Skip to content
mannafest.faith

Acts 23:5

in Acts 23

“Brothers,” Paul replied, “I was not aware that he was the high priest, for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’”

BSB

The same verse in ASV and KJV ▾

ASV

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.

KJV

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.

This verse in Acts 23

Commentary

17 notes on this verse
Then said Paul, I wist not - I know not; I was ignorant of the fact that he was high priest. Interpreters have been greatly divided on the meaning of this expression. Some have supposed that Paul said it in irony, as if he had said, “Pardon me, brethren, I did not consider that this was the high priest. It did not occur to me that a man who could conduct thus could be God’s highest.

This site's exposition

insult the high priest of God

on Acts 23:4-5

Rebuked for insulting the high priest, Paul answers that he was not aware Ananias was the high priest. He then submits at once to the law he had accused Ananias of breaking, citing Exodus 22:28.

This site's exposition

I was not aware that he was the high priest

Clarke gives the reasons Paul could fail to know him. He had long been away, and the Romans set up and put down high priests so often that the office was bought and sold.

The record, by era

The Church Fathers5 voices

A commentator

Oecumenius

Commentary on Acts · Written before 550.

proposed

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 …

A commentator

Oecumenius

Commentary on Acts · Written before 550.

proposed

"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 …

A commentator

John Chrysostom

Homily on Acts 48 · Written before 407.

proposed

"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.

A commentator

John Chrysostom

Homily on Acts 48 · Written before 407.

proposed

"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.

A commentator

John Chrysostom

Homily on Acts 48 · Written before 407.

proposed

"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.
9 more voices on this verse

The Church Fathers2 voices

A commentator

Cyprian

Epistle LIV · Written before 258.

proposed

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?

A commentator

Oecumenius

Commentary on Acts · Written before 550.

proposed

"God will strike you, you who have been puffed up." It is worth asking how the same speaker elsewhere says, "When condemned we bless, when persecuted we endure," (1 Cor. 4:12) whereas here, on the contrary, he not only condemns but also curses. And we …

The Medieval Church2 voices

A commentator

Bede

Commentary on Acts · Written before 735.

proposed

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 …

A commentator

Theophylact of Ohrid

Commentary on Acts · Written before 1107.

proposed

"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 …

The Puritans and the Awakening3 voices

A commentator

John Wesley

1703–1791

Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (1755)

This answer admirably shows the situation of mind he was then in, partly with regard to the bystanders, whom he thus softens, adding also the title of brethren, and justifying their reproof by the prohibition of Moses; partly with regard to himself, who, after that singular transport subsided, was again under the direction of the general command.
Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest,....

A commentator

Matthew Henry

1662–1714

Commentary on the Whole Bible (1710)

proposed

Paul's greatest honour, and that upon which he most valued himself, was that he was a Christian, and an apostle of Christ; and all his other honours he despised and made nothing of, in comparison with this, counting them but dung, that he might win Christ; and yet he had sometimes occasion to make use of his other honours, and they did him service.

The Nineteenth Century2 voices

A commentator

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

1802–1910

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)

proposed

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].

quarantine:debris (2026-07-29) — odd-straight-quotes

A commentator

Adam Clarke

1762–1832

Commentary on the Bible · Written before 1832.

proposed

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.

The words behind it

20 Greek words

Every Greek word of this verse in the order it stands, with what it means and the door to its own study. The last column counts the times a word stands in the whole Bible: the rarer the word, the more the places it appears belong together.

A shaded row is a word that stands 400 times or fewer in the Bible.

The walk

8 stops

Each card is a verse this one points to, and under it the verses that one points to in turn. Where several paths arrive at the same place, that place is listed first: the text keeps returning to it.

  • Through

    Ecclesiastes 10:20

    Do not curse the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich even in your bedroom, for a bird of the air may carry your words, and a winged creature may report your…

    it leads to

    • Exodus 22:28

      You must not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.

      Reached by 2 separate paths from here.

    • Luke 12:2–3

      There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, and nothing hidden that will not be made known.

    • 2 Kings 6:12

      But one of his servants replied, “No one, my lord the king. For Elisha, the prophet in Israel, tells the king of Israel the very words you speak in your bedroom.”

    • Ecclesiastes 7:21–22

      Do not pay attention to every word that is spoken, or you may hear your servant cursing you.

    • Luke 19:40

      “I tell you,” He answered, “if they remain silent, the very stones will cry out.”

  • Through

    2 Peter 2:10

    Such punishment is specially reserved for those who indulge the corrupt desires of the flesh and despise authority. Bold and self-willed, they are unafraid to slander glorious beings.

    it leads to

    • Jude 1:16

      These men are discontented grumblers, following after their own lusts; their mouths spew arrogance; they flatter others for their own advantage.

    • Jude 1:10

      These men, however, slander what they do not understand, and like irrational animals, they will be destroyed by the things they do instinctively.

  • Through

    Exodus 22:28

    You must not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.

    it leads to

    • Ecclesiastes 10:20

      Do not curse the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich even in your bedroom, for a bird of the air may carry your words, and a winged creature may report your…

Where this verse is studied

About Acts

The Pentecost, El Greco, about 1600, Museo del Prado. Public domain.
The Pentecost, El Greco, about 1600, Museo del Prado. Public domain.
This page draws on 12 works. Open the list of works

This page draws on Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible; Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments (1832-1869); Bede, Commentary on Acts; Cyprian, Epistle LIV; J. A. Alexander, The Acts of the Apostles Explained; Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; John Chrysostom, Homily on Acts 48; John Gill, Exposition of the New Testament (1746-1748); John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament; Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible; Oecumenius, Commentary on Acts and Theophylact of Ohrid, Commentary on Acts.