Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 9:5

"And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he [said], I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:" — Acts 9:5 (ASV)

And he said, Who are you, Lord? The word Lord here, as is frequently the case in the New Testament, means no more than Sir (John 4:19). It is evident that Saul did not yet know that this was the Lord Jesus. He heard the voice as of a man; he heard himself addressed; but he did not know who had spoken the words. In his amazement and confusion, he naturally asked who it was that was addressing him in this way.

And the Lord said. In this place the word Lord is used in a higher sense, to denote the Savior. It is His usual title. See the note on Acts 1:24.

I am Jesus. It is clear from this that there was a personal appearance of the Savior; that He was present to Saul. However, in what particular form—whether seen as a man, or only appearing by the manifestation of His glory—is not stated. It was a personal appearance, however, of the Lord Jesus, designed to take the work of converting such a persecutor into His own hands, without the ordinary means.

Yet He designed to convert him in a natural way. He arrested his attention, filled him with alarm at his guilt, and then presented the truth concerning Himself. In Acts 22:8, the expression is recorded this way: I am Jesus of Nazareth, etc. There is no contradiction, as Luke here records only a part of what was said; Paul afterward stated the whole.

This declaration was peculiarly fitted to humble and mortify Saul. There can be no doubt that he had often blasphemed His name and profanely derided the notion that the Messiah could come out of Nazareth. Jesus here uses, however, that very designation: I am Jesus the Nazarene, the object of your contempt and scorn. Yet Saul saw Him now invested with special glory.

It is hard, etc. This is evidently a proverbial expression. Kuinoel has quoted numerous places in which a similar mode of expression occurs in Greek writers.

Thus Euripides (Bacch. 791) says: “I, who am a frail mortal, should rather sacrifice to him who is a God, than, by giving place to anger, kick against the goads.” So Pindar (Pyth. 2.173) states: “It is profitable to bear willingly the assumed yoke. To kick against the goad is pernicious conduct.” Similarly, Terence (Phormio 1.2.27) writes: “It is foolishness for you to kick against a goad.” Ovid also expresses the same idea (Trist. 2.15).

The word translated “pricks” here—kentra—properly means any sharp point that will pierce or perforate, such as the sting of a bee. However, it commonly means an ox-goad: a sharp piece of iron stuck into the end of a stick, with which the ox is urged on. These goads, among the Hebrews, were made very large; for example, Shamgar slew six hundred men with one of them (Judges 3:31; compare 1 Samuel 13:21).

The expression, to kick against the pricks, or the goad, is derived from the action of a stubborn and unyielding ox kicking against the goad.

And as the ox would injure no one by it but himself—as he would gain nothing—it comes to denote an obstinate and refractory disposition and course of conduct, opposing motives to good conduct, resisting the authority of Him who has a right to command, and opposing the leadings of Providence, to the injury of the one who resists.

It denotes rebellion against lawful authority and thus getting into greater difficulty by attempting to oppose the commands to duty. This is the condition of every sinner. If people wish to be happy, they should cheerfully submit to the authority of God. They should not rebel against the dealings of Providence. They should not murmur against their Creator. They should not resist the claims of their consciences.

By all this they would only injure themselves. No one can resist God or his own conscience and be happy. Indeed, nothing is more difficult than for a person to pursue a course of pleasure and sin against the admonitions of God and the reproofs of his own conscience. People demonstrate this disposition in the following ways:

1. By violating plain laws of God.
2. By attempting to resist His claims.
3. By refusing to do what their conscience requires.
4. By grieving the Holy Spirit, by attempting to free themselves from serious impressions and alarms. These impressions and alarms will return with redoubled frequency and power.
5. By pursuing a course of vice and wickedness against what they know to be right.
6. By refusing to submit to the dealings of Providence.
7. And in any way by opposing God, and refusing to submit to His authority, and to do what is right.