Generally speaking, I don’t like to leave things hanging in the air.
And even less do I like anyone thinking that I might have been trying to mislead people.
As I’ve often said, I don’t mind telling you, “I don’t really know what this scripture means.”
I am not one of those “know-in-all” preachers.
And just to be honest, sometimes I wonder how you and the Lord put up with my stupidity.
But I’ve gotten pretty bold over the last week, saying that Paul was not in sin or rebellion against God when he continued on to Jerusalem.
I have said several times, Paul’s friends were urging him to avoid the big city,
On the other hand, I’m not so foolish to think that MY insistence on something makes it so.
When I said that to someone prior to the service, he was knocked on his heels, because he was sure that some of the prophets had told Paul not to go.
And then after the service another person came to me with Acts 21:4 which appears to prove that I was wrong, and this time I was knocked back on my heels.
I went home depressed thinking that I had made a statement without investigating it properly.
I couldn’t understand how I missed – or misunderstood – this verse while preparing for that message.
So Monday morning I read and re-read EVERY reference in my library which dealt with this verse.
The title of tonight’s lesson is “Who was Right?”
And before you think that it’s in reference to you and me, let me stop you.
The title is in regard to whether Paul or his friends were right.
Notice Acts 20:22-23: – “And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.”
Even though we have not been told about them, it appears that when Paul left his three-year ministry in Ephesus, traveling through Macedonia and Achaia, prophets in Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Corinth and other places had been telling him that once he got to Jerusalem he would be bound and afflicted.
But from the way in which Paul worded verse 23, the Holy Spirit DID NOT tell Paul NOT to go to Jerusalem.
“The Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.”
I personally think that the word “abide” sounds kind of strange here.
The Greek word “meno” means exactly what you’d think that “abide” should mean: “dwell” or “remain.”
Paul was saying – “bonds and afflictions” will dwell, or already, dwell upon me in Jerusalem.
Doesn’t the language of that verse say that these things were already guaranteed?
The way that Paul worded this verse, I don’t hear God forbidding his trip to Jerusalem or even warning him.
This sounds like a statement of fact.
“The Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.”
Then when Agabus prophesied about Paul’s trip to Jerusalem, it was in the same sort of way.
There was no command NOT to go, but just a statement of fact.
And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost,
So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.”
“And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.”
Paul’s friends and those of Caesarea plead with Paul, but not necessarily those of Jerusalem.
It’s not: “If you go to Jerusalem, bonds and afflictions will fall on you.”
It is: “WHEN you get to Jerusalem, you will be bound and afflicted.”
I agree that this verse APPEARS to say that the Holy Spirit told Paul NOT to go up to Jerusalem.
I agree that this verse SEEMS to say that whoever those prophets were in Tyre they were telling Paul NOT to complete that journey.
And I further agree, that this is VERY CONFUSING.
So Monday, I studied my library to come up with every comment and reference to this verse that I possess.
I looked in theology books which have scripture indexes and then through all my commentaries.
I looked in collections of sermons; I looked everywhere that I could think of.
In addition to other unrelated books, there were several commentators who didn’t deal with this question:
Wycliffe Bible Commentary, J.F.B., E. L. Bynum in his little study of Acts, my former teacher J. H. Melton, and a book by the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board which had been given to me.
In a minute I’m going to read statements from more than a dozen different scholars which say in different ways that Paul was DIRECTED BY GOD TO GO TO JERUSALEM.
But before I do that, I want to read the one clear statement that PAUL WAS WRONG, and it comes from my good friend B. H. Carroll.
“There are two notable events in the week’s stay of Paul’s party there… One is that the prophets there distinctly made known to Paul by the Holy Spirit that he should not go to Jerusalem.
Combining the statement … about what the prophet said to Paul, that he should not go to Jerusalem, and … when Agabus came down from Judea and in an emblematic way showed what would happen to Paul if he did go to Jerusalem, and the passage in the next chapter, where Paul relates an experience of his that took place on his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, in which Christ had appeared unto him and told him that the Jews there would never receive his testimony, and to get away and go far hence to the Gentiles, I do not think that Paul was justifiable in going to Jerusalem.
He went against the expressed declaration of the Spirit of God speaking through the prophets; and the explanation of his going is that the man’s love for home mission work, and his intense desire to save the Jerusalem Jews, always kept him looking back toward Jerusalem. In the letter to the Romans he says that he could wish himself accursed from Christ for his brethren’s sake according to the flesh. And there is no doubt that his going to Jerusalem at this time was wholly unnecessary. The purpose of the going was to carry the big contribution that had been collected, and the representatives of the churches were right there with him, and were carrying the money.
It is a fact that his going at that time kept him shut up in prison four years – two years of the time at Caesarea, in which we have no history of him. If there were any letters written, they were not preserved. The other two years of the time he was at Rome, where he was carried. There we have some great work done by him, but I can’t persuade myself that it was the will of God for him to go to Jerusalem at that time. It puts the greatest worker in the world out of commission for four years, except as I think, it is quite probable that when he was at Caesarea that two years, he helped Luke write his Gospel, and later gave us his prison letters from Rome.”
This is the only book in my library which declares that Paul sinned in going to Jerusalem.
In searching through my library I almost missed John Calvin, because his book includes notes on John, and I had filed it there rather than in Acts.
Calvin was the last book I checked, and as I started to read his comments it appeared at first glance that he agreed with Carroll, but as I read on, his words seemed to come between the two camps.
“They said by the Spirit. Namely, with the approbation of speech, that Paul might know that they spake by the Spirit of prophecy. Surely this was no small temptation to muse him not to finish the journey which he had taken in hand, seeing the Holy Ghost did dissuade him from the same. And this was a very fair colour to fly from the cross, if he had cared for his own safety, to be drawn back as it were with the hand of God. Notwithstanding, he ceaseth not to hold on thither whither he knew he was called by the Lord.
Notwithstanding, here ariseth a question, how the brethren can dissuade him by the Spirit from doing that which Paul did testify he doth by the secret motion of the same Spirit? Is the Spirit contrary to himself, that he doth now loose Paul whom he held bound inwardly?
I answer, that there be divers gifts of the Spirit; so that it is no marvel if those who excel in the gift of prophecy be sometimes destitute of judgment or strength. The Lord showed to these brethren, of whom Luke maketh mention, what should come to pass; yet, nevertheless, they know not what is expedient, and what Paul’s calling doth require, because the measure of their gift doth not reach so far. And the Lord would have his servant admonished of purpose, partly, that through long meditation, he might be better furnished and prepared to suffer whatsoever should come, partly that his constancy might more plainly appear, when as being certified by prophecies of the doleful event, he doth, notwithstanding, wittingly and willingly, make haste to endure whatsoever things shall befall him.”
After reading and re-reading Calvin, I decided that he didn’t really agree with Carroll at all.
“Before he started the voyage, Paul foresaw that this visit to Jerusalem would be fraught with hazards. The misgivings at which he hinted in his letter to the Romans were confirmed by prophetic utterances in one Christian community after another in the ports at which he and his companions put in during their voyage. “The Holy Spirit testifies in every city”, he told his Ephesian friends at Miletus, “that imprisonment and afflictions await me.” Some of the Christians at Tyre urged him “through the Spirit” – that is, under prophetic inspiration – “not to go on to Jerusalem.” And at Caesarea he had a visit from Agabus of Jerusalem, the prophet … On this occasion Agabus, in the tradition of the great prophets of Israel, accompanied his prediction with a symbolic action … and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles’.”
Paul’s life would be endangered if he persisted in going on to Jerusalem. His friends therefore begged him to give up any thought of carrying out his plan to visit the city with the delegates of the Gentile churches; these could perfectly well hand over the gifts which they had brought, and their hospitality during their stay in Jerusalem was assured.
PAUL, HOWEVER, WAS AS SURE OF DIVINE GUIDANCE IN RESOLVING TO GO to Jerusalem as his friends and well-wishers were in beseeching him not to go. When they saw that his mind was made up, and that nothing would shift him, they left off trying to dissuade him and said “The Lord’s will be done”.
FF. Bruce again in his “Commentary on the Book of Acts:”
“So Paul and his friends sought out the Tyrian Christians, and spent the week with them. Among these Christians were some who had the gift of prophetic inspiration, and as they foresaw by its means that grave danger awaited Paul at Jerusalem, they besought him not to continue his journey there. But Paul’s mind had been made up, and he was not to be diverted from his intention by such predictions. WE SHOULD NOT CONCLUDE THAT HIS DETERMINATION TO GO ON WAS DISOBEDIENCE TO THE GUIDANCE OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD; this determination of his was the fruit of an inward spiritual constraint which would not be gainsaid. It was natural that his friends who by the prophetic spirit were able to foretell his tribulation and imprisonment should try to dissuade him from going on, but with a complete lack of concern for his own safety, so long as he could fulfil his sacred service, Paul like his Master “steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.”
Matthew Poole: “Through the Spirit; by the Spirit of prophecy they foretold his sufferings at Jerusalem, which afterward accordingly befell unto him; and they, being ignorant of his undertaking that journey AT GOD’S COMMAND, out of commiseration and pity dissuade St. Paul from going to such a place, where they foresaw that he should suffer so much: and this, it is said, they did through the Spirit, because they had that foreknowledge of all his sufferings from the Spirit; and knowing but in part, being ignorant of that special command Paul had had to go to Jerusalem, they did, according to what they knew, dissuade Paul from that journey.
Paton Gloag, in a book published in 1870: “There is here an apparent discrepancy in the declarations of the Spirit. The disciples of Tyre through the Spirit assert that Paul should not go up to Jerusalem; whereas the apostle himself felt constrained in the spirit-impelled by a strong sense of duty-to go up. We must here distinguish between the intimations of the Spirit, and the inferences drawn by men from these intimations. The Spirit revealed to the Tyrian disciples the dangers that awaited the apostle at Jerusalem; and they, from love to the apostle, besought him not to go up. But Paul entertained a juster view of the matter; HE RECOGNISED MORE CORRECTLY THE VOICE OF THE SPIRIT: he was certain that, in spite of these bonds and sufferings which the Holy Ghost witnessed in every city, it was his duty to proceed. If the Spirit had actually forbidden him to go up to Jerusalem, he would have desisted from his dangerous journey.
John Gill: “Who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem; not that the Spirit of God in these persons contradicted his own impulse in the apostle, by which he was moved to go to Jerusalem. The sense is, that these disciples, by the spirit of prophecy, knew that if the apostle went to Jerusalem, many evil things would befall him; wherefore of their own spirit, and out of love to him, they advise him not to go.”
Geneva Bible Notes: “They foretold through the Spirit what dangers were about to befall Paul, and this they did as prophets: but THEY MISDIRECTED HIM away from Jerusalem because of a fleshly affection.”
Adam Clark’s Commentary: “The Spirit foretold Paul’s persecutions, but does not appear to have forbidden his journey; and Paul was persuaded that, in acting as he was about to do, whatever personal risk he ran, he should bring more glory to God, by going to Jerusalem, than by tarrying at Tyre or elsewhere.”
Family Bible Notes: “Said to Paul through the Spirit; the Holy Spirit made known to them the dangers to which Paul would be exposed, and led them to express to him their strong desire that he should not go up to Jerusalem. But he did not communicate by them to Paul, who himself went up to Jerusalem “bound in the Spirit,” any authoritative command to desist from his purpose.”
In two different books A.T. Robertson said:
“In spite of this warning Paul felt it his duty as before to go on. EVIDENTLY PAUL INTERPRETED THE ACTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AS INFORMATION and warning although the disciples at Tyre gave it the form of a prohibition. Duty called louder than warning to Paul even if both were the calls of God.”
In his book “Epochs in the Life of Paul,” Robertson wrote: “At Tyre they landed and the same warning came from the Holy Spirit about his fate at Jerusalem. Paul evidently took it all as information, not as prohibition.”
The Fourfold Gospel: “Here Paul met a repetition of those prophetic warnings which had already cast a gloom over his feelings, and so much alarmed were the brethren at the prospects before him, that they entreated him to go no further. WE ARE NOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE ENTREATIES WERE DICTATED BY THE SPIRIT; FOR THIS WOULD HAVE MADE IT PAUL’S DUTY TO DESIST FROM HIS PURPOSE; but the statement means that they were enabled to advise him not to go, by knowing through the Spirit, what awaited him. The knowledge was supernatural; the advice was the result of their own judgment.”
The Pulpit Commentary: “The Holy Spirit revealed to them, as he did to many others, that bonds and afflictions awaited St. Paul at Jerusalem. The inference that he should not go to Jerusalem was their own.”
“The Life and Epistles of Saint Paul” by Conybeare and Howson: “There were not only disciples at Tyre, but prophets. Some of those who had the prophetical power foresaw the danger which was hanging over St. Paul, and endeavored to persuade him to desist from his purpose of going to Jerusalem. We see that different views of duty might be taken by those who had the same spiritual knowledge, though that knowledge were supernatural. St. Paul looked on the coming danger from a higher point. What to others was an over-whelming darkness, to him appeared only as a passing storm. And he resolved to face it, in the faith that He who had protect him hither to would still give him shelter and safety.”
Albert Barnes:
“Through the Spirit. There as some difficulty in understanding this. In solving this difficulty, we may remark, that it is evident that the Holy Spirit is meant, and that Luke means to say that this was spoken by his inspiration. The Holy Spirit was bestowed on Christians at that time in large measures, and many appear to have been under his inspiring guidance.
It was not understood by Paul as a positive command that he should not go up to Jerusalem – for, had it been, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISOBEYED. Paul evidently understood it as expressive of their earnest wish that he should not go, as apprizing him of danger, and as a kind expression in regard to his own welfare and safety. Paul was in better circumstances to understand this than we are, and his interpretation was doubtless correct.
It is to be understood, therefore, simply as an inspired prophetic warning, that if he went, he went at the risk of his life; a prophetic warning joined with their individual personal wishes, that he would not expose himself to this danger. The meaning evidently is, that they said by inspiration of the Spirit, that he should not go unless he was willing to encounter danger, and the hazard of life as a consequence, for they foresaw that the journey would be attended with this hazard.
Grotius renders it, “that he should not go, unless he was willing to be bound.” Michaelis and Stolzius, “They gave him prophetic warning, that he should not go to Jerusalem.” Doddridge, “If he tendered his own liberty and safety, not to go up to Jerusalem, since it would certainly expose him to very great hazard.”
The inspiration in the case was that of admonition and warning, NOT OF POSITIVE COMMAND. Paul was simply apprized of the danger; and then left to the free determination of his own will. He chose to encounter the danger of which he was thus apprized. He did not despise the intimations of the Spirit; but he judged that his duty to God called him thus to encounter the hazards of the journey. We may be apprized of danger in a certain course, either by our friends or by the word of God, and still it may be our duty to meet it. Our duty is not to be measured by the fact that we shall experience dangers, in whatever way that may be made known to us. It is in following the will of God; and encountering whatever trials may be in our way.”
All of these men feel that Paul was right in going to Jerusalem, and not committing any sin or rebellion.
Now let me give you one more.
Matthew Henry is not usually very theological or exegetical in his commentary.
But in this case he brings up something that I had not yet considered about why all these prophesies were given to Paul.
BEING A THING THAT WOULD BE SO MUCH TALKED OF WHEN IT CAME TO PASS, GOD SAW FIT TO HAVE IT MUCH PROPHESIED OF BEFORE, THAT PEOPLE’S FAITH, INSTEAD OF BEING OFFENDED, MIGHT BE CONFIRMED.
And withal they were endowed with such graces that foreseeing his troubles, out of love to him, and concern for the church, especially the churches of the Gentiles, that could ill spare him, they begged of him that he would not go up to Jerusalem … and therefore they said to him, by the Spirit, that he should not go up, because they concluded it would be most for the glory of God that he should continue at liberty; and it was not at all their fault to think so, and consequently to dissuade him;
but it was their mistake, for his trial would be for the glory of God and the furtherance of the gospel, and he knew it; and the importunity that was used with him, to dissuade him from it, renders his pious and truly heroic resolution the more illustrious.”
And in this case, I’m going to have to continue to stand with the majority, even if it is against my friend B. H. Carroll.