Paul’s Wise Response

Paul told the Sanhedrin that had he known that Ananias was the high priest, he never would have rebuked him so harshly for ordering him to be struck (Acts 22:30–23:5). The Apostle’s stated ignorance of Ananias’ identity has provoked much discussion over the years, for many people have found it incredible that a Jew could not have known who the high priest was. Yet the book of Acts makes clear that Paul did not often visit Jerusalem after he was converted to Christ, so it is not hard to believe that he would not have recognized Ananias. Some have read Paul’s remark about Ananias ironically, as if he meant that Ananias was not really the legitimate high priest, but it seems best to take the plain sense that Paul did not know he was speaking to the high priest, one of the leaders whom he as a Jew was not supposed to curse or revile (Ex. 22:28). The Apostle’s recognition, then, that he would not have spoken so harshly to Ananias had he known that Ananias was high priest shows Paul’s commitment to the Jewish law (rightly understood, of course). Thus, he was not guilty of violating it as he had been accused of (see Acts 21:27–28).

After apologizing for his remarks to the high priest, Paul looked at the Sanhedrin and perceived that it was composed of both Sadducees and Pharisees. To understand what happened next, we need to remember that the Sadducees and the Pharisees were the two leading Jewish theological parties of that day. They disagreed on many things, one of the most prominent being the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees believed in a final resurrection of the dead, but the Sadducees did not (Matt. 22:23). Paul, being a Pharisee, affirmed the resurrection (Acts 23:6).

Continuing to give testimony to the Sanhedrin, Paul said that he stood there “with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead,” referring to the messianic hope, expectation of the redemption of Israel, and the Pharisaic belief in resurrection (v. 6). Immediately, the Pharisees and Sadducees began to argue, with some of the Pharisee party taking Paul’s side in the case before them (vv. 7–9). Apparently, at least some of the Pharisees reasoned that if Paul shared their theology, he could not have been all bad. When the dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees turned violent, the Roman tribune had Paul forcibly removed and taken back to the barracks (v. 10).