Romans chapter 11

vs 10

What a lovely curse. The blind eyes thing is reminiscent of Jesus' words, but the crippled backs is just some extra pain for them.

vs 11

So in Paul's view, it's not as if Israel cannot be saved. God has in fact switched his focus so as to make Jews jealous of his work amongst the gentiles. This worked, at least within the church. Outside the church, I'm not so sure.

vs 12

This is a typical Pauline argument. He uses it several times in Romans. If God allows the bad thing to bring about good, then how much good will come from the good thing!

vs 13

So while Paul does have some words for the Jews or Jew-style Christians in the earlier chapters of Romans, now he is specifically addressing gentiles.

vs 14

Paul's hope for his own people is expressed in his ministry, then, by attempting to arouse jealousy. And you might think this was an odd path to take if it wasn't for the fact that every time Paul preached in a synagogue, he got pretty much no response, but every time he walked out on the street he started a church.

vs 15

Is the acceptance of Israel really linked to the resurrection? Or is Paul just speaking figuratively?

vs 16

Holy of purpose, I think, rather than of status specifically. The fact is that salvation doesn't work this way. Just because some Jews became Christians doesn't mean all Jews are saved. Same with gentiles. But Paul is looking at the idea that Israel is the root of holiness, because it is through them that the gospel has come. However, as he said earlier, that blessing does not necessarily mean that they've accepted it themselves.

vs 17

This is a picture of gentiles muscling in on the root of the gospel, at the expense of the jewish nation.

vs 18

He is warning gentiles against feeling boastful about being the 'new' people of God. He wants them to realise that they are shored up and supported only because of the history of Israel - which becomes their history.

Romans chapter 11

vs 1

If you take the argument purely contained in this verse, then Paul is saying that God has not turned his back on Israel as a people, because there are those who are both Jewish and Christian.

vs 2

Paul now, again, appeals to scripture to make his argument. He does a lot of that. Which is good, and a good model for us no doubt. Although his interpretations would generally be frowned upon now if we made them I think.

vs 3

Elijah felt as though there was no one left of God's promises, except him, and he was under attack too. He wondered whatever happened to God's promises and plans - had the come to an end here with Elijah?

vs 4

God had reserved for himself a number (fairly significant number) who were still faithful to him. Elijah couldn't see that. All he could see was the many many thousands who were now worshipping Baal.

The comparison here is eerie. It's basically comparing the Jews who did not follow Christ to worshipping Baal. I wouldn't have gone that far - I would have said they're on the right track, but just had one more step to go. I wouldn't say that about Baal worship (well, no more than CS Lewis did anyway).

vs 5

And I assume that Paul is one of that remnant.

vs 6

Now, what's Paul saying here? Is he suggesting that the current Jewish methodology is works-based? It probably wouldn't be out of the question. If not, though, what is he saying? The next verse is a good one.

vs 7

There is nothing wrong with the zeal of Israel. After all, seeking to be in relationship with God is a good thing. It's just that trying to work for it is not. And while proper OT Judaism did not contain this ethic (although I think it did contain an ethic very closely related), NT Judaism and probably modern Judaism do contain such an ethic of work-towards-God.

So although all of the Jews were zealous, only the elect have been saved as a remnant. It was not their zealousness that saved them.

vs8

Putting the blame back on God is a difficult ask, but Paul does not shy away from giving responsibility to God, ultimately. We shouldn't either. We sometimes feel that we must protect God from the accusations of others. We don't have to. Look, God said the exact words that Paul is quoting. Does it matter who they were about? The idea that God prevented people from seeing the truth is a huge philosophical problem. But it's also the truth, and so you've got to deal with it somehow. Even if you deal with it the way I do, the paradox-acceptance way, you still have to accept the part of the paradox which says that it's God's responsibility, his duty and also his right. Ouch.

vs 9

There's a comic there, waiting to happen. I should send that into Reverend Fun. I think I might. I'm not exactly sure why a table should be the trap. I think a table is generally reminiscent of the idea of fellowship, like laying out a table for someone.

Well, the original psalm apparently says "May the table set before them become a snare." This is from one of those Psalms where David is asking to be saved from his enemies, and he wants them to suffer from God. The interesting verse is the one before this quote, which is prophetic of them giving vinegar to Jesus to drink on the cross. So the message is almost like "May the table that they laid out to me in bitterness (sourness?) become a trap for them." May they get punished for having the wrong attitude at the table of fellowship. Interesting idea.

Romans chapter 10

vs 11


Well, apparently that's what the Septuagint says. Because the Masoretic text says something a little different. But the verse Paul hearkens back to is the one about a cornerstone or capstone, and Peter also alludes to this being Christ. It's only the "put to shame" bit that is different.

vs 12-13


This is an important verse. If we translate this quite literally, then we're going to have a problem defending any sort of special imprimatur for the people of Israel, as there is actually no difference between Jew and gentile. The focus of the verse that Paul quotes is that "everyone" will be saved if they call on God. The unspoken fact being of course that people have to call on God to be saved, and not expect themselves to be saved through some sort of different mechanism other than Christ.

vs 14-15

All good questions. One question we have to face is whether Paul is talking about all people, or now again specifically about the Jews? The very next verse is all about Jews, after all. Paul, while he may have a heart for the Jews, was called as the missionary to the gentiles. So he has a bit of a challenge here. He's saying that people must be sent to preach the gospel to everyone (which of course includes Jews) but then, while he does his bit, that can't really be his focus. That makes him sad.

I should say something about the number of biblical quotes that have been used in this section alone. It's a lot. Paul is obviously adamant that his view be accepted.

vs 16

This is one of the weirder ways of using Scripture. I mean, Isaiah wasn't talking about this message specifically, although he was talking about a message from God more broadly. The Jews didn't accept his message then, and I guess the Jews aren't accepting his message now. Broad bow, I don't really like using Scripture like that, but I guess Paul did. It's a Jewish thing I guess.

vs 17


Now this is one of those verses where people who don't like new versions will say that the translators have been sloppy by adding words like "message", because they are not in the greek. Interestingly, I have found a place where I can see different versions of the greek text online (www.olivetree.com if you're interested) and yet the Byzantine (majority) text doesn't seem to include the classic KJV translation of 1 john 5:7. The 1894 Textus Receptus does though, so I'll use that.

Why am I babbling on about greek? Only because even though the (T)NIV translates with the words "message" included for clarity, the KJV interestingly translates "God" instead of "Christ". But that is because the Byzantine text indeed has the word for God and not Christ there.

Anyway, this verse in an of itself has quite an interesting question posed to it - what exactly does it mean? The reason I ask is because you could get confused by wondering how faith comes by hearing, when the Jews who heard it did not accept it. (Ok, I admit - that was me who got confused.) I think Paul is talking about the fact that without hearing the gospel, you can't respond to the gospel.

vs 18

Ahhh, I see. Paul is exploring the specific situation of Israel. So here he says, "Did they hear?" Of course they did! So that can't be the problem.

vs 19

Did they understand it though? Well, this time, the answer doesn't seem so clear. It seems like even from Moses there is a call saying that the people of Israel grew fat and lazy, and angered God and so God told them that he would frustrate them with a people who aren't a nation.

vs 20

Even Isaiah seems to think that those who have listened to his message have not been Israel, but gentiles.

vs 21

But try as he might, God did not get the message through to Israel. Not for lack of trying! But in the end, Israel were obstinate. They would not listen to their God. And now, they are showing the fruit of their disobedience and their closed ears - for when their Christ has come, they have ignored him and killed him! No wonder Paul feels so bad for them.

Romans chapter 10

vs 1


Now Paul started his discussion of Israel a chapter ago, but got distracted by the salvation of the gentiles, so now we're back to Israel.

vs 2

Which is an interesting statement to make about Israel. The whole point about the Jews is that they were given the Law and thus were blessed. But now they make their decisions about God not based on knowledge.

vs 3

So in the many years that the Jews built up a tradition around their human understanding, they had strayed from simply accepting the word of God and moved to injecting it with all sorts of human tradition. This is surely reminiscent of the Catholic church, which puts its own tradition on par with the Bible.

vs 4

While the law is valuable and from God, Christ is the culmination of that law. The end point. He is the one who is righteous according to the law. The law of God, that is, not the laws that the Jews made up themselves. Jesus had several run-ins with those, if you recall.

vs 5

My gosh, can the wording of such a small verse be so convoluted? I think the NASB translates this verse best - not the Romans verse, but the original Leviticus verse, "So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD."

So to paraphrase the TNIV - "Whoever does these things will live because of/through/by them". "Live by them" is a common English idiomatic phrase, and the translators should have known better.

vs 6-8

I never realised that these were actual quotes from Deuteronomy! I find that quite interesting. The idea of the Law being on your hearts is there from the beginning. The original Deuteronomy text is talking about finding the law - you don't have to ascend into the sky to find it, nor across the sea (so Paul changed that one a bit) so someone has to go and get it.

Rather, Paul allegorises this passage to make it fit with Jesus - he is the Law culminated, after all, so anything said about the Law can be said about him.

vs 9

This is one of Paul's classic one line wrapups of the gospel. This is the faith that comes from Paul, and that comes from the Law of Christ apparently. It is a dual message of belief and proclamation.

vs 10

A profession of faith does not mean that you are working for your salvation, or adding to it somehow by your profession. I would say baptism is just as strong a profession. The point being that faith is only faith if it is both believed and professed. Neither of those things necessarily come from us. It is the strength of God that allows us to profess openly, and the faith God gives us that allows us to believe.

Romans chapter 9

vs 30-31

One good reason for not saying this is because it involves intimating that Israel ever really did strive after righteousness! Although it is worth saying that after Second Temple, it appears they didn't have a problem with idolatry.

To say that the gentiles never really strove after righteousness is probably fair.

vs 32

But that comes out of right field! The idea that Israel, who strove for righteousness, have not found it because they made it about works and not about faith is true, says Paul! And he would know, having been trained as a Pharisee.

And so it was that through making Israel an object of wrath in the contemporary time, gentiles might see that it is faith that is important and not the striving towards good works.

vs 33

Who stumbled over that rock more than the Jews? No one, it seems. Perhaps Athenians?

Romans chapter 9

vs 22

If you are prepared to consider some of the objects of God's wrath in the Old Testament, I think yo will see this idea illustrated. God gave Pharoah 10 plagues to make up his mind. God gave the Canaanites 400 odd years before an army of Israelites came and owned them. And how long did God suffer the indignities of his treasured possession Israel?

vs 23

The idea that God might flex his muscles and cause chaos and bedlam to rain down on evil-doers is a little distasteful. However, Paul is making an opposing claim - that rather than God crushing his enemies in a display of power, he shows patience to his enemies in order that his glory will be seen all the more strongly by those on whom he shows mercy.

Yes, he still smashes his enemies though.

vs 24

Paul wants to make it clear that these objects of mercy are indeed Christians - called from Jewish and non-Jewish stock.

vs 25

Of course, reading this from our perspective, we instantly see this as referring to gentiles. But when Hosea wrote this, or when God spoke it through him to Israel at the time, what did it mean to them? I wonder if they even thought of it including gentiles? I actually wrote an essay on this last year, and came to the conclusion that this was one of the primary meanings at the time for some passages. I'd have to look more closely at Hosea to make a decision I guess.

But regardless of what it meant specifically at the time, the overall meaning would have been obvious - that God was seeking to open his arms to people who had not accepted him.

vs 26

This is more obviously written to Israel, because it references a time in Israel's history (I'm guessing there, to be honest).

But those who are out of God's family are brought in. That's the point.

vs 27-28

Ok, that one's a little painful. Soteriologically, I would say that this can indeed be seen by the "remnant" of Jews who have claimed Christ as their Lord. This verse actually stretches forward into the eschatological too, because it talks about God's sentence on the earth too. Remnant theology is a tricky one though - because some people attempt to then bring it into the modern fold of Christendom, and that's a whole new barrel of fish.

vs 29

Paul is dealing with the fact that Israel seems to have been left behind by the movement of the Spirit of God - that a bunch of gentiles seems to now be in the majority in the church global (perhaps even the roman church locally) and this causes people to question why the Jews aren't more properly represented, if God is the same God of the Jews? He's using verses like this one from Isaiah to show that while yes, God seems to be working in a different direction, the fact is that he has both shown justice and mercy to the Jews. While only a remnant may hold to the new covenant, this is a show of God's mercy, as he could just as easily stripped them of descendants entirely and ended the story of Israel forever.

Romans Chapter 9

vs 11

Now we're in a bit of a pickle with this argument. The argument goes "Neither of the twins had done anything good or bad, but God chose one over the other". The point being that God is a god of election - he chooses for himself a people, and by the nature of that choice, some people are rejected.

But it's the idea of "neither having done anything good or bad" that I want to take issue with today. Because although the twins hadn't done anything yet, God surely knew what they would do, right? So does this mean that there's a difference between God knowing something and people doing it? Why would it matter whether they had done anything yet or not, considering God is atemporal and knows all things?

vs 12

I think this verse is probably the key. The point God is wanting to make that entering his Kingdom is not a matter of works, but a matter of God's election. And to us, who are temporal, this point is made clear when God chooses a child whom we have not seen do anything wrong or rihgteous.

vs 13

Of course, when it later turns out that Jacob is a conniving bugger, then we are only further surprised at God's choice.

vs 14

The idea that God chooses one over another based on nothing else other than his own choosing might to us seem unfair. But Paul wants to make it clear that this is not so.

vs 15

Unfortunately for us, he chooses to do this using God's words in Exodus which you could be forgiven for thinking came out of the Quran and not the Bible. I think we get back to the God principle - that things we would generally belittle or despise when done by a human are not the same when done by the eternal, atemporal, all powerful God. When a human does things for their own glory and honour, we call them names. When God does it, he's really the only one who deserves it, so it's sensible. When a human kills someone to make a point, we call them brutal or heartless. When God does it, he is the ultimate arbiter of life and death, and so has the authority to do such things. When a human decides to have mercy on one person, and no mercy on another, we think that's judgemental or unfair or prejudice. When God does it, I suppose it is his right.

vs 16

And when we look at it from God's view, we see a level of justice and equity that we perhaps cannot see without an eternal view - the idea that God has taken the responsibility away from humanity and put it on himself.

vs 17

Of course, this might not look super fair to Pharoah, but we also must remember that Pharoah did make his own choices (well, unless you don't believe in free will at all in the gospel). The idea of humanity expressing free will and God making declaritive statements about their actions being his and not theirs are not fundamentally paradoxical. It's funny how throwing God into an equation suddenly makes a lot of things work. Not that I am proposing a "God of the Gaps" ideology. More just a logical reasoning model that allows for perceived impossibilities to be bypassed by omnipotence.

vs 18

and I think what Paul leaves unsaid here is "and God gets glorified either way".

vs 19

And so here the paradox raises its ugly little head. It's a fair question.

vs 20-21

And Paul gives the biblical answer. No, it's not all that satisfying. But it has been repeated through Ecclesiastes, Job and elsewhere. Yes, there are bad things. Yes, God is in control. Yes, you cannot resist his will. Yes, you still get blamed and are still sinful. No, you do not get an answer to this.

God has never revealed the inner truth of these statements. At least he's consistent.

And now, a word from our sponsors...

It's GenCon Oz! (first two photos courtesy of these people I don't know)





Yes, this isn't a normal post. But without Shadowfist I would be a whole lot less sane, and without GenCon Oz the world would be that much less awesome. So here's some crappy photos I took (subject matter is great - quality terrible).



So here is the swag that was up for grabs for the Shadowfist Final Brawl at GenCon Oz. Ignoring peripheral things on table, you've got a Kinoshita House of Pancakes, a box of Critical Shift, a Ghost in the Shell DVD, a Can of Whupass, and then at the back, the glorious Sword of the Master.

And then some more photos of the Sword of the Master. Because it deserves them.

For those interested, you will see my wife's card box on the right, which she lovingly crafted to have Auspicious Termites coat the lid. My souless green lunchbox lies below.



The table layout from the side, as Brad draws up the first round matchups. Here also is some wicked throwing down in progress.




Yes, there were other games at GenCon Oz too - here's a photo taken in the 4th ed preview I played in. 4th ed felt that the only way to move forward was to borrow a concept from Feng Shui, and to bring in mooks (they call them 'minions', but they're not fooling anyone).

Next to that is us playing in Kevin Powe's quite awesome "Empty Chambers, Spent Shells". Three thumbs up for Kevin on this game.



Penny won the "Who Wants Some" duelling event (by one game!) and so was awarded a box of Shurikens and Six Guns, as well as a Public Enemy no.1. She likes this photo. And there's me with my second prize for duelling, the truly sweet Silver Band shirt.



And there finally are the photos of me looking like a total tool, but holding the prizes I won for becoming Brisbane's Shadowfist Multiplayer Champion 2008. Until I saw the sword, the number 1 prize for me was Kinoshita House of Pancakes. And I am still very happy with it - no doubt it will be in every tournament deck I play with.

Since I had just recently opened a box of Critical Shift with Penny, I decided to sell the box to Randall for $50, because it is so hard to get cards in Australia, and it was his birthday after all. I did make him promise to trade me for any "The Blind" he drew - but he got none. He did get two La Grange Four - lucky him!

Anyway, now that the photo shoot's over, here's some people pretending to be Jedi.

Romans chapter 9

vs 1

For this sort of buildup, it's obvious that Paul is coming up to a new point that he's serious about.

vs 2

Considering the positive news that he's just written, this seems a little out of kilter. What could make him so upset?

vs 3

Crazy verse numbering in fine tradition here.

This is a big wish - Paul is prepared to go to hell for his people. But I guess, while this is a shocking thing to say, is it any more than what Christ was prepared to do for us - separate himself from God for our sakes?

vs 4

Perhaps when we read this, we think 'was' would be more appropriate. But I think that's the whole point that Paul is making - these promises were all made to Israel. Now, that doesn't mean for a second that I don't think they haven't come to fulfilment in Christ. I still firmly believe that Christ is the only way to God. Adoption? Christ. Law? Christ. Promises? Christ, Christ and Christ.

What upsets Paul, I think, is that the Jewish people overall seem to have not taken up the answer to the promises made to them by God, while gentiles seem to take their place in the Kingdom.

What is this in answer to? I don't know. It doesn't seem to flow naturally from the last point. Perhaps there were issues regarding Jews and gentiles in Rome.

vs 5

Overall they have been blessed a lot. This makes it all the more sad when they, who have been blessed, and have been the receivers of so much from God directly as his special people, have now turned their backs on him.

vs 6

This verse is the real clincher for me. Well, this one (written rather ambiguously) and the following verses. My reading of this verse, considering what follows, is this: "Israel is made up of more than just those who are born physically of the twelve tribes".

The reason Paul wants to make this clear is because the challenge could be made that God failed in his words and promises to Israel, because they have failed to take up his promises. Paul says, "No - this is only true if you don't understand what Israel is."

Of course, you could also read this more literally, and say "there are those who are born of Israel, but who then went off and married outside of Israel, and so they're not considered of Israel anymore". But I would struggle to see how that relates to Paul's greater point.

vs 7

Again, those Jews who call themselves children of Abraham are not alone the children of Abraham. Paul is not talking about Ishmael and his descendents either. Well, in a way he is, but typologically, not merely literally.

Of course, you can read it only literally, but I think you would then be missing the point again.

vs 8

So here's the fulcrum verse. It's not enough to be physical children in the human lines that have been used by God (Abraham, the Patriarchs etc). You also have to be born into the promise of God. God made this clear through Abraham - who had two children, but the promises to Abraham would only come through Isaac.

vs 9

Ie that it had to come out of Sarah, not Hagar.

vs 10

This is a really novel argument, which we won't get into today. But it starts by pointing out that, while Abraham's children were born years apart, Isaac's kids were conceived at the same time, and yet were able to be split into "of promise" and "not of promise".

An interesting thing to consider, perhaps, is how God is prepared to shut off so many people from his promises at the time of their making. Whole nations are symbolically cut off from God in these times of the Patriarchs, after all.

Romans chapter 8

vs 31

Again, the wording here is somewhat misleading. Of course people and forces can still be against us. The question is firstly rhetorical, and secondly it seeks to intimate that no matter who is against us, if God is for us, then their againstness is worthless in comparison. It is not that as Christians we will not suffer any opposition. Indeed, Christ promised we would! But instead it is that such opposition is nothing compared to the support we have from God. However, when that support doesn't happen in time with the actions we are taking, it can seem like we are being overcome. Something to watch out for. The key is to have faith that God will overcome, in his time. Even if that means at the end of time, which pretty much can mean that you'll never see the particular opposition you're facing overcome in your lifetime.

vs 32

If God has given up his most treasured possession, his son, the expectation is that he would then give up anything for us. This logic is not 100% infallible. After all, if I give up my most expensive possession to purchase something, it could stand to reason that the sum of all my other possessions is worth more than the most valuable one on its own. Or it could even be that once I have made such a large sacrifice for something, I am not prepared to make yet another sacrifice of that size to keep it, preferring to keep what I already have.

But this is to think materially, and not relationally. The fact is that humans have regularly in the past sacrificed all their possessions for the sake of relationships, especially family relationships. God here is expressing his divine nature of relationship in being prepared to make ultimate sacrifices for the benefit of his relationship with humanity.

vs 33

If it is God who justifies, then there is no one else who can bring charge. Satan is of course at the top of the list, being "the accuser". But even he can't charge us, because we have already been made righteous by God.

vs 34

There is none who can condemn us when our justification comes from so high a source. Not only are we put in the right by God's action of sacrificing his son, but his son now lives again and stands at God's right hand, forever speaking on our behalf and putting himself up as the reason for our rescue.

vs 35

Since all the other questions asked so far have been basically answered "nothing, no one, never" we can only assume that Paul is going down the same road with this question. But this is at least on a different tac. The first questions were about our situation, our status as redeemed, and whether that could be rocked by condemnation or accusation. But now Paul takes it straight to the heart of God, and asks whether anything can separate us from that love which was shown in Christ Jesus. The suggested things could basically be shown as sufferings through which Christians had to persevere.

vs 36

Paul even backs up this claim, showing by quoting scripture that these things are an assurity for us as Christians. While in the first instance we may think that Psalm 44 is talking about the Messiah, and maybe rightly, Paul is in fact comparing the life of the Christian to that suffering.

vs 37

But to Paul, the Christian life is one of battle, but also of conquest. These difficulties are faced, and overcome. Not, might I point out, by us. They are in fact overcome through Christ. But since Christ has overcome them, we need not fear them. We will still suffer them, but they are as the blows of a defeated enemy - while still painful, even deadly, we can rest assured the war is won.

Persecution, then, is like a minefield. Set during war to cause damage and mayhem and casualties. Even when the war is won, the mines don't turn off and start sprouting flowers. If you step on one years, even decades after the war is over, it will still blow your legs off. But the people who planted them (the bad guys of course) have been defeated, and the process of removing landmines can take place. But that is a long and slow and dangerous process.

vs 38-39

This is one of the most obvious verses for showing the assurance that we can have in our salvation through Christ. If there is nothing that can separate us from the love that God has for us through Christ (that is our salvation - God might love his creation, and all people, but the love through Christ is surely salvation), then we can be assured that this love is never doomed.

There is however a logical problem, and a question of the wording.

The logical problem is this - if nothing can separate us from the love of God, does that mean God can't do it? Can God not choose to drop us out of his hands as he wills it? This is a very similar question to that in Hebrews about it being impossible for God to lie. The idea that God cannot do something is anathema to the idea of God's omnipotence. Usually I find it sufficient to write these questions off against a finite understanding of omnipotence, a concept that we can only pretend to understand. That's not a very satisfying answer, though, is it? I then sometimes go further to state that God is God even over logic, and that laws (even logical laws) don't apply to God, and that therefore paradox can exist in the Godhead and his actions. Again, not exactly satisfying, but it's difficult to argue against.

The second question regards our own ability to end this relationship. While it might not be possible for any external forces to separate us from the love that is our salvation, is it possible for us as humans to reject it? Calvinists I suppose say no - I am guessing this would be part of the idea of irresistable grace. I will say that this verse in its wording can be read to support that we cannot reject it - the idea that nothing in all creation can do it does in a way include humanity, what with us being creatures and all.

I think the question is an interesting one. As Christians, we can so easily get caught up in the "education is salvation" argument which is so totally flawed - it's the one that goes "if you teach people the truth, they will have no option but to accept it". This is an unfortunate load of complete bollocks and chips. It is from this argument that we have the "teach people more about their enemies, and they will see that they are just people like them, and they won't hate them anymore" - an argument that disregards the countless times someone has learned the innermost secrets about their enemies for the purpose of crushing them all the more heartily. So Christians make the same argument, saying "If people only really understood their predicament, really understood what was on the line with salvation, sin, hell and eternity, then they would choose Jesus and be saved!" Bull. This assumes that all there is to decision making is some sort of rational process that can be guided by logic. This is saying that if we knew it all, then there wouldn't be a decision to make, because the answer is so obvious.

It's just not so.

This is not flicking a switch. It is a relationship. And people are not just logical binary numbercrunchers. They have minds, but they also have hearts, passions, and feelings. I fully believe that someone could know God exists without a shadow of doubt, understand fully the grace-through-faith principle, realise the enormity of eternity and see what is on the line, and yet still decide that they did not want to crown God as Lord of their existence. While I don't usually credit Satan with super-branium capacity, I'd give him at least this much. And if you have to understand eternity before you can make an informed decision about salvation, then we're all doomed, aren't we?

Romans chapter 8

Ok, so there's been a slight hiatus while I've been at GenCon. I didn't have access to a computer there. Back to it now!

vs 20

So God built-in a frustration in his creation. Well, built-in may not be the best term. That depends on how you think God acted with regards to foreknowledge of sin. I mean, did God create the universe as perfect and then let sin break it, and then subject it to frustration? Or was that frustration built-in in the the foreknowledge that sin was coming? Who can say.

The point being that creation has been bound up and prevented from doing what it ought.

And this has been done in hope. In hope of what? Well, the next verse will tell us. I hope.

vs 21

Creation is meant to enjoy the freedom and glory of those whom God has adopted. Of course, we are subject to the same frustration - we can't fully enjoy that freedom or glory yet either. So creation waits until it is freed from bondage to the decay that came from sin. Think about that - sin is so powerful, not only did it cause death in us, separation from God, but also broke the universe and made it start spiralling into a death of its own.

However, creation shares a hope with us. It will be freed from bondage and brought into glory. So does creation die first and get remade, as most of God's children do? Or does it get renewed, a theory that seems to appeal to the green-hearted recycling culture that much of modern Christianity has adopted? This verse alone doesn't tell us enough about that. Sufficed to say that we have hope, and so does it.

vs 22

So it has therefore been in expectation of something coming.

vs 23

And so are we expecting something - some more final mark of our adoption, which comes when our bodies are redeemed. With all the talk in chapter 7 about the sinful nature, I wonder if Paul isn't talking about our bodies being redeemed along the lines of cleansed of the sinful nature, so that we can be in true union with God. Or perhaps he is talking more about the cleansing of creation, because our bodies are part of that creation. Of course, our minds, hearts and souls are too. The idea of creation is not a merely materialist one.

vs 24

This verse seems a little forced in its situation. If there were a question about hope being posed, then it would seem a far more reasonable thing to say. But it seems out of place here. Nevertheless, it holds true in what it says - hope that is seen is not hope. Compare this definition with that of faith in Hebrews 11, and I think we have two ideas being described with different words. I think what the writer to the Hebrews calls "faith", Paul calls "hope".

vs 25

Although I've read these words many times, for the first time the word 'patiently' has jumped out at me. How patient am I for the return of Christ or my union with God? To be honest, I don't live waiting patiently for the fruit of my hope to come. I yearn for it. I never thought that was wrong. Indeed, Paul seems to yearn for it himself in other letters. So why the patience here? Perhaps it is in the context of our inability to do anything to hasten its coming.

vs 26

In the same way as what? I think Paul is harkening back to the groaning of creation, the groaning of ourselves, and now the groaning of the Spirit. Which is interesting, because if those three groans are linked, and this third groan takes on the meaning of the first two - almost a creaking under pressure of giving way to allow the new to flood forth - then in fact the Spirit's intercessions are far more pointed than I have originally thought. I always thought that groan here was just a noise that words couldn't express. Some sort of holy talk that we can't discern. But in fact, in the same way that a groaning plank is expressing its displeasure at being overloaded and preparing to break, the groaning Spirit of God expresses the weight of our prayers to him, which perhaps inevitably are calling for liberation from death and decay.

vs 27

So in essence, we can't screw up in our prayers and alienate ourselves from God, because he searches the hearts of us, and the mind of the Spirit so that our hearts, which even chapter 7 says want to do God's will, can be brought into line with God's will.

vs 28

What a great and misunderstood promise. This doesn't change anything that has happened to us, and doesn't prevent bad, horrible, painful things from happening. It doesn't stop us asking why, and it doesn't stop us from hurting or feeling bad or detached from God. Good in this sense is something we almost cannot understand, because it is so far removed from what we think of as good. We think of good as enjoyable, pleasant, nice. We don't think of those things that cause pain, suffering, anguish, hurt, embarrassment, loss, grief, or other bad things as good. And yet they continue to happen to us. This must mean that good is not intrinsic to pleasantness and enjoyment, contentment or happiness. Good exists in sadness and pain. If it didn't, then this verse would be a lie.

vs 29

And the image of God's Son is not one that exists without pain, torment, separation, loss and grief. I know that I personally have very much separated my Christianity from its roots of suffering. That can't be healthy.

vs 30

It is not pleasure, enjoyment, niceness or happiness that we are called to, but justification, and glorification. With those will come joy, no doubt, but of an entirely different nature to happiness.