Why do Acts 9:7 and 22:9 differ on hearing?

Overview of the Passages

Acts 9:7 states: “The men traveling with him stood there speechless. They heard the voice but did not see anyone.”

Acts 22:9 states: “My companions saw the light, but they could not understand the voice of the One speaking to me.”

At first glance, one passage seems to indicate that Saul’s companions heard a voice, while the other highlights they did not understand the voice. These two verses describe the same event—Saul’s encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus—yet they appear to give different accounts regarding what the companions heard.

Below is a comprehensive exploration of these verses, their context, and the reasons why they are not contradictory.

Historical and Contextual Background

The Book of Acts follows the growth of the early church after Christ’s resurrection. Saul (later called Paul) was traveling to Damascus to persecute followers of Christ when a supernatural encounter changed his life (Acts 9). Luke, the traditionally recognized author of Acts, narrates this event in Acts 9 from an overarching perspective. Later, in Acts 22, Paul recounts his conversion experience during his defense in Jerusalem.

This repetition of the same incident in different settings—first as a narrator’s account and then as Paul’s firsthand testimony—can naturally emphasize different details or perspectives.

Language and Literary Nuance

A key component in comparing these two passages is the Greek verb ἀκούω (akouō), which can mean “to hear” in different senses, including “to perceive a sound” or “to understand.” The same Greek word can be used either in a general sense (merely hearing a noise) or in a more specific sense (understanding distinct words).

• In Acts 9:7, the text underscores that Saul’s traveling companions perceived the sound of a voice (i.e., they heard noise or speech sounds).

• In Acts 22:9, Paul states that they lacked the ability to comprehend or grasp the message being spoken.

Many translators capture this nuance by rendering Acts 22:9’s phrase as “did not understand” or “could not comprehend.” The Berean Standard Bible accurately reflects this distinction by noting they “could not understand the voice.”

Grammatical Considerations

Scholars point to variations in Greek grammar to clarify this distinction. Sometimes ἀκούω in the genitive case can mean hearing the sound of something, while ἀκούω in the accusative case can imply the sense of listening with understanding. In Acts 9:7, the companions are said to “hear” (indicating the audible sound). In Acts 22:9, they do not “hear” in the sense of comprehension.

Textual studies by reputable New Testament manuscript scholars (e.g., Daniel B. Wallace’s Greek Grammar and the research of James White) uphold the consistency of these verses, showing that the Greek usage in each passage explains the seeming discrepancy.

Possible Explanations in Harmony

1. Audible vs. Comprehensible Hearing

The most direct and common explanation: Saul’s companions audibly heard a sound (Acts 9:7) but did not grasp the meaning or content of what was spoken (Acts 22:9). Much like hearing someone speak a language one does not understand, the companions recognized a voice but failed to perceive the actual words.

2. Focus on Saul

In Acts 9, Luke’s focus is on the initial shock of the supernatural event. The companions realized something extraordinary occurred—they stood speechless. By contrast, in Acts 22, Paul’s recounting underscores the personal nature of Christ’s communication to him specifically. Only Saul received the clarity and meaning of the words.

3. Luke’s Authorial Perspective

As a historian, Luke may have chosen details in Acts 9 to depict the unfolding drama. Meanwhile, Paul shares how he alone understood the message (Acts 22), emphasizing his unique commissioning as an apostle (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:8–10). Both accounts complement each other rather than contradict.

Consistency in Manuscript Evidence

From an evidentiary perspective, the earliest manuscripts we have of Acts 9 and 22 align in conveying these nuances without contradiction. The weight of manuscript evidence (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus) supports the text as we have it. No credible textual variant suggests a discrepancy that cannot be explained by the difference in meaning between hearing a sound versus understanding a message.

Scholarship from notable figures in textual criticism affirms that the consistent reading of the Greek text in both passages remains firmly established from ancient times. While minor variants can exist across manuscripts, they do not alter the overarching meaning of these verses.

Theological and Practical Implications

1. Personal Revelation and God’s Sovereignty

Saul’s conversion underscores that God can sovereignly open the spiritual ears of individuals to understand His call, while others may remain unaware of the message. This highlights the nature of genuine faith arising from a divine encounter and transformation (cf. John 6:44).

2. Authority of the Biblical Accounts

While on the surface one might see an apparent contradiction, thorough linguistic and contextual study demonstrates internal consistency. This supports the reliability of Scripture as “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) and worthy of trust.

3. God’s Use of Human Language

The distinction between audible sound and intelligible communication shows the remarkable interplay of divine and human components. God speaks in a way that can be heard, but understanding requires the divine initiative to open the heart and mind (cf. Luke 24:45).

Conclusion

Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 complement one another by revealing different dimensions of Saul’s transformative encounter with the risen Christ. The companions heard the sound of a voice but did not grasp the spoken words meant specifically for Saul. Examination of the original Greek language, early manuscript testimony, and narrative context confirms that there is no actual contradiction. The result is a unified biblical testimony of Saul’s dramatic call to become Paul, a chosen instrument commissioned to proclaim the good news of the resurrection and the hope it offers to the world (cf. Acts 26:16–18).

The Bible consistently demonstrates this pattern: multiple accounts, cross-checked and clarified through careful hermeneutics and manuscript study, reveal its internal harmony. Such passages ultimately strengthen confidence in the Scriptures, highlighting the truth and power of the message that transforms hearts, just as it did for Saul on the road to Damascus.