I’ve often heard people claim that Saul of Tarsus confessed the deity of Christ during his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road by calling him “lord.” We read: “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ 5 ‘Who are you, Lord? Saul asked. ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.” (Acts 9:3-5)
Those who see a confession of Jesus’ deity in this passage assert that as a monotheistic Jew, Saul’s acknowledgement of Jesus as “Lord” would be an explicit affirmation of His deity since Jews used “Lord” as a substitute for God’s name, YHWH. I find this interpretation unlikely for a number of reasons.
First, the Greek word kurios simply means “master.” It is used of both human persons as well as God. The term can be applied to anyone in a position of authority over others. Even Sarah called Abraham lord (1 Peter 3:6). Surely she was not confessing his deity! Saul recognized that any voice coming from heaven was the voice of someone with greater authority than him, and thus addressed the voice using a term that acknowledged his authority.
Second, Saul makes it abundantly clear that he does not know who is speaking to him. He explicitly asks who the speaker is. How could Saul’s use of kurios be a confession of Jesus’ deity if Saul didn’t even know he was speaking to Jesus? It was only after Saul asked the identity of the speaker that Jesus revealed His identity to Saul.
Finally, a similar case involving Cornelius and an angel, reveals that kurios is not an explicit and definite affirmation of deity. An angel appeared to Cornelius to tell him to call for Peter. This is how Cornelius responded: “What is it, Lord?” (Acts 10:4). Cornelius was a God-fearer, meaning he believed in the Jewish God and followed the Torah but was not yet circumcised. As a God-fearer, Cornelius knew that kurios was what Jews called God, but clearly He was not attributing deity to the angel when he called him kurios. He, like Saul, was merely acknowledging the angel’s superior authority.
There are plenty of passages affirming the deity of Christ, but this passage is not in that company.
Thinking to Believe 
January 27, 2023 at 9:46 am
This appears to be a rerun of Not a Prooftext for the Deity of Christ from way back in 2007. I’ll just repost my objections here:
Post 6:
Well, Bro. Jason, I have to disagree with you as well.
It is possible that 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 whom it was that was speaking to him. Let me respectfully say that your conclusion does not follow. Christ said, “…why persecutest thou me?” If Saul knew that God was speaking to him, that was probably the most shocking question he had ever heard. Saul believed that he was doing God’s will by persecuting the church. To have God ask him why he was persecuting Him would have, no doubt, floored Saul (well, he was already on the “floor”). The question, “Who art thou, Lord?” doesn’t necessarily mean that Saul didn’t know the Voice he heard was God’s Voice. It could just as easily have been a shocked and fearful request to know *exactly* whom 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.
In response to your rebuttal, Post 10:
Second, you again say that 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 that 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 that 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 that this passage is an affirmation of Christ’s deity. For if Saul knew that the voice was God’s 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 being positively convinced that your boss is pleased with your actions. You could say, “I haven’t killed you!” but that would be rather obvious since you are talking with him. You can also say, “When have I tortured you?” But, again, that would be quite odd since you know that 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 that your boss is furious with 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 propose it to demonstrate that your denial isn’t forced. I also offer it to demonstrate it is not at all a logical stretch to think that Saul knew he was addressing God when he asked that question.
And Post 12:
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.
LikeLike
February 6, 2023 at 11:49 pm
Scalia, the part of verse 6 that you are referring to for the additional two references to “Lord” are in a textual variant. These phrases appear in the KJV but not modern translations because scholars have deemed them to be textual interpolations. But for the sake of argument, let’s say they are original to the text. What then? The two additional instances of Lord are not equal. The second is from Luke, the narrator. Luke, long after the event, knew the identity of the lord who spoke to Paul. That doesn’t mean Paul did at the time. Besides, by the time Luke uses “Lord” in the story, Jesus had already revealed who He is to Paul. So at this point in the story Luke was fine to identify Jesus as Lord as well. But I’m not even convinced that every reference to Jesus as “lord” in the NT is being used synonymously with YHWH. It is sometimes, but other times it is just used as “master.” So let’s focus on the first additional appearance of “lord” (in “lord, what will you have me do?”). I have two thoughts.
First, there would be nothing weird about using “lord” to mean superior before you know the voice is divine, and then “lord” to mean YHWH after you know the voice is divine since the same word is used both ways. If YHWH appeared to a Jew in human form like He did to Abraham, they might naturally call him “lord” out of respect (like our “sir”), but then call him “Lord” as in YHWH once his true identity had been revealed.
Second, I’m not convinced that Paul would have known Jesus was YHWH at this point. Why would he associate Jesus with YHWH? He would either have to be aware of Jesus’ claims to deity during His ministry, or be aware that Christian believers claimed Jesus was YHWH (but in the latter case, he could have thought that Christian believers were making that up). Was he aware of either? Perhaps, but I don’t know. It’s possible that he saw Jesus as a mere false prophet. If so, hearing that same Jesus speak to him from heaven would let Paul know that Jesus was from God (rather than a blasphemer), but that’s not the same thing as letting Paul know that Jesus was God. Perhaps Paul only learned of Jesus’ deity at some later point. If so, then Paul’s first and second instance of “lord” have the same meaning.
As for the fact that the voice told Saul that Saul was persecuting him, why think that Paul would connect that with Jesus? When Paul heard those words, perhaps he was dumbstruck because he did not see himself as persecuting anyone. He saw himself as being zealous for God’s truth. Or, perhaps he would have agreed that what he was doing was persecution, but even then, how would he connect that to Jesus? The voice said that Saul was persecuting HIM? If anything, Paul would have thought of specific individuals that he had persecuted (such as Stephen). He had never persecuted Jesus himself, so why would Paul think that it was Jesus talking to him? It seems to me that he would have been more likely to think Stephen was speaking to him from heaven.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t make any sense to think Saul knew who was speaking to him given the fact that he asked the speaker to identify himself. Maybe he thought it was likely to be YHWH. Maybe he thought it could be Jesus. Maybe he thought it was the voice of Stephen. We don’t know. All we know is that he clearly wasn’t certain as to whose voice it was. And if he wasn’t certain as to who it was, then it is very unlikely that he would address the person with “lord” (with YHWH as the intended meaning).
I won’t disagree with you that the text does not make your interpretation impossible. I just think it makes it very unlikely. As such, I don’t think anyone should use this verse as a prooftext for the deity of Christ.
LikeLike
February 7, 2023 at 10:20 pm
Bro. Jason writes:
You’re adopting a theory of textual criticism that I do not. The vast majority of manuscripts contain that reading, so it’s hardly an “interpolation.” Moreover, translations (e.g., the Peshitta) which predate the oldest Greek manuscripts contain that reading. The idea that an extremely small handful of older manuscripts that have significant internal problems somehow trumps the vast majority of manuscripts from a wide geographic area is rather preposterous.
You’re overlooking my objection that humans can instinctively sense the presence of God. It wasn’t as if Paul was trucking along on a horse and saw a regal-looking fella waive at him from the side of the road. Rather, the Almighty God appeared to him in a blinding light and knocked him to the ground. His sensing the presence of God is not at all “unlikely.”
From what we know, the only group Saul was attacking was the church. Indeed, the purpose of his journey was to continue that persecution in Damascus. I agree that Saul was stunned by the question. But if he recognized God’s presence in the Voice that spoke to him, then his counter question is understandable. “Who are you??” In other words, “If I am persecuting God, then I need to know specifically in what way I am doing so.” It isn’t at all far-fetched, especially since one of the main purposes of the New Testament is to reveal the deity of Jesus.
LikeLike
February 27, 2023 at 8:56 pm
The point of the text was not to prove that Paul knew who Jesus was but rather to show that by responding “Lord” (a title also giving to God, whose name is Jesus), Paul inadvertently (unbenounced to his own self) revealed the God he did know to be the Jesus he thought was only an imposter. Furthermore, his subsequent actions and activities proved that his inadvertant revelation completely changed his life and theology. His studies under Aquilla and Priscilla, and three years in the desert with Jesus, reinforced his initial, Damascus-road experience.
LikeLike