Has The Light Dawned On You?
Acts 9:1–9 (NKJV)
1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” 6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” 7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
We are moving away from our study of baptism in chapter 8 to the conversion of Saul in chapter 9. As a quick review of our last study about the baptism of the eunuch we saw the importance of holding onto the tradition as it has been taught to display the fullness of Christ in our obedience to the “Lord’s” ordinance. Upon entering and immersing the whole self into the water we receive a whole Christ, the entire nature of God. Just as in the days of Noah when the whole world was flooded with water to sanctify the earth, that had become defiled with violence and blood (Gen.6:12; 7:19), we enter into the sea of the Lord’s forgetfulness (Jer.31:34) to display the death of the old nature being drowned in the flood as bottom feeders upon the gold of Christ, and are fished out to the top as sons of God because Christ has paid our ransom (Matt.17:26, 27).
The importance of this baptism was also to prepare the disciple for the temptations that are just ahead. Immediately after Christ’s baptism He was led into the desert to be tempted by the devil. You can be sure that with every new level of sanctification there is a new level of temptation by the devil. God Himself tempts no one but rather uses these temptations to push us into a greater degree of holiness and test our desires to part from evil. However, as previously noted, when one is wholly baptized, he or she is also baptized into the membership and body of Christ. You receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit to help you seek a greater knowledge and nearness of God. The whole body of Christ directed by the Holy Spirit leads you to safety from sin and death in the grace of Christ. You are not left to drown in your sin; but are publicly accountable to, and accounted for, by the whole body in a covenant of love and worship before the Lord.
Baptism prepares you for persecution. If you are willing to testify before the church, then you will be willing to testify before all men about the love and grace that Christ has blessed you with in the 'heavenly places' of God. Through the new covenant of baptism in the commands of Christ, all of God’s previous covenantal promises are yes in Christ, not in the ‘earthly’ applications of the covenants of the fathers of Israel, but of the ‘heavenly covenant’ at the right hand of God (Eph.1:3,20;2:6; Heb.9:24; 2Cor.1:20-23).
Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest . . .
Chapter 9 begins with “Then Saul.” Luke is transitioning from the events of the expansion into Samaria, Azotus, and Caesarea after the beginning of Saul’s persecution that pushed out the church to flee the city of Jerusalem. Philip was found or founded in the Azotus and Caesarea regions because there were most likely Christians dwelling there who had fled the persecution. This gave him opportunity to take his time evangelizing the region with the support of other believers. Luke also transitions as though Saul’s persecution continued on during the previous events of Philip’s journey, and as though the persecution has been escalating as Saul finds more and more Christians being converted. Saul was “still” breathing threats and murder against the Lord’s children; but as the persecution increased, so did the prayers of the disciples. They were all in one accord since the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and continued to offer intercession for the persecuted church and an unbelieving Israel, which I believe sets the stage for the conversion of Saul to the apostle Paul. However, at this time, Saul is seeking permission by the high priest to obtain written warrants to end the rebellion forever (Acts 26:12).
. . . and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
The Greek word for letters, isolated by itself, simply means written messages and has no connection to what we would refer to as a warrant. But if we apply this plural word to what Saul is seeking from the high priest we can conclude that the “letters” are some form of authoritative warrant to permit Saul to investigate any suspicions of Christians speaking of Jesus Christ as the crucified Messiah of Israel. Saul already had formulated some kind of evidence to go to the high priest and send letters of permission and preparation of his arrival in Damascus. For Saul to go to Damascus he would have also had to go through Samaria and Galilee. The church was recorded being established in the region of Samaria, but nothing, as of yet, in the region of Galilee. But we know that Jesus himself had made Galilee one of his preaching priorities (Matt.4:23, 25), and close to half of the apostles were converts from that region, which suggests to our understanding that many converts would have already been in the area. Saul wants to douse the flames of this revival before Samaria and Galilee have a chance to organize and resist Jerusalem’s authority.
Saul knew how to investigate and discern who was loyal to Judaism and who deserted to “the Way.” Anyone who recently ceased their attendance in the synagogues would have been the first targets for Saul to question about, aiding and abetting, and defecting to the prophets of Jesus Christ. Saul had no intentions of showing mercy to the Christian women or the children. The women would have been pulled away from their children, bound, and dragged away to Jerusalem. The sufferings of the children are not recorded here but you can be sure, if the women suffered, the children suffered too. Saul probably chose Damascus as his headquarters to carry out his mission, for the high priest would not have been able to write letters to every synagogue throughout the regions of Samaria and Galilee. Damascus was going to be his headquarters as he would work from there to search out and destroy this new sect in Israel.
This new sect was identified by the high counsel as “the Way.” The early church had no quarrels with being identified with such honor. To the early Christians it meant that you were a disciple of Christ and on the path that Lord has prepared (predestined) for His children; and not to be identified with “the Way” meant that you were on a path of destruction. The LTW describes “the Way” beautifully:
This word literally refers to a road or path (e.g., Matt 21:8), but can also refer metaphorically to a way of life or course of action (e.g., Jas 1:8). Acts notes that the early Christian sect was called “the Way” (hodos; e.g., Acts 9:2; 19:9; 22:4; 24:14). As do the other Gospels, Luke refers to Isa 40:3 to indicate that John the Baptist is sent to prepare the way (hodos) of the Lord (Luke 3:4), but there are additional passages in Luke that highlight John the Baptist’s particular role in preparing the way (hodos; Luke 1:76, 79; 7:27). Jesus is often described as walking along a road (hodos), which is depicted a place of instruction (Luke 24:32, 35) and healing (Luke 18:35–43; Mark’s account adds that the blind man is healed and follows Jesus along the way [hodos; Mark 10:52]). In the parable of the sower, Jesus indicates that some seed falls beside the way (hodos) and is eaten by birds; this seed symbolizes people who hear the word but are susceptible to the devil ripping it away (Luke 8:12). In the book of Acts, Saul embarks on a journey to persecute the Way (hodos; Acts 9:1–3) when he is converted on the way (hodos; Acts 9:17, 27). The word hodos is also used metaphorically in the Gospel of John, where Jesus states that he is the way (hodos), the truth, and the life (John 14:6). The letters primarily use hodos in the figurative sense of someone’s actions (e.g., Rom 11:33; 1 Cor 4:17; Jas 5:20).
Litke, A. W. (2014). Journey. D. Mangum, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, & R. Hurst (Eds.), Lexham Theological Wordbook. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
In other words John the “Immerser” was sent to prepare the path of Lord, and point to Him as the way to God. And John’s baptism was the means by which one begins the journey or the way to God. Jesus Christ has made our crooked paths straight through His sinless walk with His Father as a man. 3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, 4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight. 5 Every valley shall be filled and every mountain and hill brought low; the crooked places shall be made straight and the rough ways smooth; 6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’ ” Therefore Jesus of Nazareth ‘alone’ has the right to declare Himself as “the way,” the truth, and the life. 5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” John 14:5–7 (NKJV)
Saul is about to encounter the brightness of “the Way” on his journey to destroy it. Saul is on a crooked path that leads to his own destruction that he has made ‘for himself.’ As it is written: 7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. 8 The way of peace they have not known, and there is no justice in their ways; they have made themselves crooked paths; whoever takes that way shall not know peace. (Isaiah 59:7–8 (NKJV)) Saul is about to change directions by the sovereign decree and will of God. Saul, as we will discover later, will be led through the gate and into the narrow (street) called “Straight” and given sight to behold the glories of God (Acts 9:10-12).
As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven.
We have three recorded accounts of Saul’s encounter with the glorified Christ by Luke’s authorship in the book of Acts alone. Plus we have accounts of this encounter in some of Paul’s letters to the churches. Together we can put a complete picture of what was going on in Saul’s mind and heart as we approach this study. The first thing I want to establish is the authority and inerrancy of this recorded account in the book of Acts; but to do this I must expose some misconceptions that rise from the KJV and NKJV (translations); and explain why the ESV and NASB chose a different translation. Then we will get into the study of what the Lord is actually working in Saul and the effects of his conversion.
First, let’s go down a few verses and examine the eye witnesses of Saul’s conversion. What is happening to Saul, at this point, is also effecting the men that were sent with Saul to arrest the culprits of this defection. Through a careful examination of these men we will get to the truth of Paul’s conversion story.
7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.
9 “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. (Acts 22:9 (NKJV))
12 “While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ (Acts 26:12–14 (NKJV))
The first historical account that Luke is giving the reader, (Theophilus), is a brief description of the event and leaves out major chunks of Paul’s story. Luke does this because the complete account is not necessary for the context in which he is writing in Acts 9. In Acts 9 Luke records that the men “heard” a voice and were speechless as they saw no one. The third account in Acts 26 gives a clearer understanding that the men who were with Saul also ‘saw the light’ and were knocked to the ground as the light surrounded them all, but Luke directs the reader’s attention that the light specifically isolated Saul in chapter 9 and 22. In other words it was Saul who the Lord was singling out and rebuking for this persecution. This is most likely because the ambition of Saul is the theme and purpose for which the light came upon all of them; but Luke brings it out further in Paul’s defense of himself before Agrippa to provide additional witnesses of the event in Acts 26. This would provide the necessary evidence for the validity of Paul’s testimony before Agrippa. But what we need to address is, why Luke records that the men heard “the voice” in chapter 9 between chapter 22 where the men did not “hear the voice” of Him who spoke. Is Luke contradicting himself? I beg to contend, no, he is not.
Upon examination of the Greek verb, ἀκούοντες (hearing), in verse 7 of chapter 9 we understand that the men are actively and presently hearing the event. The verb tense and voice is present and active upon the men with Saul. The ESV translators chose to translate Acts 22:9 where the same verb, ἤκουσαν, is used as “understand;” because the verb is usually used to convey that, as one “hears,” the understanding is also presumed.
ἀκούω (akouō). vb. to hear, listen, understand, pay attention. Describes the act of hearing or listening to a person with emphasis on the accurate understanding of that which is spoken.
The core meaning of this verb is “to hear.” It occurs mostly in narrative context—in the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. Hearing (akouō) is the primary means by which people receive divine revelation (Matt 13:13, 15; 1 John 1:1). In the context of learning, hearing (akouō) is the means by which people receive insight and knowledge.
Davis, D. L. (2014). Learning. D. Mangum, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, & R. Hurst (Eds.), Lexham Theological Wordbook. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
But in chapter 22:9 the Greek adverb, οὐκ (not), follows, ἤκουσαν (hear), by which the ESV translators rightly translate the word to mean “understand;” because, οὐκ, marks the verb as a negative, and also brings out the opposite definition of the word’s original intent. 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. (Acts 22:9 (ESV)) Therefore Luke’s intent was not to say that the men had no recollection of the sound of a voice, but that the men didn’t comprehend what they heard. It was as if the Lord was speaking a tongue that the men had not known (understood). 21 In the law it is written: “With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,” says the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:21 (NKJV)) We see this further brought out by Luke in chapter 26 of Paul before Agrippa.
Acts 26:14 (NKJV)
14 And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
To give you an understanding of the primary language of the culture during the times of Christ and the apostles we need a historical lesson. I am not going to go too deep into how we know what the primary language would have been for the majority of those common people in the region, but I will give you a brief study of another scholar's work, and; if you want to research it further on your own, you can click the source link here [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/what-language-did-jesus-speak-why-does-it-matter/]. Again, it is important for us to understand what the primary language was, to eliminate any "superficial" contradictions in Luke's account of Paul's conversion story, because of the three separate accounts of it in the book of Acts that appear to conflict. Dr. Mark Roberts has done a thorough and very articulated study of why Jesus and the majority of the surrounding culture spoke Aramaic:
There is evidence, however, that points to the use of Aramaic in Galilee, the region where Nazareth was located. Such evidence includes inscriptions, contracts, and other ancient writings. It makes sense that residents of Nazareth spoke Aramaic, given the fact that Aramaic became the official language of Galilee from the sixth-century B.C. onward. Thus, it seems likely that ordinary residents of Galilee, including Nazareth, spoke Aramaic as their first language. This was the language of common discourse among Jesus’ family and friends.
A few scholars believe that people in Nazareth spoke Hebrew as their primary language. This is possible, but unlikely. Hebrew may well have been used primarily among some people in Judea (south of Galilee), among Jewish separatists (those who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls), and among Jewish theologians, but even among these people Aramaic is prevalent. As far as I know, we have no strong evidence for the common use of Hebrew in Nazareth and the surrounding region of Galilee. However, Hebrew was the language of theological inquiry and debate among Jews, in addition to the language of their Scriptures. Scholars from the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research acknowledge the multilingual environment of Jesus’ culture, but insist that Jewish teachers ordinarily taught in Hebrew. It’s certainly possible that Jesus himself taught in Hebrew at times (see below), but, given his widespread interaction with common people and not just scholars and the fact that his early teaching was in Galilee, it seems more reasonable to assume that Jesus spoke Aramaic and used this language for much of his teaching.
In recent years, more scholars are taking seriously the possibility that Jesus spoke Greek. I’ll examine relevant evidence from the Gospels later in this series. For now, it is worth nothing that Greek was commonly used in certain strata of Galilean society. This began when Alexander the Great conquered the region in 332 B.C. Under his rule, and under the rule of those who followed him (the Ptolemies and the Seleucids), Greek was the language of government and commerce. The Romans used Latin for official communication, but Greek was the common language of the Empire.
So where does the circumstantial evidence for the language of Jesus leave us? It points to Aramaic as his first language. But the multi-lingual context of Galilee suggests that Jesus and his fellow residents of Nazareth might have spoken Hebrew and/or Greek as well. Thus, we would do well to heed the word of caution penned by Richard A. Horsley in his book, Galilee: History, Politics, People: “It is difficult in the extreme to interpret the fragmentary evidence available and draw conclusions for the use of languages in late second-temple Galilee” (p. 247). Horsley’s discussion of this issue, which is the best of which I am aware, supports the common use of Aramaic in Galilee, but documents the use of Hebrew and Greek as well (pp. 247-250).
So, the circumstantial evidence for Jesus’ use of Aramaic is strong. Yet nothing in this evidence demands that Jesus could not have known and used either Hebrew or Greek or both in his teaching.
The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – are written in Greek. Though a few scholars argue that Matthew first appeared in Hebrew or Aramaic, most believe that the four biblical Gospels were composed in Greek. Their writers might well have known Aramaic and/or Hebrew, and they may well have drawn upon oral and written sources in these Semitic languages, but when they put stylus to papyrus, then wrote in common Greek.
Yet the New Testament Gospels do include non-Greek words in the text (spelled with Greek letters). And some of these words are Aramaic. Others are probably Aramaic, though they might be a variety of Hebrew. The word Abba, for example, which means “father” or “papa” in Aramaic, can also be found in certain later Hebrew dialects. So, while Jesus’ use of Abba probably reflects his Aramaic speech, we can’t be 100% sure of this.
In Mark 3, we find the story of Jesus’ calling of the twelve disciples. In the list of those whom he called, we find these names: “James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17). The word boanerges is a Greek transliteration of an Aramaic phrase, though the precise phrase is not altogether clear. Several Aramaic options are possible.
One of the most striking Aramaic sentences found on the lips of Jesus in the Gospels is: eli eli lema sabachthani (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34 uses eloi instead of eli). The sentence is then translated into Greek by Matthew and Mark, with the English meaning: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” This, as it turns out, is a quotation from Psalm 22:1, which reads in Hebrew: ‘eli ‘eli lama ‘azavtani. (Here you can see, by the way, an example of the similarity between Aramaic and Hebrew.) The fact that Matthew and Mark have Jesus speaking in Aramaic does suggest that this line was remembered by the early Christian community in its original language, namely, Aramaic. But the ancient manuscripts of the Gospels include a variety of options, so we can’t be completely positive of what Matthew and Mark wrote, or which language Jesus spoke. He could have used Hebrew, which was translated and passed down in Aramaic by the early church.
The clearest example of Aramaic on the lips of Jesus in the Gospels occurs in Mark 5:41. Jesus entered the home of a synagogue leader whose daughter had died. “Holding her hand, he said to her, ‘Talitha koum,” which means “Little girl, get up!” Both Matthew and Luke tell this same story, but without the Aramaic sentence (Matt 9:24; Luke 8:54). Matthew simply describes the healing while Luke includes only the Greek translation. Mark, however, passes on what appears to be the actual words of Jesus, word in Aramaic.
Mark 5:41 provides persuasive evidence for Jesus’ use of Aramaic in this particular instance. But the text does not tell us exactly what to make of this usage. One could argue that Mark’s account of the raising of the girl shows that Jesus’ use of Aramaic was unusual, and that’s why it was remembered. Or one could conclude that Jesus used Aramaic in this situation, which was not, at any rate, a teaching time.
Dr. Roberts has laid the extensive ground work to give us evidence of the primary tongue (Aramaic) of the people who lived around the regions where Jesus and the apostles would have been evangelizing; but, for me and you in this study, also to explain why the temple guards heard the voice but wouldn’t have been able to understand what the Lord spoke to Saul in the Hebrew tongue (Acts 26:14). This multi-lingual culture would also explain why it was necessary for the apostles and other disciples to miraculously need a ramped up education in languages at Pentecost noted in the beginning of our study of Acts. The men who were sent with Saul were most likely hired temple guards and may have not been educated in the Hebrew tongue. They most likely would have been hired Roman mercenaries trained to keep peace in Jerusalem for Pilate, the Roman governor of the region; or hired slaves of the wealthy Sanhedrin, who bought them as former Roman soldiers, who may have not observed the Hebrew tongue. The wealthy of Jerusalem, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, would have been well educated and observed multi-lingual tongues to do business with Rome. Therefore, Saul, who was a Pharisee, was trained to read and write in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic being a citizen of Tarsus and of Israel.
Upon this information we are without excuse to the inerrancy, authenticity, and preserved account of the Word of God. We have been confronted and corrected with any misconceptions that may have risen out of a superficial reading and examination of Paul’s testimony. The Scriptures by Dr. Roberts own observation and a systematic approach to the full account of Paul’s testimony proves the Scriptures sufficiency to equip the man of God for doctrine, correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. And upon Who these truths reveal, we can rejoice and be exceedingly glad.
