Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 23:5

"And Paul said, I knew not, brethren, that he was high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people." — Acts 23:5 (ASV)

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.