Acts 20:22-23 Paul suggests that the reason he is going to Jerusalem was because he was bound (NKJV)/compelled (NIV)/constrained (ESV) by the Spirit (or spirit--could this refer to his own human spirit?). This despite being warned by the Holy Spirit that persecution awaited him in Jerusalem. Again, this persecution was confirmed by Agabus in Acts 21:11.
However in Acts 21:4, the believers through the Spirit were telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem. This was contrary to what Paul said in Acts 20:22 that the Spirit (or spirit) was has bound/compelled/constrained him.
My question is:
1. How was it that Paul was receiving different instructions from the Holy Spirit, if that is even possible?
2. What should we do when we receive contradictory prophetic words from believers or visions/dreams, especially if it deals with non-moral issues? In other words, what can we learn from this episode in Paul's ministry?
Acts 20:22-23 Warning by Holy Spirit
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
Acts 20:22-23 Warning by Holy Spirit
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Grace and peace,
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin Ho
There has been much disagreement among scholars about this matter.
Some have said that, since Paul was imprisoned almost immediately upon his arrival in Jerusalem, it was obviously not the Lord's will for him to go, but his own stubborn wish to do so. They say that Paul should have heeded the warning on Acts 21:4 and of his friends in 21:12.
Others say that Paul's imprisonment in Jerusalem and Caesarea were simply stepping stones to get him to Rome, that had he not been imprisoned for those four years, the prison epistles never would have been written, and that Paul, once imprisoned, considered himself to be "the prisoner of the Lord" (Eph.3:1; 4:1; 2 Tim.1:8; Ph'm 1, 9) suggesting that he believed he was in prison by the will of God.
Those of this latter persuasion say that, in Acts 21:4, it was not so much that the men were speaking through the Spirit when they told Paul not to go to Jerusalem,but, rather, that they had learned through the Spirit that he would suffer harm there, and from their own hearts urged him not to go. I cannot bring myself to see the words of the verse in this way, however.
I am of the opinion that the Holy Spirit was indeed forbidding Paul to go to Jerusalem through these men, and this was apparently a matter of disagreement between Paul and his companions. Paul must not have discerned that it was a true prophecy from God, whereas Luke and others felt that he should take it seriously. Remember, Luke wrote Acts at least four years after Paul was imprisoned, after he and Paul had had much time to reassess the validity of the warnings in retrospect. I assume that Paul, with the advantage of hindsight, eventually came around to Luke's way of seeing it, but if not, at least the wording used by Luke in 21:4 strongly suggests that Luke considered these prophecies to be authentic at the time of writing.
If Paul was mistaken in his discernment about what the Spirit was or was not telling him through these disciples, he was also capable (as are we all) of misreading what the Spirit was saying to his own heart, in his comment of Acts 20:22-23. "Bound in the spirit" might not be a reference to the Holy Spirit at all, but rather a hebraism for being under inward compulsion.
It is clear that Paul did not always find it perfectly simple to discern the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6-10). That apostles could make grave personal errors in judgment is seen in the account of Paul's conflict with Peter (Gal.2:11ff). One of the two (apparently Peter) certainly had to be wrong.
That his trip to Jerusalem finally delivered him to Rome, and that his imprisonment became the occasion for his writing several epistles, does not prove this to be God's highest plan for Paul. Had he not been imprisoned in Jerusalem and Caesarea, he might easily have made his journey to Rome without chains, and as much as four years earlier. He also could have written those epistles without being in prison. He spent a lot of time aboard ship as a free man...certainly enough time to write those few short epistles.
As for his self-designation as "the prisoner of the Lord," this need not mean that he felt that God's first choice was for him to be a prisoner. It could be a humble confession that, because he had made the wrong decision, he was not being chastened by a time behind bars. Even if this is not implied, he could simply mean that, as he is the Lords bondslave, so is he the Lord's captive...both physically, in prison, and morally, by choice. It is possible that the words do refer to his chains, but that he is merely acknowledging that those who have chained him have done so because of his testimony for Christ, and thus he is a prisoner "on Christ's behalf."
Even if some of the phrases seem ambiguous, it does not appear that Luke intended to leave any ambiguity in his record at Acts 21:4. It seems that, in Luke's judgment at the time of writing, Paul was mistaken in his decision to go to Jerusalem.
How does this apply to us? I suppose we might see it as an example wherein a Christian, who thinks he has the Lord's guidance in a particular matter, should be willing to consider the spiritual discernment of spiritual companions who disagree with him, and at least not move forward until a greater degree of consensus among the brethren can be obtained.
Some have said that, since Paul was imprisoned almost immediately upon his arrival in Jerusalem, it was obviously not the Lord's will for him to go, but his own stubborn wish to do so. They say that Paul should have heeded the warning on Acts 21:4 and of his friends in 21:12.
Others say that Paul's imprisonment in Jerusalem and Caesarea were simply stepping stones to get him to Rome, that had he not been imprisoned for those four years, the prison epistles never would have been written, and that Paul, once imprisoned, considered himself to be "the prisoner of the Lord" (Eph.3:1; 4:1; 2 Tim.1:8; Ph'm 1, 9) suggesting that he believed he was in prison by the will of God.
Those of this latter persuasion say that, in Acts 21:4, it was not so much that the men were speaking through the Spirit when they told Paul not to go to Jerusalem,but, rather, that they had learned through the Spirit that he would suffer harm there, and from their own hearts urged him not to go. I cannot bring myself to see the words of the verse in this way, however.
I am of the opinion that the Holy Spirit was indeed forbidding Paul to go to Jerusalem through these men, and this was apparently a matter of disagreement between Paul and his companions. Paul must not have discerned that it was a true prophecy from God, whereas Luke and others felt that he should take it seriously. Remember, Luke wrote Acts at least four years after Paul was imprisoned, after he and Paul had had much time to reassess the validity of the warnings in retrospect. I assume that Paul, with the advantage of hindsight, eventually came around to Luke's way of seeing it, but if not, at least the wording used by Luke in 21:4 strongly suggests that Luke considered these prophecies to be authentic at the time of writing.
If Paul was mistaken in his discernment about what the Spirit was or was not telling him through these disciples, he was also capable (as are we all) of misreading what the Spirit was saying to his own heart, in his comment of Acts 20:22-23. "Bound in the spirit" might not be a reference to the Holy Spirit at all, but rather a hebraism for being under inward compulsion.
It is clear that Paul did not always find it perfectly simple to discern the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6-10). That apostles could make grave personal errors in judgment is seen in the account of Paul's conflict with Peter (Gal.2:11ff). One of the two (apparently Peter) certainly had to be wrong.
That his trip to Jerusalem finally delivered him to Rome, and that his imprisonment became the occasion for his writing several epistles, does not prove this to be God's highest plan for Paul. Had he not been imprisoned in Jerusalem and Caesarea, he might easily have made his journey to Rome without chains, and as much as four years earlier. He also could have written those epistles without being in prison. He spent a lot of time aboard ship as a free man...certainly enough time to write those few short epistles.
As for his self-designation as "the prisoner of the Lord," this need not mean that he felt that God's first choice was for him to be a prisoner. It could be a humble confession that, because he had made the wrong decision, he was not being chastened by a time behind bars. Even if this is not implied, he could simply mean that, as he is the Lords bondslave, so is he the Lord's captive...both physically, in prison, and morally, by choice. It is possible that the words do refer to his chains, but that he is merely acknowledging that those who have chained him have done so because of his testimony for Christ, and thus he is a prisoner "on Christ's behalf."
Even if some of the phrases seem ambiguous, it does not appear that Luke intended to leave any ambiguity in his record at Acts 21:4. It seems that, in Luke's judgment at the time of writing, Paul was mistaken in his decision to go to Jerusalem.
How does this apply to us? I suppose we might see it as an example wherein a Christian, who thinks he has the Lord's guidance in a particular matter, should be willing to consider the spiritual discernment of spiritual companions who disagree with him, and at least not move forward until a greater degree of consensus among the brethren can be obtained.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve