Acts 9:3-19 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:… There are three accounts of the conversion of St. Paul, and they are all in this book. The first is the account of Luke here; the two others are by Paul himself — one to an infuriated mob in chap. Acts 22, the other before Agrippa in chap. Acts 26. Let us — I. EXAMINE THE APPARENT DISCREPANCIES IN DETAIL. 1. In one account the companions of Saul fell to the ground; in the other they stood wondering and astonished. But — (1) It is not at all unlikely that in the journey from Jerusalem some were on horseback and some on foot. This is the common way of making up companies in the East. I once saw a caravan, coming out of the desert into Cairo; some were upon camels, some on asses, many were walking. They had all been to Mecca and back. Those who fell, therefore, in one narrative would be those mounted; those who stood in the other would be the travellers on foot. (2) But, again, at the first shock all might have fallen, and those who were the farthest from the centre might have sooner recovered themselves, and have been standing astonished even when Saul was still lying upon the earth. 2. In one account it is said the companions of Saul did not hear the voice that spake, and in another that they did hear. Now, do you think that twelve men of common honesty and common sense would find much difficulty if there was such a discrepancy as this between two witnesses who were giving their evidence before them? The slightest cross examination would bring out the fact that in the one case what was heard was a sound, something inarticulate, mysterious, and that in the other they did not hear the words, the distinct utterance that was given. And further, the difference in the word "voice" in the two passages involves this explanation. In the one case the import is that they heard (the sound) "of the voice"; in the other, that they did not hear "the voice" itself — what was said. 3. In one account Ananias is described as "a disciple," and all that he says, and all that is said of him, is in harmony with that; in another account he is described as "a devout man according to the law," and everything that is said of him, and that he says, is in harmony with that. Well, the one account is not contradictory to, but only supplementary of, the other. But besides that, there is beauty and propriety in the different way in which Ananias is spoken of in the two cases. In the first case, where he is spoken of as being "a disciple," is in St. Luke's history of him. St. Luke was a Christian writer, writing a Christian history for Christian people, and therefore he naturally put forward the Christian side of Ananias. In the other case St. Paul is addressing an infuriated Jewish mob, all zealous for the law. With admirable tact, therefore, he endeavours to conciliate them, and he naturally puts before them Ananias' Jewish side. 4. In one case it is said that Jesus directed Paul to go into the city, and "it should be told him what he must do"; but when he is addressing Agrippa, Paul himself seems to speak as if Jesus had said to him a great deal more. Paul, I think, did not receive at the moment of his conversion, from the lips of Jesus, all that he says to Agrippa; but he did receive it all, either direct from Christ or through Ananias as commissioned by Him. In addressing Agrippa his one object was fully to set before him his apostolic commission. The substance and the source of the truth were what was important; and Paul, without attenuating his address by enumerating times and places and circumstances, exercises his common sense in so putting the matter before the king as to fix his attention on the authority and the scope of the ministry he exercised. II. SOME OBSERVATIONS ARISING OUT OF THEM. Note — 1. The nature and characteristics of human testimony. If two witnesses express themselves precisely in the same language, word for word, it is suspicious. What we look for is substantial agreement with circumstantial variations; such variations constitute, not the weakness, but the strength of the testimony. We have human testimony in this book. Inspiration in respect to some things was necessarily verbal, but, had it always been that, you could never have two accounts of anything. And, moreover, if the guiding inspiration had to be such that every word was to be exactly just that which was uttered, then you have no human agent, with his freedom and intelligence, giving his evidence, but exclusively the dictations of the presiding mind, and these mechanically conveyed. A mere automaton might have been set in motion to do that. On this hypothesis the Bible might have been photographed, and that, too, in human language, by a Divinely directed, material force. You have something better than that. You have Divine thought; but you have that communicated by conscious and active minds. Of course, if we had the witnesses before us, we should soon be able, by a little cross examination, to harmonise their statements. 2. These three different accounts were all written by the same hand. Though the first account only is in the words of Luke, the others being in the words of St. Paul, yet Luke wrote them all down; they lay before his eye; he could compare them as we do. Luke was a man of education and intelligence; of disciplined faculty and sound judgment. Now, if he had included what was inherently contradictory in a book written for the express purpose that those who read it should know the certainty of the things in which they had been instructed, do you suppose that he would not be conscious of the discrepancy? And do you not see that it was in his power to remove it? He could easily have made the accounts harmonise. But he did not think it worth while to do it. (T. Binney.) Parallel Verses KJV: And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: |
    |