Paul had just answered the order to strike him with hard words: "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall" (Acts 23:3). The bystanders objected that a prisoner would speak this way to the man presiding over the council, and their question calls him to account for it. They appeal to the office: this is "God's high priest." Matthew Henry calls it "a probable conjecture" that those who blamed Paul were believing Jews "zealous for the law, and consequently for the honour of the high priest." Barnes reads it differently. He finds it "remarkable" that men who knew Ananias was not properly the high priest would use such language.

Paul answered at once: "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" (Acts 23:5). He did not defend his words by attacking the office. Instead he pointed to the Law (Exodus 22:28) and showed that he meant to keep it. Then, seeing that the council was made up of Sadducees and Pharisees, he turned the hearing to "the hope and resurrection of the dead" (Acts 23:6).

"Revilest" translates loidoreis, from a verb meaning to insult or abuse with words. A "whited wall" (Acts 23:3) was, Barnes explains, a wall covered with lime or gypsum so that it looks different from what it is, which aptly describes a hypocrite. Barnes identifies Ananias as the son of Nebedinus, and Gill says he is "more generally thought to be" the son of Nebedaeus whom Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, mentions.

Commentators differ on what Paul meant by "I wist not" (Acts 23:5). Barnes thinks Ananias "was not then properly the high priest," because the office was vacant at the time. Gill offers several possible reasons, such as Paul's long absence from Jerusalem and the frequent change of high priests, but leans chiefly on the view that Ananias was not dressed as a high priest. He also allows that Paul may have meant he did not own Ananias as high priest, "or rather" because Christ was now the only high priest of God. Matthew Henry mainly reads it as Paul saying he did not, in that moment, think of the dignity of the man's office. Each view keeps Paul from openly defying God's Law, which is the point he himself makes.

This short exchange shows how seriously the Law treated speech about leaders. The Law forbade cursing the ruler (Exodus 22:28), and Paul applied it even to a man who had just ordered him struck; the moment he was challenged, he bowed to that word. Barnes reads Paul's earlier words as "a prediction" rather than a curse, a strong conviction that God would judge the man. Either way, Paul left the judging to God.

The chapter also shows God keeping His servant in the middle of a hostile court. That same night "the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul" and promised he would bear witness at Rome (Acts 23:11).