Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 23:2
And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
2. And the high priest Ananias ] This was Ananias the son of Nebedus. (Joseph. Ant. xx. 5, 2.) In the time of the Emperor Claudius he had been suspended from his office for some offence and sent to Rome ( Ant. xx. 6, 2) but afterwards seems to have been held in great reputation in Jerusalem ( Ant. xx. 9, 2).
to smite him on the mouth ] No doubt St Paul’s address, before the high priest gave this order, had extended much beyond the single sentence which St Luke records, and he only preserves for us that which appears to have moved the anger of the authorities, by his claim to have led a life of which in God’s sight he was not ashamed. The action was intended to put a stop to what would be counted the presumptuous language of St Paul.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And the high priest Ananias – This Ananias was doubtless the son of Nebedinus (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 5, section 3), who was high priest when Quadratus, who preceded Felix, was president of Syria. He was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus, at the same time with Ananias, the prefect of the temple, that they might give an account of their conduct to Claudius Caesar (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 6, section 2). But in consequence of the intercession of Agrippa the younger, they were dismissed and returned to Jerusalem. Ananias, however, was not restored to the office of high priest. For, when Felix was governor of Judea, this office was filled by Jonathan, who succeeded Ananias I (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 10). Jonathan was slain in the temple itself, by the instigation of Felix, by assassins who had been hired for the purpose. This murder is thus described by Josephus (Antiq., book 20, chapter 8, section 5): Felix bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest, because he frequently gave him admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest complaints should be made against him, since he had procured of Caesar the appointment of Felix as procurator of Judea. Accordingly, Felix contrived a method by which he might get rid of Jonathan, whose admonitions had become troublesome to him. Felix persuaded one of Jonathans most faithful friends, of the name Doras, to bring the robbers upon him, and to put him to death.
This was done in Jerusalem. The robbers came into the city as if to worship God, and with daggers, which they had concealed under their garments, they put him to death. After the death of Jonathan, the office of high priest remained vacant until King Agrippa appointed Ismael, the son of Fabi, to the office (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 8, section 8). It was during this interval, while the office of high priest was vacant, that the events which are here recorded took place. Ananias was then at Jerusalem; and as the office of high priest was vacant, and as he was the last person who had borne the office, it was natural that he should discharge, probably by common consent, its duties, so far, at least, as to preside in the Sanhedrin. Of these facts Paul would be doubtless apprised; and hence, what he said Act 23:5 was strictly true, and is one of the evidences that Lukes history accords precisely with the special circumstances which then existed. When Luke here calls Ananias the high priest, he evidently intends not to affirm that he was actually such, but to use the word, as the Jews did, as applicable to one who had been in that office, and who, on that occasion, when the office was vacant, performed its duties.
To smite him on the mouth – To stop him from speaking; to express their indignation at what he had said. The anger of Ananias was aroused because Paul affirmed that all he had done had been with a good conscience. Their feelings had been excited to the utmost; they regarded him as certainly guilty; they regarded him as an apostate; and they could not bear it that he, with such coolness and firmness, declared that all his conduct had been under the direction of a good conscience. The injustice of the command of Ananias is apparent to all. A similar instance of violence occurred on the trial of the Saviour, Joh 18:22.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. The high priest, Ananias] There was a high priest of this name, who was sent a prisoner to Rome by Quadratus, governor of Syria, to give an account of the part he took in the quarrel between the Jews and the Samaritans; see Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 6, s. 8; but whether he ever returned again to Jerusalem, says Dr. Lightfoot, is uncertain; still more uncertain whether he was ever restored to the office of high priest; and most uncertain of all whether he filled the chair when Paul pleaded his cause, which was some years after Felix was settled in the government. But Krebs has proved that this very Ananias, on being examined at Rome, was found innocent, returned to Jerusalem, and was restored to the high priesthood; see Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 9, s. 2; but of his death I find nothing certain. See Krebs on this place, (Observat. in Nov. Testament. e Flavio Josepho,) who successfully controverts the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot, mentioned at the beginning of this note. There was one Ananias, who is said to have perished in a tumult raised by his own son about five years after this time; see Jos. Antiq. lib. x. cap. 9. War, lib. ii. cap. 17.
To smite him on the mouth.] Because he professed to have a good conscience, while believing on Jesus Christ, and propagating his doctrine.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Them that stood by him; the officers, probably.
To smite him on the mouth; thus Micaiah was smote by Zedekiah the false prophet, 1Ki 22:24, and Jeremiah by Pashur, Jer 20:2; and our blessed Lord escaped not this suffering and indignity, Joh 18:22. Now this was the rather inflicted on Paul, because of his protesting of his innocency, which did reflect upon the council, as being injurious; but it was indeed no more than what was necessary in his own just defence, and for the glory of the gospel.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. the high priest . . . commanded .. . to smite him on the moutha method of silencing a speakercommon in the East to this day [HACKET].But for a judge thus to treat a prisoner on his “trial,”for merely prefacing his defense by a protestation of his integrity,was infamous.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the high priest Ananias,…. This could not be the same with Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, but rather Ananus his son; though this is more generally thought to be Ananias the son of Nebedaeus, whom Josephus m speaks of. There is one R. Ananias, the sagan of the priests, often spoken of in the Jewish writings n, who lived about these times, and was killed at the destruction of Jerusalem; and in the times of King Agrippa, there was one Chanina, or Ananias the priest, who was a Sadducee o; and from the number of Sadducees in this sanhedrim, who very likely were the creatures of the high priest, one would be tempted to think he might be the same with this: who
commanded them that stood by him: that is, by Paul, who were nearest to him, some of the members of the sanhedrim; unless they should be thought to be some of the high priest’s officers, or servants, as in
Joh 18:22 though if they were, one would think they would be so called: these he ordered
to smite him on the mouth: or give him a slap on the face, by way of contempt, and as if he had spoken what ought not to be said, and in order to silence him; the reason of which might be, either because Paul did not directly address him, and give him such flattering titles as he expected, or because he set out with such declarations of his innocence, and spotless behaviour, and with so much courage and boldness.
m Antiqu. l. 18. c. 2. sect. 1. & l. 20. c. 8. sect. 1. n Misna Shekalim, c. 4. sect. 4. & 6. 1. & Pesachim, c. 1. sect. 6. T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 8. 1. & 21. 2. & Juchasin, fol. 24. 2. o Juchasin, fol. 142. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Ananias (H). Not the one in Luke 3:2; John 18:13; Acts 4:7, but the son of Nebedaeus, nominated high priest by Herod, King of Chalcis, A.D. 48 and till A.D. 59. He was called to Rome A.D. 52 to answer “a charge of rapine and cruelty made against him by the Samaritans, but honourably acquitted” (Page). Though high priest, he was a man of bad character.
Them that stood by him ( ). Dative case of second perfect participle of , to place, and intransitive. See the same form in verse 4 ().
To smite him on the mouth ( ). See on Acts 12:45; Acts 18:17. Cf. the treatment of Jesus (Joh 18:22). Ananias was provoked by Paul’s self-assertion while on trial before his judges. “The act was illegal and peculiarly offensive to a Jew at the hands of a Jew” (Knowling). More self-control might have served Paul better. Smiting the mouth or cheek is a peculiarly irritating offence and one not uncommon among the Jews and this fact gives point to the command of Jesus to turn the other check (Lu 6:29 where is also used).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Ananias. He is described as a revengeful and rapacious tyrant. We are told that he reduced the inferior priests almost to starvation by defrauding them of their tithes, and sent his creatures to the threshing – floors with bludgeons to seize the tithes by force.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And the high priest, Ananias commanded them that stood by him,” (ho de archeireus Ananias epetaksen tois perestosin auto) “Gave order to those who stood by him,” who stood by Paul. He was not the Ananias of Jesus’ day but one appointed by Herod of Chalcis from A.D. 47-59 and who is thought to have retained his office of high priest until deposed, just before the departure of Felix as governor, according to Josephus.
2) “To smite him on the mouth.” (tuptein autou to stoma) “To strike (slap) the mouth of him,” to slap him ‘in the mouth. It was a common method of silencing a speaker in the East, and is common to this day. But for a judge to order such done to a prisoner who was prefacing his defence, by asserting his integrity, was a callous act of infamy. Yet our Lord was also treated in this manner, Joh 18:22; 1Ki 22:24; Jer 20:2. Paul apparently forgot that he was before his judges and ought not to have spoken until being asked.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
2. And the chief priest. Luke’s narration seemeth not to agree with the usual history; for Josephus writeth thus concerning the high priests of that time, that Quadratus, deputy [proconsul] of Syria, deposing Cumanus from the government of Judea, commanded him to answer for himself before Caesar, and sent Ananias, the highest priest, bound with him, into whose place who was chosen he maketh no mention, saving that it is likely that Jonathas had the honor given him, who, as he reporteth, was afterward slain by the subtilty and treachery of Felix, deputy [prefect] of Judea, who succeeded Cumanus; for when he had oftentimes told Felix part of his mind, and he could not away with the constancy of the man, he made a compact with one Doras, that he should privily convey in murderers to slay him. Then, as the same Josephus doth witness, king Agrippa made Ismael, the son of Phebeus, priest. But when he was sent by the people to Rome about a certain suit, and was kept there by Popea, wife to Nero, Agrippa putteth in his place one Josephus, whose name was Chabus, the son of Simon. But immediately being also weary of him, he appointeth Ananus, the son of Ananus, to be high priest. −
Furthermore, he saith that this last thing happened at such time as, after the death of Festus, Albinus did succeed him. And I see not why some call this Ananus Ananias. That hath indeed some color, in that he is called a Pharisee; also in that it is said that he was bold and stout, who, without any lawful authority, caused James, the Lord’s brother, to be stoned. But if we give credence to Josephus, he could not be that Ananias of whom mention is made in this place by Luke, who was then made priest, when many years were past and gone, after that Felix departed out of the province. −
I have another conjecture in my head. For there flourished during all that time one Ananias, an high priest, who, excepting the title of honor, was almost chief in the order. And because Josephus leaveth some void time between Ananias and Ismael, it may be that this man had the room of the highest priest in the meantime. − (522) But though this were not so, it appeareth out of Josephus, that Ananias, who died when the city was besieged, was, in the reign of Claudius Caesar and Nero, equal in dignity with the chief priests which were then. −
Yea, his authority is so highly extolled, as if he had the chief government, howsoever other men did bear the ensigns of honor. Again, he is called αρχιερευς confusedly, − (523) as those who were the highest priests. Now, let the readers ponder and consider, whether the word αρχιερευς doth not rather signify in this place chief than highest, as it doth in many other places. For the Evangelists do everywhere call the priests who were of the course of Aaron αρχιερεις, that they may distinguish them from the Levites, who had a more inferior degree of priesthood. Moreover, it may be that that Ananias, who was counted stout and courageous, did supply the high priest’s room in his absence. Those things which we have recited out of Josephus are recorded partly in the Twentieth Book of Antiquities, from the third chapter until the eight; partly in the Second Book of the Wars of the Jews. −
He commanded him to be smitten. We see that there was in this assembly great distemperature. For whereas the high priest was in such rage, that he commanded Paul to be smitten for nothing, he did it undoubtedly with the consent of all the rest; yea, to the end he might win the favor of mad men. The Lord doth suffer the wicked to be so carried away by Satan, that they fall from all show of equity and temperance. For hypocrites would fain bear some show of moderation; and undoubtedly this high priest went about to pretend such gravity as did beseem his person. But the Lord did pluck this visure [mask] from his face, so that there was not found in him so much as the modesty of a mean man, but he poured out his furious force like a beast. −
In the mean season, we see what horrible and filthy disorder there was at that day in the Church. Ananias, who was the chief of the council, whereas he ought to have stayed others by his gravity, forgetting all modesty, he enforceth them unto violence and savageness. Therefore they had at that day no regard of discipline, but there remained among them confused barbarism. And no marvel, for they had estranged themselves from God; they had most reproachfully rejected Christ; all their religion was set to sale. Therefore it was meet that they should run headlong into furious madness, which might be loathsome even among profane men, that they might be punished in their own shame for their ungodliness. −
(522) −
“
Intermedio illo tempore,” during the intermediate time.
(523) −
“
Promiscue,” indiscriminately.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) The high priest Ananias.See Note on Act. 22:5. The son of Nebedus was conspicuous for his cruelty and injustice, and had been sent to Rome as a prisoner to take his trial before Claudius (A.D. 52). He had been acquitted, or at least released, and had returned to Juda. To him this assertion of a life so utterly unlike his own seemed almost like a personal insult. He fitted the cap, and raged with a brutal cruelty which reminds us of Jeffreys treatment of Baxter.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Commanded to smite him The high priest is left in his passion to inflict the usual Eastern penalty of criminal or impertinent speech upon this servant of Christ, an outrage which will draw forth a monitory prediction of his own violent end.
This Ananias was the son of Nebedaeus, and was appointed to the high priesthood by Herod, king of Chalcis. (See our Hist. Revelation at Act 21:17, 1, 2, and 3.) He was assassinated by the Sicarii, about five years afterward.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to smite him on the mouth.’
The chairman of the council, the High Priest Ananias, then commanded that he be smitten on the mouth. This was possibly a preemptory reminder of who was in charge. A modern judge would have sternly told him that he must wait until he was called on. Or it may have been in order to suggest that he was not treating the aristocracy with sufficient deference. Normally they would be addressed as, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel.” Or perhaps it was just in order to indicate that he must not be so arrogant in front of his betters. Ananias was himself an arrogant man and full of his own self-importance, and by this demonstrated his arrogance and unfitness to be presiding. But prisoners, whether guilty or not, were often treated contemptuously by courts, and we have here another example of the way in which Paul was seen as ‘following in His steps’, for Jesus had been treated in a similar way (compare Joh 18:22). It is the way the Master went, shall not the servant read it still?
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 23:2. The high priest Ananias He was the son of Nebedoeus, and by his station head of the sanhedrim. He had before this been sent in chains to Rome, to give an account to Claudius Caesar of his behaviour in the quarrel which had happened between the Jews and Samaritans, during the government of Cumanus in Judea; but, being acquitted, he returned to Jerusalem, and still enjoyed the dignity of the high-priesthood,probablyattheintercessionof Agrippa the younger. Full of prejudice against St. Paul and the gospel doctrine, he condemned the apostle’s speech, as too boasting and arrogant; and ordered some of the apparitors who stood by St. Paul to smite him on the mouth, for taking upon him to glory so much, though he had in reality used only a well grounded and just defence. But St. Paul could not wonder at such cruel and unrighteous treatment, when he considered that so had the false prophet Zedekiah dealt with the true prophet Micaiah; so had the high-priest Pashur smitten the prophetJeremiah; and, what is more, in like manner had the wicked Jews struck our Lord, when he had behaved with the greatest modesty and innocenc
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
Ver. 2. To smite him on the mouth ] So when Henry Zutphen, martyr, was bound hard to a ladder and cast into the fire, he no sooner began to pray and to repeat his creed, but one struck him upon the face with his fist, saying, Thou shalt first be burned, and afterwards pray and prate as much as thou wilt: (Acts and Mon.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2. ] He was at this time the actual high priest ( Act 23:4 ). He was the son of Nebedus (Jos. Antt. xx. 5. 2), succeeded Joseph son of Camydus, Antt. xx. 1. 3; 5. 2, and preceded Ismael, son of Phabi (Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11). He was nominated to the office by Herod, king of Chalcis, in A.D. 48 (Antt. xx. 5. 2); and sent to Rome by Quadratus, the prefect of Syria, to give an account to the emperor Claudius (Antt. xx. 6. 2): he appears, however, not to have lost his office, but to have resumed it on his return. This has been regarded as not certain, and the uncertainty has produced much confusion in the Pauline chronology. But as Wieseler has shewn (Chronol. d. Apostelgeschichte, p. 76, note), there can be no reasonable doubt that it was so, especially as Ananias came off victorious in the cause for which he went to Rome, viz. a quarrel with the Jewish procurator Cumanus, who went with him, and was condemned to banishment (Antt. xx. 6. 3). He was deposed from his office not long before the departure of Felix (Antt. xx. 8. 8), but still had great power, which he used violently and lawlessly (ib. 9. 2): he was assassinated by the sicarii [see ch. Act 21:38 , note] at last (B. J. ii. 17, 9).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 23:2 . .: not the Ananias of Act 4:7 , Luk 3:2 , Joh 18:13 , but the son of Nebedus, appointed to his office by Herod of Chalcis, high priest from c. 47 59. He was sent to Rome on account of the complaints of the Samaritans against the Jews, but the Jewish cause prevailed, and there is no reason to suppose that Ananias lost his office. The probabilities are that he retained it until he was deposed shortly before the departure of Felix. Josephus gives us a terrible picture of his violent and unscrupulous conduct, Ant. , xx., 9, 2. But his Roman sympathisers made him an object of hatred to the nationalists, and in A.D. 66, in the days of the last great revolt against the Romans, he was dragged from a sewer in which he had hidden, and was murdered by the weapons of the assassins whom in his own period of power he had not scrupled to employ, Jos., B.J. , ii., 17, 9, “Ananias,” B.D. 2 , and Hastings’ B.D., O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte , pp. 130, 146. : because Paul had forgotten that he was before his judges, and ought not to have spoken before being asked, cf. Luk 6:29 , Joh 18:22 , 2Co 11:20 , 1Ti 3:3 , Tit 1:7 . The act was illegal and peculiarly offensive to a Jew at the hands of a Jew, Farrar, St. Paul , ii., p. 323.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Ananias. Son of Nedebaeus. He was murdered by a band of the Sicarii some years after, being caught in an aqueduct where he had concealed himself (Josephus, Antiquities XX. v. 2 ; vi. 2 ; ix. 2 ; Wars, II. xvii. 9).
him on the = his.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2. ] He was at this time the actual high priest (Act 23:4). He was the son of Nebedus (Jos. Antt. xx. 5. 2),-succeeded Joseph son of Camydus, Antt. xx. 1. 3; 5. 2,-and preceded Ismael, son of Phabi (Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11). He was nominated to the office by Herod, king of Chalcis, in A.D. 48 (Antt. xx. 5. 2); and sent to Rome by Quadratus, the prefect of Syria, to give an account to the emperor Claudius (Antt. xx. 6. 2): he appears, however, not to have lost his office, but to have resumed it on his return. This has been regarded as not certain,-and the uncertainty has produced much confusion in the Pauline chronology. But as Wieseler has shewn (Chronol. d. Apostelgeschichte, p. 76, note), there can be no reasonable doubt that it was so, especially as Ananias came off victorious in the cause for which he went to Rome, viz. a quarrel with the Jewish procurator Cumanus,-who went with him, and was condemned to banishment (Antt. xx. 6. 3). He was deposed from his office not long before the departure of Felix (Antt. xx. 8. 8), but still had great power, which he used violently and lawlessly (ib. 9. 2): he was assassinated by the sicarii [see ch. Act 21:38, note] at last (B. J. ii. 17, 9).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 23:2. , but) No one, however unfavourable (prejudiced against the speaker), ought to have been displeased at Pauls speech. He interrupts him when about to speak more fully, [or even attempts to accuse him of a lie (in laying claim to a good conscience).-V. g.]- ), the High Priest: not one of the many chief priests, of whom ch. Act 22:30 treats.-, commanded) without any cause.-, himself) Ananias [not Paul].-, the mouth) as speaking unworthy things.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Ananias: Act 24:1
to smite: 1Ki 22:24, Jer 20:2, Mic 5:1, Mat 26:67, Joh 18:22
Reciprocal: 2Ch 18:23 – Zedekiah Job 16:10 – they have smitten Isa 58:4 – and to smite Jer 37:15 – the princes Mar 13:9 – take Mar 14:65 – General Luk 6:29 – smiteth 1Co 4:11 – and are buffeted
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
Act 23:2. Ananias had the common but erroneous idea that if a man is conscientious he is right. To him the statement of Paul meant that he had never done anything wrong. He thought that such an assertion from one who had been opposing Judaism so persistently was one of arrogance. Smiting one on the mouth was an act of con tempt and humiliation, and not one especially considered as a physical punishment.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 23:2. And the high priest Ananias. We can imagine the wrath of the haughty prelate at the first words of the accused. What unheard of presumption that this Paul, a renegade and outcast, the enemy of all that the Sanhedrim held sacred, should dare to arrogate to himself a brotherhood with them. His former close connection with that august senate only rendered his present strange claim more insupportable; and when the poor prisoner went on to assert that, after all the years of apostasy, Nazarene leader though he had been, he was still a loyal Jew, faithful to the God of his fathers, the anger of the high priest flamed forth, and he bade the officials standing near the accused to smite him on the mouth.
Ananias, who presided over this meeting of the Sanhedrim, the son of Nebedus, was appointed to this high office by Herod, king of Chalcis, in A.D. 48, some ten years before St. Paul was arraigned before the supreme Jewish council. While Cumanus was procurator of Juda, Quadratus, president of Syria, arrested and sent Ananias to be tried at Rome, on the complaint of the Samaritans, A.D. 52. Herod Agrippa the younger procured the acquittal of the Jewish party, whom the Samaritans accused of certain acts of violence. Ananias then resumed the high-priesthood. He was superseded by Ismael, the son of Phabi, just before the departure of Felix from Juda. This change was brought about by Herod Agrippa the younger, A.D. 59. He then held the great office of high priest for about eleven years, an unusually lengthened period in those stormy days of intrigue. After his deposition, he still continued to exercise great influence among his countrymen. He was famous for his violent and illegal acts. This evil though successful man was assassinated by the Sicarii at last.
Commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the month. A similar insult was offered to the Lord Jesus when He stood accused before the same council, Joh 18:22. Commentators often quote from Moriers Second Journey through Persia to show that this treatment is by no means uncommon in the unchanging East in our own days. As soon as the ambassadors came, writes this traveller, he punished the principal offenders by causing them to be beaten before them; and those who had spoken their minds too freely, he smote upon the mouth with a shoe; and in another passage Morier writes thus, Call the Ferasches, exclaimed the king, let them beat the culprits until they die! The Ferasches appeared, and beat them violently; and when they attempted to say anything in their defence, they were struck in the mouth.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 1
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 2
Offended at so bold and decided an assertion of his innocence.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
23:2 {2} And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
(2) Hypocrites are forced at length to betray themselves by their violence.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Paul’s claim to uprightness so incensed Ananias that he ordered a soldier to strike Paul on the mouth. Probably Ananias, who was a Sadducee, had already made up his mind that Paul, who had been a Pharisee, was guilty. An officer of the high priest had also struck Jesus as he testified before the Sanhedrin (cf. Joh 18:20-23).
Ananias became high priest in A.D. 47. The Jewish high priesthood was a political appointment during Rome’s occupation of Palestine. Josephus painted Ananias as a despicable person. He seized for his own use tithes that should have gone to the ordinary priests and gave large bribes to Romans and Jews. The emperor summoned him to Rome on charges of being involved in a bloody battle between Jews and Samaritans, but he escaped punishment. He was very wealthy and resorted to violence and even assassination to accomplish his ends. He was also very pro-Roman, and the Jews finally assassinated him in their uprising against Rome in A.D. 66, nine years after Paul stood before him. [Note: Josephus, The Wars . . ., 2:12:6; 2:17:6, 9; Antiquities of . . ., 20:5:2; 20:6:2; 20:9:2, 4. Cf. Wiersbe, 1:494.]