Acts 26:16Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Yet he was still too bound by the spirit of Pharisaism to surrender suddenly to these impressions. They acted upon him against his own will. He suppressed them as much as he could. He regarded these new thoughts, which involuntarily arose in his soul in favor of the new teaching, as suggestions of Satan. For he traced to Satan this whole uprising against the weight of the ancient sacred traditions. Therefore he rose with still stronger zeal against the new sect. Yet he did not succeed in suppressing them completely or in silencing the voice of conscience, which rose against his fanaticism. A struggle began in his soul. While he was in this disposition of spirit, another external impression was added, which turned the spark into a fire. Not far from Damascus, a storm overtook him and his companions. Lightning struck near Paul and threw him senseless to the ground. In this he now recognized the punishing and warning power of the Messiah whom he was persecuting. Since in such a state it was easy to confuse one's own sensations with reality, and the objective with the subjective, the present impression was reflected in his soul as an actual appearance of Jesus. Blinded by lightning and stunned by thunder, he came to Damascus. But how can Paul's meeting with Ananias be explained from natural causes? Here too, something may be observed which the history does not mention plainly. Since Ananias was a man known among the Jews for his strict piety according to the Law, it is not improbable that the two had known one another in Jerusalem. Paul had heard of this man's spiritual gifts in Christianity. Thus the thought arose in him that this man, respected by Christians, could help him also and free him from his present pitiable 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 about the great change that had taken place in Paul. Yet he did not believe it until a vision, explained psychologically in the same way, overcame his distrust. In considering this explanation, one might still allow that the change that occurred in Paul could have been prepared by the impressions just mentioned. Yet when this is 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 the true and the good. It shows how they know how to turn to their own advantage everything that could lead them out of error. Therefore, taking Paul's strong character into account, one cannot consider it improbable that even in Stephen's martyrdom he thought he saw only the power of an evil spirit over the soul of one drawn by it 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 into ruin people so excellent in gifts and heart. Consequently, from this one should have expected Saul's confirmation in the direction he had taken rather than a change. Further, how unlike a storm is the account of the circumstances of the event. If there had been no actual appearance of Jesus, but only a storm had produced such an effect, how can one explain that Paul's companions also saw and heard something similar to what the Apostle saw and heard? Of course, one would have to admit that they too were in a disposition of spirit like Paul's. That is, they were already either Christians or on the path to Christianity. But such people surely would not have agreed to become persecutors of Christians. And how could the delusion accepted by Paul, as though the Savior had appeared to him, cause such an overturning as occurred 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 circle of ordinary phenomena. There is no need to attribute them to different ways in which Paul himself narrated it. They can be explained by imprecision in the transmission of his speeches. If we admit that Paul's companions received only a general impression from the appearance, and not one so definite as Paul's, the matter becomes clear. The appearance was intended precisely for him. They saw the light, but no definite form. They heard words, but distinguished and understood nothing definite. Thus one can explain how one and the same appearance could be presented differently from different sides. By its very nature, this appearance cannot be judged by the laws of ordinary earthly communication and sensation. Therefore the objection has no force against its objective reality, that Paul and his companions did not see and hear the same thing. We still do not know the laws by which communications from the spiritual world occur to people living in the sensible world. Therefore 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 without an external one. According to such an explanation, the experiences of his struggle with himself in Pharisaism, and the impressions of Stephen's speech and martyrdom, would indeed have prepared him for this inward revelation. The divinity and truth of the event would suffer nothing under such a view. However one regards the external, all of it would only be a means by which Paul had to be prepared for the inward revelation of Jesus Christ. All his apostolic activity depended on that revelation. Sensory impressions can have no greater certainty and reality than spiritual events. That this was not some delusion that could be explained psychologically would be guaranteed by the extraordinary change produced in Paul by this inward event, and by all his apostolic activity. It bears witness to everything he experienced within himself, as an effect bears witness to its cause. But such an explanation is contradicted by the fact that Paul's companions were struck by this event together with him, and that Paul lost his sight. The opinion cannot be accepted that the vision on which Paul's conversion depended is the same one he describes in the second epistle to the Corinthians (12:2). This opinion has been revived in recent times. Here Paul describes the elevation of his spirit into the higher region of the spiritual world. In the vision that occasioned his conversion, the descent of Jesus to him is described. In this descent he did not lose consciousness that he was living on earth. The impression of this appearance was overwhelming. The other event was joined to an extraordinary ecstasy of spirit. From the first, his Christian consciousness had its beginning. The second was one of those highest moments of inward life when a man, who had long lived in communion with Christ, rested after the many battles he had to endure. He rested in a foretaste of heavenly being and was renewed again for his earthly labors. The fourteen years mentioned there would have to mean that this 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, which in any case was important to him as the beginning of a new period of his life. He often testifies against his enemies, the Jews, who did not wish to recognize his apostolic calling. He testifies that the apostolic ministry was entrusted to him, as to the other Apostles, by Jesus Christ Himself, as in Gal 1:1. But this may be understood not of an external event, but, as was said, of an inward one. In the indicated place, in verse 16, the Apostle seems to speak of an inward revelation, έν έμοί, of the Lord in his self-consciousness. This made him able to proclaim Christ independently of any human instruction. It is not quite the same when, in 1 Cor 9:1, the Apostle refers to the fact that he saw the Lord Jesus. By the very fact that he saw Him, he became His Apostle. Yet this too may be understood of a vision in some ecstatic state, like the one the Apostle himself describes in 2 Cor 12:1. But the matter is entirely different 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 statement of the Apostle has all the more weight because, as the cited passage from 2 Corinthians shows, he knew how to distinguish an ecstatic state from the ordinary state of self-consciousness.

It is more likely that the Apostle now joined into one speech both what the Lord directly said to him and what Ananias said to him. He expressed this in a free presentation, without keeping to the letter.

For the words spoken to him by Ananias were also words of the Lord Himself to Ananias, and through him to Paul. The Apostle spoke this address before a king and a secular society.

It was inconvenient for him to enter into details. He might fear that highly placed persons would not continue listening to him. Yet it was necessary for him to speak of his mission to the Gentiles.

Therefore he placed in one presentation what the Lord said to him directly at His appearance, and indirectly through Ananias. There is no real inaccuracy here.

Both sets of words are words of the Lord Himself. Meanwhile, to place them together in one presentation was both more convenient and more advantageous for the Apostle in his present position.

As for the features of this speech that are not found even in Ananias’s words to Paul, in verses 17 and 18, one may suppose that chapters 9 and 22 do not transmit all of Ananias’s speech to Paul.

This often happens in the transmission of speeches, not only of the apostles, but also of the Lord Himself. The essence of the speech is transmitted.

There can be no doubt that Ananias and Paul, after the extraordinary event of the conversion, spoke much with one another. This is very natural in their position.

The sacred historian and the Apostle himself transmit the essence of these speeches with certain very natural nuances. Thus this important feature of the Apostle’s present speech is easily explained.

It is a feature arising from his very position at that time. “But rise and stand on your feet,” and so forth. Encouraging Saul, the Lord reveals to him the purpose of His appearance to him.

It is to make him a minister and witness, on a level with the other apostles (Acts 1:8), yet chiefly for the conversion of the Gentiles (verse 18). In carrying out this mission, the Lord’s protection is promised to him in dangers.

“To appoint” means, properly, to predestine. It is the same expression used for the predestination of the Messiah to come to the Hebrew people, and for the future judgment. Compare Acts 3:20 and the note.

“What you have seen and what I will reveal to you.” At the Lord’s appearance to him, Paul saw Him risen and glorified. He must be a witness of His Resurrection, as were the other apostles.

See Acts 3:15; 1 Cor 9:1; 1 Cor 15:4-8. Witness to the risen Lord must be the foundation of Paul’s preaching about Christ, as it also serves as the foundation of the preaching of the other apostles.

The final expression, “what I will reveal to you,” must be understood according to the Greek construction. The Lord Himself promises to appear to the newly called witness and reveal His will to him.

This we do in fact see in his history. See Acts 22:17 and following, Acts 23:11, and other passages.