Comparison Of Acts Chapter 9 And 22 Religion Essay

Acts chapter 9 starts with Luke, the writer, narrating Paul ‘s Damascus Road experience. In Acts chapter 22 Luke studies Paul ‘s personal history to the Jews in Jerusalem and in Acts 26, Paul ‘s personal history to Agrippa. There are some skips and differences between the three studies. In this essay, I will contrast and compare the three histories, concentrating on the major skips and differences. I am traveling to seek accounts for the differences in an enterprise to determine if there is harmoniousness between the histories or contradictions.

Hearing Jesus ‘ voice

Harmonizing to Acts 9:7 Paul ‘s going comrades heard the sound of person ‘s voice speech production to Paul but Acts 22:9 says his comrades did non hear the voice. The Grecian interlingual rendition suggests that in the former chapter they heard the voice as a sound and in the latter, they did non hear it as meaningful words. Paul ‘s comrades may hold heard the voice without understanding it since the vision was for Paul entirely. The verb akouo used can be translated both ‘hear ‘ and ‘understand ‘ . In Acts 9:7, akouo is used with the possessive instance, simply stipulating that a sound was heard. In 22:9 akouo takes an accusatory object, bespeaking that the significance was non comprehended. Machen suggests that Paul ‘s comrades heard a voice but merely Paul understood what was said.

Barker argues that Akouo does non intend ‘understand ‘ . He suggests that New Testament Greek has other words for understand, the chief one being suneimi, whose noun opposite number is sunesi, intending ‘understanding ‘ . He agrees, however, that ‘hear ‘ can be rendered slackly as ‘understand ‘ in some particular instances, merely as we say in English ‘I hear you ‘ intending ‘I understand you ‘ . So akouo literally means ‘hear ‘ but can intend ‘understand ‘ by context. Baker gives the illustration of 1 Playboies 14:2 where akouo is translated as ‘understanding ‘ . He besides referred to John 12:28-29, where Jesus understood God ‘s words while the people around him said it had thundered.

The Grecian word for ‘heard ‘ used in this chapter is an parlance often used for ‘understood ‘ or even for ‘understood and obeyed ‘ .

I agree with the bookmans who say that Paul ‘s comrades heard an hearable sound without understanding what was said.

The Light from Heaven

Acts 9:7 says Paul ‘s comrades heard the sound, but they did non see anyone while in Acts 22:9 Paul says his comrades saw the visible radiation. The two histories can be harmonised by presuming that while everyone saw the visible radiation, merely Paul saw the risen Christ. Hedrick concludes that Paul ‘s comrades beheld the light harmonizing to Acts 22:9 but did non see Jesus as Acts 9:7 says, merely as they heard the voice without understanding it.

There is a parallel between the inability of Paul ‘s comrades to hear the voice as an articulated message and their inability to see the glorification of the risen Lord in the blazing of visible radiation. Acts 22:9 makes it clear that they saw the visible radiation but Acts 9:7 says they did non see the Person displayed in the visible radiation.

It is safe to reason that although the whole group saw the visible radiation, merely Paul saw the risen Lord in that visible radiation.

Falling to the land

Acts 9 implies that merely Saul fell to the land while his comrades stood speechless. Acts 26 studies Paul stating “ We all fell to the land ” . Some bookmans argue that ab initio everyone fell to the land, but merely Paul remained on the land.

The word rendered ‘stood ‘ in Acts 9 besides means ‘to be fixed ‘ or ‘to be rooted to the topographic point ‘ . Therefore Paul ‘s comrades may non hold stood vertical, but were rendered motionless, or fixed to the topographic point by overmastering fright. The look ‘stood speechless ‘ has no mention to position. One may stand in uncertainty, stand house, stand in fright, base speechless, or stand in awe while in any place of the organic structure. Paul ‘s comrades, hence, ‘stood speechless ‘ while level on the Earth, he reckons.

Paul and his comrades saw the visible radiation, fell down, and so the comrades got up and stood speechless as Paul conversed with Christ. This is because the vision was for Paul, so the others did non see anything beyond the visible radiation.

Paul ‘s comrades fell down with him, but they rose to their pess while Paul was speaking to the individual that they could non see or understand.

Paul ‘s sightlessness

Acts chapter 9:8 provinces that when Paul got up from the land he could non see although his eyes were unfastened. In chapter 22 Paul says he could non see because of the brightness of the visible radiation but in chapter 26 he does non advert the sightlessness at all. In add-on, Paul ‘s comrades were non blinded by the visible radiation.

The differences between the narrative in chapter 22 and that in chapter 26 are chiefly differences of accent. Paul emphasised facets of the narrative which would be of involvement to his audience. Bosch thinks that Paul was blinded by the glorification of the visible radiation because the Christ he saw was non the post-resurrection Christ, but the Christ exalted at the Father ‘s right manus.

Hedrick reckons that Paul ‘s comrades were non blinded because they had no ground to gaze at the visible radiation since they did non see Jesus. It besides seems that in Chapter 22 Paul received his sight upon come ining Damascus but in Acts 9 he was blind for three yearss. Once once more this evident difference is a consequence of what Paul chose to foreground to different audiences.

Paul ‘s committee

In Acts 22 Paul narrates how Jesus told him to travel to Damascus where he would be told what to make. His mission was so announced to him by Ananias. In Acts 26 nevertheless, Jesus Himself announced Paul ‘s mission.

Paul gave a Fuller history in Acts 26 of what Jesus said to him. He did non distinguish between Jesus ‘ words to him and Ananias ‘ words to him because he knew Ananias ‘ words were the Lord ‘s. In chapter 22, Paul was turn toing Jews and he wanted them to cognize that his committee came from a respected Jew called Ananias. Some bookmans believe Paul merely mixed together Jesus and Ananias ‘ words to him in chapter 26. It is besides merely here that Paul says Jesus told him it was difficult to kick against the prods. This was allegedly a Gentile adage non in usage among the Jews, hence Paul used it when turn toing Gentile swayers who would understand it.

Drum sanders explains that when Paul was talking to king Agrippa, Bernice and the Romans, he focused on what high-level people like them would understand – a mission, a end, a intent and duty. They knew what it was to obey, so Paul tells them he was non disobedient to the vision from Eden.

It is merely in Paul ‘s history of Acts 26:19-21 where we acquire new information that he did non acquire his complete disclosure at the clip of his transition. We are told here that the disclosure given to him was imperfect.

Paul carefully chose which parts of the transition narrative to state king Agrippa and the others. He picked parts that would involvement them.

Decision

Scholars by and large agree that while Acts 22:9 says Paul ‘s comrades did non hear the voice that spoke to him, what it truly means is that they did non understand what was said. This is because the Grecian verb used for ‘hear ‘ can besides intend ‘understand ‘ . Although there are some who thought the Grecian linguistic communication had other words for ‘understand ‘ , there are Bibles where ‘hear ‘ was translated ‘understand. This agrees with Acts 9: 7, which reads that the work forces with Saul heard a voice. Saul entirely understood what the voice said.

It besides appears that Saul and his comrades all saw the visible radiation that flashed from Eden. Saul, nevertheless, saw the risen Christ in the visible radiation while the others merely saw the visible radiation because the vision was non theirs. There is a similarity between the comrades seeing the visible radiation without seeing the Lord and their hearing the sound without understanding the words. Because Saul saw the glorification of the risen Christ who had ascended to heaven, he could non see when he rose from the land.

Acts 9: 7 implies that Saul ‘s comrades did non fall down, but it can be harmonised with Acts 22:14 in which Saul says his comrades and him all fell to the land. The others rose to their pess though, while Saul conversed with the Lord. There are bookmans who expound that the Greek word translated ‘stood ‘ can intend to be fixed or rooted to the topographic point. This can use to people who are in any place of the organic structure, non merely standing.

Acts 26 omits that Saul was rendered blind while both Acts 9 and 22 reference it. The account is that Saul merely emphasised facets of the narrative which would involvement his audience. Although Acts 9 provinces that Saul was blind for three yearss, Acts 22:11-12 seem to propose that he regained his sight shortly after come ining Damascus. Once more this evident difference is caused by what Saul was foregrounding at a peculiar clip.

Paul explains in Acts 22 that Jesus instructed him to come in Damascus and delay for instructions on what he should make. The Lord so sent Ananias to Paul to denote Paul ‘s mission. In Acts 26 Paul gives a full history of his instructions from the Lord Himself. Some writers think that Paul merely blended Jesus and Ananias ‘ words to him as he was certain that Ananias ‘ words were from Jesus. Paul addressed Agrippa and the Romans by concentrating on what people of authorization like them would understand. Since Agrippa understood obeisance, Paul told him that he ( Paul ) could non disobey the celestial vision. Chapter 26, unlike the other two histories, tells us that Paul ‘s disclosure did non come at one time, but bit by bit.