Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Acts 23

Paul began his defense by addressing the members of the Sanhedrin as “Men, brothers” . Then he asserted, “I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day”—a bold claim but not without parallel on Paul’s part in other situations (cf. 20:18–21, 26–27; 24:16; Romans 15:19b, 23; Php 3:6b; 2 Timothy 4:7).

This so enraged the high priest Ananias that, in violation of the law, he ordered those near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Ananias served as high priest from A. D. 48–58 (or 59) and was known for his avarice and liberal use of violence. As a brutal and scheming man, he was hated by Jewish nationalists for his proRoman policies.

Indignant at the affront, Paul lashed out at Ananias and accused him of breaking the Jewish law, which safeguarded the rights of defendants and presumed them innocent until proved guilty. Paul was not yet charged with a crime, let alone tried and found guilty. Anyone who behaved as Ananias did, Paul knew, was bound to come under God’s judgment. Paul’s words were more prophetic than he realized, for Ananias’s final days were lived as a hunted animal and ended at the hands of his own people. Paul’s retort to Ananias’ order seems quite out of character for a follower of the one who “when they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats” (1 Peter 2:23). Paul momentarily lost his composure —as evidently Ananias hoped he would—and put himself at a disadvantage before the council. We cannot excuse this sudden burst of anger, though we must not view it self-righteously. We are made of the same stuff as Paul, and his provocation was greater than most of us will ever face. Paul himself realized his wrong and quickly acknowledged it.

At regular meetings of the Sanhedrin, the high priest presided and would have been identifiable for that reason. But this was not a regular meeting, and the high priest may not have occupied his usual place or worn his robes of office. Also, since Paul had visited Jerusalem only sporadically during the past twenty years, and since the high priest’s office had passed from one to another within certain priestly families (cf. comment on Jn 18:12–14), Paul presumably did now know who the high priest was in A. D. 58. Nor, in fact, would he have known any of the current high priestly claimants by sight. All he could do when told he was speaking to the high priest was apologize—though more to the office than to the man—and acknowledge by citing Scripture (Exodus 22:28) that, while he did not accept the view that the OT law provided the supreme direction for life (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:15; 9:20–21), he had no intention of being guided by Christ and his Spirit to act contrary to the law or do less than the law commanded.

At regular meetings of the Sanhedrin, the high priest presided and would have been identifiable for that reason. But this was not a regular meeting, and the high priest may not have occupied his usual place or worn his robes of office. Also, since Paul had visited Jerusalem only sporadically during the past twenty years, and since the high priest’s office had passed from one to another within certain priestly families (cf. comment on Jn 18:12–14), Paul presumably did now know who the high priest was in A. D. 58. Nor, in fact, would he have known any of the current high priestly claimants by sight. All he could do when told he was speaking to the high priest was apologize—though more to the office than to the man—and acknowledge by citing Scripture (Exodus 22:28) that, while he did not accept the view that the OT law provided the supreme direction for life (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:15; 9:20–21), he had no intention of being guided by Christ and his Spirit to act contrary to the law or do less than the law commanded.