Acts 21:4 says that a group of disciples told Paul, through the Spirit, not to go to Jerusalem. Agabus said the same thing in very dramatic terms. Paul went anyway.
Yeah, he got a free trip to Rome out of it...eventually...was he supposed to stay away and do something else?
It always makes me wonder, and today's Greek reading didn't help any thanks to this verse and its context.

That's a great question. I have wondered the same thing many times. It does pay to remember, however, what he said later in Acts 20. "“And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23 I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. 24 However, I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the good news of God’s grace."

So his conclusion seemed to be that the Holy Spirit, rather than telling him not to go, was simply alerting him that it was going to be difficult.

Good point, but I'm still having trouble with the other disciples telling him, through that same Spirit, not to go. It almost sounds like contradictory messages, which is the part that's tickling my brain. Fortunately, I like this kind of brain tickling much better than the kind that COVID-19 test did...

I confess I expected more discussion on this one.

So the Spirit told the disciples to urge Paul NOT to go to Jerusalem, yet Paul said he was COMPELLED to go by that same Spirit.

What am I missing here? Did the disciples or Paul misunderstand what the Spirit said? And why would the Spirit send Paul to what eventually became his death?

I would suspect that Paul, being much more the mature Christian, understood that the Spirit's message was to warn him of what lay ahead rather than prohibiting him going. The historical narrative aspect simply is saying what the people understood the Holy Spirit to be saying as opposed to the what the message was intended to be. The people could well have understood the Spirit to be saying that severe trouble lay ahead, and in their love for Paul they would have assumed that meant he should not go. He understood better.

One way or the other, it certainly turned out to be accurate. I wonder if those people walked around the next couple of years saying, "We warned him not to go." But it's not to say the time was wasted. I think Luke, for instance, used that time to write the Gospel of Luke. Being right there in Jerusalem would have been a god-send for him. At the very least, he was able to gather a lot of information.

WG:
As I said, he got a free trip to Rome out of it. Sort of convoluted and it took many years to get there, and when he did it didn't turn out so well for him, but he got a free trip.
That's the best I can come up with.

Paul had a little different POV than most of us. Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus."

We tend to want to stay alive and prosper. He simply wanted to be in God's will for him.

Paul had a little different POV than most of us. Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus."

We tend to want to stay alive and prosper. He simply wanted to be in God's will for him.

He had already endured things that would reduce most of us to soggy Corn Flakes. My issue is the people told him "by the Spirit" not to go. Paul said he was compelled by that same Spirit to go. Either the Holy Spirit contradicted himself, or somebody was mistaken.

That's my issue.

Pretty sure God did not contradict Himself.

Several commentaries explain it this way: "The inspiration in the case was that of admonition and warning, not of positive command . Paul was simply apprised of the danger, and was then left to the free determination of his own will. He chose to encounter the danger of which he was thus apprised."

Another one says: "How timid is man, how fearless is God, about Scripture contradictions! The disciples at Tyre 'say to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.' Yet he goes. And when he goes, those who have heard the prohibitory voice of inspiration, say, 'The will of the Lord be done.' [B]The one was the Divine voice of prudence; the other was the Divine voice of courage. Who shall say that either of these voices is not Divine? Would Paul have been guilty if he had followed the one? Was Paul guilty because he followed the other?"

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/21-4.html

Another one says: "How timid is man, how fearless is God, about Scripture contradictions! The disciples at Tyre 'say to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.' Yet he goes. And when he goes, those who have heard the prohibitory voice of inspiration, say, 'The will of the Lord be done.' The one was the Divine voice of prudence; the other was the Divine voice of courage. Who shall say that either of these voices is not Divine? Would Paul have been guilty if he had followed the one? Was Paul guilty because he followed the other?"

What a wonderful example of the limitless capacity of man to creatively explain away the contradictions in the Bible. Breathtaking!

The limitless capacity of man to invent contradictions where none exist.

My issue is the people told him "by the Spirit" not to go. Paul said he was compelled by that same Spirit to go. Either the Holy Spirit contradicted himself, or somebody was mistaken.

That's my issue.

It's an excellent issue. I encourage you to follow it. It's always a good sign when this board examines issues rationally, and not just repeats childhood stories.

Christianity as it has come down to most of us badly needs to be re-thought so that the profound message of Christ can be presented where necessary to an audience that is rapidly discarding the stories meant to inform a pre-modern audience.

Strange position. We need to discard all the "stories meant to inform a pre-modern audience," but then we need to keep some unspecified portion of the story centered around a man being raised from the dead, and repeat the "profound message" which is found somewhere in that story? How can we find a "profound message" in a thoroughly unreliable and non-historical document, or in a particular story found in that flawed document? How would you ever know what portion of the story could be trusted to be authentic?

Although I tend to agree that the Spirit gave advanced knowledge of the situation, my first read of this passage was less confounding. I took "through" as "by means of" and assumed a supernatural or collective experience of communication involving the Holy Spirit. Paul was later reminded by the Lord that he was yet to preach to the Romans, his time was not yet complete, these current plagues would befall him, and pass, and as with all miracles, would be used to demonstrate the glory of the Lord.

"We need to discard all the "stories meant to inform a pre-modern audience,""
That's not what Athos said. A. said that's what people are doing, not that it's something "we need" to do.

InfoJunkie,
Yes, he got a free trip to Rome out of it, which is the only way I can conclude his act wasn't necessarily dumb.
But it doesn't resolve the question.

Christianity as it has come down to most of us badly needs to be re-thought so that the profound message of Christ can be presented where necessary to an audience that is rapidly discarding the stories meant to inform a pre-modern audience.

I'm not sure how to get any other meaning from that passage other than the stories were meant (written and intended for this purpose) to inform pre-modern audiences. Sure sounds like it means they are no longer fit for modern audiences. Thankfully, it would be easy enough to clarify.

"We need to discard all the "stories meant to inform a pre-modern audience,""
That's not what Athos said. A. said that's what people are doing, not that it's something "we need" to do.

Your reading comprehension is fine, dwashbur.

May I refer you to "Religious Discussions" where I posted a question originating with you here on the Christianity board. You indicated you did not wish to answer it on the Christianity Board, hence the other board.

I sincerely wish you would post on the question since it is essential to a proper understanding of Christianity, whether a believer or not. The thread is "The Nature of Salvation". Thank you.

It may be a bit early in the morning and I haven't had enough coffee, but I can't seem to find it. Can you give me a link please?

It may be a bit early in the morning and I haven't had enough coffee, but I can't seem to find it. Can you give me a link please?

Sure.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/nature-salvation-847531.html

1 Corinthians 14:31-33 puts it will enough, I think. Remember In Acts 11 you can see how the temperament of the heart can result in different emotions thought the provocation of the same spiritual prodding.

1 Corinthians 13:9 tells us that prophecy is given in part, "that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away."

Matthew 23:34 Christ himself prophesies the "scourge" and the"blood" of his apostles and prophets yet to come.

Info, if I understood you correctly, I think you are saying that NT prophecy should not be regarded as a definitive message from God in the same sense that the NT itself should be regarded, or that OT prophecies were taken. In other words, NT prophecies are sometimes clouded by the human element. Do I have it right?

Athos,
I'll try to chime in tomorrow.

Athos,
I'll try to chime in tomorrow.

Ok, thanks.

Athos,I'll try to chime in tomorrow.

For those of you following the discussion on the nature of Salvation, Dwashbur has chimed in, and here is the link to his answer. It starts around post 8.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=847531&p=3857784&posted=1#post3857784

Info, if I understood you correctly, I think you are saying that NT prophecy should not be regarded as a definitive message from God in the same sense that the NT itself should be regarded, or that OT prophecies were taken. In other words, NT prophecies are sometimes clouded by the human element. Do I have it right?



Not really, just that the understanding of prophecy is often limited. We can envision prophecy as a snippet of the future that is probably incredibly difficult to contain within the human mind. Being shown images of the future doesn't necessarily imbue the wisdom intended to be communicated. Often times the prophecies within the scriptures are intended for a future audience, or to give hope of things to come. In many instances prophecy requires the seer and the interpreter to come together. They aren't messages in the sense of directions or even language, but rather a literal representaron of things as they are, however, some time off. It may require prayer or a wiser man than the prophet or even outside knowledge to see the fruits of the vision.

I was following you until this point. "They aren't messages in the sense of directions or even language..."

Likewise.

I was following you until this point. "They aren't messages in the sense of directions or even language..."

I do believe prophecy is truth, probably in the most pure form.

I also believe it is an experience more than hearing or seeing.

Thus, much like the nature of the world, it must be held in the senses of the prophet like a baby seeing for the first time or understanding a word for first time.

By this, we can understand the nature of the interpretation of prophecy:


And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
I Corinthians 14:32 NKJV

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
II Peter 1:20 NKJV

And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 19:10 NKJV

And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord , if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Deuteronomy 18:21-‬22 NKJV

And who can proclaim as I do? Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me, Since I appointed the ancient people. And the things that are coming and shall come, Let them show these to them.
Isaiah 44:7 NKJV

I think it's important to note, that prophecy is defined by truth in Deuteronomy, as coming to be. Any prophecy declared in the name of the Lord must be. The disciples should have understood the prophecy in question as what will be, not as a warning to be avoided. Paul understood this thing.

I also believe it is an experience more than hearing or seeing.
I'd really have to see something in scripture to back that one up in order to agree with it.


And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
I Corinthians 14:32 NKJVHis point is not your point. Paul is saying that no prophet can claim he just HAD to speak his prophecy. No, your spirit is subject to you.


knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
II Peter 1:20 NKJVAgain, that does not support your contention. He is simply saying that I cannot attach my own private meaning to any prophecy. Prophecy does have specific meaning.

As to the rest of your scriptures, I do not see at all how they back up the idea that prophecy, "...aren't messages in the sense of directions or even language..." They are all contained in language. Prophecy certainly does give us direction frequently. So I'm not just with you on that. I give you great credit for your appeal to scripture.

I'd really have to see something in scripture to back that one up in order to agree with it.

I like the way Mendy Hecht speaks of prophecy as being "Like the transmission of a high-megawatt signal to a low-wattage instrument"

I'm not saying this is boldly scriptural, however, I can't imagine talking with God is simply mundane. Tounges in Acts 2:13-14 are compared with drunkenness, John on Patmos, in Revelation turns around and beholds 7 lampstands, then heads through a portal into the Spirit. In Daniel 8 he is in a deep sleep and made to stand upright and then becomes sick for several days afterword. Later in chapter 10 Daniel's vigor is turned to frailty, and later his strength restored. In Ezekiel 8 he describes the Spirit lifting him up between heaven and earth by his hair. There are a host of amazing experiences told by the prophets that at least seem unworldly.



And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
I Corinthians 14:32 NKJV
His point is not your point. Paul is saying that no prophet can claim he just HAD to speak his prophecy. No, your spirit is subject to you.

For more context:
I Corinthians 14:29-32 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

That last line does speak to your point, that they are in control of their gifts. My point was simply that the interpretation of prophesy is subject to judgement. In Deuteronomy 18 the prophets are known to "speak presumptuously" (at least in theory they are capable) and that their prophecy can be tested. I didn't mean to keep only verse 32 as the proof.



knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
II Peter 1:20 NKJV
He is simply saying that I cannot attach my own private meaning to any prophecy. Prophecy does have specific meaning.

For more context:
2 Peter 1:19-21 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

To your point, this does seem out of context. "Prophetic word confirmed" and "prophecy of Scripture" both imply those prophecies which were in the past and some already completed, some of those which Peter bore witness to. He further explains that these prophecies were written down at the behest of the Holy Spirit (as is attested to by the authors themselves). These are most likely what we refer to as Old Testament prophecies.

In most of these prophecies God ordained that they write that which they saw and then either sealed it, proclaimed God's interpretation (which was recorded), or made for another means of interpretation (which is also recorded).

I do not think this implies different metrics for Paul's modern prophecy, but rather that these past prophecies are the evidences for the Christ that Peter is proclaiming to the Jews, also that these are the true words of God, in contrast with a private interpretation. The need for contrast being to that of modern prophecies that often require interpretation or are to be tested, judged, or otherwise sealed like those of the Old Testament.


They are all contained in language. Prophecy certainly does give us direction frequently. So I'm not just with you on that. I give you great credit for your appeal to scripture.

I think "conveyed to us in language" is more appropriate. The experience by which it is contained is not always so clear.

Kudos to scripture, the inerrant word of God.

As far as I can see, Acts 21 can be reconciled in one of the following 2 ways:

1. There was a supernatural communication through the Holy Spirit from the disciples to Paul, being inspired by man, not having to meet the inerrant standards in question, however facilitated by the Holy Spirit.

2. There was a prophecy shown in Acts 21:4 that was interpreted by the disciples through fear, resulting in concern for Paul. That that vision was made clear in Acts 21:7 where the Holy Spirit declares, through Agabus, the fate of Paul. Then Paul, knowing his own demise, accepts this fate as aligned with the prophecies he already had known.

In Deuteronomy 18 the prophets are known to "speak presumptuously" (at least in theory they are capable) and that their prophecy can be tested.What did God say must be done to the one who might "speak presumptuously"?

"he shall die" is what my Bible says.

It seems to me to be a promise, not a commandment.
2 Peter 2:1-3
2 Corinthians 11:15
Revelation 20:10
Jeremiah 14:13-16
Romans 16:17-20

However, a point of contention, the prophecy in question is not in error, rather the fear of the disciples is misplaced. Thus the finality of "let God's will be done" as in giving over to the Spirit, and rejecting the human will for Paul to live.

1. There was a supernatural communication through the Holy Spirit from the disciples to Paul, being inspired by man, not having to meet the inerrant standards in question, however facilitated by the Holy Spirit.

I confess I have no idea what that says.

Your second answer, that the disciples were told Paul would suffer and be imprisoned, and they responded in fear and told him not to go, has some possibilities. It's something I've considered but haven't really explored yet.

I confess I have no idea what that says.
Yep. I don't either.

Your second answer, that the disciples were told Paul would suffer and be imprisoned, and they responded in fear and told him not to go, has some possibilities. It's something I've considered but haven't really explored yet.Yep again.

"They told Paul through the Spirit" could be a form of communicating supernaturally is all I'm saying.

I'm not convinced of this considering the context, but that is what it sounded like to me upon first reading.

"They told Paul through the Spirit" could be a form of communicating supernaturally is all I'm saying.Isn't that a given??

I mean to each other. Like using God as cosmic cell phone, thereby not qualifying as a prophecy.

I'm still not following.

I mean to each other. Like using God as cosmic cell phone, thereby not qualifying as a prophecy.I think that qualifies as speculation. I know of nothing in the Bible that would lead us to that conclusion.

I mean to each other. Like using God as cosmic cell phone, thereby not qualifying as a prophecy.
Like God's gentle whisper in I Kings 19:12?

"After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper." (NIV)

"And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice”. (NKJV)

But that is not an example of, "to each other" is it? That was God to man (Elijah). Either that or I completely misunderstood his response.

But that is not an example of, "to each other" is it? That was God to man (Elijah). Either that or I completely misunderstood his response.
The following verses:

13When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave. Then a voice said to him, "What are you doing here, Elijah?" 14He replied, "I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too." 15The LORD said to him, "Go back the way you came, and go to the Desert of Damascus. When you get there, anoint Hazael king over Aram....

Sounds like a conversation to me!

Yes, between God and Elijah. "The LORD said to him." That's not what Info was describing. The "to each other" would seem to say that the people were talking to each other through God. But like I said, perhaps I misunderstood it.

my thoughts: Paul was a human being led by the Spirit. However, he was NOT the only human being led by the Spirit. He was warned by other Christians what would happen if he went. I can understand his heart. He loved his Jewish people, he KNEW it was the Lord's heart for all to be saved...HE was NOT called to minister to the Jews. Yeah, He GOOFED. God love him.

Before the passage in question, this was said in Acts 19. "Paul purposed in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, saying, 'After I have been there, I must also see Rome.'” As it turned out, God worked it out for him to get to Rome, and in a more significant manner than he had imagined.

my thoughts: Paul was a human being led by the Spirit. However, he was NOT the only human being led by the Spirit. He was warned by other Christians what would happen if he went. I can understand his heart. He loved his Jewish people, he KNEW it was the Lord's heart for all to be saved...HE was NOT called to minister to the Jews. Yeah, He GOOFED. God love him.

I'm inclined to agree with T here. "In the Spirit" in Acts 19:21 could just as easily be "in his spirit" rather than the Holy Spirit. The NIV seems to think so, it reads "he decided to go to Jerusalem." Gonna have to dig into that phrase a bit more, but it sure sounds like he made a decision, the Holy Spirit warned him of the consequences, and he said "challenge accepted."

That could very well be true. Your comment on 19:21 is certainly true in that it does not have to be rendered as, "Holy Spirit'. I don't know, though, that we have to think that Paul was going to Jerusalem to minister to the Jews. He could simply have wanted to "report in" to the church leadership there.