layout of the Christian morality.  These include sexual purity, truthfulness, honesty, and when one works, work as if one is working for God.

Colosians also has some interesting statements.  It seems that Barnabas has a cousin named "Mark".  We also find out that "Luke" is a doctor.

Philippians

Philippians was written during one of Paul's times in prison.  A few statements seem to indicate that he wrote it while in Rome.  For instance, he refers to the Palace Guard and the saints in Caesar's household.

The letter is also from Timothy.  So, it seems that wherever Paul is, Timothy has the freedom to come and meet with Paul.

Philippians has some beautiful language about the grace of Jesus.  Despite his imprisonment, Paul is filled with joy and love for the church of Phillipi.

The book also refers to the contrast of our citizenship in heaven while being on earth.  This is an important thing to remember while we are suffering.

Paul makes a few statements that he even prefers to die, because then he would be with Jesus.  But he knows that he has work to do on earth.  This work would include writing epistles to the churches he founded, many of which we read today.

Wives, submit to your husbands (Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians)

"Wives, submit to your husbands" sometimes seems like all that people, particularly men, get out of Ephesians.

Rather, Ephesians is rich in prose and the NIV translation flows almost like poetry at point.

We do not know when exactly Paul wrote the book, but the reference to himself being an "ambassador in chains" could be a reference to the times of his long imprisonments.  There were two that were recorded in Acts, both of which lasted two years.  The first was in Caesarea and the second was in Rome.

The first 4 1/2 chapters of the book cover similar ground as do the epistles to the Romans and Corinthians.  There, Paul talks about the plan and love of Jesus and also the importance of cleaning one's life from sin.

One thing I noticed, the discussions about living a sin-free life tend to focus on the present-tense and ongoing morality of the person, rather than the mitigating the effects of the prior sin.  For instance, he instructs thieves to "steal no longer" (4:28), but says nothing about paying restitution for what one has already stolen.

Perhaps Paul expects that a truly reticent heart will try to make amends and restitution at some level.  Alternatively, some things by their very nature can never be compensated and it is only grace of Christ that can do anything at all.

Looking back at the life of Christ, two examples of this dichotomy come to mind.  First, the tax man who decided to repay everyone he stole from four times what he took.  This was actually in accordance with the principles of restitution in the Old Testament law.  Jesus praised this man.  Other reformed thieves had different ideas on restitution, if any.

Second, the adulterous woman condemned to die, Jesus only told her to "go and sin no more".  Nothing to compensate the prior acts were required.

I do not have an answer to this.  I just note it as an observation.

Harmonious relationships

Ephesians 5-6 do not seem to stand for an authoritarian hierarchy, but rather balanced and proper relationships.

Wives submitting to their husbands has only context and meaning wherein the same husbands love their wives as Christ loves people.  

Likewise, children must obey their parents, but this is balanced with the context that the parents must not exacerbate their children.

Finally, slaves must obey their masters.  Since Ephesus is a Gentile city, we should probably infer that the context for this is the Roman form of slavery and not the form of Hebrew ownership "slavery"/indentured servitude that was instituted in the Old Testament.

 A few things come to mind from this.  First, this is not necessarily an implicit acceptance of any form of slavery.  Rather, Paul is not trying to upset the social order of things.  But the terms "slave" and "master" can easily be substituted with "employer/employee", "loaner/mortgagee" "police/civilian", or any social hierarchal situation.

Second, the contextual situation of slavery gives more context to the wives/husbands and children/parent relationships.  We do not accept Roman slavery today.  Just as social hierarchal standards change over time, so do the standards of other familial relationships.  The extent thereof should be considered.

The armor of God

This is another famous portion of Ephesians in that it stands out as unique among the epistles.  One on hand, this portion can make Christians sound belligerent.  However, the lynchpin in context is that the enemy is not human, but spiritual.  We need spiritual weapons and armor to fight it.

Ephesians 6 lays it out.  Where do we get it?  From prayer, as we remember from the Gospels that God will not withhold the Holy Spirit from those who ask. 

The conclusion of Acts (Acts 28)

Malta

Paul spends three months in Malta.  

On arrival, a venomous snake bites his hand but he has no ill effects.  Two things come to my mind about this.

First, the snake appears to be indigenous as the locals expect Paul to die.  However, there are no known poisonous snakes indigenous to Malta today.  That said, people kill highly venomous snakes so it is possible that the snake species was eradicated in the last 2,000 years.

Second, Jesus mentioned this while discussing the miraculous aspects of the Great Commission.  Followers of Jesus will be bitten by snakes, but not hurt.  Here is the only example in the entire Bible of something similar happening.  In this example, Paul did not seek this snake out, but rather it just bit him because he thought it was a log.  Paul's response is to kill the snake as he throws it back into the fire.

This example is important because some people use snake handling to demonstrate that God is with them.  Since the only example of it is this occurrence with Paul, we should not intentionally seek out poisonous snakes to handle.

The effect of this incident shows what Christ was talking about.  The people on Malta bring to Paul all their sick people for healing and Paul plants the Gospel on Malta.

Rome

Eventually, Paul makes it to Rome where he lives under house arrest.  The local Jewish leaders have not heard of Paul, but are eager to hear to his story.  He convinces some to follow Jesus and others do not.

The final verses of the book state that Paul preached in Rome for two years.  The story then ends abruptly, implying that Paul was eventually killed in Rome.  The circumstances of which are not detailed herein.  

Non-canonical sources and historical tradition suggest that he was beheaded during the reign of Nero around 67 AD.

Also, Acts 22:3 states that Paul (as Saul) was a disciple under Gemalial.

Paul's shipwreck (Acts 27)

A Roman centurion named Julius is in charge of transferring Paul to Rome.  

The first part of the chapter covers the sailing waypoints and wind conditions around various islands.  I read an interesting account of a modern day sailor who tried to recreate this voyage and found similar wind conditions.

While around Crete, Paul warns them not to head out to open water because a massive storm will strike them.  They decide to go anyway and sure enough, the boat gets caught in a massive storm.

Paul reminds them that he knew this would happen, but also that he had an angelic visit that they all will be safe.  However, the boat will be lost.

They eventually run aground on the island of Malta.  

At some point in this, the Romans start trusting Paul.  Perhaps it was because he knew that the storm would be bad.  Perhaps Paul has a supernatural level of charisma, which a similar effect to when Paul was in Corinth and all the prison doors were opened, but Paul convinced the prisoners to stay in their cells.

Paul in Caesarea (Acts 24-26)

These chapters are reminiscent of the trial of Jesus when the Roman leaders transferred him back and forth.  Something similar happens to Paul.

The first governor, Felix, has lengthy discussions with Paul, but let's him in linger in prison for two years as a favor to the Jews.

Felix is eventually replaced by Festus who questions Paul.  Festus does not find anything wrong with Paul, but in the process, Paul appeals to Caesar to hear his case.  Festus then decides to consult King Agrippa.

Paul is before both Festus and Agrippa and they find nothing to kill Paul for.  Festus might be ready to release Paul, but Agrippa reminds him that Paul has appealed to Caesar, so Caesar should hear the case.

In the discussions, we get another recounting of the road to Damascus.  In this one, Paul elaborates on the discussion with Jesus and it seems that Paul received his status as Apostle to the Gentiles at this time.  Also, for the first time, Paul characterizes the blinding light as an appearance by Jesus.

Paul in Jerusalem, continued (Acts 23)

The Roman commander orders a meeting of the Sanhedrin so they can explain to him what Paul has done.  The Roman commander probably knows that the issue involves Jewish law and has nothing to do with Roman law.

The Roman commander probably does not care what Paul did, but given that a near riot broke out, he must tread carefully.

An outstanding issue is whether this convening the Sanhedrin would constitute a "trial" that a Roman citizen would be entitled to.  What if the Sanhedrin declared that Paul should die, but under exclusively Jewish law and irrelevant to Roman concerns?  Would the Roman commander allow that?  

Ananias is still head priest at the temple.

Paul notices that the Sanhedrin is still divided among Pharisees and Sadduccees.  So, Paul states that he is on trial for his belief in the resurrection.  This is very clever and it causes another riot to break out.  Paul might be killed when the Romans rescue him and take him back to their stronghold.

Two important things happen at the stronghold.  First, Paul gets an appearance by Jesus who tells him that he must go to Rome as well.  This might seem relatively innocuous, but my personal conjecture is that it is setting in motion the legacy of the church leadership to eventually coincide with the political leadership of the Roman empire.  It also establishes what later becomes known as the "papacy", but really, the church will need future generations of leaders and this sets it in motion.

The other thing is that Paul's sister uncovers a plot by the Jewish leaders to kill Paul.  Forty of them have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed Paul.  This plot is relayed to Paul by his nephew who relays it to the Roman commander.

If would have been very bad for the commander to allow a Jewish mob to lynch a prisoner who is also a Roman citizen before the prisoner had a proper trial.  The Roman commander then orders a large escort to take Paul to Caesarea and to go before Felix, the Roman Governor.

Jerusalem (Acts 21 et seq.)

The beginning portion of this chapter covers the journey Paul takes to Jerusalem and the people he encounters.

Paul is determined to go to Jerusalem despite warnings about what will happen.  He receives warnings from people "through the Spirit" who urge him not to go.  This is not the same thing as the Spirit telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem.  Rather, it seems that the Spirit warned other people what will happen to Paul and they decide to urge him not to go.  

Whether God wants Paul to go to Jerusalem or not is not stated.  It seems to be this is Paul's initiative.

Paul also encounters another prophetic man who demonstrates to Paul what will happen by using Paul's belt.  He grabs Paul's belt and says that Paul will be bound in Jerusalem.

At Caesarea, we find Philip the Evangelist again.  He has settled down and now has four daughters who are all prophetic.  It is kind of cool to get a postscript on Philip's life.  Likewise, a lot of the Biblical people who had more supernatural ministries don't seem to settle down and have a relatively normal life.  Philip seems to have done that.

In Jerusalem, Paul meets with James and the elders of the church.  They warn Paul that the Jewish believers are concerned that Paul is teaching a total renunciation of the Jewish ways and customs.  I had to reread what James said several times because the reports actually seem true. However, I think the issue revolves around the total renunciation of being Jewish.  

This is supported by James' restatement of the Council of Jerusalem and that they did tell the Gentiles that they do not have to follow the Jewish laws but for four specific areas.

Paul goes to the temple and is mobbed by Jews who are angry at the reports.  

He is being beaten when the Roman commander comes and takes Paul away.

At the Roman stronghold, Paul convinces the commander to let him speak to the crowd.  He does so in Aramaic and recounts the familiar story of how he persecuted Christians until being blinded on the road to Damascus.  

An interesting detail emerges from this recounting.  It seems that Paul first saw Jesus while in a trance in Jerusalem.  At this time, Jesus said that he will send Paul to the Gentiles.  Regarding the time that he saw the blinding light, Paul still refers to it as a light that spoke to him and not as seeing Jesus.

Paul tells the story and the mob want to kill him.  The commander decides to just flog Paul at which time Paul reveals his Roman citizenship.  It would be unlawful to flog Paul as a Roman citizen without first giving him a trial.

Paul bids farewell to the church leaders at Ephesus (Acts 20:13-38)

Paul is preparing to leave for Jerusalem and hopes to arrive there by Pentecost.  

He is at Miletus and sends for the elders of the church of Ephesus.  When they arrive, he gives an impassioned speech and states that many of them will never see him again.  He also states that he has earned his entire way while he was with them.  This is a common theme that comes out of his letters.  Wherever he went, he worked with his own hands so that the local church would not have to financially support his existence.

2 Cor. 10-13

Paul concludes 2 Corinthians with some interesting stuff.

We get an insight into how he is perceived as an actual person.  In person, he is unassuming and perhaps a weak speaker.  This contrasts the heavier tone of his letters and surprises the audience.  

Paul again defends himself as an apostle.  This probably provides insight as to what prompted this second epistle to the Corinthians.  From his statements, we can infer that there was an issue of other "apostles" showing up who presented different Gospels than what Paul preached.

Other things that Paul mentions in defense of his Apostleship is that signs and wonders follow apostles and that Paul himself was beaten, stoned, and shipwrecked.  We actually get some detail into what exactly Paul has experienced, although not all of them were covered in the Book of Acts.  

A recurring theme in the book is the contrast between our mortal fleshly bodies with that of our spiritual selves.  Paul takes this to an interesting level by referring to a man who was taken up into the "third heaven" which Paul calls "paradise".  This might refer to the stoning of Stephen, but it might refer to something else.  Regardless,  "paradise" reminds us of the statement Jesus said to the man on the cross behind them that he will go to paradise on that day.  Here in 2 Corinthians, we do not get details of "paradise" other than visions of paradise by humans are indescribable.  

Paul concludes the letter by saying that he will return to Corinth again and when he does, he will not be nice to those who oppose him.

2 Cor. 8-9

In these chapters, Paul discusses collecting an offering to be sent to the churches in Macedonia.  Titus will collect accompany the offering en route to Macedonia.

The text has a lot of discussion about giving from the heart.  People should not feel compelled to give, but rather give according to their ability and according to their heart.

Likewise, they should also give in faith that if they ever need something and another is able to provide it, then they have the faith that their needs will be taken care of.

The text really emphasizes the importance in giving according to one's heart.  God loves a cheerful giver.  If people feel forced to give, then they become resentful.  This happens with taxes and our social welfare institutions.

2 Cor. 7

In this chapter, Paul refers to his hardships again, but also discusses the joy he feels with the Corinthian church.  His first epistle, although harsh at times, prompted widespread repentance in the church.  Paul finds this encouraging.  

Likewise, Paul is encouraged that the church received Titus.

This chapter is not as theologically dense as some others, but it does bring the human nature of these correspondence to life.

2 Cor. 6

Paul begins the chapter by talking about "our" hardships.  Presumably, this refers to him and his companions, for instance Timothy, but possibly others.  They have endured such difficulties as beatings, imprisonment, and hunger.

The second portion of the chapter deals with being "unequally yoked".  Paul advises Christians to not be "yoked" with unbelievers.

This is an odd statement and opens the question how far to take this.  Does this mean that Christians cannot be friends with or marry non-Christians?  Jesus ate with tax collectors and other "sinners".  Likewise, Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians discussed the effect of marriage between Christians and non-Christians.  If it were something to avoid entirely, he would have mentioned it.

Likewise, how an the Gospel spread if Christians all withdrew from the world and did not interact with the rest of society?  This would lead to a cult like mentality.

Rather, I think the passage refers to something common among Christians when interacting with  those of other faiths or non-faiths.  One's spiritual development can change the way other people interact with you.  One might have less in common with others.  

So, what exactly is a "yoke"?  I would think it refers to a long-term, formal partnership.  This could be marriage or perhaps even a business entity.  So, at the very least, the passage is a companion verse to Paul's prior instruction about marrying non-Christians - do not intentionally seek it out.  It is one thing to date/marry someone who is drawn to God, but still dealing with issues.  It is another thing to date/marry someone who is a committed Buddhist or virulent atheist.  

Even among Christians, unequal yokes could happen.  Consider the variance of worship practice among Catholics, Protestants, and other smaller groups like Adventists - what church to attend?  Or even, what day to attend church?

Likewise, for a business relationship, unequal yoking could involve a very different perspective on business ethics.  An extreme example is a Christian partnering up with mafia members for a business venture.  This would be bad.

2 Cor. 5

In this chapter, Paul describes that a heavenly dwelling is our home and we are away from aged while in our mortal bodies.  Later on, he describes that we are God's ambassadors on earth.  

Some people interpret passages like these too literally and use them to justify withdraw from community activities, including democratic voting.  That stuff annoys me.

Paul's entire rationale in this chapter comes from distinguishing this heavenly realm with the mortal bodies.  Rather, the passage suggests that our true citizenship may be in heaven, with the Holy Spirit a deposit on the future glory to come, it in no way takes away from the reality of having mortal bodies on earth.

Further, if we remember the statements from Christ about being a light to the world and the Great Commission, this would necessitate engaging the world, not withdrawing from it.  Taken together, we essentially have two citizenships - the earthly realm and the true citizenship in heaven.

2 Cor. 4

Two things pop out at me in this chapter.

First, "the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers".  (v. 4).  This carries a lot of weight.  We should not get mad at people for their unbelief, or the actions that they do out of their unbelief, but rather our blame should be directed to the devil.  

Also, it should remind us of the spiritual conflict that we're in.  This makes a good companion verse to such as "I believe, help my unbelief", that faith comes from God, and of course, the Book of Ephesians.

Second, that our light shines in "jars of clay".  The band of the same name is a bit overrated, by my perspective.  But the concept in the context in 2 Cor. 4 is important.  The chapter speaks of our own mortal bodies with all the problems of this world, but it is in these "jars of clay" that God spreads light and illuminates the world.

Introduction to 2 Corinthians (chapters 1-3)

Timothy has rejoined Paul and is with him while writing the letter.  Paul had sent Timothy with the first epistle to the Corinthians.

It seems that a lot of the issues and divisions that had plagued the church of Corinth had fallen away.  That said, Paul's authority as an apostle is still questioned, which is dealt with later in the book.

In this letter, Paul spends considerable time discussing why he did not revisit the church in Corinth.  He wanted to visit them twice, but made the decision not to do it because it would be a painful visit.  I think it is a little unclear as to why he thought visiting them would be painful.

In this discussion, he makes cool statement about promises from God, implicitly contrasting the promises from people.  He states that promises from God are always "yes, in Christ".

Further on, he makes the analogy that people who have been transformed by Jesus are letters from God.  It reminds me of some of the parables that Jesus said about that his disciples are lights and salt to the world.  Further, we don't necessarily need to intentionally evangelize on a street to be a light, but just the presence of God and the transformation of the lives is a witness.  Now, this does not mean withdraw from the world, otherwise the light would not shine.

He continues this reasoning by discussing how Moses had to wear a veil.  But us, we don't need a veil to show God's glory to the world.

The conclusion of Romans (Romans 15-16)

In these chapters, we find out a few interesting things.  Paul did not handwrite the letter, but rather Tertius did under Paul's direction.

Likewise, Paul hopes to visit Rome as he goes all the way to Spain.  However, he currently is n his way to Rome to meet with other church leaders.

Paul's Apostleship comes up a lot in his letters.  He has kind of unique story among the other Apostles.  That said, his trips to Jerusalem provide accountability and and confirmation of his status to the other leaders, particularly Simon Peter.

Foods and Sabbath days (Romans 14)

As the Book of Romans winds down, it gets more straightforward and easier to comprehend.

Here in chapter 14, Paul tackles two issues that seem to be a stumbling block.  The main one is that he reiterates that all food are clean and there is nothing that is unclean of itself.  He even state that people are free to eat whatever they like, with the exception of anything that causes conflict with other people.

He also gives similar advice to drinking wine.  He does not forbid alcohol use, but rather states that if its consumption causes conflicts, then it is wrong.

A lesser issue he spends time on is "sacred" days.  This probably refers to Sabbath days and Holy Days.  Here, he seems to give flexibility on the days of worship of God.

Christmas is approaching and its fairly common knowledge that the origin of the day of December 25th to celebrate the Nativity was because it coincided with the winter solstice.  As the Gospel spread to northern Europe, northern tribes venerated the winter solstice.  The Christians decided to have a party for Jesus on the same day as the solstice to help them convert.

Centuries later, the winter solstice has moved off of December 25 to 21, but yet the 25th has remained the traditional date to celebrate the Nativity.

Personally, I think verses like Romans 14:5 provide that flexibility in the sacredness of days.  Likewise, if we think of food offered before idols, December 25th was offered as a day before idols in the past.  But according to Paul, there is nothing wrong with celebrating on that day.

That said, if someone has a problem with celebrating the Incarnation and Nativity on December 25 - and many people do - then they should not be forced to.  Likewise, they should not tell other Christians that they should not.  Grace on the days goes both ways.

Romans 12-13

In chapter 12, Paul starts giving out ministerial advice in an abridged fashion to that of 1 Corinthians.  He urges the church to pursue holiness and to love each other.

He also gives specifics about the role of the Christian vis a vis the state.  The Christian should submit to the government and pay taxes.

This is an investing statement to the make to the church of the capital city.  One would think it would be more necessary to remind the colonized and conquered regions to pay taxes.

I have heard of various Christian groups abstaining from democratic participation for various reasons.  Personally, I think if we are commanded to pay taxes, then other civic duties would follow to the extent they are not incompatible with the Christian beliefs.  This would include jury duty and voting.  However, military service is much more debatable.

Romans 11

This chapter is really complicated and it is hard to follow Paul's logic and reasoning.  He does say that God has a special plan for Israel and almost seems to venture into a universalist salvation tone for the Israelites in verses 25-26.  He cites Isaiah for the proposition that God will take away the sins of Israel through the Messiah.

Calling on God (Romans 10)

In chapter 10, Paul discusses how it is calling on God that matters, not whether one is Jew or Gentile.  He then discusses the necessity of evangelism so that people can know more about Christ.

On one hand, I can see how this might lead one to conclude that missionaries are the only way to spread the Gospel.  That said, in other parts, say Romans 1:20, it talks about a universal testimony about God to people through nature. 

God and Israel (Romans 9)

In chapter 9, Paul addresses the potential pushback he might receive from the Jewish community about the Gospel going to the Gentiles.  He opens up with a discussion that we have no right to substitute our decisions and perspectives for those of God.  

He also discusses the relationship between God and Israel.  He particularly emphasized that the Old Testament prophets declared that some of Israel will be destroyed.

He also speaks of his own personal anguish of being cut off from his own race of people and wish it were not so.  This I think we all can relate to in the sense of spiritual compatibility among friends.  Everyone is in a different point spiritually.  If they are too different, then the relationship and friendships must overcome them for the friendship to continue.  Sometimes, closeness and depth of a relationship cannot be achieved because of the differences, or at least, made difficult.

This phenomenon happens among Christians as well and I think it should remind us about the body of Christ discussion in 1 Corinthians.

Triumph (Romans 8)

The Book of Romans can feel like going through a museum with its density.  Likewise, the weight of chapters discussing sin can feel kind of discouraging, despite the emphasis on grace.

Chapter 8 changes the tone and gives a triumphal feel.  In particular, two verses stand out to me:

1.  If God is with us, who can be against us?  (v. 31)

2.  [nothing] can stand between us and the love of Jesus (v. 38-39)

Despite all our mistakes - past, present, and future - what other people do, what spiritual forces do, Jesus will always be there for us.

Romans 7

Marriage analogy

In the first part of chapter 7, Paul continues with the prior thought about a new life in Christ.  He provides a third analogy, that of marriage.  Our life of sin, pre-Christ, is dead.  Just as a widower can remarry after her husband dies, so we can remarry into Christ and start a new life.

This has more application and familiarity today than the slavery analogy.

Struggling with sin

In the second part of Romans 7, Paul opens up about himself.  This is an interesting and thoughtful look at himself as a man.  

He struggles with sin.  His conclusion in the chapter sums it well - in his mind, he is in God's law. But he knows that he will always be a slave to his sinful nature in this life.

In the midst of this, he has an interesting talk about how the law made more sin exist.  He uses the analogy of coveting.  Since coveting was a sin under the law, it opened the door in his heart for all kind of possible coveting.  Coveting became a huge problem for him and one he could not get rid.

He does not explain what exactly he coveted, so it would be speculation for us to venture in there.  But in his pre-Christ days, he clearly had a very restless heart as he persecuted Christians.  Whether or not this anger was motivated by coveting, we cannot know.

Offer yourselves to God (Romans 6)

The sixth chapter of Romans is thick with the Christian duty of holiness.  It uses two analogies to make to point.  First, the analogy of being dead to sin and joining Christ with his resurrection.  Second, the analogy that we should be slaves to God and he is our master.  

Regarding slavery, it has direct application today than in the time of the Roman empire in which slavery was common.  I think the Paul's Epistle to Philemon was about a former slave.  I also assume that some of the people in the Roman church were in fact slaves.  

Verse 13 stands out to me.  It says in part that we should not offer the parts of our bodies to sin, but rather to God.  It reminds me of Paul's lengthy discussions in 1 Corinthians in the context of considering the body as a temple for God.

Grace in Christ (Romans 5)

In chapter 5, Paul begins to really distinguish the Book of Romans from that of Galatians.  He begins a fresh take on the Christian narrative.

Verses 3-5 stand out to me the most.  There, he says that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance character, and character hope.  Hope does not disappoint because God has poured out love into the human hearts.

On one hand, it sounds like the Christian walk is a refinement.  One can expect suffering - bad things will happen.  But these will refine us.  Likewise, they ultimately do not bring sorrow, but Paul links this with joy and the love of the Holy Spirit.  

It seems like a contradiction, that suffering is associated with hope, love, and joy.  But I think this ties back to the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount - " blessed are those who are poor in spirit".  Suffering tears at our spirits, but is God that lifts us at.

Another thing in Romans 5 that stood out to me is verse 20 - the law was added so that trespass might increase.  This seems like an odd stance on the Mosaic Law.  It was given to the Israelites to make them sin more?  That said, it also provided a way for them to be reconciled with God.

Abraham - righteousness on faith (Romans 4)

In chapter 4, Paul makes a similar follow-on argument that he outlined in Galatians.  Here, he discussed that Abraham was countered as righteous based on his faith.  His circumcision was a sign of his covenant with God, but it occurred after his righteousness.  Thus, his righteousness and faith were before circumcision was a work.

The law is upheld (Romans 3)

Paul begins chapter 3 that the Mosaic law revealed to us our own inadequacies.  By the end of the chapter, he discusses that Jesus is the atonement within the law.  Thus, the law is not nullified, but rather the law is upheld.

This seems to answer the outstanding questions from the Sermon on the Mount.  In particular, Jesus said he had come not to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it.

What does it mean to "fulfill" the law?  Here, in Romans 3, we find Jesus was the sacrificial atonement, which was within the guidelines of Mosaic code itself.  Thus, the law had to be upheld and made valid for the sacrifice of Jesus to have any meaning.  

So, are starting to see the Bible come full circle.  Plowing through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy outline the full context of the Mosaic Code.  We saw why the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary and here in Romans, Paul links it all together.

More on the law (Romans 2)

In chapter 2, Paul seems to make similar points to those made in the Book of Galatians.  Here, he discusses that if people believe that they should follow the law, then they should follow the entire thing.  Otherwise, it comes off as hypocritical and "God is blasphemed".

A key question is what "law" is Paul talking about?  The Mosaic law, the things that Christ emphasized, or something else?

I think he is talking about the Mosaic law in its entirety.  He distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles, which seem to indicate he expects a Jewish audience.  He also uses analogies with the discussing circumcision, which would have been something the Jewish audience would have cared more about.

The Epistle to the Romans (ch. 1)

I suspect that the pre-conversion Saul visited Rome at some point of his life.  He his well-educated, articulate, and sophisticated.  I am not aware if he says whether he did or not in any New Testament book.

However, post-conversion Paul longs to visit the church in Rome during his missionary voyages.  He believes that God will take him there, so he writes an epistle to the Roman church.  This epistle is famously dense and is almost intimidating to write about.  So, what I write will seem superficial.

In chapter 1, Paul talks about these introductory remarks then launches into a discussion of the Christian faith.  It does not seem that this epistle was prompted by a problem with the Roman church, but Paul just has a lot to say to them.

One thing that stands out to me is that Paul mentions he was prevented from going to Rome.  Looking ahead in the Bible and to non-canonical sources, we know that Paul was later in house arrest in Rome and was likely executed there.

This is totally my own conjecture, but I suspect that God had a plan for both Paul and Peter to finish their time on earth in Rome to oversee the succession of the church from the foundational Apostles to people who never knew Christ on earth.  The "second Pope" is said to be Linus, who might be referred to in 2 Timothy 4.  At this time, the church in Rome was no more important than any other church, other than the fact it was the capital of the Empire.

But God, looking ahead centuries later knew that Emperor Constantine would convert to Christianity, which then put the emphasis on the church in Rome.  So, by moving Paul and Peter to Rome, the Roman church became a quasi-capital of the church while Peter and Paul could monitor the succession of the Roman church.

This is all my conjecture.  Likewise, I am not a Catholic, but I do think this is what happened.

Falling asleep at church (Acts 20:1-12)

Eventually, Paul leaves Ephesus and travels around Greece and Macedonia.  In Greece, he angers the Jews who plot to kill him, so he continues traveling.

The text slows down for an interesting anecdote at Troas.  Paul is preaching to the local church in a private home about three stories high.  He is preaching late into the night when one man, Eutychus, falls asleep and falls out of the window.  The people rush down and find him dead.

Paul jumps on the body of Eutychus and declares that he is alive.  They go back to listening to Paul's preaching until dawn the next day.

Paul does not scold Eutychus for falling asleep during Paul's sermon.  Rather, they just carry on as usual.

The riot in Ephesus (Acts 19:21-41)

After completing the first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia.  This was referred to in the letter, so we can infer that Timothy hand-delivered the epistle of 1st Corinthians to the church of Corinth.

Paul's preaching in Ephesus causes problems.  The city thrives on the idol-manufacturing industry and one local silversmith, Demetrius, gets really angry.  He incites a mob to take hold of Gaius and Aristarchus and took them to a theater.  (note, some translations say that "they rushed in one accord", which other people find funnier than I ever did)

Gaius and Aristarchus are a few traveling companions of Paul, but they did not seize Paul himself.  Meanwhile, the local church members at Ephesus urge Paul not to go to the theater.

Things look bleak that Gaius and Aristarchus might be lynched.  However, the local city clerk emerges to quiet down the crowd.

His speech to appease the crowd is interesting.  He basically argues that it is an undeniable fact that Artemis descended from heaven and now Ephesus guards her.  Likewise, if Demetrius had a problem with Paul or his friends, they could take it up in the civil courts.

I think this is the first time that Paul has directly stirred up trouble with Gentiles.  Before this, it seemed to be the leaders of the Jewish community who either directed their followers to harass Paul or incited the Gentiles to harass Paul.  

Also, the fact that the clerk suggested taking this up in the civil courts might give some indicate that people used the civil courts to adjudicate religious matters.  This is clearly in speculation, but perhaps this is what happened with the church in Corinth as referred to in in first Corinthians.

Final instructions (1 Cor 16)

In the last chapter, we find out that Paul is still at Ephesus when he wrote this epistle.

He also instructs the church to collect a tithe of their income for a church planting mission.  The details of this we do not know.

Paul also hopes to go back to Corinth after spending Pentecost at Ephesus.

Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

First Corinthians winds down with a similar issue to that of encountered by the Thessalonians.  Here, Paul discusses the various contexts of the Resurrection.  There are three parts to this overall discussion.

First, it was the Resurrection of Jesus that gives the Christian faith any value at all.

Second, there will be a Resurrection of the saints.  In similar fashion to what is discussed in Thessalonians, this will happen when Jesus returns.

Third, Paul gives specifics on the corporal Resurrection of the saints.  They will be raised incorruptible, as spiritual beings.

Discussions like these are why people believe in "soul sleep".  The assumption being that there is no conscience awareness until there is a Resurrection.  Relatedly, people discount the existence of "ghosts" based on this understanding of the afterlife.

I think part of the confusion is the collapse of several concepts into one.  First, a conscience awareness of the soul.  This spirit lacks a corporal body.  For those rejecting soul sleep, this spirit meets with Christ after death.  This would fall in line with several key verses:

1.  What Jesus said to the criminal on the cross ("this day you will be with me in paradise")

2.  What Jesus said to the disciples about his body and distinguishing it from ghosts (Luke 24:39)

3.  The appearance of Samuel to the necromancer (witch) of Endor and the appearance of Moses and Elijah with Jesus.

4.  The parable of Lazarus the Rich Man.  Although a parable, it distinguished a soul hanging out with Abraham in the afterlife with that of the resurrection of a body.

One last note on this chapter, Paul gives some clarity about when he saw Jesus.  Specifically, he saw Jesus after Jesus' Resurrection.  Likewise, it was after the final appearance to the rest of the Apostles and 500 disciples.  This alone does not make it sufficient for his commission as an Apostle (since 500 others saw the resurrected Jesus), but it is an important part in the story of Paul.

More on spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14)

Paul begins chapter 14 by saying that we should follow love and spiritual gifts.  

Here, he provides more detail about spiritual gifts with a particular emphasis on tongues and prophesy.  

For tongues, he talks about unintelligible sounds that "speak to God", but not man.  In fact, another spiritual gift is needed to interpret the sounds.  This contrasts the appearance of tongues in Acts 2, in which the speakers miraculously knew other human languages.

Paul's advise is that the people speaking in tongues should do so quietly at church, unless there is an interpreter.  This is to maintain order.

Likewise, prophesy and gifts that build up the church should be encouraged.  Paul believes that prophecy has a particularly strong effect on unbelievers whereas unintelligible tongues makes them think that the church is crazy.

At the end of the chapter, Paul has some advice that we might think is really strange.  He says that women should be silent at church.  He takes a very strong stance in that women should only ask questions about church to her husband at home.  (v. 35)

I think there is a wide variance of opinions on interpreting this from that (1) it was culturally specific advice, (2) other passages by Paul presume or assume active participation by women, and on other hand, (3) women really should be silent at church.

Love (1 Cor 13)

Buried within chapters about the Holy Spirit and church unity is the "love" chapter.  This is probably the most famous portion of 1st Corinthians and perhaps even all of Paul's epistles as verses 4-8 are frequently read at weddings today.

Throughout the chapter, Paul emphasizes that the greatest gift and treasure is in fact love.  One can serve each other to great extremes, but if the heart is devoid of love, it is a meaningless sacrifice.

Just as we read this chapter aloud at weddings today, I imagine this chapter would have had the same impact to the originally intended audience.  When this letter was read aloud to the church of Corinth, the power of the language would have given the letter and all its substance an authenticity and authority that the divided church needed.

For us, it is a reminder that we might feel superior to others (from the food we eat, the sacrifices we make, or even our own holiness and purity), but it is love that outweighs all.

Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12)

In this chapter, Paul intermingles a discussion of the role of spiritual gifts with that the various roles within the church body.

On gifts, Paul starts by discussing the importance of the Holy Spirit.  In fact, everyone's faith starts with the Holy Spirit for no one can that "Jesus is Lord" without that faith coming from the Holy Spirit.

Having established the necessity of it, Paul then launches the famous list of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit (wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, power, prophecy, discernment of spirits, speaking in tongues, and the interpretation of tongues).  All of these are given by the Holy Spirit as he determines.

Immediately after this, Paul uses the analogy of the human body to describe how each role within the church is indispensable to the church body itself.  Likewise, not everyone can play the same role and there must be diversity within the church body for it to function with health.

When I read this, I think of the various churches around the world that have a different cultural take on Christianity.  They do a lot of things differently - they play different music with different music, conduct services in different languages, do the Lord's Supper at different intervals, etc...but all of that is part of the church body and we cannot claim to be superior.

Likewise, the textual proximity to the Holy Spirit gifting suggests that the Paul anticipated that the churches would apply the Holy Spirit differently.  Some pursue the Holy Spirit more actively than others, while others stop at the initial faith declaration of Christ.

Paul concludes the chapter by discussing the various administrative roles of the people of church.  Interestingly, "apostles" are listed first, then prophets.  This could either mean that apostles are more important than prophets.  Alternatively, it could be a chronological list, but that would leave open the question of the Old Testament prophets that appeared before Jesus.

Looking ahead, it kind of raises an interesting question about church succession.  In particular, the Apostle John outlived the other Apostles, but he did so in exile on Patmos.  Did the church leadership pass to him, but yet he was in exile?

Conducting church activities (1 Cor 11)

In chapter 11, Paul outlines some principals for conducting church activities.

Head coverings for women

First, women are to have their heads covered in prayer.  On one hand, this seems a little strange in our culture in which this practice has largely gone away.  Paul also makes the point that long hair has been given to women as a covering.  For the most part, long hair remains associated with the women today.  However, Paul does distinguish between women's hair and the coverings.

We have not completely gotten rid of the practice of head coverings.  It certainly is common among the Eastern Orthodox churches, but even today, women frequently wear hats to church.

Administering the Lord's Supper

In the second of the chapter, Paul discusses that the Lord's Supper is not something to be taken casually.  Rather, people should examine their own hearts to see if they understand the significance.  At the very least, someone who recently did idol rituals should not partake of it (10:14-22).

Intermixed with this advice is the general idea that people should eat their meals at home, particularly if hungry people are coming to church.  

More on idols and food (1 Cor 10)

In chapter 10, Paul returns to discussing food and idols.  He clarifies that although eating food before idols is OK, participating in the ritual practice of offering the food to the idol is not.  In fact, if someone does this, they cannot partake of communion.

Apostleship (1 Cor 9)

In chapter nine, Paul talks about being an Apostle.  In in the introductory verses to this, he says that he has seen Jesus.  This statement is left un-clarified as to "when" he saw he Jesus.  Lots of people saw Jesus, but that did not make them Apostles.  We can probably infer that Paul (as Saul) probably saw Jesus during Jesus' lifetime.

One possible alternative is that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus.  I am cautious about that interpretation because the account in Acts said that Paul saw a bright light and then was blinded, but he heard the voice of Jesus.  So, perhaps we can infer that this bright and blinding light was in fact Jesus and this is what Paul meant.

Back to the chapter, Paul seems to take on the issue of defending his Apostleship.  He does it in a roundabout way by discussing that he never takes money from the churches he has founded, even though he could.  Rather, he continued working to pay own way.

In a way, he says "I am your leader because I am doing this for free".  

This would probably distinguish him from the other leaders of the church of Corinth, including perhaps Apollos.