I’ve often heard Christians appeal to Paul’s Damascus road experience in support of the deity of Christ. We read: “As he was going along, approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 So he said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ He replied, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting!” (Acts 9:3-5)
It’s said that as a monotheistic Jew, Paul’s acknowledgement of Jesus as “Lord” is an explicit attribution of deity. I find this interpretation unlikely. First, the Greek word kurios simply means “master,” and is used of both human persons as well as God. The term applies to anyone who is in a position of authority over someone else. For example, we read that Sarah called Abraham “lord.” If anyone knew Abraham was not a god, it was Sarah! We have no reason to believe Paul used the term because He thought He was speaking to the one true God. He recognized that any voice speaking to him from heaven must be coming from someone who had authority over him, and thus addressed the as-of-yet unknown person with a term that acknowledged his authority.
In fact, Paul’s words, and the chronology of the event make it abundantly clear that He did not know He was speaking to the great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. For one, he had to ask who it was that was speaking to him. How could he affirm as God one whose identity he did not know? Secondly, Paul’s acknowledgement of the lordship of the speaker was made prior to the speaker identifying Himself as Jesus. How could Paul have been affirming the deity of Christ when He did not even know it was Christ when he called Him lord?
Finally, Luke recounts a nearly identical situation in Acts 10 regarding Cornelius’ conversation with the angel. We read, “He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. 4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God” (Acts 10:3-4). Was Cornelius confessing the angel to be YHWH because Cornelius addressed him as “lord?” Clearly not.
There are plenty of passages affirming the deity of Christ, but this is not one of them.
Thinking to Believe 
September 21, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Greetings! in the name of the Lord Jesus who is God most High.
Again! I would have to disagree with you that Paul of Tarsus (or rather Saul of Tarsus) knew that he was speaking unto the one true God. Because being that he was a student of the old testament which affirms that there exist only “one Lord”. Therefore he was not referring to any other Lord than that Lord of heaven and earth. So, he knew that he was referring to Jesus Christ but he did not know of the one true God as that identity as Jesus Christ but as Jehovah until he was granted revelation of his new testament name.
God bless you always! in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
September 22, 2008 at 11:28 am
Marguet,
I am not understanding your point. Yes, Paul was a monotheist, but by Paul’s own confession, he did not know who was speaking to him. Furthermore, his “confession” of “Lord” preceded Jesus’ self-disclosure to Paul.
My larger point was that Paul’s use of “lord” does not automatically indicate that he had deity in mind. “Lord” was used very broadly in the OT, including for humans.
Jason
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Greetings! in the name of the Lord Jesus who is God most High.
I understand your point that you are attempting to make that Paul of Tarsus could have been thinking of Lord in terms of someone whom is higher in positon or authority than him. To this I disagree citing that only one Lord had the power to demonstrate his power unto Paul that is God Almighty. So, in other words this can be used as a proof text for the deity of Jesus Christ or rather his Supreme Deity.
God bless you always! in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 10:06 am
That is circular reasoning, and ignores the fact that Paul obviously did not know who was speaking to him when he called the unknown (to him) person “Lord.” How can you take a question that stems from Paul’s ignorance, and make it out to be a confession of Jesus’ deity? He was seeking to know who was speaking to him, so how could he be confessing Jesus as God?
Jason
LikeLike
October 9, 2008 at 10:47 am
Greetings! in the name of the Lord Jesus who is God most High.
Brother Dulle! Brother Paul of Tarsus both new the God of all creation that encountered him on the road to Damascus and did not know him. Which means that he did not know his new testament name of Jesus.
God bless you always! in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
March 17, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Well, Bro. Jason, I have to disagree with you as well.
It is possible Saul recognized the divine character of the One speaking to him. As human beings have the capacity to feel God and instinctively know that God is “touching” them, so Saul could have instantly recognized the presence of God as he was knocked to the earth.
You question this interpretation because Saul had to ask who it was that was speaking to him. Let me respectfully say your conclusion does not follow. Christ said, “…why persecutest thou me?” If Saul knew God was speaking to him, that was probably the most shocking question he had ever heard. Saul believed he was doing God’s will by persecuting the church. To have God ask him why he was persecuting Him would, no doubt, have floored Saul (well, he was already on the “floor”). The question, “Who art thou, Lord?” doesn’t necessarily mean Saul didn’t know the Voice he heard was God’s Voice. It could just as easily be a shocked and fearful request to know *exactly* who he was persecuting.
Moreover, kurios is used twice in the questioned passage, in the same context. Saul used it and the text immediately says, “And the Lord (kurios) said…” Saul goes on to say, “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” The text then follows, “And the Lord said unto him…” Although your interpretation appears reasonable, it is not textually required. It also appears one must equivocate to sustain your interpretation.
Kind regards,
Scalia
LikeLike
March 19, 2009 at 1:18 am
Scalia,
Surely Paul recognized that it was a divine figure: it came from heaven. But it could have been an angel for all he knew. When He asked, “Who are you Lord?”, clearly He did not know the identity of the being who knocked him off his horse with a bright light, and spoke to him. Otherwise it wouldn’t make sense for him to inquire as to Jesus’ identity. And Jesus only revealed His identity to Paul after Paul asked this question. Apparently Jesus took Paul to be asking a question, rather than affirming Him to be the God of heaven (and I think you’d agree that Jesus couldn’t have misunderstood Paul).
Jesus asked Paul why he was persecuting Him. Surely this did not tip Paul off as to who was speaking to him, because Paul was persecuting Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah—he was not persecuting Jesus, and he was not persecuting God (even though Jesus counted it as persecution against Himself personally). So I don’t buy the notion that when Jesus asked Paul why he was persecuting Him, that this was “the most shocking question he had ever heard” because “Saul believed he was doing God’s will by persecuting the church” and would have been “floored” to discover he was persecuting God Himself.
The meaning of kurios is similar to our “sir,” but a little stronger (This is similar to Spanish-speaking believers. I’ll never forget the first time I heard a Spanish brother praying to God calling Him “senior.” That’s the same thing they would call me, but clearly they don’t think of me as God.). It was used of both humans and God. Sarah called Abraham “lord.” It was a word used for those in a position of authority. Whoever it was that was speaking to Paul was obviously an authority since he was speaking from heaven. Paul recognized this, and thus addressed the person behind the voice/light as “lord.” But to say he had YHWH in mind goes beyond the text, and is historically implausible. The fact that Luke refers to Jesus as “Lord” in a stronger sense is not surprising, because Luke is the narrator and knows who Jesus really is. Once Jesus disclosed his identity to Paul, yes, Paul spoke to Jesus calling him “lord.” Even then, Paul may or may not have been thinking “YHWH.” After all, just because Jesus spoke from heaven does not mean He is YHWH Himself. He could just be a man who was raptured into heaven like Enoch and Elijah. I’m not saying this is what Paul was thinking, but I am saying it is not clear that Paul immediately understood Jesus to be God from this incident, although he could have. Even if he did, I don’t see how that poses a problem to my take on this event. Paul would simply have used kurios in a different way after he learned of Jesus’ identity.
Jason
LikeLike
March 19, 2009 at 9:11 am
Hi, Jason!
Thank you for your reply, but your post is basically a restatement of your position.
Since I am the world’s most qualified expert on what I think (excepting God), I can confidently say if I thought I were doing God service, and if God asked me why I was persecuting Him, His question would definitely be the most shocking question I had ever heard. Someone humorously observed, “You can’t box God because your arms are too short.” If God is telling me I am persecuting Him, it would be obvious to me He must be referring to something tangible. It is no logical stretch to then ask WHO it is I am persecuting that God is identifying with.
Again, your first paragraph restates your position and adds “…it could have been an angel for all he knew.” But that sidesteps the point. It is also possible he *knew* it was God for aforementioned reasons. Your conclusion follows IF he didn’t know it was God, but it does not follow IF he knew it *was* God.
I am not saying we can read Saul’s mind. I am saying your objection, in itself, is not forced by the text.
Your point about kurios is well taken, albeit well-known. The use of “Lord” in itself does not mean “God” nor does its use preclude God.
Kind regards,
Scalia
LikeLike
March 29, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Scalia,
Yes, you are the most qualified expert on what you think, but not on what Paul was thinking. Neither of us are, and that is the issue. So we have to gather what we can from the text itself.
I just don’t see any indication in the passage that Paul knew the person speaking to Him was God. If he knew it was God, his first question is quite odd. If he knew it was God, wouldn’t it make more sense for his initial response to have been “How am I persecuting you?”, rather than “Who are you?” If I hear a voice say to me “Why haven’t you taken out the trash?”, and I know the voice belongs to my wife, I would not respond “Who are you?” I would respond, “How is it that I have not taken out the trash? Look for yourself. The trash is gone” Only if I was not certain who was speaking to me would I ask “Who are you?” before I answer their question. So it seems highly improbable to me that Paul knew it was God speaking to him (and he surely did not know it was Jesus, so even if he recognized the voice as God’s, calling Him “Lord” could not possibly have been an affirmation of Jesus’ deity!). Would that be his first inclination? I would imagine so, given his monotheism. But that is by no means certain, since Paul knew from Scripture that angels also have a glory, and speak to men. The fact that Paul’s first question is “who” rather than “how” tells me that at the very least, Paul was not certain of the identity of the one speaking to him, even if he thought it was probably God.
Jason
LikeLike
March 30, 2009 at 9:38 am
Jason, thank you for your message. I am tempted to agree to disagree but your supporting argumentation in this latest reply prompts me to comment further.
First, I did not say I am the world’s most qualified expert on what Saul was thinking. How did you get that from what I said? My comment was in reply to your other post and has nothing to do with reading Saul’s mind. In fact, I explicitly said neither of us could read Saul’s mind so I’m scratching my head over that one.
Second, you again say you do not see any indication in the passage that Saul knew God was speaking to him; but if you recall my messages, I never claimed that interpretation is forced by the text. I claimed your interpretation is not forced by the text. My claim is that it is possible Saul knew it was God; and if that is the case, your rejection of this passage as a proof-text for Christ’s divinity does not follow. You say even if Saul (Paul) knew it was God’s voice, calling Him Lord could not possibly have been an affirmation of Christ’s deity. Perhaps from what Saul knew at that time, that is the case; but you cannot, then, deny this passage is an affirmation of Christ’s deity. For if Saul knew the voice was God and used the word Lord to indicate that, and if the same voice identified itself as Jesus, then it follows that Jesus is God.
Your “take out the trash” counterexample is an apple to an orange. Let’s say you’re a key member of a terrorist group and your boss (whose name is Rajah) has been away for several years. A new group whose boss is Meejah moves into your operative area and you deem it a threat to your boss’s interests. You are busily performing drive-by shootings, the bombing of key sites occupied by your enemy, and the kidnapping and torture of that group’s members (for information) when suddenly your boss walks up to you, slams you to the ground and says, “Why are you torturing and killing me?” Let us also say you boss looks perfectly healthy without a scratch on his body. Now remember, you have tortured and killed numerous members of the rival group while positively convinced your boss is pleased with your actions. You could say, “I haven’t killed you!” but that is quite obvious since you are talking with him. You can also say, “When have I tortured you?” but, again, that is quite odd since you know you have never tortured him. You might ask, “What are you talking about?” and that is a valid response. However, if you both feared and respected your boss, that might be deemed a tad cheeky. As C. S. Lewis might say, all this takes longer to type than to experience, but you can imagine how horrified you would be to realize your boss is furious at you for attacking him when you had no intention of doing so and would, no doubt, wonder who it is your boss is identifying with. In this context, it is not at all far-fetched to ask, “Who are you, boss?” And your boss says, “I am Meejah.” Your counterexample does not work because it is disanalogous. The analogy I offer makes the question understandable in light of its context.
Again, the option I offer is not forced by the text either. I merely offer it to demonstrate your denial isn’t forced. I also offer it to demonstrate it is not at all a logical stretch to think Saul knew he was addressing God when he asked that question.
Thanks again for your message.
Best wishes,
Scalia
LikeLike
April 30, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Scalia,
I can see how my statement about not being able to read Paul’s mind could be read as a slap, but I did not mean it that way at all. It was meant as an affirmation of your own statements to the same effect. My point was that you are right about mind reading, which is why we can only infer what was going on by the words in the text itself.
It’s hard to come by an interpretation that is utterly forced by a text. While I’ll admit you’re take on the passage is possible, it seems so remotely possible to me as to be rendered highly unlikely. After all, if Saul genuinely didn’t know who was talking to him, how else could he have said it? He would have said it exactly the way he did. When people do not know someone’s identity, they ask “Who are you?” Could they say those words with the meaning of your fictitious terrorist? I suppose so, but that is very abnormal usage (even in your analogy I think that question being asked is a stretch), and thus highly improbable.
In what way was my illustration disanalogous? The point was merely that if I knew who was speaking to me, I would answer them by asking “how,” not “who.”
I think we can both agree that if someone is looking for a prooftext for the deity of Christ, this is not the place to start. At best, it’s a place to end.
Jason
LikeLike
April 30, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Perhaps you didn’t read many spy novels or watched the same on television (I grew up in the world). The proposed scenario is not at all uncommon nor “highly improbable.” An agent with a dual identity is “outed” in some way and those who know him ask who he is, or, in other words, “what is your other identity?” In this instance, Saul perhaps knows the Voice is God’s and knows from His statements He has another identity. Improbable? Not.
Your illustration is disanalogous because your wife isn’t intimating another identity.
Yes, I agree this passage isn’t where one would start to prove Christ’s deity. At best, it is supplemental.
Best wishes,
Scalia
LikeLike
April 30, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Cogency is perspectival, and I’m not finding your scenario very cogent. But I do appear to have misunderstood your terrorist analogy, or else you changed it this time, because the two seem entirely different.
Who is intimating another identity? Surely not God. I think my analogy works because it demonstrates that if we are disputing what someone is telling us, we ask “how so?” If we are not sure who is speaking to us, we ask “who?” If Paul knew it was God speaking to him from the get-go, his first question would have naturally been “How am I persecuting you?,” not “Who are you?”
At least we can agree on the ultimate value of this passage to the issue of Christ’s deity!
Jason
LikeLike
April 30, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Yes, you misunderstood my illustration because I did not change it. The terrorist’s boss has another identity which the terrorist realizes. My “spy novel” comment is merely clarification.
You deny God is intimating another identity, which I find strange. Regardless what Saul knew at the moment he first heard the Voice, you and I both agree Jesus is God almighty; we both agree Saul did not believe in Christ’s deity; and I think we both agree Jesus is beginning to reveal Himself to Saul in this passage. In that sense, it certainly follows God is intimating “another” identity to Saul — whether or not Saul knew the Personage was God.
Again, your proposal works if there is no hint of another identity. If you’re looking for agreement on that point, I think I have made that clear.
Lots of people, for one reason or another, cannot understand or be persuaded by cogent arguments. My perspective or lack thereof cannot undermine a good argument. You don’t accept mine, but I can live with that. 🙂 I’ve discussed this with brethren across the country and they don’t at all find this analysis unpersuasive. Ping-pong anybody?
In Christ,
Scalia
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:16 pm
I just added the additional argument to my original post: “Finally, Luke recounts a nearly identical situation in Acts 10 regarding Cornelius’ conversation with the angel. We read, “He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. 4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God” (Acts 10:3-4). Was Cornelius confessing the angel to be YHWH because Cornelius addressed him as “lord?” Clearly not.”
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 11:54 am
Jason writes,
Agreed, but as I stated in Post 14, “[Y]our proposal works if there is no hint of another identity. If you’re looking for agreement on that point, I think I have made that clear.” I think the “hint” of another identity is there, in which case my counter argument is plausible.
Regards.
LikeLike
September 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Why such a long drawn out talk on Paul knowing if Jesus was God, when he first met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Of course Paul did not know Jesus was God because Paul was not baptized yet. A person only receives the gift (dorea) of the Holy Spirit in baptism as revealed in Acts 2:38. Remember Paul was only baptized after he was confronted with Ananias Act 9:18 And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized;
No one confessed Jesus to be God except by the Holy Spirit. 1Jn. 4:15
Charles
LikeLike