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.

Quote:

---

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 [by the Spirit]. 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.' 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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/religi...on-847531.html