# Paul rejecting the word of the Spirit?



## Christopher (May 10, 2004)

What do you folks make of this occasion when Paul seems to neglect the word of the Spirit?

Acts 21.4b &quot;And through the Spirit they were telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem.&quot; 

Yet he went.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 10, 2004)

I daresay that we are obligated to take all the relevant passages together before affirming that this here was the [i:b14269d1ed]clear[/i:b14269d1ed] Spirit-directive. Acts 19:21 reads, &quot;... Paul purposed [b:b14269d1ed]in the Spirit[/b:b14269d1ed] ... to go to Jerusalem ....&quot; Taking the collection to the Jerusalem church seems to have been reckoned a Spirit-laid obligation upon Paul (see 2 Cor. 8:19). He declares that, though in every city the Holy Spirit warned him of what lay ahead (Acts 20:22-24) his resolve, which surely included the conviction he was acting in obedience to the Spirit, never faltered. 
Two conclusions can be reached regarding 21:4, consistent with the view that God does not contradict himself:
1) This warning was a powerful final testimony concerning the gravity and certainty of the trial that lay ahead. It was not meant to be contradictory to all the previous testimony. 
To me this is less satisfying than:
2) This warning was specifically related to the period of time spent waiting in Tyre. They stayed there 7 days. Then the disputed &quot;Hold-up&quot; order came from the Spirit. Or it came earlier, say as soon as they arrived, and they waited seven days total. In any case, after seven days or a few more, verse 5 relates that &quot;when we had come to the end of those days,&quot; which days? the ones spent waiting in obedience, &quot;we departed and went on our way.&quot;

(edited whoops a couplea [b:b14269d1ed]MORE[/b:b14269d1ed] times! grrrr typos!)

[Edited on 5-12-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## staythecourse (May 10, 2004)

*To start things off*

I have struggled with this too.

Off the cuff:

In both cases the Spirit in the group and the Spirit in Paul were correct but Paul's purer. In essence, one was good (the group's love for Paul and the advantage they could have by him staying) but the other was better (helping others and the kingdom by spreading the gospel).

How about like the struggle God must have had with the Son leaving the Father for the betterment of us.

That's to start it off. That's all I have been able to come up with. No research on the topic though.


----------



## Christopher (May 10, 2004)

Two conclusions can be reached regarding 21:4, consistent with the view that God does not contradict himself: 
1) This warning was a powerful final testimony concerning the gravity and certainty of the trial that lay ahead. It was not meant to be contradictory to all the previous testimony. 
To me this is less satisfying than: 


2) This warning was specifically related to the period of time spent waiting in Tyre. They stayed there 7 days. Then the disputed &quot;Hold-up&quot; order came from the Spirit. Or it came earlier, say as soon as they arrived, and they waited seven days total. In any case, after seven days or a few more, verse 8 relates that &quot;when we had come to the end of those days,&quot; which days? the ones spent waiting in obedience, &quot;we departed and went on our way.&quot; 

It appears that the warning camer before the end of the seven days. There does not seem to be any evedence to support the idea that the Spirit was only telling him to wait 7 days. 

My conclusion is Paul was acting as the HS haqd instructed him. However, there seems to be a misinterpretation or human error on the part of the church who were not meerly telling him that there ws danger ahead but who through the Holy Spirit were telling Paul NOT to go to Jerusalm. 
What implications arrise from this or is there a whole other way to see it.

I await instruction.

Christopher


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 10, 2004)

*The Implications (as I see them)*

Only three choices present: 1) the people presented the Spirit's instruction inaccurately, 2) Paul was disobedient, in that he departed for Jerusalem, 3) The people's testimony was accurate, and it was limited in duration

I think that your conclusion (#1) is not totally unwarranted, and I think my first option can certainly embrace that conclusion. But as I said, it is not my preferred conclusion. 

I prefer the latter precisely because [i:5fbdd72522]the text actually does say[/i:5fbdd72522] that the Spirit gave them this Word of instruction for Paul. It is less reasonable, I believe, to interpolate a zealous concern for Paul that overrode their zealous concern for transmitting God's Word accurately. To address the contention that there is no evidence the Spirit was ordering him to wait a limited amount of time:
There's no other evidence save that
[list:5fbdd72522]
[*:5fbdd72522]they waited seven days, minimum (depending on when the Word came), then they moved out,
[*:5fbdd72522]Paul, the slave of the Lord Jesus (Rom. 1:1, etc), was accustomed to prompt, complete obedience.
[*:5fbdd72522]the &quot;end&quot; of their stay (v.5) is explicitly mentioned also
[*:5fbdd72522]all the rest of the data indicate that the Spirit was sending Paul to Jerusalem, though trouble awaited him there
[/list:u:5fbdd72522]
Unless you are predisposed to conclude that Paul essentially ignored the disciples' presentation, or corrected them (of which the text says nothing), I think it is more in keeping with the typical reverence God's people have for the Word, Paul's being preeminently well-in-tune with the Spirit, and God's own exquisite sense of timing that we should see Paul hurrying on his own timetable (Acts 20:16), and then reverently waiting, being halted by God as he superintends all the details he has planned for his apostle's next mission.


----------



## Christopher (May 10, 2004)

Your interpretation does not flow with the prior events. Paul knew there would be trouble ahead for him and obeyed the HS and went on the journey anyway. Those he encountered knew of the danger that awaited him in Jesusalem. When he came to Tyre through Spirit the Christians warned him not to go. After severn days he went. When he got there he encountered the danger they all predicted and knew would await him. How did the waiting of seven days change the reason for the warning? Could it not have been that they had opportunity to stay seven day becasue the ship was unloading cargo and might have taken on more and that affored the opportunity to stay. I think it might be fair to say that these people migth have had a vision or &quot;revelation&quot; of the violence that awited Paul in Jerusalem and in responce to what they had seen or heard of they misinterpreted the reason for the revelation and warned him not to go (that not being the intent or purpose of the revelation, but was misinterpreted by them).

&quot;they waited seven days, minimum (depending on when the Word came), then they moved out, &quot;

The descion to visit with them for seven days seems to have come before (or at least is mentined before) the warning. It does not appear that there is a firm conection between the seven day visit and the warning.

&quot;Paul, the slave of the Lord Jesus (Rom. 1:1, etc), was accustomed to prompt, complete obedience.&quot;

No argument here. He was lead by the HS to go to Jerusalem and that was just what he was doing. 

&quot;the &quot;end&quot; of their stay (v.5) is explicitly mentioned also&quot;

Yep, at the end of seven days he did just what he was warned by them not to do, he went to Jesrusalem. No time frame was attatched to the warning.

all the rest of the data indicate that the Spirit was sending Paul to Jerusalem, though trouble awaited him there.

I agree. therefore, we must focus on what it what it means that they warned him not to go THROUGH THE SPIRIT.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 10, 2004)

*Your conclusion is right on, dear brother*

But our differences are also clear.
My view [u:a680724368]does[/u:a680724368] fit the flow and context, just not in the way you are prepared to accept, any more than I can accept yours. I refuse to read into the text a misrepresentation of the will of the Spirit by the Tyrolean disciples, albeit unwittingly, in relaying the Spirit's message for Paul unto him. I believe they were as concerned to transmit it accurately as all the Scripture penmen and subsequent scribes have been to give us an accurate Bible. 

I could (grudgingly) accept the notion that the Spirit's &quot;Do not go up&quot; was understood and explicated by Paul unto the disciples as the severest of warnings of danger (instead of an obvious impreative), consistent with his former directives, but this then is quite the figurative interpretation, perhaps even too figurative! Those disciples didn't [u:a680724368]warn[/u:a680724368] him as much as they [u:a680724368]ordered[/u:a680724368] him, &quot;through the Spirit.&quot;

As for why seven days or so were needed for the wait, I can only say that God in his providence was bringing certain &quot;Jews from Asia&quot; and Paul and &quot;four men who have take a vow&quot; together in Jerusalem, to the Temple, at one precise historical moment, which would ensure all the subsequent events in their impeccable order. The wait is not tied [i:a680724368]by the text[/i:a680724368] to the ship's unlading/lading, neither is it even demanded by the language that the ship they left Tyre for Cesarea in was the same ship that took them to &quot;Phonecia&quot; (its only mentioned destination). The nature of costal business (Tyre to Cesarea) versus ocean-going trade might even militate against it.

Bottom line: I am pre-committed against prophetic errors, and innaccuracies under both administrations (O.T. &amp; N.T.). You, dear brother, are not, at least in the same way or degree.

[Edited on 5-10-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 11, 2004)

It would appear that there are some translation issues here too. Does anyone one if there is a Greek textual variant here? The NKJV seems to favor the interpretation Bruce has set forth with the church telling Paul in a different tense &quot;told.&quot; Where as the ESV and NASB have the church telling Paul in an continuous sense &quot;were telling&quot; and &quot;kept telling.&quot; 

There is also a difference in how the days of waiting are refered to. The NKJV uses &quot;those days&quot; perhaps indicating that the Spirit had indicated they should wait &quot;those days.&quot; But the ESV/NASB uses &quot;our days&quot; which seems to give more of a simple narrative approach to the time than a significant meaning to the appointed time. 

Now these differences can certainly be reconciled. Perhaps, the Spirit was daily telling Paul not to go at that time, until the unknown amount of waiting time was over and the days were &quot;ended&quot; and the NKJV just simplifies it to &quot;told.&quot; 

So I think Bruce's interpretation can fit in either version and does seem to me to be more consistent with upholding the sovereign direction of the Spirit. Remember, the spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets (1 Cor. 14) and Paul was a prophet. If the church's interpretation of the Spirit's direction was incorrect, then Paul would have corrected them, but no such correction was noted. 

[quote:d8ca510ba6]
Acts 21
NKJV
4And finding disciples, we stayed there seven days. They [b:d8ca510ba6]told[/b:d8ca510ba6] Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem. 
5When we had come to [b:d8ca510ba6]the end of those days[/b:d8ca510ba6], we departed and went on our way; and they all accompanied us, with wives and children, till we were out of the city. And we knelt down on the shore and prayed.

ESV
4And having sought out the disciples, we stayed there for seven days. And through the Spirit they [b:d8ca510ba6]were telling[/b:d8ca510ba6] Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. 
5[b:d8ca510ba6]When our days there were ended[/b:d8ca510ba6], we departed and went on our journey, and they all, with wives and children, accompanied us until we were outside the city.

NASB
4 After looking up the disciples, we stayed there seven days; and they [b:d8ca510ba6]kept telling[/b:d8ca510ba6] Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem. 
5 [b:d8ca510ba6]When our days there were ended[/b:d8ca510ba6], we left and started on our journey, while they all, with wives and children, (9) escorted us until we were out of the city. After (10) kneeling down on the beach and praying, we said farewell to one another. [/quote:d8ca510ba6]


----------



## BobVigneault (May 11, 2004)

You all are some of my favorite exogetes but I think you may be using bulldozers when a simple spade may be sufficient.

In seeking God's will we are often faced with two or more biblically correct responses to an issue. I believe the spirit moved both the disciples to tell Paul not to go, and told Paul to go. There was a test involved. It wasn't supposed to be an easy choice. It wasn't an establishment of doctrinal truth but of a choice Paul needed to wrestle over.

There are other instances where Paul had purposed to do things but the Spirit prevented him. This time he was called upon to follow the Spirit's leading as the Spirit affected his own intuition, even though it mean't going against the majority and convention of the Spirit led disciples. Following the Spirit's leading is not always easy but it must be sought regardless. :wr50:


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 11, 2004)

[quote:c512962906][i:c512962906]Originally posted by maxdetail[/i:c512962906]
This time he was called upon to follow the Spirit's leading as the Spirit affected his own intuition, even though it mean't going against the majority and convention of the Spirit led disciples.[/quote:c512962906]
So you are saying the Spirit was telling Paul two conflicting messages? And he had to decide between the two? Is so, would Paul have been disobedient to decide to not go to Jerusalem?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 11, 2004)

*Bob (maxdetail), I appreciate your observations...*

... but I cannot agree for the reasons I listed before. 

And, bulldozers and spades and shovels, oh my. Sometimes the issue isn't the size of the job, but the delicacy of the work or the situation of the job-site. The Biblical Text forum is not the only place to grapple with interpretive textual issues in-depth. After all, Scripture is the source from which we get theology. The main thrust of the initial exchange had to do with the view that in distinction from O.T. prophecy, N.T. prophecy has an essentially different nature or character, i.e. it is less specific, more subjective in interpretation, susceptible to error. This is the view I am combating. 

As for your interpretive suggestion, I am not aware of any example in Scripture of the Spirit giving contradictory instructions to different parties for the purpose of testing the resolve or commitment of one against the other. Perhaps you can think of another instance as a test case? 

Patrick (hello, haven't said that in a while), this has to do with your first post:

My Greek text shows me no variants on this verse. This verse is a textbook case (in Dana &amp; Mantey) of indirect discourse, use of the infinitive to express an imperative/command. Translational choices govern all the different English renderings, as far as I can tell. The matter of &quot;told/was telling&quot; is a rendering of the imperfect tense (elegon). Machen's grammar, my Greek professor--they recommend/prefer including the &quot;was&quot; to express the Greek imperfect in English. But English versions aren't published solely for &quot;precisionists&quot; like us. As for &quot;those&quot; versus &quot;our&quot; days, the article is included with the word in the original. Frequently such articles are left off in English if they make sentences harder to read/understand. When they are kept, often they are given a slight gloss as an indicator, general as in &quot;those&quot; or possessive as in &quot;our.&quot; 

Christopher has correctly located the main point, namely determining the meaning/import of the phrase, &quot;in the Spirit.&quot; We disagree, however, in our conclusions.


----------



## lkjohnson (May 11, 2004)

Whether Paul acted according to God's will or not is a matter of opinion. There are certainly good arguments for both ideas.

Just a thought. Do we believe that Paul was incapable of making an error? Have we unrealistically set him on a pedestal? 

Personally, I believe that God was leading Paul away from Jerusalem.


----------



## blhowes (May 11, 2004)

Gill writes of this verse:

[b:20dc8189c9]who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem[/b:20dc8189c9]; not that the Spirit of God in these persons contradicted his own impulse in the apostle, by which he was moved to go to Jerusalem, see Act_20:22. The sense is, that these disciples, by the spirit of prophecy, knew that if the apostle went to Jerusalem, many evil things would befall him; wherefore of their own spirit, and out of love to him, they advise him not to go. 

Is there any way in the Greek to tell if the word translated Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit? 

Bob


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 12, 2004)

Bob:
No, there's not. We have to read contextually and according to biblical useage elsewhere. I can't tell you how many times &lt;dia tou pneumatos&gt; is used in Luke's writings, Paul's, or in the whole N.T. (because that computer program is not working right now!), but it's hard for me to consider that phrase, taken alone, and and not first think of the Holy Spirit. 

After re-reading the Gill quote, I don't actually think he considers Spirit there [i:bb7272eafe]not[/i:bb7272eafe] to be God's Spirit. He is parsing the verse in such a way as to split up the &quot;said to Paul through the Sprit&quot; and the &quot;said ... not to go up to Jerusalem.&quot; That is semantically indefensible in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I think Gill is a good exegete, but he might not have been as good a grammarian. 

If he [i:bb7272eafe]does[/i:bb7272eafe] think &quot;spirit&quot; there is not God, how do all these men operate [u:bb7272eafe]through[/u:bb7272eafe] the agency of this spirit (spirit&quot; is singular)? Do we ever read that elswhere in the N.T.? Appeal to &quot;having the same mind&quot; or &quot;being in one accord&quot; won't do as those are different terms that we happen to be able to paraphrase as &quot;one in spirit&quot; in English. 

All in all, if I had to abandon my current position, Gill's position would be a viable alternative. However, Gill errs here, I think, as he tries to harmonize this difficulty but comes up short. He is right, about Acts 20:22 (and 19:21) that the Spirit is impelling him onward to Jerusalem. For that reason I cannot agree with Mr. Johnson above. 

Mr. Johnson:
And as far as opinions go, I hope, pastor, you don't mean that striving for precision here is a pointless exercise, as if the truth [b:bb7272eafe]cannot[/b:bb7272eafe] be discerned. Prideful certainty is evil. I pray I am not so afflicted. Let me be teachable! There are correct opinions and erroneous ones, good arguments and bad ones. We can both be wrong, but not both right if our opinions clash. I think Paul deserves the benefit of our concurrence, unless we have excellent reasons for considering him to be in error.

Keep sharpennig my iron, brothers. Thank you.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 12, 2004)

[quote:4edac96613][i:4edac96613]Originally posted by lkjohnson[/i:4edac96613]
Whether Paul acted according to God's will or not is a matter of opinion. There are certainly good arguments for both ideas.

Just a thought. Do we believe that Paul was incapable of making an error? Have we unrealistically set him on a pedestal? 

Personally, I believe that God was leading Paul away from Jerusalem. [/quote:4edac96613]

We have no indication that in any text that Paul was in error for going to Jerusalem. I don't doubt that Paul made mistakes, as he has no problems naming them. We also have the testimony of Peter's failure in Galatians. The NT has no problem pointing out the mistakes of the apostles. But there is no indication (at least to me) that Paul was making a mistake in judgment. Paul was an apostle, and as such had greater gifts and insights in the Spirit than we. It doesn't mean he's perfect, just gifted.

p.s.- Hey Bruce. Nice to hear from you again. I find your insights very helpful. 

[Edited on 5-12-2004 by puritansailor]


----------

