|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Acts 21
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Don't know if this has already been discussed, but what do shippies think of the discussion leading up to Acts 21 re whether or not Paul is meant to go to Jerusalem?
In vs. 10-14 quote:
Acts 21:10 While we were staying there for several days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea.
Acts 21:11 He came to us and took Paul’s belt, bound his own feet and hands with it, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’”
Acts 21:12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem.
Acts 21:13 Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Acts 21:14 Since he would not be persuaded, we remained silent except to say, “The Lord’s will be done.”
it seems like the prophesy of Paul's death and imprisonment should he go to Jerusalem are meant to be preparation, not prohibition. The objections of the elders to his travel plans are simply the understandable but misplaced desire to avoid seeing your dear friend suffer. Paul is the hero for faithfully carrying on despite the known suffering that lies ahead.
But earlier in vs. 4 quote:
Acts 21:4 We looked up the disciples and stayed there for seven days. Through the Spirit they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.
The prophesy here seems more like a direct & explicit prohibition, not just preparation. It sounds here more like Paul is being stubbornly foolish blowhard, disregarding a warning given "through the Spirit".
How do you read it? Are the prophetic disciples in Cyprus (and only somewhat less explicitly, those in Caesarea) allowing their own fear/sorrow/concern to color their delivery of the prophesy? Or is Paul stubbornly following his own agenda without regard to the Spirit's leading?
Link to Acts 21
(edited to include link. Mamacita, Host)
[ 11. September 2016, 01:20: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think Paul was pretty determined, one way or another, to get to Rome and evangelise Caesar, whatever anyone else, including God, thought about the matter, and he saw Jerusalem as a step along that road.
Some of his tactics, including deliberately sabotaging a court hearing by trolling the audience, aroused great interest in one anti-capitalist guerilla upstart I've got to know in jail, but hardly seem very Christian on the face of it.
Besides, you have to deal with the fact that Agabus' prophecy was not at all accurate, as Acts 21 goes on to make plain:
quote:
30 The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. 31 While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.
33 The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains.
The Jews neither bound Paul nor handed him over to the authorities. If anything, Paul's arrest saved him from death at the Jews' hands.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Interesting.
And what is Luke's role in all this? Most of Acts reads like a pro-Paul apologetic. Indeed, some have suggested it is Luke's testimony to defend Paul at trial. And yet the inclusion of v. 4 seems to take it in another direction. What does Luke intend us to take away from this chapter? Maybe something along the lines as, "my friend Paul was always to impulsive & pig-headed for his own good, but his intentions were good if somewhat narcissistic, and God used him, even w/ all his flaws, to spread the gospel" (which seems consistent w/ Luke's purpose statement in 1:8...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm not sure what the explanation of Agabus' inaccurate prophecy is usually held to be, but if memory serves my IVP (i.e. conservative evangelical) commentary on Acts by I. Howard Marshall suggests that in v4, the Spirit did indeed reveal that Jerusalem spelled trouble for Paul, but that the "don't go" part was the human, fleshly response to that.
I'm not sure how convinced I am by that explanation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Completely, me. Accuracy is a modern fetish.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Ah. You must be into that "post-truth" thing.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Just like Jesus was. He saw Himself, correctly, all over the scriptures. But not by modern epistemology. The most powerful 'prophetic' images He fulfils of 44 concern his death, which He'd certainly have used on the road to Emmaus, when He was very God without human constraint.
It's easy in hindsight. And He knew who He was and could see it with foresight. Nobody else could. Furthermore even Psalm 22 is not 'the truth'. It apparently eerily foreshadows Jesus' death and perichoretically, poetically reflects how David felt a thousand years before.
It may have NOTHING to do with Jesus' death, apart from the purely poetic resonance.
I fail to see how Agabus' prophecy fails in any way. There's enough oracular white space in it for one to interpolate according to disposition. I'm more than happy for it to be true.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Agabus' prophecy was generally true in that in going to Jerusalem, Paul would be arrested.
However, in making the prophecy he pointed to specific details and linked them to specific parties. If you want to argue that these specifics only sound specific to our modern ears, go ahead, but if that's true, then once again I fail to see how you can take anything in the Bible, including details of the life of Jesus, as factual. Whereas I think that the narrative needs to have a minimum of factual content to function at all.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm amused and bemused by your approach. Please show me how this doesn't work? Even with the vagaries of translation? And especially with them.
Acts 21:10 And as we stayed many days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 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.’”
...
27 Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, ...
30 And all the city was disturbed; and the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut. 31 Now as they were seeking to kill him, news came to the commander of the garrison that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 He immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down to them. And when they saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. 33 Then the commander came near and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains ...
Indeed Agabus' prophecy may have been entirely uninspired, it seems quite a reasonable, common sense warning, dressed up in colourful language, clothed in 'the prophetic', given by someone who had a prophet's reputation to maintain. One that nobody has nowadays, subject to our shared, rational and even most credulous criteria. I'd love to see a prophecy fulfilled. What were these four virgin daughters prophesying about? Whatever prophecy was about among early Christians, it was either a supernatural dispensation by the Holy Spirit in those first couple or three circles, or it was what it is today in prophetic circles. Nothing at all. Liturgy at best. Or both. I've been the recipient of blessings and prophecies that are nicely meaningless, haven't you?
And how on Earth does this affect the claim of the Incarnation? And that I should necessarily believe confidently in life after death because of it?
Can you come up with a story that makes the at least 1950 year old story of the woman caught in adultery just a story?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Indeed Agabus' prophecy may have been entirely uninspired, it seems quite a reasonable, common sense warning, dressed up in colourful language, clothed in 'the prophetic', given by someone who had a prophet's reputation to maintain.
That seems quite plausible, except that it's odd that Luke should call that "prophecy", especially as at the level of detail he records, it very definitely is inaccurate. quote:
And how on Earth does this affect the claim of the Incarnation?
In brief, it seems to me that however much we ascribe to "narrative" and however much open space we think there is in it to weave in our own take on reality, to be logically consistent the incarnation needs to have some basis in objective fact: the Word becoming Flesh.
If we can't trust at least some of what's written down in Scripture to be objective fact rather than just someone "telling a story", I don't see why we should trust it at all. But discussing this would call for another thread in Purgatory.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I trust the Incarnation because it's profound, beautiful, outrageous, humane, chaotic; it suits me, two thousand years of immense cultural, intellectual development later.
As I said, in effect, please come up with a story that rationalizes the brilliance, the courage, the humanism of Jesus in the story of the woman caught in adultery, to 'a good man'.
No culture before or since produced such a man.
No story can make that story a mere story for me. I don't care that there's no historical support for it, that there is a chain of authors and editors with agendas. It's true.
It is an instance of the fingerpost. The hallmark, the signature of God. Just that one account.
And as if that isn't enough, which it is, there's the parable of the prodigal son.
Take your pick. What more do you need? No matter what the medium of transmission?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I have to stand with Eutychus. I'm simply not built to be able to say, "It's beautiful. It's meaningful. It appeals to me. Therefore it's true."
I need some support from history. Otherwise my brain simply won't go in that direction (belief).
And I do have trouble with Agabus being inaccurate. Not in the sense of it threatening my faith, but in the sense of "Drat, here's this new puzzle and it's going to nag at me all day. I wonder what the hell...?"
This is one of those places where I can't find a harmonizing answer that doesn't feel like a stretch too far. I therefore leave it in the ??? basket until something more comes to light--which is probably not going to be in this lifetime.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
It sounds more to me like we're reading the prophesy too literally. But prophesy is not historical narrative, it is it's own genre, not quite poetry, not quite apocalyptic, but closer to either of those to historical narrative. In general, the prophesy is true-- the Jews opposed Paul, leading more or less directly to his arrest. It's only in the details that it gets murky, just as Revelation does as we start to ask, "what does this one image mean?". The "bind him with his own belt" is a head-scratcher, I have no idea what it means, but I'm guessing it's more poetic than just "someone will literally take your belt from around your waist and use it to tie you up".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The problem for me is the level of detail and how Luke qualifies it.
1. Luke repeats Agabus' qualification of "prophet" and has him begin his declaration with the words "thus speaks the Holy Spirit", which to my ears at least suggests something authoritative is about to follow (in the Scriptures at least!).
2. However much symbolism there is in Agabus' words and actions, there can be little doubt about the parties (the Jews hand Paul over to the Romans) and their respective responsibilities (the Jews bind Paul in order to hand him over). If these details were not important, why record them?
3. This simply does not tally with the account of how things turned out, just a few verses later, where the Jews are beating Paul up, and the Romans are the ones who break up the riot to arrest him, and who at least initially protect him from the mob as opposed to receiving him into their custody from the latter.
What is odd is having 1 and 2 and 3.
If Luke was seeking to emphasise the way the prophetic word was fulfilled, he'd have done better to go into less detail in (2).
If he was simply making up the story, he would have done better to make (2) and (3) dovetail much more neatly. There's no way he can fail to realise there are inconsistencies here. (Indeed, it's this kind of discrepancy that makes me think he wasn't making it up but doing what Luke in particular explicitly says he sets out to do: document. Which does not sit well with Martin's approach).
However, if Luke was simply seeking to record what Agabus said without passing comment on its authoritativeness, it's strange that in (1) he would leave in the "thus speaks the Holy Spirit" as this confuses the issue. To my mind a good editor would have started the quote immediately after those words!
The least bad way I can see out of this dilemma is this last option: Luke is recording what happened without seeking to pass comment on its authoritativeness. As so often in modern charismatic circles, Agabus was seeking to reinforce his own idea by backing it with the equivalent of "thus saith the Lord".
This theory at least offers some explanation for Agabus, but it raises a whole host of other questions, and can't be so obiously applied to v4 where the warning is explicitly said to be "through the Spirit" (although a look at the Greek preposition used here might be in order).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I use hyperbole. When I say in effect that I don't care that the chain of evidence doesn't have to be there for the central proposition of Jesus to be valid, it is there for me sufficiently. Despite the immense difficulty of pre-human supernatural evil entities being core to it. And the problem of making it all real beyond the central proposition. Therefore nothing is made up, Luke didn't make up the events of Acts 21. I don't believe that for a moment. He reported it from first hand participants at least.
Why should his reporting have to conform to our modern expectations?
What is fascinating, is that in all of this intense, Holy Spirit mediated prophecy in Tyre and Caesarea, Paul chooses to ignore it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The problem for me is the level of detail and how Luke qualifies it.
1. Luke repeats Agabus' qualification of "prophet" and has him begin his declaration with the words "thus speaks the Holy Spirit", which to my ears at least suggests something authoritative is about to follow (in the Scriptures at least!).
2. However much symbolism there is in Agabus' words and actions, there can be little doubt about the parties (the Jews hand Paul over to the Romans) and their respective responsibilities (the Jews bind Paul in order to hand him over). If these details were not important, why record them?
3. This simply does not tally with the account of how things turned out, just a few verses later, where the Jews are beating Paul up, and the Romans are the ones who break up the riot to arrest him, and who at least initially protect him from the mob as opposed to receiving him into their custody from the latter.
What is odd is having 1 and 2 and 3.
If Luke was seeking to emphasise the way the prophetic word was fulfilled, he'd have done better to go into less detail in (2).
If he was simply making up the story, he would have done better to make (2) and (3) dovetail much more neatly. There's no way he can fail to realise there are inconsistencies here. (Indeed, it's this kind of discrepancy that makes me think he wasn't making it up but doing what Luke in particular explicitly says he sets out to do: document. Which does not sit well with Martin's approach).
However, if Luke was simply seeking to record what Agabus said without passing comment on its authoritativeness, it's strange that in (1) he would leave in the "thus speaks the Holy Spirit" as this confuses the issue. To my mind a good editor would have started the quote immediately after those words!
The least bad way I can see out of this dilemma is this last option: Luke is recording what happened without seeking to pass comment on its authoritativeness. As so often in modern charismatic circles, Agabus was seeking to reinforce his own idea by backing it with the equivalent of "thus saith the Lord".
This theory at least offers some explanation for Agabus, but it raises a whole host of other questions, and can't be so obiously applied to v4 where the warning is explicitly said to be "through the Spirit" (although a look at the Greek preposition used here might be in order).
A bit of a tangent, but the willingness to leave in the uncomfortable bits, the bits that don't fit the narrative or aid the telling, are one of the things that convince me of it's authenticity.
Life is messy, prophesy is messy. The few times I've felt like I've heard God speaking to me in anything close to a "prophetic" way, it's been clear in one sense-- what I should do, who is telling me to do it-- but far less clear in the details. For me it's not like seeing a preview in the movie theater. The messy details of this prophesy really don't bother me, but their inclusion goes to Luke's credibility imho.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Cliffdewller, I made both those points in the post you quote!
But I'm still surprised that Luke would leave in "thus says the Holy Spirit". If what follows is as messy as what passes for contemporary prophecy, it doesn't, um, inspire much confidence in other things the Holy Spirit is supposed to have said in the NT...
Martin, the narrative doesn't have to correspond to 21st-century reporting standards, but I can't for the life of me see a set of standards that would make sense of the inclusion of two sets of contradictory details within the space of a single chapter, unless it is Luke simply being a wholly faithful reporter (which leads to the problem stated above).
If Luke and his culture didn't see the details as important, there's no reason to include them. And having included them, the discrepancy is obvious whatever one's worldview, isn't it?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cliffdewller, I made both those points in the post you quote!
But I'm still surprised that Luke would leave in "thus says the Holy Spirit". If what follows is as messy as what passes for contemporary prophecy, it doesn't, um, inspire much confidence in other things the Holy Spirit is supposed to have said in the NT...
Martin, the narrative doesn't have to correspond to 21st-century reporting standards, but I can't for the life of me see a set of standards that would make sense of the inclusion of two sets of contradictory details within the space of a single chapter, unless it is Luke simply being a wholly faithful reporter (which leads to the problem stated above).
If Luke and his culture didn't see the details as important, there's no reason to include them. And having included them, the discrepancy is obvious whatever one's worldview, isn't it?
Well, the 2nd half of this post is the reason for me to go over both where I'm agreeing with you and where I'm departing in your conclusions.
I don't think the sort of inaccuracies we see here-- inaccuracies in irrelevant details that may be more stylistic than significant-- undermine our faith in prophesy at all. At least they don't for me. But they DO (or should) change the way we read Scripture and particularly direct prophesies like Agabus' (as well as how we should "hear" prophesy when it occurs within our appropriate ecclesiastical settings). I'm suggesting we read the prophetic genre more like poetry or apocalyptic lit and less like historical narrative-- we're looking for the broad sweep of the message, not for detailed step-by-step literalism.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm suggesting we read the prophetic genre more like poetry or apocalyptic lit and less like historical narrative-- we're looking for the broad sweep of the message, not for detailed step-by-step literalism.
Aside from all other considerations, I think it's special pleading to accept this argument for Agabus' prophecy here.
Luke is not John. It's not apocalyptic in genre, its reportage. The prophecy is not about beasts with horns, bowls, dragons, or fire-breathing horses with stings in their tails.
It's about who arrests who and hands them over to whom.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm suggesting we read the prophetic genre more like poetry or apocalyptic lit and less like historical narrative-- we're looking for the broad sweep of the message, not for detailed step-by-step literalism.
Aside from all other considerations, I think it's special pleading to accept this argument for Agabus' prophecy here.
Luke is not John. It's not apocalyptic in genre, its reportage. The prophecy is not about beasts with horns, bowls, dragons, or fire-breathing horses with stings in their tails.
It's about who arrests who and hands them over to whom.
I'm not talking about Luke's genre-- that would be gospel. I'm talking about Agabus' (which Luke is reporting). I presume Luke is fairly accurately reporting Agabus' prophesy. But the prophesy itself is not a historical narrative, not a literal medium. And you can see that in the OT prophesies-- especially the ones that are picked up later in the NT and (often reframed) as messianic. They are very much like this one-- needing some tweaking, some generosity to the interpretation, to make it fit. I'm not saying the genre of gospel is similar to apocalyptic lit, I'm saying the genre (or subgenre in this case) of prophetic utterance is similar (tho not identical) to the genre of apocalypse and the genre of poetry.
What you do with that is, of course, in the eyes of the beholder. whether that means you reject biblical prophesy as no different than vague cryptic messages from crystal-ball gazers or fortune cookies, or whether you accept it as a message from God, is up to you. But there's nothing special about Agabus' prophesy in that regard-- it seems very similar to other biblical prophesies in the way.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But there's nothing special about Agabus' prophesy in that regard-- it seems very similar to other biblical prophesies in the way.
It seems to me to be much more specific rather than symbolic. The parties and their respective responsibilities are identified. And don't match what actually happened.
It would be like taking the "young maiden will give birth to a son" prophecy and making it about an old man siring a daughter.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But there's nothing special about Agabus' prophesy in that regard-- it seems very similar to other biblical prophesies in the way.
It seems to me to be much more specific rather than symbolic. The parties and their respective responsibilities are identified. And don't match what actually happened.
It would be like taking the "young maiden will give birth to a son" prophecy and making it about an old man siring a daughter.
Yeah, I'm not seeing that much of a disconnect.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
So...
The NT writers are allowed to take dodgy LXX translations and make them mean pretty much what they like.
So we can similarly take any NT "prophecy" and basically make it mean what we like if there is even the most tenuous connection to the supposedly prophesied event?
And we can similarly stretch the meaning of any contemporary "prophecy" ex-post (Paul Cain's notorious prophecy about revival coming to the UK in 1990 springs to mind) to mean whatever we decide it means after the (non)-fact?
How is this different from make-it-up-as-you-go-along-Jehovah's-Witness-style "Light Gets Brighter" nonsense?
Why bother to struggle to work out the actual intended meaning of texts if we can legitimately make them mean whatever we like, and our ultimate benchmark of truth is, to quote Martin, "it suits me"?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So...
The NT writers are allowed to take dodgy LXX translations and make them mean pretty much what they like.
So we can similarly take any NT "prophecy" and basically make it mean what we like if there is even the most tenuous connection to the supposedly prophesied event?
And we can similarly stretch the meaning of any contemporary "prophecy" ex-post (Paul Cain's notorious prophecy about revival coming to the UK in 1990 springs to mind) to mean whatever we decide it means after the (non)-fact?
How is this different from make-it-up-as-you-go-along-Jehovah's-Witness-style "Light Gets Brighter" nonsense?
Why bother to struggle to work out the actual intended meaning of texts if we can legitimately make them mean whatever we like, and our ultimate benchmark of truth is, to quote Martin, "it suits me"?
Well, we're not talking about you or me taking the prophesy and twisting it to mean whatever we want. We're talking about Luke, who (I am presuming) is under the inspiration of the Spirit.
Again, I don't see the conflict quite as strong as you do. The degree of generalizing required to conform the prophesy to the actual events doesn't seem particularly troubling to me-- ymmv. As I said, this is typical of biblical prophesy. Whether that means prophesy in general is hokum or whether it means that's the way you read prophesy, that's for you to say. But Acts 21 is not unique in that aspect.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We're talking about Luke, who (I am presuming) is under the inspiration of the Spirit.
Not quite.
We're talking first and foremost about Agabus, who explicitly claims (according to Luke) to be delivering the words of the Spirit.
Luke neither confirms nor denies that what actually happens to Paul is an accomplishment of this prophetic word (no "just as Agabus prophesied", or "this happened to fulfil the word spoken through the prophet Agabus..."). He simply reports the allegedly Spirit-inspired prophecy and the actual events.
As you say, ymmv, but to me there's a real problem in the disconnect between the two, especially because Agabus' words are said to be those of the Spirit.
It seems to me that talking of a quote:
degree of generalizing required to conform the prophesy to the actual events
is more than a little troubling.
Can't the Spirit do better than that? Does he have people say obscure and/or misleading things that can legitimately be "generalised" as needs be after the fact? Why should he do better with Luke's account than with Agabus, or you or I?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's a good one isn't it? Iron Age epistemology aren't us. Unless we have lobotomies and (in my case) revert to being fundamentalists.
So it ALL fails our modern criteria. So? So Jesus isn't the Incarnation, the ultimate dumbing down?
Give them a break Eutychus. Including the Holy Spirit, however He was involved.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems to me that talking of a quote:
degree of generalizing required to conform the prophesy to the actual events
is more than a little troubling.
Can't the Spirit do better than that? Does he have people say obscure and/or misleading things that can legitimately be "generalised" as needs be after the fact? Why should he do better with Luke's account than with Agabus, or you or I?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But really, that is true of the entire Bible. It is frustrating unclear on some points it really
ought to be clear on-- not just the Dead Horse issues, but really fundamental, primary things like why is there suffering? What happens after we die? Even Jesus' answer to the question "what must I do to inherit eternal life" sounds lovely, but is frustratingly imprecise. In fact, while we're mentioning it, Jesus is full of those sorts of cryptic messages you find in fortune cookies-- up is down, first is last, to gain your life-- lose it. And then, again, there's prophesy-- the generalization needed to make Agabus' prophesy "turn out right" is no more extreme then those done by the NT writers to make Isaiah or Hosea or Joel fit with the unfolding events. It would be SO much easier if the Bible would just say what it means, spell out what is required of us in any number of not-necessarily-easy to follow, but at least clear & explicit terms.
But it doesn't. The Bible doesn't do that, and my experience of the Christian life isn't like that.
So what do you do with that? Again, you have several options. One is to just throw your hands up and say it's all wish-thinking and delusion and it all is no more meaningful than the $10 psychic reading tea leaves. Another is to pretend it's clearer than it really is and treat it like historical documentation when it's not-- come up with ridiculous gyrations to make it fit (yes, Darby, I'm looking at you).
Or you can decide that the Holy Spirit's agenda is different than ours. That the purpose of these revelations, these prophesies and stories and laws and letters, is something other than "getting everything right." That it has something to do with relationship, with pursuit, with exploration, with the unknowing.
We get to choose.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How can somebody so damn wrong be so damn good?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
the generalization needed to make Agabus' prophesy "turn out right" is no more extreme then those done by the NT writers to make Isaiah or Hosea or Joel fit with the unfolding events.
I still don't think you are comparing like with like.
The NT writers were taking centuries-old prophecies and reinterpreting them for their present ends, aided and abetted by the LXX. How legitimate it was to do that is a debate for another day.
But that is nowhere near what Luke is doing. At the risk of repeating myself, he is - within a single chapter, not over centuries - simply reporting a prophecy and a subsequent event which matches some of the details of the "prophecy" and flat out contradicts others.
It is you, not Luke, who is trying to follow the NT writers' lead in applying some sort of midrash in an attempt to explain the discrepancy. In doing so you are effectively giving your midrash as much authority to reinterpret as the NT writers seem to have had with the OT, which is to say, spadefuls - and in doing so, it seems to me you put an unacceptably large dent in its authority, holing it below the waterline even.
quote:
It would be SO much easier if the Bible would just say what it means, spell out what is required of us in any number of not-necessarily-easy to follow, but at least clear & explicit terms.
That would be legalism. We are, as you say, of the Spirit.
quote:
So what do you do with that?
Well, I'm nearest to the third option in your list.
I'm not ready to throw Scripture in the Iron Age obsolescence basket Martin throws it in, because I think in that case you might as well indeed do without it altogether.
I think it has a special place in revelation and as such can be accorded special status. I think that reinterpretation is also legitimate and indeed sanctioned by Scripture itself; I can't put that any better than I did here (which took me about half an hour to find in Limbo, but which Martin seemed to approve of at the time).
I see the puzzles left by Scripture (like this one) as a stimulus to thought and meditation, however I'm wary of dismissing them too quickly through the first creative reinterpretation that comes to hand.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Two thoughts:
1. I do tend to see Acts as at least partly fictionalised (for reasons which probably aren't very well thought out), but I don't think this makes the problem go away. Put simply, if St Luke is making stuff up for the edification of the faithful, he should at least get his pious fiction consistent.
2. I have some problems with Agabus-type prophecies in that they seem liable to give rise to grandfather paradoxes. If it is prophesied 'Go not into Liverpool, for Ricardus will steal your hubcaps', and you take fright and avoid the city, then where did the knowledge that I would steal your hubcaps come from? I am happy with the concept of God's foreknowledge of events that from our perspective are in the future, but such foreknowledge, AIUI, still requires those events actually to take place.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eutychus. I approved very much, still do. Not that it matter's a tinker's what I approve. I approve of YOU and your stand, regardless of what mine might be. The Holy Spirit yearned with our Iron Age spirit. He yearns with us here now.
My health is driving me back to basics you'll be glad to know. I'm such a hypocrite. I LOVE the Iron Age jealous lover God. I read Jeremiah 31:3 from the booklet I keep in my wallet from 10 years ago. I burst in to tears then when I first read it. Went out walking, looked up at a Congregational Church noticeboard in passing, with no hope. There it was again.
[ 12. September 2016, 22:25: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
the generalization needed to make Agabus' prophesy "turn out right" is no more extreme then those done by the NT writers to make Isaiah or Hosea or Joel fit with the unfolding events.
I still don't think you are comparing like with like.
The NT writers were taking centuries-old prophecies and reinterpreting them for their present ends, aided and abetted by the LXX. How legitimate it was to do that is a debate for another day.
But that is nowhere near what Luke is doing. At the risk of repeating myself, he is - within a single chapter, not over centuries - simply reporting a prophecy and a subsequent event which matches some of the details of the "prophecy" and flat out contradicts others.
It is you, not Luke, who is trying to follow the NT writers' lead in applying some sort of midrash in an attempt to explain the discrepancy. In doing so you are effectively giving your midrash as much authority to reinterpret as the NT writers seem to have had with the OT, which is to say, spadefuls - and in doing so, it seems to me you put an unacceptably large dent in its authority, holing it below the waterline even.
I'm not following. What midrash are you talking about? I haven't offered any sort of interpretation of Agabus' prophesy, other than saying I don't find the contradiction nearly as problematic or troublesome as you do (my question in the OP was more trying to parse out the conflict between Agabus and Paul). I haven't suggested any rubric or interpretation to try to explain the contradiction, simply have said it's not troublesome to me. How that is upholding my interpretation over that of the biblical writers when I haven't offered an interpretation is a bit of a head-scratcher for me. Can you clarify?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
small correction: I have proposed a possible "rubric"-- a way to look at prophesy as a distinct genre. I have not offered a "midrash"-- an interpretation of Agabus' prophesy.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
You said quote:
the generalization needed to make Agabus' prophesy "turn out right" is no more extreme then those done by the NT writers to make Isaiah or Hosea or Joel fit with the unfolding events.
That at least suggested that the circumstances of Paul's arrest could be made to "fulfil" Agabus' prophecy if one were to apply as free an interpretation of the former as the Gospel writers applied to OT prophets.
I think such an interpretation is far too free in this passage, especially given there is no time gap as there was between the OT and the NT.
I'm also opining, more generally, that if one feels just as entitled to interpret the NT as freely as the gospel writers interpreted the OT (eg by saying, or at least implying, that Agabus' prophecy was "as good as" fulfilled by Paul's arrest when to my mind there are huge inconsistencies), then one is taking so much freedom with the original text that one is effectively making it one's own interpretive authority more important than the text itself.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I read Jeremiah 31:3 from the booklet I keep in my wallet from 10 years ago. I burst in to tears then when I first read it. Went out walking, looked up at a Congregational Church noticeboard in passing, with no hope. There it was again.
So no matter how sophisticated we are, there's something about that collection of texts, isn't there? Something whereby those words, or some of them, jump out and grab us if only we struggle with them for long enough.
The text itself invites us to reinterpretation and delivers us from rote legalism by the promise of the Spirit, and yet we learn that with the help of the text and the way the Spirit seems to use it. It's quite a dilemma, isn't it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That at least suggested that the circumstances of Paul's arrest could be made to "fulfil" Agabus' prophecy if one were to apply as free an interpretation of the former as the Gospel writers applied to OT prophets.
I think such an interpretation is far too free in this passage, especially given there is no time gap as there was between the OT and the NT.
I'm also opining, more generally, that if one feels just as entitled to interpret the NT as freely as the gospel writers interpreted the OT (eg by saying, or at least implying, that Agabus' prophecy was "as good as" fulfilled by Paul's arrest when to my mind there are huge inconsistencies), then one is taking so much freedom with the original text that one is effectively making it one's own interpretive authority more important than the text itself.
Could you say more about this? I think we both are assuming we're talking about the same thing, but I'm not sure we are. What exactly are the inconsistencies you are seeing in the text? I had identified an inconsistency I saw in the OP, but that doesn't appear to be the one you are concerned about. The disconnect between Agabus' prophesy and the fulfillment doesn't seem to be as dramatic to me as it does to you, so I'm wondering if I'm missing something that you're seeing and I'm not.
A secondary question would be why the time lapse matters in being less literal in ones expectations of prophetic fulfillment. Of course, as I said before, there's the issue of authority-- the NT writers have an authority behind their prophetic interpretations that I do not have. But the element of timing is unexpected-- how does timing play into that and why is it a factor in how "free" the interpretation can be?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What exactly are the inconsistencies you are seeing in the text?
Agabus says the Holy Spirit says the Jews will bind Paul and hand him over to the Romans.
What is actually recorded as happening is that the Romans extracted Paul from the crowd, apparently saving his life in the process, arrested him, and bound him.
The end result is the same but the roles of the various parties are not.
Maybe I'm just being anal-retentive, but it strikes me as odd that the Holy Spirit allegedly having dramatically identified the parties and what they will do, these are the wrong way round so to speak compared to what actually happens.
quote:
A secondary question would be why the time lapse matters in being less literal in ones expectations of prophetic fulfillment.
I guess it's instinctive, but I'm more willing to accept the creative reinterpretation of a declaration hundreds of years old from an entirely different context than "fudging" of one just a few days or weeks prior in the exact same context and talking about the exact same context in both instances.
Not least because to my non-Iron Age mind ( ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) the discrepancy should have been obvious to Luke, who is quite a stickler for detail.
Again, it may just be that Luke is recording as is and leaving us to struggle with the discrepancy.
In this respect, though, my concern is that you seem to be expalining this discrepancy as similar to the approximations encountered in contemporary "prophecy". Which I find alarming, not only as regards contemporary "prophecy", especially prefaced by "the Lord says", or similar, but also as to how approximate you might view other Holy-Spirit-breathed things from the time of the NT to be.
==
(By the way, you and I already went over some quite similar ground in a few posts here onwards)
[ 13. September 2016, 14:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I think I had a part in that as well ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
thanks, yes, that's helpful.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What exactly are the inconsistencies you are seeing in the text?
Agabus says the Holy Spirit says the Jews will bind Paul and hand him over to the Romans.
What is actually recorded as happening is that the Romans extracted Paul from the crowd, apparently saving his life in the process, arrested him, and bound him.
The end result is the same but the roles of the various parties are not.
Maybe I'm just being anal-retentive, but it strikes me as odd that the Holy Spirit allegedly having dramatically identified the parties and what they will do, these are the wrong way round so to speak compared to what actually happens.
OK, yes, that was the contradiction I was noticing as well, but I'm simply not seeing it as much a big deal as you are. The general thrust of the prophesy is all in place-- Paul was opposed by the Jews, he was bound, and ultimately brought under the authority of the Gentile authorities. There's a few missing steps-- it's the Gentiles, not the Jews, doing the actual binding and the "handing over to the Gentiles" is more "Gentile authorities stepping in to prevent a riot". But in general terms it seems fairly on point. It feels to me like you are reading it to literally-- especially, again, given the way prophesy is generally interpreted in the OT & NT. It just doesn't seem to work that way. We'd like it to-- it would be much neater and cleaner if prophesy would come with these very clear, specific, measurable signs that we could all agree on which could stamp it either "authentic" or "bogus". But it doesn't seem to be like that-- in the Bible or in contemporary life.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I think I had a part in that as well ...
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly* eh? Maybe we should organise a Shipmeet in the Azores and sort this out once and for all...
==
*Thankfully, due to Agabus-flexi-prophecy™, each of us is free to assign those monikers to each of us as we see fit and each combination will be equally valid...
[ 13. September 2016, 14:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE][qb]A secondary question would be why the time lapse matters in being less literal in ones expectations of prophetic fulfillment.
I guess it's instinctive, but I'm more willing to accept the creative reinterpretation of a declaration hundreds of years old from an entirely different context than "fudging" of one just a few days or weeks prior in the exact same context and talking about the exact same context in both instances.
Yeah, I'm not feeling that as a rubric. Either prophesy works that way (literalistic, easily verifiable markers) or it doesn't. And, from my observation of both the biblical events and contemporary discernment, mostly it does not-- however much we might wish it did. I don't think the time lapse matters much. We either accept prophesy as this sort of poetic, "thru a mirror dimly" (not always of the future of course) sort of experience, or we decide it's all flim-flam.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not least because to my non-Iron Age mind ( ) the discrepancy should have been obvious to Luke, who is quite a stickler for detail.
Again, it may just be that Luke is recording as is and leaving us to struggle with the discrepancy.
Yes, I mentioned that before. I would very much agree that that appears to be precisely what Luke is doing-- as well as the more obvious (to me anyway) contradiction I mentioned in the OP-- the contradiction between whether the Spirit is telling Paul to go to Jerusalem and be prepared, or if the Spirit is saying don't go.
Again, to me this lends credibility to the account-- the fact that Luke isn't "prettying it up" by making it all work out. The fact that he isn't inserting details to make his guy (Paul) the hero. We see this a lot in Acts (e.g. the dispute between Paul & Barnabus which never tells us who was right about John Mark). There is a realism and honesty to Luke's reporting that inspires confidence.
So, to your point, maybe we, too, shouldn't try to resolve the conflict but just let it rest.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In this respect, though, my concern is that you seem to be expalining this discrepancy as similar to the approximations encountered in contemporary "prophecy". Which I find alarming, not only as regards contemporary "prophecy", especially prefaced by "the Lord says", or similar, but also as to how approximate you might view other Holy-Spirit-breathed things from the time of the NT to be.
I think the prophesy in the Bible-- OT and NT-- has an authority and universality that contemporary prophesy does not. All prophesy needs to be "tested"-- in part by time & sequential generations. Biblical prophesy has that, contemporary prophesy does not. Biblical prophesy is particular (to a particular people in a particular time) but it is also eternal/universal (there is something there that is for all people, at all times). This is not necessarily true of contemporary, extra-biblical prophesy. So I would never put contemporary prophesy on the same level as biblical prophesy.
What I was suggesting though, is that we can see similarities between this particular prophesy in Acts 21, other prophesies in the OT and NT, and our own contemporary experiences of discernment and/or prophesy. Those similarities can help guide us in understanding this particular prophesy, and in particular, suggest that we may be expecting too much if we expect it to see the sort of literalism you see to want.
I'm not sure if that answers your question? Is there something I'm missing?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(By the way, you and I already went over some quite similar ground in a few posts here onwards)
Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten that! I'm going to have to come back after work and reread that.
[ 13. September 2016, 14:46: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay, I'm going to put this crap up because -- well, just because. I have a virus and just roll with it, okay? I don't believe it myself, but it'll give y'all something more to chew on (disinfect though before you get my cold)...
If someone really wanted to get all metaphorical on this, they'd say that "the Jews" = the Jewish Christians who were so concerned about the Mosaic law--and their sympathizers--that Paul felt obliged to be bound with the Nazarite vow/ceremony, although his usual default was firmly in favor of Christian freedom. As a direct result of allowing "the Jews" to "bind him" this way, he winds up being attacked and delivered over to the Gentiles.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Too contrived Lamb Chopped. A modern form of medieval allegorical interpretation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Did I say that you did? Get well soon.
And Eutychus, if we make Agabus' prophecy work in the context of the prophecies of the week of tarrying before in Tyre and many days tarrying in prophet riddled Caesarea, what was all the tarrying all about? Paul actually holding back because of all the prophecies? We can't know can we? The account isn't going to win a Pullitzer. The weeks before Paul went to Jerusalem were full of prophets and their prophecies. The past is another country.
And, more to the point, how does the much briefer time delay between the Agabus prophecy and its fulfilment and the time delays of half a millennium and more between Jesus and the NT writers using the OT prophecies in the same unmodern way make any difference? None of them were fazed by it at all.
Should they have been? How could they have been? They do things differently there.
After His resurrection Jesus continued with the same process on the road to Emmaus and in Jerusalem. Was He wrong? He also preached damnation, conditional forgiveness, exorcism, glossolalia, snake handling and healing.
As very God.
NONE of which work today as preaching. Like prophecy.
So, do we try and make it work now, try and get here from there with faith and honesty and inclusion and courage and imagination or try uselessly to make then work now or ignore then, move on without acknowledgement that now is rooted in then or ...
And yes it does trouble me greatly as my counting of my days comes up short ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
