Studies in the Acts of the Apostles

[Resource Manager]

Success

 

Now Philip filled out the message of the Kingdom of God as the great Messianic Hope of the future (14:22; 1:3, 6); and "from the least to the greatest" the people, as God's New Israel (Jer. 31:31, 34), joyfully learned the New Covenant, and its present assur­ance of the forgiveness of sins.

 

Clearly the privilege of the sacrament of baptism was a vital part of Philip's message, for as the preaching and the powers of the Spirit brought conviction, the people, "both men and women"–there is a pointed exclusion of children – continued to come forward for accept­ance into the ecclesia of Christ through this rite.

 

There was an increased surge of success in this campaign when Simon himself, naturally enough impressed most by the power of the signs, openly proclaimed his own conviction of the truth of Philip's message, and he too was baptized.

 

Readers often fail to appreciate just what such a decision meant for Simon. It openly declared that all he had pro­pounded hitherto was so much deceitful pretentious nonsense. All the authority and influence he had formerly exercised was now thrown away, and he himself became a spiritual apprentice – this is what the phrase: "he continued with Philip," seems to imply. As the people's powers of sane judgement had been paralysed by the pseudo–miracles he had performed, so now he in turn was repeatedly awe–struck by the miracles he continued to witness. It must have been a fantastic conversion that brought about such a dramatic change. Most charlatans would have reacted in fierce hostility to the newcomer. It is not a little to Simon's credit that he chose the path of discipleship.

 

When word got back to Jerusalem about the gospel's remarkable impact on the people of Samaria, there was immediate recognition of the hand of God at work. The Twelve forthwith decided that this new development–acceptance of despised and resented Samaritans into the Faith – must have top–level encouragement. So they deputed Peter and John to be their spokesmen in confirming the new con­verts as members of the ecclesia. (In similar fashion Barnabas was later deputed to confirm the accession of Gentile converts at Antioch; 11:22). The selection of John to go with Peter is specially noteworthy, for it was he who, but for his Lord's blunt veto, would have called down fire from heaven on unsym­pathetic Samaritans (Lk. 9:54).

 

Apostolic help

 

Even when the two apostles came to Samaria and had seen for themselves, they still sought through prayer the sanction of the Lord for the important step now being taken. Here before their eyes were a low–grade people who, having been baptized into Christ, were steadily maintaining the standards of their new beginning (this seems to be the implication behind the Greek verbs). But the "early rain" of the Spirit, promised through the prophet Joel, had as yet "fallen upon none of them."

 

Now, with the laying–on of the apostle's hands (19:6; Heb. 6:2, 4, 5), the Pentecostal gift came on these believers also, adding to their already consider­able joy in the Lord (v.8). The imparting of gifts of the Spirit was necessary here if only to set at rest the otherwise inevitable misgivings of the Jewish brethren. Their anti–Samaritan prejudices would not be easily overcome; cp. 11:17.

 

The implication behind this Samaritan experience is very strong that the power to impart gifts of the Spirit rested with the apostles and with them only. Philip had exceptional gifts of prophecy and healing, but evidently (not being an apostle) he did not have the power to impart these gifts to others. Apart from the direct action of the Lord in heaven (2:1–4; 10:44) and the gift of the Spirit to Paul through Ananias (9:17) – highly exceptional instances! – the logic of the Samaritan situation seems to require that without an apostle for the laying on of hands there was no endowment of the Spirit; e.g. the Ethiopian eunuch (8:38–40), and the remote Gentile ecclesias which even Paul was unable to reach. The ensuing development of the Simon situation will be seen to prove this up to the hilt.

[Resource Manager]

Simon's simony

 

The sorcerer – that changed, but not completely changed, character – stared in amazement as Holy Spirit powers showed themselves in one believer after another; and his old lust for power and money and reputation reasserted itself. He saw big possibilities in this situation. So he assembled a collection of valuable gifts and brought them all to the apostles as though offering a sacrifice to the Lord Jesus (so the Greek text suggests; cp; 19:19, a different kind of sacrifice).

 

But this offering was really a business proposition. Simon was trying to buy not the Holy Spirit but an authority (Gk.), like that vested in the apostles, to pass it on to others; and this he would then be prepared to do – for a consideration! – to whomsoever he chose, whether a sincere baptized believer or not. Here was the Gehazi of the New Testament, unable to resist an opportunity.

 

Rebuke and discipline

 

The explosion of indignation of one Simon against the other may be readily imagined:

 

"May thy money go to perdition with thee! (was Simon much different from Judas, the son of perdition?) ... Thou hast neither part not lot in this matter (neither Holy spirit gift nor power to impart it – unworthy to be "partaker of the inheritance;" Col. 1:12 s.w.): for thy heart is not right in the sight of God" – here the apostle quoted a Psalm about wayward Israel, where the very next verse stresses the longsuffering and forgiveness of God (78:37, 38).

 

"Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought (device or scheming) of thy heart may be forgiven thee (s.w. Mt. 12:31)." It is noteworthy that Peter did not bid him be baptized again. That baptism already received, whether in a right frame of mind or not, was still made valid by the right and proper understanding on which it had been based. The doubt expressed by the apostle did not relate to that nor to the extent of the longsuffering of God, but–most probably — to the words of the Lord Jesus (Mt. 12:31) about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a Scripture largely concerned with a cynical attitude of mind to the miraculous works of the Spirit (Mt. 12:22–24). Was Simon as far gone as those Pharisees?

 

"Thou art into (i.e. becoming) the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." Here the definite articles are pointless except as making allusion to familiar Old Testament Scriptures. Moses had warned against the attitude of mind in which a man "blesses himself in his heart, saying, i shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart (Peter's phrase: the thought of thine heart), to add drunkenness to thirst (that is, to want evil and deliberately to satisfy that want fully)." A man with such a cynical attitude to the Law of God was described by Moses as "a root that beareth gall and wormwood" (Dt. 29:18,19), because bringing by his undisciplined example so much bitterness into the lives of others.

 

Similarly, "the bond of iniquity" was that ingrained evil which Isaiah caustically exposed in the lives of his contemporaries who observed a hypocritical Day of Atonement: "Is not this the Fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness ..." (58:6). Simon was in grave danger of becoming once again just such a bond of iniquity on the rest of the people.

[Resource Manager]

Repentance?

 

The one–time sorcerer was shaken to his foundations by the apostle's well–justified invective. It may even be that, as in the similar situation with Ananias and Sapphira, Peter's ominous "perish with thee" was intended literally and that Simon already felt the pangs of death bearing down upon him. He let out an agonized cry.

 

"Pray ye (both Peter and John) to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me."

 

That phrase "these things," to which there is no proper antecedent in the text, may imply that Peter had voiced a whole catalogue of various forms of dire retribution to which Simon's simony made him liable. The Bezan text adds that "he ceased not weeping greatly." If these words are valid — and it seems unlikely that they have been invented –they point to a very real degree of contrition. His appeal for their prayers on his behalf does not signify his own inability or unwillingness to pray for himself, but rather as acknowledging his own utter inadequacy and their divinely–appointed power to bind or loose (Jn. 20:22,23).

 

In Acts the story stops here. What happened next?

 

James's commentary

 

The point has already been made that James' Epistle is contemporary with the early chapters of Acts. It has these significant words:

 

"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him" (5:14,15).

 

The relevance of phrase after phrase here is very striking. It is not unlikely that their first reference was to Simon. In that case, they add a satisfying conclusion to Luke's incomplete report. (More on this in "The Epistle of James", by H.A.W.)

 

Neither the apostles nor Philip could stay on indefinitely in Samaria. After a further spell there of emphatic witness to the Faith, they all three returned to Jerusalem, but not directly. Instead, heartened by the first success in that area, they contrived to visit quite a number of Samaritan villages to spread the Word yet further.

 

It is remarkable that in spite of big success and "much joy in that city" Philip was pulled out of that area and instead sent away into the wilderness to find one sheep (v.26).

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 8:5–25

5. The sity of Samaria. A tricky point of textual criticism here; Only 3 manuscripts have the definite article (A B X). But they are three of the finest. Then: "a city" or "the city" – which?

7. Unclean spirits. In his gospel Luke often has "demon," but in Acts not once out of 8 places. Here does he use 'unclean spirit' to emphasize a contrast with 'Holy Spirit'? This unnecessary and specific mention of unclean spirits in Luke's inspired record reduces to nonsense the much–too–popular "accommodation" theory. In Lk. 8:26–39 there are no less than twelve similar examples to this in the space of fourteen verses (and there are many others). For a Biblical approach to this problem, see "Studies in the Gospels" (H.A.W.), ch. 30.

8. Great joy– because of the gospel message, or because of the healings, or because fellowship with Jewish believers was now assured? Verse 39 points to the first of these.

9–11. The repetitions here are striking:

1. Before time ... of long time.
   
2. Sorcery ... sorceries.
   
3. Bewitched ... bewitched ... wondered (v.13 s.w.).
   
4. Some great one ... the great power of God.
   
5. Gave heed ... had regard ... gave heed (v.6) ... continued with (v.13, not s.w.).

The people. Greek: ethnos, the nation, not just that city.

And this word stamps the Samaritans as essentially Gentiles.

10. RV: which is called great, that is, so called in the Law (the only Samaritan Scriptures); cp. Dt. 4:37. A Messiah on the Moses pattern.

12. Believed Philip. The word form here is markedly different from, for example: "believeth into him" (Jn. 3:15). Kingdom of God. Also: 28:31,12; 19:8. For these Samaritans there would be special need for clear Biblical teaching on this subject, for they accepted only the books of Moses and knew little about the vast wealth of teaching in the prophets about the Messianic kingdom. No wonder there was great joy!

13. Was Simon attracted more by the power than the holiness?

Continued; proskartereo may be compounded from pros–krateo–tereo.

14. They sent. The pope sent by his cardinals?

The Word of God. Double meaning here? Normally, the proclaiming of the message: 11:1; 17:11; Lk. 8.13.

16. He. The masculine participle requires this reading, with reference to the Lord Jesus surely, for in this work there is no essential difference between Son and Spirit; cp. 13:2.

Were baptized. The Gk. phrase implies that thus "they made a beginning"

17. Laid their hands on them. In 2:41 and 16:15, 33 no mention of this. Taken for granted because apostles were present?

Received. Imperfect tense here implies a succession of signs.

19. The Holy Spirit. In the Gk. no definite article, but certainly charismatic gifts nevertheless.

20. The gift of God. Allusion to Jn. 4:10. And contrast Mt. 10:8.

21. Part. 1:17s.w.; cp. also Ps. 16:5LXX (and v.4 there).

22. If perhaps. Some doubt as to his repentance:

Heart here notably means "mind" or "will"; cp. Ps. 78:37 (38); 7:10 (9)LXX.

23. Perceive. Horao very often signifies divine insight; e.g. 7:44; 22:15; Lk. 1:22; 16:23; 24:23.

Gall of bitterness. In Heb. 12:15, with the same meaning.

Bond. Also carries sometimes the idea of conspiracy: Jer. 11:9; 2 Kgs. 11:14.

24. Spoken. 26 occurrences; always means 'by divine inspiration'.

25. Some suggest that this further evangelisation was done by other preachers who were sent out from Jerusalem (note the order of the phrases).

[Resource Manager]

32. A man of Ethiopia (8:26–40)

 

Philip was no sooner back in Jerusalem than he found a very different kind of mission assigned to him. The A.V. sug­gests a special revelation by "the angel of the Lord," but it may be that this angel was a human messenger, one of the brethren in Jerusalem with the gift of prophecy (later referred to as "the Spirit," (v.29, 39), who had perhaps already made contact with a distin­guished pilgrim to the temple, but had wisely seen that this devout but frustrated man would more readily receive the gospel away from the hostile atmosphere created in the holy city by Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

Whoever the "angel" was, Philip lost no time in doing as he was bidden. "Arise and go at noon" (s.w. Gen. 18:1) – the wrong time of day, surely, for beginning a journey; nevertheless, "he arose and went", thus providing a classic appli­cation of the later precept: "Preach the word. Be instant (i.e. ready for action), in season, out of season" (2 Tim. 4:2).

 

It must have seemed to Philip a strange commission to undertake, for nearly all the way that ancient road was wilderness, and at that time of day deserted; and so also Gaza to which it went, on the way to Egypt. Generations earlier, in accordance with ancient prophecy (Zeph. 2:4), the place had been devastated, and later a new Gaza had been built two or three miles off the main road.

 

Puzzled, doubtless, but undeterred, Philip responded immediately. If John could "make straight in the desert a highway for our God", then he also. And his expectation of faith was not dis­appointed.

 

A Jew of Ethiopia

 

The Ethiopian eunuch on whom the spotlight now focuses has been com­monly taken to be a negro. But there are serious difficulties in the way of such an assumption; for if indeed he were, then Cornelius was not the first Gentile to be brought to the Faith (yet everything about that conversion demands that it be read as the first opening of the door of faith to Gentiles). Nor can it be argued that this man was a negro proselyte to the religion of Israel, for the Law of Moses (Dt. 23:1) expressly forbad that a eunuch be accepted into the congrega­tion of Israel.

 

On the other hand, it will be readily seen, as the narrative proceeds, that, here was a Jew who was in the service of the royal court of Ethiopia. From this point of view the progression of development of the gospel story in Acts proceeds as smoothly as could be wished — first, Jews of Jerusalem, then Judaea, then Samaria, next (here) the technically excluded Jew, and by and by the Gentile who is a "proselyte of the gate," to be followed very soon by Gentiles in Antioch, and then through the ministration of Paul other Gentiles far afield.

 

This eunuch was "of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethio­pians." The legend had been fostered that the kings of Ethiopia were children of the sun by a virgin birth, and from this stemmed the exceptional power vested in the queen–mother. Hence, the eunuch "had charge of all her treasure" (the Greek word is gaza!). Here then, if anything, there was danger of money being a hindrance to the gospel in a very different way from the case of Ananias in Jerusalem or of Simon in Samaria. But, as it proved, the eunuch's sterling qualities overrode this and all other hindrances.

 

Experience in Jerusalem

 

"He had come to Jerusalem to worship," and yet must have ex­perienced there considerable dis­appointment and frustration. For, because of his physical disability (immediately evident to everyone by reason of his boyish looks and great fatness and unmasculine voice), in the temple he had been personally debarred from offering sacrifice or even from sharing the priestly blessing at the morning or evening sacrifice. To all intents and purposes he had been no better than a devout Gentile. All these weary miles, all these weeks of travel, for this! It is significant that Luke simply says he "had come" to Jerusalem. The normal term "going up" (aliyah, anabaino), used for such a holy pilgrimage, is carefully excluded.

 

But the journey had not been a com­plete loss. There in Jerusalem he had acquired a copy of the Septuagint (Greek) text of the scroll of the prophecy of Isaiah, and he was reading it aloud, evidently for the benefit also of his chariot driver or some of his servants (for, almost certainly, so prestigious a person would have his own caravan).

[Resource Manager]

Hitch hiker

 

Since Philip and the eunuch were both travelling the same way, who overtook whom? Most probably a halt in the journey enabled Philip, on foot, to come up with the other traveller who may have been using an intermission in the journey to read this fascinating Scripture to his men.

 

As soon as the caravan was sighted, "the Spirit in Philip said, Go near, and join thyself unto this chariot. "The Greek might well mean: "Stick to him". Whereupon Philip, now "instant in season," ran in order to make, and use, his opportunity. As he drew near it needed only a phrase read in that unmannish voice, to reach his ears, and the Scripture being read was immediate­ly identified. Or it may be that the eunuch was so carried away with his reading that even after Philip came near he still went on with it, unwilling to break off.

 

When he did pause, here was Philip's matchless opportunity: "Understandest thou what thou readest?" There is a lovely play on words in this Greek phrase. There is also a subtle rather sardonic implication: "Understanding it? Not much, I imagine."

 

The reply revealed the remarkable humility of the man. Instead of brusquely rebuking Philip's presumption in so addressing a man of his importance, he was willing to confess that he was groping: "However shall I be able to, except some man (better than myself) guide me?"

 

Yet he had persevered with the read­ing. For, as one old commentator has put it, "Scripture by its sweetness affects and charms even a reader who does not fully comprehend it, as spices transmit odours through their wrappings" (Bengel). The same writer also worthily observes that "Philip did not, as we do, begin with the weather, the news, and so on".

 

Forthwith, and through no spirit of unselfishness, Philip was invited (Gk. exhorted) to share the chariot of his new acquaintance. "And as they went on the way," ("The Way"–see next chapter) Philip expounded (see ch.33).

 

The Gospel in Isaiah

 

The Scripture being read by this eager seeker for truth was the eloquent and moving prophecy about the Suffering Servant of the Lord who went to trial and slaughter unprotesting: "He was led to sacrifice as a sheep ... Through his humiliating of himself his condemnation (native to all the human race) was taken away. And who shall declare his genera­tion? (a double meaning here: he will be cut off without having children?, or, who will be able to describe his new family; cp. Ps. 22:30?), for his life is taken from the earth (another double meaning: he is ruthlessly destroyed; or, he is raised up alive out of the ground; or, maybe, he will be lifted up from earth to heaven)."

 

The eunuch addressed a most court­eous and humble enquiry to his new friend, yet there was no disguising his eagerness, for here in the Scripture apparently was one in like parlous state to himself, condemned to die without having any children. Then, 'of whom speaketh the prophet this? I must know, for this man is presented as a sacrifice for sin. For whose sin? For mine? And he emerges from his disabilities and trial vindicated by God; can I share his victory?'

 

Thereupon, Philip took a deep breath, and began. He explained that Scripture as a prophecy of the redeeming work of Jesus. And since he "began at the same Scripture," it may be presumed that he also combed the eunuch's Isaiah scroll from end to end, thus building up the complete and satisfying picture of Messiah's work and future kingdom–from virgin birth (7:14) to royal majesty (11:1ff). And doubtless he told of the mission of John the forerunner, and how on the basis of Isaiah 40 John had taught remission of sins through the baptism of repentance ("repent ye, repent ye;" v.1).

[Resource Manager]

Disqualified from baptism?

 

The message was intelligently followed, and believed with intense fervour. Then at the crucial moment, as the exposition concluded, they came to "a certain water". "Behold, I will do new things, which shall presently spring forth, and ye shall know them; and I will make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the dry land" (Is. 43 .19LXX). It may well have been David's brook (1 Sam. 17:40), now well–filled by the early rains after the Feast of Tabernacles. But more probably (with strong early tradition to support it) this was one of the "springs of water" in the "south land" given by Gentile Caleb, who "wholly followed the Lord", unto his daughter Achsah as part of her dowry.

 

The eunuch saw his opportunity, and with an eager cry interrupted his instructor: "See, water! what doth forbid me to be baptized?" Back in Jerusalem he had learned through his own discouraging experience that the Law of Moses could not save all kinds of men. He himself, Jewish and more than ordinarily devout, had been shut out from the congregation of the Lord and from all the spiritual benefits which the temple offerings might bring to others. Then what about this fuller forgiveness, this better salvation, through Jesus of Nazareth? Was there any Bible passage (like Dt. 23:1) to forbid him this higher privilege?

 

It was, no doubt, a smiling Philip who promptly turned the spindles of that Isaiah scroll again, and began, to read:

 

"Thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls (even the wall of partition across the temple court) a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off" (56:4,5).

 

Only one thing could forbid this eunuch from taking hold of God's New Covenant in Christ, and that was dis­belief: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Did Philip say this, remembering apostolic experience with the double–minded Simon?

 

Textual problem

 

Indeed, did he say it at all? For these words and the eunuch's response are omitted, or relegated to a footnote, by all the modern versions. This is a question of technicalities in textual criticism. The facts are these:

 

This verse 37 is omitted by an impres­sive block of ancient uncial manuscripts, but is included in a great lot of the later texts and the very early Syriac version; it is quoted by Irenaeus (late 2nd century) and other 'fathers' as early in date as the best MSS. Also, it is to be noted that with v.37 omitted there is a rather strange gap in the sequence of the narrative.

 

The view generally adopted is that v.37 was not part of the original text, but that it was added by the church at a very early time because of the need, as it was thought, to stress the importance of personal confession of faith. Yet whilst as a baptismal confession the declaration: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (cp. 9:20) would be adequate for a well–grounded Jew, it would hardly be adequate in later days when false doctrine had done its evil work.

[Resource Manager]

Baptism

 

Evidently there was no doubt in Philip's mind. So the carriage was halted, and there, briefly but solemnly, the sac­rament of union with Christ took place. Again, it says much for the humble spirit of this "man of great authority" that he was prepared to appear somewhat ridiculous in the sight of his own slaves – for no man being baptized ever looks dignified; indeed, how could he whilst openly declaring that his own flesh is worthless as grass?

 

United – separated

 

No sooner were these two united as brothers in Christ than they were separated by the Spirit of the Lord. One possibility is that the Spirit was mani­fested in a whirlwind (cp. Jn. 3:8) to take Philip away precisely as Elijah was snatched away from Elisha (2 Kgs. 2:16,17) or as Ezekiel was caught up to fulfil his mission elsewhere (3:14;8:3). If so, the eunuch only continued his chariot journey when he had witnessed Philip going off in his (2 Kgs. 2:11, 12). And it is remarkable that, whilst Elijah was not "found" in mountain or valley where he disappeared, Philip was "found" at Azotus, Ashdod, some twenty miles north of Gaza. (For another possible reading, see note on v.26 and cp. harpazo in Jn. 6:15).

 

Naturally, the eunuch was reluctant to bid his fine friend farewell, but he was the more filled with conviction and joy at this final demonstration of divine authority behind the message to which he had so eagerly listened and responded. So he went on his way rejoicing, as does every other sincere well–instructed recipient of the holy rite of baptism. Even in separa­tion and isolation he knew the joy of fellowship (this is the dominant New Testament meaning of the word). Not that such a man would be content to hold his new faith unshared. "Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God" (Ps. 68:31).

 

It has been suggested that the eunuch's joy was through the gift of the Holy Spirit (cp. 13:52; 1 Th. 1:6); and indeed Codex Beza says explicitly that "the Spirit fell on the eunuch." But this reading is unsupported. On the other hand there was great joy among the Samaritans (v.8) before ever Peter and John brought them the heavenly gift. So the point can hardly be pressed.

 

Philip now worked his way up the coast northward, preaching doubtless in places like Lydda and Joppa. When he came to Caesarea he evidently was joined by his family and settled down there, for he was still there twenty years later (21:8).

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 8:26–40

26. The angel of the Lord. Probably the same as "the Spirit" (v.29,39). In each place this could be some Spirit–guided brother whom Philip met and went with from Jerusalem. Was it perhaps Titus, who had got to know Philip in Samaria? See ch. on "Titus".

Toward the south. "At noon" is a more exact translation. Strictly A.V. reading is a paraphrase, and also tautological, for on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza it would be impossible to take any other direction but south.

28. Read Esaias. It could well be that in Jerusalem he had heard Christian preaching based on prophecies in Isaiah and thus had been stimulated to acquire of copy of that Scripture for himself. Such a possibility is not excluded by v.34.

30. Ran. A common Bible idiom for the function of a prophet or preacher; 1 Kgs. 18:46; Ps. 147:15; Jer. 23:21; Heb. 2:2; Ez. 1:14; Gal. 2:2; 2 Th. 3:1.

32. Sheep ... lamb. In Is. 53:7 the words come in reverse order, but like this in LXX. Yet it is a sheep, and not a lamb, that is sheared. This NT. quote appears to authenticate the wrong word order. Explanation?

35. Beginning from this Scripture. Cp. Lk. 24:27. Philip probably used the same classic proof–texts as Jesus did.

36. What doth hinder? A possible forbidding of baptism comes in 10:47; 11:17; Mt. 3:14. It is worth observing that in each instance the right and proper answer to the objection is: You may feel that you ought to forbid baptism, but you must not. Is there a lesson to be learned here?

37. With all thine heart. It is important to remember that in the Bible "heart" means "mind", i.e. one's understanding, not one's emotions. See "Studies in the Gospels", pp. 175,348.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Cp. 1 Jn. 4:15; 5:5, 13.

38. The remarkable humility of this great man must not be missed. It comes out clearly again and again – in v.31 (twice). 34,36,38.

39. The parallel phrases in 2 Kgs. 2:16, 17, 11, 12 are worth setting out: "The Spirit of the Lord hath taken him up ... they found him not ... a chariot of fire ... he saw him no more." But what is the point of this designed resemblance?

Azotus means Lifeless. That is why Philip had to go there.

40. Preached. The word comes five times in this chapter; v.4, 12, 25, 35, 40.

 

 

Additional Note

There are some remarkable and puzzling verbal contacts between this episode and the prophecy of Zephaniah:

3:10. From the rivers of Ethiopia, my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed.

3:11. Thou shalt be no more haughty in my holy mountain (Jewish off–hand rejection of such as the eunuch).

3:12. They shall trust in the name of the Lord.

3:14. Be glad and rejoice with all the heart.

3:18. I will gather them that are sorrowful, for the solemn assembly (the eunuch's non–participation in the Day of Atonement?).

2:3. Seek ye the Lord, all the meek of the earth.

2:4. Gaza forsaken ... Azotus at noon–day.

2:12. Ye Ethiopians shall be slain by my sword (the Word of God preached in Ethiopia?).

2:11. Men shall worship him, every one from his place.

[Resource Manager]

33. The Way

 

In these days we call it The Truth. The name came into existence in the 19th century. It was specially appropriate then, in an era when Bible truth had to contend with a welter of traditional error.

 

Today, in one of the most spiritually arid generations in British history, a more appropriate label would be The Faith. But in the first century, the brethren called it The Way.

 

This idiomatic usage in the Book of Acts has often been commented on. Many of the examples are self–evident in meaning:

 

1. In Jerusalem Saul "persecuted the Way unto death" (22:4).

2. Then he went off to Damascus, that "if he found any of the Way, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem." (9:2).

3. Aquila and Priscilla expounded "the Way of God more perfectly" to Apollos the enthusiast (18:25,26).

4. In Ephesus some "spake evil of the Way" (19:9), but Paul went ahead regardless.

5. Later on, in that city "there arose no small stir about the Way" (19:23), and riot in the "theatre" ensued.

 

These examples are obvious enough. There is a further lovely collection of them in the story of the Ethiopian eunuch:

 

6. "Understandeth thou what thou readest? ... How can I except some man lead me in the Way" (8:31). The eunuch didn't (then) intend a capital letter, but Luke did when he wrote it!

7. In fact, it was with purpose and double meaning that Luke described that road as "the Way that goeth down from Jerusalem to Gaza" (8:26).

8. So Philip hitch–hiked in that chariot, and "as they went on the Way," one expounding, the other listening, understanding and remembering, they came to a baptismal water (8:36). "He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake ... he leadeth me beside the still waters."

9. Baptism duly administered, the eunuch "went on the Way rejoicing" (8:39), only now it was "his Way."

10. There is now a delightful relevance about the sequence of phrases in Isaiah 35:

 

"In the wilderness shall streams break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched ground (of Ethiopia) shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water ... And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called the Way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those, the wayfaring men ... they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away."

 

The idiom is, of course, taken straight out of the Old Testament which abounds with stimulating examples of Derek Jehovah, some of them being positively delightful anticipations of the New Testament idea.

 

Beginning with the appointment of cherubim to "keep (open) the Way of the tree of life" (Gen. 3:24), and the subsequent apostasy when "all flesh corrupted God's Way on the earth" (6:12), there is a profusion of splendid instances in the lives of Patriarchs and People. But the richest field here is in Psalms — and Isaiah, to a less degree; there are too many to quote. But any who care to spend time on this via the concordance will not go unrewarded.

[Resource Manager]

Back to the New Testament:

 

11. John the Baptist came to his people "in the way of righteousness" (Mt. 21:32), but to little purpose.

12. He bade them "prepare the way of the Lord" (Lk. 3:4)–meaning their true approach to God? or the Messiah's authoritative coming to them? (see v.5).

13. In the teaching of Jesus there is an interesting contrast between his instruction to the Twelve to "take nothing for the Way" (double meaning again), when going forth to teach (Mk. 6:8).

14. Yet needful provision must be made for those who are as yet learners, lately come to Christ, lest "they faint in the way" (Mk. 8:3).

 

When narrating the Lord's last journey "going up to Jerusalem" (Luke's phrase), Mark has these "way" marks:

 

15. "In the way they (the twelve) disputed who would be greatest" (Mk. 9:33,34).

16. It was "when he was gone forth into the way" (10:17) that the rich young man came running to him.

17. It was when "they were in the way going up to Jerusalem" that Jesus went before them, his demeanour such as to make his men not only "amazed" but also "afraid" (10:32).

18. On the penultimate stage of the journey, blind Bartimaeus sat "beside the way," begging (10:46).

19. But by and by, with no more importunity, but with great rejoicing, "he followed Jesus in the way" (10:52).

20. Next day, with great acclamation, excited followers "spread their garments in the way, and strewed branches of trees in the way" (11:8), being confident that this was the way of a conqueror. Less than a week, and they knew it to be the way to a cross.

 

The Lord Jesus taught his disciples how to use this good word:

 

21. He spoke of himself as "the true and living Way" (Jn. 14:6).

22. He promised a Comforter "to lead you in the Way into all truth" (16:13).

23. He described the blessings of their pilgrimage: "the Lamb ... shall lead them in the Way unto living fountains of water" (Rev. 7:17).

24. Beforehand, inspired Zacharias had rejoiced that here was one to "guide our feet into the Way of peace" (Lk. 1:79) –

25. – a Way which unregenerate men know nothing of: "Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the Way of peace they have not known" (Rom. 3:16,17).

26. It is "a new and living Way" (Heb. 10:20),

27. "A Way into the holiest" (9:8). The idea here is palpably different from that of pilgrimage. These passages stress access and privilege.

28. There is a sad anticlimax in 2 Peter, for before he died that apostle had to lament the activities of false prophets who "cause the Way of truth to be evil spoken of" (2:2).

29. These are men who have "forsaken the right Way" (2:15). Instead, they follow "the way of Balaam."

30. It were better for such "not to have known the Way of righteousness" (2:21),

31. for they have now gone "in the way of Cain" (Jude 11).

[Resource Manager]

34. The Early Days of Saul

 

Now that Saul the persecutor has moved into the centre of the stage in Luke's drama of the early church, it becomes desirable to assemble together the various fragments of information available concerning his origins and early life.

 

The specific declarations by Jerome (346–420) that he was born at Gischala in northern Galilee must necessarily be set aside since Paul himself asserted that he was "born in Tarsus" (22:3). It may be that his parents had originated in Gis­chala, and later emigrated to Tarsus because of Jewish disturbances there during the reign of Herod the Great.

 

On the other hand it is known that in B.C. 83 a lot of Jewish slaves were taken off to Rome and that later many of them were given their freedom and some even had Roman citizenship conferred on them. A number of these returned to the Holy Land. So this may have been the origin of Paul's "freeborn" Roman citizenship (22:28).

 

Origins

 

This settling in Cilicia, whenever it happened, was almost certainly for reasons of livelihood. Evidently tent­making was the family trade (18:3), and Cilicia was famous for its goats–hair cloth, called cilicium, so eminently suitable for tents.

 

Practically nothing is known of Saul's family except that he had a sister married into a well–connected family in Jeru­salem (23:14,16). The fact that he could describe himself as "a Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5) seems to imply at least that there was no Hellenizing trend in the family at all. They lived in the Greek world but were not of it. Indeed they were Pharisees of Pharisee origin (23:6; 26:5) –not an easy life to live in such an environment as Tarsus.

 

Since Saul means "asked for," it may be taken as fairly likely that his parents were eager to have a son and commemorated his birth by naming him after the king who a thousand years earlier, had sprung from their tribe, but who, as David's persecutor, had brought the name into disrepute. So there must have been a special reason now for this name being given.

 

"God ... separated me from my mother's womb, and called me" (Gal. 1:15), Paul was to write about himself. (The Greek word here suggests a play on "he phariseed me ..." But in Acts 22:10 the perfect tense implies a divine purpose with him, appointed before ever he was converted.) So he saw himself as consecrated specially to God's service, as Jeremiah had been (Jer. 1:5), but it may be that there is further meaning here — that out of thankfulness his mother destined him for the role of rabbi if he should prove fit and worthy of it.

 

The date of his birth must have been somewhere about the same time as the birth of Jesus, for an explicit early–church tradition (pseudo–Chrysostom) says that "for 35 years he served the Lord with all eagerness: and having finished his course in the cause of religion he went to his rest about 68 years of age" (i.e. in A.D.67 probably).

 

Saul was also called Paul, probably from birth. It was normal for Jews of the dispersion to have both a Jewish and a Gentile name (e.g. John Mark). And it is unlikely that the apostle took this name out of a self–conscious humility after his conversion: he was not that kind of man who would call himself Paul, "the wee one," so as to declare openly "I am the least of the apostles" (1 Cor. 15:9).

[Resource Manager]

Education

 

There was a first–rate university in Tarsus, in those days reckoned the equal of Athens and Alexandria. But it may be taken as fairly certain that Saul did not study there. True, he had some acquain­tance with Greek authors – Epimenides and Aratus the Cilician (17:28), Menander (1 Cor. 15:33), and Epimen­ides again (Tit. 1:12)–but these hardly establish a thorough–going classical education (even the illiteracy of the present writer does not exclude an occasional quote from Shakespeare!).

Instead, at a fairly early age (it may be assumed) he was sent off to Jerusalem to be brought up at the feet of Gamaliel (22:3). From hindsight it may be taken as certain that he was (from earliest days; Acts 22:3 Gk.) a quite outstanding pupil. Indeed he himself says so explicitly:

 

"I profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the patristic traditions" (Gal. 1:14). These eloquent words require reference to a fanatical obsession with rabbinic tradition.

 

Maturity

 

Another interesting passage (26:5) could possibly mean "they foreknew me from above ... because after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee," i.e. he was picked out by those in authority for promotion. "Foreknown" is the usual meaning of this word. Consequently whilst still in his early thirties he was elected to be a member of the Sanhedrin. This may be inferred from his own testi­mony that "when they (the early believers) were put to death, I gave my voice (vote – psephos, pebble) against them" (26:10).

 

And if he were a member of the Coun­cil, then he must have been a married man and a father, for these were regarded as normal qualifications.

 

Yet in Paul's writings there is no hint of either, apart from 1 Cor. 7:8: "I say therefore to the unmarried (i.e. the not re­married) and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I." So presumably his wife died young, in child birth, a double bereavement? It is hardly possible to be confident about these conclusions.

[Resource Manager]

Did Jesus and Paul meet?

 

The intriguing question is often canvassed: Did Saul ever see Jesus in the days of his flesh?

 

Probably, though not certainly, Yes. The following points are worth mention­ing:

 

1. "Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord God." It is difficult to believe that this repeated commandment (Ex. 23:14,17; 34:23; Dt. 16 .16) was not taken seriously by Jesus and by Saul, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. So during the Lord's minis­try, the two men would both be in Jeru­salem at the same time on perhaps a dozen occasions. Is it conceivable that with all the excitement that centred on Jesus of Nazareth, Saul failed to see and hear him?
    
   
2. In the last week of the ministry, Jesus warned the leaders of the people against coming judgement: "He (God) shall come and destroy these hus­bandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others." Here Luke (20:16) adds the fascinating detail: "And when they heard this, they said, God forbid." This is the first and only indication in the gospels of one of the Lord's parables being understood by his adversaries (Lk. 20:19). That expression translated "God forbid" – me genoito – comes 14 times in the epistles of Paul, and nowhere else. Then, was this Luke's way of telling his readers that his friend Paul was in the crowd that day, understanding immediately what others were slow or reluctant to grasp, and exclaiming in horror at the prophecy? (If Paul was there, then he also heard Jesus speak a prophecy which, a year or two later, he (Saul) was to fulfil!).
    
   
3. "Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more" (2 Cor. 5:16). These words are often read as establishing the point under exam­ination. But they can be read as meaning that in the persecution period Saul judged Jesus as an un­converted man would judge him. So this is hardly decisive.
    
   
4. Necessary qualifications for an apostle were, apparently, that he should have known Jesus during his ministry and also after his resurrection (Acts 1:21,22). Paul seems to have insisted on this for himself: "Am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1). And it looks as though the Lord himself made allu­sion to this at the time of Saul's conversion: "I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and witness both of the things wherein thou didst see me (Gk. aorist), and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee" (26:16).
    
   
5. When Saul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus, he recognized him What does this imply? Do these testimonies make a case?

[Resource Manager]

35. Saul's Conversion (9:1–9; 22:6–11; 26:12–18)

 

The persecution which had lynched Stephen never slackened in vigour or brutality; if anything it intensified.

 

All recognized that these disciples of the Nazarene lived exemplary lives. Even outsiders knew them as "saints," and saw them thrown into prison for their holiness (26:10). The strange problem is that the apostles themselves seem to have gone unscathed (8:1). Did they go into hiding? Were they protected by the goodwill of the crowd? These are hardly likely explanations.

 

The mainspring of all this Sturm und Drang was Saul of Tarsus. But he must have been able to gather round him a considerable team of others as resentful as himself of this Jesus Messiah. Single–handed he would have achieved little.

 

The Persecutor

 

With no small literary artistry, Luke tells the story of Philip's busy and well–rewarded preaching, and then goes straight on: "But Saul, yet breathing out threatening and slaughter ..." The contrast is superb.

 

That word "yet" implies a steady main­taining of the original burst of indig­nation against these believers. The storm showed no sign of blowing itself out. "Breathing out" might suggest to an English reader the snorting of a fierce wild beast, but the use of this word to describe "the blast of the breath of Thy nostrils" (Ps. 18:15) might even imply that Saul saw himself as an instrument of the wrath of heaven (cp. Ps. 27:12).

 

On the other hand, the repeated use of this word in Joshua for the rigorous extermination of "all that breatheth" in captured Canaanite cities might imply that "threatening and slaughter" were like Saul's native air at this time – he thought and talked persecution and surrounded himself by men of the same type as himself.

 

His great forefather had foretold that "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning (i.e. in the time of king Saul, the persecutor of David) he shall devour the prey, and at even he shall divide the spoil" (Gen. 49:27). Now, through himself, there was a later fulfilment, and Saul gloried in the fact. Alternatively, should both halves of the verse be read with reference to Saul of Tarsus? – first, persecution; then preaching the gospel.

 

"Being exceeding mad against them, I kept on persecuting them even to strange cities" (26:11) was his own rueful reminiscence of this period. And the word "mad" means mad, an uncon­trollable frenzy. Paul used it again when he stoutly declared: "I am not mad, most noble Festus" (26:24). Also, that plural: "cities," intimates that Damascus was not the first target for a round–up of these recalcitrant followers of Jesus. That was just one item in a sustained campaign.

 

There is the same implication about the comment which tells of the end of the persecution:

 

"Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria" (9:31).

 

The persecution was utterly ruthless. Not only men but also women were dragged off to prison. Three times the narrative emphasizes this determination not to discriminate (8:3; 9:2; 22:4). One wonders what happened to that well–known family at Bethany. "Haling (that is, hauling) men and women" presents a macabre picture of extreme reluctance and terror on the part of the victim, but they were taken just the same.

[Resource Manager]

And in prison they were "given the treatment," so that many were "compelled to blaspheme" (26:11). Some read the imperfect tense there as meaning that Saul "tried to compel" abjuration of the Faith (with the implication of non–success); but the most natural way to read it is rather that "he kept on compelling" this denial, "time after time he compelled them to blaspheme." What a thing to have on his conscience in later days!

 

More than this, "when they were put to death, I gave my vote against them" (26:10). Again, the plural requires reference to more than just Stephen. It seems not unlikely (from the context) that James had these martyrdoms in view when he wrote: "Take, my brethren, the prophets who have spoken in the name of the Lord (New Testament prophets, as in Mt. 23:34), for an example of suffering affliction and patience," (Jas. 5:10).

 

It is a reasonable speculation that the father of John Mark was one of the victims of this onslaught. (There is an ancient suggestion that "the goodman of the house" (Lk. 22:11) was John Mark's father. But in Acts 12:12 the house is the house of John Mark's mother.).

 

No less than seven times in later days, Paul was to make reference to the terrorism he unleashed against the followers of the Lord. It evidently continued to lie heavily on his conscience. (See ch. 30).

 

This policy of Saul's represented a complete break from the authority of his famous and venerated teacher. Gamaliel was too mild by far. Perhaps already he was suspected of being a secret disciple. The Talmud has a story that when Nicodemus Bengorion needed sanctuary he found it away from Jerusalem at the home of Gamaliel.

 

The wise old man had counselled: "Leave this situation in God's hands. He will deal with it." But Saul's philosophy was the exact opposite: "I verily thought within myself, that I ought (that it was necessary for me) to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth" (26:9). God needed the zeal of Saul to be able to cope with the problem!

[Resource Manager]

The Damascus plan

 

The expedition to Damascus, now being planned, was probably intended to be the climax of the campaign. Evid­ently it was known that many of the hounded believers had fled to Damascus to lose themselves among the tens of thousands of Jews already citizens of that fair city. "I went to Damascus to bring them which were there (Gk. thither; i.e. fled thither) bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished" (22:5).

 

So it was in a fever of excitement, that Saul now went to Caiaphas and the chief priests. He was still full of "threatening" (LXX: rebuke, of this Christian blas­phemy) and "slaughter" (literally: murder). He knew that there would be no difficulty about being commissioned to bring back from Damascus a drove of these heretics in chains (22:5), for the pattern of procedure had already been set regarding other cities.

 

The Greek text (9:2) might even imply that certain outstanding disciples were known to have sought refuge in Damas­cus, and these were Saul's special target. And the double meaning of one phrase (22:4) could well hint at the betraying of those who had been his friends in former days.

 

It must have given those evil men of the temple no small satisfaction to have at their service one who hated the name of Jesus of Nazareth even more than they did. And the Pharisee majority of the Sanhedrin gladly added their author­isation (22:5). Never was there such an incongruous Pharisee – Sadducee alliance, except when Jesus himself was condemned and crucified.

 

There would be no legal difficulty about this exercise of force majeure in a foreign city, for at this time Aretas of Petra was overlord there, and he was on very good terms with the Sadducee priesthood in Jerusalem. In any case, by special Roman concession, Jews all through the empire were held subject to the local synagogue and, in the case of higher appeal, to the men of the temple.

 

Probably even whilst preparations for the journey were being made, the news that the Wolf of Benjamin planned another foray reached the disciples in Damascus (9:14), for Christians had friends in high places in Jerusalem; so doubtless some of the disciples fled yet again before Saul arrived. It was to be precisely his own experience in later days, when hostile Jews "breathing out threatening and slaughter," were to chase him from one city to another.

 

The Journey

 

The distance from Jerusalem to Damascus is between 120 and 140 miles, according to route. The most obvious route to follow would be up the Jordan valley, and then skirting the Sea of Galilee, and so direct to Damascus.

 

It is possible to infer that Saul and his numerous party travelled on foot; for, when the vision of Jesus–was seen, they all fell to the earth (26:14); and when it was realised that Saul was now blind, he was led by the hand into Damascus, the Greek text (9:8) implying a helper on either side of him.

 

It was about noon (22:6), with a few miles still to go, that the journey was dramatically interrupted. Why were not Saul and his men taking the traditional siesta in the middle of the day? Even night–time travel was to be preferred to the scorching heat of noon.

 

The "explanation" usually offered is that Saul's irrepressible rage against the heretics would not allow him to rest. Even in the fierce heat he must be driving on to the accomplishment of his purpose: "Let me lay hands on these blasphemers!"

 

As an explanation this is hardly satisfactory, for what difference to his mission would an extra hour or two make? In any case, there is available a different kind of explanation which fits the circumstances and the man so much better.

 

Would not a dominant consideration with this bigoted Pharisee be avoidance of travel on the sabbath? When planning the journey this would be one of the first factors to be taken into account. So of course Saul had left Jerusalem immediately sabbath was ended, and by avoiding delays he would hope to be in Damascus before the next sabbath came on. It could just be done.

 

This seems to be a much more likely view of the situation. Then, if correct, Saul's conversion took place at noon on a Friday. Sabbath would begin at sunset that evening. If tradition identifies the spot correctly, there were still ten miles to go.

[Resource Manager]

Encounter

 

It was in such a place, and at such a time, that Saul was stopped dead in his tracks by "a light from heaven above the brightness of the sun" (26 .13). It was as though he had stepped suddenly into the blinding flash of a hydrogen bomb, except that this was intermittent, for the text uses a word for "lightning flash" –"As the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth into the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day" (Lk. 17:24). On this day of the Son of man, that is how it was. Similarly, when the Shekinah Glory of the Lord was seen by Ezekiel, son of man, it was "a fire flashing continually ... and the fire was bright and out of the fire went forth lightning ... the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning" (Ez. 1:4RVm, 13,14).

 

Yet the unbeliever is not permitted to decry this experience as an unusual thunderstorm, for the sun was shining (26:13), and there was no rain (22:7 Gk: dust).

 

The phenomenon was precisely that witnessed by the shepherds of Bethlehem, when at the birth of Jesus the Glory of the Lord "shone round about them" (Lk. 2:9–the only other occurrence of this verb).

 

Such an appearance of the Lord in Glory had been known only to the three apostles at the Transfiguration and to Stephen, and later to John in Patmos. Nor was it to be the only time that there would be given to Paul "the light of the knowledge of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6).

 

Scared men

 

Among Saul's entourage reaction was instinctive and immediate: "and when we were all fallen to the earth" (26:14). That word "all" is specially significant. How could Saul, the man who rose to his feet seeing nothing, know that without exception all the party had fallen to the ground in panic? There seems to be a clear implication here that all the rest were on their faces before he was. He saw every man among them go prostrate on the ground, yet for a moment or two he stood there, stubborn and defiant, because he knew immediately, and far better than any of them, the meaning of this traumatic experience.

 

Bezan text (22:9) adds concerning these men: "and they became terrified." And three ancient versions say about Saul that he was "trembling and astonished," using almost the very words which describe the reaction of the women to the vision of angels at the empty tomb (Mk. 16:6,8).

 

At this point the details of the narrative are so markedly like the description of Daniel's experience in his encounter with an angel of glory as to warrant closer comparison:

 

"And I Daniel alone saw the vision (it is evident that, similarly, Saul was the only one of his party to behold Christ there in person): for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves (then is this what Saul's men did as soon as they realised that the Light and the Voice, whatever they signified, did not concern themselves, but Saul only? Certainly they were on their feet again before he was; 9:7). Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me ... Yet I heard the voice of the words: and when I heard the voice of the words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground. And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me tottering (RVm) upon my knees and the palms of my hands (was this Saul's experience also?) ... Stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent (compare the Lord's command to Saul: Rise, and stand upon thy feet ... 26:16, 17)" (Dan. 10:7–11).

 

Luke seems to have framed his narrative to bring out this parallel, and also, perhaps, to use it as a means of filling out his own compressed record.

 

When describing how Saul fell to the ground he makes use of the unusual word edaphos, dust, perhaps with the intention of recalling Ps. 119:25: "My soul cleaveth to the dust: quicken thou me according to thy word;" i.e. by means of Thy Word – and this is precisely what the Lord proceeded to do for Saul.

[Resource Manager]

The Lord's reproaches

 

The persecutor heard himself being addressed in Hebrew: "Saoul, Saoul" (not Saulos, as in 9:1, 8– the Lord calls his own sheep by name; Jn. 10:3)! But it is noteworthy that usually this repetition of name is a mode of reproach, as Martha, Martha (Lk. 10:41), O Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Lk. 13:34), Simon Simon, (Lk. 22:31), Moses, Moses (Ex. 3:4), Samuel, Samuel (1 Sam. 3:10)–and Abraham, Abraham (Gen. 22:11)?

 

It is not without significance that the Hebrew form of Saul is practically indistinguishable from Sheol (cp. the title of Ps. 18). So here was Jesus saying: "Hell, why dost thou pursue me — who am the Immortal One?" (Rev. 1:18). Had he not declared concerning his ecclesia: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18)?

 

The Lord's reproach could hardly have been put more concisely: "Why persecutest thou me?" Why, indeed! Simply because Jesus came from Nazareth and not from the city of David, and was by that simple fact a false Messiah.

 

But Saul's oppression centred on the disciples. Yet Jesus said: Thou persecutest me.It was Saul's first lesson in the First Principles of the Truth in Christ — the doctrine of the One Body (Eph. 4:4;1 Cor. 12:12), which to this very day many of his disciples put last and not first. Saul may not have been aware that Jesus had said: "Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren ye did it unto me" (Mt. 25:40; cp. Mt. 10:40; Jn. 20:17), but disciples of today know the words well, yet neither heed nor greatly care!

 

The proud Pharisee there on the ground knew right well who it was who spoke to him, but he tried feebly to buy a second or two of time by asking: "Who art thou, Lord?" That title "Lord" was neatly ambiguous, for it could be the supreme honour which truly belonged to Jesus, or it could be (on a lower level) a fairly general title of respect (as in 16:19, 30). Perhaps the voice was the voice of an angel!

 

Seeing Christ

 

Yet there can be no doubt that Saul, when at last he dared to lift his head, saw Jesus (and recognized him?). This is plainly intimated no less than six times:

 

1. "The Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee (literally: the one who was seen by thee) in the way ..." (9:17).
    
   
2. "Barnabas ... declared unto them how he (Saul) had seen the Lord in the way" (9:27).
    
   
3. "The Lord God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One ..."(22:14).
    
   
4. "To this end I was seen by thee ... a witness both of the things thou didst see me, and of the things I will be seen by thee" (26:16; the Greek here is a bit tricky; cp RV).
    
   
5. "Last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time" (1 Cor. 15:8).
    
   
6. "Am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1).

 

The Lord's explicit answer now made doubt or prevarication impossible: "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest." He said "Jesus," and not "Christ" so as to put beyond doubt that it truly was a personal appearance, and not a hallucination of some kind.

 

Again, also, there was emphasis that this persecution bore on Master and disciple alike. The Lord had laid on him not only the iniquity but also the affliction of all his followers.

[Resource Manager]

Kicking against the pricks

 

There can be no manner of doubt that Jesus really did add: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks," even though in the first record (9:5) modern versions omit the words, for in the third record (26:14) all the best and oldest manu­scripts include them. The real problem here is: What did Jesus mean by this saying?

 

The commentators are unanimous in interpreting the figure as comparing Saul to a beast reluctant to draw a cart or a plough, yet finding the compulsive irritation of the sharp–pointed goad too much for it. The problem here, scarcely ever given attention, is this — it is extremely difficult to believe that on such a crucial occasion such a man as Jesus would speak to such a man as Saul without making use of the words of Holy Scripture! (the rest of the colloquy has Biblical references enough). Yet this figure of speech, of an animal kicking against the goad, is not to be found anywhere in the Old Testament. One commentator has rather fatuously observed that "the Risen Lord appears to quote Pindar and Aeschylus" (because similar words and the figure of a kicking animal come in their writings — and in other writers as well).

 

There is need to start again from scratch in the examination of these words. Clearly, an interpretation which is found to depend for its force on the Old Testament has the scales loaded in its favour.

 

First, then, it has to be observed that the verb "kick" means, more precisely, "to kick with the heel" (Liddell and Scott). As already indicated, it had this special meaning in the classical authors. Next, the word kentra, translated "pricks", certainly carried that meaning (e.g. LXX of Prov. 26:3; Ecclesiasticus 38:25), but it also means "the sting of a serpent." This is its meaning in the only other New Testament occurrences. "They had tails like scorpions; there were stings in their tails" (Rev. 9:10). And 1 Cor. 15:56 surely has the same idea: "The sting of death is sin" (to read in the alternative meaning is to make nonsense of the passage).

 

Thus the Lord's expostulation to Saul was: "It is hard for thee to kick with thy heel against the stings of the serpent." Read in this way, the Biblical allusion becomes obvious. It is Gen. 3:15–the Seed of the Woman crushing the serpent Sin in the head, and in so doing suffering a sting in the heel. This sounds right. For what more fundamental Old Testament passage could the Lord have referred to?

 

But now let the implication behind these words be noted: Saul in the role of Saviour from sin, and Jesus as the great Adversary! This is exactly how Saul saw his present campaign. Jesus was the evil enemy of his people, and he – Saul–meant to be their redeemer from one who promised equality with angels as the fruit of an evil tree, coaxing men to believe that in him they would not surely die! (In Jn. 13:18, Ps. 41:9 there is just the same kind of meaning.).

 

Here, one is persuaded, is an interpretation of the familiar words somewhat less trivial than the idea of a stubborn animal protesting against discipline applied to its buttocks.

 

Hearing the words, Saul's nimble mind would go in a flash to the proper conclusion: My application of Gen. 3:15 was all the wrong way round; now I can see that Jesus, alive after crucifixion, truly is the Seed of the Woman – and I am the serpent Adversary, unless I quickly switch to a different role!

[Resource Manager]

"What shall I do?"

 

This he now did as quick as thought. "Trembling" at the blas­phemous danger he had been in, and "marvelling" that Jesus should be so gracious to one so evil and hostile as himself, he asked in chastened tones: "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" (cp. Num. 22:34, 35). To do! Instinctively this Pharisee still thought in terms of salvation by works. But it now took him only a matter of minutes to learn differently.

 

The Lord's first instruction, then, was the same as to stubborn Ezekiel when he saw the Shekinah Glory of God: "Arise, and stand upon thy feet" (Ezek. 1:28; 2:1–3). Here was an implied assurance of forgiveness. His faith, just expressed, was accepted in lieu of righteousness, of which hitherto he had none at all.

 

So, gladly, he stood, whilst his men, further away, marvelled at the whole transaction.

 

They heard a voice, perhaps like thunder, as on the occasion when the Father spoke to His Son, the crowd being present (Jn. 12:29); but the risen Christ, so visible to Saul, was hidden from them.

 

Called to be an apostle

 

Meantime, this persecutor heard a new and quite unbelievable commission now entrusted to him:

 

"I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of the things of which thou didst see me and of the things of which I will appear unto thee." It is worthwhile to observe that Luke is careful to stress that his gospel also was derived from "eye–witnesses and ministers of the Word (i.e. of Jesus"; Lk. 1:2). So also Paul when he became a preacher of the message.

 

Jesus continued: " ... delivering thee from the people (Israel) and from the Gentiles (here is an implicit promise of persecution, but also of continuing deliverance), unto whom now I send thee." The Lord used the word apostello. Saul was an apostle from this moment. The Son of Sorrow (Gen. 35:18) was now become Son of My right hand, and his mess was to be five times as much as any of his brethren (Gen. 43:34). And "little Benjamin" (Paul means "the wee one") will be prominent among the tribes rejoicing in Messiah's Kingdom (Ps. 68:17).

 

The promise of deliverance from adversaries of the gospel was markedly similar to the assurance given to Jeremiah in the beginning of his ministry. And as with Jeremiah, so with Paul — although time and again he was saved out of the hands of his enemies to continue the good work, there was no immunity from hardship and affliction.

 

Jeremiah, chapter 1, might well have been written about Paul and his work, so apt is the language:

 

"Before thou earnest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, (cp. Gal. 1:15), and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations ... Thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces (Acts 18:9,10): for I am with thee to deliver thee ... Gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee ... Behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city and an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land. And they shall fight against thee: but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am with thee to deliver thee" (Jer. 1:5, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19).

 

Saul's commission was couched in comprehensive terms: "Delivering thee from the people (Israel), and from the Gentiles ... to open their eyes (Israel again), to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God (Gentiles), that they may receive forgiveness of sins (Israel), and inheritance among them which are sanctified (Gentiles becoming the New Israel)." (26:17, 18; Col. 1:12–14 has many of these phrases).

 

But the operative phrase, covering Jews and Gentiles alike, was this: "by faith in me." So from the very first it was laid upon Saul that he was to preach justification by faith (20:21).

[Resource Manager]

On to Damascus

 

This essential faith was forthwith exemplified in Saul's own case, for his Lord bade him "arise and go" (22:10). But although he had been able to see Jesus, when he arose he was now blind, so that he must needs walk by faith.

 

"There (in Damascus) it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do" (22:10). Just as Jesus had many things to say to the twelve which had to be deferred because they could not then bear them (Jn. 16:12), so also Saul needed peace and silence in which to come to terms with the utterly new world in which he was now coming to birth as a new creature. There in Damascus let him wait in darkness, with penitence and prayer, to the third day (cp. Job 5:12–14). The word of Jesus his Lord would come to him again.

 

A contradiction?

 

All this time–it wouldn't really be very long – the men of Saul's company stood at a distance, awestruck, mystified. The Greek word (9:7) means "dumb"–an echo of Isaiah 56:10: "His watchmen are blind ... dumb dogs, they cannot bark."

 

The point has often been made with a certain degree of satisfaction by those who are not friends of the Bible that in one specific detail the different accounts are irreconcilable:

 

"The men ... stood speechless, hear­ing a voice, but seeing no man" (9:7). On the face of it, this is not the same as "they heard not the voice of him that spake with me" (22:9).

 

It might be sufficient, in answer to this, to suggest that since the Lord spoke to Saul in Hebrew (26:14), these others not being competent in that language, heard a voice speaking (9:7) without under­standing what was said (22:9).

 

For completeness there needs to be set alongside this probability the distinction between the genitive case in 9:7 in the accusative case in 9:4 and 22:9. When this grammatical point is appreciated, together with the difference of meaning which is implied, then it may be the more readily accepted that the men heard a noise of some kind, but to them there was nothing intelligible. (See notes).

 

A parallel instance is surely that occasion when Jesus prayed audibly in the presence of the crowd: "Father, glorify thy name," and God spoke in reply; "the people said that it thun­dered; others said, An angel spake to him" (Jn. 12:29). The word from heaven, perfectly understood by Jesus, was a meaningless noise to those who stood by. And so also on the Damascus road.

[Resource Manager]

Blind!

 

When Saul's colleagues raised him to his feet (9:8Gk.) he was a blind man. At first he had seen Jesus; then because of the vividness of the Light, he had felt compelled to shut his eyes (9:8); now, "from the Glory of that Light" (22:11), his opened eyes saw nothing. It was "a light which no man can approach unto" (1 Tim. 6:16). Yet he had been bathed in it, and still lived, but only by the surpassing grace of Christ. It is significant that he is not described as blind, and rightly so, for now he "saw". Yet had he returned to Jerusalem in that physically stricken condition, he would have been refused access to the temple, for, ever since the days of David it had been a firm rule that "the blind and the lame shall not come into the House" (2 Sam. 5:8). However, on the third day he had his sight again, but now with no special eagerness for the temple in Jerusalem because he had instead full privileges in a new and better Temple.

 

This learned Jewish rabbi who had thought of himself confidently as "a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness" (Rom. 2:19), now found himself being led by one on either hand (9:8 Gk.) along the way that he could not see, into the city.

 

Farrar has a most eloquent passage describing this:

 

"He had meant to enter the city in all the importance of a Commissioner from the Sanhedrin, to be received with distinction, not only as himself a great "pupil of the wise," but even as the representative of all authority which the Jews held most sacred. And he had meant to leave the city, perhaps, amid multitudes of his applauding countrymen, accompanied by a captive train of he knew not how many dejected Nazarenes."

 

"How different were his actual entrance and his actual exit! He is led through the city gate, stricken, dejected, trembling, no longer breathing threats and slaughter, but longing only to be the learner and the suppliant, and the lowest brother among those he had intended to destroy. He was ignominiously let out of the city, alone, in imminent peril of arrest or assassination, through a window, in a basket, down the wall." (Life and Work of Paul, ch.10).

 

Saul continued in darkness, as of the tomb, from that Friday to the following Sunday, and like a dead man he neither ate nor drank. Thus in deepest penitence and self–castigation he afflicted his soul more than on any Day of Atonement. Someone has made the comment that in all world history there has been only one such period to compare with this for importance.

 

All he could do was to ponder and marvel and pray and pray again. And it would be strange indeed if his well–stocked mind did not race round the Scriptures he was so familiar with, and come to rest on such trenchant passages as these:

[Resource Manager]

Prophetic Scriptures

 

"The Lord shall smite thee with madness (Acts 26:11): and thou shalt grope in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways" (Dt. 28:28,29). The curses God had pronounced on faithless Israel were now come in full measure on this Pharisee of the Pharisees!

 

Again:

 

"Your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity: your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness ... Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood ... wasting and destruction are in their highways ... we wait for light, but behold obscurity: for brightness, but we walk in darkness. We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men ... For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us ... Yea, truth is lacking, and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey ... So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him" (Is. 59:3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19 etc.).

 

Quite surprisingly there are words in Job more apposite than might be expected:

 

"He disappointeth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise. He taketh the wise in their own craftiness (quoted by Paul: 1 Cor. 3:19): and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong. They meet with darkness in the daytime, and grope in the noonday as in the night. But he saveth the poor from the sword, from their mouth, and from the hand of the mighty" (Job 5:12–15).

 

There are problems here. These passages do not read like prophecies about Saul of Tarsus, yet the aptness of the phrasing is not to be gainsaid. Then, is this by design or accident? Or is there something seriously defective about our usual understanding of Holy Scripture?

 

Again, did Saul ponder the remarkable features of the story of Elisha in Dothan (2 Kgs. 6)? When the enemy of the man of God comes against him in force, there is a vision of the Shekinah Glory, and the persecutors are smitten with blindness. They are led into the city and there their sight is restored, and they are given food and drink. And with that the enmity ceases. (For an even more impressive parallel, see "Exploring the Bible," H.A.W., p. 93).

 

How are such resemblances to be explained?

[Resource Manager]

Notes:

9:1 Breathing out. Compare Mt. 27:12.

Threatening; s.w. is 8 times translated "murder."

9:2 Women. According to Josephus (B.J. 2.20.2), many Gentile women in Damascus were addicted to the Jewish

religion – and thence to faith in Christ?

9:4 Fell to the earth. And so also John with his apocalypse: Rev. 1:17; and at the Transfiguration: Mt. 17:6.

9:5 The pricks. Jesus used the plural form. Doesn't that make the usual interpretation rather difficult?

9:7 May it be inferred from Dan. 10:7 that Saul's men, once they realised that they were not involved, removed themselves to a "safe" distance and stood staring? Three versions and Codex Beza add at 22:9: "they became greatly afraid."

i]Hearing the voice. [/i]Apparently there are exceptions to this grammatical distinction; e.g. 15:12, 13; 22:1. There is thus a possible alternative – that gen. emphasizes hearing the speaker, and acc. emphasizes the message. A fine point!

9:9 Is Rom. 6:3–11 autobiographical? Some of the phrases seem remarkably relevant to his own conversion. 22:5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness. Ananias (23:2) would be one of the Sanhedrin who gave Saul this authority. An important consideration with the leaders in Jerusalem would be the diminished financial contributions to the temple when Jews became Christians.

22:10 What hath been appointed for thee. This, with its perfect tense, implies the same idea as Gal. 1:15. But 9:6: "must do" (literally: is necessary) emphasizes personal choice and decision. The two ideas come together in 9:16. 26:13 Above the brightness of the sun; s.w. Is. 60:3. Note the relevance of this to Mt. 13:43.

26:16 Minister. New Testament usage always refers to an official. Then does this phrase mean "an official witness," i.e. an apostle?

26:17 Delivering. Gk: exairomenos; contrast v.10: anairomenos. In the context here, this was telling Festus and Agrippa: You will not be able to deliver me to death. A remarkable number of phrases relevant to the Lord's words and the conversion of Saul can be traced in Is. 42:6, 7, 13, 16, 19.