Questions Regarding Acts 9:17-18

[PJD1987]

"So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized…" - Acts 9:17-18

I’d like to hear some thoughts on this passage, as it has raised a couple questions in my mind. First, the laying on of hands is confirmation (Acts 8:17), which is in most cases carried out by a bishop, or a priest under certain conditions, but Ananias is simply described as a “disciple”, how could a “disciple” lay hands on Saul and fill him with the Holy Spirit? Also, confirmation is after baptism, and as the text shows, Saul was not baptized when Ananias laid hands upon him, so how could he have been filled with the holy spirit without baptism?

These may have simple answers, but I was just confused by the text and look forward to hearing some thoughts. Thank you in advance.

God bless,
Paul

 

[JamestheOlder]

“Laying on of hands” could simply be a healing gesture, and the desire that Paul receive the Holy Spirit could be considered in future tense…that he might receive the Holy Spirit, after he was baptized.

But Paul was already 'baptized" by desire. In today’s arrangement, it would be irregular to receive Confirmation first, then Baptism. But who can tell what G-d had in mind for Paul? His (later) baptism with water may have been meant as a sign he was truly a member of The Way.

 

[PJD1987]

I see the same thing happening again later in Acts when Peter goes to the house of Cornelius as well and they received the Holy Spirit as he spoke before they were baptized as well. Maybe I’m taking it in a modern context too much.

 

[JamestheOlder]

From my RCIA training in the NA Forum on the Catechumenate, I remember the expression they used frequently:
“The Spirit does as He wills.”

They meant it to illustrate how the Spirit moves in mysterious ways…maybe these instances are more of the same.

 

[TimothyH]

Random thoughts…

Acts 9 does identify Ananias as a disciple. Verse 27 says that Barnabas brought Saul to the Apostles. Luke seems to make a clear distinction between disciples and apostles just as he does in his Gospel.

Does that necessarily mean that Ananias was not an ordained member of the clergy?

Recall that Matthew does not even distinguish between apostles and disciples. He simply calls everyone disciples and when he wants to differentiate the leaders, he refers to them as “The twelve”. Even that he does sparingly, prefering to just say “And Peter answered” or something similar to indicate who Jesus was talking to.

No magesterial teaching here. Just speculation. I think we, as modern men, often fall into reading the Bible in a very analytical style, as if it were a transmission repair manual, parsing every word for it’s exact meaning in relation to every other word. I sometimes think that if modern man wrote the Bible, it would be a series of bulleted lists. The Bible is a deeply spiritual work and the proper context for analysis of each word is lectio divina.

Just my $.02.

-Tim-

 

[IrishRush]

Random thoughts…

Acts 9 does identify Ananias as a disciple. Verse 27 says that Barnabas brought Saul to the Apostles. Luke seems to make a clear distinction between disciples and apostles just as he does in his Gospel.

Does that necessarily mean that Ananias was not an ordained member of the clergy?

Recall that Matthew does not even distinguish between apostles and disciples. He simply calls everyone disciples and when he wants to differentiate the leaders, he refers to them as “The twelve”. Even that he does sparingly, prefering to just say “And Peter answered” or something similar to indicate who Jesus was talking to.

No magesterial teaching here. Just speculation. I think we, as modern men, often fall into reading the Bible in a very analytical style, as if it were a transmission repair manual, parsing every word for it’s exact meaning in relation to every other word. I sometimes think that if modern man wrote the Bible, it would be a series of bulleted lists. The Bible is a deeply spiritual work and the proper context for analysis of each word is lectio divina.

Just my $.02.

-Tim-

This response makes HUGE sense to me. Thanks Tim.

 

[JamestheOlder]

Random thoughts…

No magesterial teaching here. Just speculation. I think we, as modern men, often fall into reading the Bible in a very analytical style, as if it were a transmission repair manual, parsing every word for it’s exact meaning in relation to every other word. I sometimes think that if modern man wrote the Bible, it would be a series of bulleted lists. The Bible is a deeply spiritual work and the proper context for analysis of each word is lectio divina.

Just my $.02.

-Tim-

Good point, Tim. Based on reading some of the threads on Scripture, this was a mild discussion by comparison, but a thoughtful question always initiates a thought-provoking series of responses.

Well stated!

 

[PJM]

=PJD1987;“So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized…” - Acts 9:17-18

I’d like to hear some thoughts on this passage, as it has raised a couple questions in my mind. First, the laying on of hands is confirmation (Acts 8:17), which is in most cases carried out by a bishop, or a priest under certain conditions, but Ananias is simply described as a “disciple”, how could a “disciple” lay hands on Saul and fill him with the Holy Spirit? Also, confirmation is after baptism, and as the text shows, Saul was not baptized when Ananias laid hands upon him, so how could he have been filled with the holy spirit without baptism?

God bless,
Paul

Perhaps by asking another question sime insight may be gained?

How was God able to use sinful men to accomplish HIS WILL; His Mission?

**Matt.10: 1, 8 **"And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay.

Keep in mind Peter, JUDAS the Traitir and all the Apostles sinned in abandoning Jesus except for John. And then their is Paul; the GREAT Pursecutor, who even raided a young man from the dead.

Man is even at best; “imperfect.” 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10 " If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

Keep in mind this was VERY EARLY in the formation of the Church. God used who He HAD, WHERE He had him.

**Isa.29: 16 **"You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay; that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

**Isa.45: 9 **"Woe to him who strives with his Maker, an earthen vessel with the potter!
Does the clay say to him who fashions it, What are you making'? or Your work has no handles’?

Isa.64: 8 “Yet, O LORD, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou art our potter; we are all the work of thy hand.”

Isa. 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts”.

God Choose the vechical to bring His Faith; His Wisdom and His Understanding tp PAUL through a PROMINATE and well known Christian. Is it really soooo very different today

God Bless my friend?
Pat