KJV: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
YLT: And the men who are journeying with him stood speechless, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one,
Darby: But the men who were travelling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but beholding no one.
ASV: And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man.
| Οἱ | - |
|
Parse: Article, Nominative Masculine Plural Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| ἄνδρες | the men |
|
Parse: Noun, Nominative Masculine Plural Root: ἀνήρ Sense: with reference to sex. |
|
| συνοδεύοντες | traveling with |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Participle Active, Nominative Masculine Plural Root: συνοδεύω Sense: to journey with, travel in company with. |
|
| εἱστήκεισαν | stood |
|
Parse: Verb, Pluperfect Indicative Active, 3rd Person Plural Root: ἵστημι Sense: to cause or make to stand, to place, put, set. |
|
| ἐνεοί | speechless |
|
Parse: Adjective, Nominative Masculine Plural Root: ἐνεός Sense: dumb, mute, destitute of power of speech. |
|
| ἀκούοντες | hearing |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Participle Active, Nominative Masculine Plural Root: ἀκουστός Sense: to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf. |
|
| μὲν | indeed |
|
Parse: Conjunction Root: μέν Sense: truly, certainly, surely, indeed. |
|
| φωνῆς | voice |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Feminine Singular Root: φωνή Sense: a sound, a tone. |
|
| μηδένα | no one |
|
Parse: Adjective, Accusative Masculine Singular Root: μηδείς Sense: nobody, no one, nothing. |
|
| δὲ | however |
|
Parse: Conjunction Root: δέ Sense: but, moreover, and, etc. |
|
| θεωροῦντες | seeing |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Participle Active, Nominative Masculine Plural Root: θεωρέω Sense: to be a spectator, look at, behold. |
|
Greek Commentary for Acts 9:7
Not in the older Greek, but in the Koiné, with the associative instrumental. [source]
Mute. Only here in N.T., though old word. Hearing the voice, but beholding no man (ακουοντες μεν της πωνησ μηδενα δε τεωρουντες akouontes men tēs phōnēsμεν δε mēdena de theōrountes). Two present active participles in contrast (το μεν πως ετεασαντο menτην δε πωνην ουκ ηκουσαν του λαλουντος μοι de). In Acts 22:9 Paul says that the men “beheld the light” (πωνη to men phōs etheasanto), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, “but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (ακουω tēn de phōnēn ouk ēkousan tou lalountos moi). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in Acts 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 πωνη phōnē as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that ακουω akouō 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 πωνην phōnē They heard the sound (Acts 9:7), but did not understand the words (Acts 22:9). However, this distinction in case with ηκουσεν πωνην akouō though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in John 3:8 where ηκουσα πωνης phōnēn undoubtedly means “sound” the accusative occurs as Luke uses ηκουσα πωνην ēkousen phōnēn about Saul in Acts 9:4. Besides in Acts 22:7 Paul uses ēkousa phōnēs about himself, but ēkousa phōnēn about himself in Acts 26:14, interchangeably. [source]
Two present active participles in contrast In Acts 22:9 Paul says that the men “beheld the light” Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in Acts 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 πωνη phōnē as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that ακουω akouō 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 πωνην phōnē They heard the sound (Acts 9:7), but did not understand the words (Acts 22:9). However, this distinction in case with ηκουσεν πωνην akouō though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in John 3:8 where ηκουσα πωνης phōnēn undoubtedly means “sound” the accusative occurs as Luke uses ηκουσα πωνην ēkousen phōnēn about Saul in Acts 9:4. Besides in Acts 22:7 Paul uses ēkousa phōnēs about himself, but ēkousa phōnēn about himself in Acts 26:14, interchangeably. [source]
Only here in New Testament. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Acts 9:7
Perfect active infinitive of γινομαι ginomai in indirect discourse after ελεγεν elegen and the accusative of general reference Perfect active indicative of λαλεω laleō So, when Jesus spoke to Saul on the way to Damascus, those with Saul heard the voice, but did not understand (Acts 9:7; Acts 22:9). [source]
The verb is to be taken in the sense of understood, as Mark 4:33; 1 Corinthians 14:2, which explains the apparent discrepancy with Acts 9:7. [source]
Genitive case after ηκουσα ēkousa (cf. Acts 9:7 and accusative Acts 9:4 which see for discussion). Participle λεγουσης legousēs (present active of λεγω legō) agreeing with πωνης phōnēs a kind of indirect discourse use of the participle. [source]
Old word, here alone in N.T. So the verb εδαπιζω edaphizō is in Luke 19:44 alone in the N.T. A voice saying (πωνης λεγουσης phōnēs legousēs). Genitive after ηκουσα ēkousa though in Acts 26:14 the accusative is used after ηκουσα ēkousa as in Acts 22:14 after ακουσαι akousai either being allowable. See note on Acts 9:7 for discussion of the difference in case. Saul‘s name repeated each time (Acts 9:4; Acts 22:7; Acts 26:14). Same question also in each report: “Why persecuted thou me?” (Τι με διωκεισ Ti me diōkeiṡ). These piercing words stuck in Paul‘s mind. [source]
Genitive after ηκουσα ēkousa though in Acts 26:14 the accusative is used after ηκουσα ēkousa as in Acts 22:14 after ακουσαι akousai either being allowable. See note on Acts 9:7 for discussion of the difference in case. Saul‘s name repeated each time (Acts 9:4; Acts 22:7; Acts 26:14). Same question also in each report: “Why persecuted thou me?” These piercing words stuck in Paul‘s mind. [source]
The accusative here may be used rather than the genitive as in Acts 22:7 to indicate that those with Paul did not understand what they heard (Acts 9:7) just as they beheld the light (Acts 22:9), but did not see Jesus (Acts 9:7). The difference in cases allows this distinction, though it is not always observed as just noticed about Acts 22:14; Acts 26:14. The verb ακουω akouō is used in the sense of understand (Mark 4:33; 1 Corinthians 14:2). 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” Clearly not genuine. [source]
Second aorist active participle. So in Acts 22:7 Paul says: “I fell unto the ground” But here in Acts 9:7 ”the men that journeyed with him stood speechless” But surely the points of time are different. In Acts 26:14 Paul refers to the first appearance of the vision when all fell to the earth. Here in Acts 9:7 Luke refers to what occurred after the vision when both Saul and the men had risen from the ground. [source]
Mute. Only here in N.T., though old word. Hearing the voice, but beholding no man (ακουοντες μεν της πωνησ μηδενα δε τεωρουντες akouontes men tēs phōnēsμεν δε mēdena de theōrountes). Two present active participles in contrast (το μεν πως ετεασαντο menτην δε πωνην ουκ ηκουσαν του λαλουντος μοι de). In Acts 22:9 Paul says that the men “beheld the light” (πωνη to men phōs etheasanto), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, “but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (ακουω tēn de phōnēn ouk ēkousan tou lalountos moi). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in Acts 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 πωνη phōnē as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that ακουω akouō 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 πωνην phōnē They heard the sound (Acts 9:7), but did not understand the words (Acts 22:9). However, this distinction in case with ηκουσεν πωνην akouō though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in John 3:8 where ηκουσα πωνης phōnēn undoubtedly means “sound” the accusative occurs as Luke uses ηκουσα πωνην ēkousen phōnēn about Saul in Acts 9:4. Besides in Acts 22:7 Paul uses ēkousa phōnēs about himself, but ēkousa phōnēn about himself in Acts 26:14, interchangeably. [source]
Two present active participles in contrast In Acts 22:9 Paul says that the men “beheld the light” Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in Acts 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 πωνη phōnē as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that ακουω akouō 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 πωνην phōnē They heard the sound (Acts 9:7), but did not understand the words (Acts 22:9). However, this distinction in case with ηκουσεν πωνην akouō though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in John 3:8 where ηκουσα πωνης phōnēn undoubtedly means “sound” the accusative occurs as Luke uses ηκουσα πωνην ēkousen phōnēn about Saul in Acts 9:4. Besides in Acts 22:7 Paul uses ēkousa phōnēs about himself, but ēkousa phōnēn about himself in Acts 26:14, interchangeably. [source]
Literally, hears, gets the sense, understands. Verb ακουω akouō used either of hearing the sound only or getting the idea (cf. Acts 9:7; Acts 22:9). [source]
For μιαν mian as indefinite article see Revelation 8:13. Accusative case here after ηκουσα ēkousa though genitive in Revelation 8:13, a distinction between sound and sense sometimes exists (Acts 9:7; Acts 22:9), but not here as the words are clearly heard in both instances. [source]