Was Paul blinded by Jesus

Answer 1

Saul (later called Paul) saw a blinding light on the road to Damascus. He was blind for some days. This was not long after Jesus had been crucified so it would have been around AD 30 to AD 50.

Answer 2

Another answer from our community:

Paul who was then called Saul at that time, was struck blind on his way tto Damascus to persucute christians.He was blind for a total of three days.

Answer 3

Acts 9:3-9New American Standard Bible (NASB)

3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do." 7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the ]voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he ]could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Answer 4

The most famous story about St Paul is of his conversion on the road to Damascus, when he was blinded by a light and heard a heavenly voice. This is an account that comes only from Acts, with no hint of it in Paul's own writings; nor does Paul indicate that he was ever called by the name Saul, although he spoke proudly of his Jewish origins. Paul gave us his own account of his conversion in Galatians 1:15-17:
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in [or by] me, that I might preach among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia and returned again unto Damascus.

Acts has three mutually incompatible versions, that theologians and scholars have struggled to reconcile. In the first two cases, Saul (Paul) went immediately to Damascus and, since he was blinded by the light, the disciple Ananius miraculously cured him and gave him baptism. In the third case, it is strongly implied that he went to Damascus, but no mention of whether he was blinded.

1. Acts 9:3-8 says that Paul was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in the city. His men did not see the light, but heard the voice. They remained standing.
2. At 22:6-11, Paul told the people he was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who again told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in Damascus. This time, his men saw the light but, unlike Paul, were not blinded, and did not hear the voice.
3. At 26.13-19, Paul told Agrippa that he saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus, who gave him his mission, but did not command him to go to Damascus. He fell down, but there is no mention of blindness, nor is there any mention of the men seeing or hearing anything, although for some reason they also fell down. He told those at Damascus and Jerusalem about his conversion experience.

If Paul himself says that his conversion did not involve a blinding light or him being blinded, and if Acts contains three different versions of the same story, there needs to be some doubt as to whether Paul was really blinded at all. And if he was, it would seem to have been just long enough for him to travel the rest of the way to Damascus and meet Ananius, who cured him.

Answer 5

In two of the three versions of Paul's conversion that are contained in Acts of the Apostles, Paul is blinded by a light, and must be cured of his blindness and taught the gospel in Damascus. In the third version, Paul saw a bright light but it is unclear whether he was blinded, or whether he went to Damascus to be cured.

However, in Paul's account, in his own epistles, it appears that he never saw the bright light, was not blinded, did not go to Damascus after his conversion, and received the gospel from no man, but by revelation alone. Galatians 1:15-17:
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia and returned again unto Damascus.

Since Paul was writing to those who knew him, he had no reason to lie, and in fact any show of dissembling on his part could have fatally undermined his credibility. Moreover, he would hardly have taken the long and difficult journey to Arabia (Petrea) before heading into Damascus, if he was blind.

On the other hand, Acts of the Apostles was written early in the second century, long after the death of Paul and of any witnesses. The author, traditionally known as Luke, could safely write whatever he chose, without fear of contradiction. Paul had said that he conferred with no one and learnt his gospel by revelation, not from man, but for theological reasons Luke wanted to show that he was dependent on the disciples for everything. So, Paul had to be made vulnerable and dependent on the disciples; he had to be made to go direct to Damascus to be cured of his blindness, and therefore be indebted to the disciples, and to learn the gospel in Damascus.

Answer 6

H was persecuting Christan's and God wanted him to change cause he had a plan. That Paul would teach the gospel to the gentiles. That the Jews considered the gentiles to be uncleaned.

Answer 7

Yes, two of the accounts make it clear that Saul was struck blind by the brilliance of the light that was Jesus. Paul does not mention it.