Welcome
Prayer
Music
Silence
Acts 9.1-5
July 10th 2016
Milk
Okay, we are now stepping into a very significant transition not only in the early apostolic church, not only in the Book of Acts, but in relation to Christianity world wide and then stretching out all the way to this very day.
Chapters 9 and 10.
Why do I say this?
As a very quick rehearsal,
In Exodus 19:3-6 God says:
“Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”
This was the promise given Israel by God conditioned upon them obeying His voice and keeping His covenant.
Part of that covenant was the promise that God would send and provide them a Messiah who would save them in their sin upon reception of Him.
Coming only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Jesus came, called, taught warned and called and taught twelve apostles to go out into all of Judea as a means to get all who would to see and hear and be converted . . . before the end of the age.
We also know that the Good News of Jesus would also go out into all the world as a result of the COI rejecting it.
This outreach to the world of pagans, heathens, and non-Jews would begin by the work of a devout Jew turned Christian named Saul.
In chapter 9 the writer of Acts (Luke – who has already introduced us to Saul the persecutor of Christians in chapter Seven) is now going to go into some detail in describing how Saul was actually converted.
Then at the end of Chapter nine, Luke is going to tell us a story about Peter, an apostle to the House of Israel.
This story will set up chapter ten where Peter, who was given the keys to open all the doors of the Kingdom, will open the doors of the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles.
That story will take up all of chapter ten, then chapter 11 Peter will be involved in some other events, and then Peter will begin to really Peter out. And by the time we get to the first verse of chapter 13 Peter disappears from Luke’s record all together!
There are 28 chapters in Acts and the time we get to chapter 13 Peter and the rest of the apostles are absent.
Do you see what’s happening? We described the book of Acts as a transitional book, one where the ebbing of the Old Covenant message to the House of Israel takes place and the flowing of the Good News to the World begins to appear.
Again, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – all House of Israel, all Jesus, all twelve apostles.
Acts 1-5 All Peter, James and John.
Acts 6 the calling of Stephan and Philip to wait tables (who became evangelists)
Acts 7 the Death of Stephan with Saul being introduced.
Acts 8 with the scattering of Jerusalem believers due to persecution we now see the Gospel going out to whom “Josephus calls half breed of the Nation of Israel” (the Samaritans) and to “a Jew from Ethiopia.”
And now, we are re-introduced to Saul and his conversion in chapter 9. In chapter 10 Peter will open the door of the Gospel to the non-Jewish family of Cornelius, and then Peter begins to fade . . .
Chapter 11 . . . . (beat)
A little in chapter 12 . . .
Gone in 13 and through the next 15 chapters, and the next 13 books of the New Testament – until we get to Peter’s final letters to some believers, illustrating for us the wrap up or end of all that has to do with material Nation of Israel and the unfolding of the Good News to the world forevermore.
So let’s read out text for today – chapter 9 verses 1-9
Acts 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Alright, back to verse 1 please.
Acts 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
We know from our study and introduction of Saul back in chapter 7 that the man had engaged in persecuting Christians, but now he seems to have put his hand to the task fully and was looking for more opportunities to imprison or punish or put others to death.
The Greek that is translated to Saul, “yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter,” is not passive in the least.
It describes agitated activities, violent anger, and based on the use of the terms in ancient Greek it describes someone’s breathing whose blood is boiling.
Those of you familiar with the writings of Homer, Euripides, and Theocritus (of whom I am not one) will recognized that this is a favorite expression among them.
Euripides writes of, “Breathing out fire and slaughter” and Theocritus wrote “They came unto the assembly, breathing mutual slaughter.”
Very Greek and very descriptive saying of a man uber aggressively threats of punishment and slaughter . . .
. . . which comes from “fonos” which means to murder or slay. So what Luke is saying is Saul had a desire to put as many Christians to death as possible.
We will later read Paul himself say in Acts 26:9-10
“I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.”
So seeking to harm whom Luke calls, “the disciples of the Lord,“ we read that he, “went unto the High Priest (verse 2) and desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.”
The term for letters here is “epist-o-lay” and it’s where we get our term epistle as in “the epistles of Paul.”
There is nothing holy or sacred in the term itself – all it means is letter and it reminds us that the New Testament, with the exception of Acts, the Gospel’s and Revelation were all letters written to specific groups of believers in that day and once sorted out and validated as sound and authentic were then compiled into our New Testament.
Saul sought a letter (or letters) that were written and signed in the name and by the authority of the sanhedrim or the great council of the nation of Israel.
As the president of the council the high priest was the one who would sign them and from Josephus we know that the high priest of that time was Theophilus, son of Artanus, who had been appointed at the feast of Pentecost, A. D. 37, by Vitellius, the Roman governor.
Jewish history says that his brother Jonathan had been removed from that office the same year. (Kuin”el.)
Saul seeking letters from the Sanhedrim shows that he wanted authority to override the local system of synagogues in Damascus by the power and authority of the Nation’s chief council so if he discovered someone he believed was following Christ he had the right to drag them back to Jerusalem for trial.
As stated a few weeks ago Damascus was a celebrated city of Syria and the capital of a kingdom of that name.
It was about one hundred and twenty miles north-east of Jerusalem, and about one hundred and ninety miles south-east of Antioch. It has extensive biblical history and significance which we will cover in our verse by verse of the Old Testament.
At the time of Roman persecution of Jews which would occur in another thirty or so years from this writing the inhabitants of Jerusalem were strewn all over Judea.
Josephus reports that ten thousand were massacred in Damascus in an hour; and then later eighteen thousand, with their wives and children. (Jewish Wars, b. ii. chap. xx. 2; b. vii. chap. viii. 7.)
So Saul . . .
“went unto the High Priest and desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.”
I love the way the King James says this, that if Paul found “any of this way.” It’s not just a figure of speech it is a term literally in the Greek of both the Authorized mss and the Westcott and Hort Revised mss and I tell you this because it is even capitalized in some of these translations signifying that this was what people who followed Christ in that time were known as or referred – “those of this way,” those of the Way, those of that Way.”
With Christ Himself saying that He was the Way, the Truth and the Life, I like that – to be known as someone of the Way. (Let’s take verses 3 and 4 together)
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
We really don’t know where this happened but tradition says that it happened on a mountain now known as Cocab but all we really know it was near Damascus.
The term “and suddenly” – ex-na-eef-nace – means unexpectedly “there shined round about him a light from heaven.”
Many people have believed and taught that God made use of a sudden flash of lightening to arrest the driven seething person of Paul and which also temporarily blinded him and caused him to drop to the earth.
This is in harmony with how God had interacted with Man before in the Old Testament because often when God has had interaction with Man – from Mount Sinai to Daniel and Job – lightning has been present.
And while MOST commentators believe this was what happened to Paul, I do not.
Admittedly, lighting can be one of the most arresting elements on earth to cause a person to stop and fear.
I have personally witnessed the power and terror of such heavenly brilliance twice in my life and it is both radical and terrifying.
The first time I was about 13 and on a hike with our scout troop when lightning struck a tree about a hundred yards away and felled the thing before our very eyes. Very impressive and awe inspiring.
But the second time was the most shattering and fearful experience of my entire life.
I was in my thirties and went back to ocean lifeguarding for a summer. In preparation for the tryouts I would run on the beach (in the dead of winter) and then swim out and around a buoy resting about a 1000 yards off shore.
Once afternoon in the middle of a heavy southern California rain storm I entered the water. As I swam I could feel the sting of the rain falling harder and harder on my head, back and arms.
The wind increased, the sea got increasingly rough, and I started seeing flashes of lightening with the associated thunder hitting several seconds later.
What happened next is not a tall tale. When I was within about 50 yards of the buoy I started swimming heads up. The chop wind and waves were all overhead and I found myself in some of the heaviest surf of my life.
The wind was howling and all of a sudden, right as I got to the buoy, lightening AND thunder hit at the exact same time. For a millisecond I felt like I was in a completely whited out world. It was more than terrifying.
It was as if my whole person was in the hands of something so powerful that for a second I thought I was going to be deconstructed or entirely dissolved.
In Roland Baitons book Here I Stand, a biography on the life of Martin Luther he was caught in a lightning storm and was so terrified he cried out that if God would save him he would serve Him his entire life.
Because of all of these factors most believe this is what Paul experienced – sudden blinding terrifying lightning out of nowhere.
But here is why I don’t think this was the case:
First, we know that Paul experienced seeing the Lord Jesus.
Acts 9:27 says, “Barnabas declared unto them how that he (Paul) had seen the Lord in the way.”
Where the God of the Old Testament was certainly manifested in lightning and thundering it seems incongruent for Jesus to be announced in the same manner.
Then we also know that those who were with Saul saw the light too and if it was the terrifying type it seems it would have been noted that they too would have fallen to the earth in fear.
This was something that was a message to Paul directly – the light appeared and the voice spake to him. In a personal visitation a gradual immense light seems more reasonable than a horrifying bolt of lightening.
Additionally, on the mount of Transfiguration the glory of Jesus was revealed and while terror was present in Peter, James and John it did not appear to be lightening based.
Finally, I can’t help but believe that once Jesus has overcome sin and death that visitations from heaven were now overwhelmingly peaceful.
When Moses was told by God to first strick the Rock to receive water he was later told to simply speak to it – this is, in my opinion, a similar situation.
God has been appeased – Jesus has won – and while a visit from Him would be overwhelming, I don’t personally see Him showing up with the introduction of bolts of lightning and thunder.
All of that being said, we do know that however He appeared to Paul Paul’s response was to fall to the ground, as verse four says –
“And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”
One more thought on this visit – some might think of this as Jesus second coming to earth, after all, if He actually came down and visited Paul wouldn’t that count as His actual return.
Obviously, it was not considered his second coming because none of the signs Jesus himself associated with His return were present on his visit to Paul.
We might also note that maybe Jesus appeared to Paul in vision, or in some other form rather than in his literal physical body or maybe He remained in the air and never touched down and therefore it technically wasn’t an actual return.
Had to mention it. Anyway . . .
4 And he (Paul) fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”
Obviously he was overcome. Many say this was by the sudden flash of light but I don’t believe a manifestation of God needs to have physical properties of Power to drop a human being to the ground.
Daniel in regard to the visions which he saw said
“Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision; and there remained no strength in me, for my vigor was turned into corruption, and I retained no strength.”
Of course Isaiah, in very figurative language said this in his meeting with God:
Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 Then said I, “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.”
Paul’s experience, along with Daniel and Isaiah, in my estimation, describes exactly what all human beings will experience when coming face to face with the King – who is God – so when we come face to face with God – a reaction that will utterly overpower the senses and the human frame.
Verse four says that And he (Paul) fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”
So we have an unexpected bright light and a voice and the voice, speaking to Saul, asked him a question:
“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me.”
When a Hebrew repeats a word there is emphasis implied – in all probability an emphasis to get Saul’s attention.
It’s an interesting phrase because Saul was only persecuting followers and believers of Christ – he never knew Jesus personally.
But the question he is asked places all the persecution on the back of the Lord.
It could be that Jesus knew what drove Saul’s hatred that it was actually for the person called Christ and all He represented.
Or it could be that the people were being persecuted for believing in Him and had they not they would not have suffered and so He (Jesus – His cause) was what was being persecuted.
And/or it may be that whenever a person suffers because they are Christian the being who is ultimately being wronged and hurt is Christ Himself.
Its probably a combination of all three. But what we know is Jesus did not ask Paul, “Why are you persecuting those who follow me,” but instead, “why persecute thou me?”
Additionally, when Jesus walked the earth He himself said (in John 15:25)
“They hated me without a cause.” From this we can take an extremely moving principle by which to live:
When anyone attacks or ridicules or demeans the person of Christ – from Paul to mockers today – they do so without grounds. They are ALWAYS mocking someone who was innocent and without fault.
That sets the rules and tone of the game up really well. We might criticize followers of the King, we might critique the groups that claim to represent Him, but He is wholly innocent and to assign any sort of evil to His person is without grounds.
I try to remind people who are critical of Jesus that there is nothing in Him or His person to criticize – and if they think there is they are the ones in the wrong – not Him.
One example of this that I have witnessed is when people are off put by Jesus saying that “no man gets to the Father but by Him.”
He was either right or He was wrong. If wrong then He ought not be followed, but if right He cannot be blamed for making the statement – it’s a good statement because its true.
Anyway, that’s another discussion. Jesus has asked Saul why he persecutes him.
(verse 5)
5 And Saul said, “Who art thou, Lord?” And the Lord said, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
Now, don’t get confused. Paul is not calling Jesus Lord all caps. He doesn’t know Him that way so He is using a term that means nothing more than “sir” in our day. It’s a title of respect and is translated into sir and Master sometimes in the New Testament.
Out of respect and perhaps terror he was taken to the ground and he addressed the source respectfully but the identity of the being speaking was still a mystery.
Then Luke uses the term kurios again (translated sir and master sometimes) in its most supreme sense when he writes:
“And the Lord said.”
While Lord is the same Greek term it here, based on context, surely means “the most supreme authority,” rather than just sir – plus we know that Luke is not suggesting that “And the sir said back to Paul,” right?
Anyway, how did the Lord introduce Himself to Paul. Here we read that he said, “I am Jesus,” but in Acts 22 when Paul himself relates the story he says:
“I am Jesus of Nazareth.”
Commentators suggest that there is no contradiction or problem with this because they say Luke did not report the whole thing where Paul did.
I have to admit I find this response wanting and I’ll tell you why.
In the world of critical analysis of factors I have personally been extremely hard on the LDS story of Joseph Smith’s first vision. Admittedly the variances in his nine or so accounts are far greater than what we see here with Paul and the logic I used to dismiss Smith’s accounts was that if any reasonable person had a first-hand engagement with heavenly citizens the facts would be pretty clear, right?
Apparently not. I mean to me the fact that Jesus said to Paul:
“I am Jesus of Nazareth,” then that is what Luke should have reported. In the first place (and in my opinion) the full name and title are important because in all probability Paul referred to the Lord as Jesus of Nazareth which would have distinguished Him from the thousands of other Joshua’s in that day and to also mocked him for having been a Nazarene
To me this is exactly how Jesus revealed himself – as Jesus of Nazareth. The question remains then – Why didn’t Luke, who was in all probability in direct contact with Paul when he wrote this?
(beat)
I don’t know how to answer this.
We say that every word of scripture is God breathed or inspired so either:
“Of Nazareth” was in the original mss and is missing here in the King James, and/or
The Holy Spirit did not want Luke to report this full title in this record of Acts, and/or
We – WE – need to let up a bit – just a bit – on the dogmatic demands that every single word was generated by the Holy Spirit and therefore every single word be seen as absolutely purposeful in our reading and comprehension of the text.
There is a group of King James onliests – very militant – and those who know me online do not like or appreciate me and my views.
These say that “every single word of the King James is inspired and that it is the Only Bible that can be trusted.
For a number of reasons I am of the opinion that this is unfoundedly extreme and this is one example of why.
In any case, when faced with a conflict like this we do not take “the lesser phrase” but the greater phrase as the truth and so therefore we have to say that Jesus said, “I am Jesus of Nazareth,” in all probability to directly show Paul that contrary to his derisions, the messiah did come out of that lowly locale.
Anyway here in verse 5 of the KJV Jesus is said to have said:
5 “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
But we come to yet another problem in verse five – this last statement – “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” – is also lacking in most mss.
In fact, while it’s here in the King James, we won’t find it in any of the Modern Translations of the Bible but only in those that came from the Authorized or King James.
Why is it here at all?
In Acts 26 Paul tells the story of Jesus coming to him and says:
Acts 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
However, in Acts 22 Paul, telling the same story says the following in describing the visitation:
Acts 22:7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
Take these two recitations and combine what we are reading here from Lukes account and bottom line, all three accounts are in fact slightly different – and two of them are by Paul Himself!
All we can suggest with the verse in question here is that the line “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” was probably added to give continuity to the three accounts found in Acts 9, Acts 22 and Acts 26.
What does the line mean? First of all it is of a proverbial nature and was around for hundreds of years before Christ was born.
Euripides wrote “I, who am a frail mortal, should rather sacrifice to him who is a God, than, by giving place to anger, kick against the goads.”
Pindar “It is profitable to bear willingly the assumed yoke. To kick against the goad is pernicious conduct.”
Terence 1, 2, 27: “It is foolishness for thee to kick against a goad.”
Ovid conveyed the same idea, (Trist. b. ii. 15.)
The word translated “pricks” here in the King James “kentra”means any sharp point which will pierce or perforate, as the sting of a bee.
But in scripture is most commonly means an ox-goad which is a sharp piece of iron stuck into the end of a stick and with which the ox is urged to walk on.
Among the Hebrews these goads were made very large and we even read in Judges and 1st Samuel that one Shamgar killed 600 men with one of them.
Therefore the expression, “to kick against the prick,” (or a goad) refers to a stubborn and unyielding ox kicking back against the sharp goad used to move it along and in doing so the ox only hurts itself.
Many of us have this very human tendency within us to resist and fight back even when we know that the only result will be more harm to ourselves.
In the annuals of human history this rebelliousness is often viewed as admirable – like when people sacrifice their well-being to stand against an unjust action – like the student in front of the tank at Tienammen Square China.
But when it comes to our rebellion against God the illustration of our being alike an ox kicking against a sharp pointy goad is more than apropos – we only hurt ourselves.
Quite frankly, in Jesus name, there doesn’t seem to be many biblical justifications for kicking against any world power or flesh – only against faulty principles and spiritual darkness as scripture is clear that we are to submit to injustice, slaps, governments placed in authority over us, rulers, masters, and employers.
It’s not an easy pill to swallow but this is the direction the book takes in telling us how to react to such things in the cause of Christ. If you don’t believe me read Romans 13.
And we’ll stop here.
Q and A
