Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 23

CHAPTER 23

And Paul, earnestly beholding. atenisav. Fixing his eyes intently on the council. The word denotes a fixed and earnest gazing; a close observation. See Luke 4:20. See Barnes on Acts 3:4.

Paul would naturally look with a keen and attentive observation on the council. He was arraigned before them, and he would naturally observe the appearance, and endeavor to ascertain the character of his judges. Besides, it was by this council that he had been formerly commissioned to persecute the Christians (Acts 9:1–2). He had not seen them since that commission was given; he would naturally, therefore, regard them with an attentive eye. The result shows, also, that Paul looked at them to see what was the character of the men there assembled, and what was the proportion of Pharisees and Sadducees (Acts 23:6).

The council. Greek, The Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30). It was the great council composed of seventy elders, to whom were entrusted the affairs of the nation. See Barnes on Matthew 2:4.

Men and brethren. Greek, "Men, brethren;" the usual form of beginning an address among the Jews. See Acts 2:29. He addressed them still as his brethren.

I have lived in all good conscience. I have conducted myself so as to maintain a good conscience. I have done what I believed to be right. This was a bold declaration, after the tumult, and charges, and accusations of the previous day (Acts 22); and yet it was strictly true.

His persecutions of the Christians had been conducted conscientiously. I verily thought with myself, he says, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 26:9). Of his conscientiousness and fidelity in their service, they could bear witness. Of his conscientiousness since, he could make a similar declaration.

And he, doubtless, meant to say, that as he had been conscientious in persecution, so he had been in his conversion, and in his subsequent course. And as they knew that his former life had been with a good conscience, they ought to presume that he had maintained the same character still.

This was a remarkably bold appeal to be made by an accused man, and it shows the strong consciousness which Paul had of his innocence. What would have been the drift of Paul's discourse in proving this, we can only conjecture. He was interrupted (Acts 23:2); but there can be no doubt that he would have pursued such a course of argument as should tend to establish his innocence.

Before God. Greek, To God. tō Theō. He had lived to God, or with reference to His commands, so as to keep a conscience pure in His sight. The same principle of conduct he states more at length in Acts 4:16: And herein do I excuse myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men.

Until this day. Including the time before his conversion to Christianity, and after. In both conditions he was conscientious; in one, conscientious in persecution and error, though he deemed it to be right; in the other, conscientious in the truth. The mere fact that a man is conscientious does not prove that he is right, or innocent. See Barnes on John 16:2.

And the High Priest Ananias. This Ananias was undoubtedly the son of Nebedinus (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 5, Section 3), who was high priest when Quadratus, who preceded Felix, was president of Syria.

He was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus, at the same time as Ananias, the prefect of the temple, so that they might give an account of their conduct to Claudius Caesar (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 6, Section 2). However, as a result of the intercession of Agrippa the Younger, they were dismissed and returned to Jerusalem.

Ananias, however, was not restored to the office of high priest. When Felix was governor of Judea, this office was filled by Jonathan, who succeeded Ananias (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 10). Jonathan was slain in the temple itself, by the instigation of Felix, by assassins who had been hired for the purpose. This murder is thus described by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 8, Section 5):

"Felix bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest, because he frequently gave him admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest complaints should be made against him, since he had procured of Caesar the appointment of Felix as procurator of Judea. Accordingly, Felix contrived a method by which he might get rid of Jonathan, whose admonitions had become troublesome to him. Felix persuaded one of Jonathan's most faithful friends, of the name Doras, to bring the robbers upon him, and to put him to death."

This was done in Jerusalem. The robbers came into the city as if to worship God, and with daggers, which they had concealed under their garments, they put him to death. After the death of Jonathan, the office of high priest remained vacant, until King Agrippa appointed Ismael, the son of Fabi, to the office (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 8, Section 8).

It was during this interval, while the office of high priest was vacant, that the events recorded here took place. Ananias was then at Jerusalem. Since the office of high priest was vacant, and he was the last person who had held the office, it was natural that he should discharge its duties—probably by common consent—at least to the extent of presiding in the Sanhedrin.

Paul would undoubtedly have been aware of these facts. Therefore, what he said in Acts 23:5 was strictly true and is one piece of evidence that Luke's history accords precisely with the particular circumstances that existed then. When Luke here calls Ananias "the high priest," he evidently does not intend to affirm that he was actually such, but to use the word as the Jews did: as applicable to one who had held that office and who, on that occasion, when the office was vacant, performed its duties.

To smite him on the mouth—to stop him from speaking and to express their indignation at what he had said. The anger of Ananias was aroused because Paul affirmed that all he had done had been with a good conscience. Their feelings had been provoked to the utmost; they regarded him as certainly guilty, they deemed him to be an apostate, and they could not bear it that he, with such coolness and firmness, declared that all his conduct had been under the direction of a good conscience. The injustice of Ananias's command is apparent to all. A similar instance of violence occurred at the trial of the Saviour (John 18:22).

God shall smite you. God will punish you. God is just, and He will not allow such an obvious violation of all the laws of a fair trial to go unavenged. This was a remarkably bold and fearless declaration. Paul was surrounded by enemies. They were seeking his life, and he must have known that such declarations would have only provoked their anger and made them more thirsty for his blood.

That he could address the president of the council in this way was not only strongly characteristic of the man but was also strong proof that he was conscious of innocence and that justice was on his side. This expression of Paul, "God shall smite you," is not to be regarded as an imprecation or as an expression of angry feeling, but as a prediction, or a strong conviction in Paul's mind, that a man so hypocritical and unjust as Ananias could not escape the vengeance of God.

Ananias was killed, with Hezekiah his brother, during the unrest that occurred in Jerusalem when the robbers, or Sicarii, under their leader Manahem, had taken possession of the city. He attempted to hide in an aqueduct but was dragged out and killed. (See Josephus, Jewish Wars, Book 2, Chapter 17, Section 8.) Thus Paul's prediction was fulfilled.

You whited wall. This is clearly a proverbial expression, meaning you hypocrite. His hypocrisy consisted in his pretending to sit there to do justice; yet, by commanding the accused to be smitten in direct violation of the law, he thus showed that his character was not what he professed to be by sitting there, but that of one determined to carry out the purposes of his party and of his own feelings. Our Savior used a similar expression to describe the hypocritical character of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:27) when He compares them to whited sepulchres. A whited wall is a wall or enclosure that is covered with lime or gypsum and thus appears to be different from what it is, thereby aptly describing the hypocrite. Seneca (De Providentia, Chapter 6) uses a similar figure to describe hypocrites: "They are sordid, base, and like their walls adorned only externally." See also Seneca, Epistle 115.

For do you sit, etc. The law required that justice should be done, and for that purpose, it gave every man an opportunity of defending himself. (Proverbs 18:13; Leviticus 19:15; Exodus 23:1; Deuteronomy 19:15; Deuteronomy 19:18).

To judge me according to the law. As a judge, to hear and decide the case according to the rules of the law of Moses.

Contrary to the law. In violation of the law of Moses, Leviticus 19:35: "You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment."

{*} "shall smite" "will" {b} "contrary"Leviticus 19:35; Deuteronomy 25:1–2; John 7:51

Revilest thou, etc. Do you reproach or abuse the high priest of God? It is remarkable that they who knew that he was not the high priest should have offered this language. He was, however, in the place of the high priest, and they might have pretended that respect was due to the office.

Then said Paul, I wist not. I did not know; I was ignorant of the fact that he was high priest. Interpreters have been greatly divided on the meaning of this expression.

Some have supposed that Paul said it in irony, as if he had said, "Pardon me, brothers, I did not consider that this was the high priest. It did not occur to me that a man who could conduct himself in this way could be God's high priest."

Others have thought (as Grotius did) that Paul used these words to mitigate their wrath and as an acknowledgment that he had spoken hastily, contrary to his usual habit of not speaking evil of the ruler of the people. It is as if he had said, "I acknowledge my error and my haste. I did not consider that I was addressing him whom God had commanded me to respect."

But this interpretation is not probable, for Paul evidently did not intend to retract what he had said. Dr. Doddridge renders it, "I was not aware, brothers, that it was the high priest," and regards it as an apology for having spoken in haste.

However, the obvious reply to this interpretation is that if Ananias was the high priest, Paul could not have been unaware of it. It is hardly possible that he could have been ignorant of such a material point.

Others suppose that because Paul had been long absent from Jerusalem and had not known the changes that had occurred there, he was a stranger to the person of the high priest.

Still others suppose that Ananias did not occupy the usual seat designated for the high priest, was not clothed in the usual robes of office, and therefore Paul did not recognize him as the high priest. But these interpretations are not probable. It is entirely improbable that, on such an occasion, the high priest, who was the presiding officer in the Sanhedrin, would not be known to the accused.

The true interpretation, therefore, I suppose, is derived from the fact that Ananias was not then properly the high priest. There was a vacancy in the office, and he presided by courtesy, or by virtue of his having formerly been invested with that office.

The meaning then would be: "I did not regard or acknowledge him as the high priest. I did not address him as such, since that is not his true character. Had he been truly the High Priest, even if he had thus been guilty of manifest injustice, I would not have used the language I did. The office, if not the man, would have claimed respect. But as he is not truly and properly clothed with that office, and as he was guilty of manifest injustice, I did not believe he was to be shielded in his injustice by the law that commands me to show respect to the proper ruler of the people."

If this is the true interpretation, it shows that Luke, in this account, accords entirely with the truth of history. The character of Ananias, as given by Josephus, and the facts Josephus stated regarding him, all accord with the account given here. This demonstrates that the writer of the "Acts of the Apostles" was acquainted with the history of that time and has correctly stated it.

For it is written (Exodus 22:28). Paul cites this to show that it was his purpose to observe the law, that he would not intentionally violate it, and that, if he had known Ananias to be high priest, he would have been restrained by his regard for the law from using the language he did.

Of the ruler of thy people. This passage did not have any particular reference to the high priest but inculcated the general spirit of respect for those in office, whatever that office was. As the office of high priest was one of importance and authority, Paul declares here that he would not be guilty of showing disrespect for it or of using reproachful language towards it.