Greetings!
This evening's post is here to be the seldom reminder that Josiah does in fact have a blog and that somehow it has succeeded in surviving over the years. As you can see, it opens like some of the other posts, by pointing out how long it's been since the last time...
It's an experiment today on a couple of different fronts. I'd like to be more disciplined in Bible study, because it's been something that I've been horribly lax in, and I thought that perhaps by blogging what I read/study at least some of the time, it might aid me in bettering that. And secondly, it will be an experiment to see if I can successfully blog more than once a year perhaps.
I've actually done some minor re-arranging of the living room for this purpose, replacing the piano keyboard with a small desk, and I'm irresponsibly drinking a homemade iced machiatto at 11 PM in the hopes that it will help me not to get too drowsy and distracted from the task at hand (but it's a single shot, so I think we're okay...maybe?).
Anyway, lest this become tomorrow's post, I'd better get going quickly. The morning cometh...
--------------------------------------------------
I'd like to try going through Romans. As noted, we'll see if this ends up going anywhere in terms of the blog. Doubtless, there will be some fun if we get around to chapter 13 in these writings, and time will tell if each post contains a chapter, or if I end up getting more into detail, requiring multiple posting for given chapter(s).
I tend to find the Pauline epistles to be my more favored books of the Bible to read. There are some who may chide me for the phrase, and it's not an entirely accurate representation of how I feel, but in summary, I find that the epistles seem to contain what is most immediately applicable to the Christian life. Being a person who is dispositioned to provide qualifiers, let me remind you that I said this is not the most accurate way of putting it. I do believe it in part, but nor do I want to discredit the value of any of the rest of the Bible. It's all vitally important, and it all ties together. That said, if I had to choose one section of the Bible to dwell on for the remainder of my life; I'd likely choose the epistles; and if I have to choose one book, it's probably going to be Romans (although Acts is a pretty decent contender as well).
But enough with the much speakings. Let us dive in and see what Romans 1 has to open the book with. I'm going to try reading it and putting my thoughts, questions, and comments here as I go. I might not try to answer all the questions. In fact, I might just put loads of questions down with no answers, or with surmising being all that is provided. Let these help stimulate the conversations...
--------------------------------------------------
So to start with, Paul opens in verses 1-7 and what sticks out to me at first is a couple of mentions of "apostle." The question of apostleship is one that comes up once in a while with various discussions or teachings I hear, and at times it's usage or definition can make a difference in terms of how a scripture is to be understood. I believe where I seem to have encountered it in the past is how it relates to the 5-fold ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12) and whether we can still have apostles today. There are other branches of the topic in which it becomes more significant, but they escape me at the moment. I feel like perhaps they lead into some ideas of the spiritual gifts or something, but like I said...they escape me at the moment, so I'm not sure. Let's stick with what isn't escaping me.
To this current point in time, I've carried a general understanding that an apostle is a disciple of Jesus who was actually present with Jesus and was an eyewitness of Him and took the gospel to others, typically involving themselves in the seeding of churches. Specifically, that it was one of the "well-known" 12-disciples, plus Paul. There are areas of this which are a little fuzzy to me, such as "why weren't other followers of Christ who saw him with their eyes, and who took the gospel to others also considered apostles?" Or were they and we just don't reference them like that?
So when I briefly perused the Internet looking for a Biblical description of "apostle" I found the following:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/apostle/
Of note, this article states that the four gospels and Acts seem to use "apostle" only to reference the twelve disciples, but that Paul, in his epistles, uses the phrase more generously when speaking about others. Of interest, when I looked into this in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7, Paul is speaking of who Jesus appeared to after His resurrection. He says "He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" in verse 5 and then he mentions "then to all the apostles" in verse 7. It's an interesting observation which is initially suggestive that "the twelve" and "all apostles" reference two difference groups or divisions of people, but we could also come out with an understanding that this could be Jesus appearing to the same group of people on two different occasions, and Paul just used a different description for the same collection of disciples perhaps. After all, he mentions Cephas, and then James separately as well, and both of these fellows would be included in the twelve. It's interesting wording. I tend to think that "all apostles" is probably referring to a different subset of disciples than "the twelve" simply because I'd have expected Paul to say "and then he appeared to the twelve again." But I'll acknowledge that this is not a completely objective conclusion, especially in light of the fact that I do not have a strong knowledge of how the original language would have worked and what sort of writing style would have actually been employed in describing scenarios like this.
What's the point? Well, if we can conclude that there were more apostles than just the twelve disciples plus Paul, we have to acknowledge that the definition of "apostle" has more substance than just "the original twelve called eyewitnesses of Jesus, plus Paul." And then we can see if the definition that follows is limited such that it cannot allow for apostles to exist today. If it is, we can see if it's an unwieldy definition that follows, such that it requires more substantial poking to see if continues to stand up. Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion or bias for the definition's outcome to be one way or the other. I'm just aware that it can be a pertinent point at times in other conversations, so the question is of interest to me.
Oh dear, it's tomorrow already... but the show goes on. Let us persevere onward and see how far we get.
So I've just scanned the above link on apostles further, and this topic will need a lot more paper. It may even require a more intense time of sitting down studying the topic all by itself. That's not exactly my intention right now, and so I feel content to let it sit for the moment with promises (hopefully not vain ones) that I may come back to it at some point when I feel it's more important.
Honestly, after perusing the article, I feel discouraged that I already wrote what I have so far and then observed that it's almost useless compared to the much more educated format of the writings I linked to. But I'm leaving my writings here, perhaps as a lesson to myself that it might not be the best strategy to write as I go versus studying and writing later. But also because perhaps this will help expose the way I think to you. That is part of the idea behind a blog is it not?
Moving on...
Another quick thought on Paul's intro, focusing on verse 7. I'm sure you could make at least a small study just on Paul's intro and outro salutations. There's some good value to be obtained in seeing the care that he has for those he writes to. Of note, a thought that comes to mind as I read "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" - this is a blessing. Meaning, Paul is speaking a blessing. Not in some "name it and claim it" way, but in a more..."real" application? A solid phrasing escapes me here. I've thought before when looking at other parts of the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament it seems; there is a true value in the idea of giving a blessing to someone. When Isaac blessed Jacob; that was something real. Jacob legitimately stole a blessing from his brother Esau. Those weren't just "good feeling words" that Issac said. After he said them, he had given something away as a result. So much so, that he couldn't just repeat the same thing to Esau so that Esau could have the same good blessing. The blessing was already allocated. I'm not sure if it's exactly the same thing as what Paul is speaking here, but regardless, I think Christians could stand to honestly bless one another more often in word. That includes myself - I should probably work on greeting my fellow believers with a blessing more often. Have to ponder that one more.
Reading on to verse 10, as Paul says "asking that somehow by God's will I may now succeed in coming to you" - here is an acknowledgement on Paul's part that although Paul has a desire to come visit the believers in Rome, he is firstly subject to God's plans for him. It makes me think of Proverbs 16:9, which notes how we make our plans, but God actually determines the real outcome of our lives (Predestination poking it's head in here...not ready to go after that topic in detail yet - all I'll say is that Paul wasn't the sort to say "I'll do whatever, because God makes my life happen the way he wants it to anyway." He still made proper spiritually-minded plans.).
In verse 11 - Paul has a specific goal in mind for why he wants to visit the church in Rome. And it's a shame to me as well as to many others I'm sure. Paul specifically wants to visit so that he can impart some spiritual gift to the church. He wants to contribute to the spiritual condition of the church. Nearly always if I'm honest, I show up to church thinking of being ready to "hear what God wants to tell me through today's message" and completely neglecting any idea of being of spiritual service to my brothers and sisters who are also meeting with me. If I am indeed of spiritual service; it's completely the work of God, because I probably didn't show up with that intent (it's completely the work of God anyway, but I think you know what I'm saying).
Verse 15 is a bit interesting to me also. Paul is eager to preach the gospel to those who are in Rome. He is speaking to believers is he not? Someone correct me if you have a better understanding than me, which would suggest he's writing to unbelievers. If these people are believers, then why do they need to hear the gospel? Don't they know it already? If you haven't heard the gospel, how can you be a believer? But perhaps Paul is using the word a bit liberally to refer to spiritual truths. Or perhaps the purpose of sharing the gospel even among believers, is for the benefit of others among the group who are not believers. Another passage that comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 2:1-2 in which Paul says that he decided not to preach anything to the church there except Christ and Him crucified. Sounds like the gospel to me. Also coming to mind is Acts 15, in which it was decided that the Gentiles were not to be instructed to be subject to the Mosaic law, but to be taught to adhere to a certain few things and they would do well. The focus of many outside teachings being brought in to the local church there seems to be of less importance. I realize it's not quite the best comparison to say that not teaching adherence to the mosaic law is the same as "not teaching anything but the gospel," but I think there is some value to be understood here in terms of not overcomplicating spiritual teaching. These passages make me think of the issue of division in the church through matters of denomination. Now, there are aspects in which proper doctrine must be upheld, and there are matters which are of importance, but there is certainly a great need for us to often just shut our mouths and let God administer his grace where he sees fit. I'm horribly guilty of this frequently - spending great amounts of time arguing a particular topic deep into the ground with someone, only to come away concluding that while I very much disagree, I also cannot always conclude that the opposing person's heart is wrong before God, because I must acknowledge that the fruit their life bears is demonstrative of them being a genuine Christian. It can be apparent in the argument that their intention is to serve God wholeheartedly based on the understanding they have of scripture. Have I got this one down yet? Nope. Working on it. There's a balance to be made between standing for truth, but also allowing God's grace to cover topics of disagreement, and also acknowledging that I myself am a fallible man, and could very well be wrong on a given topic, regardless of how convinced I am that it is true, or how many people or great teachers I draw support from. Perhaps if I do continue write more, it will be more apparent which topics I believe are less negotiable due to being of greater importance, and which ones I have come to be more "tolerant" of; believing that they are not strictly heresy. I don't believe that scripture can contain two interpretations of the same topic. God is consistent and unchanging and He knew what He meant when His Holy Spirit inspired His written words. We men are the ones who stumble over how to understand it.
I think I shall stop here for now. I am tempted to try going over verses 16-17 before moving on because I see that 18 through the rest of the chapter seems to be a more continuous topic, based on the chapter headers, but I also see that verses 16 and 17 may require some unpacking, and I could be up for longer than is wise if I try that (it seems a bit wrong in some way to suggest that it's unwise to stay up late when studying the Bible...Not sure what to offer here to defend that idea. I'm probably just wrong. Probably should have just started sooner to begin with.).
See you again, if the writing continues!
