Acts 23:2

Acts 23:2. And the high priest Ananias. We can imagine the wrath of the haughty prelate at the first words of the accused. What unheard of presumption that this Paul, a renegade and outcast, the enemy ‘of all that the Sanhedrim held sacred,' should dare to arrogate to himself ‘a brotherhood with them.' His former close connection with that august senate only rendered his present strange claim more insupportable; and when the poor prisoner went on to assert that, after all the years of apostasy, Nazarene leader though he had been, he was still a loyal Jew, faithful to the God of his fathers, the anger of the high priest flamed forth, and he bade the officials standing near the accused to smite him on the mouth.

Ananias, who presided over this meeting of the Sanhedrim, the son of Nebedæus, was appointed to this high office by Herod, king of Chalcis, in A.D. 48, some ten years before St. Paul was arraigned before the supreme Jewish council. While Cumanus was procurator of Judæa, Quadratus, president of Syria, arrested and sent Ananias to be tried at Rome, on the complaint of the Samaritans, A.D. 52. Herod Agrippa the younger procured the acquittal of the Jewish party, whom the Samaritans accused of certain acts of violence. Ananias then resumed the high-priesthood. He was superseded by Ismael, the son of Phabi, just before the departure of Felix from Judæa. This change was brought about by Herod Agrippa the younger, A.D. 59. He then held the great office of high priest for about eleven years, an unusually lengthened period in those stormy days of intrigue. After his deposition, he still continued to exercise great influence among his countrymen. He was famous for his violent and illegal acts. This evil though successful man was assassinated by the Sicarii at last.

Commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the month. A similar insult was offered to the Lord Jesus when He stood accused before the same council, John 18:22. Commentators often quote from Morier's Second Journey through Persia to show that this treatment is by no means uncommon in the unchanging East in our own days. ‘As soon as the ambassadors came,' writes this traveller, ‘he punished the principal offenders by causing them to be beaten before them; and those who had spoken their minds too freely, he smote upon the mouth with a shoe;' and in another passage Morier writes thus, “Call the Ferasches,” exclaimed the king, “let them beat the culprits until they die!” The Ferasches appeared, and beat them violently; and when they attempted to say anything in their defence, they were struck in the mouth.'