I thought about turning my attention to the Gospels, since chronologically they began to appear around AD 60, which would put Mark or Matthew right in the middle of Paul’s letters, but the Gospels are complicated so I am studying them in preparation for a future examination.

In the meantime, I will continue following Paul’s writings.  Bible historians tell us that AD 61 was a big year for Paul in writing letters.  We have some sense, because of what Paul included in his writings and what Luke wrote in Acts of which letters were written in what order. Therefore, I will turn my attention to the letter to the Philippians. After the dense theological study of Romans , I think Philippians will be a more joyful pursuit.  This is not to say that Philippians does not contain theological topics, just that Paul was in a lighter mood when he wrote it. The church at Philippi made Paul smile.

Philippi was a city in the Roman province of Macedonia where Paul did missionary work in Acts 16. In ancient times, the site was a gold mining region (hmm, Alaska without snow??). After 400 BC, Philip II of Macedonia (whose son Alexander would conquer much of the known world) seized the mines, fortified the city, and named it for himself. That seems rather consistent with what history records of the family egotist streak. All of Macedonia came under Roman colonial control after 200 BC. In 42 BC, Philippi was the site of a decisive battle that sealed the fate of Rome as a republic and set the stage for the establishment of an empire. It is odd to think that just 90 years before Jesus’ crucifixion, the Rome was more-or-less an Italian Republic with a larger than average territory, but no real empire.  They came a long way in a few years. Philippi was the site where the future-Caesar Augustus (first emperor) and Antony defeated the army of Brutus and Cassius shortly after Julius’ murder. In part because of this decisive victory, it soon became a Roman province.

Paul first visited Philippi on his second missionary journey in response to his Macedonian vision in Acts 16. He and his companions sailed from Troas across the Aegean Sea to Neapolis, on the eastern shore of Macedonia and then journeyed a few miles inland to Philippi. On the sabbath, Paul went to a prayer meeting on the river bank. When Paul spoke, Lydia and others opened their hearts to the Lord. As a rule, Paul first went to the Jewish synagogue when he came to a new city. The fact that he did not do this in Philippi likely indicates that Philippi had no synagogue.

The Roman character of the city is apparent from Paul’s other experiences in Philippi. He healed a possessed slave girl whose owners charged that Jews troubled the city by teaching customs unlawful for Romans to observe. The city magistrates ordered Paul and Silas to be beaten and turned over to the jailer. After their miraculous deliverance and the jailer’s conversion, the magistrates sent the jailer word to release Paul. Paul informed the messengers that he was a Roman citizen. Since he had been beaten and imprisoned unlawfully, Paul insisted that the magistrates themselves come and release him. The very nervous magistrates went to the jail and pled with Paul to leave the jail and the town. The establishment of the church at Philippi marks the first church Paul established in Europe.

The authentic of the letter to the Philippians is well-accepted among Bible scholars. The terminology and theology presented therein is thoroughly Pauline. Dating the letter is a different matter. Paul writes that he is imprisoned. Traditionally, the letter was assumed to have been written from Rome while Paul was imprisoned there, which would set it around AD 60-62. However, Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus and in Caesarea, so the letter could have been written in the mid-to-late 50s.

Similarly, it is not known where Paul was when he wrote the letter. However, reference to Caesar’s household (4:22), the praetorium or palace guard (1:13) as well as the ability to receive visitors (Acts 28:16, 30-31) and the possibility of execution (1:20-26) seem to line up with the imprisonment described in the last passages of Acts. However, an Ephesian origin for Philippians has been credibly presented. As capital of Asia, it would have had a governor’s guard and the governor’s residence would have been termed “Caesar’s household.” It would certainly make more sense of Paul’s stated intent to visit Philippi upon his release, as Paul intended to go to Spain if released in Rome. There is also the implication that several trips by messengers had been made between Paul’s locale and Philippi. A trip to Rome from Philippi took several weeks while a trip from Ephesus to Philippi required only several days. A Caesarean origin for the letter has had less scholarly support. Paul apparently didn’t fear execution while in Caesarea, since he had the option to appeal to Caesar and Caesarea is a long way from Philippi.

In spite of the negative circumstances from which Paul wrote, Philippians is a warm, personal, positive letter (Chapter 3 is the exception). Paul wrote to thank the church for a gift it had recently sent to Paul in prison and to inform them of his circumstances and the travel plans of Timothy and Epaphroditus. The underlying theme which holds the letter together is a call for unity in the church and that of rejoicing in whatever circumstances God places us in.

Philippians is structured much like a typical personal letter of that day. The introduction identifies the sender(s): Paul and Timothy, and the recipients: the saints, overseers, and deacons of the church at Philippi. This typical letter form, however, is filled with Christian content. The usual secular greeting and wish for good health is transformed into a blessing and thanksgiving for the Philippian church’s faithful participation in the work of the gospel, and a prayer that they may be blessed with an ever growing, enlightened, Christian love.

The body of the letter begins with Paul explaining his current situation. Paul then revealed that his primary concern of proclaiming of the gospel was being accomplished in spite of his difficult circumstances. His captors were being evangelized and his compatriots have gained confidence through his bold example. Even the brethren who were working with wrong motives were sharing the good news actively. (There is no hint that these were preaching a false gospel; Paul rejoiced in their work in verses 15-18). The severity of Paul’s imprisonment is reflected in the letter; his death appears to be a real possibility. Death would unite him with Christ. Life would give him the joys of continued productive ministry. He found cause for genuine rejoicing in both. Paul seemed confident, however, that he would eventually be released and reunited with the Philippians.

When Paul returned to Philippi, he hoped to find the church there united in Christ; the letter is a multifaceted call for unity in the church. The great cause of the proclamation of the gospel calls for them to be united in spirit, in task, and in confidence. Their common Christian experience and purpose required that they set aside any self-centered, self-serving attitudes. Those who follow Christ must follow him in selfless service to others.

Paul was concerned that the Philippians demonstrate the reality of their Christian profession in action. Neither the grumbling so characteristic of Israel in the wilderness nor the perversity of a world that does not know God should characterize the church. Paul had sacrificed himself to engender true faith in the Philippians. His desire, for them and for himself, was that he be able to rejoice that his sacrifice was not in vain.

The tone of the letter changes in Chapter 3. The change is so marked that some scholars posit that Chapter 3 is a later addition to the letter.  From encouragement to rejoice, Paul unexpectedly turned to stern warning, as if a problem threatened the church at Philippi which had the potential of destroying the foundation of unity and joy this church possessed.  The exact nature of the problem is unclear. Jewish legalism, Christian or gnostic perfectionism, and pagan libertinism are all addressed. Perhaps one heretical system was blending all three together or perhaps all three were presenting different threats to the church. Unfortunately, scholars at this time do not have enough information to explain Chapter 3 thoroughly. Paul clearly countered the heretical teachings with Christian truths: Jesus Christ is the only avenue to righteousness; the stature of Christ is the goal of Christian maturity; and the nature of Christ and His kingdom is the standard by which the Christian must live.

I would note that when Paul wrote this letter, as with all his other letters, it took several days to complete. He didn’t have a word processor or even good paper and ink. Letter writing was an intellectual and studied process in those days. It is possible that Paul heard news from Philippi – or from another church – that caused him to be concerned for their faith. It is also entirely possible that as he wrote, his anxiety decreased – or news arrived suggesting that the threat was not that dire – and he returned to his earlier theme. Again, we simply do not have enough scholarship currently to definitively give an answer.

Chapter 4 returns to a more positive instruction and affirmation of the church. General exhortations to rejoice and to remain faithful led to Paul’s expression of gratitude for the Philippians’ faithful support of him and his ministry. The letter closes in typical Pauline fashion, with an exchange of greetings and a prayer for grace.

Chronologically, the synoptic canonical Gospels were written AD 60-65, right in the middle of Paul’s most prolific period of writing.  I am doing some studies on the Gospels, but I am finding the subject large and hard to organize, so I’ll just put studies in from time to time. An ongoing (and friendly) debate with a fellow Christian of the Calvinist bent caused this parable from Matthew 22 to come to mind. It actually ties in with my previous post about “strange fire”.

^“Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables:
“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. He sent out his slaves to summon those invited to the banquet, but they didn’t want to come.

“Again, he sent out other slaves, and said, ‘Tell those who are invited: Look, I’ve prepared my dinner; my oxen and fattened cattle have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet. ’
“But they paid no attention and went away, one to his own farm, another to his business.

“And the others seized his slaves, treated them outrageously and killed them. The king was enraged, so he sent out his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned down their city.

“Then he told his slaves, ‘The banquet is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore, go to where the roads exit the city and invite everyone you find to the banquet.’ So those slaves went out on the roads and gathered everyone they found, both evil and good. The wedding banquet was filled with guests. 

“But when the king came in to view the guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed for a wedding. So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.

“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him up hand and foot,  Other mss add take him away and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
 

“For many are invited, but few are chosen.”   Matthew 22:1-14

(Color coding is intended to separate the words of Jesus from the words of the king. We know they’re the same thing, but my husband thought it read a little easier.)

Jesus used a fictional story of a royal feast as an illustration of the gospel provision made for perishing souls.  Although we don’t see this sort of eastern liberality often in our world today, I think we can understand the meaning very well. God invites all of us to the banqueting table, which He has spread with great blessings for the perishing spirits of His rebellious creation – you and me.  There is more than enough comfort and everlasting happiness in the salvation of Jesus. This is the best feast that’s ever been!

The guests invited first, of course, were the Jews. Invitations were sent out many times via the prophets of the Old Testament, John the Baptist and Jesus Himself. The Jews were told multiple times the kingdom of God was at hand, but they kept making apologies for not coming.  The apostles and other ministers of the gospel were sent, after Christ's resurrection, to tell them (again) it was come and to persuade them to accept the invitation. In his commentary, Matthew Henry stated “the reason why sinners come not to Christ and salvation by [H]im, is, not because they cannot, but because they will not. Making light of Christ, and of the great salvation wrought out by [H]im, is the damning sin of the world.”

Like these wedding guests, the unsaved are careless with their spirits. They are not directly averse to things spiritual, but they simply have other things on their mind – the business and profit of worldly employments hinder many in considering salvation until it’s too late.

In this parable we find a stern warning for saved and unsaved alike. Whatever we possess of the world we must take care to keep it out of our hearts, lest it come between us and Jesus. The utter ruin coming upon the Jewish church and nation is represented here. Some even persecuted Christ's faithful ministers. The offer of Christ and salvation to the Gentiles was not expected; it was such a surprise as it would be to bums hanging on the street corner to be invited to a royal wedding-feast. The gospel plan is to gather spirits to Jesus. If the Jews were unwilling, the Gentiles would do.

I’m the first to admit there are non-Christians pretending to be Christians who are members of Christian churches. The news doesn’t surprise Jesus; He foretold it 2000 years ago.  The guest not clothed in the wedding garments represents such hypocrites. We have no place at the banquet if we have not put on the garments of salvation that comes only from Jesus Christ.  Acting like a wedding guest is not enough to gain our admittance to the feast and the “wedding garment” is not something that comes to us naturally. The day is coming when hypocrites will be called to account for all their presumptuous intruding into the Christian churches. Take him away! Those who pretend to a salvation they do not possess will forfeit all the happiness they presumptuously claimed.

Jesus finished the parable to explain what it teaches. Hypocrites follow the light of the gospel right down to utter darkness. Many are called to the wedding-feast, that is, to salvation, but few have the “wedding garments” that are the salvation of Christ. We should examine ourselves, asking if we are saved by faith and thus approved by God. Many are invited, but few are chosen. The ones who were chosen were the ones who showed up and put on the wedding garments, that is, salvation. There is no other way to be an acceptable guest at Jesus’ banquet. Just as there was no excuse for the man who was inappropriately dressed, there will be no excuse for hypocrites and for those who have failed to understand what it takes to be acceptable at the feast.

I would note that nothing is said about the man’s behavior. He was apparently not causing any trouble at the feast. He was ejected for the sole reason that he lacked the appropriate garments. Although salvation by faith alone is taught throughout the scripture, this is just one example. It’s not about lifestyle or background (behavior or heredity). It’s about responding to an invitation (grace) and donning the wedding garments (salvation). Good behavior (lifestyle sanctification) is not a bad thing, but it’s not a required thing for getting into the banquet.

Come and put on Christ! That’s all that is required for admission to Jesus' feast!

The seed of this study comes from a discussion with a non-believing friend who wants to know “what is truth”. He thinks he knows, but he has admitted that his definition of truth seems to be different from God’s definition of truth.  If there is such a thing as “true believers” what is the truth they are meant to believe?

Something many evangelicals do that leads us into problems is to emphasize the New Testament and avoid the Old Testament at all costs. I see this on Townhall all the time and I see the results, that those who do not know either testament cut and paste and cherry-pick the Old in an attempt to argue us out of our faith, to make it seem null and void.  The fact is that the Old Testament, by itself, is an obsolete book. If all you base your beliefs on is the Old Testament, then you’re as bound for Hell as Caiaphas was. On the other hand, the New Testament has shallow roots if you don’t tap into the rich background of the Old Testament. Jesus’ disciples were Jews who became Christians. They continued to worship in the Jewish Temple and synagogues. They didn’t think they were establishing a new religion. They were, in fact, completing Judaism, bringing it to the point where God had wanted it to be all along – a people living in faith. The Old Testament tempered and explained by the New Testament is the complete Bible. Often times the Old Testament stories are shadow tales that find their greatest meaning in the salvation of the New Testament.

It’s easy to make that statement without corroboration, but fortunately, the Old Testament provides plenty of corroboration for those of us who will seek to mine it.

“Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu each took his own firepan, put fire in it, placed incense on it, [Lv 16:12; Ex 30:7–9; Nm 16:17,46] and presented unauthorized fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them to do. Then flames leaped from the Lord’s presence and burned them to death before the Lord.

“So Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord meant when He said: I will show My holiness to those who are near Me, and I will reveal My glory  [Nm 20:13; Ezk 28:22; 39:13; Jn 12:28] before all the people.” But Aaron remained silent.

"Moses summoned Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Aaron’s uncle Uzziel, Ex 6:18,22 and said to them, “Come here and carry your relatives away from the front of the sanctuary to a place outside the camp.” [Lv 21:1–4; Nm 5:1–3] So they came forward and carried them in their tunics outside the camp, as Moses had said.

“Then Moses said to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, “Do not let your hair hang loose and do not tear your garments, Lv 21:10 or else you will die, and the Lord will become angry with the whole community. However, your brothers, the whole house of Israel, may mourn over that tragedy when the Lord sent the fire. You must not go outside the entrance to the tent of meeting or you will die, for the Lord’s anointing oil is on you.” So they did as Moses said.

The Lord spoke to Aaron: “You and your sons are not to drink wine or beer [Nm 6:3; Pr 20:1; Ezk 44:21; 1 Tm 3:3,8] when you enter the tent of meeting, or else you will die; this is a permanent statute throughout your generations. You must distinguish between the holy and the common, and the clean and the unclean, and teach the Israelites all the statutes that the Lord has given to them through Moses.”  Leviticus 10:1-11

**The color coding is to help you understand who is speaking when. Sometimes Moses is speaking and sometimes God is speaking. It’s good to be aware of which because what is said is very vital.

Many people read this passage with anger in their hearts toward God for His capriciousness. These young men hadn’t done anything all that bad, not worth being incinerated. Or had they? What exactly did they do and why did it result in such anger from God? Again, it’s important to understand the language of the Bible and the historical setting. To look at this from a non-understanding 21^st Century perspective is ignorance.

In the Holman Christian Study Bible, the translators chose to use the word “unauthorized” to translate what the KJV calls “strange”.  I looked it up in Strong’s Concordance and found the definition behind the translations.  “Strange” or “unauthorized” fire is translated from “zuwr”, a primitive root meaning: 1) to be strange, be a stranger; 1) to become estranged; 2) strange, another, stranger, foreigner, an enemy (participle); 3) loathsome; 4) strange woman, prostitute, harlot; 5) to be estranged; or, 6) to be a stranger, be one alienated

There was something wrong with this fire.  I like the word “strange”, but unauthorized is perhaps the more correct term. It all has to do with the source of the fire and the spirit in which it was offered.  Altars were pretty common in the Old Testament. The patriarchs set them up whenever and wherever they felt the presence of God. Altars were intimately associated with a dwelling place for God in the minds of the Israelites.  The Israelites, being a nomadic monotheistic people, carried two altars with them through the desert as part of the tabernacle of testimony (the tent temple the Israelites carried with them in the desert). These two altars were inextricably linked by their functions. The altar of sacrifice had been kindled by God at the dedication of the tabernacle.  Constantly sprinkled with the blood of sacrifices, this altar was a place of reconciliation with God, Who had kindled the flames Himself at the dedication of the tabernacle. It stood at the door of the tabernacle where the entire camp could see the sacrifices and know that their fellow Israelites were getting right with God. The altar of incense, which resided inside the tabernacle, was where what we might call an “adoration” offering was made. Incense, a very costly item in those days, was burned upon the altar as a sweet-smelling offering to God.

A direct link existed between the two altars in the tabernacle of testimony: the only coals that could heat the incense to make it a fragrant offering were those on which the blood of sacrifice had been spilled. In other words, the fuel for the worship offering came from the sacrifice of atonement. Any other fuel for petition and worship was absolutely unacceptable. Any other fire was “strange” (unauthorized) fire. And any other coals except those stained in blood were unacceptable.

The position of the two altars assured that the fragrant offering was only possible because of the sacrificial offering. Until someone had experienced atonement at the first altar, he or she could not offer the fragrant incense of prayer, praise, and worship at the second altar because he would be without an intercessor.

We don’t know where Nadab and Abihu got the fire they used except that they didn’t get it from the altar of sacrifice. We don’t know why they chose to use that fire over the authorized fire, but we do know the results. God was not pleased with their offering.  What could have made the fire they used strange, unholy, or unauthorized? Priests, which is what Nadab and Abihu were, used authorized censers to scoop coals from the altar of sacrifice and to place them underneath the altar of incense to keep it burning. Nadab and Abihu erred in bypassing the altar of sacrifice and using fire from another source to heat the incense. There is no mistake they knew the correct way to make the offering; it had been previously discussed. Whether they understood the reason is another matter and one that a human like myself is unqualified to answer; best leave it to God, Who’s commandments we are discussing.

The offering was so unacceptable that they were consumed. This judgment seems harsh to us, but we must bear in mind that God was using this generation of priests to teach all subsequent generations how to approach Almighty Yahweh. Moses' explanation was clear: those who share the privilege of being nearest to God must also bear the responsibility of exemplifying His holiness through obedience. They must set the example for the nation to approach the awesome God of Israel with reverence.

By not following the rules governing the sacrifice, Nadab and Abihu were showing a lack of reverence for the Creator of the Universe and the Kindler of their souls. They were approaching Him unworthily and, for the sake of future generations, God could not allow that. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and the result of this horrific punishment was that Aaron and his remaining sons were much more careful to approach God as He deserves.

So what does this mean to us in the 21^st Century?  The New Testament speaks to true worship as well, in John 4.  The Samaritans were the descendents of Jews who had been left behind during the Babylonian captivity. With the priests and intellectuals gone from the land, they had intermarried with surrounding tribes and admixed a lot of Canaanite ceremonies into Judaism. The Temple had been destroyed, so they established a worship center at the site of a Canaanite high place. By the time the Jews moved back from Babylon, they Samaritans had become convinced that they were worshipping correctly. The Jews didn’t like the Samaritans for this and avoided them at all cost, but Jesus went out of his way to encounter a Samaritan woman at a well and discuss truth with her.

“Jesus told her, “Believe Me,  woman, an hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans  worship what you do not know. We worship what we do know, because salvation is from the Jews. B
ut an hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Yes, the Father wants such people to worship Him. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”  John 4:21-24

The Samaritans didn’t really understand what they were worshipping. The Jews had a better idea, but they were still off-base. The time was coming (and was actually sitting right there at the well of Sychar speaking these words) when true worshipers would worship God in spirit and truth. It wouldn’t be about the times and places or forms of worship, but about a right relationship with God. Because the Samaritans and Jews were worshiping God with their bodies rather than their whole souls, they risked being cut off from the kingdom of God. The woman at the well of Sychar did not let the opportunity to become right with God pass. She leapt to the task.  This brings us to the 21st Century.

The incident with Nadab and Abihu makes clear that we never have the right to simply chat with God. To approach the throne of God, we must do it in the right way.  No matter how spiritual we become, on our own we will never have the right to lift even the most pious prayers to God. Only Christ has that right. He must intercede with our every word before the throne of grace. Only after we have met Him at the altar of sacrifice are we eligible for petition, praise, and worship at the altar of incense.

When Jesus told the woman at the well that we would soon worship “in spirit and in truth” the question is raised -- what is worshipping in spirit and truth? When God created humans, He gave us something no other creature had received: a spirit. This spirit makes us in His image because God is spirit. Our spirit gives us the capacity to know and experience God. Our soul, which is often misrepresented as spirit, is the source of our emotions and personality-that which represents our conscious selves. Much of our problems in the modern-day church revolve around the confusion of the two. Our mind and emotions are not our spirit. They are a manifestation of our brain. Spirit is above soul. The third component of the triune human is the physical body. When God says that we must worship Him in spirit, He means that the only acceptable worship is that which is motivated and controlled by our spirits. The body and soul may accompany the spirit in worship, but they can never acceptably overthrow it. Our bodies and souls may express praise as long as they accompany a deep spiritual longing to know and reverence God. Only the spirit can provoke and control worship for it to be acceptable. We can clap our hands or dance as an accompaniment to spiritual worship, but the emotion and personality can never acceptably take the lead. Any variance from this balance would be "strange incense" (Exodus 30:9, KJV). Spiritual worship comes from our very core and is fueled by an awesome reverence and desire for God. Spiritual worship is focusing all we are on all He is, both personally and universally. It is the incomparable expression of awe and affection for God. As such, it is the highest of human privileges. This is worshipping in spirit.

The second part is to worship in truth. It’s modern concept to question “what is truth?” God already defined it a very long time ago.  The Bible fortunately provides us with many examples of truth as God defines truth. The book of John uses the same word “truth” several times.  Every verse you are about to read translates the word “truth” from the same Hebrew word “aletheia”, which means “unveiled reality.” This definition brokers no discussion of the matter. Truth is truth in whatever sense it is being discussed.

“The Word became flesh  [Heb 4:15] and took up residence [tabernacled] among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the  One and Only Son  from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

“[F]or although the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."  John 1:17

“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  John 8:32

Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6

“When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak whatever He hears. He will also declare to you what is to come.”  John 16:13

Jesus Christ is the Truth through whom we must worship! As He made clear in John 14, He is unveiled reality and our only access to the throne of grace.

Evangelism is never over!  Paul had covered a good deal of ground in a short number of years.  He accepted Jesus as Savior in about AD 35, two years after Jesus’ death. By the writing of this letter to the Romans in AD 55-56, he’d been a Christian 20 years and working in the Gentile areas about five. He had preached in Jerusalem, Damascus, Asia Minor and Greece. He hoped to travel to Rome and then onto Spain. He knew he had a great deal of ground to cover.

“Now, my brothers, I myself am convinced about you that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another. Nevertheless, to remind you, I have written to you more boldly on some points because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, serving as a priest of God’s good news. My purpose is that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Therefore I have reason to boast in Christ Jesus regarding what pertains to God. For I would not dare say anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to make the Gentiles obedient by word and deed, by the power of miraculous signs and wonders, and by the power of God’s Spirit. As a result, I have fully proclaimed the good news about the Messiah from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum ^{[a Roman province northwest of Greece on the eastern shore of the Adriastic Sea].}  So my aim is to evangelize where Christ has not been named, in order that I will not be building on someone else’s foundation, but, as it is written: Those who had no report of Him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.^{[Isaiah 52:15]} Romans 15:14-21

Paul admitted that the letter to the Romans was different from previous letters he’d written, which were probably already in circulation.  He’d written more boldly to the Romans. I think this was largely because church at Rome had a large Jewish contingency and he wanted to assure that they understood the role of the Gentiles and the Jews in God’s plan of salvation. The Gentiles Christians were fine. They didn’t need anything to complete them. The Jewish Christians, having come to Jesus in the same way as the Gentiles, also needed nothing more to complete their faith.  Paul was careful to note that he had not done anything among the Gentiles. God had done the work.  He intended to continue evangelizing and letting the Holy Spirit work in areas where Jesus’ message had not been heard. It’s interesting to me to note that Paul did not want to follow other evangelists. He wanted to work in new mission fields.

“That is why I have been prevented many times from coming to you. But now I no longer have any work to do in these provinces, I have strongly desired for many years to come to you whenever I travel to Spain. For I do hope to see you when I pass through, and to be sent on my way there by you, once I have first enjoyed your company for a while. Now, however, I am traveling to Jerusalem to serve the saints; the churches of these provinces [Macedonia and Achaia] were pleased to make a contribution to the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. Yes, they were pleased, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual benefits, then they are obligated to minister to Jews in material needs.
 
"So when I have finished this and safely delivered the funds to them, I will go by way of you to Spain. But I know that when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing ^{[of the gospel]} of Christ.
Now I implore you, brothers, through the Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit, to agonize together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf:  that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea, that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints,
and that, by God’s will, I may come to you with joy and be refreshed together with you. The God of peace be with all of you. • Amen.”  Romans 15:22-33

Paul was headed back to Jerusalem after collecting an offering to support the Christians there. The churches of Greece and Macadonia had been generous, recognizing that the Jewish Christians had brought them salvation, something far more valuable than the coin they were sending to Jerusalem.

Paul would go to Rome after this visit to Jerusalem, but he would do so on the empire’s nickel, as a prisoner arrested for not paying his taxes in Jerusalem.  Doesn’t that make you grimace? Paul had just finished writing that Christians should pay their taxes. Of course, this is what he was accused of, not what he was guilty of. He had done what he was supposed to do. The Jews simply sought to rid themselves of him by accusing him falsely.  This is not unusual in the world. In a decade Nero would falsely blame Christians for burning down much of Rome. It gave him excuse to kill some, as the tax issue gave the Jews an issue to imprison Paul upon.

Paul’s Roman citizenship would afford him some protection that the Jews probably weren’t expecting. They no doubt thought they could get rid of him as they had Jesus, Stephen, James the apostle, and many other Jewish Christians. Paul was unique and he made use of that. He would live in Rome under house arrest for some time, even witnesses to members of the emperor's own household. Some apocryphal stories suggest he was released and traveled to Spain before he was re-arrested and executed in Rome, but there’s no Biblical evidence for that. Why would Paul, the great writer, stop writing when he was released from Roman captivity and why does Acts end so optimistically while he is still serving that first imprisonment?  More likely, he was executed without release around AD 64.

After a standard Pauline ending, Paul attached a post-script. Likely he had completed the letter before he found a messenger to carry it and he thought of more to say.  Remember, he didn't hav