<p>22:6 <em>And it came to pass, that as I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me- </em>In the same way as Paul would've been trained to write and present an encomium (as he does in Gal. 1), so he would've been trained in the rhetoric of how to make a public defence speech. There was a set format for defending oneself, as there was for the encomium. And in his defence speeches recorded in Acts, Paul again follows the accepted order of defence speeches- but his <em>content</em> was absolutely radical for the first century mind. Quinitilian in his <em>Instructions To Orators</em> laid down five sections for such a speech- and Paul follows that pattern exactly. There was to be the exordium opening statement, a statement of facts (<em>narratio</em>), the proof (<em>probatio</em>), the refutation (<em>refutatio</em>) and the concluding peroration. The speeches were intended to repeatedly remind the judges of what in fact was the core issue- and Paul does this when he stresses that he is on trial (<em>krinomai</em>) for &quot;the hope of the resurrection of the dead&quot; (Acts 23:6; 24:21; 26:6,7,8). Yet as with his use of the encomium format, Paul makes some unusual twists in the whole presentation. It was crucial in the set piece defence speech to provide proof and authorized witness. Paul provides proof for the resurrection in himself; and insists that the invisible Jesus, a peasant from Galilee, had appeared to him and &quot;appointed him to bear witness&quot; (Acts 26:16; 22:15). That was laughable in a court of law. Yet the erudite, cultured, educated Paul in all soberness made that claim. Aristotle had defined two types of proof- &quot;necessary proof&quot; (<em>tekmerion</em>), from which irrefutable, conclusive conclusions could be drawn; and &quot;probable proof&quot;, i.e. circumstantial evidence (<em>eikota / semeia</em>). Paul's claim to have seen Jesus on the Damascus road was of course circumstantial evidence, so far as the legal system was concerned- it could not be proven. Yet Paul presents this as his <em>tekmerion</em>, quoting it as the irrefutable proof in his defence (Acts 22:6-12; 26:12-16). Luke elsewhere uses this word and its synonym <em>pistis</em> to describe the evidence for the Lord's resurrection (Acts 1:3; 17:31). Paul's point of course was that the personal transformation of himself was indeed <em>tekmerion</em>, irrefutable proof, that Christ had indeed risen from the dead. And so it should be in the witness which <em>our</em> lives make to an unbelieving world. Significantly, Paul speaks of the great light which his companions saw at his conversion, and his subsequent blindness, as <em>eikota</em>, the circumstantial evidence, rather than the irrefutable proof (Acts 22:6,9,11; 26:13). Now to the forensic mind, this was more likely his best, 'irrefutable' proof, rather than saying that the irrefutable proof was simply he himself. Yet he puts that all the other way around. Thus when it came to stating 'witnesses', Paul doesn't appeal to his travelling companions on the road to Damascus. These would've surely been the obvious primary witnesses. Instead, he claims that &quot;all Judeans&quot; and even his own accusers &quot;if they are willing to testify&quot;, are in fact witnesses of his character transformation (Acts 22:5; 26:4,5). The point is of tremendous power to us who lamely follow after Paul... it is our personal witness which is <em>the</em> supreme testimony to the truth of Christ; not 'science proves the Bible', archaeology, the stones crying out, prophecy fulfilling etc. It is we ourselves who are ultimately the prime witnesses to God's truth on this earth. All this was foolishness in the judgmental eyes of first century society, just as it is today. Our preaching of the Gospel is likewise apparent foolishness to our hearers, like Paul it is not &quot;in plausible words of wisdom&quot; (1 Cor. 2:1-7), even though, again like Paul, many of us could easily try to make it humanly plausible. Paul's credibility as a preacher was in his very lack of human credibility- he was hungry and thirsty, poorly dressed, homeless, having to do manual work (1 Cor. 4:11; 2 Cor. 11:27); he was the powerless one, beaten, imprisoned and persecuted (1 Cor. 4:8-12; 2 Cor. 6:4,5). It's hard for us to imagine how unimpressive and repulsive this was in first century society. And yet it was exactly this which gave him power and credibility as a preacher of Christ's Gospel. And he sets before us a challenging pattern.</p>