9<\/strong>. and were afraid<\/em> ] These words are omitted in the oldest MSS. and have been left out in the Rev. Ver.<\/em> But they are not like anything in the other two accounts, the one of which (Act 9:7<\/span>) describes Saul’s companions as being “speechless,” the other (Act 26:14<\/span>) as “all falling to the ground.” Therefore it seems best to retain them, as not being due to any annotation, or to the assimilation of one form of the story to another. The last three letters of this phrase are the same as those of the phrase preceding it, and the eye of a scribe in early times may have passed from one to the other, and thus words belonging to the earliest form of the narrative may have been omitted.<\/p>\n heard not the voice<\/em> ] i.e. the words which were spoken to Saul. They were only conscious of a sound around them. See above on Act 22:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n Of this; See Poole on “Act 9:7<\/span>“. This may be added to what was formerly said, that the men who travelled with Paul may be said not to have heard the voice of him that spake, because they did not understand it, or obey it; they were not converted, as Paul was, by it; the Hebrew language putting hearing for obeying, as in many scriptures; and both St. Paul, who here spake, and Luke, who penned this history, understood exactly the proprieties of that tongue. <\/P> <\/p>\n 9-11. they that were with me<\/B>(Seeon Ac 9:7<\/span>, &c.)<\/P><\/p>\n And they that were with me saw indeed the light<\/strong>,…. For it shone about them, as well as Saul:<\/p>\n and were afraid<\/strong>; the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, and Syriac versions, have not this clause; but it stands in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; the suddenness, greatness, and extraordinariness of the light surprised them, for it was even miraculous:<\/p>\n but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me<\/strong>: they heard the voice of Saul, but not the voice of Christ; at least they did not hear it so as to understand it; [See comments on Ac 9:7]<\/span>.<\/p>\n But they heard not the voice <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The accusative here may be used rather than the genitive as in verse 7<\/span> to indicate that those with Paul did not understand what they heard (9:7<\/span>) just as they beheld the light (22:9<\/span>), but did not see Jesus (9:7<\/span>). The difference in cases allows this distinction, though it is not always observed as just noticed about Acts 22:14<\/span>; Acts 26:14<\/span>. The verb <\/SPAN><\/span> is used in the sense of understand (Mark 4:33<\/span>; 1Cor 14:2<\/span>). It is one of the evidences of the genuineness of this report of Paul’s speech that Luke did not try to smooth out apparent discrepancies in details between the words of Paul and his own record already in ch. 9. The Textus Receptus adds in this verse: “And they became afraid” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Clearly not genuine. <\/P> <\/p>\n Heard not [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The verb is to be taken in the sense of understood, as Mr 4:33<\/span>; 1Co 14:2<\/span>, which explains the apparent discrepancy with ch. 9 7.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And they that were with me saw indeed the light,”<\/strong> (hoi de sun emoi ontes to men phos etheasanto) “Now those who were in consort with me (traveling for the same purpose I was) indeed beheld or gazed upon the brilliant light,” Act 26:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “And were afraid;”<\/strong> “Stood speechless,” as recounted, Act 9:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “But they heard not the voice,”<\/strong> (ten de phonen ouk ekousan) “Yet the voice they heard not,” did not recognize or understand what was said, as I did. There is no contradiction between this passage and Act 9:7<\/span> where it is said, they heard” a voice. In this passage the idea is they “heard not,” in the sense that they did not understand.<\/p>\n 4) “Of Him that spake to me.”<\/strong> (tou lalountos moi) “Of the one who was speaking t o me,” of the risen and ascended Jesus of Nazareth, who identified Himself as Jesus of Nazareth, the resurrected, living, and ascended Lord, Act 22:8<\/span>; Act 9:5<\/span>; Act 1:10-11<\/span>.<\/p>\n − <\/p>\n 9. They which were with me. I showed in the other place, that there is no such disagreement in the words of Luke as there seemeth to be. Luke said there, that though Paul’s companions stood amazed, yet heard they a voice. − (502) But in this place he saith, they heard not the voice of him which spake to Paul though they saw the light. Surely it is no absurd thing to say that they heard some obscure voice; yet so that they did not discern it as Paul himself, whom alone Christ meant to stay and tame with the reprehension. Therefore, they hear a voice, because a sound doth enter into their ears, so that they know that some speaketh from heaven; they hear not the voice of him that spake to Paul, because they understand not what Christ saith. Moreover, they see Paul compassed about with the light, but they see none which speaketh from heaven. − <\/p>\n (502) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Vocem audisse, neminem vidisse,” heard a voice, and saw no one. <\/p>\n (9) They heard not the voice . . .<\/strong>i.e.,<\/em> they did not hear it as a voice uttering articulate words. It was for them as though it thundered. (See Notes on Act. 9:7<\/span>, and Joh. 12:29<\/span>.)<\/p>\n 9<\/strong>. <\/strong> Heard not the voice<\/strong> Paul introduces this cautionary clause, because he was, doubtless, aware that his attendants, on returning to Jerusalem, in reporting the wonderful light and sound, testified to nothing of the mission he received from the words of Jesus. That special testimony their ears were incompetent to receive, and the official witness was to be Ananias.<\/p>\n “And those who were with me beheld indeed the light, but they did not hear the voice of him who spoke to me.”<\/p>\n Those who were with him had beheld the light. It was not just something internal. They had heard noises (as we are told elsewhere), but they had not understood exactly what was being said. They had not ‘understood the voice’. Compare Joh 12:28-29<\/span>. They were like Paul’s listeners, unable to discern, seeing a light, hearing noises, but unresponding.<\/p>\n Act 22:9<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>But they heard not the voice<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> See on ch. Act 9:7<\/span>. <\/p>\n 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 9. But they heard not<\/strong> ] See Trapp on “<\/em> Act 9:7 “<\/em> <\/p>\n with. Greek. sun. App-104. <\/p>\n saw = beheld. Greek. theaomai. App-133. It was no mere lightning flash. Compare “glory”, Act 22:11. <\/p>\n and were afraid. Omit. <\/p>\n heard. See note on Act 9:7. <\/p>\n spake. Greek. laleo. App-121. <\/p>\n voice <\/p>\n Cf. (See Scofield “Act 9:7”). <\/p>\n saw: Act 9:7, Dan 10:7 <\/p>\n but: Joh 12:29, Joh 12:30 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Num 22:23 – the ass saw 1Co 14:2 – understandeth<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n Act 22:9. For comments on heard, see chapter 9:7.<\/p>\n Act 22:9. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Much has been said as to the seeming discrepancy between the statement here that Pauls companions heard not the voice of Him that spoke to me, and the words in the narrative, chap. Act 9:7, hearing a voice. Dr. J. A. Alexander well explains this apparent difference: There is a distinction between hearing a voice speak and hearing what it says, as nothing is more common in our public bodies than the complaint that the speaker is not heard, i.e. that his words are not distinguished, though his voice may be audible and even loud. It might be said with equal truth, that Pauls companions heard the voice, i.e. knew that it was speaking, and that they did not hear it, i.e. did not know what it said. See St. Johns Gospel, Joh 12:29, where a similar confusion seems to have occurred in the listeners minds. Here as there, the Divine Voice to the ordinary bystander was a voice, but not one uttering articulate words.<\/p>\n (On the identity of the light from heaven, which shone round about the company of Saul, with the Shekinah or visible glory, which on so many occasions had been seen by Israel, see note on chap. Act 9:3, where the question is discussed at length.)<\/p>\n See notes on verse 3<\/p>\n Verse 9 <\/p>\n Heard not the voice; understood it not. That they did hear the sound, is stated in the original account of the transaction. (Acts 9:7.)<\/p>\n And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 9. and were afraid ] These words are omitted in the oldest MSS. and have been left out in the Rev. Ver. But they are not like anything in the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 22:9”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27672","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27672"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27672\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"