3. τότε ὁ Παῦλος πρὸς αὐτὸν εἶπε, Τύπτειν σε μέλλει 6
Θεός, τοῖχε κεκονιαµένε: καὶ σὺ κάθῃ κρίνων µε κατὰ τὸν νόµον, καὶ παρανομῶν κελεύεις µε τύπτεσθαι; 4. οἱ δὲ παρεστῶτες εἶπον, Τὸν } ἀρχιερέα τοῦ Θεοῦ λοιδορεῖς; 5. ἔφη τε ὁ Παῦλος, Οὐκ ᾖδειν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀρχιερεύς' γέγραπται γάρ, ““Apxovta τοῦ λαοῦ
1 Blass reads in β text (with approval of Belser) οντως εµπαιζεις τῳ αρχιερει του Θεου λοιδορων{ sic instlis in sacerdotem Dei male dicendo, ΟΥΡΙ.
146.---τύπτειν: because Paul had for- gotten that he was before his judges, and ought not to have spoken before being asked, cf. Luke vi. 29, John xviii. 22, 2 Cor. xi. 20, 1 Tim. iii. 3, Titus i. 7. The act was illegal and peculiarly offen- sive to a Jew at the hands of a Jew, Farrar, St. Paul, Π., p. 323.
Ver. 3. Wetstein sees in the words the customary formula of malediction among the Jews. But we need not regard Paul’s words as an imprecation of evil on the high priest, but only an expression of the firm belief that such conduct would meet with punishment, cf. Knabenbauer, in loco. ‘The terrible death of Ananias was a fulfilment of the words. On the paronomasia and other instances of the same figure see Blass, Gram., p. 292.— τοῖχε κεκον., cf. Matt. xxiii. 27, Luke xi. 44, the expression may have been pro- verbial, in LXX, cf. Prov. xxi. 9. A contrast has been drawn between St. Paul’s conduct and that of our Lord under provocation, as, ¢.g., by St. Jerome, Adv. Pelag., iii., 1, but there were oc- casions when Christ spoke with righteous indignation, and never more severely than when He was condemning the same sin which St. Paul censured—hypocrisy. -- καὶ ov, emphatic, cf. Mark iv. 13, Luke x. 29. Kat at the commencement of a question expressing indignation or as- tonishment (Page).—Kdé0q κρίνων, later form for κάθησαι, cf. for the phrase Luke xxii. 3ο0.--παρανομῶν : only here in N.T., but cf. LXX, Ps. Ixxv. 4, cxviii. 51; the verb also occurs several times in 4 Macc.
Ver. 4. τὸν ἀρχ. τοῦ Θεοῦ: of God, emphatic, i.e., sitting on the judgment- seat as God’s representative, cf. Deut. xvii. 8 ff., and also the name Elohim, by which the priestly and other judges were sometimes known, Exod. xxi. 6, xxii. 8, 9, Psalm Ixxxi. 1.
Ver.5. οὐκ ῄδειν: the subject οΓἔστιν is not expressed as in A, and R.V., in the Greek it is simply ‘‘I wist not that it was the high priest (who spoke)”. If it be said that St. Paul could scarcely have
been ignorant that Ananias was high priest, we must bear in mind that not even the high priest wore a distinctive dress when not engaged in actual service (Edersheim, Temple and its Services, p. 67, with reference to this same passage), if we are not prepared to accept the view of Chrysostom and Oecumenius amongst others, that the Apostle, owing to his long absence from Jerusalem, did not know the high priest by sight, or to suppose that his weakness of eyesight might have prevented him from seeing clearly (so Lewin, Plumptre). The in- terpretation that St. Paul spoke ironi- cally, or by way of protest, as if such behaviour as that of Ananias on his nomination to office by Herod of Chalcis was in itself sufficient to prevent his recognition as high priest, is somewhat out of harmony with the Apostle’s quota- tion of Scripture in his reply, nor are the attempts to translate οὐκ ᾖδειν as = non agnosco or non veputabam success- ful. See further Zockler’s summary of the different views, Apostelgeschichte, 2nd edition, in Ίοεο.---ἀδελφοί: the word in- dicates St. Paul’s quick recovery from his moment of just anger to a con- ciliatory tone.—yéy. yap: in this appeal to the law, St. Paul showed not only his acquaintance with it, but his reverence for it—another proof of his wisdom and tact. ---ἄρχοντα τοῦ λαοῦ σου κ.τ.λ.: LXX, Exod. xxii. 28, the Apostle apparently only quotes the latter part of the verse ; in the Hebrew we have “thou shalt not tevile God (margin, the judges), nor curse a ruler of thy people”. Cf. the ruling principle of the Apostle’s conduct Rom. xiii. 1-7 (1 Pet. ii. 13-17).