Paul's hypocrisy and its consequence

[Wrangler]

You deserve a rebuke for repeatedly making false accusations

Seems like everyone in this thread is making false accusations except you.

Go in peace brother.

 

[Jericho]

The fact that Paul was repeatedly warned by Christian prophets speaking by the Holy Spirit not to go to Jerusalem, implies that it was not the will of God that Paul go to Jerusalem, or that he be arrested - but Paul, "returning to the weak and beggarly elements of the law" in order to make a show to unbelieving Jews of being a Torah-observant Jew, lost his freedom for the rest of his life, effectively ending his missionary journeys.

Could not this same argument be levied against Jesus? Jesus told his apostles that He must go to Jerusalem, suffer many things, and be killed. Peter took Him aside and rebuked Him for it (Mat 16:21–23), and Mark used a sword to try and prevent Jesus' arrest (Mar 14:47). At another time, Jesus' apostles questioned Him for putting His life in harm's way (John 11:7-8). We could conclude that if Jesus had listened to His apostles, He might not have been crucified. Of course, Jesus' death (and resurrection) served a greater good. Could not Paul's arrest have served a greater good as well?

Of course, the apostles were just concerned for Jesus' life, just as Paul's friends were concerned for his life. Paul knew very well what would happen and how it would end. Yet he chose to do it anyway. But think about this. Four of Paul's epsitles were written while he was under arrest and are now a part of the New Testament. If Paul had not been arrested, those letters would not have been written, and it would have been to our detriment.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

According to the reason given by Luke in Acts as to why Paul did what he did that day, Paul made himself guilty of hypocrisy because the record states that the only reason given by James and the elders who asked Paul to do what he did that day, was to placate and appease the Torah-observing Jewish believers in Jerusalem who hated Paul's doctrine.

I don’t know if it’s already been discussed because I’ve lost the the line of discussion as it moves along. But why then did Paul bring in a Greek if the goal was to appease them?

 

[Wrangler]

Stop answering for me please ... you are being dishonest

Seldom do I find such hostility toward ones own relative supporters.

I'll pray for you.

 

[Zao is life]

Seldom do I find such hostility toward ones own relative supporters.

I'll pray for you.

No thanks. There are many Christians who I would ask to pray for me - but you are not one of them. Until you can prove to me that you're a Christian by apologizing to me for your repeated false accusations and insults, your prayers cannot be trusted. It's plain to see. I'll pray for you.

 

[Wrangler]

I'll pray for you.

Thank you, my friend. You know better than God that I need prayers.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Could not this same argument be levied against Jesus? Jesus told his apostles that He must go to Jerusalem, suffer many things, and be killed. Peter took Him aside and rebuked Him for it (Mat 16:21–23), and Mark used a sword to try and prevent Jesus' arrest (Mar 14:47). At another time, Jesus' apostles questioned Him for putting His life in harm's way (John 11:7-8). We could conclude that if Jesus had listened to His apostles, He might not have been crucified. Of course, Jesus' death (and resurrection) served a greater good. Could not Paul's arrest have served a greater good as well?

Of course, the apostles were just concerned for Jesus' life, just as Paul's friends were concerned for his life. Paul knew very well what would happen and how it would end. Yet he chose to do it anyway. But think about this. Four of Paul's epsitles were written while he was under arrest and are now a part of the New Testament. If Paul had not been arrested, those letters would not have been written, and it would have been to our detriment.

I like the connection to Jesus. I think Paul was quite willing to walk in his Master's footsteps! :)
Not only did Jesus' friends try to stop him from going to Jerusalem and setting himself up to be killed, but Jesus determined to go to Jerusalem anyway. The same thing was happening to Paul. He was determined to go to Jerusalem, despite his friends' concerns about his health and safety. Great point!

 

[marks]

If Paul had not been arrested, those letters would not have been written, and it would have been to our detriment.

Yes, God working all things for our good!

Much love!

 

[Zao is life]

Thank you, my friend. You know better than God that I need prayers.

God knows that we all need prayers. Your post above is yet another slur which implies that I think I know better than God. Yet another personal attack, in other words. You show by the things you say in your posts that you need prayer.

I don't know .. you seem to think that you're very sharp in the top floor but actually your circuits seem to be entangled where your conscience has been burned. I'll pray for you.

 

[Wrangler]

Your post above is yet another slur

Yet, your posts are not a slur against Saint Paul or anyone else. Notice the irony of a hypocrite calling someone a hypocrite? Fascinating.

I'll pray for you.

Again, thanks!

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Arriving in Tyre during his missionary journeys, Paul stayed there seven days with disciples in Tyre, "who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should NOT go up to Jerusalem."

After leaving Tyre and staying one day at Ptolemais, Paul "came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him, and a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea, and "he came to us, took Paul's belt, tied his own hands and feet with it, and said, "The Holy Spirit says this: 'This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will tie up the man whose belt this is, and will hand him over to the Gentiles.'"

When they heard this, Paul's travelling companions and the local people "begged him not to go up to Jerusalem".

Then Paul replied, "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be tied up, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.", and "because he could not be persuaded, we said no more except, "The Lord's will be done." -- Acts 21:3-14.

Returning to this. Not to keep it going but because it’s interesting. The first time I read the OP I didn’t connect that you were the one who posted the OP. As we talked more …reading the OP is more now knowing a little of the interaction we’ve had later in the thread. If that makes sense. I still have some questions or thoughts. They said through the Spirit Paul was not to go up to Jerusalem but prior in acts 20 there is this:

Acts 20:21-25 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. [22] And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: [23] Save that the Holy Spirit witnesses in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. ( did bonds and afflictions abide him?) 24] But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. [25] And now, behold, I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. (Not forgetting where Paul spoke of finishing the course. Did the course get sidetracked? It appears not because to finish …one has to move forward?)

If it wasn’t the Will of God that Paul go…then what of even before the prophet and others told of Paul being bound, Paul already spoke of knowing “bonds and affliction abide me”? I count my life not dear unto me …so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus… significant is …let these men alone for if this be a work of men then it will come to nothing, but if this work be of God “then nothing can over throw it” unless you be found to fight against God. The proof to me is what Work this was of for Paul to go…did it come to nothing being found a work of men? Imo no. For did the ministry given of God unto Paul fail?

Don’t forget
Ezekiel 3:24-25 Then the spirit entered into me, and set me upon my feet, and spoke with me, and said unto me, Go, shut thyself within your house. [25] But you, O son of man, behold, they shall put bands upon you, and shall bind you with them, and you shall not go out among them:

There still remains a difference in Peter and Paul’s rebuke. Peter fearing what men could do to the body at that point. Paul spoke of “including the Greek also” and was blamed for bringing a Greek into the temple and thereby soiling the temple. Peter showed fear of including the gentiles …but Paul brought a Greek also into the temple for purification.

Also, Paul sat with a weak brother in the temple too afraid to eat meat. If what happened with James and them was hypocritical of Paul…then it would also be hypocritical for Paul to not eat meat for the benefit of the weaker brother without knowledge of Christ whom meat offended. If Paul had been given Liberty…why not eat meat rather than observe what causes the weaker brother an offense? Isn’t that the same being put back under the law? I don’t think so, but under “charity” in observance of “the grace of God.”

I’m not good at the timing. With what happened when Paul observed the purification in the temple with the timing of the letters. But OT speaks of their excluding you …binding your feet and hands …they put Paul out of the temple and shut the door…because he brought a Greek into the temple. This is different than Peter dissembling for fear of what the Jews would do if Peter was found sitting with the gentiles. OT they were always stubborn and rebellious. Their reaction over a Greek found brought in caused their reaction to Paul …don’t forget James said let them know what is said about you is not true. Do this thing to appease them. And Paul did the opposite of appeasing them but revealed their worst nightmare of what they heard of Paul…we saw a Greek was brought into the temple and made our temple dirty.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Then, while in Jerusalem, Paul was advised by James and the elders and other disciples:

"Thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all ardent observers of the law. They have been informed about you - that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What then should we do? They will no doubt hear that you have come.

So do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the law." -- Acts 21:3-24

It was a number of years before this that Paul had written to the Thessalonians and Galatians, saying,

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification [Greek: hagiasmos, purification] of the Spirit and belief of the truth." 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

It was going to the gentiles. In now we turn from the Jews and go to the gentiles. To me Paul didn’t disobey this but gave ample testimony to the Jews that their hearts were hardened …even bringing in a Greek to provoke them to jealousy as a testament of their exclusion of others from the commonwealth of God.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." -- Galatians 5:1.

That is IF Paul entangled himself again with the yoke of bondage. By his bringing in a Greek I don’t think his service was to men but unto God. Don’t forget Christ cried “why have you entangled me, Father!” And also the ram caught entangled in the thicket. It’s easy to say this and that concerning Paul…but Christ spoke of their binding your feet and hands as a testament against them. Scary to think what is being shown there in one comes in without a wedding garment and it is “bind him feet and hands” and put him without! (Imo) it’s a trap we get caught up in on who commands the binding…

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." -- Galatians 5:1.

Despite this, acting on the advice of James and the other elders of the church in Jerusalem, Paul "took the men the next day, and after he had purified himself along with them, he went to the temple and gave notice of the completion of the days of purification, when the sacrifice would be offered for each of them." -- Acts 21:20-26.

Gave notice “of the completion of the days of purification” ..“it is complete” “it is finished” seems Paul was sending a message out …

Paul had accused Peter of hypocrisy when Peter, after eating with the Gentiles in Antioch, withdrew from them when Jews associated with James came from Jerusalem (Galatians 2:11-21).

Now Paul, contrary to his own doctrine, acting on the advice of James and other elders did the same - he purified himself in accordance with Mosaic law in order to appease Jews who claimed to believe the gospel, yet maintained strict observance of Mosaic law.

No. They put Paul without the temple and shut the doors.

Of the Jewish believers who insisted that Gentiles obey the law of Moses, Paul had previously told the Gentiles, "They court you eagerly, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you would seek them eagerly." -- Galatians 4:17

They were angry a Greek was brought into the temple “also”

As a result, instead of thus appeasing the Jews when he purified himself in the temple in accordance with Mosaic law, Paul was accused by the Jews of defiling the temple, and was arrested and bound in chains. He remained under arrest until he died.

Yes…accused of “defiling the temple”
But did Paul defile it? Or finish the course set before him? Who really defiled the Temple of God?

Paul listened to the advice he received from James and the elders, as well as other Jewish disciples who kept the law of Moses, and as Peter had done in Antioch, Paul did something to show the Jews that Paul still kept the law of Moses.

The fact that Paul was repeatedly warned by Christian prophets speaking by the Holy Spirit not to go to Jerusalem, implies that it was not the will of God that Paul go to Jerusalem, or that he be arrested - but Paul,

Not repeatedly…the spirit showed Paul what would happen if Paul went up to Jerusalem at that point when the Holy Spirit is showing his feet and hands bound. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit telling him not to go…it’s prior when others begged him by the Spirit not to go. There is no mention from the Spirit when revealing “this is what they will do to the man who wears this belt”. But back in Acts 20…Paul already says he doesn’t know what will befall him there but that as a witnesses for Jesus Christ …bounds and affliction await him.

"returning to the weak and beggarly elements of the law" in order to make a show to unbelieving Jews of being a Torah-observant Jew, lost his freedom for the rest of his life, effectively ending his missionary journeys.

Did Paul loose his freedom when freedom is in Christ? Whom the Son sets free is free indeed. Where no man or “men” can take this freedom from you! Even bound Paul exclaimed “Rejoice. I say it again, Rejoice!”

OBVIOUSLY (before someone shouts this false accusation) it does not mean that Paul lost his salvation - but he suffered the consequence of his hypocrisy for the rest of his life - and this is why prophesying by the Holy Spirit Paul was repeatedly warned by Christians NOT TO go to Jerusalem. But he never listened.

But he suffered the consequences of his hypocrisy for the rest of his life..
2 Corinthians 6:7-10 By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, [8] By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true; [9] As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; [10] As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

Of course this is all my thinking out loud and I can’t prove any of it. But still to me there is a huge difference in Peter dissembling from eating with the gentiles out of fear when the Jews come in…and Paul’s observation of purification of the Jews and his bringing in a Greek to be purified along with them. One is exclusion…fearing men. One is a demonstration of inclusion… of the Greeks also. As said in Acts 20
Acts 20:21-22 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. [22] And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Before I forget regarding James and the elders advising Paul to observe the law so the Jews will know what they have heard of Paul is not true.

This is maybe a bad comparison but let’s say I am a devout Catholic since childhood in observation of all the Catholic preaches and observes as communion. But some in the body have gotten word that I teach things that are contrary to the observation of the Catholic communion, and they are thinking I’ve become as one in error. How the Catholic Church has gotten wind that I break bread and drink wine with those not able to partake of the bread (wafer) or drink of the wine, nor communion. Under advisory of the church I’ve once kept the customs of as one of them, they now hear I do that which is not within the Catholic observance of the Lord’s table in partaking of the bread and wine…I’m advised to come in to observe with those concerned, to put their minds at ease that what they have heard of me is not true. “Just show them it’s not true. Come to the Lord’s table in observation of the Catholic customs of communion.” So I go …but I take with me “a tattooed” “drunk sinner” friend who is not Catholic giving him a good seat, and later the church gets wind that I brought a friend in to partake of the Lords table…against their rules of allowing this one to partake of what is “holy” following the Catholic customs of communion. Did I appease their concerns of what they heard? It’s not a trick question. It’s pretty clear.

 

[Zao is life]

Before I forget regarding James and the elders advising Paul to observe the law so the Jews will know what they have heard of Paul is not true.

This is maybe a bad comparison but let’s say I am a devout Catholic since childhood in observation of all the Catholic preaches and observes as communion. But some in the body have gotten word that I teach things that are contrary to the observation of the Catholic communion, and they are thinking I’ve become as one in error. How the Catholic Church has gotten wind that I break bread and drink wine with those not able to partake of the bread (wafer) or drink of the wine, nor communion. Under advisory of the church I’ve once kept the customs of as one of them, they now hear I do that which is not within the Catholic observance of the Lord’s table in partaking of the bread and wine…I’m advised to come in to observe with those concerned, to put their minds at ease that what they have heard of me is not true. “Just show them it’s not true. Come to the Lord’s table in observation of the Catholic customs of communion.” So I go …but I take with me “a tattooed” “drunk sinner” friend who is not Catholic giving him a good seat, and later the church gets wind that I brought a friend in to partake of the Lords table…against their rules of allowing this one to partake of what is “holy” following the Catholic customs of communion. Did I appease their concerns of what they heard? It’s not a trick question. It’s pretty clear.

I'm going to read all the questions and see if there are some I still need to answer, but consider this history below first, which I've taken step by step. Really late here by me now so I will read it again tomorrow and reply on Friday to anything I left out. Hope that's OK with you?

But first to correct something you wrongly assumed about a Greek in the temple:

Acts 21
27 And when the seven days were about to be completed, the Jews who were from Asia, having seen him in the temple, stirred up all the crowd and laid hands on him,
28 And even he brought Greeks into the temple and has polluted this holy place.
29 (For they had seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city before, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

Paul did not bring a Greek into the Temple. It was a false accusation.

It was not even Jews from Jerusalem who first stirred up the drive to have Paul killed, although they were joined by the Jews from Jerusalem.

The incident was not related to Paul going through the purification ritual and the reason he did it, except for the fact that as a result of Paul going through the purification ritual, the Jews from Asia saw him in the temple and falsely accused him of having taken a Greek into the temple.

But the Jews from Asia and in Jerusalem wanted Paul done away with because they had come to know about Paul and his doctrine regarding the law of Moses.

Those Jews who knew about Paul and his doctrine regarding the law of Moses included the law-observant Jewish believers in Jerusalem, whom James and the elders of the church wanted Paul to placate by going through a ritual to show them that he was a law-observant Jew, and that what they had heard about Paul's teaching about the law of Moses was false.

Note: Paul had obviously got many Jews all around the world stirred up against him by the time he went to Jerusalem - because of his teaching about the law of Moses.

So think about this. Paul was totally dedicated to Christ, and he was prepared to be arrested in Jerusalem and even to die in Jerusalem for the name of Christ.

Do you think God would find Paul's faith and dedication commendable?

Of course God would have, and did.

Do you think God could have spoken by the Spirit to Paul telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem?

Of course God could have.

What if in his zeal to go to Jerusalem Paul wasn't hearing, but instead believing that the warning was not an instruction to Paul not to go, but a forewarning about what would inevitably happen to him in Jerusalem? (because the record in Acts shows that Paul was extremely zealous to get to Jerusalem).

IF God actually did not want Paul to go, would God speak to Paul through the Holy Spirit through others, giving Paul a message from the Holy Spirit - that those who spoke to Paul about it understood as telling Paul not to go?

Why did the Spirit of God speak to Paul through others in the first place when He could have spoken directly to Paul?

Why were Paul's travelling companions and disciples imploring Paul not to go? Were they defying the will of God? Or were they interpreting the message about what awaited Paul in Jerusalem differently to Paul?

So regardless of what the answer to those question are, Paul went.

Did that make God angry with Paul?

No.

Did Christ remain with Paul anyway?

Yes.

The Jews were so determined to kill him - but God prevented it - using the Roman rulers, who prevented it, and Paul even had an opportunity to testify to Christ before the Jews allowed him by the Roman rulers - but the Jews then wanted him killed even more.

So he got sent to Ceasarea by the Roman ruler to protect him and remained under house arrest for two years to protect him from the Jews. Felix the governor in Caesaria "commanded a centurion to keep Paul and to let him have liberty, and not to forbid anyone of his own to minister or come to him."

Felix did the above to protect Paul, not to punish him. But now there was a charge brought against Paul by the Jews which Roman law required to be tried, so they could not release Paul either. This remained the case until Paul died.

God was keeping Paul safe.

After two years the Jews plotted how to get the Roman governor to send Paul back to Jerusalem to stand trial so that they could kill him on the way. But God warned Paul about this via a family member, who managed to get word to Paul in time, and so Paul felt compelled to appeal to Ceasar when the Jews wanted him to be sent back to Jerusalem - which meant he had to be sent to Rome instead of Jerusalem.

God made sure Paul was not locked in a prison or dungeon in Rome either - God made sure that Paul would be able to kept under house arrest and be free to receive visitors

So was God angry with Paul for going to Jerusalem?

No. God knew his heart.

Did God make it possible for Paul to have visitors in Rome and write at least some of the epistles he wrote while he was there?

Yes.

As @marks pointed out (and as Paul himself wrote):

"All things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28).

"All things" means good and bad things.

So this thread is a mixture of subjects.

Going back to Jerusalem:

The law-observant Jewish believers in Christ in Jerusalem had a prejudice against Paul before he even arrived in Jerusalem because of what they had heard about Paul's teaching regarding the law.

So immediately after arriving in Jerusalem Paul found himself being pressed by the leaders of the Jerusalem church to go through a purification ritual in the temple in order to placate (appease) those Jews.

The result was personally disastrous to Paul - because as a result Jews from Asia saw him in the temple and the events that followed caused Paul to lose his freedom to travel around from one region and city to another - for the rest of his life.

God knew beforehand everything that would happen. So was God telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem when his disciples kept telling him not to go before he arrived there?

So say Paul indeed did misunderstand (as my OP asserts) because due to his zeal Paul was not listening due to not understanding that what God or his disciples were saying was telling him not to go,

but also knowing that Paul was prepared to be arrested and even die for the name of Christ,

would God have become angry with Paul for misunderstanding?

Of course not - the history in Acts shows the opposite - God remained with Paul anyway and made it possible for Paul to still use his house arrest in Rome for good.

The idolaters in this board have made Paul Christ, making Paul perfect and unable to have made any mistakes.

I will let the jury deliberate on whether or not Paul made himself guilty of the same hypocrisy he had accused Peter of when he went back to observing the law of Moses and temple worship - because the whole exercise was done to placate and appease the Jews who hated Paul's teaching regarding that very law of Moses.

And God knew what was coming before Paul arrived in Jerusalem. Why were all Paul's disciples and travel companions who had been given a knowledge by God of what was going to happen to Paul in Jerusalem all begging Paul not to go?

 

[Wrangler]

The idolaters in this board have made Paul Christ, making Paul perfect and unable to have made any mistakes.

Slur and Appeal to Strawman. You went from “hypocrite” to “any mistakes.”

Having any respect for Saint Paul beyond your lip service does not make one an IDOLATOR.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

I'm going to read all the questions and see if there are some I still need to answer, but consider this history below first, which I've taken step by step. Really late here by me now so I will read it again tomorrow and reply on Friday to anything I left out. Hope that's OK with you?

But first to correct something you wrongly assumed about a Greek in the temple:

Acts 21
27 And when the seven days were about to be completed, the Jews who were from Asia, having seen him in the temple, stirred up all the crowd and laid hands on him,
28 And even he brought Greeks into the temple and has polluted this holy place.
29 (For they had seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city before, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

Paul did not bring a Greek into the Temple. It was a false accusation.

It was not even Jews from Jerusalem who first stirred up the drive to have Paul killed, although they were joined by the Jews from Jerusalem.

The incident was not related to Paul going through the purification ritual and the reason he did it, except for the fact that as a result of Paul going through the purification ritual, the Jews from Asia saw him in the temple and falsely accused him of having taken a Greek into the temple.

But the Jews from Asia and in Jerusalem wanted Paul done away with because they had come to know about Paul and his doctrine regarding the law of Moses.

Those Jews who knew about Paul and his doctrine regarding the law of Moses included the law-observant Jewish believers in Jerusalem, whom James and the elders of the church wanted Paul to placate by going through a ritual to show them that he was a law-observant Jew, and that what they had heard about Paul's teaching about the law of Moses was false.

Note: Paul had obviously got many Jews all around the world stirred up against him by the time he went to Jerusalem - because of his teaching about the law of Moses.

So think about this. Paul was totally dedicated to Christ, and he was prepared to be arrested in Jerusalem and even to die in Jerusalem for the name of Christ.

Do you think God would find Paul's faith and dedication commendable?

Of course God would have, and did.

Do you think God could have spoken by the Spirit to Paul telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem?

Of course God could have.

What if in his zeal to go to Jerusalem Paul wasn't hearing, but instead believing that the warning was not an instruction to Paul not to go, but a forewarning about what would inevitably happen to him in Jerusalem? (because the record in Acts shows that Paul was extremely zealous to get to Jerusalem).

IF God actually did not want Paul to go, would God speak to Paul through the Holy Spirit through others, giving Paul a message from the Holy Spirit - that those who spoke to Paul about it understood as telling Paul not to go?

Why did the Spirit of God speak to Paul through others in the first place when He could have spoken directly to Paul?

Why were Paul's travelling companions and disciples imploring Paul not to go? Were they defying the will of God? Or were they interpreting the message about what awaited Paul in Jerusalem differently to Paul?

So regardless of what the answer to those question are, Paul went.

Did that make God angry with Paul?

No.

Did Christ remain with Paul anyway?

Yes.

The Jews were so determined to kill him - but God prevented it - using the Roman rulers, who prevented it, and Paul even had an opportunity to testify to Christ before the Jews allowed him by the Roman rulers - but the Jews then wanted him killed even more.

So he got sent to Ceasarea by the Roman ruler to protect him and remained under house arrest for two years to protect him from the Jews. Felix the governor in Caesaria "commanded a centurion to keep Paul and to let him have liberty, and not to forbid anyone of his own to minister or come to him."

Felix did the above to protect Paul, not to punish him. But now there was a charge brought against Paul by the Jews which Roman law required to be tried, so they could not release Paul either. This remained the case until Paul died.

God was keeping Paul safe.

After two years the Jews plotted how to get the Roman governor to send Paul back to Jerusalem to stand trial so that they could kill him on the way. But God warned Paul about this via a family member, who managed to get word to Paul in time, and so Paul felt compelled to appeal to Ceasar when the Jews wanted him to be sent back to Jerusalem - which meant he had to be sent to Rome instead of Jerusalem.

God made sure Paul was not locked in a prison or dungeon in Rome either - God made sure that Paul would be able to kept under house arrest and be free to receive visitors

So was God angry with Paul for going to Jerusalem?

No. God knew his heart.

Did God make it possible for Paul to have visitors in Rome and write at least some of the epistles he wrote while he was there?

Yes.

As @marks pointed out (and as Paul himself wrote):

"All things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28).

"All things" means good and bad things.

So this thread is a mixture of subjects.

Going back to Jerusalem:

The law-observant Jewish believers in Christ in Jerusalem had a prejudice against Paul before he even arrived in Jerusalem because of what they had heard about Paul's teaching regarding the law.

So immediately after arriving in Jerusalem Paul found himself being pressed by the leaders of the Jerusalem church to go through a purification ritual in the temple in order to placate (appease) those Jews.

The result was personally disastrous to Paul - because as a result Jews from Asia saw him in the temple and the events that followed caused Paul to lose his freedom to travel around from one region and city to another - for the rest of his life.

God knew beforehand everything that would happen. So was God telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem when his disciples kept telling him not to go before he arrived there?

So say Paul indeed did misunderstand (as my OP asserts) because due to his zeal Paul was not listening due to not understanding that what God or his disciples were saying was telling him not to go,

but also knowing that Paul was prepared to be arrested and even die for the name of Christ,

would God have become angry with Paul for misunderstanding?

Of course not - the history in Acts shows the opposite - God remained with Paul anyway and made it possible for Paul to still use his house arrest in Rome for good.

The idolaters in this board have made Paul Christ, making Paul perfect and unable to have made any mistakes.

I will let the jury deliberate on whether or not Paul made himself guilty of the same hypocrisy he had accused Peter of when he went back to observing the law of Moses and temple worship - because the whole exercise was done to placate and appease the Jews who hated Paul's teaching regarding that very law of Moses.

And God knew what was coming before Paul arrived in Jerusalem. Why were all Paul's disciples and travel companions who had been given a knowledge by God of what was going to happen to Paul in Jerusalem all begging Paul not to go?

Well now I feel embarrassed. I spent all morning chasing something that I’d misunderstood…being convinced Paul took a Greek into the temple as they accused. Scary is how often I do that without knowing I’m doing it. You can disregard the previous post…three I think on Paul bringing a Greek in the temple I do like how you broke it down for easy understanding and clarification. I do like that even if Paul made a mistake, seeing "All things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28).

It is reassuring I think when you are scared to death you are going to make the wrong choice …seeing how God means what He says in “all things” …the good and the bad.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Of course not - the history in Acts shows the opposite - God remained with Paul anyway and made it possible for Paul to still use his house arrest in Rome for good.

I acknowledge where you said maybe you’ll respond Friday. No rush. I do see now that they “accused” Paul of bringing a Greek into the temple. A few questions I still have that confuses me. When the Holy Spirit showed they would bind the man who the belt belong to …the Holy Spirit says “and deliver him into the hands of the gentiles”. Here is another place maybe I’m forcing it but it sounds like it still follows what Jesus Christ said concerning the plan for the gentiles and Paul. That they would deliver him unto the gentiles. See…so there I get confused where was it Gods Will that Paul be delivered over into the gentiles hands. Can you clarify the significance if any of their handing Paul over to the gentiles?

The idolaters in this board have made Paul Christ, making Paul perfect and unable to have made any mistakes.

I’ve experienced this also. Paul said he was a waster, a destroyer, a blasphemer. Even in this it’s hard to convince others sometimes that Saul was not perfect. To me Paul admits Saul was a vessel of destruction but by and for the grace of God, Paul received mercy becoming a vessel unto mercy. Or that is how I see it. But even that is hard to receive that Saul was a vessel unto destruction meant to be taken and destroyed. to me it’s vital to see because it shows me I also was a vessel unto destruction meant to be taken and destroyed. And it’s only by the Grace of God who creates a new vessel having obtained Mercy.

I will let the jury deliberate on whether or not Paul made himself guilty of the same hypocrisy he had accused Peter of when he went back to observing the law of Moses and temple worship - because the whole exercise was done to placate and appease the Jews who hated Paul's teaching regarding that very law of Moses.

I asked my husband telling him my interest in understanding of this topic. This was my husbands input when I asked him why he thinks Paul didn’t listen to what the Spirit was warning lay ahead in Jerusalem. His words, not mine, he said, “you know why he went. It was for Love that Paul went because he loved those people. He truly loved his brethren after the flesh and went into captivity for their sake, not for his own good but their good.” He went on to say “it’s easy to pick the low hanging fruit and exclaim how you gleaned that which was easy to do. But Paul through Love went for that which was hard. Willing to be taken captive.” I don’t see that kind of Love anymore. I still think that wasn’t Saul’s love by Christ’s Love in Paul. To go into captivity for the sake of others even to be rejected and cast out. Where Jesus Christ endured a great contradiction of sinners against himself for the joy set before Him, despising the shame. I don’t think Paul could bear it without Christ walking continuous to go where Saul would never go….seeking not his own glory but that of another. I don’t think that is making Paul God but I’m persuaded Paul did show the Love of Christ even towards those who hated and despised him.

And God knew what was coming before Paul arrived in Jerusalem. Why were all Paul's disciples and travel companions who had been given a knowledge by God of what was going to happen to Paul in Jerusalem all begging Paul not to go?

I do see what you said that they begged Paul repeatedly…even the locals joined in begging Paul not to go. My husband did suggest Paul didn’t die in Jerusalem but in Rome.

 

[Zao is life]

Returning to this. Not to keep it going but because it’s interesting. The first time I read the OP I didn’t connect that you were the one who posted the OP. As we talked more …reading the OP is more now knowing a little of the interaction we’ve had later in the thread. If that makes sense. I still have some questions or thoughts. They said through the Spirit Paul was not to go up to Jerusalem but prior in acts 20 there is this:

Acts 20:21-25 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. [22] And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: [23] Save that the Holy Spirit witnesses in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. ( did bonds and afflictions abide him?) 24] But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. [25] And now, behold, I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. (Not forgetting where Paul spoke of finishing the course. Did the course get sidetracked? It appears not because to finish …one has to move forward?)

If it wasn’t the Will of God that Paul go…then what of even before the prophet and others told of Paul being bound, Paul already spoke of knowing “bonds and affliction abide me”? I count my life not dear unto me …so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus… significant is …let these men alone for if this be a work of men then it will come to nothing, but if this work be of God “then nothing can over throw it” unless you be found to fight against God. The proof to me is what Work this was of for Paul to go…did it come to nothing being found a work of men? Imo no. For did the ministry given of God unto Paul fail?

Don’t forget
Ezekiel 3:24-25 Then the spirit entered into me, and set me upon my feet, and spoke with me, and said unto me, Go, shut thyself within your house. [25] But you, O son of man, behold, they shall put bands upon you, and shall bind you with them, and you shall not go out among them:

There still remains a difference in Peter and Paul’s rebuke. Peter fearing what men could do to the body at that point. Paul spoke of “including the Greek also” and was blamed for bringing a Greek into the temple and thereby soiling the temple. Peter showed fear of including the gentiles …but Paul brought a Greek also into the temple for purification.

Also, Paul sat with a weak brother in the temple too afraid to eat meat. If what happened with James and them was hypocritical of Paul…then it would also be hypocritical for Paul to not eat meat for the benefit of the weaker brother without knowledge of Christ whom meat offended. If Paul had been given Liberty…why not eat meat rather than observe what causes the weaker brother an offense? Isn’t that the same being put back under the law? I don’t think so, but under “charity” in observance of “the grace of God.”

I’m not good at the timing. With what happened when Paul observed the purification in the temple with the timing of the letters. But OT speaks of their excluding you …binding your feet and hands …they put Paul out of the temple and shut the door…because he brought a Greek into the temple. This is different than Peter dissembling for fear of what the Jews would do if Peter was found sitting with the gentiles. OT they were always stubborn and rebellious. Their reaction over a Greek found brought in caused their reaction to Paul …don’t forget James said let them know what is said about you is not true. Do this thing to appease them. And Paul did the opposite of appeasing them but revealed their worst nightmare of what they heard of Paul…we saw a Greek was brought into the temple and made our temple dirty.

I know you read my reply, but there is something else that escapes the attention of many with regard to Peter disassociating himself with the Gentiles in Antioch when the law-observing Jewish believers arrived from Jerusalem for a visit.

Peter lived in Jerusalem among all those law-observant Jews, and when he left Antioch, Peter would have had to return to Jerusalem to continue living among them. Paul did not live in Jerusalem among them when they all visited Paul and the Gentile converts in Antioch, and would not have been returning to Jerusalem like Peter had to.

So when Peter removed himself and stopped eating at table with the Gentiles in Antioch in order not to offend the law-observing Jews, Paul publicly accused Peter of hypocrisy.

Yet the moment Paul arrived in Jerusalem )who knows how many months or years later),

James and the elders asked Paul to observe a ritual in accordance with Mosaic law, lest the Jewish believers who were offended by what they had heard about Paul's teaching about the law, became incensed by Paul's presence - and Paul immediately agreed.

When Peter did what he did in Antioch, there was someone to accuse him of hypocrisy - Paul.

But when Paul did what he did in Jerusalem, the only people who might have accused him of hypocrisy were the very people who had pressed on Paul to do that in the first place.

Paul's doctrine on the law of Moses: Paul knew and taught that the Mosaic law was abolished in the flesh of Christ when He died on the cross, because the veil in what had until then been the sanctuary of God in that temple was torn in two, and the entire temple system became obsolete.

This was Paul's teaching. Paul indeed taught that observance of the law of Moses was part of the Old Covenant. But now a New Covenant had come - the New Covenant in Christ's blood, because a human had disobeyed God and sinned, and died, bringing death to all men, and a human had obeyed and taking all men's sin upon Himself, had died, and risen again. Jesus is the Son of man and the last Adam - the human who represents all humans who are in him, just as Adam represents all humans born into Adam.

The law does not purify and observance of the law makes us all guilty of transgressing it. The law is the shadow of what was to come - Christ.

This was Paul's teaching, and the Jews in Jerusalem all knew it, and hated Paul for it.

By the way, I'm not devaluing Paul and his teaching in my understanding or in my heart, because I believe Paul's doctrine - all of it.

So Paul's work and status and achievements are not diminished in my mind when I say Paul made a mistake and became guilty of the same type of hypocritical act that he had accused Peter of.

The idolaters in this thread who have exalted Paul have made it obvious to me that they do not value Paul or his work or his achievements or his theology nearly as much as I do

- because such appreciation for Paul's work as I have is impossible for idolaters.

 

[Zao is life]

I acknowledge where you said maybe you’ll respond Friday. No rush. I do see now that they “accused” Paul of bringing a Greek into the temple. A few questions I still have that confuses me. When the Holy Spirit showed they would bind the man who the belt belong to …the Holy Spirit says “and deliver him into the hands of the gentiles”. Here is another place maybe I’m forcing it but it sounds like it still follows what Jesus Christ said concerning the plan for the gentiles and Paul. That they would deliver him unto the gentiles. See…so there I get confused where was it Gods Will that Paul be delivered over into the gentiles hands. Can you clarify the significance if any of their handing Paul over to the gentiles?

God had foreknowledge of everything that would happen to Paul, and so no matter what Paul's choice may have been at any point in time, God would use it to bring about His own will.

Sometimes God's will comes about even though someone is not doing what God wants him to do at a time when what he is doing is going to lead to God's will coming about anyway.

There was no disobedient spirit or motivation behind Paul believing God was telling him to go to Jerusalem - and I agree 100% that Paul loved the Jews a great, great deal - and that was a big part of his zeal to go to Jerusalem. He was not shirking at what God was forewarning him of (because regardless of whether or not it was more than a forewarning, but God actually telling Paul not to go, it was still a forewarning). Romans 9:1-5 says it all.

I believe, and there is no doubt in my mind that God knew beforehand and before Paul was even called by Christ what Paul's decision would be when all his friends, travel companions and fellow believers were imploring him not to go.

In Paul's mind, God was telling him to go. In their minds, God was telling Paul not to go.

They knew that Paul had said he was "bound by the Spirit to Jerusalem". They would surely not have kept imploring him not to go if they did not believe Paul had misunderstood the warnings - because if they did, they would surely know that telling Paul not to go if God had been telling him to go, would have been defying God.

So I agree with what your husband said below:

I asked my husband telling him my interest in understanding of this topic. This was my husbands input when I asked him why he thinks Paul didn’t listen to what the Spirit was warning lay ahead in Jerusalem. His words, not mine, he said, “you know why he went. It was for Love that Paul went because he loved those people. He truly loved his brethren after the flesh and went into captivity for their sake, not for his own good but their good.” He went on to say “it’s easy to pick the low hanging fruit and exclaim how you gleaned that which was easy to do. But Paul through Love went for that which was hard. Willing to be taken captive.” I don’t see that kind of Love anymore. I still think that wasn’t Saul’s love by Christ’s Love in Paul. To go into captivity for the sake of others even to be rejected and cast out. Where Jesus Christ endured a great contradiction of sinners against himself for the joy set before Him, despising the shame. I don’t think Paul could bear it without Christ walking continuous to go where Saul would never go….seeking not his own glory but that of another. I don’t think that is making Paul God but I’m persuaded Paul did show the Love of Christ even towards those who hated and despised him.

Also bear in mind that I'm only looking at the history of what happened, and how it all came about. I'm not critical of anything Paul did. I just know that he was also human and capable of making a mistake.

I do see what you said that they begged Paul repeatedly…even the locals joined in begging Paul not to go. My husband did suggest Paul didn’t die in Jerusalem but in Rome.

Yes.

I've no doubt that God foreknew what would happen, and why it would happen. It does not mean that it was God's will that it should happen that way.
​

God does not always choose to intervene to stop someone from making a decision - even if we are under the false belief that God wants us to do something that He in fact does not want us to do

- but God is able to work the consequences of it for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose, as in Paul's case.

If it weren't for God's intervention through the Roman ruler Paul would have been killed. When God thus delivered Paul from their hands, God through the same ruler even made it possible for Paul to stand before a large crowd of Jews give bear testimony to Christ.

God had to intervene a few more times after that and continually ensure that Paul was protected from them. Aside from that one time Paul had been allowed by the Roman governor in Jerusalem to bear testimony to the crowd, there was no evangelism made to the Jews. Their hearts were too hard and they only wanted to kill the one who loved them.

Like Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Like Jesus. Like Paul. He followed in His Master's footsteps.
​

So because God foreknew that it would happen that way, He caused the things that happened to Paul in Jerusalem to work together for the good, and protected Paul, delivering him from the hands of those who wanted to kill him.

 

[PS95]

Stop answering for me please. This is the 2nd or 3rd time you are answering for me with @Wrangler and @Randy Kluth, misquoting things I said to you in my replies to your posts, and you are being dishonest, because I did not say that I now see that Peter acted out of fear (as though you informed me of something I never knew). I said that Paul accused him of hypocrisy because he did what he did to appease the Judaizing party from Jerusalem, regardless of Peter's motive for doing so.

AND I said that Paul did so because THE REASON why he was asked to do so by James and the elders in Jerusalem was BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO APPEASE THE JUDAIZING JEWS - those who were Torah-observing believers and BECAUSE the Judaizing Jews in Jerusalem had heard about Paul's doctrine regarding the law

- and it is implied in Acts by what James and the elders said that the Judaizers were in serious opposition to Paul because of his doctrine that they had heard about, and it was feared they would cause a scene (which could get Paul arrested). That's the implication in what James and the elders said to Paul when asking him to do what he did.

Paul made himself guilty that one time (that we know of) of the very same hypocrisy that he had accused Peter of by agreeing to do what James and the elders asked - for the reason they gave Paul as to why they asked him to do it.

And though these hysterical false accusers repeatedly falsely accuse me of thus saying that Paul WAS a hypocrite (falsely implying that I'm saying that hypocrisy characterized Paul), I have neither said even once that hypocrisy characterized Paul, nor changed my mind even once about what I said about him making himself guilty of hypocrisy that day.

Please do not misquote me or say something I did not say. You may be doing so in order to be all things to all men like Paul said he sought to be - but Paul would not have misquoted anyone in order to be "all things to all men". Not even once.

I also replied in Post # 104 to your (contemptible) suggestion that I apologize to people who should be apologizing to me. I have not attacked and falsely accused them of anything in this thread - even once - so there is NO reason why I should apologize to them.

I cant find the post now but yeah, I thought you were coming around. My mistake. I see you are now even worse than before. Judaizers? Seriously? You are very mixed up bro. diggin in deeper in that dung now, huh? it's ridiculous now how you accuse anyone who tried to help you. I told you that I didnt fully understand it so I always just shrugged it. BUT I also never fully looked in to it. I Just let it go knowing that I misunderstood something. We are worlds apart here. You dont have to apologize to anyone- that's on you.
You disregard motives of Paul and Peter, and that is a big part of your issue here. It's certainly not all.
Pray about this because you are NOT RIGHT.
Whatever-