Romans 9

Romans 9:14

What shall we say then?  There is no injustice with God, is there?  May it never be!

We see God's injustice throughout the Bible.  However, it's not the type of injustice we tend to think of.  It's not a matter of people being punished wrongly, or God abusing His authority (which is impossible).

Instead, it's God showing mercy, not following through on the punishments we deserve.  By rights, none of us should have ever existed, because humanity should have been wiped out long ago.  But God has spared us, not just to keep living, but even to give us the opportunity to draw hear to Him, in a way we could never hope to deserve the slightest form of.

Romans 8

Romans 8:17

and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

I had to re-read this verse a couple times to make sure I hadn't missed something.  Does this mean that in order to be considered true Christians, to count as sons of God when Judgment Day comes, that we have to suffer?  That otherwise, we will be those who are told "I never knew you?"

I have to admit, I kinda feel like when I prayed as a child, I didn't have any real idea what I was signing up for, but that it's a binding contract and I'm stuck with it now.  As a little kid, the idea of being required to suffer may not have really sunk in, but I probably would have said no thanks.  I know that Paul goes on to say that the suffering will all be worth it, but I have to admit that it doesn't feel that way now, even with the relatively minor emotional suffering I'm having to do now.

Romans 7

Romans 7:5

For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

It really caught my eye this time that the desire to sin is aroused by the Law.  That's something I can't recall having heard before, but it makes sense.  There is something about doing wrong that often feels good.

Is it our desire to be God that makes sin arousing?  But that desire itself is sinful, isn't it?  So going to another level, is it just knowing something would feel good, but isn't allowed, that makes it more desirable?

Romans 6

Romans 6:15

What then?  Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?  May it never be!

Some, including myself, have bad habits we can't seem to break.  One of the excuses we tend to use is that we know God will forgive us, so it's not quite so bad if we give in.  While I'm as guilty of this as any other believer, it cheapens what God's done for us.

In this respect, the Catholic tradition may yield a better result, given they believe every sin must be separately confessed and penance made.  It's a false theology, but at least it does help impart the gravity of sin, and add that extra push not to fail in the first place.  Given my struggles with God's love, it's hard for me to accept that He forgives in the first place, so I sometimes wonder if I continue because I feel I deserve the price I will never have to pay.

Romans 5

Romans 5:17

For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Only one person sinned originally.  However, that one person's sin set the mold for all his children, and their children, and so on.  So although it only took one person to mess things up, everyone who came after would have to pay the price.

Fortunately, the reverse is also true.  At best, normally we could only hope for one perfect life to atone for one sinful.  However, since that one person was Jesus, God's Son, his atonement could carry on through all who became His (spiritual) children, and make the broken connection possible again.

Romans 4

Romans 4:5

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

Some thing have no price.  What God has to offer comes from His creation of it.  There's nothing we can do to earn it, but we keep striving to try.

For most of my life, I've felt the weight of unworthiness, of not being good enough for what God gives.  I have to keep telling myself that that's the point, that we can't earn it, that it has to just be accepted.  But I've always wrestled with how to respond to what I've received from Him, because try as I might, I can't seem to just be thankful, but rather indebted and owing Him something I can't figure out how to give.

Romans 3

Romans 3:9

What then?  Are we better than they?  Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

Every man is fallen.  We all are short of perfection, as is defined by God.  Therefore, no one is better than another.

The mistake I so often fall into is thinking I'm better than someone who does not even accept that sin exists.  I see myself as above the bum, or the porn star, or the drug dealer.  What I have to try and remind myself is that we all deserve the same fate, from the same source; it is only by His grace and love that I understand that better than they, and I still fail to live as if I did far too often.

Romans 2

Romans 2:3

But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

I try to keep an awareness of my actions versus how I look upon others.  I'm sure that I don't do well at it a lot of the time, but it's something I work on.  However, it's often hard, because we tend to give ourselves excuses we don't give others.

It's too easy to cut a corner in our lives because of this or that, some special exemption that we feels justifies our actions.  However, we can't see those special circumstances in others, and often come down in a black-or-white decision.  The real role of grace is to understand that God is the only one who can truly judge, but we should still hold each other to that perfect standard--after we hold ourselves.

Romans 1

Romans 1:32

and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

According to this, those who sin know they are sinning.  I've always wondered how they really know, since so many seem so ignorant of their sin.  And then there's those who have never heard a word about God, like the "deepest darkest Africa tribes."

I have to assume that we truly do have a racial memory, in this case soul-based.  God has placed the truth in all of us, but it's easy for us to decide we know better and ignore that truth.  For those who have heard the truth from God, this voice is louder, but we are still fully capable of ignoring it. when we want to.

Acts 28

Acts 28:6

But they were expecting that he was about to swell up or suddenly fall down dead.  But after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.

It's interesting that the text doesn't say anything this time about Paul objecting, or trying to dissuade them.  He and Barnabus had run into this situation before, and had been so forceful in their denials that it almost got them killed.  So why doesn't the text show him doing the same thing again?

It's possible Paul didn't know they were whispering behind his back, but then how would Luke have known?  It's most likely that Paul did go about renouncing any such claims made on his behalf.  But if that's the case, what did he say, and how much work did it take this time to convince them that he was merely blessed by God, not a god himself?

Acts 27

Acts 27:37

All of us in the ship were two hundred and seventy-six persons.

When we think of ancient ships today, we tend to think of small things, ones that might be dwarfed by some millionaire's yacht.  They weren't the best, but they got the job done for the technology involved.  Surely they couldn't hold more than a few dozen people for any length.

However, this gives us a better feel of how large this ship was.  This was a very large ship; in order to hold hundreds, it must have been a couple hundred feet long.  Even accounting for the cramped conditions that would have happened on board, even worse for prisoners, it was primarily a cargo ship, so likely even bigger.  This gives a better perspective on the strength of the storm to make them lose most control, as well.

Acts 26

Acts 26:14

And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?  It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'

I get a bit worried when extra stuff gets tacked onto a story in the Bible that's been told before, especially when it's in a retelling versus the original.  Here, Paul has added new parts of conversation to between him and Jesus when he was struck blind.  They don't change the point of what happened, but they definitely change the tone.

Suddenly, Paul wasn't just told to go into the city.  Instead, he was told he was wrong to resist Jesus, and what his new mission in life would be.  This may just be me being paranoid or having watched too many procedurals, but this feels like he's embellishing the original events.

Acts 25

Acts 25:27

For it seems absurd to me in sending a prisoner, not to indicate also the charges against him."

 Festus had played into the Jews' hands, by suggesting Paul be moved to Jerusalem for trial.  This is what they were hoping for, and they'd already made plans to have him ambushed and killed on the way.  Paul appealed to Caesar as the only way to stop this from happening.

However, this left Festus with a problem.  He had no charges against Paul under Roman law, only Jewish religious issues that were not really in Caesar's purview.  So what should Festus list as a charge to send him to Rome with, except being a troublemaker according to the barbaric locals?

Acts 24

Acts 24:22

But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, "When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case."

Felix was not some governor who was ruling from on high on behalf of Rome, keeping himself separated from the inferiors he ruled over.  He'd made a life there, had a native family, and understood the people as much as most non-natives could.

He was already familiar with Christianity and its basic teachings, at least.  He knew the major points of contention between the Jews and Christians, and therefore didn't need to hash that out; nor was his court the proper place for a doctrinal dispute to be decided.  Therefore, he drove to the point of the matter, wanting to learn what Paul was arrested for specifically.  His intent may have been corrupt, but he knew better than to involve himself into the religious argument.

Acts 23

Acts 23:12

When it was day, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul.

I've always wondered what happened to these men.  They obviously didn't complete their promise to kill Paul.  But did they follow through with the rest, to not eat or drink?

According the the beginning of the next chapter, the Jews did not even reach Paul's new location for at least 5 days.  The rule of thumb is that someone can survive without water for 3 days, so by the time his next hearing occurred these men would have already been dead if they carried through.  Did they do so and die, or did they take his relocation out of their reach as exceptional circumstances and annul the vow?

Acts 22

Acts 22:12

"A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there,

It's interesting the tack Paul takes here.  He talks about Ananias's Jewish credentials, how devout he was and respected by fellow Jews.  But he doesn't mention until much later (and then indirectly) that he was a believer.

It feels a tad dishonest, if I'm being honest.  It's probably the most crucial part of the man's biography, yet it's skipped over, presumably to sway the crowd.  I can't say I like legal trickery, and this feels too much like that for me to be fully comfortable with it.

Acts 21

Acts 21:4

After looking up the disciples, we stayed there seven days; and they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem.

This verse has bothered me for years.  It appears comparing this verse to others in Acts, that the Spirit may be giving contradictory messages.  He seems to be telling Paul to go to Jerusalem, but here and later in the chapter it appears He's telling others that Paul shouldn't go.

Most commentaries say this is poor language, and that those telling Paul to not go are doing it in personal weakness, not from the Holy Spirit.  But I've checked, and the Greek used is identical.  My personal opinion is that Paul got his timing wrong, and that the Spirit was now telling him to wait, not to go at that time.  He was destined for Rome, but I think God wanted to use a different means to get him there.

Acts 20

Acts 20:34

You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me.

I think there is value in a missionary not being on-site with the sole purpose of getting people saved.  The person/family having a purpose in the community, rather than being strictly supported by people back home or locally, is important to showing their commitment to the people.  Otherwise, you can get into the situation where they unintentionally cut themselves off from the people they are trying to minister to, because they're just cruising along while the community is barely avoiding starvation, like what happened in India.

Given my own parents are supported missionaries, I have to reconcile this with their status.  Partly, it's not such a big concern to me because they're in a support role, not directly ministering to the people.  Also, there are a certain number of administrators necessary where the work is full-time, and not easy to work "in between" a job schedule.  I don't know if this is a fully adequate explanation, but it's something I'm still thinking about.

Acts 19

Acts 19:13

But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, "I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches."

We don't think of Jews having exorcists today; that's more of a Catholic thing.  But apparently they did, and they called upon powerful figures to overpower the demons and drive them out.  I don't know much about exorcism, so I'm not sure how this was supposed to work.

However, these Jews were calling upon Jesus.  It doesn't appear they were believers, so why call upon Him?  Apparently the miracles being performed in His name were powerful enough that some of the Jews seemed to re-evaluate whether He had truly been a heretic, but not so much that they believed He was God's Son.

Acts 18

Acts 18:20

When they asked him to stay for a longer time, he did not consent,

Why did Paul not want to stay in Ephesus for a longer time?  It was a major city, and could become the springboard for spreading the Gospel to a whole other province.  Wouldn't it make sense for Paul to have stayed, and ensured their new faith was taking root properly?

There's nothing in the passage about it, but I wonder if Paul had been instructed by God to return home.  It would explain why he was in such a hurry to get there, and why he told them in the next verse he would return if the Spirit allowed.  But if he was in such a hurry, why stop in Ephesus at all?

Acts 17

Acts 17:11

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

I have to say, I kinda smile when Luke calls these men more noble-minded, because they believed when the Thessalonians didn't.  It feels a bit self-serving.  Of course he'll think these are better men, when they actually listened to Paul.

However, reading on in the verse, there may be more to the statement than mere positive opinion.  These people didn't just trust Paul blindly or agree instantly.  Instead, they investigated on their own, going through the Scriptures to see if what Paul had said was backed up by the text.  They were thinking and considering, not just believing with blind confidence.

Acts 16

Acts 16:7

and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them;

I've always wondered what happened to show them that they were not supposed to go that way.  Was is some kind of direct message?  Or was it that still small voice?

Honestly, I've never been confident I could hear the still, small voice.  With my ADD, I have never been sure if in those moments I feel/hear something, whether it's me or God.  When your own voice can't shut up, how do you hear God?

Acts 15

Acts 15:10

Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

The believers were arguing over what the standard of conduct should be for those who had trusted Jesus, especially the Gentiles.  However, there was a disagreement about whether the Mosaic Law still should apply, or it had been deprecated.  Some of the Jews believed it had worked for them, so why shouldn't it be continued?

The problem was that it hadn't worked.  Part of the reason Jesus had to come and die was because, even with the Law, the Jews had been unable to keep it.  Continuing it for Gentile believers would have been reverting to requiring an impossible standard.

Acts 14

Acts 14:9

This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, when he had fixed his gaze on him and had seen that he had faith to be made well,

Somehow, Paul could perceive the level of one's faith.  The way this verse is phrased, it sounds like perhaps it was some kind of "special sight ," where it was a visible sign of some sort.  I wonder what it was, and how he came to understand what it meant?

Is this some special gift that Paul had, to be able to see visibly when someone had faith?  Or is this something that falls under the spiritual gift of discernment?  Or perhaps it was tied to the ability to heal, as a sort of flag for when to use that gift?