Was Paul Guilty of Reviling the High Priest?: A Hermeneutical Study of Acts 23:1-5

By Mark W. Christy, PhD

Standing before the Council, Paul confronted the high priest Ananias for his unlawful act which was committed when Ananias ordered that Paul be struck even though Paul had not yet been accused, much less been found guilty, of a crime (Acts 23:1-2). Specifically, Paul reproached the high priest by saying, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” (23:3).[1] Those who were present at the time took umbrage with Paul concerning his harsh words and accused him of violating the Law by “revil[ing] God’s high priest” (23:4). In his commentary, John MacArthur assumes their charge to be an affirmation that “Paul was guilty of giving a retaliating insult.”[2] To determine whether MacArthur’s charge is warranted, this article will offer an in depth look at Paul’s exchange with Ananias in Acts 23:1-5.

After Paul testified to his maintenance of a good conscience, Ananias responded by having him struck “on the mouth” (23:1-2). Before Paul could be justly punished by the Law according to the prescribed manner for a given charge, there would need to be at least two to three witnesses whose testimonies would be considered by judges and priests and weighed against the defense of the accused (cf. Deut 19:15-18). By ordering Paul to be struck before even giving him a trial, Ananias became guilty of harming an innocent man in the eyes of the Law.

As previously mentioned, Paul retorts, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” (23:3). Assuming Ananias to be just another Pharisee, Paul immediately recognizes his hypocrisy for failing to follow the Law even while presuming himself capable of judging others by its tenets. For this reason, he calls him a whitewashed wall. This term had also been employed by Ezekiel in his criticism of hypocrites (13:10-16).

In consideration of the unfolding events in the context of this verse, many, if not most, commentators suggest a range of emotions between full-on anger to some level of indignation. Regardless of where Paul’s emotional state fits into this range of possible emotions, what matters is whether or not Paul acted on those emotions in a manner which would not be justifiable. Putting aside for the present the position of Ananias, Paul’s comments to him bear much in common with the many rebukes that Jesus gave to the Pharisees. In Christ’s condemnation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:13-16 for example, Jesus repeatedly insults them by calling them hypocrites, blind guides, blind men, fools, whitewashed tombs, serpents, and brood of vipers. All of these terms collectively were employed by Christ to inform the Pharisees of the depths of their hypocrisy and their guilt in the eyes of God.

Properly perceived, Christ confronted the Pharisees in their sin, an action that would be a necessary part in any evangelical engagement of those who have yet to receive salvation. His hard-hitting approach in this regard stands out because of its severity. However, this can be easily explained by the extreme blindness of these supposed religious professionals to their own sinfulness. Viewed this way, the passionate concern that Jesus demonstrated for those that are lost can once again be readily noticed. This concern would ultimately find its way to Paul himself, who would have been a Pharisee at that time and thus subject to Jesus’ harsh rebuke.

Before becoming aware of Ananias being the high priest, Paul could only be charged, in the eyes of God, with delivering the truth, for the high priest was obviously hypocritical. The fact that no one in the Council chose to argue directly with his point on this matter strongly suggests that they knew Paul to be correct in his assertion. Instead of humbling confirming the justness of Paul’s judgment, some bystanders overlooked the overt sin of the high priest in their continued push to find fault with Paul.

To this end, they replied to Paul, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” (23:4). Here Paul is being charged with breeching the Law which commands, “You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people” (Ex 22:28). If indeed these accusers are correct in saying that Paul has spoken evil of the Jewish ruler, it seems certain, based on the Law, that he stands justly charged.

Unlike the onlooking bystanders who rushed to judge Paul, God, according to Jeremiah, “judges righteously” for He “tries the feelings and the heart” (11:20). Paul declares God’s judgment that awaits all people will be focused on “the motives of men’s hearts” (1 Cor 4:5). Affirming this, the Lord utters these words to Samuel, “for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam 16:7).

Instead of considering Paul’s heartfelt intentions behind his response to Ananias, many commentators prefer to uphold the charge of “revil[ing] God’s high priest” without question (23:4). While it has been proven that Paul certainly responded to Ananias with the hard-edged truth, it has not been made clear as to whether or not his motives were evil. Despite this, some choose to use Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 4:12 where he writes, “when we are reviled, we bless,” against him. Likewise, they turn to Peter’s remarks concerning Christ’s behavior in 1 Peter 2:23: “And while being reviled, He did not revile in return.”

Given Paul’s modus operandi, it seems highly unlikely that he would harbor any evil intent within his remarks to Ananias. That being said, one must still determine whether or not his comments themselves, apart from the intent behind them, could be rightly judged to be sinful. While it is true that Paul certainly insulted Ananias when he called him a “whitewashed wall,” John usage of revile in 9:28 demonstrates that evil intent must be involved (see context). Likewise, Peter’s discussion about Christ not reviling those who reviled Him must be interpreted in light of motive since Christ certainly was known to insult the Jews at times (1 Pet 2:23). This developed understanding of revile as being an insult that necessarily includes evil intent is further supported by the inclusion of reviling into biblical lists of vices (1 Cor 5:11; 6:10; cf. 1 Tim 5:14; 1 Pet 3:9).

Since Paul’s unfolding delivery both before and after the charge leveled against him in 23:4 offers no hint of ill intent, it hardly seems likely that Paul could be justly accused of reviling Ananias. Instead, Paul’s exchange with Council was focused on his continued goal of making a defense for his hope in Christ which began in 22:1. Irrespective of what was said against him, Paul always showed his propensity to keep focused on his delivery of the gospel, and this time it would be no different.

In his response to the charge made against him, Paul declares, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people’” (23:5). Paul’s calm response demonstrates that his previous criticism of the high priest was not just some simple outburst of anger. Rather, it appears that Paul’s comments were merely controlled indignation not unlike similar exchanges between Christ and the Jewish leaders. MacArthur apparently agrees with the assessment that Paul was relatively selfless in his indignation: “Paul was more indignant at the flouting of the law than at the pain inflicted by the blow itself.”[3]

A closer examination of Paul’s admission shows that Paul offers no clear affirmation of guilt. He proves his knowledge of the Law and its requirements against speaking ill of rulers, but he balances this with a claim that his comments were given in an unintentional manner, as he had no idea that he was addressing the high priest. This claim, however, could be sufficient in and of itself to prove guilt if indeed Paul’s insulting statement was reviling in nature based on the Law’s teaching that such unintentional acts are still nonetheless sinful (Lev 20:22-25).

In regard to this view on Paul’s admission, one might still struggle with Paul’s apparent identification of his response to Ananias with the Old Testament imperative against “speak[ing] evil” (23:5). To resolve the apparent dilemma, one should observe that Paul’s response suggests that his comments would have been unassailable had they been directed against someone other than a ruler. This suggestion that Paul appears to making adds further support to the idea that Paul is not confirming guilt in regard to the speaking of evil for if this was the case, his response to the bystanders would clearly collide with his consistent message throughout his writings.

In conclusion, Paul’s charge against Ananias was a truthful declaration that should have been met with repentance instead of condemnation. Lacking evil intent behind his harsh words, Paul in no way reviled Ananias even while one could suggest that Ananias’s insulting behavior towards Paul was a form of reviling. Paul, being true to his form, overlooked the personal insult and kept focused on his call to the delivery of the gospel. Upon his learning the true identity of Ananias, Paul humbled himself by acknowledging the Law and its truthfulness even while he never admitted guilt in regard to the charge of reviling a leader.

[1]All Scripture references are taken from NASB1995.

[2]John MacArthur, 1 Peter, in The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 2004). MacArthur’s comments on Acts 23:1-5 can be found in his discussion on 1 Peter 3:9.

[3]Ibid., Acts 13-28, in The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1996). See his comments on 23:2-5.