We read in Luke’s initial account:
Acts 9:26 Gill
And when Saul was come to Jerusalem,…. After he had escaped out of Damascus, in the manner before related, and which was three years after his conversion:
And here in Paul’s testimony many years later on the steps of Jerusalem.
Acts 22:17 Gill
And it came to pass, that when I was come again to Jerusalem,…. Which was three years after his conversion; for he did not immediately return to Jerusalem, but went into Arabia; and when he returned to Damascus, which was three years after he came to Jerusalem; see Gal 1:17
even while I prayed in the temple; the temple was an house of prayer; hither persons resorted for that purpose; and as the apostle had been used to it, he continued this custom, and during the time of prayer he fell into an ecstasy:
I was in a trance: and knew not whether he was in the body, or out of the body: whether this was the time he refers to in 2Co 12:2 is not certain, though probable.
But in the original account we didn’t read about this detail vision Paul had…..
Act 22:17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;
Act 22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.
Act 22:19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:
Act 22:20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.
Act 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
If I am correct this is the second encounter with Jesus Paul had which is documented in the Bible.
BTW Have you wondered just what it means for a Hebrew to be a Roman? A Roman citizen that is?
Acts 22:27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
Gill indicates at least some of the rights of being a Roman…
is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? Though the apostle puts this by way of question, yet he knew full well what the Roman laws were in such cases; he did not put this through ignorance, or for information, but to let them know who he was, and to put them in mind of these laws, and of their duty; for, according to the Porcian law, Roman citizens were not to be beaten (h). Hence, says (i) Cicero,
“it is a heinous sin to bind a Roman citizen, it is wickedness to beat him, it is next to parricide to kill him, and what shall I say to crucify him?”
And, according to the Valerian law, it was not lawful for magistrates to condemn a Roman without hearing the cause, and pleading in it; and such condemned persons might appeal to the populace (k).