Gary asked, “Why didn’t Saul of Tarsus find the evidence for the Resurrection convincing? He had access to all of it for three years. He did not convert until he had a “heavenly vision”. Doesn’t that prove that the evidence for the Resurrection is not that good?”
____________
Have you ever read C. S. Lewis’s conversion story?
Lewis, the author who introduced us to Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia, did not come to faith easily. For years he wrestled intellectually with Christianity while also resisting what following Christ might demand of him. Then, on a motorcycle ride to the zoo with his brother Warnie, something changed. Lewis later wrote, “When we set out, I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we arrived at the zoo I did.”
Looking back, he described himself as “the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.”
Lewis’s story reminds us of an important truth: evidence may persuade the mind, but the heart often resists surrender. In other words, the issue is not only what we know, but what we are willing to give up.
I suspect something similar was happening with Saul of Tarsus.
Long before the Damascus Road, Saul knew the Christian message. He had heard the claims about Jesus’ resurrection. He had watched Stephen die with remarkable courage. Yet instead of believing, Saul devoted himself to destroying the church.
Then everything changed.
When Paul later recounted his conversion before King Agrippa, he included a detail not found in Luke’s earlier account:
“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” (Acts 26:14)
A goad was simply a sharpened stick used to prod an animal in the right direction. An ox that kicked against it only injured itself while resisting its master’s leading.
Exactly what Jesus meant by this expression has been debated. Some believe Saul’s conscience had already begun to trouble him after witnessing Stephen’s death. Others note that “kicking against the goads” was a familiar Greek expression for resisting the will of a god. Either way, Jesus portrays Saul as resisting rather than honestly seeking.
Behavioral economists call this the sunk cost fallacy—our tendency to cling to a course of action because of everything we’ve already invested in it.
No one had more invested than Saul.
He had built his identity around being a Pharisee. He had earned respect, influence, and status. He had publicly opposed Jesus and persecuted His followers. Accepting Christ would cost him everything he had spent a lifetime building.
Paul himself admits as much in Philippians 3, listing all the credentials that once defined him. But after meeting the risen Christ, he reaches a stunning conclusion:
“Whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ . . . I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ.” (Philippians 3:7-8)
Notice that Paul did not reject Jesus because the evidence was weak. He resisted because accepting the evidence would require him to surrender everything that had become precious to him. The resurrection was not merely an intellectual question; it was a personal one.
That should encourage us.
Many people are not kept from Christ because they lack evidence. They are wrestling with what following Jesus might cost them—their reputation, relationships, habits, identity, or ambitions. Our task, then, is not merely to win arguments. Like Stephen, we must faithfully bear witness to Christ with both our words and our lives, trusting that God is at work in hearts we cannot see. Let us keep speaking, living faithfully, and trusting the Lord who pursued Saul and drew C. S. Lewis. God is still able to overcome even the strongest resistance today.
