John Calvin 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)

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.