Being led by the Spirit.

Brethren,

One of the subjects we have been discussing of late, is regarding guidance and whether we should be guided by scripture alone or whether we should be listening to the Holy Spirit speaking directly to us, to prevent the deception of our own thoughts leading us astray, or worse, the deception of the enemy who prowls like a lion, seeking whom he can destroy..

My view is that we must put the immediate and present light from the Holy Spirit first and then search the scriptures to confirm it.

I would like to present to you, a man who got it wrong for your consideration. A man who you would expect not to get it so wrong, as he had access to the holy writings of the prophets. The apostle Paul.

In Acts 21:4, God speaks to Paul through disciples who told him not to go to Jerusalem. Paul is not listening to God. He has set his mind and is determined to hasten to Jerusalem but the Holy Spirit had spoken to the others, giving His express will that Paul does not go.

"And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days, who siad to Paul through the Spirit that he should not go to Jerusalem". Literally this means, not to set foot in, not as in Acts 20:23 as a warning of danger, but now, an imperative command.

Perhaps they tarried the seven days due to lengthy discussions in the hopes of persuading Paul not to go. It was not Paul's wish however, that he was delayed. In Ephesus (Acts 18:20) he would not delay and said that he must by ALL means (18:21) go.

He was determined which meant that he was not open to the leadings of the Spirit, so would he change his plans whenever the Holy Spirit would forbid him? It seems not for in Acts 20:16, it is recorded that Paul 'hastened'. "For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus because he would not spend time in Asia, for he hastened, if it were possible for him to be at Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost".

We cannot hasten if we are being led by the Spirit of God. In fact hastening is a sign that the enemy is at work, for to walk in the light means that every step that we take, must be taken deliberately and carefully according to the minute by minute guidance that living in close communion to Christ brings.

Paul has lost his way and is now driven by his own thoughts, which are not wrong in themselves, after all, his desire was to serve Christ and those who were preaching the gospel. He had not turned aside from his ministry but he had ceased to hear God speaking directly and immediately and when that failed God tried to speak through the disciples. Intention does not count in the kingdom. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. He was playing straight into the hand of the enemy, who more than anything else, wanted to end Paul's missionary journeys and have him imprisoned. In fact that was what happened as you recall.If Paul had thought "Oh I cannot be deceived, I am a child of God" he would be wrong, and so are we.

Paul called the elders at Ephesus to him at Miletus and said his goodbyes to them explaining that he was 'bound in the spirit" (Acts 20:22) which was actually his own spirit whereas in 21:4 it is the Holy Spirit telling Paul not to go.

The final warning came in Cesarea, this time, not in words which had failed so far, but by way iof a physical demonstration which convinced Paul's travelling companions (21:12) so that they and Philip the evangelist, all men of God and led by the Spirit, untied in their immediate and direct discernment that God was commanding Paul not to go. They "besought him not to go".

Christ has said "when two or more are gathered in my name" or are in agreement " there I am in the midst of them" which is sufficient warning to us whenever we decide to go it alone and step outside of the counsel of the brethren.

What was Paul thinking of? His fellow disciples gave up, realising that Paul's mind was set and closed. They ceased (21:14) and could only put the situation in God's hands: "The will of the Lord be done" and resigned themselves to accompanying Paul despite their understanding that it was not God's will and their stubborn brother in Christ was in mortal danger.

You may say "But God used him in prison!". Indeed - God uses every opportunity He can get to use us even if we have stepped outside of close communion with Him.

But note that God did not intervene to stop Paul. He allows us to be deceived and to go our own ways. He has provided all that is necessary for us through the baptism of the Spirit to discern His workings. However sometimes that is not enough. Let us take Paul's example and listen carefully to what God is saying to us.

Hi Brenda, I believe that you are in error with your conclusions. Of course these are just my thoughts but let me explain. Here in the same chapter, Acts 21, we see from Agabus the specific words............

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. (Act 21:11)

You see, this is the word of knowledge or prophecy from an acknowledged Prophet. Then, in the flesh they add their concerns..........

And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. (Act 21:12-13)

You see, the first part was the prophecy and the second part was their fleshly and understandable response to it. Yet Paul, with all the vision and the revelation from God, knew what was in store and that indeed these things would happen but that they were the will of God. Higher and more glorious is the path that denies the flesh and willingly suffers for the cause of Christ. We overcome the enemy by the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony and this most important part that so many men have resisted down through the ages but a smaller more glorious group have not " and they loved not their lives unto death." These are the heroes of the Church that we read about in the last 2000 years.

Here is Matthew Henry's take on the Scripture you gave sister and you will see that it falls in line for what I have just laid out for Acts 21:11 and gives context to the Scripture that you used as your example. Matthew Henry says of Acts 21:4..............

"3. The disciples at Tyre were endowed with such gifts that they could by the Spirit foretel the troubles Paul would meet with at Jerusalem; for the Holy Ghost witnessed it in every city, Act_20:23. Being a thing that would be so much talked of when it came to pass, God saw fit to have it much prophesied of before, that people's faith, instead of being offended, might be confirmed. And withal they were endowed with such graces that foreseeing his troubles, out of love to him and concern for the church, especially the churches of the Gentiles, that could ill spare him, they begged of him that he would not go up to Jerusalem, for they hoped the decree was conditional: If he go up, he will come into trouble there; as the prediction to David that the men of Keilah will deliver him up (that is, if he venture himself with them); and therefore they said to him, by the Spirit, that he should not go up, because they concluded it would be most for the glory of God that he should continue at liberty; and it was not at all their fault to think so, and consequently to dissuade him; but it was their mistake, for his trial would be for the glory of God and the furtherance of the gospel, and he knew it; and the importunity that was used with him, to dissuade him from it, renders his pious and truly heroic resolution the more illustrious."

We must at all times follow the Spirit and not the flesh dear sister. For as Matthew says, our trials are for the glory of God and we should not be dissauded by the nature of them and finally Matthew concludes that Paul's actions were all the more " pious and truly heroic," and his resolution all " the more illustrious." I am in complete agreement with this and respectively disagree with your premise and conclusions.............bro Frank

Brother Frank

Thank you for taking the time to give me your understanding of these scriptures. I appreciate it. I do know that the established position is as you have said. It was how l used to see it myself.

But l must still respectfully disagree with that interpretation. The vision given to Agabus, was l feel, to be a warning and especially when the others also felt it was out of the will of God for Paul to go.

It was not the usual way for God to graphically show the suffering that lay ahead of His apostles. To me, it could only be a warning but Paul had it in his mind be that he was willing to sacrifice himself. All very well if we are called to do that but l don't think Paul was called to do so on this occasion. Otherwise there would be no warnings nor would the disciples be in agreement with each other and upset that Paul was rejecting their counsel.

Further to this, when he was interrogated, he insulted a priest and then denied that he knew he was speaking to a priest - definitely out of order and a downright lie from the fallen Paul.

No, l am convinced that our dear brother had a fall from grace, like Peter, and which we are all in danger of if we are walking in the light. It matters not what our position is or how high up we are, it is the same, if flesh is allowed any space then down we will go.

After all of the training that Paul went through and his important role in the church , it could not have been God's will for him to die because he went up to Jerusalem. God likes us to stay alive as long as possible when we have become matured but Satan wants to take us out and sometimes succeeds.

Paul suffered ship wrecks and beatings. You are using Eisegesis.

Dear Brenda,

Respectfully, I agree with Frank and others on this one. By the Holy Spirit we can receive warnings for God always warns his people. But a man or a woman who belongs to Christ may choose the more difficult way. The history of the church is replete with such stories.

Think of Bonhoeffer who was warned of danger in staying in Germany during the reign of Hitler.

Or John Harper, a Scottish preacher who was warned by members of his congregation not to take a trip to preach in Chicago in 1912. He spoke something similar to Paul, that he was compelled to go and considered his life worth nothing if only he completed the task the Lotd Jesus had given him.
The ship he boarded was the Titanic and he was valiantly preaching the gospel to the very end when he threw his life vest to a young man who did not know Christ. He laid his life down for many.
A warning from the Holy Spirit or a word of knowledge is not always a mandate that requires obedience. It is a loving and compassionate Word from our Lord to his own precious children that they may choose the difficult way but does not demand it.

Just my thoughts as I pondered the question.

Sis L

Hi Brenda,

Todd gave us Acts 9 which clearly shows that Paul was shown the sufferings that were to come, he had already "seen," it. The man who has been given revelation by God will not be swayed with those who have been given limited revelation. The Holy Spirit gives the measure and we know what kind of measure was given to Paul.

You write.........

"Further to this, when he was interrogated, he insulted a priest and then denied that he knew he was speaking to a priest - definitely out of order and a downright lie from the fallen Paul. No, l am convinced that our dear brother had a fall from grace."

Brenda, that is indeed possible but I think unlikely given all that we know about Paul in it's entirety. Can I give you what I consider to be a more plausible explanation?

And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. (Act 9:8-9)

Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. (Gal 4:13-15)

Paul it seems had some terrible problems with his eyes and the Galatians it seems loved him so much that they would have plucked out their own eyes and gave them to him. If one who had such eye problems mistoook who spoke in a crowded noisy room, we could easily understand this. To categorize it as a downright lie from the fallen Paul seems ungenerous Brenda especially when built upon conjecture, we must think the best of our brothers and sisters unless we know things for a fact it seems to me. God bless you............bro Frank

Act 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

Paul is speaking about his conscience in regard to the matter Brenda spoke of as he stood before the high priest. He had a clear conscience long after the fact. He acknowledged that he caused a rucus when he says this..........

(Act 24:20-21)Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council, Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.

by brenda7 on 2016/7/1 11:38:42

After all of the training that Paul went through and his important role in the church , it could not have been God's will for him to die because he went up to Jerusalem. God likes us to stay alive as long as possible when we have become matured but Satan wants to take us out and sometimes succeeds.

So true, "my people perish for lack of knowledge".

Romans 12:2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, THAT YE MAY PROVE what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, WILL OF GOD.

Dear brothers and sisters

Thank you for joining in and commenting.

Can we please leave sexism out of my thread please? It only serves to bring contention. Please start another thread if you wish to discuss this savannah.

You seem to have missed this verse:

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Ephesians 5:21

I am allowed to discuss whatsoever I wish within the bounds set by the moderator on this forum. It is not a church or a marriage and is open for men and women for expressing our views. It is not your forum and it is not banned either to have another slant on texts, and in fact, theologians are noted for their lack of spirituality so we should not be surprised to find that the conventional view is not held by those who have a deeper knowledge of the ways of God.

Despite what you said, I had an amazing time this morning in the supermarket when the presence of the Lord fell on me and I walked around softly singing the hymn - Lo He comes with clouds descending:

http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/l/l187.html

It is wonderful to be persecuted praise the Lord! Bless you!

Frank brother

I think Paul was refering to what he had said here:

12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:

13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.

So he was answering the previous accusations.

I do know that the convential interpretation is that Paul could not see the high priest. I do not find that plausible. Paul, being a highly intelligent educated man, and a Roman citizen to boot, would have made sure that he was in a position to see and hear all that was said, as he showed himself perfectly able to defend himself.

The earlier incident when he was led because of his temporary blindness has nothing to do with his current problem I believe and his problem seems to have been with the written word which does not necessarily mean that normal seeing was also affected. I think that has been un-neccessarily added in. He was a tentmaker and so needed sufficient eyesight for that.

I also think that he may have been spoken to prior to the trial by the high priest so he would have been familiar with who he was and his position in the courtroom would have shown it too I am sure. No I do not think that it adds up.

I only speak of Paul in this way because I understand the state of sanctification he was in prior to his fall from grace, in not listening to the Holy Spirit. It is something that I am guilty of too.

Ron, I think that his subject is very important and can be of great help to us in our walk.

Sandra, we have to add the warning to what he disciples had been saying and their unity regarding disagreeing with Paul.

Todd:

" I think they saw it as needless waste of this apostle and were right to state their hearts on the matter."

Oh yes agreed. Everyone was against Paul though which is very significant to me. Being a martyr was nothing to be afraid of if it was God's will - they would have been rejoicing for Paul.

Sister Les

Paul was in a rather different position than the saints you mentioned - there were not many of them and Paul's journeys were so important and nobody else could do them probably. To have something happen to such a key worker at this stage would have been deadly to the spread of the gospel. By God's grace it was not. I don't think that it was the most difficult way that Paul chose, it was just at odds with what God had called him for. We are not to seek martyrdom but accept it if it comes.

Tim, Luke recorded what happened without comment on Paul. I don't see that unusual.

Thanks again brethren.

Edit:

This is a very interesting topic and thank you for bringing it up, Brenda. Your first post has some real "pearls" in it and I will isolate them and talk about them, later.

But, in re-reading and studying the different texts, I have questions, I never had before.

I find it strange that God repeatedly warned Paul of what would happen if he went to Jerusalem. Paul was not a dense person by any means. Why did God need to tell Paul the same thing, over and over? God was clearly not warning the Church of Paul's coming sufferings, as the prophecies kept going to Paul not the Church.

Agabus did not go from church to church sharing his warnings about Paul, he only went to Paul. What then was God's purpose in warning Paul time after time after time? In all known instances in the Bible where God has repeatedly warned a man of future consequences related to his conduct and behavior, the purpose was always to stop him. God's purpose in Paul's case is made very clear in Acts 21:4.

Act 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.

All attempts to work around this text that I have read seem to reject the plain meaning of the text.

I don't see any evidence that God ever directed Paul to go to Jerusalem.

In Acts 20:22, was Paul referring to his spirit or the Holy Spirit.

Act 20:22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:

Is Paul making a distinction between his spirit and the Holy Spirit? Is he (in verse 22) admitting, maybe unwittingly, that he is in bondage to his own desire, or to his own sense of duty.

It looks like to me that Paul's visit to Jerusalem was not for any good purpose and if he heeded the Lord's warnings he would have gone to Rome sooner. He would have preached there as a free man, maybe even stayed longer and gone onto Spain for more fruitful ministry.

Maybe Romans 15:28 was the Lord's true direction for his life. Could he have not fulfilled his true potential because he stepped out of God's will? An important lesson for all of us. Any wrongheaded detour for any of us will always be a setback for the Church.

Rom 15:28 When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.

Did Paul present a strong witness to the Sanhedrin while in Jerusalem? No, he embarrassed himself and the gospel by his fleshly outburst against the high priest. Paul had no alternative but to apologize for breaking the law.

I think the scriptures are revealing to us Paul's disobedience and interestingly the scriptures do not reveal anything of his martyrdom so as not to exalt Paul, the disciple. The only hero of the New Testament is Jesus Christ.

The brethren and Paul's friends, finally gave up in trying to change Paul's mind. They accepted that Paul was determined and this was communicated to them in no uncertain terms as Paul's final word on the subject. God had choses to let Paul have his own way, even though He could have stopped him via circumstances or a vision or given him the grace to humble himself and admit his error. But, as in all of our lives, God gives us control over our own life so that we may learn lessons that regrettably can only be learned through disobedience.

This is not new: Paul is not the first to fail God.

1. Abraham lied about Sarah being his sister.
2. Peter failed God in Galatia.
3. Moses failed to enter the Promised Land by demeaning God through an impulsive explosion of anger.
4. David, lusted after Bathsheba. It was said of him that he was the "man after God's own heart".

The list goes on and on. God has a purpose in showing us the weakness, the besetting sin that clings to the best of men. No mere man has ever been turned into a hero. God won't have that. The only hero in the Bible is God. I know it is hard for us to imagine but even the great apostle Paul was imperfect. The chief of sinners was still a sinner.

(Edit: Originally I wrote, "The chief of sinners was still a sinner. This is not correct. Thank you, Brenda for bringing this to my attention. I never refer to saints as sinner so I mispoke on this and it does not convey by thoughts. What I was trying to communicate is that we are all mere men and can get out of God's will, sometimes. Even Paul. Peter got out of God's will in Galatia, yet all of his writings are inspired and trustworthy. David committed adultery yet the Psalms are trustworthy and inspired. Abraham lied about his wife being his sister, Moses sinned and was not allowed into the Promise Land. All of these men got out of God's will, yet God used them to pen a portion of the inspired Scriptures and they were godly men.)

Continuing:
I think the key was that Paul was not content to just bring the gospel to the Gentiles. And some hints of this can be found in Rom. 10:1 and 9:1-3. And I can understand and sympathize with Paul that maybe even dearer to him than the lost gentiles was his own people. He mourned terribly at what awaited those who rejected the Messiah. They were his kin and he knew except for the grace of God he would stand in their place. He was willing to suffer the wrath of God if many Jews could be saved and I think this is what was deep in his heart that undermined him and God knew the only way to bring this out of his heart so he could see and recognize it was to let him have his way. He probably thought God's command to not go was to only spare him further suffering and so he was willing, but as we all see, he did not accomplish anything by casting God's direction through the Church (many witnesses) aside.

Then let us agree to disagree Brenda..........bro Frank

by dolfan on 2016/7/2 14:16:53

Savannah, with all respect, I didn't correct Brenda. We are having a kind discussion, all of us. Brenda is holding her ground in her honest understanding of Scriptures. She has done so sweetly. If she remains convinced of the correctness of her understanding, so be it. It is harmless, so far as I can tell, to her and anyone else. Over all, the Holy Spirit will lead her into all truth as He does for all of us. She has no obligation to us to be persuaded.

I do not want my words, please, to be lifted and pasted in an accusatory way.

Thanks for clarifying for all the readers, dolfan. For me, I did not once believe you were writing in aggression towards Brenda. I really liked your post and thought it was really seasoned with grace and you are right, her view is very plausible and who knows, it could be the Holy Spirit's view?

There are two camps on this issue it seems and it has been around for a while. Respected men of God line up on both sides.

by Christinyou on 2016/7/2 17:30:37

Standing in Paul' defense the chief of sinners, whom God used mightily and I am sure he sits with Christ at the right hand of God in the heavenly places, where in spirit all those that believe sit also.

Loving Paul and wishing God might use me as well.

Well amen, bro. We all love Paul and thank God for him. You don't really believe this thread is questioning his salvation, do you?

Dear Gary

I believe we are talking about two different issues here: on the one hand we have warnings - which are repeated, like the red light that flashes on the dashboard of your vehicle and reqires you to STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING! and give it attention, otherwise you are going to land in some big trouble; amd on the other hand we have assurance, which only needs to be given once, as we can recall it when needed and is given so that we know that we are not doing the wrong thing: we are on the right track despite the hurdles; we should KEEP ON DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING! (not shouting, just emphasising) because there is something going on in the spiritual realm that is to say persecution, and we are to carry on doing what we are doing. This goes against what we have learned in life.

Will get back to the other comments in the morning.

Dear Gary

If we are soldiers of Christ we are to count the cost:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26-33).

So like a soldier, we are given warnings about what it means to follow Christ, prearmed and then we enter the battle and expect to be persecuted, hated and killed, we do not need to be warned other than that so we should not be shocked or expect anything other than warfare. Sometimes God does give a forewarning so that we can escape a situation.

That is not to say that we never are warned but it is not to do as you say. When I receive bad treatment and my family does not class me as one of them and give help when needed,(which I am not - I am in the kingdom) or whenever anyone says unjust things about me or attacks me, it only serves to let me know that I am very much in the kingdom and causes me to rejoice.

And as Julius has said so well, if Paul was listening then the HS would not have to keep repeating Himself to Paul.

God will often let us go our way until we reap what we have sown but He does not desert us and will sometimes give us encouragement as He did with Paul but He let the circumstances play out so that Paul could learn his lesson.

Dear Philip

When we are in God's will and walking in the light or in grace, we can fall from that as Peter did when Paul had to confront him and bring him back. It does not mean that we are no longer children of God.

If we are not hearing God speak within or from others, we have started to listen to what we ourselves want even if there is nothing intrinsically sinful in the desire. Also it leads to listening to the enemy which is one stage futher. All must be submitted to God's rule.

Dear Julius

Many thanks for such an excellent post, and for the insights you have shared such as these:

"God was clearly not warning the Church of Paul's coming sufferings, as the prophecies kept going to Paul not the Church".

"Agabus did not go from church to church sharing his warnings about Paul, he only went to Paul. What then was God's purpose in warning Paul time after time after time? In all known instances in the Bible where God has repeatedly warned a man of future consequences related to his conduct and behavior, the purpose was always to stop him. God's purpose in Paul's case is made very clear in Acts 21:4."

"It looks like to me that Paul's visit to Jerusalem was not for any good purpose and if he heeded the Lord's warnings he would have gone to Rome sooner. He would have preached there as a free man, maybe even stayed longer and gone onto Spain for more fruitful ministry."

"Did Paul present a strong witness to the Sanhedrin while in Jerusalem? No, he embarrassed himself and the gospel by his fleshly outburst against the high priest. Paul had no alternative but to apologize for breaking the law."

But this is where I differ:

" I know it is hard for us to imagine but even the great apostle Paul was imperfect. The chief of sinners was still a sinner."

Paul does say in a few places that he was perfect or that perfection was expected:

28. Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus Col 1

6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world 1 Cor 2

10 Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe 1 Thes 2.

And he also called on others to copy him in his behaviour.

My understanding is that this was an occassion like that of Peter when the apostle fell from his state of perfection whatever we understand by that and was hopefully restored.

These aberations were spoken about by John Wesley where he said that it is possible to lose the entirely sanctified state many times.

Sorry Gary - give me the text please.

Gary brother

It was indeed a prophecy from Abagus as to what was to happen to Paul in Jerusalem. God knew that Paul's mind was set on going and that previously he had ignored the discernment of the disciples, so a stronger demonstration was to be given.

He had also said that Ninevah was to be destroyed but changed His plan on that.

The disciples took this as God intended and as a warning for him not to go. But Paul thought that they were all wrong in trying to stop him and that was to be his fate.

It is inconceivable to me that the disciples, were all wrong when they were united in their conviction that Paul was being misled. Maybe one or at the most two, might have been mistaken but not all of them.

And we have to add it to the previous verse quoted by Julius:

Act 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.

This from Luke could not be clearer. He records that the Holy Spirit told Paul not to go to Jerusalem or are you saying that Luke got that wrong too and he was not inspired when he wrote it?

All of the apostles were at that time, almost certain to lose their lives and will have known it, it does not seem possible to me that ALL of them would be trying to impede the work of God if He was telling Paul to go to his possible death.

It also said that they gave up and placed it in God's hands. Instead they should have been repenting and apologising to Paul.

What you are saying, is that these men who had been through hell and high water, walked physically and knew intimately the Lord, and no doubt like Peter had bitterly wept at deserting their Lord at the crucifixion, were now being loyal to Paul instead of Christ.

Taking everything together, the conventional interpretation does not seem feasible to me.

You seem to be basng your argument on ' compelled by the spirit' which l have not put in capitals because the scripture does not seem to tell us whether it was Paul's spirit or the Holy Spirit so we have to look elsewhere for understanding.

I don't think it puts any doubt on the rest of his writings if what l say is true, that it was a time when he was out of God's will.

Some of the other disciples wrote scripture too such as John and Peter so according to your reasoning, their writings have to come under doubt if we are consistent.

by brenda7 on 2016/7/3 7:29:34

You seem to be basng your argument on ' compelled by the spirit' which l have not put in capitals because the scripture does not seem to tell us whether it was Paul's spirit or the Holy Spirit so we have to look elsewhere for understanding.

I don't think it puts any doubt on the rest of his writings if what l say is true, that it was a time when he was out of God's will.

Some of the other disciples wrote scripture too such as John and Peter so according to your reasoning, their writings have to come under doubt if we are consistent.

That is true Brenda, Peter for a short time was representing "another gospel" by his behavior and conduct in Galatia and Paul "withstood him to the face" and publicly rebuked him. This incident in no way casts doubt for me on his writings being inspired by God. It was not God's will that Peter sin in this way.

David was an adulterer, yet I believe all of his writings were inspired by God.

God refused to let Moses into the Promised Land because of his sin, does that mean that the Pentateuch is not inspired? No!

God is not the author of our sin.

This is not a good argument for saying Paul NEVER got out of God's will.

MEN (not gods) were moved (inspired) by the Holy Spirit to write the Bible. MEN!!

By the way, I never refer to Saints as sinners and I appreciate you bringing that one statement of mine to my attention. I will leave it since you referred to it, but enter a line of correction below out if That is ok? That did not really come out the way I meant for it to.

I made the correction. Thanks, again!

by TMK on 2016/7/3 14:34:27

Further, when he says he did not know he was speaking to the High Priest, why in the world would we call him a liar? It doesn't seem very Paul-ish that he would lie about such a thing.

So, you are saying that it is ok to speak to others like this? Or are we to suffer persecution without threatening vengeance upon others?

Act 23:3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

Act 23:5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

We are not really to speak evil of any ruler, correct? I think Paul's passions got the best of him in this case.

by TMK on 2016/7/3 14:34:27
Every person must be true to his own conviction. Paul was upset that his friends were crying and begging him not to go.

Was it their conviction? Or was it the conviction of the Holy Spirit?

Act 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
Act 21:11 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.

TMK, I can see both side of this conversation and as well, I see deep spiritual lessons from both sides so I guess I profit twice over from these passages of scriptures and the lessons taught from both points of view.

It is interesting that according to some records Ananias was actually not officially the high priest:

---

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

And the high priest Ananias - This Ananias was doubtless the son of Nebedinus (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 5, section 3), who was high priest when Quadratus, who preceded Felix, was president of Syria. He was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus, at the same time with Ananias, the prefect of the temple, that they might give an account of their conduct to Claudius Caesar (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 6, section 2). But in consequence of the intercession of Agrippa the younger, they were dismissed and returned to Jerusalem. Ananias, however, was not restored to the office of high priest. For, when Felix was governor of Judea, this office was filled by Jonathan, who succeeded Ananias I (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 10). Jonathan was slain in the temple itself, by the instigation of Felix, by assassins who had been hired for the purpose. This murder is thus described by Josephus (Antiq., book 20, chapter 8, section 5): "Felix bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest, because he frequently gave him admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest complaints should be made against him, since he had procured of Caesar the appointment of Felix as procurator of Judea. Accordingly, Felix contrived a method by which he might get rid of Jonathan, whose admonitions had become troublesome to him. Felix persuaded one of Jonathan‘s most faithful friends, of the name Doras, to bring the robbers upon him, and to put him to death.”

This was done in Jerusalem. The robbers came into the city as if to worship God, and with daggers, which they had concealed under their garments, they put him to death. After the death of Jonathan, the office of high priest remained vacant until King Agrippa appointed Ismael, the son of Fabi, to the office (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 8, section 8). It was during this interval, while the office of high priest was vacant, that the events which are here recorded took place. Ananias was then at Jerusalem; and as the office of high priest was vacant, and as he was the last person who had borne the office, it was natural that he should discharge, probably by common consent, its duties, so far, at least, as to preside in the Sanhedrin. Of these facts Paul would be doubtless apprised; and hence, what he said Acts 23:5 was strictly true, and is one of the evidences that Luke‘s history accords precisely with the special circumstances which then existed. When Luke here calls Ananias "the high priest,” he evidently intends not to affirm that he was actually such, but to use the word, as the Jews did, as applicable to one who had been in that office, and who, on that occasion, when the office was vacant, performed its duties.

from: https://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/23-2.html

Vincent's Word Studies

Ananias

He is described as a revengeful and rapacious tyrant. We are told that he reduced the inferior priests almost to starvation by defrauding them of their tithes, and sent his creatures to the threshing-floors with bludgeons to seize the tithes by force.

Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament

Ananias (ανανιας ”” Hananias). Not the one in Luke 3:2; John 18:13; Acts 4:7, but the son of Nebedaeus, nominated high priest by Herod, King of Chalcis, a.d. 48 and till a.d. 59. He was called to Rome a.d. 52 to answer "a charge of rapine and cruelty made against him by the Samaritans, but honourably acquitted” (Page). Though high priest, he was a man of bad character.

by TMK on 2016/7/3 17:01:46

I don't know J- Jesus called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers." Paul got whacked in the mouth unjustly and he was just calling out the hyprocrisy of the situation. At that point, Paul had not said anything that deserved getting struck.

Saying "God will get you for that" is a tad different from saying "I'm gonna get you for that."

I think you make some good points. I also think we would all be quite foolish in thinking none of the apostles ever got out of the will of God. The Church tends to raise men much higher than they should be and even Paul cautions against this. It is not important that we think they were absolutely perfect never making any mistakes concerning the will of God. What is important is knowing that they were called by God, loved God and served him with all their heart. They needed the Lord just as much as we do and the spiritual warfare against them was great, more than we can realize. We should not think the Lord never had to correct them or chastise them (Heb 12). That is extremely unrealistic.

Believing Paul or Peter were fallible and missed it, does not in any way cast aspersions on the inspired Word of God. We should all be used to the fact in the OT, God let man's failings (men of God) "all hang out". God does not hide anything from us.

What experiences did Paul have to be able to write scriptures such as these?

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 1 Cor 10:12

Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, Phil 3:13

Something else to ponder. Not theory to Paul.

No one questions whether Paul's words were inspired by the Holy Spirit or not.

It had already been stated that it is not clear what spirit is being spoken of. Paul's or the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing heretical about the view that Paul was being warned by the Holy spirit not to go to Jerusalem. Heresy is a very bad word to use and borders on the melodramatic. And the only purpose I can see for you to use the word "heretical" is to stop discussion on this. The "heresy" card is usually pulled in order to stop discussion.

And I have already said that I can see both views, equally plausible and I can also draw spiritual lessons from both views. Do I favor one view over the other? I'm kind of in the middle right now. Asking the Holy Spirit for more light. I consider it a non-essential, that should not divide brethren.

KJV says, "he went bound in the spirit". Don't know what version you are reading. He could have been "bound" and determined in his own spirit to do so.

Here is the Greek word used here. Nothing to do with compelled.
δέω
deō
deh'-o
A primary verb; to bind (in various applications, literally or figuratively): - bind, be in bonds, knit, tie, wind. See also G1163, G1189.

This verse is very clear to me.
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.

Paul was told through the Spirit (Holy Spirit) to NOT go to Jerusalem. This verse cannot be any plainer.

Paul decided to go regardless of what the Holy Spirit said through the brethren. Why he decided to disregard the Spirit, many people have put forth several conjectures.

May I remind you that Peter, an apostle was deceived in Galatia.

Again, this does not bring the scriptures in question to me. I'm sorry if it makes you not trust the scriptures. God doesn't hide anything, He doesn't sweep anything under the rug. David, Moses, Abraham and Peter sinned but were incredibly used of God.

Tim

"Paul did not speak evil to Ananias."

I do not agree with that. Paul was in front of a court of law and you are not allowed to speak disrespectfully otherwise you are in contempt of court. Calling a court official names is disrespectful and I am surprised he got away with it .

Julius

Thanks for the correction.

"May I remind you that Peter, an apostle was deceived in Galatia."

Indeed well said, Peter also had a fall from grace, but was then restored. The problem is with not understanding the state of entire sanctification that the apostles were in. While in that state they would not be in any way out of God's will but no man is unable to fall from it.

Gary

"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."

Jesus encouraged him that he would testify also in Rome, so that God was bringing something good out of it, that is all.So I thihk that Paul knew by then that he had acted unwisely and was repentant. No need for God to convict him. Just conjecture of course. We need to read into the text sometimes what is just implied.

Paul said in 1Cor 7:

6. But I speak this by permission and not of commandment.

He knew what God had spoken and when He had Paul would prophesy and speak inerrantly. If he was in the will of God, not like the false prophets today who often get it wrong from their normal position. No man can stand without falling from perfection and we have an example of Peter too. Others in the OT were recorded as sinning but that was before they were entirely sanctified.

Fletcher

I don't think he had just got worn out. He did not sound resigned to it but was committed to do what He thought God had said to him. His life wqas so precious tot he spread of the gospel and for the teaching of the churches that I cannot believe that he was not entirely aware of his importance to Christ and would want to preserve his life as long as possible as do all saints who have been through a very long or tough training, no matter what they suffer.

Greg

Very interesting thanks.

Mary

You are talking about an unbaptised in the Spirit Peter when he denied what Jesus wanted to do. He was an entirely different man afterwards. Sorry you feel that way about SI. I feel that here is much to learn from this event with Paul for our own walks.

Travis

Thanks for that, I had not read it before I saw it myself.

Act 20:23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.

Act 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.

These two verses leave open a lot of speculation.

If verse 21:4 did not have the phrase "through the Spirit", I might have a different mind on this, but "through the Spirit", they indicated "that He should not go up to Jerusalem."

Now, is God the author of confusion? No! He says what He means and means what He says.

Why would God "through the Spirit" say don't go up to Jerusalem but then mean "whatever you want to do Paul is fine with me?"

It seems God is going through great lengths to warn him not to go.

Here is a question: God goes to great lengths to tell Paul not to go,,, where is it recorded that God told Paul to go? Paul normally will tell us that God led him to go someplace or appeared to him in a vision for instance to go to Macedonia, but here, I don't recall Paul speaking of the conviction that God is leading him to go, only that He is bound and determined to go regardless of what the Holy Spirit is saying through the church.

I don't think the Lord told him to go. He is not the author of confusion. He wouldn't tell him to go and then tell him not to go.

Hey Tim

Thanks. Paul said he had a clear conscience which was the truth, but it made Ananias order a physical rebuke (to which Paul did not, incidentally offer the other cheek or side of the mouth as commanded but responded with an insult) and l do not know whether he had broken some Jewish custom, but obviously Ananias had no right to have a Roman struck.

Nonetheless, Paul was answering charges even though he was no longer of the Jewish faith, regarding his behaviour in the temple, so l would think that there was jurisdiction for it and if found guilty, he would be charged by Roman soldiers. So yes they probably were acting legally but even if not, apart from the trumped up charges, Paul was dealing with authorities and acted in an unseemly manner failing to show due respect.

We are taught to honour authority but Paul insulted the supposedly high priest by calling him a whitened wall whatever that would mean to Ananias and said he hoped that God would strike him, thereby raising his own fist by proxy. Jesus had authority that men do not have and His purpose was to be killed anyway. Paul's was to spread the gospel.

Brothers and sisters, no-one is answering Julius' excellent point concerning the verse that clearly says that the Spirit said to Paul that he should not go.

Instead, it seems that minor details are being wrung out in order to find loopholes or prove them wrong.

It is simple - God said do not go, the disciples said do not go, but Paul went. Therefore he was acting in the flesh.

He only seems to have had one blip in his record, though a devastating one, so is not being discredited. I am sure he bitterly repented of it like Peter and his blip. He still is the greatest saint in my estimation.

Brother Gary

Thank you so much for bringing that scene in the jail to my attention, where the Lord says to Paul, cheer up!

The more I have thought about that the more I have been blessed. This is why-

Paul had not been hearing God speak to him for whatever reason. He had slipped back into the flesh, probably because he had become obssessed with one thought - to be in Jerusalem.

He would not even take counsel in numbers.

So he ends up in prison and the reality sunk in - he had acted from his own thoughts and not by obeying the heavenly light within him.

His devastation must have been profound. He he was stuck in prison and prevented from his work. Being imprisoned was not the problem. We must never compare the apostles to ourselves. These were men in the greatest revival ever. Lock them up and they would sing all night and the jailors would be saved! Chop their heads off and they would go gladly to their deaths!

No his despair was due to losing his sanctified state and contact with his Lord. But here is the wonderful thing! God appeared! He spoke and Paul was back in fellowship. Instead of saying 'Now look Paul, you have been a very bad boy' God gave him encouragement. That touches me deeply. He has been the same with me over and over.

Brenda,

This episode in the Church and specifically in Paul's life actually makes me appreciate him more than I ever have, because it reminds me that he was a man, dependent on the Lord, like the rest of us. I also don't think the Church, including me has had an appreciation for the spiritual warfare that advanced saints are in, especially the apostles. This story in Acts reminds me just how crafty the Enemy is that he would use something ostensibly good and holy to derail us from the will of God.

Paul also wrote this and I believe he personally had encounters with the beguiling craftiness and subtlety of the Enemy.

2Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

I wonder what the whole story behind these verses are?
2Co 11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

or this:

Php 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

I know Paul was yearning to go to Jerusalem and preach and teach to the Jews. He could identify with them and as his kinsman, he had a very strong connection and love for them. A former Pharisee, born again and reaching other Jews, it seems from my own understanding to be the logical thing. Don't many think that way today? A former Rock star should evangelize other rock stars, former Hollywood actor should reach other actors, former Catholic priest, preaches to other Catholic priests? Maybe it seemed that way to Paul, too. I don't know. No one really does. But, we know that God does not roll by man's logic or what seems "right". All we have to know is how the Enemy tends to work, appealing to our natural skills, our background and possibly our pride about them.

The spiritual battles that Paul encountered were fierce and merciless. Even though we are not to compare ourselves among ourselves, I think he was the greatest apostle.

Julius

I think it may have been Paul's stumbling block - that he had such passion for his people, and it caused him to fall. He had said hadn't he, that he wished that he could be lost so that his fellow Jews could be saved. Such was the man of deep passions. I too have renewed admiration for him through this study and could nearly feel what the scene in the prison was like when God turned up.

Indeed the battle is fierce for the advanced and we can only stand in wonder at what the apostles went through.

Dear Tim

Would it not be proper to respond, "Who do you think you are? You have no authority to condemn me nor to find contempt in my plea?" Or, do you think that disrespectful? Should it be expected that if someone without actual authority speaks with authority and condemnation that they should be vigorously challenged? What if they SHOULD be: is the use of strong language of that culture inappropriate? (Not profanity, but aggressive push back and even insult.). What if the language, though strong and aggressive and even personal, is actually a valid and applicable term for that setting? (What if the rules of that setting let you actually use such words and tone?)

Our behaviour is not to be governed by the culture in which we live, but by the word of God.

Paul had said:

3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" Acts 23:3.

Scripture says:

9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. James 3:9-10.

So was Paul uttering a curse or a blessing? "May God strike you" - what was that?

3 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Titus 3:1-4

"You are a hypocrit" - what was that? Was that gentle and meek?

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Matthew 5

Did Paul answer in accordance with his Master who:

7 was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Isaiah 53

If Paul thought that it was God's will that he went up to Jerusalem and was to be bound and imprisoned, why would he be speaking so? Why was he not silent like Christ who was obeying God? Why was he vigorously defending himself and telling Ananais that he would be punished by God for his action?

This does not sound like a man who was pleased to be counted one of those who suffered for the gospel's sake and who had great joy in his suffering at this point.

We cannot condemn Paul for his behaviour however, apart from knowing that he was acting from his flesh, as was Peter for a short time, as all men are capable of all things under enough pressure. To be afraid to see Paul warts and all is to be self righteous imo. If we accept the truth about Paul's failure and we are self righteous, we will have no option but to condemn him and think that we are better, and hence call all scripture by him into question.

Paul's own words must mean something:

Act 23:5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for IT IS WRITTEN, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

"Whited wall", by the way means hypocrite.

Brenda writes..........

Did Paul answer in accordance with his Master who:
7 was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Isaiah 53........."You are a hypocrit" - what was that? Was that gentle and meek?

Below are some quotes from Jesus in Matt 23 in which he calls the Pharisees hypocrites multiple times. He calls them blind and fools over and over again. Given the logic that you use sister against Paul, will you next accuse our Lord of having fallen from grace? Do you believe that the Lord was sinless as a man and as God? If you do, how do you explain, using your logic, Jesus roundly condemning these men with the harshest words possible? On the sermon on the mount He talked about the deep danger of calling anyone a fool. So again, using your argument, is it possible you would criticize Jesus too? By the way, I do not think Paul was sinless ..........bro Frank

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mat 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

But doesn't Paul indict or rather correct himself in Acts 23:5?

He basically apologizes. Something about this instance MUST be different than Jesus.

Hi Julias,

He does not correct himself, he said that he was not aware that he was the high priest. So, he is not apologizing for something he knowingly did, which again points to the truthfulness of the fact that he genuinely did not know. I was addressing Brenda's point that Jesus never acted in such a fashion or spoke in such a way which is simply not correct as seen in Matt 23.............bro Frank

I asked this already and it still is a curious point that really stands out to me. Where is the direction from the Lord (dream, vision, confirmation from the Church) that Paul was supposed to go to Jerusalem. We have direction from the Church that he should not go, but where is the documented account that God was instructing him to go? Many times in Scripture, Paul makes it a point to tell us how God has directed him here and there. Obviously, this was pretty important with serious consequences and God would have wanted Paul to have full assurance that He actually led him to Jerusalem at this time.

These verses are also very significant to me, that God tells Paul to "make haste and get out of Jerusalem for they will not receive your testimony of me". Of course, this was for another time. Had things changed? It seems that not too much had changed.

Was the Church right in warning Paul? Afterall, the warnings came "through the Spirit".

Act 22:17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;
Act 22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

Act 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.

Just something to think about. I am not being dogmatic, just considering the entire situation and as many scriptural witnesses as possible.

Actually, it would have been wrong of the disciples not to warn Paul, because it was the Holy Spirit directing them to warn him "not to go".

Here is another instance where the Holy Spirit works through the Church in Paul's life and in this case Paul, is in agreement.

Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Act 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Act 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Act 13:4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

TMK,

I use the KJV for my study Bible. All these other variations are confusing. Constrained by the Spirit, (spirit capitalized), compelled by the Spirit, etc, etc. I don't see those definitions in the Greek. Well, I don't want to go down that road, so here is my final word. In my fellowship, I cannot ever remember an argument amongst brothers. The word says to, endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and this is very important to us.

Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

When we get to a place where there are differences of opinion we always know that God has "one mind" on things (subjects), not two minds. No confusion from God. So, we then believe we should give the subject a rest, and seek the Lord for more light. He is able to bring agreement. That seems where we are here. We need more light and I am sure everyone wants to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Very good thread, lots to think about and pray about. I am now reviewing all the times Paul was called to the Gentiles and doing a study on the Lord's divine guidance in Paul's life. As I said before (a couple of times), I receive good spiritual lessons from either view, but mostly from the view where Paul went up to Jerusalem, against the recommendation of the Church. I actually have a much more grounded opinion of Paul than before, still with very great esteem of him.

Blessings to everyone.

I concede yours may be correct, too. :-)

Convictions and strong opinions don't equal argumentative attitude. I appreciate your contributions. Good food for thought and prayer. Thanks.

Appreciate everyone maintaining a spirit of love and courtesy. This thread was a real pleasure to be part of.

Lots of good thoughts in this thread. Iron sharpening iron is a very good thing.............bro Frank

bro Frank wrote:

"Below are some quotes from Jesus in Matt 23 in which he calls the Pharisees hypocrites multiple times. He calls them blind and fools over and over again. Given the logic that you use sister against Paul, will you next accuse our Lord of having fallen from grace? Do you believe that the Lord was sinless as a man and as God? If you do, how do you explain, using your logic, Jesus roundly condemning these men with the harshest words possible? On the sermon on the mount He talked about the deep danger of calling anyone a fool. So again, using your argument, is it possible you would criticize Jesus too? By the way, I do not think Paul was sinless ..........bro Frank"

I was referring to how the sinless Jesus conducted Himself during His trial which He knew was His Fathers will for Him. Besides, surely you agree that God can do things that we are not allowed to do? His harsh words to the Pharisees came when they were trying to trip Him up and He was allowed to bring judgement on them being God in order to give them the chance to repent. Judgment on His accusers was not appropriate at His trial however and in my understanding, should not have been at Paul's were he firmly convinced that he was acting in God's will. Why set up opposition to what God had ordained?

A number of things just do not make sense to me. First of all is the belief that it was God's choosing to take the apostle Paul out of active ministry when he was the leader in the newly established church's evangelistic mission, and there were not enough men to do the work of spreading the gospel. Paul being imprisoned must have caused the uttmost devastation for them all. The fact that Paul said that everyone had deserted him when he wrote 2 Timothy, indicates to me that the whole church was angry with him and thought that he had stepped outside of God's will and they decided to let him have it on his own. No, this tragedy and division seems to me to be the work of Satan.

Then there is the belief (not shared by me btw) that the church were expected the return of Jesus at any time. If that was so then there would have been a strong feeling of urgency to spread the gospel as much as possible. This is one of the reasons I do not go with that interpretation as they knew it would have been impossible for their generation to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. we can only imagine how they would have been discouraged by Paul's imprisonment. I would say it may have had a severely negative affect on the faith of some.

As to the trial, it also does not make sense to me when Paul snapped at the official to whom he should have shown the respect and decorum expected during trials,, then and now. He sounded like a very unhappy frustrated man to me and not the jubulant Paul were are accustomed to read about.

Add this to the clear instructions that the HS said to him not to go, I can come to no other conclusion, but brothers, I appreciate your thoughts and the manner in which you have disagreed with me. Thank you.

Tim

Sorry I thought that I had answered your questions, with one reply - that culture has nothing to do with the behaviour of a man who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

That man can act from his flesh at times granted and we have the example of Peter, but for most of the time, he should be exibiting the fruit of the Spirit - peace, joy, patience, gentleness etc.

Ananias, as an unsavoury character was due to a sticky end, anyone could see that. I don't feel that it indicates anything.

Gary this has not been an attack on Paul, the greatest apostle ever. It has been about a deeper understanding of the scripture and what took place in the early years of the church. I am sorry you took it that way. He is my favourite saint and l cannot wait to meet him. At least we will have the answer then.

Brother

This study has been a great blessing to me, for encouragement during a very trying time when all has been falling apart for me. I am greatly blessed by Paul's writings when he was walking in the light and value them greatly, but also to think of how the apostles themselves were so easily deceived really has given me the understanding, strength and determination that l was lacking before.

No man is ever safe from falling, and boy did Paul get it wrong l believe which gives me much hope and warning to cling to Christ and take care as never before.

I cannot judge Paul and you have got that wrong brother, as l have been deceived and robbed of the divine blessing of grace so many times. And l believe that Paul was walking in perfection before this deception be fell into. I have failed to keep up my own walk in perfection, but feel that the Lord is teaching me great things from Paul's story.

Blessings to you and your tender-heartedness.

Well said, Brenda. I can echo your same words as to why this study has blessed me, too. It truly is a sober reminder that anyone can miss God. You are not the only one who has robbed themselves of blessing and grace and what a bitter pill it is. But, we must not lose heart from our own mistakes, but "lift up holy hands and strengthen our feeble knees". I have a much better appreciation for many of the things Paul said now. Indeed, this was absolutely no attack on Paul or sitting in judgment of him any more than trying to learn spiritual lessons from the lives of many other saints in the Bible.

Even Paul would agree:
Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

I listened today to David Pawson preaching on the book of Acts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_WjZFfr3jM

He thinks that the reason for Luke to write Acts, was for a testimony written for Theophilis, a lawyer acting for the defence of Paul while he was imprisoned, as David summises.

He says that there was a fear amongst the disciples that there would be a split between those who followed Peter and those who followed Paul. Luke wished to make them equal and it is obvious in Acts that this idea led Luke to compare the two and emphasis the similarities by saying that they both had miracles follow them etc.

I think that Luke recorded that both Peter and Paul had episodes where they were not being led by the Spirit, as we have been discussing regarding Paul here on this thread, and that one purpose was to prevent any worshipping of either of them later on, and I do believe that Paul will have insisted that his great friend and doctor recorded his failures as well as his successes.

Well Andrew you are entitled to your opinion, stated dogmatically, just as I am to mine.

I did not just give my opinion however, I quoted scripture that said plainly that the Holy Spirit was telling Paul not to go.

Its funny how it is okay to think of Peter as going off track for a while but not Paul. A sacred cow maybe to some.

I love Paul and think he was the greatest apostle by the way. I guess you are not intetested in that though.

Andrew,

This is a valid study about Paul's life. No one is accusing him of not being perfect for none of us are.

Saints,

we are going to end this thread as enough room has been given to explore what sister Brenda has brought forth. I believe Frank's initial reply is very concise and to to the point clarifying possible confusions in the text.

I present it again:

Hi Brenda, I believe that you are in error with your conclusions. Of course these are just my thoughts but let me explain. Here in the same chapter, Acts 21, we see from Agabus the specific words............

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. (Act 21:11)

You see, this is the word of knowledge or prophecy from an acknowledged Prophet. Then, in the flesh they add their concerns..........

And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. (Act 21:12-13)

You see, the first part was the prophecy and the second part was their fleshly and understandable response to it. Yet Paul, with all the vision and the revelation from God, knew what was in store and that indeed these things would happen but that they were the will of God. Higher and more glorious is the path that denies the flesh and willingly suffers for the cause of Christ. We overcome the enemy by the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony and this most important part that so many men have resisted down through the ages but a smaller more glorious group have not " and they loved not their lives unto death." These are the heroes of the Church that we read about in the last 2000 years.

Here is Matthew Henry's take on the Scripture you gave sister and you will see that it falls in line for what I have just laid out for Acts 21:11 and gives context to the Scripture that you used as your example. Matthew Henry says of Acts 21:4..............

"3. The disciples at Tyre were endowed with such gifts that they could by the Spirit foretel the troubles Paul would meet with at Jerusalem; for the Holy Ghost witnessed it in every city, Act_20:23. Being a thing that would be so much talked of when it came to pass, God saw fit to have it much prophesied of before, that people's faith, instead of being offended, might be confirmed. And withal they were endowed with such graces that foreseeing his troubles, out of love to him and concern for the church, especially the churches of the Gentiles, that could ill spare him, they begged of him that he would not go up to Jerusalem, for they hoped the decree was conditional: If he go up, he will come into trouble there; as the prediction to David that the men of Keilah will deliver him up (that is, if he venture himself with them); and therefore they said to him, by the Spirit, that he should not go up, because they concluded it would be most for the glory of God that he should continue at liberty; and it was not at all their fault to think so, and consequently to dissuade him; but it was their mistake, for his trial would be for the glory of God and the furtherance of the gospel, and he knew it; and the importunity that was used with him, to dissuade him from it, renders his pious and truly heroic resolution the more illustrious."

We must at all times follow the Spirit and not the flesh dear sister. For as Matthew says, our trials are for the glory of God and we should not be dissauded by the nature of them and finally Matthew concludes that Paul's actions were all the more " pious and truly heroic," and his resolution all " the more illustrious." I am in complete agreement with this and respectively disagree with your premise and conclusions.............bro Frank

This thread is locked.