Bible Study Conflicting messages for Paul

[Jake]

Josh,

Thanks for the link to Riverwolf's thread, if I had seen that previously, it would have all been clear, however, the study has been a good one and enjoyed everyone's responses. I do believe there is a purpose to studying this in greater detail, I just don't know what that is right now. lol I've read Acts countless times, after all, and never thought about it before.

I agree, Paul was told by the Holy Spirit to go to Jerusalem, with the full expectation of suffering and be bound in chains. In God's great mercy, he gave Agabus a confirming vision, for encouragement perhaps or whatever reason, it was a benefit to Paul, and eventually maybe to the other disciples!

Good point about the collection needing to be brought to Jerusalem! We would be at a loss without Paul's letters from prison, too!

Throughout this study, I could not help but focus on Paul's preaching style, his faithfulness, focusing in on the Christ and the cross, repentance, the saints perseverance and the fruit of it and obedience! He can say the following with the utmost integrity! Phillipians 3:8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,

peace -
Jake

 

[Elijah674]

Josh,

Thanks for the link to Riverwolf's thread, if I had seen that previously, it would have all been clear, however, the study has been a good one and enjoyed everyone's responses. I do believe there is a purpose to studying this in greater detail, I just don't know what that is right now. lol I've read Acts countless times, after all, and never thought about it before.

I agree, Paul was told by the Holy Spirit to go to Jerusalem, with the full expectation of suffering and be bound in chains. In God's great mercy, he gave Agabus a confirming vision, for encouragement perhaps or whatever reason, it was a benefit to Paul, and eventually maybe to the other disciples!

Good point about the collection needing to be brought to Jerusalem! We would be at a loss without Paul's letters from prison, too!

Throughout this study, I could not help but focus on Paul's preaching style, his faithfulness, focusing in on the Christ and the cross, repentance, the saints perseverance and the fruit of it and obedience! He can say the following with the utmost integrity! Phillipians 3:8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,

peace -
Jake

Its good to see agreement, huh! There are a lot of 'tricky' verses in the Bible. Acts 10 has Peter having a three time vision from God. Three time even! And it was not the vision that he found was the problem, but what (verse 17) 'this vision which he had seen should mean,..'

And it is the latter that stands out to me. Why did Peter say emphatically, not so Lord?? ibid. 13-16. That sounds like Peter was rebuking God? But that was not the case at all. Peter KNEW & was settled in the Faith of Heb. 13:8-9 that God was the same [FOREVER]. And he knew that it was his understanding that was the problem.

But even today we see folks not having the conviction of what Peter had in knowing that what God created unclean in food from the start of creation is always inclean. So as one reads on, we see that it was referring to the Jew & Gentile both being accepted by God. (which was always the case anyway! Gen. 12:5)

--Elijah

 

[Jake]

Its good to see agreement, huh! There are a lot of 'tricky' verses in the Bible. Acts 10 has Peter having a three time vision from God. Three time even! And it was not the vision that he found was the problem, but what (verse 17) 'this vision which he had seen should mean,..'

And it is the latter that stands out to me. Why did Peter say emphatically, not so Lord?? ibid. 13-16. That sounds like Peter was rebuking God? But that was not the case at all. Peter KNEW & was settled in the Faith of Heb. 13:8-9 that God was the same [FOREVER]. And he knew that it was his understanding that was the problem.

But even today we see folks not having the conviction of what Peter had in knowing that what God created unclean in food from the start of creation is always inclean. So as one reads on, we see that it was referring to the Jew & Gentile both being accepted by God. (which was always the case anyway! Gen. 12:5)

--Elijah

I agree, Peter's response was more of a shock, than a rebuke, and he may not have gone to Cornelius' house w/out it. The Lord prepared him to accept the Gentiles. God always prepares us for what He has called us to do!

 

[Elijah674]

Conflicting messages for Paul

Originally Posted by Elijah674
Its good to see agreement, huh! There are a lot of 'tricky' verses in the Bible. Acts 10 has Peter having a three time vision from God. Three time even! And it was not the vision that he found was the problem, but what (verse 17) 'this vision which he had seen should mean,..'

And it is the latter that stands out to me. Why did Peter say emphatically, not so Lord?? ibid. 13-16. That sounds like Peter was rebuking God? But that was not the case at all. Peter KNEW & was settled in the Faith of Heb. 13:8-9 that God was the same [FOREVER]. And he knew that it was his understanding that was the problem.

But even today we see folks not having the conviction of what Peter had in knowing that what God created unclean in food from the start of creation is always inclean. So as one reads on, we see that it was referring to the Jew & Gentile both being accepted by God. (which was always the case anyway! Gen. 12:5)

--Elijah



[Rocky here:] I agree, Peter's response was more of a shock, than a rebuke, and he may not have gone to Cornelius' house w/out it. The Lord prepared him to accept the Gentiles. God always prepares us for what He has called us to do!

Hi, me again: Did you miss my point? 'i' wonder if any others did? It was in this latter part with a type of question? (rhetorical in a sense)

Here is what I had posted:

[And it is the latter that stands out to me. Why did Peter say emphatically, not so Lord?? ibid. 13-16. That sounds like Peter was rebuking God? But that was not the case at all. Peter KNEW & was settled in the Faith of Heb. 13:8-9 that God was the same [FOREVER]. And he knew that it was his understanding that was the problem.]

That above paragraph was what my thought was about:

So why in bottom/line did Peter in the N.T. still know for a fact even after the three time vision, that what God said about the clean & unclean in the O.T. was still Eternal Truth?

Hey, and i know what follows this post, huh?
Anyway, that is just one truth that was meant by me as with some Truths being 'tricky'.;) And there are some more that take in some 'serious study!'

​

 

[Jake]

Conflicting messages for Paul

Originally Posted by Elijah674
Its good to see agreement, huh! There are a lot of 'tricky' verses in the Bible. Acts 10 has Peter having a three time vision from God. Three time even! And it was not the vision that he found was the problem, but what (verse 17) 'this vision which he had seen should mean,..'

And it is the latter that stands out to me. Why did Peter say emphatically, not so Lord?? ibid. 13-16. That sounds like Peter was rebuking God? But that was not the case at all. Peter KNEW & was settled in the Faith of Heb. 13:8-9 that God was the same [FOREVER]. And he knew that it was his understanding that was the problem.

But even today we see folks not having the conviction of what Peter had in knowing that what God created unclean in food from the start of creation is always inclean. So as one reads on, we see that it was referring to the Jew & Gentile both being accepted by God. (which was always the case anyway! Gen. 12:5)

--Elijah



[Rocky here:] I agree, Peter's response was more of a shock, than a rebuke, and he may not have gone to Cornelius' house w/out it. The Lord prepared him to accept the Gentiles. God always prepares us for what He has called us to do!

Hi, me again: Did you miss my point? 'i' wonder if any others did? It was in this latter part with a type of question? (rhetorical in a sense)

Here is what I had posted:

[And it is the latter that stands out to me. Why did Peter say emphatically, not so Lord?? ibid. 13-16. That sounds like Peter was rebuking God? But that was not the case at all. Peter KNEW & was settled in the Faith of Heb. 13:8-9 that God was the same [FOREVER]. And he knew that it was his understanding that was the problem.]

That above paragraph was what my thought was about:

So why in bottom/line did Peter in the N.T. still know for a fact even after the three time vision, that what God said about the clean & unclean in the O.T. was still Eternal Truth?

Hey, and i know what follows this post, huh?
Anyway, that is just one truth that was meant by me as with some Truths being 'tricky'.;) And there are some more that take in some 'serious study!'

​

Elijah,
This thread really isn't about the OT laws of clean or unclean foods though, I was pointing out how, like Paul, God prepared Peter for what He called them to do.
God said specifically that He made what was impure, now clean, so it's not tricky in that sense! We can now eat whatever there is to eat, it's all clean!

The bottom line is, the passage you offered, which was Acts 10, also showed how God prepared Peter to do His will.

 

[Elijah674]

Elijah,
This thread really isn't about the OT laws of clean or unclean foods though, I was pointing out how, like Paul, God prepared Peter for what He called them to do.
God said specifically that He made what was impure, now clean, so it's not tricky in that sense! We can now eat whatever there is to eat, it's all clean!

The bottom line is, the passage you offered, which was Acts 10, also showed how God prepared Peter to do His will.

That was my example for what you said above, [conflicting messages], even see 2 Peter's last part of verse 16) you say that... 'God said specifically that He made what was impure, now clean,..' Where in the Bible anywhere did God say that these Gentil's were unclean, other than by the same sin's that find Christians again sinners as such? 1 John 3:3-4

The Jews taught that falsely, this was one thing that Christ came to majnify, (Isa. 42:21) and were the Gentile Converts of Abe's Gen. 12:5 'souls' gotten in Haran unclean? Or these in Lev. 17:8 + 9 Gentile ones? Even Paul in Rom. 2:14-15 has Gentiles of both OT & NT (perhaps NT?) with the Law of God written in their heart. Born Again THEY WERE! And had only learned of Christ & His Obedience from His created nature.

So NO, as seen in the above verse from Peter pen, he say's that it was not ONLY Paul's epistles, but also they 'which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, [as they do also the other scriptures,..']

 

[patience7]

Why is Paul told to go to Jerusalem by the Holy Spirit and then told by his disciples, in the Spirit, not to go? Why would the Holy Spirit give conflicting messages? I can't figure it out. :help

He was told to go:
Acts 20:22 22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:

Then told not to go:
Acts 21:4 And having found the disciples, we tarried there seven days: and these said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not set foot in Jerusalem.

Where exactly was Paul told to go to Jerusalem by the holy Spirit? I see twice where the Holy Spirit told him not to go:

Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

Acts 21:10,11 Then Agabus the prophet - "Thus saith the Holy Spirit, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle (v10) and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

After all the persuasion not to go - they ceased trying to persuade him - saying "The will of the Lord be done." What was the will of the Lord?

 

[Jake]

Where exactly was Paul told to go to Jerusalem by the holy Spirit? I see twice where the Holy Spirit told him not to go:

Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

Acts 21:10,11 Then Agabus the prophet - "Thus saith the Holy Spirit, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle (v10) and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

After all the persuasion not to go - they ceased trying to persuade him - saying "The will of the Lord be done." What was the will of the Lord?

The will of the Lord was for Paul to go to Jerusalem, not sure if you've read the other posts, but Agabus had a vision from God for Paul, as a confirmation that he was indeed to go to Jerusalem, that Paul would be bound in chains, and would suffer. God was preparing Paul for what He wanted him to do.
If you read back a few posts, Cyberjosh pointed it all out very well.
peace.

 

[patience7]

The will of the Lord was for Paul to go to Jerusalem, not sure if you've read the other posts, but Agabus had a vision from God for Paul, as a confirmation that he was indeed to go to Jerusalem, that Paul would be bound in chains, and would suffer. God was preparing Paul for what He wanted him to do.
If you read back a few posts, Cyberjosh pointed it all out very well.
peace.

Yes, I read the other post and then read the scripture for myself, which is what I usually do.

#1 The apostles told Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

#2 The prophet, Agabus had a vision from God of Paul being bound and delivered into the hands of the Gentiles if he went to Jerusalem. I figured that was a warning!

I just cannot see God giving two different revelations concerning Paul's trip to Jerusalem. One not to go and one to go?

The way I see it the will of the Lord was for Paul not to go (apostles) and if you do go, this is what will happen (Agabus).

 

[Elijah674]

The will of the Lord was for Paul to go to Jerusalem, not sure if you've read the other posts, but Agabus had a vision from God for Paul, as a confirmation that he was indeed to go to Jerusalem, that Paul would be bound in chains, and would suffer. God was preparing Paul for what He wanted him to do.
If you read back a few posts, Cyberjosh pointed it all out very well.
peace.

Some teach falsely that Paul was going because of the Feast Days huh! But not so, yet, there were plenty that God wanted Paul to witness to there! But note Acts 23

[11] And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
[12] And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
[13] And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.
[14] And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.

And never forget Christs verse of Inspiration of Acts 9:15 + verse 16 to Ananias 'For [[I WILL shew him]] how great things he must suffer for My Names sake.'

Off topic, but this is the Jerusalm ones who most here have them not committing the sin against the Holy Ghost.

PS: And Rocky, CyberJosh did return and say that there was another 'post' that he had mis/read. So lets do give her, her credits as did he?

 

[Jake]

Yes, I read the other post and then read the scripture for myself, which is what I usually do.

#1 The apostles told Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

#2 The prophet, Agabus had a vision from God of Paul being bound and delivered into the hands of the Gentiles if he went to Jerusalem. I figured that was a warning!

I just cannot see God giving two different revelations concerning Paul's trip to Jerusalem. One not to go and one to go?

The way I see it the will of the Lord was for Paul not to go (apostles) and if you do go, this is what will happen (Agabus).

Hi patience,

He was told to go:
Acts 20:22 22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:

Then then seemingly not to go:
Acts 21:4 And having found the disciples, we tarried there seven days: and these said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not set foot in Jerusalem.

And then Agabus, notice what the Holy Spirit said about the person who was going to Jerusalem, as in yes, he is going and yes he will suffer, it was a confirmation.

"10 As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” 12 When we had heard this, we as well as the local residents began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we fell silent, remarking, “The will of the Lord be done!” " (Acts 21:10-14)

 

[patience7]

Hi patience,

He was told to go:
Acts 20:22 22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:

Then then seemingly not to go:
Acts 21:4 And having found the disciples, we tarried there seven days: and these said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not set foot in Jerusalem.

And then Agabus, notice what the Holy Spirit said about the person who was going to Jerusalem, as in yes, he is going and yes he will suffer, it was a confirmation.

"10 As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” 12 When we had heard this, we as well as the local residents began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we fell silent, remarking, “The will of the Lord be done!” " (Acts 21:10-14)

I see what you are saying. But I believe that God has a time and season for everything and this was not the right time for him to go to Jerusalem.

"I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem" In this case, spirit is with a small "s". The word "spirit" is used for other than Holy Spirit and in this verse "spirit" with a small "s" is the seat of operation of man's personal life; the issues that result from the operation of man's mind such as acts of will, thoughts, desires, emotions. Paul had already made his mind up to go to Jerusalem; he was bound and determined.

Then in 21:4 the apostles said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem and Agabus the prophet took Paul's girdle and bound his hands and feet and said "Thus saith the Holy Spirit, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." Look Paul, God say that if you go to Jerusalem now this is what is going to happen to you, so it's not the right time. Paul wouldn't be persuaded and so those trying to persuade him, they ceased saying "The will of the Lord be done." The will of the Lord was for Paul not to go; that's what they had been telling him through the Spirit - it was not the right time. And Paul paid the consequences.

Paul was a man just like us and he had that trip to Jerusalem so set in his mind that he was going to go come h*** or high water knowing what was going to befall him if he went; even to the point of death. We do the same thing at times (maybe not to that extent!). We usually want something right now but right now may not be God's timing.

That's just my take on the context of the scriptures. :peace

 

[Jake]

Some teach falsely that Paul was going because of the Feast Days huh! But not so, yet, there were plenty that God wanted Paul to witness to there! But note Acts 23

[11] And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
[12] And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
[13] And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.
[14] And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.

And never forget Christs verse of Inspiration of Acts 9:15 + verse 16 to Ananias 'For [[I WILL shew him]] how great things he must suffer for My Names sake.'

Off topic, but this is the Jerusalm ones who most here have them not committing the sin against the Holy Ghost.

PS: And Rocky, CyberJosh did return and say that there was another 'post' that he had mis/read. So lets do give her, her credits as did he?

Hi patience,
The above post by Elijah, shows the reason why Paul was meant to go to Jerusalem.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi Patience7. Welcome to the boards!

I wanted to comment on a few things you said to try to clear some things up.

Then in 21:4 the apostles said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem and Agabus the prophet took Paul's girdle and bound his hands and feet and said "Thus saith the Holy Spirit, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." Look Paul, God say that if you go to Jerusalem now this is what is going to happen to you, so it's not the right time.

The only problem with that is that is not what the passage says - not explicitly stated. Agabus never tells Paul it is wrong or not the right time. He simply says what will happen to him. I already pointed out that Jesus also knew the horrible things that would happen to him if he returned to Jerusalem, despite people who tried to persuade him to do otherwise. It's not directly parallel, but nonetheless we can't produce any evidence of Paul being forbidden by the Spirit since that is not actually stated.

Paul wouldn't be persuaded and so those trying to persuade him, they ceased saying "The will of the Lord be done."

What translation are you using? The NASB, NIV, and NKJV all phrase Acts 21:14 to where it makes it clear that they ceased their pleading and rather began to say "The will of the Lord be done". You seem to be saying the opposite. Did you misread it? Or did I actually misunderstand what you are saying?

The will of the Lord was for Paul not to go

If that were the case would they not have authoritatively rebuked Paul instead of merely pleaded with him? Paul had previously rebuked Peter openly for being in the wrong on one occasion, so why would other Christians not have done the same for Paul as well if he were clearly in the wrong?

I am asking so that I can understand your reasoning.

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[brotheryochanan]

Paul was only human
AMP
22And now, you see, I am going to Jerusalem, bound by the [Holy] Spirit and obligated and compelled by the [convictions of my own] spirit, not knowing what will befall me there-- 23Except that the Holy Spirit clearly and emphatically affirms to me in city after city that imprisonment and suffering await me.

4And having looked up the disciples there, we remained with them for seven days. Prompted by the [Holy] Spirit, they kept telling Paul not to set foot in Jerusalem.


Paul was just a man. This shows us ,one who we think is great, still needed advise from fellow Christians. We are to join together not run off physically or spiritually on our own...Seek Godly counsel

Godly counsel does not always agree with ME!

I like this, recall that Pauls mission was to the GENTILES. Here he is again running to the jews. In Pauls mind he was more than confident about confronting the jewish people and i think Pauls Self got the better of him in this instance.

 

[patience7]

Hi Patience7. Welcome to the boards!

I wanted to comment on a few things you said to try to clear some things up.

The only problem with that is that is not what the passage says - not explicitly stated. Agabus never tells Paul it is wrong or not the right time. He simply says what will happen to him. I already pointed out that Jesus also knew the horrible things that would happen to him if he returned to Jerusalem, despite people who tried to persuade him to do otherwise. It's not directly parallel, but nonetheless we can't produce any evidence of Paul being forbidden by the Spirit since that is not actually stated.

What translation are you using? The NASB, NIV, and NKJV all phrase Acts 21:14 to where it makes it clear that they ceased their pleading and rather began to say "The will of the Lord be done". You seem to be saying the opposite. Did you misread it? Or did I actually misunderstand what you are saying?

If that were the case would they not have authoritatively rebuked Paul instead of merely pleaded with him? Paul had previously rebuked Peter openly for being in the wrong on one occasion, so why would other Christians not have done the same for Paul as well if he were clearly in the wrong?

I am asking so that I can understand your reasoning.

God Bless,
~Josh

Thank you for welcoming me!

We do know explicitly that the disciples through the Spirit told Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. Then we have Agabus telling him through the Spirit what would happen if he should go. No, Agabus does not say "explicitly" do not go but he did warn Paul through the Spirit what would happen if he went. So he was told not to go and what would happen if he did go. What the apostles said through the Spirit and what Agabus said through the Spirit was the "will of the Lord". When Paul wouldn't listen to their advice - they ceased saying - they ceased begging him not to go - "the will of the Lord."

it clear that they ceased their pleading and rather began to say "The will of the Lord be done". You seem to be saying the opposite. What was the "will of the Lord"? The way I read it "the will of the Lord" was not to go. The way everyone else is implying it would seem that God wanted Paul to go and suffer at the hand of the Jews? I don't think so.

I use the KJV.

In Christ

 

[Jake]

Thank you for welcoming me!

We do know explicitly that the disciples through the Spirit told Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. Then we have Agabus telling him through the Spirit what would happen if he should go. No, Agabus does not say "explicitly" do not go but he did warn Paul through the Spirit what would happen if he went. So he was told not to go and what would happen if he did go. What the apostles said through the Spirit and what Agabus said through the Spirit was the "will of the Lord". When Paul wouldn't listen to their advice - they ceased saying - they ceased begging him not to go - "the will of the Lord."

it clear that they ceased their pleading and rather began to say "The will of the Lord be done". You seem to be saying the opposite. What was the "will of the Lord"? The way I read it "the will of the Lord" was not to go. The way everyone else is implying it would seem that God wanted Paul to go and suffer at the hand of the Jews? I don't think so.

I use the KJV.

In Christ

The will of the Lord was for Paul to go. Why wouldn't God want him to suffer? Not being handed over to the Jews? What like Jesus?
Paul was called and we are all called to suffer for His name sake, do you think we are here to have it easy, all good times and not suffer?
Read 1 & 2 Peter. Read Foxes book of martyrs.
In order for perfecting us and conforming us to His image, we are to suffer.

So yes, Paul was to go to Jerusalem, Paul was going to suffer and yes, God planned it all!

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi Pateince7. If you will bear with me here and read everything below I promise that I have a very Scripturally based response. I look forward to your sincere thoughts in reply.

Thank you for welcoming me!

Glad to have you here.

We do know explicitly that the disciples through the Spirit told Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. Then we have Agabus telling him through the Spirit what would happen if he should go. No, Agabus does not say "explicitly" do not go but he did warn Paul through the Spirit what would happen if he went. So he was told not to go and what would happen if he did go.

Remember that human agency is present in this account and that the Holy Spirit can reveal something to men and women and then they can themselves react or give advice apart from some divine infallible proclamation. This is common in our present day experience too and yet it does not mean our advice based on a revelation of the Spirit is the infallible advice of the Spirit Himself. The context I believe demands that the pleading with Paul not to go comes from the friends of Paul after being shown what would happen to him from the Holy Spirit. All we are told is that the Spirit revealed what would happen to Paul. Surely you can see how this would have produced emotions in his friends that would make them want to plead with Paul. The Holy Spirit was not making these people do this though, it was their own initiative.

What the apostles said through the Spirit and what Agabus said through the Spirit was the "will of the Lord". When Paul wouldn't listen to their advice - they ceased saying - they ceased begging him not to go - "the will of the Lord."

That is a leap though not warranted by the text.

What was the "will of the Lord"? The way I read it "the will of the Lord" was not to go. The way everyone else is implying it would seem that God wanted Paul to go and suffer at the hand of the Jews? I don't think so.

Actually I think you may not grasp that suffering for Paul was a calling from God (read Acts 9:16) and it was Paul himself that said that he would rejoice in his sufferings (cf. Romans 5:3 & Philippians 3:8-11). Paul explicitly said:

"Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead." (Philippians 3:8-11)

Acts 9:16 which I referenced above says, "For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.” Paul was called to suffer for Christ's glory.

Paul obviously though had a mission to share the Gospel with his own kin, the Jews (who had also persecuted and crucified Jesus), and also as I pointed out Paul for years had been collecting the offering for the poor of Jerusalem (which surely was a work approved by God) and he wanted to go to Jerusalem to finally deliver it.

Suffering is not a reason to shy away from bringing the Gospel to people and to doing good deeds (such as giving the offerings to the poor).

Jesus had told Peter at the end of the Gospel of John, "'Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.' This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, 'Follow Me.'" (John 21:18-19)

That sounds remarkably similar to what is about to happen to Paul at this point. He will suffer for God's glory but be bound and taken where he does not want to go. Nonetheless it would be done to help spread the Gospel and glorify God.

Peter had further questioned Jesus asking what would happen to one of the other disciples, and then it says, "Jesus said to him, 'If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me'” (vs. 22).

We are not to shy from suffering, especially if it is necessary to properly follow Jesus and glorify him.

------------------

Now there is one last point relevant to this passage about Paul that I noticed last night when reading the context in Acts 20.

Paul says in Acts 20:22-23, "And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me."

So we discover here that this testimony of the Spirit was not an isolated incident, and it was being told to Paul over and over again, but also as we see here Paul calls it a "testimony" not a command or forbidding not to go.

In fact Paul goes on to say, "But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God" (vs. 24).

Paul says that the testimony and revelation from the Spirit of what would happen does not "move me"? Is Paul's heart very hard and rebellious ignoring the persistent working of the Spirit? No! Rather he says he is not moved so as to care whether he even loses his own life ("count all things loss" Phil 3:8) in the course of carrying out the ministry given to him by Jesus himself.

We must see Paul as merely being informed that by a revelation of the Spirit of what would happen to him, or else we must declare that Paul exposed a hard and disobedient heart, and boasted proudly about "not being moved", and then had the audacity to claim it to be part of his ministry for Jesus all in inspired Scripture!

It is not good theology at all to say that Paul was disobedient to the Spirit. Only a lack of diligent study and exegesis can conclude that Paul was disobedient.

I am not saying this to try to put you down in any way, but its not your or my words that are at stake here but rather the Scriptures, and the truth of the Scripture must be rightly divided - and I am convinced that what I have explained is the correct understanding of the context of Paul being told about the chains awaiting him in Jerusalem.

It was not wrong for Paul to go, and in fact on the contrary it showed the great faith and love that Paul had for Jesus and his fellow lost Jewish brethren to preach the Gospel to them that they might be saved, even at the greatest sacrifice to himself: to be imprisoned and ultimately lose his life.

"He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:39)

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[patience7]

The will of the Lord was for Paul to go. Why wouldn't God want him to suffer? Not being handed over to the Jews? What like Jesus?
Paul was called and we are all called to suffer for His name sake, do you think we are here to have it easy, all good times and not suffer?
Read 1 & 2 Peter. Read Foxes book of martyrs.
In order for perfecting us and conforming us to His image, we are to suffer.

So yes, Paul was to go to Jerusalem, Paul was going to suffer and yes, God planned it all!

Okay.

 

[Elijah674]

PLEASE! Never miss Acts 9:15-16!

[15] But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before (1) the Gentiles, and (2) kings, [and] (3) the children of Israel:
[16] For [ I will shew him] how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.


Paul wanted to be at Pentecost in Jerusalem. Acts 20
[16] For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.

(As stated before, Pentecost as a feast day was not Paul's reason to go there in the least! See Gal. 1:6-8 for Paul's conviction on Moses Laws! Yet, at Jerusalem there were a huge amount of people to witness this Truth to)


Acts 21
[4] And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem. (verse 10 below)

(There is NO WAY that this below could be having Paul disobey [a direct command of the Holy Spirit!] Surely it was as a WARNING given by Agabus for later on here in Acts 21:10-11)

[10] And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
[11] And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

(I fail to see any direct command in that verse for Paul not to go! Just a loving warning for what to expect. As Christ does Himself in Matt. 10:5-6 on, from His Own apostate ones! See verse 14-15 there! ibid.. And verses 20-25!!)

Paul was Led of the Holy Spirit & was Obedient! see Acts 16 previously.
[6] Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,
[7] After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.

--Elijah