2. Conversion. — But while thus, in his ignorance and unbelief, he was seeking to be "injurious" to the cause of Christ, the great Author of Christianity was about to make him a distinguished trophy of its power, and one of the most devoted and successful of its advocates. The persecutor was to be converted. A.D. 30. What the nature of that conversion was we are now to ob- serve.
Having undertaken to follow up the believers " unto strange cities," Saul naturally turned his thoughts to Damascus, expecting to find among the numerous Jew- ish residents of that populous city some adherents of " the way" (jriQ oSoi)), and trusting, we must presume, to be allowed by the connivance of the governor to ap- prehend them. What befell him as he journeyed thith- er is related in detaU three times in the Acts, tirst by the historian in his own person, then in the two ad- dresses made by Paul at Jerusalem and before Agrippa. These three narratives are not repetitions of one an- other: there are differences between them which some critics choose to regard as irreconcilable. Considering that the same author is responsible for all the accounts, we gain nothing, of course, for the authenticity of their statements by bringing them into agreement ; but it I seems quite clear that the author himself could not have been conscious of any contradictions in the nar- ratives. He can scarcely have had any motive for placing side by side inconsistent reports of Paul's con- version ; and that he should have admitted inconsist- encies on such a matter through mere carelessness is hardlj' credible. Of the three narratives, that of the historian himself must claim to be the most purely historical: Paul's subsequent accounts were likely to be affected by the purpose for which he introduced them. Luke's statement is to be read in Acts ix, 3-19, where, however, the words, " It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks," included in the Vulgate and Eng- lish version, ought to be omitted. The sudden light from heaven ; the voice of Jesus speaking with author- ity to his persecutor; Saul struck to the ground, blind- ed, overcome; the three days' suspense; the coming of Ananias as a messenger of the Lord; and Saul's bap- tism— these were the leading features, in the eyes of the historian, of the great event, and in these we must look for the chief significance of the conversion.
Let us now compare the historical relation with those which we have in Paul's speeches (Acts xxii and xxvi). The reader will do well to consider each in its place. But we have here to deal with the bare fact of agree ment or difference. With regard to the light, the speeches add to what Luke tells us that the phenome-| non occurred at mid-day, and that the light shone roundj and was visible to Saul's companions as well as to hinij
PAUL
791
PAUL
self. The second speech says that at the shining of tliis light the whole company ('-we all") fell to the ground. This is not contradicted by what is said (ix, 7), " The men which journeyed with him stood speechless," for there is no emphasis on " stood," nor is the standing antithetical to Saul's falling down. We have but to suppose the others rising before Saul, or standing still afterwards in greater perplexity, through not seeing or hearing what Saul saw and heard, to reconcile the nar- ratives without forcing either. After the question, "Why persecutest thou me?" the second speech adds, " It is hard for thee to kick against the goads." Then both the speeches supply a question and answer — " I answered, Who art tliou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus (of Nazareth), whom thou persecutest." In the direction to go into Damascus and await orders tliere, the first speech agrees with Acts ix. But whereas ac- cording to that chapter the men with Saul " heard the voice," in the first speech it is said " they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." It seems reasonable to conclude from the two passages that the men actually heard sounds, but not, like Saul, an articulate voice. With regard to the visit of Ananias, there is no col- lision between the ninth chapter and the first speech, the latter only attributing additional words to Ananias. The second speech ceases to give details of the conver- sion after the words, "I am Jesus, whom thou perse- cutest. But rise, and stand on thy feet." Paul adds, from the mouth of Jesus, an exposition of the purpose for which he had appeared to him. It is easy to say that in ascribing these words to Jesus, Paul or his pro- fessed reporter is violating the order and sequence of the earlier accounts. But, if we bear in mind the nat- ure and purpose of Paul's address before Agrippa, we shall surely not suppose that he is violating the strict truth, when he adds to the words which Jesus spoke to him at the moment of the light and the sound, without interposing any reference to a later occasion, that fuller exposition of the meaning of the crisis through which he was passing, which he was not to receive till after- wards. What Saul actually heard from Jesus on the way as he journeyed was afterwards interpreted, to the mind of Saul, into those definite expressions. For we must not forget that, whatever we hold as to the ex- ternal nature of the phenomena we are considering, the whole transaction was essentially, in any case, a spirit- val communication. That the Lord Jesus manifested himself as a living person to the man Saul, and spoke to him so that his very words could be understood, is the substantial fact declared to us. The purport of the three narratives is that an actual conversation took place between Saul and the Lord Jesus. It is remark- able that in none of them is Saul said to have seen Jesus. The grounds for believing that he did so are the two expressions of Ananias (Acts ix, 17), " The Lord Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way," and (Acts xxii, 14) '• That thou shouldest see the Just One," and the statement of Paul (1 Cor. xv, 8), " Last of all he was seen of me also." Comparing these passages with the narratives, we conclude either that Saul had an in- stantaneous vision of Jesus as the Hash of light blinded him, or that the "seeing" was that apprehension of his presence which would go with a real conversation. lloiv it was that Saul "saw" and "heard," we are quite unable to determine. That the light, and the sound or voice, were both different from any ordinary phenome- na with which Saul and his companions were familiar, is unquestionably implied in the narrative. It is also implied that they were specially significant to Saul, and not to those with him. We gather therefore that there were real outward phenomena, through which Saul was made inwardly sensible of a presence revealed to him alone. (See below.) Externalh', there was a flash of light. Spiritually, " the light of the Gospel of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God," shone upon Saul, and convicted the darkness of the heart which had shut out love and knew not the glory