Saul Is Set Apart for the Gospel

Ananias was initially hesitant to follow the Lord’s instructions to lay his hands on Saul of Tarsus so that Saul would recover his sight (Acts 9:10–14). Ananias’ reaction can be explained by Saul’s history of severely persecuting the church (8:1–3; 9:1–2). He did not want to help Saul because Saul had a record of persecuting Christians, which sometimes resulted in their deaths. Nevertheless, Ananias did go, for Jesus made clear to him that Saul would be His instrument to take the gospel to “the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel” (9:15–19a).

Jesus also explained that He was going to show Saul how much he would suffer for the sake of our Lord’s name (v. 16). There is a bit of irony here: the one who had caused so much suffering for the servants of Christ would himself undergo the suffering he once caused. Perhaps Jesus revealed this to Ananias to assure him that Saul was indeed becoming one of His servants, for all those who follow Christ will suffer for Him in some degree: “All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12). In any case, Saul knew that he would suffer for Jesus from the beginning of his career as Christ’s ambassador.

Having been assured that Saul now belonged to Jesus, Ananias went to find him as our Lord had told him to do. Ananias called him “brother” at once, indicating that he accepted Saul as a member of the Christian family. He then laid his hands on Saul. God restored Saul’s eyesight, Ananias baptized Saul, and Saul took some food and was strengthened (Acts 9:17–19a). By this act of laying on hands, John Calvin notes, Saul was consecrated to the Lord for service, and he received the giftings of the Spirit. That Ananias, a relatively obscure figure and someone who was not an Apostle, laid his hands on Saul during the process of the Lord’s commissioning Saul for ministry is significant. It indicates, as Paul argues in Galatians 1, that Paul’s Apostolic call came not from any other Apostle but directly from Jesus Himself. It also shows, contrary to traditions such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, that a man can be a valid minister and leader in the church without a bishop with so-called Apostolic authority ordaining the individual. Elders and ministers should be ordained by the church, but ordination is not the prerogative only of an episcopate that is distinct from the elders of the church.