Paul's hypocrisy and its consequence

[Jesusfollower]

Paul had done nothing wrong in terms of the law when he got arrested. He was arrested only because he was despised by Jews who accused him of speaking against Moses from long before he purified himself and followed the law to try and prove to them he was a Torah-observing Jew.

Yet a lot of what he wrote can be confusing. So no matter whether fluent in Greek or not he did seem to at times have difficulty in explaining exactly what he meant, IMO. The most eloquent and educated of people find it difficult to explain complicated subjects to ordinary people.

If you are yourself a Torah-observant believer in Jesus then we are not on the same page. I respect Paul. I have the utmost respect for him and I believe what he taught. But it's clear to me he made a huge error in taking the advice of Torah-observing "believers". The law and the New Covenant do not mix any more than oil and water mix.

That was Paul's second mistake. His first mistake was not to heed the disciples who told him through the Spirit NOT TO go to Jerusalem.

yes he did something wrong in terms of the law;

Act 21:27 When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him,

Act 21:28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”

Act 21:29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.

Paul was teaching against the law.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

but he did not judge

You should get to know the scripture better before posting things that are not true.

1 Corinthians 5:12,13
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

2 Corinthians 13:2
I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare:

You're falsely accusing me.

No I said "people" without mentioning your name.

Sadly you just associated yourself with the "people" I was referring to so you connected yourself

 

[PS95]

I saw it as an attack on Paul, right or wrong. And you attacking me for my opinion just shows your unwillingness to address the points and pivot to something personal.

In case you wish to ignore it, the point I was making is less the question of Paul's hypocrisy than what was meant by these apparent contradictions. If you do not see calling Paul a "hypocrite" as an attack on him, then I wonder where your reasoning powers have gone? You said...

"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."

Then you seemed to indicate Paul ended up jailed and dead because of his obstinacy in pleasing the believing Jews. But I don't believe it was the believing Jews who were the problem, and certainly not the cause of his arrest. Rather, it was the unbelieving Jews who were not convinced by his willingness to observe the Jewish customs.

You seem to imply that James and the other Christian leaders observed the Law. They did not. James referred to the Law of God now as the "Law of Liberty," which clearly is no longer bound by the covenant at Sinai.

And then you indicated you "liked" Hepzibah, who said this....

"Paul has lost his way and is now driven by his own thoughts, which may not be wrong in themselves, such as wanting to get offerings to the brethren in Jerusalem, after all, his desire is still to serve Christ and those to whom he had preached the gospel. He had not turned aside from his ministry but he had ceased to hear God speaking to him and he was also refusing to hear those to whom God was having to resort to speak though and therefore playing straight into the hands of the enemy who delights in God’s children getting it slightly wrong (not to touch the fruit) with tragic results in putting oneself outside of God’s will."

This is clearly an attack on Paul, and you appear to endorse it.

From what Paul said about being willing to be bound in Jerusalem and even die in Jerusalem for the name of Christ, it's obvious that he believed that the disciples and his travel companions were concerned for him because of the repeated prophecies telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem because if he did, he would be bound there.

Paul's words and determination show IMO that he mistook it for a prophecy about something that would "inevitably" happen to him in Jerusalem, not realizing that it was God telling him not to go to Jerusalem. The words of the disciples who prophesied through the Holy Spirit said Paul was NOT TO go.

I'm 100% sure that I'm correct in my belief that if Paul had seen it as an instruction from God rather than a prophecy about what would "inevitably" happen to him, he would have obeyed and not gone up to Jerusalem.

Then, after following the advice of the elders to undergo the purification ritual to appease "Jews who believe, and are all zealous of the law." (Acts 20:20) who considered Paul a wicked man and his teaching to be wicked, Paul actually in the process of heeding THEIR advice (rather than having heeded the advice of all those who had been telling him NOT TO go up to Jerusalem), unnecessarily attracted attention to himself.

God bless our apostle Paul. One mistake during his entire ministry is good going (well, the one we know of).

What I don't understand is how people can exalt themselves to the place of God and, as though they know my motive for the OP, can falsely accuse me of "attacking" Paul.

Maybe they have all the apostles exalted in their minds to God-like status on a high and lofty pedestal and do not realize that even the apostles were capable of making mistakes or errors in judgment, because they too were as human as we are.

None of what I said in the OP takes away from the work or status and authority of Paul, and OF COURSE it does not mean that I believe even for a second something as foolish as "I would not have done that". I hold the apostles, and the apostle Paul in very high esteem and Paul's work - despite the persecution he so often suffered - to me means that today I (we all) still have our understanding greatly enlightened by his epistles.

I place great value on Paul, his work and his epistles, and from the kind of prideful reactions I have got from some, I'm beginning to think that maybe it's because I value Paul MORE than they do, that others here falsely accuse me of "attacking" Paul - because they have never noticed the things I mentioned in the OP - because THEY don't value Paul and his work with the same high level that I do - though they claim to - so they just don't notice things that are important (or else they just don't know the scriptures that well). Or something - only God knows their motive in their hearts and the reason for their ignorant and prideful false accusations.

I have said this only for the sake of anyone else who might read this thread without commenting and be wrongly influenced by the false accusations of those who seem to have exulted themselves to the position of God, knowing the motive, heart and mind of others who they may disagree with - just because they disagree.

I have not "attacked" Paul and those who would want to make themselves the accuser of the brethren on behalf of the one who can no longer do so, need only to be reminded that the reason he can no longer accuse the brethren is because Christ's blood has taken away the indictment - and it was according to law that Christ did so. False accusations against believers in Christ are simply illegitimate - so you can hand them back to the one who handed them to you before you use them against a believer. Copy @Randy Kluth​

I agree with you. Nothing is said about why he chose not to listen to the Holy Spirit, other than he was ready to die for the Lord.
I also do not believe that the apostles in Jerusalem knew of that warning. There would have been a discussion I would think.

To be honest, I have confusion with all of this story. I am not doubting Paul's sincerity at all. I love Paul, but maybe it's because I was never a Jew. I dont think I would do what he did. I think I would have felt like I was not honoring Jesus- especially where the sacrifice was burned for him. Paul and the apostles didn't see it that way and again- it's probably due to not being a Jew on my part.
Paul knew the sacrifice meant nothing- and was only trying to win them somehow.. I dont know how that would work though. What was he thinking? To befried them and follow the law until an opportunity came to explain why the law is not necessary- that could have taken quite some time. How many burnt scarifices would he allow? He knew he was going to be chained and bound.

As you pointed out , Peter was reproved by Paul over a similar occurance. The only difference is that Peter was doing it out of fear of the Jews. That's was Paul's view anyway. Paul was doing what he did out... of wanting to be a martyr for Jesus. That's what it says. Did he do it out of love for the Jews who kept the law? Maybe, It doesnt say that though. It says what it says.

After reading the early church fathers- it seems they did indeed look for ways to be martyr'd.

I dont want to hear from others about how wrong i am. lol It says what it says.
Paul said he wanted to die and be with Christ- I think he really meant it, literally.

It could be a little tricky discerning between what dishonors the Lord, and how far we should go to win man. I dont pretend to get it all.

 

[Zao is life]

I agree with you. Nothing is said about why he chose not to listen to the Holy Spirit, other than he was ready to die for the Lord.
I also do not believe that the apostles in Jerusalem knew of that warning. There would have been a discussion I would think.

To be honest, I have confusion with all of this story. I am not doubting Paul's sincerity at all. I love Paul, but maybe it's because I was never a Jew. I dont think I would do what he did. I think I would have felt like I was not honoring Jesus- especially where the sacrifice was burned for him. Paul and the apostles didn't see it that way and again- it's probably due to not being a Jew on my part.
Paul knew the sacrifice meant nothing- and was only trying to win them somehow.. I dont know how that would work though. What was he thinking? To befried them and follow the law until an opportunity came to explain why the law is not necessary- that could have taken quite some time. How many burnt scarifices would he allow? He knew he was going to be chained and bound.

As you pointed out , Peter was reproved by Paul over a similar occurance. The only difference is that Peter was doing it out of fear of the Jews. That's was Paul's view anyway. Paul was doing what he did out... of wanting to be a martyr for Jesus. That's what it says. Did he do it out of love for the Jews who kept the law? Maybe, It doesnt say that though. It says what it says.

After reading the early church fathers- it seems they did indeed look for ways to be martyr'd.

I dont want to hear from others about how wrong i am. lol It says what it says.
Paul said he wanted to die and be with Christ- I think he really meant it, literally.

It could be a little tricky discerning between what dishonors the Lord, and how far we should go to win man. I dont pretend to get it all.

I agree. Possibly James and the elders in Jerusalem were told about the prophecy, and because they were told, they saw it as more urgent that Paul did something to appease his enemies - the "Jews who believe, and are all zealous of the law." who considered Paul's teaching wicked, so "they said to him,

"You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed concerning you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the nations to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? At all events a multitude will come together, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do this, what we say to you: .."

James and the elders possibly feared that the above Jewish "believers" would cause a scene when they saw Paul, and this would lead to a tumult, and wanted to prevent that from happening - and maybe all the more so because they were told of the prophecy.

As you say, we are simply not told. So the above inference may not be correct.

I also think that in Paul's zeal to take the offering to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem he wound up being on his own mission instead of on the Lord's mission, which is an easy mistake for any evangelist to make - and part of the origin of Paul's zeal at that point in time was this:

"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 9:1-5

So if due to his zeal Paul was (without realizing it) at that point on his own mission instead of on the Lord's mission, then that could be the reason why Paul did not realize that the Holy Spirit telling him through other disciples NOT TO go to Jerusalem was an instruction, not merely a prophecy of what he was to "inevitably" experience in Jerusalem. Paul had been imprisoned a number of times before, and was always freed afterward. He may not have expected to remain under arrest for the rest of his life.

(I'm discussing possibilities here and will possibly be accused by others again of using nothing but conjecture and of "attacking" Paul and blah blah blah), but anyway ..

I agree with what you say about the difference between why Peter did what he did to appease the Judaizing Jewish party and Paul doing the same thing - another point is that when Peter did that, he had someone to accuse him of hypocrisy,- i.e Paul - but when Paul did that, the only people who could accuse him of hypocrisy were the very people whose advice Paul was acting on. So I'm not surprised there is no record of anyone accusing Paul of hypocrisy!

I think that in our interpretation of this history, an important thing to bear in mind is the words, ".. who believe, and are all zealous of the law." - because they were the only reason given in Acts why James and the elders at Jerusalem strongly advised and pressed on Paul to do what he did - with disastrous consequences for Paul and with that would have been disastrous consequences for his entire calling had it occurred much earlier in his mission to the Gentiles.

We also should bear in mind that though Paul was zealous to preach to the Jews in Jerusalem, things had gotten rougher for Christians by the time Paul was returning to Jerusalem - and Paul was not called to preach to the Jews, but to the Gentiles. Those who were called to preach to the Jews were doing so.

So I think it's possible that in his zeal - and there was nothing sinful about his zeal or the motive of his heart - Paul had wound up on his own mission and not on the Lord's mission (without Paul realizing it). As our modern saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with many good intentions". In this case not the road to hell for Paul or anyone else, but the road to Paul finding himself outside of the Lord's will for a very brief period of time.

So Paul, our great apostle who likened the law to bondage and grace to freedom in his doctrine, wound up being bound in chains after observing the law to appease "Jews who believe, and are all zealous of the law."

There may also be a theological lesson in that with regard to our reaction today's "Torah-observant believers", I think - many of whom are Paul-haters, just as those of the first century were, and many of whom are bullies of those who do not agree with them, attempting to employ intimidation through false accusations against those who do not follow their doctrines - just as those who hated Paul. And the theological lesson is: Do not try to appease them. You can't. If you cannot simply ignore them, then oppose them (their false doctrines), but do not try to appease them.

(I put that in bold red for the sake of anyone who might read this thread)

Anyway, Paul was still saved. I don't believe it affected his salvation or his relationship with Christ in any way, nor was his teaching and all his post-conversion hard work diminished in any way - but he suffered the consequences of his mistake till he died. Which is a very, very sad fact that gives us a "sad ending" "memory" of our beloved apostle Paul whom we have all got to know so well through his writings.

God bless Paul!​

 

[Zao is life]

I am not supporting Randy! I think today's is my only post to you in my life! And I don't think you've ever made one to me before this (other than a "Like" to my Post #26 in this thread). Could you have me mixed up with someone else?

The question you asked is in the OP of this thread and is what the OP was about. In later posts in this thread the answer to your question was repeated by others besides myself when discussing the OP, and this was before you asked the question.

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you never read the OP carefully enough to realize that the answer to your question was in the OP, and I'll assume that you also never read the replies of two others in this thread where we (they and myself) are discussing and repeating the same answer to your question contained in the OP (which they saw and understood).

So giving you the benefit of the doubt, I apologize.​

 

[Zao is life]

No need to get offended, my friend. I just asked a simple question: how you know that Peter and Paul committed only one act of hypocrisy each. (Now you say "at least" once, but that wasn't what you said earlier -- which is why I posed my question.)

It's amazing how at least two others in this thread understand what I said in the OP and do not accuse me of changing anything I said because they know and understand what I'm saying, but you and some others decided immediately to get into attack mode - latest you - by implying I keep changing my mind and saying something I never said earlier.

Just stay out of the conversation if you want to ask questions that were already answered in the OP (that at least two others saw and understood), and instead of pretending you do not understand what I said and then falsely claim that it's because this or that "isn't what I said earlier", stay out of the conversation. Because it's a waste of time having to reply to posts like yours. pretending you don't understand what I said or what I'm saying, "and it's my fault".

I have not changed the things I started talking about in the OP and what I was saying about those things.​

 

[PS95]

I agree. Possibly James and the elders in Jerusalem were told about the prophecy, and because they were told, they saw it as more urgent that Paul did something to appease his enemies - the "Jews who believe, and are all zealous of the law." who considered Paul's teaching wicked, so "they said to him,

"You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed concerning you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the nations to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? At all events a multitude will come together, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do this, what we say to you: .."

James and the elders possibly feared that the above Jewish "believers" would cause a scene when they saw Paul, and this would lead to a tumult, and wanted to prevent that from happening - and maybe all the more so because they were told of the prophecy.

As you say, we are simply not told. So the above inference may not be correct.

I also think that in Paul's zeal to take the offering to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem he wound up being on his own mission instead of on the Lord's mission, which is an easy mistake for any evangelist to make - and part of the origin of Paul's zeal at that point in time was this:

"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 9:1-5

So if due to his zeal Paul was (without realizing it) at that point on his own mission instead of on the Lord's mission, then that could be the reason why Paul did not realize that the Holy Spirit telling him through other disciples NOT TO go to Jerusalem was an instruction, not merely a prophecy of what he was to "inevitably" experience in Jerusalem. Paul had been imprisoned a number of times before, and was always freed afterward. He may not have expected to remain under arrest for the rest of his life.

(I'm discussing possibilities here and will possibly be accused by others again of using nothing but conjecture and of "attacking" Paul and blah blah blah), but anyway ..

I agree with what you say about the difference between why Peter did what he did to appease the Judaizing Jewish party and Paul doing the same thing - another point is that when Peter did that, he had someone to accuse him of hypocrisy,- i.e Paul - but when Paul did that, the only people who could accuse him of hypocrisy were the very people whose advice Paul was acting on. So I'm not surprised there is no record of anyone accusing Paul of hypocrisy!

I think that in our interpretation of this history, an important thing to bear in mind is the words, ".. who believe, and are all zealous of the law." - because they were the only reason given in Acts why James and the elders at Jerusalem strongly advised and pressed on Paul to do what he did - with disastrous consequences for Paul and with that would have been disastrous consequences for his entire calling had it occurred much earlier in his mission to the Gentiles.

We also should bear in mind that though Paul was zealous to preach to the Jews in Jerusalem, things had gotten rougher for Christians by the time Paul was returning to Jerusalem - and Paul was not called to preach to the Jews, but to the Gentiles. Those who were called to preach to the Jews were doing so.

So I think it's possible that in his zeal - and there was nothing sinful about his zeal or the motive of his heart - Paul had wound up on his own mission and not on the Lord's mission (without Paul realizing it). As our modern saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with many good intentions". In this case not the road to hell for Paul or anyone else, but the road to Paul finding himself outside of the Lord's will for a very brief period of time.

So Paul, our great apostle who likened the law to bondage and grace to freedom in his doctrine, wound up being bound in chains after observing the law to appease "Jews who believe, and are all zealous of the law."

There may also be a theological lesson in that with regard to our reaction today's "Torah-observant believers", I think - many of whom are Paul-haters, just as those of the first century were, and many of whom are bullies of those who do not agree with them, attempting to employ intimidation through false accusations against those who do not follow their doctrines - just as those who hated Paul. And the theological lesson is: Do not try to appease them. You can't. If you cannot simply ignore them, then oppose them (their false doctrines), but do not try to appease them.

(I put that in bold red for the sake of anyone who might read this thread)

Anyway, Paul was still saved. I don't believe it affected his salvation or his relationship with Christ in any way, nor was his teaching and all his post-conversion hard work diminished in any way - but he suffered the consequences of his mistake till he died. Which is a very, very sad fact that gives us a "sad ending" "memory" of our beloved apostle Paul whom we have all got to know so well through his writings.

God bless Paul!​

I for one, am very glad that you brought this up. Everytime I read it my mind always went to Peter, and I never knew what to make of it. I just shrugged it off. --So, thank you!
Apparently, you've hit on something that has been a question for others, previously. I think this does a fair job with it. It's the only commentary I've read on it. I generally dont use commentaries much, but my daughter just recently was talking about how she likes this site. --It answered my q's. see what you think-

Enduring Word Bible Commentary Acts Chapter 21

David Guzik commentary on Acts 21, where Paul arrives in Jerusalem where he reports of the good work of God among the Gentiles.

enduringword.com

Also, see what the Lord said to Paul later in Acts 23:11

 

[Zao is life]

I for one, am very glad that you brought this up. Everytime I read it my mind always went to Peter, and I never knew what to make of it. I just shrugged it off. --So, thank you!
Apparently, you've hit on something that has been a question for others, previously. I think this does a fair job with it. It's the only commentary I've read on it. I generally dont use commentaries much, but my daughter just recently was talking about how she likes this site. --It answered my q's. see what you think-

Enduring Word Bible Commentary Acts Chapter 21

David Guzik commentary on Acts 21, where Paul arrives in Jerusalem where he reports of the good work of God among the Gentiles.

enduringword.com

Also, see what the Lord said to Paul later in Acts 23:11

Thank you

 

[Wrangler]

there was no attacking of Paul going on in the OP whatsoever.

I respect Paul. I have the utmost respect for him

The term gaslighting comes to mind ... You don't even have enough respect for Paul - or the readers of this thread - to admit to attacking an Apostle of Christ when you do it. That's gall!

Your "objective analysis" is more gaslighting. You invent a standard designed to attack the Apostle. Others explained your confusion but you don't have eyes to see. Being told a course of action will have certain consequences does not mean it is not right to still take that course of action.

As it was said in a vid I watched recently, we are not sent to Earth to be successful. We are sent to Earth to be faithful. Paul was faithful, not a hyocrite as you allege.

 

[Zao is life]

The term gaslighting comes to mind ... You don't even have enough respect for Paul - or the readers of this thread - to admit to attacking an Apostle of Christ when you do it. That's gall!

Your "objective analysis" is more gaslighting. You invent a standard designed to attack the Apostle. Others explained your confusion but you don't have eyes to see. Being told a course of action will have certain consequences does not mean it is not right to still take that course of action.

As it was said in a vid I watched recently, we are not sent to Earth to be successful. We are sent to Earth to be faithful. Paul was faithful, not a hyocrite as you allege.

Go away. You're a liar and have willingly taken up the mantle of the accuser of the brethren when he passed it on to you. But the father of your lie and false accusation is the father of lies, so it's no wonder you come here and say what he inspired you to say.

The Lord Jesus Christ rebuke you for your lying accusations!

 

[Wrangler]

His first mistake was not to heed the disciples who told him through the Spirit NOT TO go to Jerusalem.

This is a mischaracterization of the text. It was the disciples who told him not to go. It was the Spirit that told them what would happen. This does not mean the Holy Spirit told them to tell Paul not to go and he disobeyed.

Acts 21:12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem.

 

[Zao is life]

It's no wonder James and the elders were so concerned about what the Judaizing element of the "believers" in Jerusalem would do when they saw Paul, and no wonder Paul was falsely accused. It's not much better today, is it?

Luckily all the false accusers in this thread can't put anyone they falsely accuse in chains

 

[PS95]

The term gaslighting comes to mind ... You don't even have enough respect for Paul - or the readers of this thread - to admit to attacking an Apostle of Christ when you do it. That's gall!

Your "objective analysis" is more gaslighting. You invent a standard designed to attack the Apostle. Others explained your confusion but you don't have eyes to see. Being told a course of action will have certain consequences does not mean it is not right to still take that course of action.

As it was said in a vid I watched recently, we are not sent to Earth to be successful. We are sent to Earth to be faithful. Paul was faithful, not a hyocrite as you allege.

Easy there Wrangler! You dont have that name for nuthin huh? lol Tell me you've never connected that with Peter? I have. I'm glad it's resolved now in my mind, anyway. I think it was good to get it out in the open. It was obvioulsy bothering Zoe too. Nothing wrong with that. That's all.

It's simple- really.... I would really be a terrible Jew. I would have went and yelled at them all. lol

 

[Zao is life]

This is a mischaracterization of the text. It was the disciples who told him not to go. It was the Spirit that told them what would happen. This does not mean the Holy Spirit told them to tell Paul not to go and he disobeyed.

Acts 21:12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem.

This is a mischaracterization of the text I wrote. You've proved a second time now in as many of your posts that you're a liar. The father of your lies is the father of lies. I never said that Paul disobeyed. I said Paul never listened. Later on I discussed with sane people the possible reasons why he never listened. It's as far as the east is from the west from "disobedience" YOU said Paul "disobeyed" in the post above in order to deliberately mischaracterize what I was saying in the text of the OP of this thread.

You've showed yourself and your deviousness up now twice in as many posts that you made. It's a waste of time talking to you when you begin with false accusations and lies. So have fun showing yourself up. I won't be responding to you again after this post.

 

[PS95]

This is a mischaracterization of the text. It was the disciples who told him not to go. It was the Spirit that told them what would happen. This does not mean the Holy Spirit told them to tell Paul not to go and he disobeyed.

Acts 21:12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem.

21:4 After looking up the disciples, we stayed there for seven days; and they kept telling Paul, through the Spirit, not to set foot in Jerusalem
That's what begged the question. I hope you can resolve in your heart to understand the confusion.

 

[PS95]

This is a mischaracterization of the text I wrote. You've proved a second time now in as many of your posts that you're a liar. The father of your lies is the father of lies. I never said that Paul disobeyed. I said Paul never listened. Later on I discussed with sane people the possible reasons why he never listened. It's as far as the east is from the west from "disobedience" YOU said Paul "disobeyed" in the post above in order to deliberately mischaracterize what I was saying in the text of the OP of this thread.

You've showed yourself up now twice in as many posts that you made. It's a waste of time talking to you when you begin with false accusations and lies. So have fun showing yourself up. I won't be responding to you again after this post.

Sometimes I really hate this site..........
Too many are on constant attack mode of fellow believers.
False teachers in the cults dont get the whippings..
Things that make you go hmmm

 

[Wrangler]

21:4 After looking up the disciples, we stayed there for seven days; and they kept telling Paul, through the Spirit, not to set foot in Jerusalem
That's what begged the question. I hope you can resolve in your heart to understand the confusion.

Oy vey! Reading comprehension. Who did the telling?
A. The Spirit
B. They (the disciples)

Many are confused by agency in the Bible, where many do things "through" another. The CEV translation renders the verse "The Holy Spirit had told them to warn Paul not to go on to Jerusalem." A warning is not a command. The Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of commanding Paul directly. That is simply not how the text reads.

 

[Wrangler]

This is a mischaracterization of the text I wrote.

No, it's not. It perfectly characterizes what you wrote.

I won't be responding to you again after this post.

Suit yourself.

Too many are on constant attack mode of fellow believers.

Agreed. Paul was a believer, attacked by @Zao is life. And Zac gaslights this attack, calling it "utmost respect" for Paul! I hope he doesn't have such respect for me to call me a hypocrite for doing the Lord's work.

 

[PS95]

Oy vey! Reading comprehension. Who did the telling?
A. The Spirit
B. They (the disciples)

Many are confused by agency in the Bible, where many do things "through" another. The CEV translation renders the verse "The Holy Spirit had told them to warn Paul not to go on to Jerusalem." A warning is not a command. The Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of commanding Paul directly. That is simply not how the text reads.

You are really one rude individual. So the Spirit can not speak thru others. SINCE WHEN???
Dont answer that. I'm bout out of time for your nasty spirit.

Agreed. Paul was a believer, attacked by @Zao is life. And Zac gaslights this attack, calling it "utmost respect" for Paul! I hope he doesn't have such respect for me to call me a hypocrite for doing the Lord's work.

I really don't think you have anything to worry about.

 

[Zao is life]

I for one, am very glad that you brought this up. Everytime I read it my mind always went to Peter, and I never knew what to make of it. I just shrugged it off. --So, thank you!
Apparently, you've hit on something that has been a question for others, previously. I think this does a fair job with it. It's the only commentary I've read on it. I generally dont use commentaries much, but my daughter just recently was talking about how she likes this site. --It answered my q's. see what you think-

Enduring Word Bible Commentary Acts Chapter 21

David Guzik commentary on Acts 21, where Paul arrives in Jerusalem where he reports of the good work of God among the Gentiles.

enduringword.com

Also, see what the Lord said to Paul later in Acts 23:11

Yes, Acts 23:11 shows that Paul's work was able to continue, albeit in a more restricted way than before - but what I mean is the consequences to Paul, personally were disastrous for him - being under effective house arrest in Rome for the rest of his life after the first two years - that cannot be easy for anyone, let alone Paul. It's sad that his last years on the planet had to end that way for him.

The above site

The commentaries show a lot of very thoughtfully produced insight and good understanding behind a lot of things -

but the person who wrote the article (who is obviously working through why Paul did not listen) is under the impression that it's a case of EITHER the instruction NOT TO go up to Jerusalem was "a human interpretation of the Holy Spirit’s prophecy of the danger that awaited Paul"

OR "Paul went against the Holy Spirit’s direction"

OR "he was in direct rebellion." (as some commentators have it)

I think it's none of the above. I think Paul would never have gone against the Holy Spirit's direction but he failed to listen to it because in his zeal he did not realize that he was actually being told by God NOT TO go up to Jerusalem and was not merely being warned about what he was going to experience in Jerusalem.

Paul of all people was no coward. He would not have shrunk from going to Jerusalem and would have been thankful that God had told him what was coming. Nor would Paul have gone against the council of the Holy Spirit had he realized that God was actually instructing him NOT to go up to Jerusalem.

And he DEFINITELY WAS NOT in rebellion.

I think it was a simple case of Paul for a brief period having got himself all wound up on his own mission instead of on Christ's mission - and not because there was anything bad about his motive, nor about the reasons he wound up on his own mission (whatsoever). It's just "what happened, happened"

It was definitely a very brief lapse in judgment in Paul's case to heed to the advice of James and the elders - and a lapse in their judgment also.

So even Paul was human :)

God bless Paul!​