TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Acts 23:1–5. His two-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
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.
Historical interpretation
Five Centuries of Reception
5 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
For since it is written, "Neither shall revilers inherit the kingdom of God," and again the Lord says in His Gospel, "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool; and whosoever shall say, Raca, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire," how can they evade the rebuke of the Lord the avenger, who heap up such expressions, not only on their brethren, but also on the priests, to whom is granted such honour of the condescension of God, that whosoever should not obey his priest, and him that judgeth here for the time, was immediately to be slain? In Deuteronomy the Lord God speaks, saying, "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest or to the judge, whosoever he shall be in those days, that man shall die; and all the people, when they hear, shall fear, and shall do no more wickedly." Moreover, to Samuel when he was despised by the Jews, God says; "They have not despised thee, but they have despised me." And the Lord also in the Gospel says, "He that heareth you, heareth me, and Him that sent me; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me, rejecteth Him that sent me." And when he had cleansed the leprous man, he said, "Go, show thyself to the priest." And when afterwards, in the time of His passion, He had received a buffet from a servant of the priest, and the servant said to Him, "Answerest thou the high priest so? " the Lord said nothing reproachfully against the high priest, nor detracted anything from the priest's honour; but rather asserting His own innocence, and showing it, He says, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? " Also subsequently, in the Acts of the Apostles, the blessed Apostle Paul, when it was said to him, "Revilest thou God's priest? " -although they had begun to be sacrilegious, and impious, and bloody, the Lord having already been crucified, and had no longer retained anything of the priestly honour and authority-yet Paul, considering the name itself, however empty, and the shadow, as it were, of the priest, said, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy, people."
"And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."
Because "I knew not that he was high priest." Some say, Why then does he defend himself as if it was matter of accusation, and adds, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people?" For if he were not the ruler, was it right for no better reason than that to abuse him or any other? He says himself, "Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it"; but here he does the contrary, and not only reviles, but curses.
"I wist not," he says, "that he was God's high priest": and, to show that he was not dissembling he adds, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." He even confesses him to be still ruler. Let us also learn the gentleness also, that in both the one and the other we may be perfect. For one must look narrowly into them, to learn what the one is and what the other: narrowly, because these virtues have their corresponding vices hard by them: mere forwardness passing itself off for boldness, mere cowardice for gentleness: and need being to scan them, lest any person possessing the vice should seem to have the virtue.
"For it is written," etc. He wishes to show that he thus speaks, not from fear, nor because Ananias did not deserve to be called this, but from obedience to the law in this point also. And indeed I am fully persuaded that he did not know that it was the high priest, since he had returned now after a long interval, and was not in the habit of constant intercourse with the Jews; seeing him too in the midst among many others: for the high priest was no longer easy to be seen at a glance, there being many of them and diverse. So, it seems to me, in this also he spoke with a view to his plea against them: by way of showing that he does obey the law; therefore he thus exculpates himself.
I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest. For although he truly knew that this was not the high priest in the new testament, nonetheless teaching others, and thus urging those who are in power to behave more modestly, he also wanted to temper himself here.
Continue studying Acts 23:5 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 23:5 presents a pivotal moment in Paul's defense before the Jewish Sanhedrin, where he offers an explanation for his sharp rebuke of the High Priest, Ananias. Paul states he was unaware of Ananias's office, immediately citing the Old Testament law that forbids speaking evil of a ruler. This verse highlights Paul's profound respect for God's Law, his willingness to acknowledge a potential misstep even under duress, and the chaotic nature of the proceedings he faced.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is situated immediately after Paul's initial appearance before the Sanhedrin, following his arrest in Jerusalem. In Acts 23:1-2, Paul begins his defense by asserting his blameless conscience before God. Incensed by this declaration, the High Priest Ananias orders those standing by to strike Paul on the mouth. Paul's indignant response in Acts 23:3 is a sharp rebuke, calling Ananias a "whited wall" and prophesying divine judgment. The surrounding verses (Acts 23:4-5) then capture the immediate reaction of those present, who challenge Paul for insulting the high priest, prompting Paul's explanation in verse 5, which serves as a crucial turning point in the narrative, revealing Paul's adherence to the Law even as he navigates a hostile environment.
Historical & Cultural Context
Paul's trial occurred during a period of significant political and religious tension in Jerusalem under Roman occupation. The Sanhedrin was the supreme Jewish judicial and religious council, composed of Sadducees and Pharisees, and presided over by the High Priest. The High Priest, Ananias son of Nedebaeus, was known for his corruption and violence, having been sent to Rome for misrule in 52 AD and later assassinated during the Jewish revolt. The chaotic nature of the proceedings, including the physical assault on Paul, was not uncommon for the time, reflecting the volatile political climate. Paul's statement "I wist not... that he was the high priest" has been interpreted in various ways: perhaps Ananias was not in his official robes, or the proceedings were so disorderly that Paul genuinely didn't recognize him, or it could even be a rhetorical statement indicating that Ananias's unrighteous actions did not befit the office of a high priest. Regardless, Paul's immediate citation of Exodus 22:28 demonstrates his deep understanding and reverence for the Mosaic Law, which governed the conduct of all Israelites, including their respect for appointed leaders.
Key Themes
Acts 23:5 contributes significantly to several key themes within the book of Acts and Paul's broader theology. It underscores the theme of Respect for Authority, demonstrating Paul's commitment to honoring God's established order, even when those in authority act unjustly. This aligns with his later teachings on submission to governing powers found in Romans 13:1-7. The verse also highlights Paul's Adherence to the Law, showing that despite his emphasis on salvation by grace through faith, he still upheld the moral and ethical principles of the Old Testament. His quick apology and citation of Exodus 22:28 exemplify his profound knowledge and reverence for Scripture. Furthermore, it subtly touches upon the theme of Divine Providence amidst Persecution, as Paul's trials, though severe, ultimately serve God's purposes, leading him closer to Rome and the fulfillment of his mission, as seen in Acts 23:11.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This verb, primarily meaning "to see" (literally or figuratively), implies "to know" or "to be aware" in its perfect tense usage here. Paul's declaration, "I wist not," conveys a genuine lack of knowledge or recognition regarding Ananias's official position as High Priest at that moment. This suggests either a physical impediment (like poor eyesight), the chaotic nature of the court, or the absence of distinguishing attire for the High Priest.
Derived from kakos (bad), this adverb means "badly" in a physical or moral sense. When combined with "speak," it denotes speaking ill, reviling, slandering, or cursing someone. Paul's quote from Exodus 22:28 specifically forbids speaking kakōs of the ruler, emphasizing the prohibition against verbal abuse or disrespect towards those in authority.
This noun refers to a "first" in rank or power, a chief ruler, magistrate, or prince. In the context of Acts 23:5, it specifically refers to the High Priest as the chief magistrate of the Jewish people, underscoring the authority and position that Paul, despite his personal feelings about Ananias's actions, understood must be respected according to the Law.
Verse Breakdown
"Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest:"
Paul addresses those who rebuked him for insulting Ananias. His statement "I wist not" (meaning "I did not know") serves as his explanation and apology for his previous outburst. He claims he was unaware that the person who ordered him struck was, in fact, the High Priest, implying that had he known, he would have refrained from such a sharp retort due to the respect owed to the office.
"for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."
Paul immediately grounds his explanation and subsequent apology in Scripture. He quotes directly from Exodus 22:28, demonstrating his adherence to the Mosaic Law. This citation serves to validate his apology, showing that his respect was not for Ananias personally, but for the divine institution of the High Priesthood and the Law that commanded reverence for rulers, regardless of their personal character.
Literary Devices
The passage employs several literary devices. Allusion is central, as Paul directly alludes to and quotes Exodus 22:28, grounding his actions and explanation in the authority of the Old Testament Law. There is an element of Dramatic Irony in Paul, the former zealous Pharisee, being accused of disrespecting the High Priest, only to appeal to the very Law he once so rigorously upheld. The scene also functions as an Apologia or defense, where Paul, despite being the accused, takes the opportunity to explain his conduct and demonstrate his continued adherence to the Law, subtly turning the tables on his accusers by showing his own righteousness.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Acts 23:5 powerfully illustrates the tension between righteous indignation and the biblical call to respect authority, even when that authority is corrupt or unjust. Paul's immediate recourse to Scripture demonstrates his deep-seated conviction that God's Law, even in its civil applications, retains its moral weight. His apology, whether born of genuine ignorance or a rhetorical acknowledgment of the office, underscores a profound theological principle: that respect for divinely ordained positions of power is a form of obedience to God Himself. This does not preclude speaking truth to power, but it mandates a manner consistent with reverence for God's established order.
Reflection and Application
Paul's response in Acts 23:5 offers a profound lesson for believers navigating complex and often unjust situations. It challenges us to consider our reactions when provoked, especially by those in authority. While Paul's initial outburst was humanly understandable given the injustice, his swift correction, rooted in Scripture, provides a model for Christian conduct. It teaches us the importance of humility, a willingness to admit fault (or potential fault), and an unwavering commitment to biblical principles, even when it is personally costly or uncomfortable. We are called to honor the office, even if we cannot honor the individual holding it due to their unrighteous actions. This passage encourages us to cultivate a spirit of respect for established order, recognizing that all authority is ultimately permitted by God, and to respond with wisdom and grace, seeking to uphold God's honor above our own immediate gratification or indignation.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Was Paul truly ignorant that Ananias was the High Priest, or was he being sarcastic?
The precise meaning of Paul's statement, "I wist not... that he was the high priest," has been a subject of scholarly debate. Several interpretations exist. One view suggests Paul genuinely did not know, perhaps due to poor eyesight (a common theory given other allusions to his vision, e.g., Galatians 4:15) or the chaotic nature of the Sanhedrin proceedings where Ananias might not have been in his official robes or clearly identifiable. Another perspective argues that Paul's statement was rhetorical or sarcastic, implying that Ananias's unrighteous and unlawful command (to be struck without trial) was so unbecoming of a high priest that Paul could not conceive of such a person holding that sacred office. A third view suggests it was a legalistic statement, meaning he didn't recognize him as a legitimate high priest due to his unrighteous conduct, thus not affording him the respect due to the office. Regardless of the exact intent, Paul immediately follows it with a direct quote from Exodus 22:28, indicating his unwavering respect for the office itself and God's Law.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Acts 23:5, while seemingly a minor detail in Paul's trial, points to the ultimate fulfillment of God's Law in Christ. Paul's immediate appeal to Exodus 22:28 underscores the enduring principle of respecting authority, a principle perfectly embodied by Jesus Himself. Unlike Paul, who momentarily expressed human indignation, Jesus, facing far greater injustice and abuse, remained silent before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7, Matthew 27:12-14). He submitted to the very authorities who condemned Him, even the corrupt High Priest Caiaphas, recognizing that their power was ultimately from above (John 19:11). Christ's perfect obedience, even unto death on the cross, fulfilled every demand of the Law, including the spirit of respecting God-ordained authority, demonstrating the ultimate humility and submission that Paul, as a follower of Christ, sought to emulate, however imperfectly. Thus, Paul's actions, even in their human fallibility, reflect the greater truth of Christ's perfect obedience and His call for His followers to live peaceably and respectfully under governing authorities, as seen in 1 Peter 2:13-17.