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