Page 104 - Acts Student Textbook

doubtless knew both languages from common use. This example demonstrates the importance today
of having Bibles translated into the language of the people we teach and to address them in their
language or have an interpreter.

Why does Paul begin his defense by telling his past? (22:3-8)

Paul was a Jew by natural birth. He was born in Tarsus of Cilicia but trained in Jerusalem (“this city”)
at the feet of the highly respected Jewish teacher named Gamaliel (see Acts 5). He was well
instructed in the strict manner of the law of the fathers — i.e., the Law of Moses (and perhaps also
Jewish tradition). His conversion to the gospel, then, was not a matter of ignorance of the Law.
Further, Paul had been zealous for the law. He had not been an indifferent, negligent Jew who was
converted because he never really had been committed. Here Paul goes back to the beginning of his
Jewish life so he could find a common ground with his listeners.

Note that it helps in convincing people if they can realize that we understand their position and have
no reason to be biased against it. If we have experienced their views or read their books or especially
if we once held their views - then they know we can understand and even sympathize with what they
are facing. It also helps us understand what to say to convince them to change, because we know
what convinced us.

What led to Paul’s change in what he previously believed about Jesus and how is he using that
here? (22:9, 10)

Saul was convinced by this appearance of Jesus that he needed to consider major changes in his
views. He asked what the Lord wanted him to do. Note that at this point he knew he was addressing
Jesus, yet he still called Him “Lord.” The only reasonable explanation for this is that he had accepted
as true, not just that Jesus was alive and was the One speaking to him, but that in fact He is the
Master whom He claimed to be. Prior to this, Paul had believed Jesus was a fraud and charlatan.
Paul was not just relating an interesting story. He was giving evidence for his change of conviction.
This is eyewitness testimony that Jesus was really alive and therefore had been raised from the dead.
This not only explained why Paul changed his beliefs, but it ought also to have caused the hearers to
realize they needed to change. Paul was here doing what he had been called to do as an apostle. He
was giving his eyewitness testimony that Jesus had been raised from the dead. How else could one
explain the change in Paul? This was Paul’s own explanation. As an eyewitness he gave his testimony
and used it to explain the change in his life. What right do skeptics have denying it unless they can
prove otherwise? The conversion of Saul is today convincing proof Jesus was raised from the dead,
just like it was then.

How do we know that Paul was not hallucinating about what he claimed to have seen? (22:11-13)

The fact Paul was blinded was significant. It was a sign to him and to those who were with him that
the event really had happened. There could be no doubt of that since he could not see. The fact
Ananias was able to heal Saul was also a sign that he was the one sent by God to tell Saul what to do.
The fact Saul was blind and then healed was also a sign to Ananias that Saul had seen Jesus, since this
is the explanation given to Ananias by the Lord.

How important was the information from Ananias? (22:14, 15)

Ananias told Paul that God had chosen Paul, not only to know God’s will, but also to see Jesus (the
righteuos One) and to hear the voice of His mouth. Note that Saul not only heard Jesus but he saw
Him. The purpose of this was to qualify Paul to be a witness to others of what he had seen and heard.
This qualified Saul to serve as an apostle, since all apostles had to be able to testify that they had

103