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.