Acts 23:5

My Notes

What Does Acts 23:5 Mean?

"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." After Paul calls the high priest a 'whited wall' (verse 3), he's rebuked for reviling God's high priest. Paul's response: I didn't KNOW he was the high priest. And then he quotes SCRIPTURE — Exodus 22:28 — 'thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.' The response is simultaneously an APOLOGY and a PRINCIPLE: I didn't know, AND the Scripture I follow prohibits what I said.

The phrase "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest" (ouk ēdein, adelphoi, hoti estin archiereus — I did not know, brothers, that he is high priest) is debated: did Paul genuinely NOT KNOW (poor eyesight? Ananias not wearing priestly garments? A new high priest Paul hadn't met?)? Or is the statement IRONIC ('I didn't realize a man who orders illegal striking could be the high priest')? Both readings have supporters. Either way, Paul appeals to ignorance rather than defending the insult.

The Scripture quote — "thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people" — shows Paul SUBMITTING to the LAW he preaches: even when the ruler is CORRUPT (Ananias was notoriously corrupt), the Law prohibits reviling him. Paul applies the Scripture to HIMSELF — correcting his OWN behavior based on the text. The apostle who teaches the Law demonstrates the Law's authority over his own mouth.

Reflection Questions

• 1.When your mouth crosses a line, do you submit to Scriptural correction or defend the outburst?
• 2.What does Paul correcting HIMSELF based on Scripture teach about the Law governing even the apostle?
• 3.How does the principle (don't revile the ruler) applying even to a CORRUPT ruler challenge selective obedience?
• 4.What does retreating to 'it is written' as the final authority model about how you handle your own mistakes?

Devotional

I didn't know he was the high priest. And Scripture says: don't speak evil of the ruler of your people. Paul's response combines possible ignorance with CERTAIN obedience: whether he genuinely didn't know or is speaking with irony, the RESULT is the same — he submits to the Scriptural principle. The Law he teaches corrects his own mouth.

The 'I wist not' — whether literal or ironic — produces the SAME outcome: Paul backs down. He doesn't defend the insult. He doesn't double down. He RETREATS to the Scriptural standard. Whether he genuinely didn't know (possible — his eyesight was poor, Galatians 6:11) or is being ironic ('a man who orders illegal beating doesn't ACT like a high priest'), the public response is correction: I shouldn't have said that.

The Scripture quote (Exodus 22:28) is Paul APPLYING the Law to HIMSELF: the apostle who teaches others to follow Scripture follows it himself. The Law says don't revile the ruler. The ruler may be corrupt. The command still applies. The unworthiness of the ruler doesn't cancel the principle. The obedience to the command isn't conditional on the commander's character.

The moment reveals Paul's RELATIONSHIP with Scripture: when confronted, Paul doesn't argue from EXPERIENCE or EMOTION. He argues from TEXT. The appeal is: 'it is WRITTEN.' The written word governs Paul's behavior — even his spontaneous outbursts are subject to Scriptural correction. The apostle's mouth is under the authority of the apostle's Bible.

When your mouth crosses a line, do you submit to the Scriptural correction — or defend the outburst?

Commentary

Trusted original commentary from respected historical Bible scholars and theologians.

Cross References

Related passages throughout Scripture