John Calvin Commentary Acts 23

Looking earnestly. Paul begins with the testimony of a good conscience, so that the entire multitude might understand that he is unjustly charged with such a heinous offense, as if he had intended to overthrow the worship of God. Indeed, a man may offend out of ignorance, who would not otherwise be a despiser of either God or religion. But Paul, at first, intended with this defense only to soothe their irritated minds, so that he might be better heard. For it would have been in vain for him to defend himself as long as that opinion remained in the minds of the priests: that he was a wicked apostate.

Therefore, before he addresses the main issue, he clears himself of that accusation, not only so that he might gain favor through his desire to live godly, but also so that he might prevent false accusations, or at least so that he might refute unjust prejudices that had been formed against him, with which he saw the whole multitude was infected and corrupted.

We do not know what else he intended to say. Nevertheless, this preface teaches that no one can rightly handle the doctrine of godliness unless the fear of God reigns and holds primary influence in him. And now, although he does not give the priests as honorable a title here as he did a little earlier, when he stood on the steps of the fortress, yet he calls them brethren, giving them that honor, not because they deserve it, but so that he may testify that he is not the cause of the broken friendship.

And the chief priest. Luke’s narration does not seem to agree with the usual historical account. Josephus writes the following concerning the high priests of that time: Quadratus, proconsul of Syria, after deposing Cumanus from the government of Judea, commanded Cumanus to answer for himself before Caesar.

Quadratus also sent Ananias, the high priest, bound with him. Josephus makes no mention of who was chosen in Ananias’s place, except that it is likely Jonathas was given the honor. According to Josephus, Jonathas was later slain by the cunning and treachery of Felix, prefect of Judea, who succeeded Cumanus.

This occurred because Jonathas had often spoken his mind to Felix; and Felix, unable to tolerate the man's steadfastness, made a pact with a certain Doras to secretly send murderers to kill him.

Then, as the same Josephus testifies, King Agrippa made Ishmael, the son of Phebeus, high priest. But when Ishmael was sent by the people to Rome concerning a certain lawsuit and was detained there by Poppaea, Nero's wife, Agrippa put Joseph (also called Chabus), the son of Simon, in his place. Immediately growing weary of him as well, Agrippa then appointed Ananus, the son of Ananus, to be high priest.

Furthermore, Josephus says that this last event happened when Albinus succeeded Festus after Festus’s death. I do not see why some call this Ananus “Ananias.”

This identification has some plausibility, as he is called a Pharisee, and it is also said that he was bold and resolute, and without any lawful authority, caused James, the Lord’s brother, to be stoned. However, if we believe Josephus, this Ananus could not be the Ananias mentioned here by Luke, because this Ananus was made high priest many years after Felix had left the province.

I have another conjecture. During all that time, a certain Ananias, a high priest, was prominent, who, except for the official title, was practically chief in the priestly order.

Because Josephus leaves a gap between the high priesthood of Ananias (the one sent to Rome) and Ishmael, it may be that this other Ananias held the office of high priest in the interim. But even if this were not so, it appears from Josephus that Ananias (who died when the city was besieged) was, during the reigns of Claudius Caesar and Nero, equal in dignity to the chief priests of that time.

Indeed, his authority is so highly praised that it seems as if he held the chief governance, even if other men held the official symbols of honor. He is also called αρχιερευς somewhat indiscriminately, like those who were actually the ruling high priests.

Now, let readers ponder and consider whether the word αρχιερευς in this place signifies chief rather than highest, as it does in many other places. For the Evangelists everywhere call the priests of Aaronic lineage αρχιερεις to distinguish them from the Levites, who held a more inferior degree of priesthood.

Moreover, it may be that this Ananias, who was considered bold and courageous, filled the high priest’s position during his absence. The details we have recounted from Josephus are recorded partly in the Twentieth Book of Antiquities, from the third chapter to the eighth, and partly in the Second Book of the Wars of the Jews.

He commanded him to be smitten. We see that there was great disorder in this assembly. For since the high priest was in such a rage that he commanded Paul to be struck for no reason, he undoubtedly did it with the consent of all the rest—indeed, so that he might win the favor of these enraged men.

The Lord allows the wicked to be so carried away by Satan that they abandon all appearance of fairness and self-control. Hypocrites would gladly maintain some show of moderation, and undoubtedly this high priest attempted to project the gravity that befitted his position.

But the Lord tore this mask from his face, so that not even the modesty of an ordinary man was found in him; instead, he poured out his furious rage like a beast.

Meanwhile, we see what horrible and vile disorder existed in the Church at that time. Ananias, who was the chief of the council, though he ought to have restrained others by his seriousness, forgot all modesty and compelled them to violence and savagery.

Therefore, they had no regard for discipline at that time; instead, confused barbarism remained among them. And this is no wonder, for they had estranged themselves from God; they had most shamefully rejected Christ; their entire religion was for sale.

Consequently, it was fitting that they should run headlong into a furious madness—a madness that would be loathsome even to secular people—so that they might be punished in their own shame for their ungodliness.

God shall smite thee. Paul cannot endure that injury, but he must, at least, with sharp words rebuke the high priest and denounce God’s vengeance to him. For it is no curse, as is sufficiently apparent from the Greek text, but rather a rebuke, joined with the denunciation of a punishment.

If anyone objects that Paul did not use the modesty which Christ commands his followers to use, when he commands them after they have received a blow on the left cheek to turn the right cheek also (Matthew 5:39), we may readily answer that Christ does not in these words require silence by which the wickedness and perversity of the wicked may be fostered. Instead, he only bridles their minds, so that they may not bear the injury they have already received impatiently.

Christ wants those who are his to be ready to suffer another injury after they have already received one; by this means, he represses all desire for revenge. This is a brief and true definition of the patience that befits all the faithful: that they do not break out into wrath, that they do not repay one evil deed with another, but that they overcome evil with goodness.

However, this does not prevent them from complaining about the injuries they have suffered, or from rebuking the wicked and citing them to the judgment seat of God—provided they do this with quiet and calm minds, and secondly, without ill will and hatred. Just as Paul appeals here to God’s judgment seat, so that the high priest may not flatter himself in his tyranny, he therefore accuses him because he breaks the law from which (as he claims) he derives his authority. From this, Paul concludes that the high priest will not escape unpunished.

If anyone, being overcome with impatience, merely murmurs, he will not be blameless. But a manifest and sharp accusation, if it proceeds from a quiet mind, does not pass the bounds set by Christ. If anyone says that it is mixed with railing, I answer that we must always consider the emotion with which the words are spoken.

Christ declares that person to be worthy of being punished by the council who only says to his brother, raca; and as for him who says, thou fool, Christ makes him subject to a heavier judgment (Matthew 5:22). But if an opportunity arises to rebuke, we must often rebuke sharply.

Thus it appears that Christ’s only aim was to restrain his followers, first, from all indignation, and secondly, from speaking anything out of spite toward anyone. Therefore, let us beware of railing; and then we may not only note foolishness in our fellow believers, but it will also be permissible for us to call their offenses by their names when need arises.

So Paul did not speak for his own sake, that he might, with sharp words, repay the injury done to him by the high priest; but because he was a minister of the word of God, he would not overlook an offense that deserved sharp and serious rebuke, especially since it was beneficial to expose the gross hypocrisy of Ananias.

Therefore, whenever we have any dealings with the wicked, if we desire to handle a good cause well, we must beware that no impulse of anger erupts within us, and that no desire for revenge provokes us to break out into railing. But if the spirit of meekness reigns in us, we may deal with the wicked according to what they deserve, as if speaking from the mouth of God. Yet it should appear that we are prophets rather than that we blurt out anything rashly through excessive passion.

Those which stood by said. By this it appears that they were all sick of one disease. For why do they not rather blame Ananias, when they saw that he had quite forgotten all modesty, and that he broke out into violence and beatings in a barbarous manner? For even this turned to the reproach of them all.

But this is a marked thing among hypocrites: they look closely into other people’s faults and overlook their own. Again, this pride is coupled with tyranny, so that their subjects, and those who are under them, may do nothing, but as for themselves, they may do whatever they want.

So it is today in Popery: the more liberty that impure clergy grants to itself, and the more carelessly it grows wanton and pollutes the whole world with the sins which flow from it, the more strictly do they rule and restrain the tongues of the people. Therefore, if anyone dares so much as to whisper, a little liberty causes them to make outrageous outcries as if it were heinous sacrilege.

I knew not, brethren. Those who think that this excuse of Paul contains no figure of speech do not carefully consider the contrary objections with which their error is refuted. They say that Paul did not know the high priest because he had been absent for a long time, as if he were ignorant that the one who is chief in the council and holds the most prominent position was the high priest.

Neither was Ananias so lowly and unknown that Paul was ignorant of his rank. But Paul’s words remove all occasion for dispute, when he rebukes Ananias because Ananias, while occupying the position of a judge and under the pretext of the law, in his rage, does what is contrary to law.

Therefore, Paul knew what position Ananias held when Paul said that Ananias abused his power. Others invent a more subtle answer: that Paul did not speak here of the man, but of the office and public person. But, first, this interpretation is far-fetched because, if Paul did reverence the priesthood, he necessarily would have given some honor to the man who held that office.

And now, since the majesty of the priesthood was abolished by the coming of Christ and such filthy profanation followed, it should not be thought that Paul honored those men as he was accustomed to do (as if their perfect and lawful authority continued)—men who, under the title of high priests, reigned as lords without any law or right.

Therefore, agreeing with Augustine, I do not doubt that this is a taunting excuse. Nor does that hinder in any way, because plain speech is fitting for ministers of the word. For there are two kinds of irony: one which is veiled in subtlety and intends to deceive, and another which so figuratively points out the matter at hand that it stings more sharply. In this second kind, there is nothing that is not well suited to the servants of Christ.

Therefore, this is the meaning of the words: Brethren, I acknowledge nothing in this man that belongs to a priest.

Paul also added a testimony from Exodus chapter 22 (Exodus 22:28), where, though Moses speaks of judges, the principle properly extends to any lawful order.

Therefore, all dignity appointed for the maintenance of civil government ought to be reverenced and honored. For whoever rebels against or resists the magistrate, or those appointed to rule and promoted to honor, desires no government. And such a desire tends to the disturbance of order. Indeed, it shakes and overthrows all human society.

Therefore, Paul clears himself of this accusation, yet in such a way that he denies that Ananias, who has corrupted and perverted the entire order of the Church, is to be counted a priest of God.

But here a question arises: whether we should not still obey a ruler, even if he exercises tyranny? For if a man who executes his office wrongly is not to be deprived of honor, then Paul offended by robbing the high priest of his honor.

Therefore, I answer that there is a difference between civil magistrates and the prelates of the Church.

For even if the administration of earthly or civil rule is confused or perverse, yet the Lord wills that people should still continue in subjection.

But when spiritual government degenerates, the consciences of the godly are at liberty and free from obeying unjust authority, especially if wicked and profane enemies of holiness falsely claim the title of priesthood to overthrow the doctrine of salvation and claim for themselves such authority as to make themselves equal with God.

So, at this day, it is not only lawful for the faithful to shake the Pope’s yoke from their shoulders, but they must do so out of necessity, since they cannot obey his laws unless they forsake God.