In Defense of the Faith: Was Paul Ignorant or Sarcastic?

Question: In Acts 23, Luke tells us that Paul was brought before a council of the leading rabbis. Paul calls the presiding priest a “whited wall.” When he is rebuked for that, he apologizes and gives the excuse that he didn’t realize that Ananias was the high priest. This reads like badly written fiction. Paul was supposedly an ex-rabbi. The high priest must have been wearing his robes and in charge of the proceedings. How then could Paul have been so stupid as not to know who the high priest was? Can you believe this scenario? And if not this, then how much else that Luke wrote?

Response: Once again this apparent flaw in the biblical record is in fact another convincing proof of its authenticity. The passage in question is found in Acts:23:1-5 [1] And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. [2] And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. [3] Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? [4] And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? [5] 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.
See All.... Paul, who is a prisoner and allowed by Roman law to face his accusers, opens his defense to the rabbinic council, “I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day.”

            Ananias, who is presiding over the proceedings as high priest, commands Paul to be struck on the mouth, presumably because he doesn’t believe that anyone could always live in “good conscience before God.” Paul, who knows the Jewish law and is far from being intimidated, retorts immediately, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall, for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?”

            Some of those standing around Paul exclaim in shock, “Revilest thou God’s high priest?”

            Paul then replies, “I wist not [didn’t realize], brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.”

            This is a most intriguing exchange. Yes, one might well wonder about it, but Luke simply presents the facts without explanation.

INSIGHT FROM JOSEPHUS

            It becomes quite clear and all the more fascinating, however, upon reading Josephus. He tells us that Ananias had indeed been the high priest, but that he had been deposed. Subsequently his successor had been murdered and no replacement had been appointed for him. In the meantime, Ananias had stepped in and illegally usurped the office of high priest.

            Knowing that background, the plot thickens. It is more than likely that under those conditions Ananias would not have been wearing the robes of the high priest, and so Paul could be excused for not recognizing him. Therefore, it is entirely possible that Paul, who had been absent from Jerusalem for some time, was simply unaware that Ananias was acting as high priest at this time.

            Knowing how astute Paul was, however, it is highly possible that, having spent a few days in Jerusalem upon his return after a long absence, Paul knew the status of the high priestly office. Paul was therefore speaking from knowledge rather than from ignorance. More than likely, then, and in keeping with his character, this man who had “turned the world upside down” (Acts:17:6And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
See All...) was suing biting sarcasm to point out the uncomfortable fact that Ananias was not the legitimate high priest but a usurper and was thus without authority to sit in judgment upon him.

            In any case, it should be obvious to any fair-minded person that this account could not have been written even decades, much less centuries, later, as the critics insist it was. It could only have been written by an eyewitness who was reporting accurately the proceedings and what Paul said. Moreover, this particular incident, far from discrediting Luke’s testimony, was allowed of the Holy Spirit and recorded as one more unique and interesting proof of the authenticity of the New Testament record.