But as he said these things, one of the officers who stood by gave a blow on the face to Jesus, saying, Answerest thou the high priest thus?
Jesus has just answered the high priest's questions by pointing to His public teaching. Anyone in the room could check what He taught. What comes next is not a reply but a hand across the face — and a rebuke for the way He answered.
The men whose job was to keep order in the court were the ones who broke it.
No one could answer the Lord's reply. But as so often happens when there is no answer to an argument, the opposer falls back on insult and abuse. So the officers, whose job was to keep order, strike the Lord. The Lord meets these insults with righteous and fearless dignity.
The man who struck Him was an underling, and his motive was to prop up his superior.
The only reply was a brutal insult from a Jewish underling who would in this way support the high priest, since he could do nothing else.
The officer's outrage was on behalf of legal dignity, yet the room he stood in was itself lawless.
But at once a gross violation of justice occurs in the court, under the eyes of the high priest, who does not even reprimand it. An officer struck the Lord with the palm of his hand. He was irritated that the Lord had seen the high priest's breach of judicial order.
The officer's phrase assumes a court with real authority. The man questioning Jesus at this point was Annas, and one writer explains why the Lord gave him so little.
The Lord was first taken to Annas... But since he was not high priest, and therefore had no authority, the Lord did not go into matters with him. He had no real jurisdiction in such a case... One of the officers, however, struck the Lord with the palm of his hand. This was an indignity wholly undeserved.
His answer pointed at what the court had skipped: witnesses.
The whole court must have felt the power and justice of that rebuke, despite its excitement over its own injustice and its success so far. One of them, an officer, lost his head completely and struck Jesus with the palm of his hand. The quiet answer to that blow underlined how illegal the proceedings were without witnesses.
That calm covered more than His own feelings.
They rebuked Him and struck Him for answering, though His answering was an entirely righteous act. His calm reply shows how perfectly He was master of every feeling and of the whole situation.
Paul faced almost the same scene before another council and answered differently. That difference is used to mark what is unique about Christ.
He could righteously vindicate Himself in everything. He could even reprove His accuser and say, "If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike Me?" But even Paul, in such a case, had to take back his word, and say, "I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest."
Jesus told His followers to turn the other cheek. Under this blow He did not.
"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Of course we must be careful to understand these principles. This is not the spirit of defiance, for there can be real pride in that. It is non-resistance to evil. Look at the dignity of the Lord Jesus when they struck Him. He did not turn the other cheek. We must seek to understand the principle of the thing.
Commentators connect this treatment to an old prophecy of Israel's rejected King.
The rejection of the judge of Israel caused their long history of trouble, ending in the great tribulation. It is the Messiah, our Lord. They despised Him, insulted Him, struck Him with a rod on the cheek. He is called the judge of Israel, because the judge held the highest official position in Israel. They regarded a blow on the cheek as the greatest disgrace.
- The blow exposed them. When they could not answer His words, they used violence instead.
- The blow was itself the crime. A court set on guarding the high priest's honour struck an untried prisoner. The high priest said nothing.
- The blow met a title without authority. Annas was not the high priest, so the Lord did not argue His case with him.
- The blow drew out perfection. He did not hit back and He did not stay silent. He asked for evidence, master of every feeling — where even Paul had to take back his words.
- The blow rejected their King. They struck Israel's own Judge on the cheek — the deepest disgrace their world knew — and the nation's long history of trouble follows from that rejection.
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?
Jesus has just told the high priest to ask the people who heard Him teach in public. An officer answers with a blow to the face, and Jesus replies with a question that puts the court itself on trial.
The men whose job was to keep order in the court were the ones who broke it.
The high priest has only to ask those who had heard Him, and they would bear witness to His teaching. No one could answer the Lord's reply. But, as so often when an argument has no answer, the opponent falls back on insult and abuse. So the officers, whose job was to keep order, strike the Lord. The Lord meets these insults with righteous and fearless dignity.
He was struck without any charge, so He asks for the one thing a court must produce: evidence.
An officer struck the Lord with the palm of his hand. He was annoyed that the Lord had seen through the high priest's breach of court procedure. But evil could not draw from the Lord of glory any resentful, bitter response. Instead He asks: if He had spoken evil, let the officer bear witness of the evil, which is the only proper procedure in court. But if He had spoken well, why this violence? Again, only the Lord acts with the calm, judicial fairness of a righteous judge.
The blow came after a rebuke the court could not shake off.
The whole court must have felt the power and justice of that rebuke, despite its excitement at its own injustice and its success so far. The Lord's quiet answer to that blow showed that a hearing without witnesses was illegal.
He can safely ask for evidence, because there is none to find.
The reply of Jesus was conclusive. There was no evil to which any could bear witness: no one could convince Him of sin.
Paul later stood before a high priest who ordered him struck. Even he did not answer like his Master.
Brought before the Council, the apostle begins by declaring his innocence. "And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth." This was violence, certainly. But it came from Paul's own self-justification, not from testimony borne to Christ. Paul replies with an insult, calling the high priest a "whitewashed wall." The man had deserved it, true. But such an answer did not show the meekness of Christ. When he is reproved, Paul owns his fault.
Some argue from this verse that Jesus did not keep His own teaching about not resisting evil. What happened to Him later that night answers them.
Some people pare down and whittle away His words. They are not ashamed to argue that He did not mean them literally. Their reason: when He was struck on the face for His answer to the high priest, He protested calmly while bowing to the insult. Was this paying evil back in its own coin? On the contrary, it was One who committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. When He was reviled, He did not revile in return. When He suffered, He did not threaten. In fact He offered far more than the other cheek. They spat in His face, beat Him, and struck Him with their hands with the utmost contempt. No! the Lord yielded to wrong instead of resisting it; and such is the true calling of the Christian.
He did rebuke the officer — but only with a question, and He said nothing about the rest.
But the Lord Jesus put His justified rebuke in the form of a mere question, and bore all other abuses silently. … As Christians, God has delivered us out of this present evil world, as Galatians 1:4 says. So we are not called to seek justice for ourselves. Of course, we must not drop our duty toward others if the authorities ask for it (as a witness in court, for example).
- Witness asked. Jesus taught in the open, so He sent His judges to the people who heard Him. The evidence was there for the asking.
- Witness refused. The officer had no answer, so he gave a blow instead. Insult is where opposition goes when the argument runs out.
- Witness demanded. His reply asks the court to name the wrong and prove it. That court was striking a man it could not charge.
- Witness impossible. No one could produce any evil, because there was none. The challenge still stands unanswered.
- Witness followed. He protested, bowed to the insult, and yielded to wrong instead of resisting it. That is the calling of those who follow Him.