ACTS 22:1-30 - Corps Notes - January 4, 1977
Publication Date: 01-4-1977
Victor Paul Wierwille was a Bible scholar and teacher for over four decades.
By means of Dr. Wierwille's dynamic teaching of the accuracy and integrity of God's Word, foundational class and advanced class graduates of Power for Abundant Living have learned that the one great requirement for every student of the Bible is to rightly divide the Word of Truth. Thus, his presentation of the Word of God was designed for students who desire the in-depth-accuracy of God’s Word.
In his many years of research, Dr. Wierwille studied with such men as Karl Barth, E. Stanley Jones, Glenn Clark, Bishop K.C. Pillai, and George M. Lamsa. His formal training included Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Theology degrees from Mission House (Lakeland) College and Seminary. He studied at the University of Chicago and at Princeton Theological Seminary from which he received a Master of Theology degree in Practical Theology. Later he completed his work for the Doctor of Theology degree.
Dr. Wierwille taught the first class on Power for Abundant Living in 1953.
Books by Dr. Wierwille include: Are the Dead Alive Now? published in 1971; Receiving the Holy Spirit Today published in 1972; five volumes of Studies in Abundant Living— The Bible Tells Me So (1971), The New, Dynamic Church (1971), The Word's Way (1971), God's Magnified Word (1977), Order My Steps in Thy Word (1985); Jesus Christ Is Not God (1975); Jesus Christ Our Passover (1980); and Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed (1982).
Dr. Wierwille researched God's Word, taught, wrote, and traveled worldwide, holding forth the accuracy of God's "wonderful, matchless" Word.
ACTS 22:1-30
January 4, 1977
Acts 22:1
“defence” - apologia – transliterated; apology and in the theological world as apologetics
One of the reasons Paul had to go through this is because he had flipped on the revelation that
originally had been given to him. Whenever you flip out on God then you have to apologize for
your lack of knowledge or believing or your walk.
Acts 22:2
“Hebrew” – it says Hebrew here – it was Estrangelo Aramaic to them
Acts 22:3
“which am” - delete
“Cilicia” - was the province
“this city” – i.e. Jerusalem
“Gamaliel” - was the grandson of Hillel who was the one who wrote so much of the Talmud
“at the feet of” - This was literally true because the teacher would always sit on a raised dais, as
if I sat on this table and crossed my legs and you kids would sit at my feet. That literally was
their educational system.
Paul must have been in the city (Jerusalem) when he was not over thirteen.
“according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers” – means: according to the law that
they set for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses; all of those things.
“zealous” – the Zealots were called Zealots because they were zealous for what they believed
in. This “zealousness toward God” can be right and it can be wrong.
“as ye all are this day” - What were they (Jews) trying to do to him, (Paul)? They were trying to
kill him. They were zealous toward God. They thought they were doing the true God a favor by
the way they treated Pau1. Zealousness is much like sincerity. Sincerity is no guarantee for
truth. Zealousness is no guarantee for truth either. You can be zealous for something without
being right on. He relates here how “according to the perfect manner of the law” he was
zealous toward God.
Acts 22:4
“this way” - As I’ve told you; before people were called “Christians,” they were called
“followers of the way.” We all know that this came from Jesus’ teaching and statements where
he said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” (John 14:6) The people who followed the Lord
Jesus Christ were called “followers of the way.” It was sort of a derogatory thing; “Oh, they’re
followers of the way, followers of Jesus Christ.”
The reason for that was, of course, because they thought Jesus Christ was a counterfeit. They
had crucified him and anybody that was crucified was really to be defamed. The “no-gooders”
were crucified, and therefore, since Jesus Christ was crucified, this word “followers of the
way” has that negative connotation. Like the Orientalism; they’d lifted their noses up at them
and say, “Ah, you’re a follower of ‘the way.’”
“binding and delivering into prisons both men and women” - I often wonder about these things
when I read them in the Word. How much respect would the world have for you if you had a
history like Paul had and then you got saved, born again and then started moving with the
greatness of the Word. Some of you have had a little taste of this kind of verse where your life
in the past didn’t measure up to what all the people thought and now you have gotten born
again.
I can see the real human side to this thing which, of course, was real devilish. One time they
hated Paul because he was out, in front and the next time they hated him because he accepted
the Lord Jesus Christ and it was one thing after another. You can’t doubt Paul’s sincerity that’s
for sure, and you can’t discount his zealousness because he persecuted unto the death and that’s
about as zealous as you can be for something.
“both men and women” - that tells you that it was a real devilish, adamant type of thing
because ordinarily they wouldn’t have brought the women. They would have just brought the
men and put them in prison. Paul was so sincere about destroying Christianity or followers of
the way that he not only got the men, but he took the women. He ripped them away from their
kids and let the kids go by themselves.
Acts 22:5
“the high priest” - the high priest here is perhaps not the same high priest who originally wrote
the papers for Paul to utilize and take with him.
“the high priest doth bear me witness” – literally means that it’s available in the records
“the estate” - the Sanhedrin; the counsel; the ruling body of Judaism
Acts 22:6
There are three records in the book of Acts of Paul’s experiences on the road to Damascus: this
one in chapter 22, the first one in Acts 9:3-8, and the last record is in Acts 26:12-18. It’s
interesting; sometime you just have to lay the three records side by side and see them. There are
no contradictions; just a matter of understanding and certain segments, with a little more
illumination maybe added to, than others.
“about noon” – this is midday
“a great light” - I do not know for sure, class, but I believe that this great light is what is
referred to in the Old Testament and other places as the “shekinah glory” of God; the reflection
off of the tables of stone on Moses’ face. Sunday night I talked about it. [STS 842] They
couldn’t look on Moses’ face. The pillar of fire by night that was used in the Old Testament,
these are all things that I’ve worked and studied regarding God’s presence.
There’s the time when He moved with Moses who He had hid in the cleft of the rock and He
walked by. Moses could only look at His hind parts because he couldn’t have looked upon the
great glory of God, the shekinah glory. [Exodus 33:21-23] It would have blinded him. I think
this was that shekinah glory, the glory of God “shone from heaven, a great light about me.” I
think that was what occurred that day.
Acts 22:7
“voice” - phōnē – phono – they got the word “phonograph” came from this
That was real phenomenon, wasn’t it? Without your understanding of the operation of the
manifestations of the spirit, a lot of this will just be guess work for people.
Acts 22:8
“Who art thou, Lord” - he realized it had to be the master over his life because he was totally
blinded; what you would call “struck down.” That doesn’t mean God struck him down but the
light was so blazingly bright, he just fell on his face.
“I am Jesus of Nazareth” - he did not say “I am God.” He said, “I am Jesus of Nazareth.” I
think this is the only record of the three that mentions that he was Jesus of Nazareth.
“whom thou persecutest” - that’s real interesting because he was persecuting the followers; the
believers. As he was persecuting the believers, who was he really persecuting? Jesus of
Nazareth.
Acts 22:9
“and were afraid” – those words have to be omitted
“heard not the voice” - I think in one of the other records it says they did hear. The difference is
in the statement here. This is in the accusative case and that puts it - “they heard like a voice” -
they heard the voice but they didn’t understand what was being said. It’s like as if you and I
talked together and they could hear me back there (back of the room) but they couldn’t
understand what we were saying. They heard not to the end of understanding what was spoken.
Acts 22:10
“what shall I do Lord?” - of the three accounts, this is the only one that adds that. It is very
evident in the others but it doesn’t say it. Here it says it.
“the Lord” – who is Jesus of Nazareth
Outside of The Way Ministry, I don’t know of any group that believes that he was born again
here, on the road to Damascus. I don’t think they do. I don’t know for sure.
In the record in verse 9 “they heard not the voice of him that spake to me,” I do not believe that
everything that God said to him is recorded in the Word, but this is recorded that we can know
what God said regarding these specific things.
Acts 22:11
Damascus was one of the great cities. I think it’s today the oldest continuing city in history.
Acts 22:12
“Ananias, a devout man according to the law” - this is interesting here. None of the other
records carry that. One record calls him a disciple in Acts 9. I teach that in the Foundational
Class. Over here, he says this Ananias was a devout man. Remember Zacharias and his wife?
They were both devout or something. [Luke 1:5-6] It means God fearing; lovingly zealous.
This Ananias was a God-fearing man according to the law. To me it’s tremendously important
and significant that God would send him to Ananias.
“dwelt there” – that is in Damascus.
Acts 22:13
“Brother Saul” - that has always been my key to believing that he was born again on the road to
Damascus because I am sure that this Ananias, a devout man according to the law, would never
have called him “Brother Saul” had he not been born again, or God told him that he was a real
believer. The whole record in here doesn’t tell us anything that God told Ananias. You’ve got
to go to Acts 9 to see what Ananias was told. “Go into the street called straight, etc.”
“him” - Ananias
“same hour” – immediately; right at that time
Acts 22:14
Look what Ananias, the disciple, said.
“that just one” – I believe this refers to Jesus Christ
“the voice of his mouth” – I believe this refers back to “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou
persecutest” of verse 8
Acts 22:15
“witnesses” – martyr – martus - it is significant that the word “witness” is a take off of that
word “martyr” which simply means in plain language; if you’re going to be a tremendous
witness you’ve got to pour it out; you’ve got to lay down your life; you’ve got to share it;
you’ve got to move with it.
Acts 22:16
This is the verse that they use to show that he was not born again, on the road to Damascus. I
believe that verse 16 is in here because of verse 12; “one Ananias, a devout man according to
the law.” Here was a born-again believer but he was still zealous for the law and therefore he
commanded this to be done in verse 16. Otherwise he called him “Brother Saul” too soon,
because he was not his brother until he was born again.
Acts 22:17
“come again to Jerusalem” - this is perhaps some three years later
“trance” - that was simply revelation - not at all what the spiritualists teach because verse 18
says: “saw him” which is revelation. Dr. reads Acts 22:18-21.
Acts 22:18-21
He came to Jerusalem. While he was praying in the Temple, he “saw him saying unto me,
‘Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony
concerning me.’” When this revelation is given to Paul he leaves Jerusalem right now. This was
some three years after his conversion, I guess, or whatever period of time is involved in there.
Yet before he goes to Jerusalem this particular time, the spirit witnessed in every city telling
him not to go and he still went. Now he’s in Jerusalem here, talking about how he got there
after his new birth and his period of time in Arabia, and then the Lord spoke to him and told
him to get out quickly.
It is typical old Paul arguing again, but the Lord said, “Depart.” – verse 21
Acts 22:19
He was a man who academically, commitment wise and everything else, they should have
listened to. They should have said, “You did a great job when you were with us, maybe you
have seen added light that we haven’t seen.” But they didn’t love him at all. They only loved
him as long as he took those papers and went out and brought the Christians in. Then they
backed him up. Now look what they’re doing to him. He uses it as an argument; apologetics.
Acts 22:20
“consenting unto his death” - I believe the only reason he could do this was because Paul was a
member of the Sanhedrin; a very important position, one of the 70. In order to be a member of
the Sanhedrin he had to be at least 30 years old and the father of a son, or child.
Acts 22:22
“they gave him audience unto this word” - until he said that they listened to him
“it is not fit that he should live” - before that, when he was persecuting the Christians,
whipping them, even having them killed, he was a wonderful guy. Now since he’s not hunting
anybody, not whipping anybody, not killing anybody, they want to kill him.
Acts 22:23
1) “they cried out”
2) they “cast off their clothes” - outer garments
3) they “threw dust into the air” - they just picked up the dirt and threw it
They were really teed off.
Acts 22:24
“chief captain” – Lysias [pg 352, under Acts 21:31]
“commanded him to be brought into the castle” - he saw what was happening because, after
Paul spoke, the people really got angry and violent and the chief captain, perhaps not having
heard or not being able to understand the language in which Paul spoke, assumed that because
of the violence of the people, Paul must be a real bad guy.
“scourging” - 30 lashes with the whip. The way that these lashings occurred, according to some
of the old pictures, is they tied their hands and feet on a pole and the pole was at an angle. They
would be hanging on that pole with their hands and feet tied and they’d whop it to them, with a
whip that had thongs at the end of it with either; little pieces of bone or little pieces of metal. 30
lashes: that’s how they got people to tell the truth.
“examined by scourging” - the reason was that he might know wherefore they cried so against
him. He wanted Paul to tell the truth because he thought there was something wrong with him.
Acts 22:25
“bound him with thongs” – the leather around the hands; had him tied to this whipping post
“uncondemned” – i.e. no trial been given him
Acts 22:26
“centurion” - leader of a hundred – reminds you of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; the centurion
was present
“heard that” – heard that Paul said he was a Roman
Acts 22:27
This could have even taken more time than you would think, because he could check on this if
he wanted to. I think that’s what he did between verse 27 and 28.
Acts 22:28
There were three ways that you could get Roman citizenship:
1) To buy it
2) To earn it for great gallantry or service
3) To be born free
I do not know how his father had acquired this. All I know is that he had it because Paul was
born free, a Roman.
I forget now, but if you’ll read it carefully, I think there are either five or seven different
defenses that Paul makes in the Word of God here now, in these next few chapters. All because
he didn’t obey the original revelation; don’t go to Jerusalem. Now he’s just got to defend and
defend and defend.
You know, in that day, to be a Roman citizen, free born, was really something.
Acts 22:29
“straightway” – immediately
“which” – those which
“examined” – tortured - which simply means “beat him” because that was the method of torture
used to exact truth from people
“because he had bound him” - it isn’t in just the binding. It is that they bound him to a
whipping post to whip him. That’s what he was afraid of. Because a Roman citizen could be
bound and brought to justice; “handcuffed” you would call it. But he could not be handcuffed
to a whipping post and whipped without a trial; uncondemned. Later on in the Word, you will
see they handcuff him and take him to a location.
Acts 22:30
“because he (the chief captain) would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of
the Jews” - This is one of the statements that convinces me he either: was not present, or didn’t
understand exactly what Paul said because of the language he was using.
“council” – the Sanhedrin
“set him before them” - that was simply to let them pass the judgment because they were the
ones that were so upset by Paul. He didn’t understand everything that went on, so he said,
“Well, there’s your court. I’ll put you in your own court.” That’s exactly what occurred here.
It was just one trouble after another. People say, “Well at least he got to witness.” Well, I guess
that’s right, but it isn’t right in the great sense in which the Word moves. The only reason he
got a chance to witness is because he had been out of alignment and harmony and walked into
Jerusalem when God told him not to go; so now he gets in jail and in all kinds of trouble. Then
he had to appear before the chief priests, the chief justice, the centurion and all the rest of them.
Then he just keeps talking about what God did for him and what he used to do. So I don’t think
the statement “it gave him a good chance to witness” is apropos at all. I don’t think it makes
any sense.