Acts 9:5

Acts 9:5. And he said, Who art thou, Lord? For a moment, perhaps, the awe-struck earnest Pharisee, while he gazed on the sweet face of the Master, which if he had not seen he must so often have heard described, in the midst of the glory, and listened to the voice speaking to him, might have doubted who it was. So he stammered out the question in the text; but the hesitation could have been but momentary. Conscience itself, as Bengel remarks, would whisper, ‘It is Jesus;' he hardly needed the reply which quickly came.

And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. Why this answer, asks Chrysostom, from the glorified One? ‘Why did he not say, I am the Son of God, I am the Eternal Word, I am He that sitteth on the Father's right hand, I am He that stretcheth out the heavens... who made the angels?... Why, instead of speaking these deep, grand, lofty words, did He say simply, I am Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest?... If He had said to him (Saul), I am the Son of God, I am the Eternal Word, He who made the heavens, then he (Saul) would have been able to reply, The object of my persecution was a different one from this'... So the glorified One simply replied: ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest.'

It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. These words are an interpolation here: they are borrowed from Paul's own account of his conversion (chap, xx Acts 6:14), where they are undoubtedly genuine. See the Excursus at the end of this chapter, where the words are discussed at some length.

Excursus.

The Omitted Words of Ver. 5, ‘It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.' [1]

[1] The words, ‘It is hard for thee to kick against the ricks,' occur in the Authorised Version in the account of t. Paul's conversion contained in Acts 9, but all critical editors of the New Testament concur in expunging these words in this first narration of the conversion, as they are not contained in any of the older authorities. But though his was no place for their insertion, there is no shadow of doubt but that the words were uttered by the Lord, for all Mss. unite in inserting them in St. Paul's own account of his conversion (Acts 26:14).

A peculiar interest is attached to these words. They were uttered by the Risen and Ascended Lord; they have been acknowledged without dispute by the Christian Church from the earliest days as a voice from the glory-throne in heaven. It is therefore to be expected that certain schools of theological thought would endeavour to find in a saying surrounded by so extraordinary a sanctity, an authoritative approval of the views which they advocated.

The metaphor, ‘It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,' was a favourite one in the heathen world; as, for instance:

‘With God we may not strive

But to bow down the willing neck,

And bear the yoke, is wise;

To kick against the pricks will prove

A perilous emprise.' [2]

[2] See Pindar, Pyth. ii. 173 (the transl. is by Plumptre).

It was frequently used both by Greek and Roman writers. We find it in the works of Pindar, Æschylus, and Euripides, and also in Plautus and Terence. [3] The words do not occur in any known collection of Hebrew Proverbs, but probably the same or a similar saying was current among the Jews.

[3] See Æsch. Prom. 323, Agamemn. 1633; Eur. Bacch. 791; Plautus, Truc. iv. 2. 59; Ter. Phormio, i. 2. 27.

The proverb, no doubt a most ancient one, if derived from oxen at the plough, which, on being pricked with the goad, kick against it, and so cause it to pierce them more severely. Its meaning here is obvious: it was useless, nay injurious, to resist Christ by persecuting His disciples. So St. Augustine (sermon 116): ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? I am in heaven, thou art on earth, and yet thou persecutest Me. It is not My head that thou touchest, but it is My members that thou treadest under foot.' Professor Plumptre, however, with great force suggests that Saul had, in a peculiar and especial way, been for some time past ‘kicking against the pricks.' ‘There had been promptings, misgivings, warnings, which he had resisted and defied. Among the causes of these we may reckon... the warning counsel of Gamaliel (chap, Acts 5:34-39), the angel-face of Stephen and the martyr's dying prayer (chap. Acts 6:15; Acts 7:60), and the daily spectacle of those who were ready to go to prison and to death rather than to renounce the name of Jesus. In the frenzy of his zeal he had tried to crush these misgivings, and the effort to do so had brought with it discomfort and disquietude, which made him more exceeding mad against the disciples of the Lord.' But this proverb used by the glorified Lord possesses its own peculiar importance it teaches a great truth. To resist the call of Christ is ever a hard and profitless task; one, too, which is far beyond man's power. Such a course of action must ever end in utter ruin and wreck for the unhappy one who struggles to resist. But hopeless as is such a resistance, certain as is the ruin which follows, the teaching of the passage shows it is possible for any of us to resist the Redeemer's voice, and by this stubborn resistance, not by any means to bar the progress of His kingdom, but to bring misery and destruction upon oneself. We are led to this conclusion by the statement of Acts 26:19, which followed the recital of his meeting with Jesus on his way to Damascus: ‘Whereupon... I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision.' He might then have been disobedient to this summons of his Lord had he pleased. The call to Saul of Tarsus, then, was no irresistible summons. St. Augustine (sermon clxix.) well puts it: ‘Thou art angry, but I pity; why persecutest thou me? For I have no fear of thee that thou shouldest crucify ME a second time; my wish is that thou shouldest know ME, lest thou shouldest slay not ME but thine own self.'

It should be noticed that this utterance of Christ from His throne was made in the old sacred Hebrew tongue. Now Saul, to whom the voice came, was more conversant with Greek than with Hebrew. He seems to have generally adopted Greek as the language in which he conveyed his teaching in eastern as well as in western lands. The proverb, too, was no Hebrew, but a famous and well-known Greek saying. Hence Bengel's comment on the employment of the Hebrew tongue by the voice from heaven, deserves grave attention, even if we hesitate fully to accept his conclusions. Hebrew,' he says, ‘is Christ's language on earth; His language, too, when speaking from heaven' (see Excursus following chap. 26, where this question is fully discussed).

The careful comparison of the several parts of this section of the Acts of the Apostles one with another is of great importance. Worked out after the manner of the Horae Paulinae, it leads to evidential results of considerable value. With the direct narrative are to be compared (1) The account of Cornelius given by his messengers; (2) Peter's account of his own experience to Cornelius; (3) Cornelius's account, in turn, of his own experience to Peter; (4) Peter's apologetic account at Jerusalem. To fulfil the conditions of the argument drawn from ‘undesigned coincidences,' these various sections must be in harmony with one another: yet they must have sufficient variation to suit their several occasions; and those variations must not be contrived: the whole must fit easily and naturally together. These particulars will be noticed as we go on, and the result will be summed up at the close in an Excursus on the two accounts of the conversion of Cornelius.