And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.
Read Chapter 22
George Leo Haydock
AD 1849
Heard not the voice. To reconcile this with chap. ix. ver. 7. where it is said that they heard the voice; it may be answered that they heard a noise, and a voice, but heard it not distinctly, nor so as to understand the words. (Witham)
They heard not the voice of him who spoke to the apostle, but they heard the latter speak; (Acts ix. 7.) or perhaps they heard a noise, which they could not understand. They perhaps heard the voice of Paul answering, but not that of Christ complaining.
But in another place he says, Hearing the voice, but seeing no man. Acts 9:7 It is not at variance: no, there were two voices, that of Paul and the Lord's voice: in that place, the writer means Paul's voice (Hom. xix. p. 124, note 2); as in fact (Paul) here adds, The voice of Him that spoke unto me. Seeing no man: he does not say, that they did not see the light: but, no man, that is, none speaking. And good reason that it should be so, since it behooved him alone to have that voice vouchsafed unto him. For if indeed they also had heard it, (the miracle) would not have been so great. Since persons of grosser minds are persuaded more by sight, those saw the light, and were afraid. In fact, neither did the light take so much effect on them, as it did on him: for it even blinded his eyes: by that which befell him, (God) gave them also an opportunity of recovering their sight, if they had the mind. It seems to me at least, that their not believing was providentially ordered, that they migh...
