SEV Biblia, Chapter 23:5
Y Pablo dijo: No sabía, hermanos, que era el príncipe de los sacerdotes; pues escrito est: Al príncipe de tu pueblo no maldecirs.
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Acts 23:5
Verse 5. I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest] After all the learned labour 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.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 5. Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest , etc.] 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 ( Ezekiel 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, whywblb , 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 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 f1146 , yrzk , 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 f1147 , that at the time the priests garments were upon them, their priesthood was upon them, but when their garments were not on them, hyl[ tnwhk ya , 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 apostles sense might be, he did not own or acknowledge him high priest. Some take the apostles 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 ( Exodus 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 f1148 .
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 1-5 - See here the character of an honest man. He sets God before him, an lives as in his sight. He makes conscience of what he says and does and, according to the best of his knowledge, he keeps from whatever i evil, and cleaves to what is good. He is conscientious in all his word and conduct. Those who thus live before God, may, like Paul, have confidence both toward God and man. Though the answer of Paul containe a just rebuke and prediction, he seems to have been too angry at the treatment he received in uttering them. Great men may be told of their faults, and public complaints may be made in a proper manner; but the law of God requires respect for those in authority.
Greek Textus Receptus
εφη 5346 5713 V-IXI-3S τε 5037 PRT ο 3588 T-NSM παυλος 3972 N-NSM ουκ 3756 PRT-N ηδειν 1492 5715 V-LAI-1S αδελφοι 80 N-VPM οτι 3754 CONJ εστιν 2076 5748 V-PXI-3S αρχιερευς 749 N-NSM γεγραπται 1125 5769 V-RPI-3S γαρ 1063 CONJ αρχοντα 758 N-ASM του 3588 T-GSM λαου 2992 N-GSM σου 4675 P-2GS ουκ 3756 PRT-N ερεις 2046 5692 V-FAI-2S κακως 2560 ADV
Robertson's NT Word Studies
23:5 {I wist not} (ouk eidein). Second past perfect of oida used as an imperfect. The Greek naturally means that Paul did not know that it was the high priest who gave the order to smite his mouth. If this view is taken, several things may be said by way of explanation. The high priest may not have had on his official dress as the meeting was called hurriedly by Lysias. Paul had been away so long that he may not have known Ananias on sight. And qen Paul may have had poor eyesight or the high priest may not have been sitting in the official seat. Another way of explaining it is to say that Paul was so indignant, even angry, at the command that he spoke without considering who it was that gave the order. The Greek allows this idea also. At any rate Paul at once recognizes the justice of the point made against him. He had been guilty of irreverence against the office of high priest as the passage from #Ex 22:18 (LXX) shows and confesses his fault, but the rebuke was deserved. Jesus did not threaten (#1Pe 2:23) when smitten on the cheek (#Joh 18:22), but he did protest against the act and did not turn the other cheek.
