TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Commentary on Acts 23 verses 1–5
Perhaps when Paul was brought, as he often was (corpus cum causa - the person and the cause together), before heathen magistrates and councils, where he and his cause were slighted, because not at all understood, he thought, if he were brought before the sanhedrim at Jerusalem, he should be able to deal with them to some good purpose, and yet we do not find that he works at all upon them. Here we have,
I. Paul's protestation of his own integrity. Whether the chief priest put any question to him, or the chief captain made any representation of his case to the court, we are not told; but Paul appeared here,
1.With a good courage. He was not at all put out of countenance upon his being brought before such an august assembly, for which in his youth he had conceived such a veneration; nor did he fear their calling him to an account about the letters they gave him to Damascus, to persecute the Christians there, though (for aught we know) this was the first time he had ever seem them since; but he earnestly beheld the council. When Stephen was brought before them, they thought to have faced him down, but could not, such was his holy confidence; they looked stedfastly on him, and his face was as that of an angel, Act 6:15. Now that Paul was brought before them he thought to have faced them down, but could not, such was their wicked impudence. However, now was fulfilled in him what God promised to Ezekiel (Eze 3:8, Eze 3:9): I have made thy face strong against their faces; fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks.
2.With a good conscience, and that gave him a good courage.
- Hic murus aheneus esto,
Nil conscire sibi -
Be this thy brazen bulwark of defence,
Still to preserve thy conscious innocence.
He said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day. However I may be reproached, my heart does not reproach me, but witnesses for me." (1.) He had always been a man inclined to religion; he never was a man that lived at large, but always put a difference between moral good and evil; even in his unregenerate state, he was, as touching the righteousness that was in the law, blameless. He was no unthinking man, who never considered what he did, no designing man, who cared not what he did, so he could but compass his own ends. (2.) Even when he persecuted the church of God, he thought he ought to do it, and that he did God service in it. Though his conscience was misinformed, yet he acted according to the dictates of it. See Act 26:9. (3.) He seems rather to speak of the time since his conversion, since he left the service of the high priest, and fell under their displeasure for so doing; he does not say, From my beginning until this day; but, "All the time in which you have looked upon me as a deserter, an apostate, and an enemy to your church, even to this day, I have lived in all good conscience before God; whatever you may think of me, I have in every thing approved myself to God, and lived honestly," Heb 13:18. He had aimed at nothing but to please God and do his duty, in those things for which they were so incensed against him; in all he had done towards the setting up of the kingdom of Christ, and the setting of it up among the Gentiles, he had acted conscientiously. See here the character of an honest man. [1.] He sets God before him, and lives as in his sight, and under his eyes, and with an eye to him. Walk before me, and be thou upright. [2.] He makes conscience of what he says and does, and, though he may be under some mistakes, yet, according to the best of his knowledge, he abstains from that which is evil and cleaves to that which is good. [3.] He is universally conscientious; and those that are not so are not at all truly conscientious; is so in all manner of conversation: "I have lived in all good conscience; have had my whole conversation under the direction and dominion of conscience." [4.] He continues so, and perseveres in it: "I have lived so until this day." Whatever changes pass over him, he is still the same, strictly conscientious. And those who thus live in all good conscience before God may, like Paul here, lift up their face without spot; and, if their hearts condemn them not, may have confidence both towards God and man, as Job had when he still held fast his integrity, and Paul himself, whose rejoicing was this, the testimony of his conscience.
II. The outrage of which Ananias the high priest was guilty: he commanded those that stood by, the beadles that attended the court, to smite him on the mouth (Act 23:2), to give him a dash on the teeth, either with a hand or with a rod. Our Lord Jesus was thus despitefully used in this court, by one of the servants (Joh 18:22), as was foretold, Mic 5:1, They shall smite the Judge of Israel upon the cheek. But here was an order of court for the doing of it, and, it is likely, it was done. 1. The high priest was highly offended at Paul; some think, because he looked so boldly and earnestly at the council, as if he would face them down; others because he did not address himself particularly to him as president, with some title of honour and respect, but spoke freely and familiarly to them all, as men and brethren. His protestation of his integrity was provocation enough to one who was resolved to run him down and make him odious. When he could charge him with no crime, he thought it was crime enough that he asserted his own innocency. 2. In his rage he ordered him to be smitten, so to put disgrace upon him, and to be smitten on the mouth, as having offended with his lips, and in token of his enjoining him silence. This brutish and barbarous method he had recourse to when he could not answer the wisdom and spirit wherewith he spoke. Thus Zedekiah smote Micaiah (Kg1 22:24), and Pashur smote Jeremiah (Jer 20:2), when they spoke in the name of the Lord. If therefore we see such indignities done to good men, nay, if they be done to us for well doing and well saying, we must not think it strange; Christ will give those the kisses of his mouth (Sol 1:2) who for his sake receive blows on the mouth. And though it may be expected that, as Solomon says, every man should kiss his lips that giveth a right answer (Pro 24:26), yet we often see the contrary.
III. The denunciation of the wrath of God against the high priest for this wickedness in the place of judgment (Ecc 3:16): it agrees with what follows there, Act 23:17, with which Solomon comforted himself (I said in my heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked): God shall smite thee, thou whited wall, Act 23:3. Paul did not speak this in any sinful heat or passion, but in a holy zeal against the high priest's abuse of his power, and with something of a prophetic spirit, not at all with a spirit of revenge. 1. He gives him his due character: Thou whited wall; that is, thou hypocrite - a mud-wall, trash and dirt and rubbish underneath, but plastered over, or white-washed. It is the same comparison in effect with that of Christ, when he compares the Pharisees to whited sepulchres, Mat 23:27. Those that daubed with untempered mortar failed not to daub themselves over with something that made them look not only clean, but gay. 2. He reads him his just doom: "God shall smite thee, shall bring upon thee his sore judgments, especially spiritual judgments." Grotius thinks this was fulfilled soon after, in his removal from the office of the high priest, either by death or deprivation, for he finds another in that office a little while after this; probably he was smitten by some sudden stroke of divine vengeance. Jeroboam's hand was withered when it was stretched out against a prophet. 3. He assigns a good reason for that doom: "For sittest thou there as president in the supreme judicature of the church, pretending to judge me after the law, to convict and condemn me by the law, and yet commandest me to be smitten before any crime is proved upon me, which is contrary to the law?" No man must be beaten unless he be worthy to be beaten, Deu 25:2. It is against all law, human and divine, natural and positive, to hinder a man from making his defense, and to condemn him unheard. When Paul was beaten by the rabble, he could say, Father, forgive them, they know not what they do; but it is inexcusable in a high priest that is appointed to judge according to the law.
IV. The offence which was taken at this bold word of Paul's (Act 23:4): Those that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? It is a probable conjecture that those who blamed Paul for what he said were believing Jews, who were zealous for the law, and consequently for the honour of the high priest, and therefore took it ill that Paul should thus reflect upon him, and checked him for it. See here then, 1. What a hard game Paul had to play, when his enemies were abusive to him, and his friends were so far from standing by him, and appearing for him, that they were ready to find fault with his management. 2. How apt even the disciples of Christ themselves are to overvalue outward pomp and power. As because the temple had been God's temple, and a magnificent structure, there were those who followed Christ that could not bear to have any thing said that threatened the destruction of it; so because the high priest had been God's high priest, and was a man that made a figure, though he was an inveterate enemy to Christianity, yet these were disgusted at Paul for giving him his due.
V. The excuse that Paul made for what he had said, because he found it was a stumbling-block to his weak brethren, and might prejudice them against him in other things. These Jewish Christians, though weak, yet were brethren, so he calls them here, and, in consideration of that, is almost ready to recall his words; for who is offended, saith he, and I burn not? Co2 11:29. His fixed resolution was rather to abridge himself in the use of his Christian liberty than give offence to a weak brother; rather than do this, he will eat no flesh while the world stands, Co1 8:13. And so here though he had taken the liberty to tell the high priest his own, yet, when he found it gave offence, he cried Peccavi - I have done wrong. He wished he had not done it; and though he did not beg the high priest's pardon, nor excuse it to him, yet he begs their pardon who took offence at it, because this was not a time to inform them better, nor to say what he could say to justify himself. 1. He excuses it with this, that he did not consider when he said it to whom he spoke (Act 23:5): I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest - ouk ēdein. "I did not just then think of the dignity of his place, or else I would have spoken more respectfully to him." I see not how we can with any probability think that Paul did not know him to be the high priest, for Paul had been seven days in the temple at the time of the feast, where he could not miss of seeing the high priest; and his telling him that he sat to judge him after the law shows that he knew who he was; but, says he, I did not consider it. Dr. Whitby puts this sense upon it, that the prophetic impulse that was upon him, and inwardly moved him to say what he did, did not permit him to notice that it was the high priest, lest this law might have restrained him from complying with that impulse; but the Jews acknowledged that prophets might use a liberty in speaking of rulers which others might not, as Isa 1:10, Isa 1:23. Or (as he quotes the sense of Grotius and Lightfoot) Paul does not go about to excuse what he had said in the least, but rather to justify it; "I own that God's high priest is not to be reviled, but I do not own this Ananias to be high priest. He is a usurper; he came to the office by bribery and corruption, and the Jewish rabbin say that he who does so is neither a judge nor to be honoured as such." Yet, 2. He takes care that what he had said should not be drawn into a precedent, to the weakening of the obligation of that law in the least: For it is written, and it remains a law in full force, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. It is for the public good that the honour of magistracy should be supported, and not suffer for the miscarriages of those who are entrusted with it, and therefore that decorum be observed in speaking both of and to princes and judges. Even in Job's time it was not thought fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked, or to princes, You are ungodly, Job 34:18. Even when we do well, and suffer for it, we must take it patiently, Pe1 2:20. Not as if great men may not hear of their faults, and public grievances be complained of by proper persons and in a decent manner, but there must be a particular tenderness for the honour and reputation of those in authority more than of other people, because the law of God requires a particular reverence to be paid to them, as God's vicegerents; and it is of dangerous consequence to have those any way countenanced who despise dominions, and speak evil of dignities, Jde 1:8. Curse not the king, no not in thy thought, Ecc 10:20.
"Know ye not that we are to judge angels? " Again, of how open censure (does) the free expression (find utterance), how manifest the edge of the spiritual sword, (in words like these): "Ye are already enriched! ye are already satiated! ye are already reigning!" and, "If any thinks himself to know, he knoweth not yet how it behaves him to know I" Is he not even then "smiting some one's face," in saying, "For who maketh thee to differ? What, moreover, hast thou which thou hast not received? Why gloriest thou as if thou have not received? " Is he not withal "smiting them upon the mouth," (in saying): "But some, in (their) conscience, even until now eat (it) as if (it were) an idol-sacrifice.
We read in the Acts of the Apostles that someone, ordered by Ananias the high priest, struck Paul because he said, “God will strike you, oh whitewashed wall.” And even to this day, the Ebionites, under orders from their illegitimate high priest, strike the apostle of Jesus Christ with their calumnies, and Paul says to such a high priest of the Word, “God will strike you,” and such a high priest is beautiful from without and a whitewashed wall but “within full of dead bones and every filth.” But why do I speak about Paul …? It is my Lord, Jesus Christ, himself who speaks: “I have given my back to scourgings, and my cheeks to slaps, and my face I did not turn from the shame of being spit upon.” The simple know of these things as happening at one particular time, when Pilate scourged him, when the Jews plotted against him. I, however, see Jesus daily giving his back to scourgings: go into synagogues of the Jews, and see Jesus scourged by their blasphemous speech. See those gathered from among the nations plotting against the Christians, how they seize Christ, and he gives his back to scourgings. Consider the Word of God insulted, reviled, hated by unbelievers. See that he gave his cheeks to be slapped, and after he taught “Should someone slap you on one cheek, offer him the other,” that he himself did the same.
They are the words of boldness, rather than of anger; he did not choose to appear in a contemptible light to the tribune. For suppose the tribune himself had spared to scourge him, only as he was about to be delivered up to the Jews, his being beaten by their servants would have more emboldened him: this is why Paul does not attack the servant, but the person who gave the order. But that saying, "Thou whited wall, and dost thou sit to judge me after the law?" is instead of, Being thyself a culprit: as if he had said, And thyself worthy of stripes without number. See accordingly how greatly they were struck with his boldness; for whereas the point was to have overthrown the whole matter, they rather commend him.
"And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?"
What hardihood, what shamelessness! Therefore Paul set him down with a rebuke "God shall smite thee thou whited wall." Accordingly Ananias himself is put to a stand, and dares not say a word: only those about him could not bear Paul's boldness. They saw a man ready to die. For the wrong was not to be put up with, for to hold his peace under such treatment would have been to embolden the tribune to sacrifice him to his enemies, as a person who might be insulted with impunity. He both shows that he suffers willingly what he suffers, and thus excuses himself before them, not that he wished to excuse himself to them-since as for those, he even strongly condemns them-but for the sake of the people.
"Violating the law, commandest thou me to be beaten?" Well may he say so: for to kill a man who had done them no injury, and that an innocent person, was a violating of the law. For neither was it abuse that was spoken by him, unless one would call Christ's words abusive, when He says, "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, for ye are like unto whited walls." True, you will say: but if he had said it before he had been beaten, it would have betokened not anger, but boldness.
Continue studying Acts 23:2 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
Acts 23:2 recounts a pivotal moment during the Apostle Paul's trial before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, where the high priest Ananias, enraged by Paul's assertion of a clear conscience, commands those standing nearby to strike Paul on the mouth. This abrupt and unlawful act of violence highlights the intense hostility Paul faced and immediately sets the stage for a dramatic confrontation between the apostle and the Jewish religious authorities.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
The narrative in Acts 23:2 employs several potent literary devices. Irony is prominent, as the high priest, the supposed guardian of the law and justice, issues an unlawful and unjust command, thereby violating the very principles he was sworn to uphold. This act of violence serves as a stark contrast to Paul's calm assertion of a clear conscience in the preceding verse, highlighting the irrational and visceral opposition to the gospel. The command to strike Paul on the mouth functions as symbolism, representing an attempt to silence the truth and suppress the message of Christ that Paul embodies. Furthermore, Paul's unjust suffering here foreshadows the continued persecution he will endure and aligns his experience with that of Jesus, who was also unjustly struck during his trial (John 18:22).
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
The high priest Ananias's command to strike Paul on the mouth is a profound illustration of the deep-seated spiritual opposition to the gospel and the abuse of power by those who claim religious authority but reject God's truth. This act of injustice, occurring within the highest Jewish court, underscores the reality that even religious institutions can become instruments of spiritual darkness when they prioritize human tradition or personal power over divine righteousness. Theologically, it highlights the prophetic nature of persecution for those who faithfully proclaim Christ, aligning Paul's experience with that of many prophets before him and ultimately with Christ himself. It also sets the stage for God's sovereign hand to work through such opposition, using even unjust trials to advance His purposes.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
Acts 23:2 offers a sobering yet encouraging lens through which to view the challenges of faith in a fallen world. It reminds us that injustice and abuse of power are not new phenomena, even within religious or judicial systems. For believers today, this passage calls for a steadfast commitment to truth and integrity, even when confronted with hostility or unfair treatment. Like Paul, we are called to maintain a clear conscience before God, prioritizing His approval over human accolades or fear of reprisal. This verse serves as a powerful reminder that following Christ may indeed lead to opposition, but our response should be rooted in courage, faith, and reliance on God's sovereign plan. We are encouraged to speak truth boldly, even when it is met with anger or violence, trusting that God can use even the most challenging and unfair circumstances for His divine purposes and the advancement of His kingdom.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Who was Ananias, the high priest mentioned in this verse?
Answer: Ananias, son of Nebedeus, served as the Jewish high priest from approximately AD 47 to 59. Historical accounts, particularly from Josephus, depict him as a corrupt and violent individual, known for his greed and his willingness to use force. His command to strike Paul in Acts 23:2 is consistent with his historical reputation for disregarding justice and proper legal procedure. He was eventually assassinated during the Jewish revolt against Rome.
Why was it significant or unlawful for Ananias to command Paul to be struck on the mouth?
Answer: Ananias's command was a grave violation of both Jewish law and basic judicial fairness. According to Jewish legal tradition, an accused person was presumed innocent until proven guilty and could not be physically harmed or punished during a trial, especially for merely speaking in their defense. Striking someone on the mouth was not only a physical assault but also a deeply humiliating act, intended to silence and disgrace the speaker publicly. It demonstrated Ananias's contempt for Paul and his disregard for the very laws he, as high priest, was supposed to uphold. This act of violence was a clear abuse of his authority and a breakdown of the legal process.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
The unjust striking of Paul on the mouth in Acts 23:2 finds its ultimate Christ-centered fulfillment in the suffering of Jesus himself. Just as Paul, an innocent man, was assaulted by the highest religious authority for speaking truth, so too was Jesus. During His own trial, Jesus was struck by an officer for speaking (John 18:22), enduring physical abuse and humiliation at the hands of those who claimed to uphold God's law. Christ, the true and perfect High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-16), suffered unjustly at the hands of a corrupt religious establishment, demonstrating His perfect obedience and embodying the ultimate sacrifice for sin. Paul's experience, therefore, serves as a powerful echo of Christ's passion, reminding us that suffering for righteousness' sake is a mark of discipleship and a participation in the sufferings of Christ (Philippians 3:10). The gospel's advance, even amidst such violent opposition, is ultimately secured by Christ's victory over sin and death, empowering His followers to endure persecution with steadfast faith, knowing that their Lord has already overcome the world (John 16:33).