Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 9:7
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
7. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless ] Cp. Dan 10:7, “I Daniel alone saw the vision, for the men that were with me saw not the vision, but a great quaking fell upon them.”
Saul was not only furnished with authority, but also with men who were to carry out his intentions and bring the prisoners to Jerusalem. Painters have represented the travellers as riding on horseback, but there is no warrant for this in any form of the narrative.
stood here means “remained fixed,” “did not move.” They had been stricken down as well as Saul (Act 26:14).
hearing a [the] voice ] On the variation of case here, and the probable difference of meaning, see note on Act 9:4.
but seeing [beholding] no man ] The verb is the same that is used by Stephen (Act 7:56), “Behold, I see the heavens opened.” In their astonishment, and guided by the sound, Saul’s companions lifted up their faces to the sky, but as with the words so with the appearance of Jesus; it was unseen by all but one, but to him was manifest enough to form a ground of his confidence in his Apostolic mission: “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” (1Co 9:1).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And the men which journeyed with him – Why these men attended him is unknown. They might have been appointed to aid him, or they may have been travelers with whom Saul had accidentally fallen in.
Stood speechless – In Act 26:14, it is said that they all fell to the earth at the appearance of the light. But there is no contradiction. The narrative in that place refers to the immediate effect of the appearance of the light. They were immediately smitten to the ground together. This was before the voice spake to Saul, Act 26:14. In this place Act 9:7 the historian is speaking of what occurred after the first alarm. There is no improbability that they rose from the ground immediately, and surveyed the scene with silent amazement and alarm. The word speechless enneoi properly denotes those who are so astonished or stupefied as to be unable to speak. In the Greek writers it means those who are deaf-mutes.
Hearing a voice – Hearing a sound or noise. The word here rendered voice is thus frequently used, as in Gen 3:8; 1Sa 12:18; Psa 29:3-4; Mat 24:31 (Greek); 1Th 4:16. In Act 22:9, it is said, They which were with me (Paul) saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. In this place, the words heard not the voice must be understood in the sense of understanding the words, of hearing the address, the distinct articulation, which Paul heard. They heard a noise; they were amazed and alarmed, but they did not hear the distinct words addressed to Saul. A similar instance occurs in Joh 12:28-29, when the voice of God came from heaven to Jesus, The people who stood by and heard it said it thundered. They heard the sound, the noise; they did not distinguish the words addressed to him. See also Dan 10:7, and 1Ki 19:11-13.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 9:7
And the men who Journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man (text, and Act 22:9):
The sights and sounds of life
Here is a record of the supernatural in the life of Paul and his companions.
The fact that these phenomena were at midday, and that the apostles fellow travellers were also sensible of them demonstrates that both the voice and the light were objective realities. The slight discrepancy between the two accounts confirms their authenticity. Identity of statement by two different persons after an interval of twenty-five years would excite suspicion. But it may fairly be supposed that all that Paul means is that they heard not articulate voice but mere sound. The same sound that communicated no idea in the one case, conveyed a message from Christ in the other. And the same light which revealed nothing to the men revealed the Son of God to Paul. This extraordinary circumstance indicates what is common in human life. A voice fraught with deep meaning to some, is a mere empty sound to others; a light revealing the grandest realities to some, discloses nothing to others.
I. Mens lives in relation to material nature show this.
1. The lights of nature reveal–
(1) To the thoughtless multitude nothing but mere sensuous forms–just what they reveal to the brute.
(2) To the superstitious, unearthly existences–dreaded as demons or worshipped as gods.
(3) To the sceptical philosopher, nothing but a grand system of well-organised forces working by its own inherent impulse resistless as fate.
(4) To the enlightened Christian, a wise and loving Father.
2. The voices of nature, too, which are boundlessly varied, and set in every key, convey different impressions to different minds.
(1) Nothing but mere sensation.
(2) Superstitious awe.
(3) Scientific intelligence.
(4) Thoughts from God.
II. Mens lives in relation to human history show this. The lights and voices of history reveal varied and almost opposite things.
1. To some it is without any governing law. Its social, mercantile, political movements are ascribable only to blind impulse and capricious passions.
2. To others it has only the governing law of human might. Some explain all on the principle that the strong preys on the weak. The progress and decline of commerce, the rise and fall of empires, the fate of battles are all ascribable to superior might.
3. To others it is governed exclusively by evil. The devil is in the schemes of the trader, the thunders of the orator, the craft of the priest, and shapes the destiny of the race.
4. To others it is governed by the mediatorial plan of God. The restorative purpose of heaven is seen running through the ages. Even the bitterest sufferings are regarded as parturition throes giving birth to a higher order of things.
III. Mens lives in relation to the inspired oracle show this. The Bible has wonderful lights and sounds, but nothing is more true than that they differently affect different men. Ecclesiastical history, theological polemics, as well as the religious life of our own age, are fraught with illustrations of this. The sceptic and the believer, the Papist and the Protestant, the Socinian and the Trinitarian, the Churchman and the Nonconformist are striking examples.
IV. Mens lives in relation to the gospel ministry show this. How differently the same sermon is regarded by various members of the congregation. The sermon which as a Divine voice speaks to the conscience of some, has no meaning to others; or which, as a Divine light, flashes moral conviction and reveals Christ to some, is either not seen at all, or regarded as a mere glare of human genius or enthusiasm. Conclusion: This subject–
1. Reveals a distinguishing attribute of human nature. Men have the power of hearing and seeing with the soul. All that the brutes see and hear terminates in the region of sensation. Ezekiel, Isaiah, John, our own Milton show what men can see and hear with the organs of their soul. The pure in heart see God. Man, in one word, has the power or receiving, modifying, and interpreting the impression the outward makes upon him.
2. Explains the great difference between spiritually and carnally minded men. Men are divided into two classes, those who live to and for the flesh, and those who live to and for the Spirit. Why is this? The one hears and sees in the sounds and sights of life what the other does not. The spiritual realises the spiritual even here.
3. Presents an object in life after which all should strive–viz., to get the eyes and ears of his soul so quickened as to see and hear the Divine everywhere, as the Lord did for Elishas servant. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 7. Stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.] The men were , stupified, hearing , the voice or thunder, but not distinguishing the words, which were addressed to Saul alone; and which were spoken out of the thunder, or in a small, still voice, after the peal had ceased. The remarkable case, 1Kg 19:11-13, may serve to illustrate that before us. And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord; and the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lard; and after the wind an earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire; and after the fire a still small voice; and when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave, and behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, WHAT DOST THOU HERE, ELIJAH! The thunder must have been heard by all; the small, still voice by Saul alone. This consideration amply reconciles the passage in the text with that in Ac 22:9, where Paul says, They that were with me saw the light and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him that spoke with one. They had heard the thunder which followed the escape of the lightning, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to Saul; they did not hear the words, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest, c. but they saw and heard enough to convince them that the whole was supernatural; for they were all struck down to the earth with the splendour of the light, and the sound of the thunder, which I suppose took place on this occasion. It has been a question among divines, whether Jesus Christ did really appear to Saul on this occasion. The arguments against the real appearance are not strong. St. Luke tells us that those who were with him heard the voice, but they saw no man; which is a strong intimation that he saw what they did not. Ananias, it seems, was informed that there had been a real appearance, for, in addressing Saul, Ac 9:17, he says, The Lord Jesus that APPEARED unto THEE in the way as thou camest, c. And Barnabas intimates thus much, when he brought him before the apostles at Jerusalem, for he declared unto them how he had SEEN the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken unto him and, Ac 22:14, where the discourse of Ananias is given more at large, he says, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldest know his will, and SEE that JUST ONE, and shouldest HEAR the voice of his mouth; so we find that hearing the voice, or words of his mouth, was not what is called the appearance; for, besides this, there was an actual manifestation of the person of Christ. But St. Paul’s own words, 1Co 9:1, put the subject out of dispute: Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? HAVE I NOT SEEN JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD? To which may be added, 1Co 15:8, And last of all, HE WAS SEEN OF ME ALSO, as of one born out of due time.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Stood speechless: in Act 26:14, these men are said to be fallen to the earth as well as Saul, which they might at first be, and now rose up; or rather, by standing still here is only meant, they, being sorely amazed, remained in the place in which they were, without going forward: thus the angel forbade Lot and his family to stay or stand in the plain, Gen 19:17, meaning that they should hasten forward.
Hearing a voice; the greater difficulty is, to reconcile these words with Act 22:9, where it is expressly said, that these men did not hear the voice; but it is there added, of him that spake unto Saul; so that they might hear the voice of Saul, as it is said in this place, and wonder whom he spake unto, or what he spake about, they not hearing the voice or him that spake unto him, as in Act 22:9 it is said: and it seems very likely that they should not hear the voice of Christ, for we read not that any of them were converted; and being left in their infidelity, they were in some respects the more undeniable witnesses of a great part of that miracle. But if it be understood of the voice of Christ in both places, then they might hear it, as it is said here, inarticulately, or the noise which that voice made; but not hear it articulately, or so as to understand it, as in a parallel case, Joh 12:29, the people are said to hear the voice that spake nnto Christ from heaven, yet they heard so confusedly, as that they thought it had only, been thunder. To be sure, they who are converted, and they who are not converted, by the word of God, may hear the word; but after a very different manner; they that are converted by it only hearing it inwardly, spiritually, effectually.
But seeing no man; these fellow travellers with St. Paul are said to see no man, but the expression here imports their doing their utmost for to see him that spake: thus God made a difference, Dan 10:7, in the vision we read of there.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7. the men . . . stoodspeechlessThis may mean merely that they remained so; but ifthe standing posture be intended, we have only to suppose thatthough at first they “all fell to the earth” (Ac26:14), they arose of their own accord while Saul yet layprostrate.
hearing arather “the”
voicePaul himselfsays, “they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me”(Ac 22:9). But just as “thepeople that stood by heard” the voice that saluted ourLord with recorded words of consolation and assurance, and yet heardnot the articulate words, but thought “it thundered” orthat some “angel spake to Him” (Joh 12:28;Joh 12:29) so these men heardthe voice that spake to Saul, but heard not the articulatewords. Apparent discrepancies like these, in the differentnarratives of the same scene in one and the same book of Acts,furnish the strongest confirmation both of the facts themselves andof the book which records them.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the men which journeyed with him,…. Out of respect to him, to keep him company; or rather to assist him in his designs:
stood speechless: astonished and amazed, they had not power to speak one word, nor to rise from the ground, and move one step forward; they were as if they were thunderstruck, and fastened to the earth; for this standing is not opposed to their being fallen to the earth, but to their going forward, and only expresses the surprise and stupidity that had seized them:
hearing a voice, but seeing no man; that is, they heard the voice of Saul, saying, who art thou? and what wilt thou have me to do? but saw nobody that he spoke to, which surprised them; for it is certain they did not hear the voice of Christ, that spake to him, Ac 22:9 or if they heard the voice of Christ, it was only the sound of his voice, but did not understand what he said; but the former seems rather to be the sense, and the best way of reconciling the two passages.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
That journeyed with him ( ). Not in the older Greek, but in the Koine, with the associative instrumental.
Speechless (). Mute. Only here in N.T., though old word.
Hearing the voice, but beholding no man ( , ). Two present active participles in contrast (, ). In 22:9 Paul says that the men “beheld the light” ( ), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, “but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” ( ). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in 9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the “light” and “no one”) a distinction between the “sound” (original sense of as in Joh 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that is used either with the accusative (the extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of . They heard the sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9). However, this distinction in case with , though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in Joh 3:8 where undoubtedly means “sound” the accusative occurs as Luke uses about Saul in Ac 9:4. Besides in 22:7 Paul uses about himself, but about himself in 76:14, interchangeably.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Speechless [] . Only here in New Testament.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And the men which journeyed with him,” (hoi de andres hoi sunedeuontes auto) “Then (at that moment) the responsible men traveling in colleague with him,” to imprison, persecute, and slaughter those found in the way of Christ in Damascus, Act 9:1-2; Act 22:9; Act 26:13-14.
2) “Stood speechless,” (eistekeisan eneoi) “Stood up speechless,” stunned, in awe, with wonder and fear, having fallen to the ground, Act 26:14.
3) “Hearing a voice,” (akountes men tes phones) “Certainly having heard (or hearing) the voice-sound,” but unable to understand the articulation or grasp what the words were, as Saul had done. Act 22:9 asserts they heard not the voice, in the sense of “did not grasp the words.”
4) “But seeing no man,” (medena de theorountes) “Yet not a person seeing,” or “yet they did not see or recognize any person,” as having been present or visible, other than their own band of delegated Christian hate mongers who journeyed with Paul to seize Christians in Damascus, then nearby, as Moses at the burning bush, Exo 3:2-5.
Tho it appears Paul himself saw Jesus at this time, as suggested by the words of Ananias, Act 9:17; Act 22:14-18; Act 26:14-17; 1Co 15:8; 1Co 9:1.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
7. And the men. He speaketh now briefly of the companions of Paul, that they were witnesses of the vision. Yet it seemeth that this narration doth not in all points agree with that of Paul, which we shall see in the 22 chapter, (Act 22:9.) For he will say there, that his companions were terrified with the light, but they heard no voice. Some there be who think that it was a fault, (577) and that through ignorance of the writer (578) the negation is placed out of its right place. I think that it is no hard matter to answer it; because it may be that they heard the sound of the voice, yet did they not discern either who it was that spake, or what was spoken. “They heard not,” saith he, “the voice of him that spake with me.” Surely this is the meaning of these words, that he alone knew the speech of Christ. It followeth not thereupon, but that the rest might have heard a dark and doubtful voice. Whereas Luke saith in this place that there was a voice heard, and no man seen, his meaning is, that the voice proceeded from no man, but that it was uttered by God. Therefore, to the end the miracle may carry the greater credit, Paul’s companions see a light like to lightning; they see Paul lie prostrate; a voice they hear (though not distinctly (579)) sounding from heaven; and yet, nevertheless, Paul alone is taught what he must do.
(577) “ Esse mendum,” that there is a mistake.
(578) “ Librarii,” the copyist.
(579) “ Articulate,” articulately.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(7) Hearing a voice, but seeing no man.We are told by St. Paul himself (Act. 22:9) that they did not hear the voice. What is meant is clearly that they did not hear the wordscould attach no meaning to the sounds which for Saul himself had so profound a significance. So, in like manner, they saw the light, but did not see the form. In Act. 26:14, they also are said to have fallen on the ground in terror.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. Hearing a voice The Greek word for voice, like our word utterance, may signify either the vocal sound or the articulate words. So a man partially deaf would be said, popularly but truly, to hear and not to hear the same utterance. It is here said they heard, and in Act 22:9, it is said they heard not, the utterance.
Seeing no man They saw not, as Saul did, the speaker. How in the midst of that luminous splendour the form of Jesus loomed forth upon Saul’s sight whether standing on the earth, or in the space exalted above him we know not. We suppose the latter.
And thus to Paul, as to none of the other apostles, Jesus appeared, never in his humble terrene flesh, but solely in his glorification. Thenceforward, consequently, he was troubled with no low Ebionite conceptions of Jesus, but ever thought of him, purely, with intense self-consecration, as the exalted and divine Master of his own soul and body.
Yet Saul’s sight of Jesus could have been but for a moment. By its power he forthwith fell to the earth, (Act 9:4,) and when he arose from the earth (Act 9:8) he saw no man, being blinded by the glory that prostrated him.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the sound (voice), but beholding no man.’
The men who travelled with him apparently heard ‘of the sound’ (the same word means sound or voice) but did not understand what it was saying (compare for a similar situation Joh 12:28-30). And they saw no one but Saul. But the fact that they were ‘speechless’ suggests that they experienced more than the sound. It is clear that something happened that filled them with awe, which suggests even here that they were also aware of the light. But here Luke wants us to concentrate on the light and Saul meeting together face to face. He wants us to appreciate the intensity of the confrontation. Here this is to be seen as between Saul and the Lord. This incident is described three times in Acts and different emphases are place in each case. When they are put together we can understand the whole of what happened.
In Act 22:9 we are told, ‘those who were with me beheld the light, but they did not hear the voice of Him Who spoke with me’. This confirms why they were filled with awe, because of the blinding light, and it confirms that while they heard ‘of’ some strange ‘sound’, they were not aware that it was an intelligible voice and did not comprehend what the voice said to Saul. In Act 26:14 we learn that all eventually fell to the earth under the compelling light. The initial shock which initially made them stand there rigid, eventually drove them to their knees. Alternately it may be that all initially fell to the ground (especially if their horses buckled under them) but that they, unlike Saul, then stood up. But here in chapter 9 Luke wants us to see Saul and the Lord in solemn face to face confrontation. He alone was blinded by the light.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The end of the vision:
v. 7. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
v. 8. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man; but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
v. 9. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. Luke here for the first time mentions the companions of Saul, and describes their behavior. The men that accompanied him stood stupefied when the miracle occurred; for they heard the sound of the voice, but were unable to see any one. If we here add the witness of chap. 22:6-11 and chap. 26:13-18, in which passages the same event is described, we obtain the following picture. The great light from heaven was seen by all, but only upon Saul was its immediate effect that of throwing him to the ground. His companions stood stupefied for a few moments, as though frozen stiff with fear and apprehension, trying to realize the meaning of the vision. But after the first shock their limbs would no longer support them, and they also fell to the ground. And it was while they were lying down that the men heard the voice, the utterance of someone speaking, and Saul caught every word, but they did not hear definitely, nor could they understand who it was that spoke. And while the form of Jesus was clearly revealed to Saul in the midst of the light, the others saw nothing but the light. So much, then, these companions of Saul could testify to: that a great light appeared, that a voice was heard from the midst of it, that Saul became blind as a result of the miracle. Saul now arose from the earth, but when he tried to open his eyes, he found that he had lost his sight and could see nothing. It was necessary for his companions to take him by the hand and thus lead him into the city. And there his blindness continued for three days, during which time he neither ate nor drank. That was the result of the experience which he had gone through, by which he had been shaken in the innermost parts of his being. The conversion of a person is not always attended with such miracles as in the case of Saul, but it is always as miraculous. It is the Lord that conquers and vanquishes the sinners, His enemies. His holy Law strikes them to the ground, drives them to fear and despair. But He immediately follows with the comforting message of the Gospel, and then the wonder is performed. The resistance and enmity of the unregenerated heart is changed to a cordial acceptance of the love of God. That is the miracle of conversion.
The Early History of Paul’s Life.
Paul, the great missionary of the Gentiles, was born in Tarsus, the ancient, famous capital of Cilicia in Asia Minor, on the Cydnus River, twelve miles from the sea. in the midst of a productive plain, Act 22:3. The city was renowned for its culture as well as its learning, one historian placing it above even Athens and Alexandria in this respect. In this seat of Greek learning the boy, himself the son of a Pharisee and therefore a strict Jew, acquired a knowledge of the Greek language and of the manners and customs of the Greeks, which stood him in good stead in after-life. Incidentally, it should be noted that the inhabitants of Tarsus, having shown themselves friendly to the Romans at the time of Julius Caesar, mere given the privileges of Roman citizens (or Paul’s father may have obtained the right as a reward of merit), and it was on this account that, Paul, a Roman citizen by birth, claimed the rights of such a citizen on different occasions, thus rendering the cause in which he was engaged considerable service. Paul was of pure Jewish descent, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin, and descended from pious ancestors, Php_3:4-5 ; 2Ti 1:3. The instruction in the Law of Moses which he received at home and in the local synagogue was as thorough as that of any Jewish boy in Palestine.
According to Jewish custom some form of manual training was a necessary part of every boy’s education. The young boy Saul also learned a trade, that of a tent-maker, Act 18:3; Act 20:34. The goats’ hair which was used for the manufacture of rude garments and tent cloth, was produced in great quantities in the mountains of Cilicia, whence the finished cloth acquired the name cilicium. This trade was of great service, to Paul in some of the dark days of after-years, Act 18:3; Act 20:34; 1Th 2:9. As soon as little Saul was ready for the great high school of the Jews At Jerusalem, he was sent there by his father, and was thus brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, one of the most learned doctors of the Jews, whose prudence and calmness made him conspicuous among the members of the Sanhedrin, Act 22:3. His advance in the religion of the Jews was beyond that of many of his own age, since he was more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of the fathers, Gal 1:14. He lived up to the demands of the Jewish Law and of all the traditions of the elders with all strictness, so that he could, in after-years, appeal to those that knew to testify to his having lived the life of a strict Pharisee, Act 26:4-5; Php_3:6 .
Very likely Saul left. Jerusalem before John the Baptist began his work, and was absent during the years of Christ’s ministry; for there is no indication in Paul’s writings of a personal knowledge of events in the life of Jesus. It seems that he returned to Jerusalem about the time that Stephen began his debates in the interest of the Christian religion and took part in at least one of these discussions as a member of the synagogue of Cilicia. Paul’s later life is largely described in the Book of Acts and in his epistles, and the probable facts as to his last years will be discussed in connection with some of his last letters.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Act 9:7. Stood speechless, hearing a voice Stood perfectly astonished;stood fixed and confounded. The original implies the attitude of a person who is so astonished as not to be able to stir. In chap. Act 22:9 it is said, that they did not hear the voice of him that spake: but this is easily reconciled with the present passage, by the double sense of the Greek word , which signifies either a human voice, or indistinct sound of words, in general; or a distinct voice or speech. In the passage before us, it is to be understood in the general sense, and in the other as denoting a distinct and articulate sound of words, intelligible to the hearers: so that the companions of Saul heard a voice, but not in so clear a manner as to understand what was said. And this seems to be further confirmed from hence, that we do not find that any of them embraced the Christian truths or dispensation, which probably would have been the case, had it been designed for the conviction of any but Saul himself. So Joh 12:29 those present when the voice from heaven came to Christ, heard the sound, so as to take it for thunder, without distinctly understanding what was said. From St. Paul’s taking such particular notice that the voice spake unto him in the Hebrew tongue, chap. Act 26:14. Dr. Benson thinks we may gather, that possiblyhis companions might be Hellenistic Jews, who, though theyheard the sound of the words, yet did not understand their meaning,for not hearing is frequently put in scripture for not understanding; see particularly 1Co 14:2 in the original. And it does not appear, that Saul informed them who it was that made this glorious appearance unto him, or what the voice had said: very likely he kept it secret from every one, at least till he had received further directions in Damascus. It is said also, that they saw no man; and the case was the same with the men who were with Daniel when he saw the vision, Dan 10:7.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 9:7 . [239] ] According to Act 26:14 , they all fell to the earth with Saul. This diversity is not, with Bengel, Haselaar, Kuinoel, Baumgarten, and others, to be obviated by the purely arbitrary assumption, that the companions at the first appearance of the radiance had fallen down, but then had risen again sooner than Saul; but it is to be recognised as an unessential non-agreement of the several accounts, whereby both the main substance of the event itself, and the impartial conscientiousness of Luke in not arbitrarily harmonizing the different sources, are simply confirmed.
] does not agree with Act 22:9 . See the note on Act 9:3 ff. The artificial attempts at reconciliation are worthless, namely: that , by which Christ’s voice is meant, applies to the words of Paul (so, against the context, Chrysostom, Ammonius, Oecumenius, Camerarius, Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Clarius, Erasmus Schmid, Heumann, and others); or , that is here a noise (thunder), but in Act 22:9 an articulate voice (so erroneously, in opposition to Act 9:4 , Hammond, Elsner, Fabricius, ad Cod. Apocr. N. T. , p. 442, Rosenmller, Morus, Heinrichs); or , that in Act 22:9 denotes the understanding of the voice (so, after Grotius and many older interpreters, in Wolf, Kuinoel, and Hackett), or the definite giving ear in reference to the speaker (Bengel, Baumgarten), which is at variance with the fact, that in both places there is the simple contradistinction of seeing and hearing ; hence the appeal to Joh 12:28-29 is not suitable, and still less the comparison of Dan 10:7 .
. ] But seeing no one , from whom the voice might have come; is used, because the participles contain the subjective cause of their standing perplexed and speechless. It is otherwise in Act 9:8 : .
[239] , dump, speechless (here, from terror), is to be written with one (not ), as is done by Lachm. Tisch. Born. after A B C E H . See on the word, Valck. ad h. I.; Bornem. ad Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 33; Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 102.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (8) And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
No doubt, the whole party which were with Saul, were men of the same description as himself; but we read of no work of grace wrought upon their hearts. They stood speechless, and heard a voice; were overawed with what was going on; but unconscious of anything more. Reader! so hath it been in all ages of the Church, so is it now, and so must it be forever. When the voice from heaven, which was heard by the Jews at Christ’s baptism, declared him to be the beloved Son of God, it had no effect upon them, Mat 3:16-17 . When again, just before his crucifixion, God the Father answered Christ’s prayer to glorify his Son, and said, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again; though some thought that it thundered, others that an angel spake to Jesus, yet no one change was wrought by it upon a single heart of those men, Joh 12:28-29 . Nothing short of the work of God the Holy Ghost upon the heart, can change the heart, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, 2Co 4:6 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Ver. 7. Hearing a voice ] Not Christ’s voice, but Saul’s only, Act 22:9 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
7 .] In ch. Act 22:9 , [ . ], . Two accounts seemingly (and certainly, in the letter ) discrepant; but exceedingly instructive when their spirit is compared, the fact being this: that the companions of Saul saw and were struck to the ground by the light, but saw , no person : that they stood (or ‘were fixed:’ but I should acknowledge the discrepancy here, and recognize the more accurate detail of ch. Act 26:14 , that they fell to the ground ) mute, hearing , the sound of the voice, but not , the words spoken and their meaning. Compare Joh 12:29 , note. (Only no stress must be laid on the difference between the gen. and acc. government of , nor indeed on the mere verbal difference of the two expressions; but their spirit considered, in the possible reference which they might have to one and the same fact.)
Two classes of readers only will stumble at this difference of the forms of narration; those who from enmity to the faith are striving to create or magnify discrepancies, and those who, by the suicidal theory of verbal inspiration, are effectually doing the work of the former. The devout and intelligent student of Scripture will see in such examples a convincing proof of the simple truth of the narrative, the absence of all endeavour to pare away apparent inconsistencies or revise them into conformity, the bon fide work of holy truthful men, bearing each his testimony to things seen and heard under the guidance, not of the spirit of bondage, but of that Spirit of whom it is said, , .
I should not too hastily determine that this account has not come from Saul himself , on account of the above differences: they are no more than might arise in narrations at different times by the same person.
] It will be well to warn younger readers against an error often found in English Commentators (e.g. Dr. Burton here), that is past , and pluperfect in signification, , ‘I have been standing,’ and , ‘had been standing.’ This error arises from forgetting the peculiar character of the verb with regard to transitive and intransitive meanings. is strictly present , imperfect : as much so as sto and stabam . See Matthi, 206. And this accuracy is important here: they had not ‘been standing,’ but had fallen. See ch. Act 26:14 , . Wordsw.’s explanation, that refers to the standing still of the cavalcade, not to the standing of Saul’s companions, is untenable: for 1) the , which qualifies the , forbids it: and 2) his justifying instances are all aorists, Luk 7:14 ; Luk 8:44 ; ch. Act 8:38 , not perfect, which surely will not bear this sense of mere arrestation in a course.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 9:7 . : probably riding in company with him; not found in classical Greek, but used in the same sense as here in Plutarch not elsewhere in N. T; but see Wis 6:23 , and Tob 5:16 ( [223] [224] al. ), so according to in Zec 8:21 ( [225] [226] S al. ), cf. also Symm. in Gen 33:12 . . The form is incorrect, see critical notes: in LXX, cf. Pro 17:28 , Isa 56:10 , Epist. of Jer 41 (Symm. in Hos 9:7 ); see critical notes. It is frivolous to find a contradiction here with Act 26:14 . No stress is laid upon ., which may be used like , and even if there is, it does not preclude a previous falling. We have merely to suppose that the sight and sound had affected Saul’s companions in a less degree than Saul, and that they rose from the ground before him, to make the narratives quite consistent (see Felten, p. 193, Hackett, in loco; B.D. 1 , iv., “Paul” p. 733). Or it is quite possible, as Weiss points out on Act 26:14 , that here the narrative emphasises the impression made by the hearing of the voice, and in Act 26:14 the immediate result produced by the light, and that the narrator is quite unconscious of any contradiction in his recital (see notes below on 22, 26). : there is no contradiction between this statement and Act 26:9 , where it is said that they saw the light here it is not denied that they saw a light, but only that they saw no person. Holtzmann apparently forgets this, and says that whilst in Act 22:9 they see the light, in Act 9:7 they see nothing; but the pronoun is not neuter, but masculine; (see critical notes and reading in [227] ). The inference is that Saul saw Jesus, but although this is not stated in so many words here, it is also to be inferred from the words of Ananias in Act 9:17 , and Act 22:14 , and from St. Paul’s own statement in 1Co 15:8 ; 1Co 9:1 . St. Chrysostom refers . to the words of Saul, but this is certainly not natural, for . evidently refers back to in Act 9:4 .
[223] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[224] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[225] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[226] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[227] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Acts
GRACE TRIUMPHANT
Act 9:1 – Act 9:12
This chapter begins with ‘but,’ which contrasts Saul’s persistent hatred, which led him to Gentile lands to persecute, with Philip’s expansive evangelistic work. Both men were in profound earnest, both went abroad to carry on their work, but the one sought to plant what the other was eager to destroy. If the ‘but’ in Act 9:1 contrasts, the ‘yet’ connects the verse with Act 8:3 . Saul’s fury was no passing outburst, but enduring. Like other indulged passions, it grew with exercise, and had come to be as his very life-breath, and now planned, not only imprisonment, but death, for the heretics.
Not content with carrying his hateful inquisition into the homes of the Christians in Jerusalem, he will follow the fugitives to Damascus. The extension of the persectution was his own thought. He was not the tool of the Sanhedrin, but their mover. They would probably have been content to cleanse Jerusalem, but the young zealot would not rest till he had followed the dispersed poison into every corner where it might have trickled. The high priest would not discourage such useful zeal, however he might smile at its excess.
So Saul got the letters he asked, and some attendants, apparently, to help him in his hunt, and set off for Damascus. Painters have imagined him as riding thither, but more probably he and his people went on foot. It was a journey of some five or six days. The noon of the last day had come, and the groves of Damascus were, perhaps, in sight. No doubt, the young Pharisee’s head was busy settling what he was to begin with when he entered the city, and was exulting in the thought of how he would harry the meek Christians, when the sudden light shone.
At all events, the narrative does not warrant the view, often taken now, that there had been any preparatory process in Saul’s mind, which had begun to sap his confidence that Jesus was a blasphemer, and himself a warrior for God. That view is largely adopted in order to get rid of the supernatural, and to bolster up the assumption that there are no sudden conversions; but the narrative of Luke, and Paul’s own references, are dead against it. At one moment he is ‘yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,’ and in almost the next he is prone on his face, asking, ‘Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?’ It was not a case of a landslide suddenly sweeping down, but long prepared for by the gradual percolation of water to the slippery understrata, but the solid earth was shaken, and the mountain crashed down in sudden ruin.
The causes of Saul’s conversion are plain in the narrative, even though the shortened form is adopted, which is found in the Revised Version. The received text has probably been filled out by additions from Paul’s own account in Act 26:1 – Act 26:32 First came the blaze of light outshining the midday sun, even in that land where its beams are like swords. That blinding light ‘shone round about him,’ enveloping him in its glory. Act 26:13 tells that his companions also were wrapped in the lustre, and that all fell to the earth, no doubt in terror.
Saul is not said, either in this or in his own accounts, to have seen Jesus, but 1Co 15:8 establishes that he did so, and Ananias Act 9:17 refers to Jesus as having ‘appeared.’ That appearance, whatever may have been the psychological account of it, was by Paul regarded as being equal in evidential value to the flesh-and-blood vision of the risen Lord which the other Apostles witnessed to, and as placing him in the same line as a witness.
It is to be noted also, that, while the attendants saw the light, they were not blinded, as Saul was; from which it may be inferred that he saw with his bodily eyes the glorified manhood of Jesus, as we are told that one day, when He returns as Judge, ‘every eye shall see Him.’ Be that as it may,-and we have not material for constructing a theory of the manner of Christ’s appearance to Saul,- the overwhelming conviction was flooded into his soul, that the Jesus whom he had thought of as a blasphemer, falsely alleged to have risen from the dead, lived in heavenly glory, amid celestial brightness too dazzling for human eyes.
The words of gentle remonstrance issuing from the flashing glory went still further to shake the foundations of the young Pharisee’s life; for they, as with one lightning gleam, laid hare the whole madness and sin of the crusade which he had thought acceptable to God. ‘Why persecutest thou Me?’ Then the odious heretics were knit by some mysterious bond to this glorious One, so that He bled in their wounds and felt their pains! Then Saul had been, as his old teacher dreaded they of the Sanhedrin might be, fighting against God! How the reasons for Saul’s persecution had crumbled away, till there were none left with which to answer Jesus’ question! Jesus lived, and was exalted to glory. He was identified with His servants. He had appeared to Saul, and deigned to plead with him.
No wonder that the man who had been planning fresh assaults on the disciples ten minutes before, was crushed and abject as he lay there on the road, and these tremendous new convictions rushed like a cataract over and into his soul! No wonder that the lessons burned in on him in that hour of destiny became the centre-point of all his future teaching! That vision revolutionised his thinking and his life. None can affirm that it was incompetent to do so.
Luke’s account here, like Paul’s in Act 22:1 – Act 22:30 , represents further instructions from Jesus as postponed till Saul’s meeting with Ananias, while Paul’s other account in Act 26:1 – Act 26:32 omits mention of the latter, and gives the substance of what he said in Damascus as said on the road by Jesus. The one account is more detailed than the other, that is all. The gradual unfolding of the heavenly purpose which our narrative gives is in accord with the divine manner. For the moment enough had been done to convert the persecutor into the servant, to level with the ground his self-righteousness, to reveal to him the glorified Jesus, to bend his will and make it submissive. The rest would be told him in due time.
The attendants had fallen to the ground like him, but seem to have struggled to their feet again, while he lay prostrate. They saw the brightness, but not the Person: they heard the voice, but not the words. Saul staggered by their help to his feet, and then found that with open eyes he was blind. Imagination or hallucination does not play tricks of that sort with the organs of sense.
The supernatural is too closely intertwined with the story to be taken out of it without reducing it to tatters. The greatest of Christian teachers, who has probably exercised more influence than any man who ever lived, was made a Christian by a miracle. That fact is not to be got rid of. But we must remember that once when He speaks of it He points to God’s revelation of His Son ‘ in Him’ as its essential character. The external appearance was the vehicle of the inward revelation. It is to be remembered, too, that the miracle did not take away Saul’s power of accepting or rejecting the Christ; for he tells Agrippa that he was ‘not disobedient to the heavenly vision.’
What a different entry he made into Damascus from what he expected, and what a different man it was that crawled up to the door of Judas, in the street that is called Straight, from the self-confident young fanatic who had left Jerusalem with the high priest’s letters in his bosom and fierce hate in his heart!
Ananias was probably not one of the fugitives, as his language about Saul implies that he knew of his doings only by hearsay. The report of Saul’s coming and authority to arrest disciples had reached Damascus before him, with the wonderful quickness with which news travels in the East, nobody knows how. Ananias’s fears being quieted, he went to the house where for three days Saul had been lying lonely in the dark, fasting, and revolving many things in his heart. No doubt his Lord had spoken many a word to him, though not by vision, but by whispering to his spirit. Silence and solitude root truth in a soul. After such a shock, absolute seclusion was best.
Ananias discharged his commission with lovely tenderness and power. How sweet and strange to speaker and hearer would that ‘Brother Saul’ sound! How strong and grateful a confirmation of his vision would Ananias’s reference to the appearance of the Lord bring! How humbly would the proud Pharisee bow to receive, laid on his head, the hands that he had thought to bind with chains! What new eyes would look out on a world in which all things had become new, when there fell from them as it had been scales, and as quickly as had come the blinding, so quickly came the restored vision!
Ananias was neither Apostle nor official, yet the laying on of his hands communicated ‘the Holy Ghost.’ Saul received that gift before baptism, not after or through the ordinance. It was important for his future relations to the Apostles that he should not have been introduced to the Church by them, or owed to them his first human Christian teaching. Therefore he could say that he was ‘an Apostle, not from men, neither through man.’ It was important for us that in that great instance that divine gift should have been bestowed without the conditions accompanying, which have too often been regarded as necessary for, its possession.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
journeyed with. Greek. sunodeuo. Only here.
speechless. Greek. enneos or eneos. Only here in N.T., but found in Septuagint Pro 17:28 (holdeth his peace) and Isa 56:10 (dumb).
hearing. The companions of Saul heard the sound of the voice, but did not distinguish the words spoken. Compare Act 22:9. This is expressed by the word “voice” (phone) being in the genitive case here, and in the accusative case in Act 9:4. Compare Joh 12:28-30.
seeing. Greek. theoreo. App-133.:11.
no man = no one. Greek. medeis.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
7.] In ch. Act 22:9, [. ], . Two accounts seemingly (and certainly, in the letter) discrepant; but exceedingly instructive when their spirit is compared,-the fact being this: that the companions of Saul saw and were struck to the ground by the light, but saw , no person:-that they stood (or were fixed: but I should acknowledge the discrepancy here, and recognize the more accurate detail of ch. Act 26:14, that they fell to the ground) mute, hearing , the sound of the voice, but not , the words spoken and their meaning. Compare Joh 12:29, note. (Only no stress must be laid on the difference between the gen. and acc. government of , nor indeed on the mere verbal difference of the two expressions;-but their spirit considered, in the possible reference which they might have to one and the same fact.)
Two classes of readers only will stumble at this difference of the forms of narration; those who from enmity to the faith are striving to create or magnify discrepancies,-and those who, by the suicidal theory of verbal inspiration, are effectually doing the work of the former. The devout and intelligent student of Scripture will see in such examples a convincing proof of the simple truth of the narrative,-the absence of all endeavour to pare away apparent inconsistencies or revise them into conformity,-the bon fide work of holy truthful men, bearing each his testimony to things seen and heard under the guidance, not of the spirit of bondage, but of that Spirit of whom it is said, , .
I should not too hastily determine that this account has not come from Saul himself, on account of the above differences: they are no more than might arise in narrations at different times by the same person.
] It will be well to warn younger readers against an error often found in English Commentators (e.g. Dr. Burton here),-that is past, and pluperfect in signification,-, I have been standing, and , had been standing. This error arises from forgetting the peculiar character of the verb with regard to transitive and intransitive meanings. is strictly present,- imperfect: as much so as sto and stabam. See Matthi, 206. And this accuracy is important here: they had not been standing, but had fallen. See ch. Act 26:14, . Wordsw.s explanation, that refers to the standing still of the cavalcade, not to the standing of Sauls companions, is untenable: for 1) the , which qualifies the , forbids it: and 2) his justifying instances are all aorists, Luk 7:14; Luk 8:44; ch. Act 8:38, not perfect, which surely will not bear this sense of mere arrestation in a course.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 9:7. , who journeyed with him) some of whom he had been about to employ as executioners.-, were standing) They too had fallen, ch. Act 26:14; but they had arisen before Saul, of their own accord.-, hearing) ch. Act 22:9, They saw indeed the bight, but heard not the voice. Therefore they must have seen the light (ch. Act 26:13-14), but not Jesus Himself: they heard the voice alone, not the voice accompanied with the words. Comp. Joh 12:29.-, no man) It is not said, They did not see Jesus, but, they saw no man: for they did not know that Jesus had been seen by Paul.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
voice
Cf Act 22:9; Act 26:14.
A contradiction has been imagined. The three statements should be taken together. The men heard the “voice” as a sound (Greek – ), but did not hear the “voice” as articulating the words, “Saul, Saul,” etc).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Act 22:9, Act 26:13, Act 26:14, Dan 10:7, Mat 24:40, Mat 24:41
Reciprocal: Dan 8:16 – I heard
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
Act 9:7. Hear is from AKOUO, and the lexicon gives several distinct meanings, but they may be classified under three heads; I shall quote Thayer’s definitions for the three: “1. To be endowed with the faculty of hearing. 2. To attend to, consider. 3. To understand, perceive the sense of what is said.” The particular sense of the word in any given place must be determined by the context. Hence we know the word is used with the first meaning here; they merely knew by their ears that a voice was speaking, while in chapter 22:9 the third meaning is used. Seeing no man was because the voice came from Heaven, and no one but Saul was to see Jesus then.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 9:7. The men who journeyed with him stood speechless. In chap. Act 26:14 Paul tells King Agrippa how we were all fallen to the earth; here, in the narrative of Luke, we read how they stood speechless. The words stood speechless do not signify apparently that they stood erect, in distinction from lying prostrate, but that, overpowered with what they saw and heard, they were fixed, rooted as it were to the spot. It must also be borne in mind, that the fact, which it was especially desired that the reader or hearer of this narration should be impressed with, was not that the men stood or were fallen to the ground,this detail is utterly unimportant,but that they were speechless and confounded.
Hearing a voice. In chap. Act 22:9, Paul, speaking to the people from the Temple stairs, relates how they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me; while here, in Lukes narrative of the same event, we read of the companions of Paul hearing a voice. Of the many solutions that have been proposed to reconcile this apparent contradiction, the best is that adopted by Baumgarten, Lange, Wordsworth, Gloag, etc., which explains Lukes account in this chap. 9 thus:
The companions of Saul heard the sound of the words, while in Pauls account (chap. Act 22:9) his companions did not understand what was spoken; or in other words, Saul received a clear impression of what was being spoken, whilst those with him received only an indefinite one. Once in the Gospel history a similar phenomenon is recorded by St. Joh 12:28-29, when there came a voice from heaven answering Jesus: I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. Three classes of hearers are here spoken of: those who believed recognised the glorious voice and understood the words; others with less faith and love said it was an angel which spoke to Him; while to the multitude in general the voice was only as though it thundered.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, The testimony or witnesses of Saul’s conversion, to writ, the men that journeyed with him; it is probable that he had a considerable number of officers with him, to bring both men and women that professed Christianity bound to Jerusalem. These saw the light shining and heard a confused noise like thunder, but they saw not Christ himself, as he did, nor heard the articulate voice of Christ that he heard, which spake so powerfully, so convincingly, and so convertingly to his soul.
Lord, how many are there that come under thine ordinances, who hear only (like Saul’s companions) a confused noise and empty sound! They do not hear the distinct voice of Christ speaking to their hearts with a strong hand, inwardly and effectually, and so remanin under the power of unbelief, in an unconverted state.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Act 9:7. And the men which journeyed with him Who at first fell to the ground, as Saul did: upon recovering themselves and rising up; stood speechless With astonishment and terror; hearing a voice , hearing indeed the voice; namely, the sound of that voice which had spoken to Saul; but without distinctly understanding the sense of what was said. This seems the most probable way of reconciling this with Act 22:9; and it is confirmed by Joh 12:29; where we learn that some present, when the voice from heaven came to Christ, took it for thunder. But seeing no man Nor perceiving who it was that had been speaking to Saul. So it was with the men who were with Daniel, when he saw the vision, mentioned Dan 10:7; and the heathen, however they came by the notion, thought their deities often rendered themselves visible to one only, in a company consisting of many.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
7. While the conversation was passing between Saul and Jesus, the conduct of his companions is thus described by Luke. (7) “Now, the men who were journeying with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no man.” Paul gives a different account of their demeanor, by saying that they all fell to the ground; but the two accounts harmonize very naturally. The first effect of such an apparition would naturally to be prostrate them all; but his companions, not being held in this position by any direct address to them, would naturally arise after the first shock was over, and fleeing to a safe distance, there stand gazing, in mute terror, upon the glory which enveloped their leader. This supposition is confirmed by the fact that Paul represents the falling to the earth as occurring before the voice was heard, while their standing speechless is connected by Luke with the close of the conversation.
This supposition helps to account for a well-known verbal discrepancy between these two accounts. Luke says they heard the voice; Paul says “they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.” The discrepancy arises from the ambiguous use of the verb hear. There is nothing more common, among all nations, than for one who is listening to a speaker, but, either from his own confusion or the indistinctness of the speaker’s articulation, can only catch an occasional word, to exclaim “I don’t hear you;” although the sound of the voice reaches him continually. It is in this sense of the word hear, that the companions of Saul, in the confusion of their effort to escape from the scene, failed to hear the voice. They heard the sound, but did not understand the words.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 7
Hearing, a voice. In some cases, where God is said to have spoken to men, the communication appears to have been made, not by audible words, but by inward suggestion; and hence it has sometimes been supposed that the dialogue here recorded represents the train of reflection which was awakened in Saul’s mind by this event, and that the voice here spoken of was some sound, not articulate, which accompanied the light. The language, however, which Paul uses in Acts 22:9 where he says that his companions did not hear–that is, did not understand–the voice of him which spake to him, and in Acts 26:14, where he says that the words which he heard were in the Hebrew tongue, seems to be utterly inconsistent with this interpretation. The accounts are plainly intended to convey the idea that this was actually a personal interview between the determined persecutor and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:7 And the men which journeyed with him {d} stood speechless, hearing a {e} voice, but seeing no man.
(d) Stood still and could not go one step forward, but remained amazed as stood still like statues.
(e) They heard Paul’s voice: for afterwards it is plainly said in Act 22:9 that they did not hear the voice of the one who spoke. Others, however, try to reconcile these places (which seem to contradict) by saying that the men with Saul heard the sound of a voice, but did not hear it clearly.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Evidently Saul’s traveling companions heard a voice-like sound, but only Saul understood Jesus’ words (cf. Act 9:7; Act 22:9; Act 26:14; cf. Joh 12:29). They all fell to the ground when they saw the light (Act 26:14), but now they stood speechless. The light of the vision he had seen had blinded Saul temporarily. His companions had to lead him off into Damascus where he waited for three days for further instructions, blind, fasting, and praying (cf. Act 1:14; Luk 1:22). [Note: On the practice of fasting, see Kent D. Berghuis, "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting," Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.]
"He who had intended to enter Damascus like an avenging fury was led by the hand into that city, blind and helpless as a child." [Note: Barclay, p. 73.]
"In the light of Paul’s subsequent career, his single-minded devotion to Christ, his tireless efforts to bring Jews and Gentiles alike face to face with the same Lord as he had encountered on the Damascus road, his remorse for his vindictive cruelty, his atonement for it in selfless service of the Church he had tried to crush, it is frivolous to attempt to explain away Paul’s conversion as a hallucination, an attack of sunstroke, or an epileptic fit [as some Bible critics have alleged]. It was as is every genuine conversion experience a miracle of the grace of God." [Note: Neil, p. 128.]