Christ Is Risen! 🌞
This is a very rich passage about the conversion of Saul and how he became the apostle Paul.
Due to space constraints, I will focus only on a few important points.
Acts IX, 1 – ‘εμπνεων’ – ‘empneon’ – from ‘εν’ (‘into’) + ‘πνεω’ (‘to breathe’) – ‘breathed in’. It can have two different meanings, both of which are possible and tell us a lot about Saul (the future Apostle Paul).
‘Inhaled’ – that is, was influenced by, absorbed from his
immediate environment. Saul was brought up as a zealot for Jewish
traditions and understanding (fanatical).
Breathed inside
, i.e. lived
by it, it was the meaning of his
life and work, it inspired him to take action. In the parallel passages
where he himself speaks of these events (XXII, 3-21 and XXVI, 4-23),
Paul emphasises that he acted with great zeal and perseverance in his
mistake.
In verse XXVI, 11, the word ‘εμμαινομενος’ – ‘emmainomenos’ – derived
from ‘εν’ + ‘μαινομαι’ – is used, meaning ‘was out of his mind with
rage’, ‘raging in anger’, ‘was furious’, and in both parallel
first-person narratives Paul is speaking for himself, Paul testifies in
both parallel first-person narratives that he acted to punish the
offence of honour
, for reasons of honour (perhaps he believed that to
believe in the resurrection of the crucified Messiah was a dishonour to
the Jews
).
But the Lord, by His manifestation and subsequent healing through the Apostle Ananias, changed Saul so that he became the Apostle Paul.
Later, he always remembered his unconsciousness with repentance and suffered much for Christ in constant labour and endurance, eventually receiving the crown of martyrdom in Rome.
Acts IX, 5 – ‘ειμι’ – ‘eimi’ – (I) ‘am’.
A comparison of the parallel passages shows that Saul’s companions in
Damascus were partial
witnesses to the vision, although it is not
clear what they observed and what they did not perceive.
Through this partiality, Jesus shows Saul the limitations of humanity, and in particular, of himself.
The dialogue between Ananias and Jesus in the vision is also important. Ananias expresses his thoughts, but does not argue with Christ. Christ, on the other hand, accepts human reasoning as natural (as predictable) and does not rebuke Ananias. This reveals the purpose of the revelation – not to rebuke Ananias for his human reasoning, but to send him on a special task, a mission.
In the meeting between Ananias and Saul, I also note his trust in
God: Behold, I am lost… I am blind… (You) lead me out, Lord!
John VI, 48, 51 – ‘ειμι’ – (I) am
(used only when
emphasised).
The words I am…
are not to be taken very literally. That is, it is
not a definition
of Jesus. You cannot put an equal sign (=) between
Jesus and the bread of life
. Just as you cannot put an equal sign
between Jesus and the good shepherd
, the door to the sheep
, the
light to the world
, and so on. It is impossible, at least because the
Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself contains in Himself
and
means more than any such image, He is Greater than them all.
But if a person wants to understand what this means, then we can give
the following comparison (imperfect and incomplete, but important) -
Jesus, as a kind of super-lens
, focuses
in Himself all that the Lord
wants to grant people and actually does grant them. God’s gifts to
people are extremely wealthy and diverse, and therefore one can see
from different sides
, or parts of the spectrum
, or not all the
radiation
, but see a significant part. Depending on what we are talking
about, the images are appropriate. If we are talking about the Sacrament
of Communion, it is the bread of life
. If it’s about leading the way,
it’s the good shepherd
. If it is about importance and knowledge, it is
light to the world
, etc. But this is not to say that these images are
completely lacking in literal meaning – for example, the bread of life
is closely related to the bread in the Sacrament of Communion; the good
shepherd
is related to the way Christ leads people, and so on.
John VI, 52 – ‘Εμαχοντο’ – from ‘μαχομαι’ – ‘were engaged in battle, fighting, arguing, quarreling’. Of the possible meanings, one of the last two in the list just given seems most appropriate here, but the first two are also possible. I note that the dispute arose not because of the words of Jesus, but because of different Jewish human approaches to their understanding – people had different visions of what these words could mean, and so they argued with each other because the issue was important. If people had understood nothing at all, they would not have argued; and if they had understood everything correctly, they would not have argued either. The dispute arose from a partial (and in general wrong) understanding of Jesus’ words.
The conclusion of the reading is directly related to the Sacrament of
the Holy Communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. A person who
does not receive communion does not hold
eternal life in him or her,
in other words, cannot be entirely a saint. This does not yet mean that
he will perish in eternity. If the living part of a plant does not have
nourishment, it will decay (for example, dry up, fade) – and so a person
without Communion does not live a full spiritual life.
Therefore, the Sacrament of Communion is very important.
Glory be to Thee, our God, glory be to Thee!