Acts 23:5 Komentář

The close of the foregoing chapter left Paul in the high priest's court, into which the chief captain (whether to his advantage or no I know not) had removed his cause from the mob; and, if his enemies act there against him with less noise, yet it is with more subtlety. Now here we have, I. Paul's protestation of his own integrity, and of a civil respect to the high priest, however he had upon a sudden spoken warmly to him, and justly (Act 23:1-5). II. Paul's prudent contrivance to get himself clear of them, by setting the Pharisees and Sadducees at variance one with another (Act 23:6-9). III. The governor's seasonable interposal to rescue him out of their hands likewise (Act 23:10). IV. Christ's more comfortable appearing to him, to animate him against those difficulties that lay before him, and to tell him what he must expect (Act 23:11). V. A bloody conspiracy of some desperate Jews to kill Paul, and their drawing in the chief priests and the elders to be aiders and abettors with them in it (Act 23:12-15). VI. The discovery of this conspiracy to Paul, and by him to the chief captain, who perceived so much of their inveterate malice against Paul that he had reason enough to believe the truth of it (Act 23:16-22). VII. The chief captain's care of Paul's safety, by which he prevented the execution of the design; he sent him away immediately under a strong guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea, which was now the residence of Felix, the Roman governor, and there he safely arrived (Act 23:23-35).

And Paul earnestly beholding the council,.... Fastening his eyes upon them, looking wistly and intently at them, and thereby discovering a modest cheerfulness, and a becoming boldness, confidence, and intrepidity, as being not conscious of any guilt, and well assured of the goodness of his cause: said, men and brethren; see Act 22:1. I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day; not only from the time of his conversion, but throughout the whole of his life; for though, strictly speaking, there is no good conscience but what is awakened by the Spirit of God, and is unprincipled by his grace, and is purged from sin by the blood of Christ; in which sense he could only have a good conscience, since he believed in Christ; yet whereas in his state of unregeneracy, and even while he was a blasphemer, and persecutor, he did not act contrary to the dictates of his conscience, but according to them, in which his view was to the glory of God, and the honour of his law; he therefore says he lived before God, or unto God, in all good conscience, though an erroneous and mistaken one; he thought he ought to do what he did; and what he did, he did with a zeal for God though it was not according to knowledge: besides, the apostle has here respect to his outward moral conversation, which, before and after conversion, was very strict, and even blameless, at least unblemished before men; nobody could charge him with any notorious crime, though he did not live without sin in the sight of the omniscient God.

Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest,.... Or I did not know that he was the high priest; and the sense is, that he did not really know him, either because he had been long absent from Jerusalem; and besides there were new high priests made, sometimes every year, and sometimes oftener, that it is no wonder he should not know him; or because he might not sit in his usual place; or chiefly because he was not, in his habit, an high priest; for the priests, both the high priest, and the common priests, only wore their priestly robes, when they ministered in their office, and at other times they wore other clothes, as laymen did, according to Eze 44:19 which the Targum paraphrases thus; "when they (the priests) shall go out of the holy court into the outer court, to be mixed with the people, they shall put off their garments in which they ministered, and lay them up in the holy chamber, and shall clothe themselves with other garments, that they may not be mingled with the people, "in their garments".'' For as soon as they had performed their office, there were servants that attended them, who stripped them of their robes, and laid them up in chests which were in the temple (r) till they came to service again, and put them on common garments; for they might not appear among the common people in their priestly garments; which when they were off of them, they were, as Maimonides says (s), "as strangers", or as laymen, like the rest of the people; for which reason Paul might not know Ananias to be the high priest: and this points to another sense of these words; for it was a rule with the Jews (t), that "at the time the priests' garments were upon them, their priesthood was upon them, but when their garments were not on them, , "there was no priesthood upon them"; for lo, they were as strangers.'' And then the sense is, Ananias not being in the discharge of his office, nor in his habit, the apostle did not know, or own him as an high priest, or consider him as in such a station; or rather, since the priesthood was changed, and there was no other high priest of God but Jesus Christ, he did not own him as one; had he, he should not have spoke to him in the manner he did. Moreover, if this was Ananias, the son of Nebedaeus, as is the opinion of many, he had no right to the office of the priesthood when he was first made an high priest; after which he was sent a prisoner to Rome; during which time several succeeded in the priesthood; and at this time not he, though he had got the management of affairs in his hands, was high priest, but Jesus the son of Gamaliel; so that the apostle's sense might be, he did not own or acknowledge him high priest. Some take the apostle's words in an ironical sense; he an high priest, I should not have known him to be an high priest, he looks and acts more like a furioso, a madman, an unjust judge, and a tyrant, than an high priest, who ought to behave in another guise manner. But what follows shows rather that the apostle spoke seriously, unless the words can be thought to be a citation made by Luke, for it is written, in Exo 22:28 "thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people"; which the Jewish writers generally understand of the head of the great sanhedrim, as Ananias might be, or of a king (u). (r) Misna Tamid c. 5. sect. 3. & Bartenora in ib. (s) Hilchot Cele Hamikdash, c. 10. sect. 4. (t) Maimon. Hilchot Cele Hamikdash, c. 10. sect. 4. (u) Maimon. Hilchot Sanhedrin, c. 26. sect. 1. & Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Torn, pr. neg. 209.

For since it is written, "Neither shall revilers inherit the kingdom of God," and again the Lord says in His Gospel, "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool; and whosoever shall say, Raca, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire," how can they evade the rebuke of the Lord the avenger, who heap up such expressions, not only on their brethren, but also on the priests, to whom is granted such honour of the condescension of God, that whosoever should not obey his priest, and him that judgeth here for the time, was immediately to be slain? In Deuteronomy the Lord God speaks, saying, "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest or to the judge, whosoever he shall be in those days, that man shall die; and all the people, when they hear, shall fear, and shall do no more wickedly." Moreover, to Samuel when he was despised by the Jews, God says; "They have not despised thee, but they have despised me." And the Lord also in the Gospel says, "He that heareth you, heareth me, and Him that sent me; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me, rejecteth Him that sent me." And when he had cleansed the leprous man, he said, "Go, show thyself to the priest." And when afterwards, in the time of His passion, He had received a buffet from a servant of the priest, and the servant said to Him, "Answerest thou the high priest so? " the Lord said nothing reproachfully against the high priest, nor detracted anything from the priest's honour; but rather asserting His own innocence, and showing it, He says, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? " Also subsequently, in the Acts of the Apostles, the blessed Apostle Paul, when it was said to him, "Revilest thou God's priest? " -although they had begun to be sacrilegious, and impious, and bloody, the Lord having already been crucified, and had no longer retained anything of the priestly honour and authority-yet Paul, considering the name itself, however empty, and the shadow, as it were, of the priest, said, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy, people."

"And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." Because "I knew not that he was high priest." Some say, Why then does he defend himself as if it was matter of accusation, and adds, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people?" For if he were not the ruler, was it right for no better reason than that to abuse him or any other? He says himself, "Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it"; but here he does the contrary, and not only reviles, but curses.

"For it is written," etc. He wishes to show that he thus speaks, not from fear, nor because Ananias did not deserve to be called this, but from obedience to the law in this point also. And indeed I am fully persuaded that he did not know that it was the high priest, since he had returned now after a long interval, and was not in the habit of constant intercourse with the Jews; seeing him too in the midst among many others: for the high priest was no longer easy to be seen at a glance, there being many of them and diverse. So, it seems to me, in this also he spoke with a view to his plea against them: by way of showing that he does obey the law; therefore he thus exculpates himself.

"I wist not," he says, "that he was God's high priest": and, to show that he was not dissembling he adds, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." He even confesses him to be still ruler. Let us also learn the gentleness also, that in both the one and the other we may be perfect. For one must look narrowly into them, to learn what the one is and what the other: narrowly, because these virtues have their corresponding vices hard by them: mere forwardness passing itself off for boldness, mere cowardice for gentleness: and need being to scan them, lest any person possessing the vice should seem to have the virtue.

For he said, "And do you sit to judge me according to the law." But he pretends an ignorance that does not harm, but is economical. For there is also a stronger use of frankness by way of handling. For often frankness at an inopportune time harmed the truth, but a timely handling accomplished the matter at hand. [SEVERUS]

"I did not know, brothers," and what follows. Some say that he did not know that he was the high priest, having returned after a long time, not being related to the Jews, and seeing him among many others; for the high priest was no longer obvious, many being present and different. Therefore, as not knowing, he reasonably defends himself as if there were an accusation, and bring forward, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people."

I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest. For although he truly knew that this was not the high priest in the new testament, nonetheless teaching others, and thus urging those who are in power to behave more modestly, he also wanted to temper himself here.

"You revile the high priest of God? Paul said: I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest." How then did he say: "You sit to judge according to the law?" Yes, Paul pretends not to know, but this was not harmful but beneficial for the listeners. But I (Blessed Theophylact) am very convinced that Paul truly did not know that Ananias was the high priest, since Paul had arrived recently in Jerusalem, had not associated with the Jews, and saw Ananias among many other persons. Indeed, among many and various persons the high priest was also inconspicuous.

Paul defending himself before the high priest, he commands him to be smitten on the mouth, Act 23:1, Act 23:2. Paul sharply reproves him, and, being reproved for this by one of the attendants, accounts for his conduct, Act 23:3-5. Seeing that the assembly was composed of Pharisees and Sadducees, and that he could expect no justice from his judges, he asserts that it was for his belief in the resurrection that he was called in question, on which the Pharisees declare in his favor, Act 23:6-9. A great dissension arises, and the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should be pulled to pieces, brings him into the castle, Act 23:10. He is comforted by a dream, Act 23:11. More than forty persons conspire his death, Act 23:12-15. Paul's sister's son, hearing of it, informs the captain of the guard, Act 23:16-22. He sends Paul by night, under a strong escort of horse and foot, to Caesarea, to Felix, and with him a letter, stating the circumstances of the case, Act 23:23-33. They arrive at Caesarea, and Felix promises him a hearing when his accusers shall come down, Act 23:34, Act 23:35.

I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest - After all the learned labor that has been spent on this subject, the simple meaning appears plainly to be this: - St. Paul did not know that Ananias was high priest; he had been long absent from Jerusalem; political changes were frequent; the high priesthood was no longer in succession, and was frequently bought and sold; the Romans put down one high priest, and raised up another, as political reasons dictated. As the person of Ananias might have been wholly unknown to him, as the hearing was very sudden, and there was scarcely any time to consult the formalities of justice, it seems very probable that St. Paul, if he ever had known the person of Ananias, had forgotten him; and as, in a council or meeting of this kind, the presence of the high priest was not indispensably necessary, he did not know that the person who presided was not the sagan, or high priest's deputy, or some other person put in the seat for the time being. I therefore understand the words above in their most obvious and literal sense. He knew not who the person was, and God's Spirit suddenly led him to denounce the Divine displeasure against him. Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people - If I had known he was the high priest, I should not have publicly pronounced this execration; for respect is due to his person for the sake of his office. I do not see that Paul intimates that he had done any thing through inadvertence; nor does he here confess any fault; he states two facts: - 1. That he did not know him to be the high priest. 2. That such a one, or any ruler of the people, should be reverenced. But he neither recalled or made an apology for his words: he had not committed a trespass, and he did not acknowledge one. We must beware how we attribute either to him in the case before us.

PAUL'S DEFENSE BEFORE THE SAMHEDRIM DIVIDES THE RIVAL FACTIONS, FROM WHOSE VIOLENCE THE COMMANDANT HAS THE APOSTLE REMOVED INTO THE FORTRESS. (Act 23:1-10) Paul, earnestly beholding the council--with a look of conscious integrity and unfaltering courage, perhaps also recognizing some of his early fellow pupils. I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day--The word has an indirect reference to the "polity" or "commonwealth of Israel," of which he would signify that he had been, and was to that hour, an honest and God-fearing member.

I wist not . . . that he was the high priest--All sorts of explanations of this have been given. The high priesthood was in a state of great confusion and constant change at this time (as appears from JOSEPHUS), and the apostle's long absence from Jerusalem, and perhaps the manner in which he was habited or the seat he occupied, with other circumstances to us unknown, may account for such a speech. But if he was thrown off his guard by an insult which touched him to the quick, "what can surpass the grace with which he recovered his self-possession, and the frankness with which he acknowledged his error? If his conduct in yielding to the momentary impulse was not that of Christ Himself under a similar provocation (Joh 18:22-23), certainly the manner in which he atoned for his fault was Christ-like" [HACKET].