Acts 22:10Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Nor could Stephen's speech fail to affect him. Stephen's character was akin to his own, and the sight of Stephen's martyrdom also made its impression.

Yet Paul was still too bound by the spirit of Pharisaism to yield at once to these impressions. They were acting upon him against his own will. He suppressed them as much as he could.

He regarded these new thoughts, involuntarily arising in his soul in favor of the new teaching, as suggestions of Satan. To Satan he ascribed this whole revolt against the authority of the ancient sacred traditions.

Therefore he rose up with still stronger zeal against the new sect. Yet he did not succeed in suppressing these thoughts completely, or in silencing the voice of conscience that rose against his fanaticism.

A struggle began within his soul. While he was in this state of mind, another outward impression was added, turning a spark into a conflagration.

Not far from Damascus, a storm overtook him and his companions. Lightning struck close beside Paul and cast him senseless to the ground.

In this he now recognized the chastening and warning power of the Messiah whom he was persecuting. In such a state it was easy to confuse one's own sensations with reality, the objective with the subjective.

Thus the present impression was reflected in his soul as an actual appearance of Jesus. Blinded by the lightning and deafened by the thunder, he came to Damascus.

But how can Paul's meeting with Ananias be explained from natural causes? Here too, something may be noted which the history does not expressly mention.

Since Ananias was known among the Jews for his strict legal piety, it is not improbable that they had known each other in Jerusalem.

In Paul, who had heard of this man's spiritual gifts in Christianity, the thought arose that this man, esteemed by Christians, might also help him and free him from his present miserable condition.

While he was occupied with this thought, a vision was formed from it. On the other hand, one may suppose that Ananias too had heard something of the great change that had taken place in Paul.

Yet he did not believe it until a vision, explicable in the same psychological way, overcame his distrust.

In considering this explanation, one might still allow that the change in Paul could have been prepared by the impressions mentioned. Yet, when compared with what history presents to us, the necessity or even probability of such an explanation cannot be proved.

History in general gives us enough examples of the power of religious fanaticism, even over hearts that, in other respects, are open to what is true and good.

It shows how such hearts can turn to their own advantage everything that might have led them out of error.

Therefore, taking Paul's strong character into account, it cannot be deemed improbable that even in Stephen's martyrdom he thought he saw only the power of an evil spirit over a man drawn into apostasy from pure doctrine.

For this reason he felt still more strongly within himself the impulse to oppose the spread of a teaching that could draw to perdition men so distinguished in gift and heart.

Consequently, from this one would rather have expected Saul to be confirmed in the course he had adopted than to be changed.

Further, how unlike a storm is the account of the circumstances of the event. If there had been no real appearance of Jesus, and only a storm had produced such an effect, how can one explain what followed?

How did Paul's companions also see and hear something like what the Apostle saw and heard?

Of course, one would have to admit that they too were in a disposition of spirit similar to Paul's. That is, they were already Christians, or on the way to Christianity.

But such people surely would not have agreed to be persecutors of Christians. And how could the deception accepted by Paul, as though the Savior had appeared to him, serve as the cause of such a revolution in Paul's life?

The differences in the narrative of this event in chapters 9, 22, and 26 prove nothing against its reality. They could easily have arisen in the repetition of a narrative about an event so far beyond the range of ordinary phenomena.

There is no need to attribute them to different ways in which Paul himself told the story. They may be explained by an inexact transmission of his speeches.

If we allow that Paul's companions received only a general impression from the appearance, and not one as definite as Paul's, then the matter is clarified. The appearance was intended chiefly for him.

They saw light, but no definite form. They heard words, but distinguished and understood nothing definite. Thus one and the same appearance could be presented differently from different sides.

By its very nature, this appearance cannot be judged according to the laws of ordinary earthly communication and sensation.

Therefore the objection has no force against its objective reality, namely, that Paul and his companions did not see and hear exactly the same thing.

We do not yet know the laws by which communications from the spiritual world are made to people living in the sensible world. Thus we cannot say anything definite about this.

Others do not doubt the actual appearance of Jesus Christ, but regard the whole event as an inward appearance in Paul's spirit. They admit a spiritual revelation of Jesus Christ, but not an outward one.

According to this explanation, the experiences of Paul's struggle with himself in Pharisaism, and the impressions of Stephen's speech and martyrdom, would indeed have been a preparation for this inward revelation.

From this point of view, the divine character and truth of the event would suffer no loss. However one regards the outward element, it would still be only a means.

By it Paul had to be prepared for that inward revelation of Jesus Christ, on which his whole apostolic activity depended.

Sensory perceptions can have no greater certainty and reality than spiritual events. That this was not some deception, psychologically explicable, would be guaranteed by the extraordinary change produced in Paul by this inward event.

His whole apostolic activity would also guarantee it. That activity bears witness to everything he experienced within himself, as an effect bears witness to its cause.

Yet this explanation too is contradicted by the fact that Paul's companions were struck by the event together with him, and by the fact that Paul lost his sight.

The opinion that the vision on which Paul's conversion depended is the same one he describes in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 12:2, cannot be accepted. This opinion has been revived in recent times.

There Paul describes the ascent of his spirit into a higher region of the spiritual world. In the vision that occasioned his conversion, the descent of Jesus to him is described.

In that vision he did not lose consciousness of the fact that he was living on earth. The impression of this appearance was overwhelming.

But the other event was joined to an extraordinary rapture of spirit. From the first, his Christian consciousness received its beginning.

The second was one of those highest moments of inward life, when a man has long lived in communion with Christ. After the many battles he has had to endure, he rests in a foretaste of heavenly being.

Then he is renewed again for his earthly labors. The fourteen years mentioned there would have to mean that the epistle was written fourteen years after Paul's conversion.

But this completely confuses the whole chronology.

It is best to see how Paul himself, in his epistles, portrays this event. In any case, it was important for him as the beginning of a new period of his life.

He often bears witness against his Jewish enemies, who refused to acknowledge his apostolic calling, that the apostolic ministry was entrusted to him by Jesus Christ Himself, just as it was to the other apostles.

See, for example, Gal. 1:1. Yet this may be understood not of an outward event, but, as was said, of an inward one.

In the indicated passage, in verse 16, the Apostle seems to speak of an inward revelation of the Lord, έν έμοί, in his self-consciousness. This made him capable of proclaiming Christ independently of all human instruction.

It is not quite the same when the Apostle, in 1 Cor. 9:1, appeals to the fact that he saw the Lord Jesus. For this very reason, because he saw Him, he became His Apostle.

Yet even that may be understood of a vision in some ecstatic state, like the one the Apostle himself describes in 2 Cor. 12:1.

But it is an altogether different matter when, in chapter 15 of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, he places the Lord Jesus' appearance to him on the same level as all the other appearances of the risen Savior.

This testimony of the Apostle has still greater importance because, as the cited passage from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians shows, he knew how to distinguish an ecstatic state from the ordinary state of self-consciousness.

Around the travelers an extraordinary light from heaven suddenly shone. Not Saul alone, but all his companions saw it. In Syria, and in the south generally, the midday sun shines and burns unbearably. But this light from heaven was even more astonishing in brightness and more piercing in its flame. Together with the light, some terrible but indistinct voice reached Saul's companions. As if by some dread gesture from heaven, they were all thrown to the ground in stunned amazement. When the others rose and partly recovered from terror, Saul still lay on the ground. In that prostrate state he saw an extraordinary human form and heard a human voice saying to him: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads." But in that dreadful moment Saul did not recognize the One who spoke to him, because he had never seen Him on earth. "Who are You, Lord?" he said. "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you persecute!" This answer struck Saul with terror. In his soul, all that he had done against this Jesus of Nazareth instantly rose up with dreadful clarity. In unbearable trembling and fear he asked Him, "Lord, what do You command me to do?" To this came the merciful answer: "Rise, and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

Since crude men are persuaded more by sight, they saw only the light. Yet this was sufficient for their conviction, and therefore they stood speechless. Moreover, the light did not act on them as it did on him. It illumined him, by this event urging them also to see, if they wished." According to blessed Theophylact, "Paul interweaves the testimonies of persons with the testimonies of circumstances that happened to him and to others. The witnesses are priests, elders, and companions. Facts are testified by facts, and not only by a person."