Did the apostle Paul miss the will of God in one of the most important decisions of his ministry? Such a question might seem ludicrous to those who rate Paul barely a notch below Jesus, but some sincere students of the Bible believe there is a case to be made that Paul got it wrong. See what you think.
The debated decision involves Paul’s last trip to Jerusalem, a trip in which he ended up arrested. Following the arrest, he languished in legal limbo for nothing short of two full years. Finally, he appealed his case directly to Caesar and was transported to Rome for trial. But even that voyage wasn’t without peril as his ship got caught in a terrible storm, foundered, and eventually ran aground on Malta (Acts chapter 27). If you think all that sounds like a nightmarish two years or so, you’re right. It gets even worse, though, when you learn that God had given Paul several warnings beforehand about what would happen to him if he made that trip to Jerusalem. Consider the following passages (all from the N.K.J.V.):
“And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me.” (Acts 20:22-23, emphasis mine)
When we had sighted Cyprus, we passed it on the left, sailed to Syria, and landed at Tyre; for there the ship was to unload her cargo. And finding disciples, we stayed there seven days. They told Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem. (Acts 21:3-4, emphasis mine)
And as we stayed many days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. When he had come to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” Now when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem. (Acts 21:10-12, emphasis mine)
It isn’t hard to see how these passages might lend support to the idea that Paul missed God’s will in forging on ahead to Jerusalem. And it’s because of them that some prominent Bible-teachers have maintained that Paul missed it at this crossroad in his life. Let me name a few of those men and share what they had to say on this subject.
James Montgomery Boice, in his commentary Acts, wrote:
…though Paul was driven by high motives, what he did at this time of his life was wrong. Being wrong, it had unfortunate consequences for him and perhaps also for other people.
John R. Rice, in his Acts commentary entitled Filled With the Spirit, expressed the same view when he wrote:
Those warnings of impending imprisonment and persecution were given only because Paul ought not to have gone…..the warnings of God about Jerusalem meant that he should not go…..Thus he went on to imprisonment, two or three sad and relatively empty years before he got to Rome and before he could resume a large ministry.
Donald Grey Barnhouse, in his Acts commentary, came down even more harshly on Paul’s decision. He wrote:
By this time Paul was an opinionated, stubborn man and was determined to have his own way. It’s a great, yet sad, picture of what happens in the lives of far too many Christians…..Believe me, my friends, God sometimes has to deal sharply with those of His people who defy His will. So, with Paul. He was determined to do things his way, no matter what God wanted.
Similarly, Harry Ironside, in his Acts commentary, also left plenty of room for the possibility that Paul might have stepped outside God’s will in this matter. He said:
Did he make a mistake in doing so? Did Paul really disobey the voice of the Lord? It is hard for us to say. We may be sure of this, that if he did make a mistake, he made it from the best of motives. If he blundered here, he blundered out of an overpowering love for the Jewish people. I am afraid that some of us cannot say of our mistakes that they have always been motivated by love…..we are apt to think of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ as though they were men of a much higher caliber than ourselves, and therefore there is no possibility of our being used as they were. But we learn as we study the book of Acts that these same men were of like passions as ourselves. They had the same fallible judgment that we have. They could be misled as we are misled.
Lastly, Ray Stedman, in his Acts 21:1-26 message Paul’s Mistake, lays out quite a case that Paul should not have gone to Jerusalem at that time. Here are some selected quotes from Stedman’s message:
As I have studied this passage, and worked with it through the years, I have come to the very deep conviction that it was not necessary for Paul to have been a prisoner. I know that the Lord Jesus, when He first called Paul on the Damascus Road, said that he was to suffer great things — but not necessarily as a prisoner. Paul had already suffered many things by this time.
Many commentators have struggled with this passage. I suppose we are all reluctant to attribute any wrongful action to the Apostle Paul…And yet, taken at its face value, this sentence (Acts 21:4) indicates a command of the Holy Spirit which the apostle, for motives we shall examine, chose to ignore.
Others say that Paul was right and that it was the disciples who were wrong, that they should not have tried to stop him, because Paul was following an inner leading of the Spirit which they should have acknowledged. But that is to ignore three crucial words — it was “through the Spirit” that they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. We must face the full implications of these words. They were recorded by Luke, who was Paul’s friend. He wrote this account several years after these events, and with the advantage of hindsight, he looked back over the whole circumstance that followed. And yet, led by the Holy Spirit in recording this inspired book, he wrote down at this juncture that it was “through the Holy Spirit” that these disciples told Paul that he was not to go up to Jerusalem. The Greek is very strong here — much stronger than our English text. Literally they said, “Stop going up to Jerusalem!”
Okay, so, by now perhaps you are ready to pronounce the verdict “Guilty as charged” upon Paul’s decision. But don’t do that before you hear from some of the noteworthy Bible-teachers who have taught that Paul didn’t miss God’s will in this decision. For example, G. Campbell Morgan wrote in his commentary, The Acts of the Apostles:
My conviction is that Paul was right. His conviction was one resulting from the guidance of the Spirit of God.
Matthew Henry, in his legendary The Matthew Henry Commentary, offers this same opinion as he says of those disciples in Tyre:
It was not at all their fault to think so, 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.
John Phillips, in his commentary Exploring Acts, points to the depth of Paul’s spiritual discernment as evidence that Paul made the right decision. Phillips writes:
He was a godly man, spiritually sensitive and guided by the Holy Spirit. It hardly seems possible that Paul’s decision to go to Jerusalem was a case of stubborn, deliberate, and willful defiance of the Holy Spirit. He must have had some inward permission from the Holy Spirit to go to Jerusalem, or he would not have gone.
Taking a different approach to reach the same conclusion, David Jeremiah, in his The Jeremiah Study Bible, points out the difference between a warning and a forbidding, He writes:
Paul took the words of the believers in Tyre as a warning through the Spirit of what would happen in Jerusalem. Less concerned about his physical well-being than he was with the will of God, Paul did not yield to the counsel of the Christians in Tyre because he knew what God was calling him to do.
W.A. Criswell, in his The Criswell Study Bible, also goes with this interpretation as he writes:
Paul was convinced that God’s Spirit wanted him to go to Jerusalem. Others who were equally led of the Spirit had prepared Paul by warning him that imprisonment was imminent if he persisted in his journey to the Holy City. Paul’s evaluation of the situation is that none of the threats concerning him. Life on earth is no longer a real concern except as it relates to the completion of his mission.
Continuing with the idea that a warning is not a forbidding, Chuck Smith, in his The Word for Today Bible, suggests that those who told Paul not to go to Jerusalem simply mistook a warning for a message. He writes:
There is a question as to whether the Holy Spirit was directly forbidding Paul to go to Jerusalem or whether the Holy Spirit was warning that Paul would be imprisoned and afflicted in Jerusalem. It is quite possible that the Spirit told the disciples at Tyre concerning Paul’s impending imprisonment, and they misinterpreted that warning as a message from the Holy Spirit that Paul should not go to Jerusalem.
Chuck Swindoll concurs with this assessment. In volume 3 of his study guides on Acts, as part of a chapter entitled Man’s Advice Versus God’s Advice, Swindoll offers his opinion regarding that Acts 21:4 verse. He writes:
More likely, the Spirit was merely predicting what would happen to Paul in Jerusalem, but the disciples were misinterpreting those predictions as prohibitions.
Warren Wiersbe can be found in this same camp too as he writes in his The Bible Exposition Commentary:
On the pro side, the prophetic utterances can be taken as warning (“Get ready!”) rather than as prohibitions (“You must not go!”).
And then finally, along these same lines, William MacDonald, in his Believer’s Bible Commentary, writes:
It seems far more probable that Paul interpreted the advice of his friends as calculated to save him from physical suffering or even death. In his love for his Jewish countrymen, he did not feel that his physical well-being was the important consideration.
And so what is the correct answer to the question: “Did Paul miss God’s will in making that fateful trip to Jerusalem?” Well, like the debate regarding Paul’s “thorn in the flesh,” this debate will no doubt continue among Christians until we all get to heaven. As for me, though, in my humble and possibly wrong opinion, Paul missed it.
Since I’ve built this post around various quotes from noted Bible-teachers, let me close with an extended quote from Oliver B. Greene. Frankly, of all the things I’ve ever read concerning this debate, these words make the most sense to me. Whether you agree or disagree with Greene’s assessment, please give a hearing to what he wrote. In volume 4 of his commentary set The Acts of the Apostles, he writes:
We cannot but admire the zeal of the Apostle Paul, the strong determination he had; but his disregard of the warning in this instance cost him two years of valuable opportunities. He was not in Jerusalem long before he was bound as prophesied.
Paul was touched by the concern and the entreaties of his fellow Christians. But his love for the Jews was so great that he answered, “I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” This man possessed courage seldom matched in others. He never turned back from his duty as an apostle – but as if often the case with men of that caliber, his unusual strength was his weakness. On more than one occasion the apostle’s love for souls was mistaken for guidance, and his zeal drove him into cities and places where God did not lead him to go.
God called him as minister to the Gentiles, and he was faithful to that ministry; but he could not hide the disappointment of his heart. He obeyed the call to carry the Gospel to the Gentiles, but it would appear that he sincerely believed he was the man to win the Jews to Christ. It was always his custom when he entered a city to go first to the synagogue to reason with the Jews, expounding the Word of God, preaching the Gospel of God’s marvelous grace. When we compare spiritual things with spiritual, we are faced with the question as to whether or not Paul was justified in doing this. His burning passion to see Israel saved led him into many hardships, much suffering, and persecution…..even though I still believe the Apostle Paul was God’s most dedicated servant, in this instance he disregarded the warning, refused to change his plans, and stubbornly held to his determination to go to Jerusalem.
The Disciple's Road 
Pastor, this is one of those things I, personally, have chosen not to worry about. If believing one way or another causes us to see Paul’s ministry and letters as questionable regarding the leading of the Holy Spirit, that may cause us to question the Holy Spirit’s work and guidance in all scripture. I don’t think that’s a good thing.
I’m sure you believe, as I do, that even if Paul missed it, God was able – did, and does – work things out for His Glory.
Golly, it would take a book to list the times I missed it!! 🙂 Thank God for His Grace, Forgiveness, and Mercy!
Myron, if I gave the impression that I was actually worried about whether or not Paul missed it, that wasn’t my intention. I just think it makes for an interesting scriptural discussion. Even if Paul did miss it (and it’s debatable that he did), God certainly brought great good out of it in the form of three prison epistles: Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon.
Sorry, Pastor, poor choice of words on my part in that first sentence. I should have said I haven’t put that much thought and study into it. There are more astute bible scholars than me (including you) that can carry on a discussion of these things, and just as you have done, present it in a fashion that increases our (my) learning. Also, it helps encourage me to keep studying scripture.
So no, I didn’t think you were concerned about it. It’s a great post.
Thought provoking topic! It is very possible that Paul did miss God’s will however, in God’s sovereign governance He allowed Paul to make the mistake through His permissive will. In other words, if God decreed for Paul not to go to Rome, no way he gets there but if God allowed the mistake it is only through His own counsel this was allowed. Either way I believe through the providence of God He allowed Paul’s visit. Either way God is in control! Many times I think God tells us it is not for us to know His will, that it is none of our business which circles back to one of my favorite hymns……trust and obey! Like mentioned earlier, thought provoking topic and one that makes me want to study God more which leads me to love Him more.
I quoted Donald Barnhouse and his opinion that Paul was wrong in going to Jerusalem. Well, he also adds in a word about Paul settling for God’s “second best” (going to Jerusalem) when he could have had God’s “first best” (staying clear of the city). John Phillips, whom I quoted in Paul’s defense, gets into that same area when he says:
“Perhaps Paul concluded that the visit was not part of God’s directive will but was still part of His permissive will. He was sure that Romans 8:28 still held good. No matter what happened at Jerusalem, God would overrule all things for the furtherance of the gospel.”
I have to admit that I’ve never been completely sold on ideas such as “second best” as opposed to “first best” and “permissive will” as opposed to “directive will.” While I’ve heard other preachers use this theological terminology, it’s always kind of muddied the waters in my mind. My take has been that something is either God’s will or it isn’t. And if you do something that isn’t His will, and He allows you to go through with it, that doesn’t create a new category called God’s “permissive (allowed) will.” Instead, the allowance should be classified under God’s grace, mercy, longsuffering, patience, and love. That’s how God could use Paul’s prison years to get the books of Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon written. Surely, God can take the broken eggs of our obedience and make great omelets out of them.
I didn’t include everything that Harry Ironside wrote in regards to the debate either, but he also mentions the fact that Peter was wrong at Antioch when he separated himself from the Gentiles and refused to eat with them (Galatians 2:11-13). That story shows that a man greatly used of God can be wrong in his decision making. Ironside also points out that Paul and Barnabas had a fallout over John Mark and separated because of it (Acts 13:13, 15:36-41). Who was in the right in that argument? As things turned out, it was probably Barnabas. This seems proven out by 2 Timothy 4:11 as well as the mere fact that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark.
When studying God many thoughts and ideas pop up. It would be nice to have more concise instructions and/or road map but unfortunately He saw fit to go another route. One thing I feel sure about, His will be done. Whether we perceive we are in His will or not, we are in His will. God does not learn and He did not create evil but He allows evil or bad decisions that will ultimately glorify Him. It is WAY above my pay grade to figure out the how or why of His ways. I’m not perfect nor try to be but my faith is unfaltering in His grace for someone like me. To go even deeper, more people should be more concerned about Him then what their neighbor think. I respect and appreciate and love you. We may have disagreements on many aspects of theology but the fundamentals are not one of them.
Per those last two sentences of your comment, ditto on this end my friend.
So I was wondering if Paul ever sought reconciliation with Mark since they were Brothers in Christ and God’s Will is always forgiveness and restoration/reconciliation and was going to research whether or not Paul ever did forgive and reconcile, yet your reference to II Timothy 4:11 above seems to answer this question even though the exact details of restoration of their relationship is not recorded in the Bible.
Yes, Cara, that verse apparently does answer your question even though scripture doesn’t give us the whole story.
Finally someone who has come across my path to discuss this topic. Obviously you are not the first to discuss it. About ten years ago this topic came up in my own scripture reading and I have discussed it with my husband. I don’t remember ever sitting in church listening to a sermon on this. I’ve never really liked Paul, in the context of my impression of him, as of course I have never conversed with with him in person or listen to his preaching/teaching in person, but he just comes across as a very prideful, egotistical man to me.
I certainly think he’s been used by Yahweh and I do think his letters are Holy Spirit inspired, and part of the inerrancy of the Biblical canon, though obviously he does admit some of what he wrote is his own opinion. When he says he is the chiefest of sinners, I think, “Well he hasn’t met the “hitlers” of this world. Nero was supposedly pretty bad. But the actions of these people doesn’t necessarily define what a chief sinner would act like. White washed tombs are more of a sinner, if we go to the point of placing degrees on sins, than any hitler or nero, am I wrong?
I do think Paul had an element of fearlessness, as he had no wife or kids to think about and had the luxury of doing foolhardy things, if they were foolhardy. His risk of death was considerably less of an issue than say Peter who at least had a wife and would have left her as a widow. So his boldness to face torture and death is in one sense admirable. But, of course if he did miss the mark, than its a lesson for us not to.
He certainly had a degree of tenacity than I don’t, as I’m not at the place of letting someone beat me and then say, “Oh by the way, you just broke a very specific law that makes you beating me very illegal.” I personally would be touting my citizenship right away in that situation. Even though I believe he did that for strategy sake, I don’t think I could do it today. But, I plan on not taking the Mark Of The Beast, so I just may be put to the test on that. Pray for me.
Anyway, great post topic. Thanks for posting.
You’re welcome. And thank you for your take in regards to you not liking Paul. I have to say that I found your honesty very refreshing.
Thanks, I endeavor to be honest and then let our Savior help me change my perspective if need be.
In order to arrive at the most informed answer to this question that is possible, I think it’s important to get the full context of Paul’s ill-fated final trip to Jerusalem. He was going there, along with a group of others, specifically to bring a financial gift to the Jewish Christian congregation. This was a project he’d been working on for a few years at this point, and factors into the circumstances of several of his letters (1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, and possibly the prison letters if you believe, as some do–but I don’t–that they were written during an Ephesian imprisonment not recorded in Acts). We can somewhat track the development of this project and its importance to Paul as the letters go on. Initially (1 Corinthians) he is not certain that he will be among the group that brings the money to Jerusalem. As time goes on, he becomes increasingly convinced that he has to go along with the group, to the point where he becomes unwilling to listen to anyone who tries to talk him out of going. We also have to keep in mind that Acts was not written by Paul himself and was written by someone else sometime after the events recorded had happened, and it was written to portray Paul as positively as possible (most likely because it was intended to be used as evidence in Paul’s case before Caesar, which I maintain had still not yet happened at the time Acts was written).
I am not at all persuaded that Paul had to go to Jerusalem. We know that he did not always respond to doors opened by the Spirit–he himself admits in 2 Corinthians that he passed on a Spirit-given chance to minister in Troas because he was so worried about the well-being of Titus and his own fractured relationship with the Corinthian church. After he parts company with Barnabas (a dispute for which he was apparently in the wrong, as his later reconciliation with Mark would seem to indicate), he seems to wander around aimlessly for a while before receiving a vision to go to Macedonia. It also appears that Paul at some point developed a martyrdom complex and was actively seeking an opportunity to die for Christ (this contrasts with his attitude earlier in his ministry, when he seemed convinced that Christ was going to return during Paul’s own lifetime, perhaps explaining why he was so content never to get married or have his own kids, and why he seemed to advise the Corinthian Christians not to get married or have kids, either). Reading his own letter to the Romans, he seems intent on getting to Rome and then going on from there to the western reaches of the Empire; he doesn’t seem to have the same attitude with which Luke characterizes him as he gets closer and closer to Jerusalem (maybe he got more nervous as he got closer). We do know that he eventually received a vision from Jesus encouraging him to testify in front of Caesar himself–but that doesn’t happen until after he’s already in custody.
My personal belief is that the Spirit left the matter up to Paul. I don’t believe it was necessarily the Spirit’s will for Paul to go to Jerusalem, but I don’t believe Paul acted against the Spirit by doing so, either. I think the Spirit left the decision up to Paul, and I think the Spirit would’ve used Paul to the same ends either way. We know what happened as things actually turned out–Paul spent about five years in Roman custody, during which time he wrote 4 (or 5) letters that ended up in the New Testament canon, and Luke-Acts was probably written during this time, too. That is such a major contribution to church history that it’s hard to imagine what would’ve happened if Paul hadn’t gone to Jerusalem and gotten arrested there, but I believe the Spirit would’ve found another way to get all that done.
That’s an interesting thought about Paul developing a martyrdom complex. I’ve never thought about him along those lines, but I can’t say that the assessment isn’t accurate. Whether he had one or not, he did get martyred in the end.