Tina
Member
- Jun 28, 2009
- 2,165
- 6
bodhitharta said:
Acts 9:7
And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.
Acts 9:5
And he said, “Who are You, Lord?â€Â
Acts 22:8
So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’
When Paul asked, "Who are you, Lord?" , he recognised and was addressing the person speaking to him as God and personal master. Evidently Paul's traveling companions heard a voice-like sound, but only Paul understood Jesus' words
Acts 22:11
And since I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of those who were with me, I came into Damascus.
Acts 22:14
Then he said, ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth.
When Saul opened his eyes, following the brilliant vision, he was unable to see anything, and it was necessary that he should be led by his companions into the city of Damascus. Even though these men also “saw the light,†they were not blinded. Why not?
This unique detail explains the matter. It was the “glory†of the light, ie., the radiance of the Lord Jesus himself (Acts 22:11; Acts 22:14), that his companions did not see, that temporarily robbed Saul of his vision. The details are complementary, not contradictory. They saw the light, but not the vision. They heard the sound, but did not understand the words. This epiphany was meant for Paul alone.
Acts 22:9 (NKJV)
And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.
Acts 22:9 (NIV)
My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
Obviously, according to the NIV translation of Acts 22:9, there is no contradiction, as you can hear a sound, but not the recognize it as the voice of one speaking. So is this translation justified? Sure. The original Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message. The Greek "akouo", like ther word "hear", has two distinct meanings, to perceive sound, and to understand. This distinction makes sense also in light of the context. Recall the differing levels of perception. While the men heard an unintelligible sound and saw a light, Paul heard the voice and saw the person speaking. In fact, this type of distinction occurs in another place :
John 12:28-29
"Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again". The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him".
Here is a clear-cut example where a voice speaks, but is heard by some as an unintelligible sound.
The first account (Acts 9) tells the story of Paul's conversion as a third-person narrative.
The second telling (Acts 22) of Paul's conversion occurs in a speech Paul gives when he is arrested in Jerusalem. Paul addresses the crowd and tells them of his conversion.
The third discussion (Acts 26) of Paul's conversion occurs when Paul addresses King Agrippa , defending himself against the accusations of antinomianism that have been made against him.
We should not assume that the accounts are exhaustive. They are not. It's not as if the author of Acts is saying "this is how it happened" three separate times. The author does this once, and the other two times he relays Paul speaking about it in two different contexts. Now given that the author wasn't on the road to Damascus, and given that Paul was speaking from memory, and given that none of these are meant to be some exhaustive, detailed, point by point description, it is indeed wise to fit them all together. Furthermore, the account in Acts 26 relays a speech that Paul gave to King Agrippa which was only a synopsis. Acts 26 simply relays the manner in which Paul chose to convey his points.
.
