The Enemy Surrenders
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do,” etc. — Acts ix. 5-14.
SAUL wTas immediately and fully aware that he had a person to deal with. “Whether, in the first moment of I his terror, all that Stephen had preached of Jesus living and reigning flashed into his memory, we do not know; but it; is probable that the thought of Jesus, whom Stephen saw at i his dying moment, was on Saul’s mind when he put his first! question, “Who art thou, Lord?” Jesus condescends to
answer him, for he knew that the persecutor was in earnest now: “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” In this
expression all the reproof and consolation contained in the 0 first word of the Lord is repeated and is redoubled.
The proverbial expression “kick against the pricks,” like many of the Lord’s sayings, gives a whole parable in a single sentence. Since attention has been paid to Oriental customs, the meaning of the phrase is clearly and easily understood. The oxen, while under the yoke, were goaded by a long, slender, sharpened rod. Irritated by the puncture, they sometimes kicked against the instrument that pained them. This, of course, only lacerated their limbs the more. The parable curtly intimates that Saul was in the grasp of irresistible power, and that it would be wisdom simply to submit.
His next question accordingly indicates implicit submission: “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” He surrenders at discretion. As yet, however, his knowledge is very dim. It has often been remarked that he displays the character of a novice in demanding what he should do; and that the Lord, through Ananias, sent him a message more in accordance with the cross which he was called to bear: “I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.”
But while, for great purposes, the risen Lord personally meets the arch-enemy in order to subdue him, he does not in person undertake the disciple’s instruction. He hands him over to the ministry of man. A simple Christian disciple, not otherwise known, becomes the educator of the great apostle.
While Saul lay prostrate, probably his eyes were shut; it was when he rose, and endeavoured to look around, that he discovered his blindness. When he opened his eyes he saw nothing. They led him by the hand, and brought him to Damascus.
In Damascus he remained three days and three nights, and neither did eat nor drink. During that time three main channels of communication with earth were cut off; he saw not, he ate not, he drank not. Isolated from earth, he enters into communication with Heaven; for, “behold, he prayeth.” The Spirit possesses him. Hungry, thirsty, blind, he comes to God for food, drink, sight. Nothing from the world now; all from Christ. This vessel has now been emptied, and will soon be filled again. Emptied of all below, he will be filled, through the channel of prayer, from the treasures that are at God’s right hand; emptied of himself, and filled with Christ. Thus, in conversion generally, by means more gentle or more violent, a soul is severed for a time from its relations to earth, that so it may have leisure and freedom to transact with God for eternity. The new birth is sometimes more and sometimes less prolonged, with more or less of agony.
At some points the experiences of Saul and the Ethiopian are parallel, and at some in contrast. These two journeys may be compared with profit. The Ethiopian a Gentile, Saul a Jew. The Gentile journeyed toward Jerusalem to seek Christ; the Jew journeyed from Jerusalem to persecute Christians. In the one case the Scripture exemplified is, “Seek, and ye shall find;” in the other, “I am found of them who sought me not.” The Lord on high looked sovereignly and mercifully on both travellers. He gave the one what he sought, and the other what he sought not. Both were blessed, and in the end both receivers lived to the Giver’s praise.
I have already thrown out the suggestion that if Saul and Stephen should meet in heaven, they might with profit compare notes of their several experiences. The meeting of Saul and the Ethiopian would be equally interesting. When the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed, it will be found that the devout and humble inquirer will get no more glory than the proud and cruel blasphemer. It will be found that both were made willing by the same power. There were indeed diversities of operation; but the Worker was one. This man was won by a secret distilling of the Spirit, like dew from heaven, upon his heart; that man was subdued by a sudden stroke of omnipotence: but both alike will ascribe all to the grace of their Redeemer.
After three days of blindness and fasting — three days spent, probably, in a great conflict between conscience and the Divine law — the fastenings of a stony heart at length gave way, and the penitent melted into prayer. Now that the wound has gone deep enough, a healing ministry will be sent. Go to him, Ananias; for, “behold, he prayeth.” Now that the branch is let into the vine, it is Christ in one of his members who is hungry and blind, and weeping there. The Lord in heaven changes his voice now: “Ananias, leave not Me any longer in darkness and want in the house of Judas, in the street that is called Straight.”
The conflict that raged during those three days in the stricken persecutor’s breast, has been in part recorded for our instruction. The self-dissection contained in Rom. vii. must have had a great deal to do with the three days of agony in Damascus.
Although certified that Saul was praying, Ananias did not immediately feel at ease in the prospect of meeting him. The lion is now ready to lie down with the kid, but the kid naturally starts back at first sight of that dreaded beast of prey.
Another new name occurs here first as applied to the disciples of Christ — Ananias calls them “thy saints.” He must have known that they deserved that name, otherwise he would not have ventured to apply it to them in speaking to the Searcher of hearts.
This last name has borne a great part in history. It was at first a true designation. The name sprung up naturally from a root of fact. These men were separated from the vanity and the wickedness of the world. They had a home on high, and they did not lay up treasures on earth. They walked with God, and did not lie to men. They expected to stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and did not overreach their neighbours in business. They had been themselves bought with a price, and owed all to forgiving love; therefore they were ready to forgive even unto seventy times seven provocations.
But in process of time the word was turned aside from its true meaning, and applied to those whom the hierarchy of Rome delighted to honour. Some very good men, and some very bad men, have obtained at different times that Divinity degree from the Pope and his council. It is now an expensive and worthless form. As a natural consequence of the misuse of the name in what was called the Church, the world outside has in modern times turned it into a term of reproach. It is very often employed as a sneer. But, although a false pretence to saintship deserves ail the mockery it gets, it remains that there is such a thing as holiness (comparative) not in heaven only, but also here on earth. Through the grace of God, and by the ministry of the Spirit, a real holiness is wrought in the heart and life of Christians. It is their part to strive after more. What a noble aim is set before us! to fill up this character with substantial purity and truth, so wrenching the weapon from the scorner’s hand.