Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 23:4
And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?
4. God’s high priest ] So styled because he sat on the judgment-seat as God’s representative, cp. Deu 17:8-13. In the Old Test. the priestly, and even other, judges are sometimes called by God’s own name “Elohim.” (See Exo 21:6; Exo 22:8-9 and cp. Psa 82:1.)
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Revilest thou … – Dost thou reproach or abuse the high priest of God? is remarkable that they, who knew that he was not the high priest, should have offered this language. He was, however, in the place of the high priest, and they might have pretended that respect was due to the office.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
These partial parasites take no notice of the real injury done unto Paul by the high priest, and readily catch at the seeming calumny spoke by Paul against him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And they that stood by,…. The members of the sanhedrim that were next to the apostle; or the servants of the high priest, since they are said to stand, whereas those of that court sat: said,
revilest thou God’s high priest? which seems to confirm that the apostle’s words were not a bare prediction, but an imprecation, since they are charged with reproaching, reviling, and speaking evil of him; and the aggravation of which was not only that the person reviled was a priest, an high priest, but an high priest of God; though this could not have been proved, for there was now no high priest of God but Jesus Christ; the priesthood was changed and abrogated, and there were no more high priests among men of God’s appointing and approving.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Of God ( ). As God’s representative in spite of his bad character (De 17:8f.). Here was a charge of irreverence, to say the least. The office called for respect.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Revilest [] . The word signifies vehement abuse, scolding, berating.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And they that stood by said,” (hoi de p-arestoles eipan) “Then those who stood by (who had struck him) said,” asked in a chiding, reproving manner.
2) “Revilest thou God’s high priest?” (ton archierea tou theou loidoreis) “Do you dare revile the High Priest of God?” God’s representative, the high priest who sets on the judgement seat, as God’s representative, Deu 17:8 and also the name Elohim by which priestly and other judges were sometimes known, Exo 21:6; Exo 22:8-9; Psa 82:1; Psa 82:6. Jesus recognized that those who sat in places of adjudication of Moses’ law were often referred to as “gods” Joh 8:34-35; Psa 82:6; Exo 22:28; Rom 13:1.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
4. Those which stood by said By this it appeareth that they were all sick of one disease. − (526) For why do they not rather blame Ananias, when they saw that he had quite forgotten all modesty, and that he brake out into violence and stripes after a barbarous manner? for even this did turn to the reproach of them all. − (527) But this is a solemn [marked] thing among hypocrites, they look narrowly into other men’s faults and wink at 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 whatsoever they will. So fareth it at this day in Popery, the more liberty that impure clergy doth grant to itself, and the more carelessly it waxeth wanton, and polluteth the whole world with the sins which flow thence, the more straitly do they rule and stay the tongues of the people. Therefore, if any man dare be so bold as once to whisper, a little liberty doth cause them to make outrageous outcries as it were heinous sacrilege. −
(526) −
“
Eadem omnes intemperie laborasse,” that they all laboured under the same intemperance,
(527) −
“
In commune illorum dedecus,” to their common disgrace.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
4. God’s high priest Not only the informality of this assemblage, (see note on Act 23:1 and Act 22:30,) but the previous excitements of its members, and the riot with which it broke up, indicate that Ananias occupied no seat of honour, and wore no costume to distinguish him from the crowd. His person was unknown to Paul, who had long been absent from Jerusalem. When, then, he ordered Paul to be smitten, he not only committed a violence for which he had there and then no authority, but there was no sign to indicate to Paul that the order was given by a ruler in due authority.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And those who stood by said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” ’
Immediately people present were shocked and asked him if he thought it right to revile God’s High Priest. They could not believe their ears. It was not a question of whether they approved of what the High Priest had said. It was because to revile God’s representative was to be seen as reviling God (Exo 22:28).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 23:4-5 . ] as in Act 23:2 .
. . ] the holy man, who is God’s organ and minister.
. . .] I knew not that he is high priest . It is absolutely incredible that Paul was really ignorant of this, as Chrysostom, [144] Oecumenius, Lyra, Beza, Clarius, Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, Deyling, Wolf, Michaelis, Sepp, and others (comp. also Ewald, Holtzmann, p. 684, Trip) assume under various modifications. For, although after so long an absence from Jerusalem he might not have known the person of the high priest (whose office at that time frequently changed its occupants) by sight, yet he was much too familiar with the arrangements of the Sanhedrim not to have known the high priest by his very activity in directing it, by his seat, by his official dress, etc. The contrary would only be credible in the event of Ananias not having been the real high priest, or of a vacancy in the office having at that time taken place (but see on Act 23:2 ), or of such a vacancy having been erroneously assumed by the apostle, [145] or of the sitting having been an irregular one, not at least superintended by the high priest, and perhaps not held in the usual council-chamber, which, however, after Act 22:30 , is the less to be assumed, seeing that the assembly, expressly commanded by the tribune, and at which he himself was present (Act 23:10 ), was certainly opened in proper form, and was only afterwards thrown into confusion by the further sagacious conduct of the apostle (Act 23:6 ff.). Entirely in keeping, on the other hand, with the irritated frame of Paul, is the ironical mode of taking it ( already in Chrysostom, further, Calvin, Camerarius, Lorinus in Calovius, Marnixius in Wolf, Thiess, Heinrichs; comp. also Grotius), according to which he bitterly enough (and makes the irony only the more sharp) veils in these words the thought: “a man, who shows himself so unholy and vulgar, I could not at all regard as the high priest.” Comp. Erasmus. [146] What an appropriate and cutting defence against the reproach, Act 23:4 ! It implies that he was obliged to regard an , who had acted so unworthily, as an ( 2Ma 4:13 ). Others, against linguistic usage (comp. on Act 7:18 ), have endeavoured to alter the meaning of , either: non agnosco (so, with various suggestions, Cyprian, Augustine, Beda, Piscator, Lightfoot, Keuchen, and others), or non reputabam (so Simon Episcopius, Limborch, Wetstein, Bengel, Morus, Stolz, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others, also Neander), so that Paul would thus confess that his conduct was rash. This confession would be a foolish one, inconsistent with the strong and clear mind of the apostle in a critical situation, and simply compromising him. Baumgarten has the correct view, but will not admit the irony. But this must be admitted, as Paul does not say , or the like; and there exists a holy irony. Lange, apost. Zeitalt . II. p. 314, imports ideas into the passage, and twists it thus: “Just because it is written, Thou shalt not curse the ruler of thy people, and YE have cursed the high priest of our people (Christ), for that reason I knew not that this is a high priest.” Zeller understands the words (left by de Wette without definite explanation) as an actual untruth , which, however, is only put into the mouth of the apostle by the narrator . But such a fiction, which, according to the naked meaning of the words, would have put a lie into the mouth of the holy apostle, is least of all to be imputed to a maker of history. The exceptionableness of the expression helps to warrant the certainty of its originality .
] gives the reason of . In consequence, namely, of the scriptural prohibition quoted, Paul would not have spoken against the high priest, had not the case of the occurred (by the conduct of the man!). The passage itself is Exo 22:28 , closely after the LXX.: a ruler of thy people thou shalt (future, see on Mat 1:21 ) not revile = , Act 19:9 . The opposite: , to praise , , Hom. Od . i. 302; Xen. Mem . ii. 3. 8. The senarian metre in our passage is accidental (Winer, p. 595 [E. T. 798]).
[144] Rejecting the ironical view, Chrysostom says: , , , , .
[145] This hypothesis cannot be accepted, as Paul had already been for so many days in Jerusalem; therefore the interpretation of Beelen: “je ne savais pas, qu’il y et un souverain Pontife ,” is a very unfortunate expedient. . did not require the article any more than in Joh 18:13 ; Joh 11:49 ; Joh 11:51 .
[146] Baur also, I. p. 237, Exo 2 , recognises the admissibility of no other view than the ironical ; but even thus he sees in it an element of the unworthiness of the (fictitious) story.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?
Ver. 4. Revilest thou God’s high priest? ] Some think it was not the high priest himself, but his surrogate, such as Dic of Dover was to the Archbishop of Canterbury, active against the martyrs in Queen Mary’s days, and known by that name.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4 .] Hence we see that not only by the Jews, but by the tribune, who was present, Ananias was regarded as the veritable high priest.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 23:4 . . : of God, emphatic, i.e. , sitting on the judgment-seat as God’s representative, cf. Deu 17:8 ff., and also the name Elohim, by which the priestly and other judges were sometimes known, Exo 21:6 ; Exo 22:8-9 , Psa 81:1 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Revilest. Greek. loidoreo. See note on Joh 9:28.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] Hence we see that not only by the Jews, but by the tribune, who was present, Ananias was regarded as the veritable high priest.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 23:4. , of God) They make the sanctity of the High Priest their plea.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Reciprocal: Joh 18:22 – Answerest
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
Act 23:4-5. Paul agreed that the rulers of God’s people should not be spoken against, and even cited the law that forbids such a speech (Exo 22:28). But the history of those times shows that Ananias was an evil character, who had been in difficulties with the civil authorities and had once been deposed from his office. Afterward, however, he assumed the place as president of the Sanhedrin, which is the meaning of Paul’s words “sittest thou to judge” (verse 3). Knowing him to have been a usurper, the remark of the apostle, I wist [knew] not, etc., was the apostle’s way of ignoring his assumption, thus showing him not to be entitled to the usual judicial courtesy.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 23:4. And they that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest? It wasand St. Paul knew it wellcontrary to the law of Moses (see Exo 22:28, subsequently quoted by him) to revile one placed in a position of authority, such as the high priest, or any one sitting as president of the Sanhedrim council,the father of the house of judgment, as the Talmud calls him.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, That Ananias the high-priest having commanded the apostle unheard and uncondemned to be smitten, the apostle denounces the just judgments of God upon him for the same; yet not in a way of imprecation, but prediction; rather foretelling what would come, than wishing or desiring that it should come,; not in a way of revenge, or recompensing evil for evil, but in a way of ministerial reproof, which the standers-by call reviling. Revilest thou God’s high-priest?
Thence learn, That profane sinners look upon the faithful reproofs which the ministers of God give them for their lewdness, to be no better than revilings; they think we revile them, if we do but rebuke them; whereas, though we chasten sinners with the rod of reproof, we dare not sting them with the scorpion of reproach.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
See notes on verse 3
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Paul may not have known that the person who commanded the soldier to strike him was the high priest for any number of reasons. Paul had not been in Jerusalem for an extended visit for over 20 years and may not have been able to recognize the current high priest by sight. Perhaps Ananias was not wearing his high priestly robes since this was not a regular meeting of the Sanhedrin. [Note: Longenecker, "The Acts . . .," p. 531.] Perhaps Paul was looking in another direction when Ananias gave the order to strike him. Perhaps Paul had poor eyesight. [Note: McGee, 4:614.] However this seems less likely in view of Act 23:1. The passage to which some commentators appeal to argue that Paul had deficient eyesight (Gal 4:13-15) does not really say that. Another possibility is that Paul was speaking in irony: "’I did not think that a man who would give such an order could be the high priest.’" [Note: Marshall, The Acts . . ., p. 364; Neil, p. 228.] Some interpreters believe that Paul simply lost his temper. [Note: Ironside, Lectures on . . ., p. 537.] Others believe he was apologizing. [Note: Kent, p. 168.] Paul voiced similar passionate utterances on other occasions (cf. Gal 2:11; Gal 5:12; Php 3:2).
The high priest was a ruler of the Jews in a higher sense than was true of the rest of the Sanhedrin members. Paul’s quotation from Exo 22:28 showed that he was in subjection to God’s revealed will that he was on trial for repudiating. Being subject to governmental authorities is a requirement under the New Covenant as it was under the Old (cf. Rom 13:1-7; et al.). Paul quoted the Old Covenant here for the benefit of the Jews who lived under it.