Acts 23:4

Act 23:4. Τοῦ Θεοῦ, of God) They make the sanctity of the High Priest their plea.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_23:4-5. Παρεστῶτες] as in Act_23:2.

τὸν ἀρχιερ. τ. Θεοῦ] the holy man, who is Gods organ and minister.

οὐκ ᾔδειν κ.τ.λ.] 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 (τινές already in Chrysostom, further, Calvin, Camerarius, Lorinus in Calovius, Marnixius in Wolf, Thiess, Heinrichs; comp. also Grotius), according to which he bitterly enough (and ἀδελφοί 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 ἀρχιερεύς, who had acted so unworthily, as an οὐκ ἀρχιερεύς (2Ma_4:13). Others, against linguistic usage (comp. on Act_7:18), have endeavoured to alter the meaning of οὐκ ᾔδειν, 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 οὐκ ἔγνων, 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.

γέγραπται γάρ] gives the reason of οὐκ ᾔδειν. In consequence, namely, of the scriptural prohibition quoted, Paul would not have spoken κακῶς against the high priest, had not the case of the οὐκ ᾔδειν 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 = κακολογεῖν, Act_19:9. The opposite: εὖ εἰπεῖν, to praise, εὖ λέγειν, 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: καὶ σφόδρα πείθομαι, μὴ εἰδέναι αὐτὸν, ὅτι ἀρχιερεύς ἐστι· διὰ μακροῦ μὲν ἐπανελθόντα χρόνου, μὴ συγγινόμενον δὲ συνεχῶς Ἰουδαίοις, ὁρῶντα δὲ καὶ ἐκεῖνον ἐν τῷ μέσῳ μετὰ πολλῶν καὶ ἑτέρων.

[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, quil y eût un souverain Pontife, is a very unfortunate expedient. ἀρχιερ. did not require the article any more than in Joh_18:13; Joh_11:49; Joh_11:51.

[146] Baur also, I. p. 237, ed. 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 23:4 . τὸν ἀρχ . τοῦ Θεοῦ : 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 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. Those which stood by said By this it appeareth that they were all sick of one disease. 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. 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

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.)

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

God"s high priest. This seems to show that Ananias actually was high priest, though some think that he had thrust himself into the office after his return from Rome, without due authority, and that this was the reason why St. Paul excused himself by saying, in ver. 5, "I wist not that he was high priest."

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

See notes on verse 3

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Is this how you insult God's high priest?

The men use this question to scold Paul for what he has said in Acts 23:03. AT: "Do not insult God's high priest!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

For it is written

Paul is about to quote what Moses wrote in the law. This can be stated in active form. AT: "For Moses wrote in the law" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information and Active or Passive)

translationWords

God

high priest

Paul

brother

written

evil

rule

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

4. τὸν ἀρχιερέα τοῦ θεοῦ, God’s high priest. So styled because he sat on the judgment-seat as God’s representative, cf. 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 cf. Psa 82:1.)

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Revilest [λοιδορεις] . The word signifies vehement abuse, scolding, berating.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.