"Kicking Against the Goads" - An Investigation into a Mystery
The Story:
It’s a well known story – so much so that even the person with little Bible knowledge may quote it from time to time. In fact, it may be SO well known, that when we come to it in Scripture, we may not read it as carefully as we should.
The Story is often erroneously referred to as “Sha’ul’s Conversion”. I say ‘erroneously’ because – as one reads about Y’shua’s life and mission, and the lives of those around Him; and as one experiences the faith journeys of our Jewish friends who have accepted Y’shua as the long-awaited Messiah of Israel – one realizes that those of a Jewish background do not convert, (that is: “change their faith”) but rather they come to the ‘fulfillment’ of their faith, or the ‘completion’ of their faith, which simply means that they plumb the depths of their relationship with God, and in so doing, return to a Righteousness which has always been his or her own calling. The Christian church, (which is responsible for this concept of Jewish conversion) has never grasped the error of this thinking. The idea of conversion is repugnant to those of the Jewish faith, and indeed, the process of evangelism with the goal of ‘conversion’ of the Jews, as proclaimed by the Christian community, for some 15 to perhaps 17 centuries now, is both imperialistic and self-centred and smacks of the evil of the Spanish Inquisition. It is Anti-Semitism at its worst![i]
In reality, it is those who are NOT Jewish, that is: the Gentiles of this world, who are the ones who have needed, and continue to need, to ‘convert’ or ‘change their faith’. While Sha’ul, (Paul) went out to the various Nations of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, and while he did go to the Jews in those places “first” (in order to proclaim that Y’shua was the long awaited Messiah of Israel), he also encountered “Gentiles” (that is: “Pagans”) everywhere, and it was these Gentiles, or “Goyim” - the Greeks, the Romans, and others who practiced culture-based religions, whom he called to conversion from their non-Jewish, multi-god-worshipping ways of life,. (One must remember that the Christian faith, as we know it, did not exist at this time.)
[However, I digress, and this is the subject of an entirely different teaching, so let me leave these thoughts for now, and get back to our story, with just this last point – that perhaps now, and in the future, we can agree to refer to the event of which I speak as “The COMPLETION of Sha'ul”.]
The telling of Shaul’s completion is available to us in three different places, all recorded in the Book of Acts. It is also referred to, if only in passing so to speak, in other areas of the Newer Covenant in which Sha’ul reminds the readers of his letters to Corinth and Galatia and also to his protégé Timothy, of his past life and his encounter with the Risen Messiah, Y’shua.
Let us look now at the story itself as Luke records it in the 1st verse of Chapter 9 in the Book of Acts. In getting to his story, we will have just read about the apostle Stephen who, for his faith in Y’shua, was martyred by stoning, (Chapter 7) an event during which we are briefly introduced to the orthodox Pharisee Sha’ul, and who, we are told, “gave his approval to [Stephen’s] murder.” (8:1)
After a brief and unrelated story in chapter 8, we read:
“Meanwhile, Sha’ul, still breathing murderous threats against the Lord’s Talmidim (disciples), went to the Cohen haGadol (High Priest) and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Dammesek (Damascus)[ii] authorizing him to arrest any people he might find, whether men or women, who belonged to “The Way”[iii], and bring them back to Yerushalayim.”
“He was on the road and nearing Dammesek, when suddenly a light from heaven flashed all around him. Falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, ‘Sha’ul, Sha’ul! Why do you keep persecuting me?’
‘Sir, who are you?’ [Sha’ul] asked.
‘I am Y’shua, and you are persecuting me. But get up, and go into the city , and you will be told what you have to do.’”
The Mystery:
The above version of the story is quoted from Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible, and it is this last line which stands out as being slightly strange. I have checked every version of Scripture I have, and they are all virtually identical – with one glaring exception.
The New International Version says: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ He replied, “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
The American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Version, both highly reliable interpretations, record the response thus: “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do.”
Peterson’s “The Message”, easily the most modern translation of Scripture to date, puts these words into the conversation: “I am Jesus, the One you’re hunting down. I want you to get up and enter the city. In the city you’ll be told what to do next.”
Finally, the New Revised Standard Version, in my opinion the most reliable modern interpretation of Scripture today, says it this way: “The reply came, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.’”
And then - there is the exception. We open with anticipation the King James Version and we read this: “And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.’ And he [Sha’ul] 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.’”
Now, forget the old English Thee’s and Thou’s and the verbs that end in ‘est’, and focus on the two differences: First, the condition in which Sha’ul finds himself, “trembling and astonished” and the fact that he somehow, in spite of his condition, musters up the courage to ask what this strange ‘apparition’ wants of him. [Let’s, for now, not worry about this strange deviation. As we proceed, we will see that the answer to our second difference will apply to this first one as well.] Second, we note the addition of something which Y’shua says, “It’s hard to kick against the pricks.” As you can likely tell from the title of this Teaching Page, this is what I wish to focus on.
Looking at the other “tellings” of Sha’ul’s Story
I noted above that we have other examples of this Story to hold up against this first description of what took place. Both of these additional accounts are found in the Book of Acts, but – while this first telling would appear to be in the words of Luke, the author of the book, (it is told in third person), the other two renditions are recorded in Sha’ul’s own words.
The second version is found in Acts Chapter 22, verses 1-11. Sha’ul has returned to Yerushalayim, after his third Mission journey, and is speaking to the crowd outside the Roman Barracks. We are told, in chapter 21, that there are many thousands of Jews who, like Sha’ul himself, have come to the fulfillment of their faith by receiving Y’shua as the Messiah of Israel. Now we learn that there are still those who have not accepted Y’shua, and these “Unbelieving Jews” (21:27), who are vociferously against Sha’ul and “The Way”, (see also 20:19) create a great ruckus. Only a few years before, Sha’ul himself would have been in the crowd, shouting against any “Messianic Believer” as he had been at Stephen’s killing, but now the tables have turned and he is seeking to explain how and why he has changed his stance.
In this telling, we see two things which stand out. First, in his own words, we see that he admits that there was a question which he asks of the Lord: “What should I do, Lord?” (22:10). This appears to lend some credence to the first deviation in the KJV account Further reasoning will be needed.
Second, there is nothing in this telling voiced by Sha’ul about “kicking against the pricks”, so we will have to go the third telling of the story.
After the ruckus in Yerushalayim, Sha’ul – still, more or less, under arrest and being held captive, appears the next day before the Sanhedrin (the council – and court system – within the Temple leadership). Again there is a commotion and Sha’ul is brought back to the Barracks. On learning of a plot against Sha’ul, the commander, Claudius Lysias, sends Sha’ul, under guard, to Caesarea to stand before Felix, the governor of the Judean Outpost. After 2 years of “Minimum Security” prison and numerous opportunities to witness to Felix about “The Way” and his Messianic beliefs, [see my facebook page for July 12, 2013 or see article “I Am A Messianic”] Sha’ul is faced with a “changing of the guard”. Governor Felix is replaced by Porcius Festus, the new Governor of Judea, and the process begins all over again. Within a fortnight of his arrival in Judea, [He travelled to Yerushalayim first] Festus brought Sha’ul forward to hear his defence against the plotters from Yerushalayim, and during this time, Sha’ul appeals to be heard by the Emperor himself, in Rome.
Before he can ship Sha’ul off to the West however, Festus welcomes King Agrippa II and his sister Bernice to Caesarea. Festus describes the situation of Sha’ul’s imprisonment and Agrippa voices his desire to hear Sha’ul’s Story. Chapter 26 of the Book of Acts relates that story, again in the words of Sha’ul directly, beginning at verse one.
“Agrippa said to Sha'ul, ‘You have permission to speak on your own behalf,’ Then Sha'ul motioned with his hand and began his defense: ‘King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate that it is before you today that I am defending myself against all the charges made against me by [the] Jews, because you are so well informed about all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently.
“So then! All Jews know how I lived my life, from my youth on, both in my own country and in Yerushalayim. They have known me for a long time, and if they are willing, they can testify that I have followed the strictest party in our religion, that is, I have lived as a Parush (Pharisee). How ironic it is that I stand on trial here because of my hope in the promise made to our fathers! It is the fulfillment of this very promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they resolutely carry on their acts of worship night and day, yet - it is in connection with this hope, your Majesty - that I am being accused by Jews! [Turning perhaps to his accusers, he adds] Why do you people consider it incredible that God raises the dead?
“I used to think it was my duty to do all I could to combat the Name of Y’shua from Natzeret, and in Yerushalayim I did so. After receiving authority from the head cohanim, I myself threw many of God’s people in prison; when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. Often I went from one synagogue to another, punishing them and trying to make them blaspheme; and in my wild fury against them, I even went so far as to persecute them in cities outside the country.
“On one such occasion, I was travelling to Dammesek with the full authority and power of the head cohanim. I was on the road, and it was noon, your Majesty, when I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my travelling companions. We all fell to the ground; and then I heard a voice saying to me – in Hebrew – ‘Sha'ul, Sha'ul! Why do you keep persecuting me? It’s hard on you to be kicking against the goads!’ I said, ‘Who are you, sir?’ And the Lord answered, ‘I am Y’shua, and you are persecuting me! But get up, and stand on your feet! I have appeared to you to appoint you to serve and bear witness to what you have already seen of me, and to what you will see when I appear to you in the future. I will deliver you from the People and from the Goyim I am sending you to open their eyes; so that they will turn from darkness to light, from the power of the Adversary to God, and thus receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who have been separated for holiness by putting their trust in me.’ So, King Agrippa, I did not disobey the vision from heaven!....’”
So here we have a possible solution to the mystery we are investigating. In his own words, before the King of most of the land we know today as Israel, and before the Roman procurator or governor, Sha'ul uses the phrase, putting it on Y’shua’s lips, “It’s hard on you to be kicking against the goads!”
Do the other versions agree with the use of the phrase in this telling?
Yes! The NASV records it in similar words, “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” The NIV agrees, using the precise same wording. Likewise, the NRSV writes: “It hurts you to kick against the goads.” coming closer to my Complete Jewish Bible version’s wording. Finally, the King James Version also includes it in this third telling of Sha'ul’s story, saying: “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”, maintaining the more anglicized wording of ‘pricks’ in place of ‘goads’. (Perhaps in 17th century Britain the word ‘goads’ would not have been recognized.) The key point is that we have agreement in all versions of the Scriptures at this point, so this is really our starting point.
What are “Goads”
The proper term would appear to be “Ox-Goads”. Let’s cheat a bit, and check out the New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (H.S. Gehman, Ed., 1970) under “goads”. We find this definition: “A long pole sharpened at the point or iron-tipped, used to urge cattle forward.” The equivalent in today’s ‘techie’ world would be a “cattle-prod”, a long pole which is electrified and used to “goad or urge on” such as might be used “by many stockyards…to keep cattle moving.” (Webster’s New World Dictionary {1952} under “prod”)
As often as not, it would require two or three men to plough a field using oxen. One man led the animals using a rope attached to a ring (there were often two oxen yoked together) while a second man behind the animals handled the plough. Either he, or a third man, would have the ox-goad. When the team stopped, the goad-handler would jab the animal in the rump in order to get him to move forward.
It’s a well known story – so much so that even the person with little Bible knowledge may quote it from time to time. In fact, it may be SO well known, that when we come to it in Scripture, we may not read it as carefully as we should.
The Story is often erroneously referred to as “Sha’ul’s Conversion”. I say ‘erroneously’ because – as one reads about Y’shua’s life and mission, and the lives of those around Him; and as one experiences the faith journeys of our Jewish friends who have accepted Y’shua as the long-awaited Messiah of Israel – one realizes that those of a Jewish background do not convert, (that is: “change their faith”) but rather they come to the ‘fulfillment’ of their faith, or the ‘completion’ of their faith, which simply means that they plumb the depths of their relationship with God, and in so doing, return to a Righteousness which has always been his or her own calling. The Christian church, (which is responsible for this concept of Jewish conversion) has never grasped the error of this thinking. The idea of conversion is repugnant to those of the Jewish faith, and indeed, the process of evangelism with the goal of ‘conversion’ of the Jews, as proclaimed by the Christian community, for some 15 to perhaps 17 centuries now, is both imperialistic and self-centred and smacks of the evil of the Spanish Inquisition. It is Anti-Semitism at its worst![i]
In reality, it is those who are NOT Jewish, that is: the Gentiles of this world, who are the ones who have needed, and continue to need, to ‘convert’ or ‘change their faith’. While Sha’ul, (Paul) went out to the various Nations of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, and while he did go to the Jews in those places “first” (in order to proclaim that Y’shua was the long awaited Messiah of Israel), he also encountered “Gentiles” (that is: “Pagans”) everywhere, and it was these Gentiles, or “Goyim” - the Greeks, the Romans, and others who practiced culture-based religions, whom he called to conversion from their non-Jewish, multi-god-worshipping ways of life,. (One must remember that the Christian faith, as we know it, did not exist at this time.)
[However, I digress, and this is the subject of an entirely different teaching, so let me leave these thoughts for now, and get back to our story, with just this last point – that perhaps now, and in the future, we can agree to refer to the event of which I speak as “The COMPLETION of Sha'ul”.]
The telling of Shaul’s completion is available to us in three different places, all recorded in the Book of Acts. It is also referred to, if only in passing so to speak, in other areas of the Newer Covenant in which Sha’ul reminds the readers of his letters to Corinth and Galatia and also to his protégé Timothy, of his past life and his encounter with the Risen Messiah, Y’shua.
Let us look now at the story itself as Luke records it in the 1st verse of Chapter 9 in the Book of Acts. In getting to his story, we will have just read about the apostle Stephen who, for his faith in Y’shua, was martyred by stoning, (Chapter 7) an event during which we are briefly introduced to the orthodox Pharisee Sha’ul, and who, we are told, “gave his approval to [Stephen’s] murder.” (8:1)
After a brief and unrelated story in chapter 8, we read:
“Meanwhile, Sha’ul, still breathing murderous threats against the Lord’s Talmidim (disciples), went to the Cohen haGadol (High Priest) and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Dammesek (Damascus)[ii] authorizing him to arrest any people he might find, whether men or women, who belonged to “The Way”[iii], and bring them back to Yerushalayim.”
“He was on the road and nearing Dammesek, when suddenly a light from heaven flashed all around him. Falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, ‘Sha’ul, Sha’ul! Why do you keep persecuting me?’
‘Sir, who are you?’ [Sha’ul] asked.
‘I am Y’shua, and you are persecuting me. But get up, and go into the city , and you will be told what you have to do.’”
The Mystery:
The above version of the story is quoted from Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible, and it is this last line which stands out as being slightly strange. I have checked every version of Scripture I have, and they are all virtually identical – with one glaring exception.
The New International Version says: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ He replied, “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
The American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Version, both highly reliable interpretations, record the response thus: “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do.”
Peterson’s “The Message”, easily the most modern translation of Scripture to date, puts these words into the conversation: “I am Jesus, the One you’re hunting down. I want you to get up and enter the city. In the city you’ll be told what to do next.”
Finally, the New Revised Standard Version, in my opinion the most reliable modern interpretation of Scripture today, says it this way: “The reply came, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.’”
And then - there is the exception. We open with anticipation the King James Version and we read this: “And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.’ And he [Sha’ul] 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.’”
Now, forget the old English Thee’s and Thou’s and the verbs that end in ‘est’, and focus on the two differences: First, the condition in which Sha’ul finds himself, “trembling and astonished” and the fact that he somehow, in spite of his condition, musters up the courage to ask what this strange ‘apparition’ wants of him. [Let’s, for now, not worry about this strange deviation. As we proceed, we will see that the answer to our second difference will apply to this first one as well.] Second, we note the addition of something which Y’shua says, “It’s hard to kick against the pricks.” As you can likely tell from the title of this Teaching Page, this is what I wish to focus on.
Looking at the other “tellings” of Sha’ul’s Story
I noted above that we have other examples of this Story to hold up against this first description of what took place. Both of these additional accounts are found in the Book of Acts, but – while this first telling would appear to be in the words of Luke, the author of the book, (it is told in third person), the other two renditions are recorded in Sha’ul’s own words.
The second version is found in Acts Chapter 22, verses 1-11. Sha’ul has returned to Yerushalayim, after his third Mission journey, and is speaking to the crowd outside the Roman Barracks. We are told, in chapter 21, that there are many thousands of Jews who, like Sha’ul himself, have come to the fulfillment of their faith by receiving Y’shua as the Messiah of Israel. Now we learn that there are still those who have not accepted Y’shua, and these “Unbelieving Jews” (21:27), who are vociferously against Sha’ul and “The Way”, (see also 20:19) create a great ruckus. Only a few years before, Sha’ul himself would have been in the crowd, shouting against any “Messianic Believer” as he had been at Stephen’s killing, but now the tables have turned and he is seeking to explain how and why he has changed his stance.
In this telling, we see two things which stand out. First, in his own words, we see that he admits that there was a question which he asks of the Lord: “What should I do, Lord?” (22:10). This appears to lend some credence to the first deviation in the KJV account Further reasoning will be needed.
Second, there is nothing in this telling voiced by Sha’ul about “kicking against the pricks”, so we will have to go the third telling of the story.
After the ruckus in Yerushalayim, Sha’ul – still, more or less, under arrest and being held captive, appears the next day before the Sanhedrin (the council – and court system – within the Temple leadership). Again there is a commotion and Sha’ul is brought back to the Barracks. On learning of a plot against Sha’ul, the commander, Claudius Lysias, sends Sha’ul, under guard, to Caesarea to stand before Felix, the governor of the Judean Outpost. After 2 years of “Minimum Security” prison and numerous opportunities to witness to Felix about “The Way” and his Messianic beliefs, [see my facebook page for July 12, 2013 or see article “I Am A Messianic”] Sha’ul is faced with a “changing of the guard”. Governor Felix is replaced by Porcius Festus, the new Governor of Judea, and the process begins all over again. Within a fortnight of his arrival in Judea, [He travelled to Yerushalayim first] Festus brought Sha’ul forward to hear his defence against the plotters from Yerushalayim, and during this time, Sha’ul appeals to be heard by the Emperor himself, in Rome.
Before he can ship Sha’ul off to the West however, Festus welcomes King Agrippa II and his sister Bernice to Caesarea. Festus describes the situation of Sha’ul’s imprisonment and Agrippa voices his desire to hear Sha’ul’s Story. Chapter 26 of the Book of Acts relates that story, again in the words of Sha’ul directly, beginning at verse one.
“Agrippa said to Sha'ul, ‘You have permission to speak on your own behalf,’ Then Sha'ul motioned with his hand and began his defense: ‘King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate that it is before you today that I am defending myself against all the charges made against me by [the] Jews, because you are so well informed about all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently.
“So then! All Jews know how I lived my life, from my youth on, both in my own country and in Yerushalayim. They have known me for a long time, and if they are willing, they can testify that I have followed the strictest party in our religion, that is, I have lived as a Parush (Pharisee). How ironic it is that I stand on trial here because of my hope in the promise made to our fathers! It is the fulfillment of this very promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they resolutely carry on their acts of worship night and day, yet - it is in connection with this hope, your Majesty - that I am being accused by Jews! [Turning perhaps to his accusers, he adds] Why do you people consider it incredible that God raises the dead?
“I used to think it was my duty to do all I could to combat the Name of Y’shua from Natzeret, and in Yerushalayim I did so. After receiving authority from the head cohanim, I myself threw many of God’s people in prison; when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. Often I went from one synagogue to another, punishing them and trying to make them blaspheme; and in my wild fury against them, I even went so far as to persecute them in cities outside the country.
“On one such occasion, I was travelling to Dammesek with the full authority and power of the head cohanim. I was on the road, and it was noon, your Majesty, when I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my travelling companions. We all fell to the ground; and then I heard a voice saying to me – in Hebrew – ‘Sha'ul, Sha'ul! Why do you keep persecuting me? It’s hard on you to be kicking against the goads!’ I said, ‘Who are you, sir?’ And the Lord answered, ‘I am Y’shua, and you are persecuting me! But get up, and stand on your feet! I have appeared to you to appoint you to serve and bear witness to what you have already seen of me, and to what you will see when I appear to you in the future. I will deliver you from the People and from the Goyim I am sending you to open their eyes; so that they will turn from darkness to light, from the power of the Adversary to God, and thus receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who have been separated for holiness by putting their trust in me.’ So, King Agrippa, I did not disobey the vision from heaven!....’”
So here we have a possible solution to the mystery we are investigating. In his own words, before the King of most of the land we know today as Israel, and before the Roman procurator or governor, Sha'ul uses the phrase, putting it on Y’shua’s lips, “It’s hard on you to be kicking against the goads!”
Do the other versions agree with the use of the phrase in this telling?
Yes! The NASV records it in similar words, “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” The NIV agrees, using the precise same wording. Likewise, the NRSV writes: “It hurts you to kick against the goads.” coming closer to my Complete Jewish Bible version’s wording. Finally, the King James Version also includes it in this third telling of Sha'ul’s story, saying: “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”, maintaining the more anglicized wording of ‘pricks’ in place of ‘goads’. (Perhaps in 17th century Britain the word ‘goads’ would not have been recognized.) The key point is that we have agreement in all versions of the Scriptures at this point, so this is really our starting point.
What are “Goads”
The proper term would appear to be “Ox-Goads”. Let’s cheat a bit, and check out the New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (H.S. Gehman, Ed., 1970) under “goads”. We find this definition: “A long pole sharpened at the point or iron-tipped, used to urge cattle forward.” The equivalent in today’s ‘techie’ world would be a “cattle-prod”, a long pole which is electrified and used to “goad or urge on” such as might be used “by many stockyards…to keep cattle moving.” (Webster’s New World Dictionary {1952} under “prod”)
As often as not, it would require two or three men to plough a field using oxen. One man led the animals using a rope attached to a ring (there were often two oxen yoked together) while a second man behind the animals handled the plough. Either he, or a third man, would have the ox-goad. When the team stopped, the goad-handler would jab the animal in the rump in order to get him to move forward.
I remember many years ago, (not as far back as in this picture, of course) helping a friend on his farm during haying season. One night we had to ‘wrestle’ with some cantankerous cows who were in need of milking, and so they had to be brought into the barn. Bob told me to hit the cows on the rump to get them going (and keep them going). I gave them a wallop, at which Bob laughed, and said, “No. Hit them hard!” Nothing I could do would move them along any more quickly, so a short 2x4 appeared on the scene. One good smack, and away went the cows to the milkers. I learned that day that sometimes a little force, even that which might appear harsh to our sensitivities, may be needed to move large animals and get them to do what you want them to do. I suspect the same is true of using an ox-goad.
At times, however, the animal can balk at the treatment. A rear leg can come up (with some great force, I might add) and try to get the cause of the pain away from him, the same as we might swat at the jab of a mosquito or horsefly. This is called “kicking at the goads”. Usually, what happens when an ox or bull kicks back, is that the jabbing (or goading) gets more frequent, or the jabs become more forceful. Thus, an animal which balks against the goad is only letting himself in for more pain.
Where did this phrase come from? (That is, ‘Why did Sha'ul use this phrase in this context?’)
As I respond to this, let me go on record as affirming that I believe, without a doubt, that Y’shua would actually have said these words to Sha'ul during the Damascus Road event, of course using the Hebrew terminology familiar to both of them. (Sha’ul says that he heard a voice speaking to him “in Hebrew”.) With that as a ground rule, then we now ask “Why do we have Sha'ul repeating it here, but not in the other two tellings?”
1. Different Audiences, Different Stories:
The first telling would have been a simple, straight-forward accounting of Sha’ul’s ministry as he related it to Luke (the author of both the Gospel of Luke and of the Book of Acts), perhaps of an evening, or during some quiet time along the road, so as to catch him up on what he had missed. (Note that Luke doesn’t join the missionaries until Sha'ul decides to go from Troas to Macedonia during his second journey. Check chapter 16, verse 10 of Acts… where the telling of Sha’ul’s story jumps from 3rd person{he, they, etc.}, to 1st person plural, {we, us}). For these purposes then, it was necessary to relate to Luke, as the scribe of Sha'ul’s ministry, only that he had had an encounter with the Messiah first hand, and that it changed his very life. Thus Luke’s account at this point, would not include the phrase.
During the second story, Sha'ul is speaking with a mixed crowd, partly of supporters / believers and partly of unbelievers / detractors, a crowd which is already in some turmoil. He is interested only in getting across the point that he had been living his life in one way, then – after meeting the Risen Messiah – his life changed. He was speaking to people of little import, politically. He gets his point across to them… that he is a Jew, that he trained under one of the most influential mentors and rabbis of the day, that he kept the law throughout his life, even presently, and that he was zealous in his earlier activities – doing just what his critics are doing in this present situation. In his defense, he says that he questioned the voice, and that he asked what he should be doing, so as to illustrate his reluctance to just ‘cow’ under the pressure, as it were. So again, there was no need to include the comment made by Y’shua which was aimed directly, and only, at Sha'ul.
The third time Sha'ul tells the story, he has (virtually) a single person audience. It’s true that off to one side is a powerful Roman governor, to whom he has appealed to be heard by Caesar. Off to the other side are his accusers who have been after Sha'ul for some time, to ‘quiet’ him. Furthermore, this is an audience who has a deeper understanding of the Jewish ways and teachings, and who will have at least heard the stories about Y’shua whom this Sha'ul was proclaiming as the Messiah. In this setting, therefore, Sha'ul is going to tell it all.
Here we have then, the full account of what took place, in Sha'ul’s own words. The reason for Sha'ul’s journey, the time of day, the bright light witnessed by all, the overwhelming power which knocks them all to the ground, the mysterious voice in Hebrew, heard, it seems only by Sha’ul, (for the others to have heard it would only have caused confusion), the question asked by Sha'ul – who are you?, the comment about Sha'ul’s rebelliousness against Y’shua, and here – alone – the comment in question which arises it seems, from Y’shua’s compassion for this newest emissary with whom Y’shua has been trying to connect for some time, and finally, in Y’shua’s words, the calling which is being placed on Sha'ul.
In this third telling, the prisoner is trying to be candid before Agrippa II and the others. While it’s true that he’s defending his position, Sha'ul is also trying to win them over to it, based on his comment to Festus in Acts 26:29. It was therefore helpful for Sha'ul to share with his listeners the comment made by Y’shua so as to show how his earlier way of dealing with “The Way” was erroneous, and that his “change of life” is more in line with God’s Will. (Note that Sha'ul’s reference to “The Way” has changed. They are now “God’s People” or, as the NASV puts it: “The Saints”.)
Understood in this way, it is easy to see why Sha'ul relates only here the comment about the goads. This is the only setting in which it would be clearly understood by the audience, only here does it make sense to include it as he defends the ministry to which he was called by comparing his old life, that of kicking against the goads, with his new life which, though it has been painful, is at least in accordance with God’s will for the him, for the people of “The Way” and for all mankind.
Or could there be a different explanation? We can see why it was necessary to share the Goad’s comment in the third account. Now let’s see why it wasn’t necessary to share it in the first version.
Luke is writing the story on the move, more or less. For Luke, it’s not just the story of Sha'ul, but of a bigger event and process. While it’s entirely possible, as we have seen, that Sha'ul may not have shared this part of the story with Luke, it’s just as possible that Luke did know about it but chose to neglect it in the first telling. Scholars have for years agreed that Luke has a different agenda for his report to Theophilos than simply to trace Sha'ul’s life-story. We read in the opening verses “And you shall be my witnesses both in Yerushalayim, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” (1:8 NASV) As one commentator puts it: “This is the three-fold outline for the Book of Acts.”
So, Luke is working to outline the bigger picture of how the Good News about Y’shua spread, little by little, from Yerushalayim to the rest of the Mediterranean world. He has shared already the accounts of the Talmidim in Yerushalayim during the initial development of “The Way”, he has shown the role played by the Ruach haKodesh (Holy Spirit) in these early stages, and he has shared individual anecdotes about small incidents along the time-line of this promulgation of the Gospel (from the small room where the Talmidim met, to the Sanhedrin on the Temple mount, from Philip and the Eunuch, to Peter at Cornelius’ house, etc. Beginning with Chapter 9, it was time to begin the greater move outward and so it was necessary to worry less about Sha'ul’s road-side experience and to get him to Dammesek where the next step in his calling was to be revealed. Thus the Goads part of the story falls by the roadside, no pun intended.
Or could there be yet a third reason? Let us return once again to the third telling of Sha'ul’s story. Between the encounter in Yerushalayim with the rabble-rousers, and Sha'ul’s meeting with Agrippa II, a little more than two years has elapsed. Sha'ul has been under confinement, however relaxed that may have been. His partners and compatriots in ministry, as well as Talmidim (followers / students) of his own have been able to spend time with him. No doubt a lot of this time has been spent in reflection on his life and ministry. No doubt, every opportunity he has had to share his story with others has been utilized to the fullest. (Sha'ul is not one to sit around and allow decay to happen.) These times of quiet reflection, and of teaching have helped him mature in his thinking. At some point, he will have been thinking about the event on the road to Dammesek, and things have perhaps fallen into place for him. [If this didn’t happen during those years in Caesarea, then I wager they happened during one (or all) of his journeys].
For us to fully comprehend where Sha'ul is coming from, however, we have to understand the metaphorical truth in Y’shua’s comment. Just as an ox or a cow needs to be goaded on toward the goal of the farmer, so we sometimes need to be goaded on by our Loving Father. Sha'ul claimed before the crowd in Yerushalayim that he had been mentored by Gamaliel, a Rabbi and mentor without equal at the time. The Talmud teaches us that he was the grand-son of Hillel, one of the greatest Rabbis in history, still revered to this day. This is the same Gamaliel we meet earlier in the Book of Acts (5:34). After “The Way” was relatively well established, and the teachings continued in the Temple and other areas of Yerushalayim, the “powers that be” in the Sanhedrin became concerned. Once again they have some of the apostles arrested and questioned them. Gamaliel cautions the council: “In the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan … be of men, it will be overthrown, but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them… [and you may find yourselves] fighting against God.”
It strikes me that any Pharisee with insight like this would have been a tremendously aware teacher – and his teaching, I believe, would have been one of the first ‘goads’ used by God to reach Sha'ul. As a member of the Parushim (pharisees), Sha'ul would have had first hand knowledge of what the new ‘sect’ of Judaism was teaching. Another Goad, yet Sha'ul kicks against it. The stoning of Stephen where Sha'ul was the official ‘cloak room attendant’ – another goad, especially with Stephen’s witness and his vision being proclaimed before Sha'ul. Jab, Jab, Jab. The metaphor is strong and it is accurate. And for every jab, Sha'ul kicked. He was a Pharisee, and he knew the Law, and he knew tradition… but he didn’t know God, not in a personal way as Y’shua had taught. And the harder he kicked, the harder God would have to goad him forward, until that day on the road when it all fell into place.
These are the thoughts that Sha'ul could have had prior to meeting Agrippa II and with new insight into its meaning, now Sha'ul can share it with his audience. And now, as Luke is drawing his account to a close, and because he is no longer focused on the spread of the Gospel as much as he is on how Sha'ul’s encounter changed his life, and how it could change the lives of those hearing his report, he relates the whole story, with claims from Moshé and the Prophets of the Tenakh.. And, interestingly, notice Festus’s reaction. He jumps up and, as if possessed by Satan, cries out trying to draw attention away from Sha'ul, with claims that he is crazy. But Sha'ul keeps his attention on the king. Notice his question to Agrippa: “King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do.” To which Agrippa says “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.[i]”(Acts 26:28 NASV) (or better, as we see in Strong’s Complete Jewish Bible: “In this short time [Agrippa says] you’re trying to convince me to become Messianic?”)
So to review, the comment about the goads is skipped over in the first telling because it is not important to the overall aim which Luke has for his account of the growth of the body of Messiah. At the same time, it is placed in the third telling because Sha'ul is being as candid as possible as he makes his defence, or because this is the first audience which would fully understand the ramifications of how Sha'ul’s life had changed and the comment is included because it clearly indicates the struggle that Sha'ul has had as he came to terms with the life changing experience of meeting Y’shua – a change he desired for them as well. In short, it belongs here in this telling, while it did not really fit in the first and second telling.
This then gives us part of our answer. But what of the rest of the mystery… “Why IS it included in the first telling of Sha'ul’s story as it’s recorded in the King James Version of the Bible, but no other version?” Now we have to do some simple reasoning, with the use of our imagination.
At times, however, the animal can balk at the treatment. A rear leg can come up (with some great force, I might add) and try to get the cause of the pain away from him, the same as we might swat at the jab of a mosquito or horsefly. This is called “kicking at the goads”. Usually, what happens when an ox or bull kicks back, is that the jabbing (or goading) gets more frequent, or the jabs become more forceful. Thus, an animal which balks against the goad is only letting himself in for more pain.
Where did this phrase come from? (That is, ‘Why did Sha'ul use this phrase in this context?’)
As I respond to this, let me go on record as affirming that I believe, without a doubt, that Y’shua would actually have said these words to Sha'ul during the Damascus Road event, of course using the Hebrew terminology familiar to both of them. (Sha’ul says that he heard a voice speaking to him “in Hebrew”.) With that as a ground rule, then we now ask “Why do we have Sha'ul repeating it here, but not in the other two tellings?”
1. Different Audiences, Different Stories:
The first telling would have been a simple, straight-forward accounting of Sha’ul’s ministry as he related it to Luke (the author of both the Gospel of Luke and of the Book of Acts), perhaps of an evening, or during some quiet time along the road, so as to catch him up on what he had missed. (Note that Luke doesn’t join the missionaries until Sha'ul decides to go from Troas to Macedonia during his second journey. Check chapter 16, verse 10 of Acts… where the telling of Sha’ul’s story jumps from 3rd person{he, they, etc.}, to 1st person plural, {we, us}). For these purposes then, it was necessary to relate to Luke, as the scribe of Sha'ul’s ministry, only that he had had an encounter with the Messiah first hand, and that it changed his very life. Thus Luke’s account at this point, would not include the phrase.
During the second story, Sha'ul is speaking with a mixed crowd, partly of supporters / believers and partly of unbelievers / detractors, a crowd which is already in some turmoil. He is interested only in getting across the point that he had been living his life in one way, then – after meeting the Risen Messiah – his life changed. He was speaking to people of little import, politically. He gets his point across to them… that he is a Jew, that he trained under one of the most influential mentors and rabbis of the day, that he kept the law throughout his life, even presently, and that he was zealous in his earlier activities – doing just what his critics are doing in this present situation. In his defense, he says that he questioned the voice, and that he asked what he should be doing, so as to illustrate his reluctance to just ‘cow’ under the pressure, as it were. So again, there was no need to include the comment made by Y’shua which was aimed directly, and only, at Sha'ul.
The third time Sha'ul tells the story, he has (virtually) a single person audience. It’s true that off to one side is a powerful Roman governor, to whom he has appealed to be heard by Caesar. Off to the other side are his accusers who have been after Sha'ul for some time, to ‘quiet’ him. Furthermore, this is an audience who has a deeper understanding of the Jewish ways and teachings, and who will have at least heard the stories about Y’shua whom this Sha'ul was proclaiming as the Messiah. In this setting, therefore, Sha'ul is going to tell it all.
Here we have then, the full account of what took place, in Sha'ul’s own words. The reason for Sha'ul’s journey, the time of day, the bright light witnessed by all, the overwhelming power which knocks them all to the ground, the mysterious voice in Hebrew, heard, it seems only by Sha’ul, (for the others to have heard it would only have caused confusion), the question asked by Sha'ul – who are you?, the comment about Sha'ul’s rebelliousness against Y’shua, and here – alone – the comment in question which arises it seems, from Y’shua’s compassion for this newest emissary with whom Y’shua has been trying to connect for some time, and finally, in Y’shua’s words, the calling which is being placed on Sha'ul.
In this third telling, the prisoner is trying to be candid before Agrippa II and the others. While it’s true that he’s defending his position, Sha'ul is also trying to win them over to it, based on his comment to Festus in Acts 26:29. It was therefore helpful for Sha'ul to share with his listeners the comment made by Y’shua so as to show how his earlier way of dealing with “The Way” was erroneous, and that his “change of life” is more in line with God’s Will. (Note that Sha'ul’s reference to “The Way” has changed. They are now “God’s People” or, as the NASV puts it: “The Saints”.)
Understood in this way, it is easy to see why Sha'ul relates only here the comment about the goads. This is the only setting in which it would be clearly understood by the audience, only here does it make sense to include it as he defends the ministry to which he was called by comparing his old life, that of kicking against the goads, with his new life which, though it has been painful, is at least in accordance with God’s will for the him, for the people of “The Way” and for all mankind.
Or could there be a different explanation? We can see why it was necessary to share the Goad’s comment in the third account. Now let’s see why it wasn’t necessary to share it in the first version.
Luke is writing the story on the move, more or less. For Luke, it’s not just the story of Sha'ul, but of a bigger event and process. While it’s entirely possible, as we have seen, that Sha'ul may not have shared this part of the story with Luke, it’s just as possible that Luke did know about it but chose to neglect it in the first telling. Scholars have for years agreed that Luke has a different agenda for his report to Theophilos than simply to trace Sha'ul’s life-story. We read in the opening verses “And you shall be my witnesses both in Yerushalayim, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” (1:8 NASV) As one commentator puts it: “This is the three-fold outline for the Book of Acts.”
So, Luke is working to outline the bigger picture of how the Good News about Y’shua spread, little by little, from Yerushalayim to the rest of the Mediterranean world. He has shared already the accounts of the Talmidim in Yerushalayim during the initial development of “The Way”, he has shown the role played by the Ruach haKodesh (Holy Spirit) in these early stages, and he has shared individual anecdotes about small incidents along the time-line of this promulgation of the Gospel (from the small room where the Talmidim met, to the Sanhedrin on the Temple mount, from Philip and the Eunuch, to Peter at Cornelius’ house, etc. Beginning with Chapter 9, it was time to begin the greater move outward and so it was necessary to worry less about Sha'ul’s road-side experience and to get him to Dammesek where the next step in his calling was to be revealed. Thus the Goads part of the story falls by the roadside, no pun intended.
Or could there be yet a third reason? Let us return once again to the third telling of Sha'ul’s story. Between the encounter in Yerushalayim with the rabble-rousers, and Sha'ul’s meeting with Agrippa II, a little more than two years has elapsed. Sha'ul has been under confinement, however relaxed that may have been. His partners and compatriots in ministry, as well as Talmidim (followers / students) of his own have been able to spend time with him. No doubt a lot of this time has been spent in reflection on his life and ministry. No doubt, every opportunity he has had to share his story with others has been utilized to the fullest. (Sha'ul is not one to sit around and allow decay to happen.) These times of quiet reflection, and of teaching have helped him mature in his thinking. At some point, he will have been thinking about the event on the road to Dammesek, and things have perhaps fallen into place for him. [If this didn’t happen during those years in Caesarea, then I wager they happened during one (or all) of his journeys].
For us to fully comprehend where Sha'ul is coming from, however, we have to understand the metaphorical truth in Y’shua’s comment. Just as an ox or a cow needs to be goaded on toward the goal of the farmer, so we sometimes need to be goaded on by our Loving Father. Sha'ul claimed before the crowd in Yerushalayim that he had been mentored by Gamaliel, a Rabbi and mentor without equal at the time. The Talmud teaches us that he was the grand-son of Hillel, one of the greatest Rabbis in history, still revered to this day. This is the same Gamaliel we meet earlier in the Book of Acts (5:34). After “The Way” was relatively well established, and the teachings continued in the Temple and other areas of Yerushalayim, the “powers that be” in the Sanhedrin became concerned. Once again they have some of the apostles arrested and questioned them. Gamaliel cautions the council: “In the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan … be of men, it will be overthrown, but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them… [and you may find yourselves] fighting against God.”
It strikes me that any Pharisee with insight like this would have been a tremendously aware teacher – and his teaching, I believe, would have been one of the first ‘goads’ used by God to reach Sha'ul. As a member of the Parushim (pharisees), Sha'ul would have had first hand knowledge of what the new ‘sect’ of Judaism was teaching. Another Goad, yet Sha'ul kicks against it. The stoning of Stephen where Sha'ul was the official ‘cloak room attendant’ – another goad, especially with Stephen’s witness and his vision being proclaimed before Sha'ul. Jab, Jab, Jab. The metaphor is strong and it is accurate. And for every jab, Sha'ul kicked. He was a Pharisee, and he knew the Law, and he knew tradition… but he didn’t know God, not in a personal way as Y’shua had taught. And the harder he kicked, the harder God would have to goad him forward, until that day on the road when it all fell into place.
These are the thoughts that Sha'ul could have had prior to meeting Agrippa II and with new insight into its meaning, now Sha'ul can share it with his audience. And now, as Luke is drawing his account to a close, and because he is no longer focused on the spread of the Gospel as much as he is on how Sha'ul’s encounter changed his life, and how it could change the lives of those hearing his report, he relates the whole story, with claims from Moshé and the Prophets of the Tenakh.. And, interestingly, notice Festus’s reaction. He jumps up and, as if possessed by Satan, cries out trying to draw attention away from Sha'ul, with claims that he is crazy. But Sha'ul keeps his attention on the king. Notice his question to Agrippa: “King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do.” To which Agrippa says “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.[i]”(Acts 26:28 NASV) (or better, as we see in Strong’s Complete Jewish Bible: “In this short time [Agrippa says] you’re trying to convince me to become Messianic?”)
So to review, the comment about the goads is skipped over in the first telling because it is not important to the overall aim which Luke has for his account of the growth of the body of Messiah. At the same time, it is placed in the third telling because Sha'ul is being as candid as possible as he makes his defence, or because this is the first audience which would fully understand the ramifications of how Sha'ul’s life had changed and the comment is included because it clearly indicates the struggle that Sha'ul has had as he came to terms with the life changing experience of meeting Y’shua – a change he desired for them as well. In short, it belongs here in this telling, while it did not really fit in the first and second telling.
This then gives us part of our answer. But what of the rest of the mystery… “Why IS it included in the first telling of Sha'ul’s story as it’s recorded in the King James Version of the Bible, but no other version?” Now we have to do some simple reasoning, with the use of our imagination.
We know that there are different manuscripts (early hand-written texts) which have been used as the basis of our Bible, among them the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, or the Syriac, or Masoretic or Coptic versions for example. All these early manuscripts were copied, by hand, over and over, under the most fastidious oversight. It is believed by many scholars that in some cases, the scribes appear to have made “margin notes”. These scholars have indicated that, over time, these notes seem to have found their way into the actual text of a later manuscript.
Another possibility - as I know from experience - is that a scribe, wishing to perhaps clarify a point such as in this case (and which he knows is going to come up later and therefore regards it as being accurate), may actually have imbedded the phrase directly into the passage in Acts 9, and it simply went uncorrected. I am no scholar, and I don’t have the insight that someone who has spent their lives studying the ancient texts would have –so I find that I must acquiese to their greater insights, and say that either of these scenarios could be possibility, even given the meticulous care on the part of a scribe, and his overseer.
I believe that this may be the case here; either which ever manuscript was used originally as the primary source for the King James Version could at some earlier time have been altered, and then the alteration became part of the text, unbeknownst to the later scribes, and eventually found its way to the writers of the KJV and been printed ‘as is’. Alternatively, the authors of the KJV could have imported the phrase themselves so as to clarify the situation. Whatever the case, because for centuries the KJV was the accepted ‘authority’ in Biblical translations, the aberration went unnoticed until other more modern versions referred to a different source text, or even to a variety of sources, and finding that the one with the additional phrase was an unwarranted deviation, corrected it in the production the subsequent versions – those which are generally thought to be the more trusted translations today.
What Does It Mean to Us, Today?
First of all, let’s reflect on what the story has to tell us in and of itself. By Sha'ul’s own words, he indicates that he fought long and hard against the new community of faith which was growing and proclaiming the Good News of Salvation in Y’shua ha Meshiach. I believe, as do many others, that the teachings of the community called “The Way” was an accurate representation of the teachings of Y’shua. His teachings were not meant to lead to a sub-group, or a sect, of Judaism which, unfortunately, is what “The Way” was understood to be, but rather it was meant to be absorbed into the entire understanding of Judaism. Nor was it meant to lead to a new faith, especially one totally separate from Judaism altogether. As I read the teachings of Y’shua as we have them in the Gospels, I see simply an advanced, deeper understanding, or revelation, of what Elohim had intended Judaism, (or better, let us say the relationship between the Jews – as well as all mankind - and Himself) were to be. Over the years since the return from the Babylonian Exile, the Rabbis, Scribes and other leaders of Judaism had created such a tangle of instructions and rules that no one could possibly have survived intact, let alone have found a true relationship with Elohim. Let us recall also that the Temple system was so corrupt by this time that the examples of the leaders were way “off target”. The prophets in centuries gone by had done battle with similar aberrations, warning the people to return to knowing and serving the One, True God, all to no avail. Sha'ul, when he kicked against the goads, was simply following the tradition of his predecessors fighting against what Elohim was trying to reveal.
I say this, because it still happens today. I know that, as broken human beings, and as creatures who like to ‘test things out for ourselves’, we often balk at authority and new or different teachings. It’s not enough to be warned off by the “Wet Paint” signs, we just have to check it out ourselves and so we often end up with paint on our hands, or with burned hands from ‘checking’ the stove burners, and so on. We, like Sha'ul, are stubborn and head-strong children, who say “we know better!” The same is true about our obedience to God. We are given some simple, [actually common sense], rules – but we refuse to obey. Even Y’shua’s simplified version: “Love God, and Love Others” is too much for us. And it’s just as hard for us today to accept that there is but one way to enter into the eternal relationship with a loving God who longs only to have us “walk with Him, and talk with Him” daily. The lesson for us today then is to “Stop Kicking Against The Goads” because we are only hurting ourselves.
Recently, I had the opportunity to watch an old movie from the 1950’s. It was called “The Day The Earth Stood Still”. During the 50’s, the atomic age was just starting and there were many concerns about how we, as a people sharing a planet, would handle such power – for peace or for warfare. The movie is about an alien who travels 250 million miles from his home planet, to warn the leaders of our nations to turn away from the military application of the Atom. His message was that his planet would be “keeping an eye on us” from afar, on behalf of other space populations to see how we handled things, and that if they felt we were putting others at jeopardy, they would intervene. His last comment was this, “The decision is yours to make.” The same is true in our faith walk. We can decide to be obedient and enjoy an enriching life in unity with our Creator / Redeemer or we can “Kick Against the Goads” and experience the pain and suffering of God’s jabbing and coaxing until we get it right. Fittingly, Y’shua once used the imagery of the Ox in another manner. He said, “Come to me, all of you who are struggling and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matt 11:29f)
Something else that we can see illustrated in Sha'ul’s whole story is that - quite often it is those individuals who struggle the most rigidly against the call, who spend tremendous energy refusing to ‘give in’ - that ‘fall’ the hardest. As in the case of a reformed smoker, or a redeemed alcoholic, they become the greatest missionaries for the cause after they have accepted the truth about their situation. Simply put, those who don’t come to a decision easily, who have had to work for something, will later become the greatest of that ‘something’s’ proponents. After trying so hard to crush “The Way”, Sha'ul spends the entire rest of his life promoting their cause – “to the Jew First, and then to the Goyim.”
In terms of what we can learn from our investigation of the mystery itself, it is a little simpler. We have seen, I hope, the value of having more than one Bible resource. We should be able to agree, then, that when we seek to learn about the Scriptures, or more appropriately, about God’s Will for us and for our lives based on the Scriptures, it is prudent to have a multitude of versions of those Scriptures. This will safeguard against simply accepting what one version’s [possibly inaccurate] wording would lead us to believe. This revelation, (about the Goads mystery) for instance, would never have happened if the whole of the Bible Study Group that meets here at our home used only the KJV – which would have led them to believe that all Bibles had the phrase included – or conversely by using only other versions than the KJV, would have led them to believe that no version had it – an unfortunate oversight in any case. We are thus, more enriched in our Biblical knowledge through the various versions of Scripture. In other words, through the study of different versions, we have a self-correcting environment for learning.
By the same token, When we study God’s Word to us, it is not a solo effort. Rather, we should have others helping us along the journey. It is one thing to read the Bible alone, but if we want to “study”, that is to go deeper into God’s Word, we should do so in a group. At the very least, we should have a mentor with whom we can share insights, and experience correction where needed. There is much to be said about having some other input into a passage than just our own. Scripture says that “where ever two or three are gathered in my Name, I am there in the midst of them”. It is good, in other words, to receive insights from other believers, especially those with ‘more experience’. When we study God’s Word, such inconsistencies as this one, when it is encouraged, can open the door to much discussion and therefore reflection and learning can occur – and shouldn’t that be the goal of every Bible Study Group?
Here’s a final question for you to consider, then, regarding this passage. Given that the phrase obviously was transfixed from the third telling to the first in whichever Manuscript was used by the KJV interpreters, and then carried on thereafter for some centuries in the English Bible. (even after the error must have been noticed), Why did God allow the aberration to remain unaltered?
One Final Note:
Have you ever noticed that it’s nice to find one’s self affirmed by an independent source? Just as I was finishing up this teaching, our grand-daughter came in from camp. She proudly held something in her hand which she wanted me to see. “Hey Zaide”, she cried, “See the new Bible Mom got me to take to camp?” I looked to see what version it was, a new one to me. The “International Children’s Bible”. I immediately looked to Acts 9:5-6. The phrase about the goads was not included. I flipped forward to Acts 26:14 and there it was. It read: “Saul, Saul, Why are you doing things against me? You are only hurting yourself by fighting me.”
Exactly, I thought, I couldn’t have said it better!
= = = ===========================30=========================== = = =
Another possibility - as I know from experience - is that a scribe, wishing to perhaps clarify a point such as in this case (and which he knows is going to come up later and therefore regards it as being accurate), may actually have imbedded the phrase directly into the passage in Acts 9, and it simply went uncorrected. I am no scholar, and I don’t have the insight that someone who has spent their lives studying the ancient texts would have –so I find that I must acquiese to their greater insights, and say that either of these scenarios could be possibility, even given the meticulous care on the part of a scribe, and his overseer.
I believe that this may be the case here; either which ever manuscript was used originally as the primary source for the King James Version could at some earlier time have been altered, and then the alteration became part of the text, unbeknownst to the later scribes, and eventually found its way to the writers of the KJV and been printed ‘as is’. Alternatively, the authors of the KJV could have imported the phrase themselves so as to clarify the situation. Whatever the case, because for centuries the KJV was the accepted ‘authority’ in Biblical translations, the aberration went unnoticed until other more modern versions referred to a different source text, or even to a variety of sources, and finding that the one with the additional phrase was an unwarranted deviation, corrected it in the production the subsequent versions – those which are generally thought to be the more trusted translations today.
What Does It Mean to Us, Today?
First of all, let’s reflect on what the story has to tell us in and of itself. By Sha'ul’s own words, he indicates that he fought long and hard against the new community of faith which was growing and proclaiming the Good News of Salvation in Y’shua ha Meshiach. I believe, as do many others, that the teachings of the community called “The Way” was an accurate representation of the teachings of Y’shua. His teachings were not meant to lead to a sub-group, or a sect, of Judaism which, unfortunately, is what “The Way” was understood to be, but rather it was meant to be absorbed into the entire understanding of Judaism. Nor was it meant to lead to a new faith, especially one totally separate from Judaism altogether. As I read the teachings of Y’shua as we have them in the Gospels, I see simply an advanced, deeper understanding, or revelation, of what Elohim had intended Judaism, (or better, let us say the relationship between the Jews – as well as all mankind - and Himself) were to be. Over the years since the return from the Babylonian Exile, the Rabbis, Scribes and other leaders of Judaism had created such a tangle of instructions and rules that no one could possibly have survived intact, let alone have found a true relationship with Elohim. Let us recall also that the Temple system was so corrupt by this time that the examples of the leaders were way “off target”. The prophets in centuries gone by had done battle with similar aberrations, warning the people to return to knowing and serving the One, True God, all to no avail. Sha'ul, when he kicked against the goads, was simply following the tradition of his predecessors fighting against what Elohim was trying to reveal.
I say this, because it still happens today. I know that, as broken human beings, and as creatures who like to ‘test things out for ourselves’, we often balk at authority and new or different teachings. It’s not enough to be warned off by the “Wet Paint” signs, we just have to check it out ourselves and so we often end up with paint on our hands, or with burned hands from ‘checking’ the stove burners, and so on. We, like Sha'ul, are stubborn and head-strong children, who say “we know better!” The same is true about our obedience to God. We are given some simple, [actually common sense], rules – but we refuse to obey. Even Y’shua’s simplified version: “Love God, and Love Others” is too much for us. And it’s just as hard for us today to accept that there is but one way to enter into the eternal relationship with a loving God who longs only to have us “walk with Him, and talk with Him” daily. The lesson for us today then is to “Stop Kicking Against The Goads” because we are only hurting ourselves.
Recently, I had the opportunity to watch an old movie from the 1950’s. It was called “The Day The Earth Stood Still”. During the 50’s, the atomic age was just starting and there were many concerns about how we, as a people sharing a planet, would handle such power – for peace or for warfare. The movie is about an alien who travels 250 million miles from his home planet, to warn the leaders of our nations to turn away from the military application of the Atom. His message was that his planet would be “keeping an eye on us” from afar, on behalf of other space populations to see how we handled things, and that if they felt we were putting others at jeopardy, they would intervene. His last comment was this, “The decision is yours to make.” The same is true in our faith walk. We can decide to be obedient and enjoy an enriching life in unity with our Creator / Redeemer or we can “Kick Against the Goads” and experience the pain and suffering of God’s jabbing and coaxing until we get it right. Fittingly, Y’shua once used the imagery of the Ox in another manner. He said, “Come to me, all of you who are struggling and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matt 11:29f)
Something else that we can see illustrated in Sha'ul’s whole story is that - quite often it is those individuals who struggle the most rigidly against the call, who spend tremendous energy refusing to ‘give in’ - that ‘fall’ the hardest. As in the case of a reformed smoker, or a redeemed alcoholic, they become the greatest missionaries for the cause after they have accepted the truth about their situation. Simply put, those who don’t come to a decision easily, who have had to work for something, will later become the greatest of that ‘something’s’ proponents. After trying so hard to crush “The Way”, Sha'ul spends the entire rest of his life promoting their cause – “to the Jew First, and then to the Goyim.”
In terms of what we can learn from our investigation of the mystery itself, it is a little simpler. We have seen, I hope, the value of having more than one Bible resource. We should be able to agree, then, that when we seek to learn about the Scriptures, or more appropriately, about God’s Will for us and for our lives based on the Scriptures, it is prudent to have a multitude of versions of those Scriptures. This will safeguard against simply accepting what one version’s [possibly inaccurate] wording would lead us to believe. This revelation, (about the Goads mystery) for instance, would never have happened if the whole of the Bible Study Group that meets here at our home used only the KJV – which would have led them to believe that all Bibles had the phrase included – or conversely by using only other versions than the KJV, would have led them to believe that no version had it – an unfortunate oversight in any case. We are thus, more enriched in our Biblical knowledge through the various versions of Scripture. In other words, through the study of different versions, we have a self-correcting environment for learning.
By the same token, When we study God’s Word to us, it is not a solo effort. Rather, we should have others helping us along the journey. It is one thing to read the Bible alone, but if we want to “study”, that is to go deeper into God’s Word, we should do so in a group. At the very least, we should have a mentor with whom we can share insights, and experience correction where needed. There is much to be said about having some other input into a passage than just our own. Scripture says that “where ever two or three are gathered in my Name, I am there in the midst of them”. It is good, in other words, to receive insights from other believers, especially those with ‘more experience’. When we study God’s Word, such inconsistencies as this one, when it is encouraged, can open the door to much discussion and therefore reflection and learning can occur – and shouldn’t that be the goal of every Bible Study Group?
Here’s a final question for you to consider, then, regarding this passage. Given that the phrase obviously was transfixed from the third telling to the first in whichever Manuscript was used by the KJV interpreters, and then carried on thereafter for some centuries in the English Bible. (even after the error must have been noticed), Why did God allow the aberration to remain unaltered?
One Final Note:
Have you ever noticed that it’s nice to find one’s self affirmed by an independent source? Just as I was finishing up this teaching, our grand-daughter came in from camp. She proudly held something in her hand which she wanted me to see. “Hey Zaide”, she cried, “See the new Bible Mom got me to take to camp?” I looked to see what version it was, a new one to me. The “International Children’s Bible”. I immediately looked to Acts 9:5-6. The phrase about the goads was not included. I flipped forward to Acts 26:14 and there it was. It read: “Saul, Saul, Why are you doing things against me? You are only hurting yourself by fighting me.”
Exactly, I thought, I couldn’t have said it better!
= = = ===========================30=========================== = = =
- - - - -------------------------
EndNotes
i It should be noted here that some positive change is being made, though slowly. In the Anglican denomination, as one example, we ‘recently’ went through a change of prayer books. In the 1985 Book of Alternative Services there is no longer a prayer for the “Conversion of Jews”, a staple of previous prayer books, and which was always a part of the Ash Wednesday or Good Friday services. Of course, individual opinions and prejudices against Israel, and the Jews in particular, throughout the Christian church, still need to be attended to before one can count any real progress.
ii A Brief Aside:… Why Dammesek? This is an interesting question, though fairly easily understood. The Middle East had for centuries been the cross-roads of many different trade routes. From large cities on the north shores of the Mediterranean, (such as Mesopotamia, Athens, Corinth, Rome, etc) to those on the south shore (such as Alexandria in Egypt), as well as those in the north east (Assyria) and the “far” east , (places like Babylon, Persia, Arabia and beyond), the caravans would pass through key cities. Dammesek was one of those key cities. If “The Way” took hold in Dammesek, it would not take long for the stories of Y’shua to spread, which of course would mean the unbridled increase in this strange new sect. Therefore, it all had to be stopped in Dammesek!!
iii “The Way” was the name of the Messianic sect growing within Judaism in Yerushalayim and other cities of the Middle East due to the teaching of the Talmidim. The Greek word is Hodos, meaning a road or path, or it can, as in Mark 2:23 mean a journey. It came to mean a way or manner of religion as in “the way of the Lord or of God” sometimes denoting the revealed will of God as being shown by God and leading to Him. Christ, [of course] calls Himself “the Way” (cf. John 14:6) because access to God is only through Him. It is one of the earliest names for [that “body of the faithful” which would become known as] Christianity. (Gleaned from the Lexical Aids of the Zodiates NASV, based on James Strong’s Concise Dictionary of…The Bible, and from the New Westminster Dictionary of The Bible.)
iv Christian: According to Strong’s Concise Dictionary, the Greek word is Christianos, a name given to the disciples or followers of Christ and first adopted at Antioch (11:26). It does not occur in the New Testament as a name commonly used by Christians themselves. The verb form, meaning “were called” is Chrematisai… which means “to be directed by God” as if by divine oracle. It is the same verb used by the magi who were divinely informed not to return to Herod, but to go home by a different route. . [It was generally thought by scholars that the term was a derogatory name used to describe the followers of “The Way” by outsiders, though this point of view is not as strong today.] Like Stern, in The Complete Jewish Bible, I prefer to use the term “Messianic” so as to avoid confusion with those we refer to as Christian today, and which does not match up the description of the early believers. (Again, see my article “I Am A Messianic”)
- - - ---------------------------------
Some Acknowledgements
To the MBC Ladies Bible Study who discovered and asked about the different readings in the first place.
And:
To all the different versions of Scripture used to ascertain the clarity of the quotation
The Complete Jewish Bible, David Stern, Translator, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc, Maryland, 1998
The New Revised Standard Version Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Tennessee, 1989
The (Hebrew Greek Key Word) New American Standard Version Study Bible, Spiros Zodiates, Editor, AMG International, The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, CA, USA, 1990
Kenneth Barker, Gen. Editor, The New International Version Study Bible, Zondervan Bible Publishers, Michigan, 1985
The New English Bible, Oxford University Press, New York, 1972
The New Oxford Annotated Bible
Conversations - The Message Bible with its translator, including Author’s Notes and Reflections, Eugene H. Peterson, The NAV Press, Japan, 2002
The Holy Bible, King James Authorized Version, Collins Clear-Type Press, Toronto, 1946
International Children’s Bible, Thomas Nelson Inc., 1999 ( Used by permission)
And
The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, Henry Gehman Editor, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1970
“The Day The Earth Stood Still” Movie. Original Story Harry Bates, Screenplay Edmund North, Director Robert Wise, 20th Century Fox, 1951
EndNotes
i It should be noted here that some positive change is being made, though slowly. In the Anglican denomination, as one example, we ‘recently’ went through a change of prayer books. In the 1985 Book of Alternative Services there is no longer a prayer for the “Conversion of Jews”, a staple of previous prayer books, and which was always a part of the Ash Wednesday or Good Friday services. Of course, individual opinions and prejudices against Israel, and the Jews in particular, throughout the Christian church, still need to be attended to before one can count any real progress.
ii A Brief Aside:… Why Dammesek? This is an interesting question, though fairly easily understood. The Middle East had for centuries been the cross-roads of many different trade routes. From large cities on the north shores of the Mediterranean, (such as Mesopotamia, Athens, Corinth, Rome, etc) to those on the south shore (such as Alexandria in Egypt), as well as those in the north east (Assyria) and the “far” east , (places like Babylon, Persia, Arabia and beyond), the caravans would pass through key cities. Dammesek was one of those key cities. If “The Way” took hold in Dammesek, it would not take long for the stories of Y’shua to spread, which of course would mean the unbridled increase in this strange new sect. Therefore, it all had to be stopped in Dammesek!!
iii “The Way” was the name of the Messianic sect growing within Judaism in Yerushalayim and other cities of the Middle East due to the teaching of the Talmidim. The Greek word is Hodos, meaning a road or path, or it can, as in Mark 2:23 mean a journey. It came to mean a way or manner of religion as in “the way of the Lord or of God” sometimes denoting the revealed will of God as being shown by God and leading to Him. Christ, [of course] calls Himself “the Way” (cf. John 14:6) because access to God is only through Him. It is one of the earliest names for [that “body of the faithful” which would become known as] Christianity. (Gleaned from the Lexical Aids of the Zodiates NASV, based on James Strong’s Concise Dictionary of…The Bible, and from the New Westminster Dictionary of The Bible.)
iv Christian: According to Strong’s Concise Dictionary, the Greek word is Christianos, a name given to the disciples or followers of Christ and first adopted at Antioch (11:26). It does not occur in the New Testament as a name commonly used by Christians themselves. The verb form, meaning “were called” is Chrematisai… which means “to be directed by God” as if by divine oracle. It is the same verb used by the magi who were divinely informed not to return to Herod, but to go home by a different route. . [It was generally thought by scholars that the term was a derogatory name used to describe the followers of “The Way” by outsiders, though this point of view is not as strong today.] Like Stern, in The Complete Jewish Bible, I prefer to use the term “Messianic” so as to avoid confusion with those we refer to as Christian today, and which does not match up the description of the early believers. (Again, see my article “I Am A Messianic”)
- - - ---------------------------------
Some Acknowledgements
To the MBC Ladies Bible Study who discovered and asked about the different readings in the first place.
And:
To all the different versions of Scripture used to ascertain the clarity of the quotation
The Complete Jewish Bible, David Stern, Translator, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc, Maryland, 1998
The New Revised Standard Version Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Tennessee, 1989
The (Hebrew Greek Key Word) New American Standard Version Study Bible, Spiros Zodiates, Editor, AMG International, The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, CA, USA, 1990
Kenneth Barker, Gen. Editor, The New International Version Study Bible, Zondervan Bible Publishers, Michigan, 1985
The New English Bible, Oxford University Press, New York, 1972
The New Oxford Annotated Bible
Conversations - The Message Bible with its translator, including Author’s Notes and Reflections, Eugene H. Peterson, The NAV Press, Japan, 2002
The Holy Bible, King James Authorized Version, Collins Clear-Type Press, Toronto, 1946
International Children’s Bible, Thomas Nelson Inc., 1999 ( Used by permission)
And
The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, Henry Gehman Editor, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1970
“The Day The Earth Stood Still” Movie. Original Story Harry Bates, Screenplay Edmund North, Director Robert Wise, 20th Century Fox, 1951
