Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 22:63
And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
63. smote him ] No less than five forms of beating are referred to by the Evangelists in describing this pathetic scene derontes here (a general term); etupton, ‘they kept smiting;’ paisas in the next verse, implying violence; ekolaphisan, ‘slapped with the open palm,’ Mat 26:67; errapisan, ‘smote with sticks’ (id.); and rapismasin eballon, Mar 14:65. See the prophecy of Isa 1:6. The Priests of that day, and their pampered followers, were too much addicted to these brutalities (Act 21:32; Act 23:2), as we learn also from the Talmud.
63-65. The First Derision.
Hanan had simply tried to entangle Jesus by insidious questions.
The course of the trial before Caiaphas was different. The Priests on that occasion “sought false witness,” but their false witnesses contradicted each other in their attempt to prove that He had threatened to destroy the Temple. Since Jesus still kept silence, Caiaphas rose, walked into the midst of the hall, and adjured Jesus by the Living God to say whether He was “the Christ, the Son of God.” So adjured, Christ answered in the affirmative, and then Caiaphas, rending his robes, appealed to the assembly, who, most illegally setting aside the need of any further witnesses, shouted aloud that He was ‘A man of Death’ (ish maveth), i.e. deserving of capital punishment. From this moment He would be regarded by the dependents of the Priests as a condemned criminal.
See the notes at Mat 26:57-68. Verse 63. Mocked him, and smote him.] This and the following verses are placed by Matthew and Mark before the relation of Peter’s denial. For their explanation, see on Mt 26:67; Mt 26:68. Concerning these abuses offered to our Saviour. See Poole on “Mat 26:67-68“. See Poole on “Mar 14:65“. And the men that held Jesus,…. Whilst he was before the sanhedrim; and were either the Roman soldiers, or the servants of the high priest, who kept hold of him all the while, lest he should get away; though there was no reason for it; his time was come, nor would he escape out of their hands, though he could easily have rescued himself:
mocked him; insulted him, and gave him very opprobrious language, and used him in a very scurrilous way, and even spit upon him;
and smote him. This clause is left out in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions; the word used, signifies plucking off the skin; they pinched him, and tore off his flesh with their nails; they plucked the hairs of his beard, and the skin of his cheeks along with them, and so fulfilled Isa 50:6.
Christ Abused and Insulted. 63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. 64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? 65 And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. 66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, 67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: 68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. 69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. 70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. 71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. We are here told, as before in the other gospels, I. How our Lord Jesus was abused by the servants of the high priest. The abjects, the rude and barbarous servants, gathered themselves together against him. They that held Jesus, that had him in custody till the court sat, they mocked him, and smote him (v. 63), they would not allow him to repose himself one minute, though he had had no sleep all night, nor to compose himself, though he was hurried to his trial, and no time given him to prepare for it. They made sport with him: this sorrowful night to him shall be a merry night to them; and the blessed Jesus, like Samson, is made the fool in the play. They hood-winked him, and then, according to the common play that young people have among them, they struck him on the face, and continued to do so till he named the person that smote him (v. 64), intending hereby an affront to his prophetical office, and that knowledge of secret things which he was said to have. We are not told that he said any thing, but bore every thing; hell was let loose, and he suffered it to do its worst. A greater indignity could not be done to the blessed Jesus, yet this was but one instance of many; for many other things blasphemously spoke they against him, v. 65. They that condemned him for a blasphemer were themselves the vilest blasphemers that ever were. II. How he was accused and condemned by the great sanhedrim, consisting of the elders of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes, who were all up betimes, and got together as soon as it was day, about five of the clock in the morning, to prosecute this matter. They were working this evil upon their beds, and, as soon as ever the morning was light, practised it, Mic. ii. 1. They would not have been up so early for any good work. It is but a short account that we have here of his trial in the ecclesiastical court. 1. They ask him, Art thou the Christ? He was generally believed by his followers to be the Christ, but they could not prove it upon him that he had ever said so totidem verbis–in so many words, and therefore urge him to own it to them, v. 67. If they had asked him this question with a willingness to admit that he was the Christ, and to receive him accordingly if he could give sufficient proof of his being so, it had been well, and might have been for ever well with them; but they asked it with a resolution not to believe him, but a design to ensnare him. 2. He justly complained of their unfair and unjust usage of him, Luk 22:67; Luk 22:68. They all, as Jews, professed to expect the Messiah, and to expect him at this time. No other appeared, or had appeared, that pretended to be the Messiah. He had no competitor, nor was he likely to have any. He had given amazing proofs of a divine power going along with him, which made his claims very well worthy of a free and impartial enquiry. It had been but just for these leaders of the people to have taken him into their council, and examined him there as a candidate for the messiahship, not at the bar as a criminal. “But,” saith he, (1.) “If I tell you that I am the Christ, and give you ever such convincing proofs of it, you are resolved that you will not believe. Why should the cause be brought on before you who have already prejudged it, and are resolved, right or wrong, to run it down, and to condemn it?” (2.) “If I ask you what you have to object against the proofs I produce, you will not answer me.” Here he refers to their silence when he put a question to them, which would have led them to own his authority, ch. xx. 5-7. They were neither fair judges, nor fair disputants; but, when they were pinched with an argument, would rather be silent than own their conviction: “You will neither answer me nor let me go; if I be not the Christ, you ought to answer the arguments with which I prove that I am; if I be, you ought to let me go; but you will do neither.” 3. He referred them to his second coming, for the full proof of his being the Christ, to their confusion, since they would not now admit the proof of it, to their conviction (v. 69): “Hereafter shall the Son of man sit, and be seen to sit, on the right hand of the power of God, and then you will not need to ask whether he be the Christ or no.” 4. Hence they inferred that he set up himself as the Son of God, and asked him whether he were so or no (v. 70): Art thou then the Son of God? He called himself the Son of man, referring to Daniel’s vision of the Son of man that came near before the Ancient of days,Dan 7:13; Dan 7:14. But they understood so much as to know that if he was that Son of man, he was also the Son of God. And art thou so? By this it appears to have been the faith of the Jewish church that the Messiah should be both Son of man and Son of God. 5. He owns himself to be the Son of God: Ye say that I am; that is, “I am, as ye say.” Compare Mark xiv. 62. Jesus said, I am. This confirms Christ’s testimony concerning himself, that he was the Son of God, that he stood to it, when he knew he should suffer for standing to it. 6. Upon this they ground his condemnation (v. 71): What need we any further witness? It was true, they needed not any further witness to prove that he said he was the Son of God, they had it from his own mouth; but did they not need proof that he was not so, before they condemned him as a blasphemer for saying that he was so? Had they no apprehension that it was possible he might be so, and then what horrid guilt they should bring upon themselves in putting him to death? No, they know not, neither will they understand. They cannot think it possible that he should be the Messiah, though ever so evidently clothed with divine power and grace, if he appear not, as they expect, in worldly pomp and grandeur. Their eyes being blinded with the admiration of that, they rush on in this dangerous prosecution, as the horse into the battle. That held ( ). See on Luke 8:45; Luke 19:43 for this verb . Here alone in the N.T. for holding a prisoner (holding together). The servants or soldiers, not the Sanhedrin. Mocked (). Imperfect active, were mocking, inchoative, began to mock, to play like boys. And beat him (). Present active participle of , to flay, tan, or hide. Literally, “beating.” Smote [] . Originally to flay; thence to cudgel. Compare our vulgarism, to tan or hide.
JESUS SMITTEN V. 63-65
1) “And the men that held Jesus,” (kai hoi andres hoi sunechontes auton) “And the men who had him (Jesus) in charge,” as arresting and detaining officers. Verses 63-65 follow verse 70 in actual order of events, in harmony with the other Gospels.
2) “Mocked him, and smote him.” (enepaizon auto derontes) “They mocked and repeatedly beat him,” as prophesied, Psa 69:12; “spitting in his face,” and buffeting him, Mat 26:67; Isa 50:6; Isa 52:14; Mar 14:65.
(63-73) And the men that held Jesus . . .See Notes on Mat. 26:59-68; Mar. 14:55-65. The verbs mocked and smote are both in the tense that implies continued action.
134. JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS AND THE COUNCIL PRONOUNCED WORTHY OF DEATH AND INSULTED, Luk 22:63-71 .
See notes on Mat 26:57; Mat 26:59-68; Mar 14:53; Mar 14:55-65; Joh 18:19-23.
In the present chapter of Luke Luk 22:63-65 must come after 66-71, as a comparison with the other evangelists will show.
‘And the men who held Jesus mocked him, and beat him.’
In those days the beating of prisoners before trial was seen as a softening up process. It was seen as making them less able to defend themselves, and as therefore more likely to tell the truth. The mockery was also typical of the vast majority of mankind. But significantly, and unknown to its perpetrators, it was fulfilling Scripture. For remarkably Scripture had declared that this kind of treatment was exactly what would be meted out to the Coming One (e.g. Isa 50:6; Isa 53:3). (Nor did Luke probably have that in mind, for although it was perfectly reflecting that prophecy, had Luke realised the fact he would probably have made it verbally more like it).
The imperfect tense of ‘mocked’ indicates a continuing process. This treatment would continue whenever Jesus was left in the custody of the soldiers between the different arraignments. After all the guards had to keep themselves amused and relieve the boredom of their watch, and they were inured to brutality. It is not therefore a question of when exactly this kind of treatment took place. It would take place constantly.
Jesus is Mocked And Beaten (22:63-65)
What followed was now an indication of the inhumanity of man. It was quite the usual thing to have fun at the expense of those who had been arrested, and a Jewish prophet rejected by the authorities would have been seen as fair game. For in spite of the fact that they were Temple police, and Levites, they were no different from the rest of their kind. The Temple authorities had few scruples, and the temple police probably even less. And who were they to argue with their superiors?
Analysis
The men who held Jesus mocked Him, and beat Him (Luk 22:63).
And they blindfolded Him, and asked Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is he who struck you?” (Luk 22:64).
And they spoke many other things against him, reviling him (Luk 22:65).
Note how in ‘a’ they mocked and beat Jesus, while in the parallel they reviled Him, while centrally in ‘b’ they called on Him to prophesy. They had the typical view of a prophet as being a kind of fortune-teller as that held by the average man.
Jesus’ Prophecy to the Jewish Leaders In Luk 22:63-71 Jesus prophesies to the Jewish leaders concerning His exaltation.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Jesus is Mocked and Beaten Luk 22:63-65
2. Jesus Before the Sanhedrin Luk 22:66-71
Luk 22:63-65 Jesus is Mocked and Beaten ( Mat 26:67-68 , Mar 14:65 ) In Luk 22:63-65 we have the account of Jesus being mocked and beaten by the Roman soldiers.
Luk 22:64 Comments The Jewish people had come to recognize Jesus as a prophet. He had also delivered many prophetic sayings during the course of His public ministry.
Luk 22:66-71 Jesus Before the Sanhedrin ( Mat 26:59-66 , Mar 14:55-64 , Joh 18:19-24 ) In Luk 22:66-71 we have the account of Jesus standing before the Sanhedrin.
Jesus treated with contempt:
v. 63. And the men that held Jesus mocked Him, and smote Him.
v. 64. And when they had blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face, and asked Him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote Thee?
v. 65. And many other things blasphemously spake they against Him.
See Mat 26:67-68; Mar 14:65. The servants of the high priest and the elders were meanwhile having their sport with the captured Prophet of Galilee, and their rude jests and blasphemous mockeries were committed unreproved. They derided Him, they jeered and sneered at Him, they struck Him, not only in the face, but on the body; they put a heavy veil or cloth over His face and blasphemously ordered Him to prophesy as to who it was that was hitting Him. And when one form of cruelty palled upon them, they devised some new blasphemous trick to while away the time. That was the beginning of the martyrdom of Christ, of His suffering for the sins of the whole world. And if in our days the unbelievers, the blasphemous band of scoffers, jeer at the prophecy, at the Word of Christ, and wantonly persecute the servants of Christ, that is only the continuation of the sufferings of Christ. But the patience of Christ is our salvation as well as our example.
Luk 22:63-64. And the men that held Jesus, &c. And the men who had Jesus in custody. Wynne. “Though St. Luke has told us how Jesus was insulted, before he describes his trial, contrary in appearance to the order observed by the other evangelists, who mention those insults as succeeding his being condemned, it does not follow that he meant to say, he was insulted before his trial. I acknowledge, indeed, that his judges and their retinue were abundantly capable of being thus unjust and barbarous towards him, even before they made a show of condemning him; nevertheless, what St. Luke has said here does not necessarily oblige us to suppose this. He might conclude his account of Peter’s denials with relating what followed upon our Lord’s being condemned, because it happened immediately after the last denial, and to shew what a load of indignity was laid at once on the Son of God;while the most zealous of all his disciples was denying his Lord with oaths and imprecations, the servants and others insulted him in the most barbarous manner.” See the notes on Mat 26:67; Mat 26:75 for a fuller view of this part of the gospel history.
Luk 22:63-65 . See on Mat 26:67 f.; Mar 14:65 . Luke follows an entirely different tradition different in respect of the time, the place, and the persons who were engaged in the mockery. The same characteristic ill-treatment (smiting demand for prophecy), the original connection of which is in Matthew and Mark (in opposition to Schleiermacher), had arranged itself variously in tradition. Against the supposition of many times repeated mockery must be reckoned the identity and peculiarity of its essential element (in opposition to Ebrard and others).
and are distinguished as to scourge (Jacobs, Del. Epigr . vi. 63) and to smite in general .
b. THE MOCKING AT THE LORD, AND HIS CONDEMNATION (Luk 22:63-71)
(Parallel with Mat 26:67-68; Mat 27:1 a; Mar 14:65; Mar 15:1)
63, And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. 64And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face,21 and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? 65And many other things blasphemously [or, contumeliously] spake they against him. 66And as soon as it was day, the elders [lit., the eldership, ] of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into 67their council, saying, Art thou [or, If thou art] the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: 68And if I also [om., also22] ask you,23 ye will not 69answer me, nor let me go.24 25Hereafter [From henceforth] shall the Son of man sit [be seated] on the right hand of the power of God. 70Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am [or, Ye say it, for () I am26]. 71And they said, What need we any further witness [testimony]? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
General Remarks.The maltreatment of which Luke now gives account appears to have taken place immediately after the sentence had been uttered in the night-session, even before its legal confirmation in a morning-session. Meanwhile, part of the Sanhedrists left the hall, so that the Prisoner remained behind in the hands of the servants. Without ground, Sepp, l. c. iii. p. 480, supposes that Christ was in prison; it appears rather that He remained in the same hall in which He had stood before the council. Respecting this whole act of scoffing, comp. Mat 26:67. That the act can in no way be excused, does not even need mention. Among all civilized nations the condemned, so long as he yet lives, stands under the protection of the law. Nay, he finds in the pitiable fate that awaits him a security against new injuries. But here they cannot even wait till the injured law has its course, and so the council of blood is changed into a theatre of insult and cruelty. The servants who guard the Prisoner have noticed the hatred of their lords against Him, and although hitherto, perhaps, withheld by some fear of the might of the Prisoner, yet now when it becomes evident that He will make no use of this, their terror passes over into unrestrained insolence. It is as if they would indemnify themselves for the discomfiture which they had suffered in Gethsemane. They mock Him especially in His prophetical and kingly character. First, He must with covered countenance make out which of them gave Him the hard blows of the fist, then He is mocked and spit upon, in token that He is much too contemptible for a king even of these meanest servants. But that even more than one maltreatment of the kind took place in the house of Caiaphas (Ebrard), we regard as a superfluous concession, in view of the comparatively little diversity of the different Synoptical accounts respecting this. Still less can we agree with Schleiermacher and Strauss in regarding it as in itself improbable that even counsellors took part in this maltreatment, when we consider how in Mat 26:67, those who maltreat the Lord are not definitely distinguished from those who condemn Him, Mat 26:66; and how according to Mar 14:65, the men who spit upon Jesus are especially distinguished from the servants, who, according to Mark as well as according to Luke, strike our Lord in the face. We are then rather led to the belief that their masters, in their hellish joy at the triumph achieved by them, made common cause with the servants, and themselves lent their hands to draw down their Victim into the mire of the deepest ignominy. If we unite the different features of the narrative which the individual Synoptics have preserved for us, with one another, we then obtain an image of outraged majesty which inspires up with terror, but at the same time also reminds us vividly of the prophecy, Isa 50:4-8.
Luk 22:66. And as soon as it was day.The view that the Jewish council was only assembled once for the condemnation of our Lord (Meyer and Von Hengel) has, superficially considered, much, it is true, to commend it, but comes, nevertheless, carefully considered, into too direct conflict with the contents of all the Synoptical gospels to make it possible to accept it. Even in and of itself it is rather arbitrary to wish to determine the sequence of the events according to Luke, who goes to work with so much less chronological strictness in the history of the Passion than Matthew and Mark, amalgamates similar events, and even by the account of the maltreatment, Luk 22:63-65, tacitly presupposes that this must have been preceded by a condemnation, without which such an outrage could not possibly have taken place. The answer which our Lord, according to Luke, Luk 22:67-68, gives to the question of the Sanhedrim, would have been incongruous if He had now addressed His enemies for the first time, and if nothing at all had preceded which could justify so strong a tone. The narrative of Matthew, Mat 27:1, and Mark, Mar 15:1, would have been wholly purposeless, if the Sanhedrim had been only assembled once on this occasion, and although the account of Luke agrees in many points with the night session in Matthew and Mark, it has, however, on the other hand, its peculiar coloring, which sufficiently characterizes precisely this second official and decisive session of the council. It is this partial agreement itself that is the cause why Matthew and Mark speak only of the first, Luke only of the second sitting. The assembly which utters the first sentence of death bears all the marks of precipitation, incompleteness, and incompetence; the high-priest assists at it only in his common attire, as it was not permitted him to rend his magnificent official apparel. The bitterest-enemies of our Lord have in the night quickly run together in order without delay to introduce the case; but now in order not to violate, at least, the form of law, they come together the second time, early in the morning at a legally permitted hour and in fuller numbers, not in order to deliberate further, but in order to ratify, so far as requisite, a resolution already taken. Without doubt, the chief managers in the night session have already instructed the other counsellors sufficiently upon the state of the case as already reached, before the Prisoner is again brought in. The transaction of Caiaphas receives the approbation of the others, so that the thread is simply taken up again where his hand has let it fall. If we can from Luk 23:51, conclude that Joseph of Arimatha also was present at this morning session, his voice then, it should seem, in connection with a few others, only hindered the unanimity, which indeed, according to all appearance, was not really obtained.
Luk 22:67. Art thou the Christ?Now we see no more of the perplexity which even a few hours before betrayed itself in every word. They have now found a fixed point of departure in the declaration which the Prisoner under oath had deposed concerning Himself, and only desire yet to hear the repetition of the same, in order to press upon the already uttered condemnation the formal seal. For these judges are not come together in order to investigate, but in order to pronounce sentence. Therefore, they desire an affirmative answer, which our Lord now also gives them, in the presupposition that His previous answer is known to them; If thou art the Christ, tell us, so ask they all, because they all wish to hear it from His own mouth, comp. Luk 22:71, and therefore at the beginning, with prudent craft, do not place first the religious but the political side of the question. They would have been only too glad to have extorted more from Him, but only succeed in hearing the same.
If I tell you.That this answer does not suit well (De Wette) would only be true if we identified both sessions, and forgot all that had already preceded this. Our Lord says nothing directly, but only presupposes what, according to the experience He had already had, would take place if He thought good to speak. The highest purpose of such a testimony, namely, to produce faith, would here not have been at all accomplished, and if He now began to do as they had done to Him, and that which He was well conscious of having a right to do, namely, to propose to His antagonists some questions, they would yet never have been able to answer these satisfactorily to Him, and would, therefore, bring their perplexity only so much the more to light. Of the possibility of being released, which is mentioned according to the critically suspicious reading , He now no longer thinks. It is true, questioning belongs only to the examining judge, not to the defendant (De Wette); but here is a Defendant of a very special character, and He who had already spoken so many incomparable words hors de ligne to His judges, might also have well allowed Himself this freedom in speaking, without modern criticism needing to shake its head thereat.
Luk 22:69. From henceforth.Our Lord will therewith simply say that the word previously uttered remains good, and places the future with all its glory over against the present with all its ignominy. Even the last time that He calls Himself the Son of Man He exhibits Himself in all the still magnificence of His majesty.
Luk 22:70. Art Thou then the Son of God?It is known that the Jews also expected the Messiah as the Son of God, in the theocratical sense of the word. But that they now utter this name with a special emphasis is not because they would denote thereby anything essentially different from Luk 22:67, but because they can scarcely trust their ears that He, the one so deeply humiliated and already condemned to death, attributes to Himself the dignity that is supreme above all. They now take cognizance of the religious side of the case, and express themselves as strongly as possible, in order so to be the better able to give a reason for the sentence of blasphemy. To their question Jesus answers with a simple affirmative, while from Luk 22:68-69, it sufficiently appears why He does not add even a word more. Herewith the session has now reached its end, with a similar result to the former one. If Caiaphas had formerly, in view of two false witnesses, exclaimed: What need we any further witness? now, in answer thereto, his adherents, who find his statement sufficiently confirmed by Jesus own word, declare that they need no further testimony, since they have now heard it from Jesus own mouth. Now there is not even an express sentence of death uttered; the one formerly passed simply continues in force, since the crime is now satisfactorily established. But thereby they testify at the same time against themselves, and rob themselves thus of the last excuse for their sin.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. In the midst of the rudest maltreatment, as shortly before over against the false witnesses, we see our Lord observe an unmoved silence. Four times in the history of the Passion we have the mention of such a silence: before Caiaphas (Mat 26:63), before Herod (Luk 23:9), and twice before Pilate (Mat 27:12; Joh 19:9). It is one of the most admirable problems to interpret this silence in its full force, and not a little will it contribute to the augmentation of the knowledge of our Lord, if we consider when He has spoken and when He has kept silence.
2. As the Lord there keeps silence when He might have spoken, so does He also speak before the Jewish council when He might have kept silence. With the traces of the outrages received on His countenance, He might have counted them unworthy of any further answer, but with an indescribable dignity He once again deposes testimony; with Divine condescension which places itself in the position of His enemies, He unites infinite long-suffering; while He shows that He completely sees through His enemies, He yet, even to the last instant, leaves nothing unessayed which can serve for setting them right and convincing them. He spares where He could punish, He only warns where He could dash in pieces, and His very last word to the Jewish council justifies the eulogies of the officers, Joh 7:46.
3. With His own hand, as it were, our Lord here, even before His resurrection, as subsequently, Luk 24:26, after it, points to the inseparable connection between His suffering and His glory. ab hoc puncto, quum dimittere non vultis. Hoc ipsum erat iter ad gloriam. Bengel.
4. That in the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrim shameful injustice was committed, and not even the form of law was respected, appears at once to any one who only takes the trouble to follow somewhat particularly the course of the process. The legal validity of the sentence, which especially Salvador defends, has been from a juridicial point of view controverted with the best success by Dupin, Lan, Jsus devant Caphe et Pilate, Paris, 1829.
5. It is remarkable how once, almost with the same words, sentence was uttered upon the reformer Farel, when, in October, 1532, raging priests in Geneva exclaimed upon him: He has blasphemed God; we need no more witnesses; he is worthy of death, so that Farel, exasperated, raised his voice with: Speak the words of God, and not those of Caiaphas. (Leben Farels und Virets, by Dr. E. Schmidt, Elberfeld, 1860).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The Holy One of God the football of unholy sinners.Wickedness, in appearance, humiliates the Lord, but in truth only itself.The Saviour with covered face: 1. How much He sees; 2. how sublimely He keeps silence; 3. how powerfully He preaches.Who is it that smote Thee? I, I and my sins.Who when He was reviled, reviled not again, 1Pe 2:22-23.The morning of the mortal day of Jesus illumined by the glory of His majesty: 1. He keeps silence where He could have spoken; 2. He speaks where He could have kept silence; 3. He spares where He could have punished.Jesus condemnation by the Sanhedrim preaches to us: 1. The might of sin; 2. the greater might of grace; 3. the greatest might of the Divine Providence.The Sanhedrim that rejects Jesus is itself smitten by the judgment: 1. Of blindness; 2. of hardening; 3. of reprobacy.The deep humiliation of the Lord over against His future glory.The depths of Satan looked through by the Searcher of hearts.Even against the scribes of His day our Lord is unqualifiedly right, because He even to the end remains upon the standing-point of the Scripture. Dan 7:12-14.The Christian also, after the unequivocal declaration of Jesus, needs, in reference to His heavenly dignity, no further witness.
Starke:Be not angry when thou art injured in thy good name, for even the highest majesty has been blasphemed.Nova Bibl. Tub.:Jesus was brought before an unjust tribunal, that we might be able to stand before the righteous tribunal of God.We must use modesty towards our rulers, how unjust soever they may be, Rom 13:7.The last degree of the humiliation of Christ is the one next to His exaltation, 2Ti 2:11-12.Brentius:Sincerity is agreeable to God.Quesnel:O, how different are Christs auditors! Some rejoice at His words as words of life, but others grow fierce thereat and make thereof words of death.Arndt:Jesus before Caiaphas: 1. The confession; 2. the condemnation; 3. the maltreatment.Krummacher, Passions-buch, p. 336 seq.:Prophesy to us, O Christ! C. Palmer:How the world seeks to rid itself of the truth.
Footnotes:
[21]Luk 22:64.What the Recepta has here, , , appears to be a glossematic addition, which has gradually got the upper hand. See Tischendorf and Meyer, ad locum. [As Alford clearly explains it, was substituted for from the parallel in Mark, then united with the text, being then inserted to account for below. The variations confirm this explanation.C. C. S.]
[22]Luk 22:68. before omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Meyer, Tregelles, Alford,] according to B., [Cod. Sin.,] L., Cursives.
[23]Luk 22:68.He means probably, as Bleek explains it, that if He should ask them questions as to the cause of His arrest, and the like, they would not answer him.C. C. S.]
[24]Luk 22:68. . These words also awaken at least the suspicion, that they are a somewhat incongruous expansion of the text. See Tischendorf and Meyer. [They are omitted by B., Cod. Sin., L., Coptic Version, Cyril. Numbers are for them, weight of testimony and internal evidence against them.C. C. S.]
[25]Luk 22:69.After insert on the authority of A., B., D., [Cod. Sin.,] L., X., and many other authorities.
[26]Luk 22:70.Van Oosterzee, agreeing with Luther, De Wette, Meyer, and others, translates denn, For, as it appears to be used in Joh 18:37. The sentence then means: I acknowledge the title, for I am the Son of God. Ye say, the well known idiom of assent to anothers statement or question.C. C. S.]
“And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. (64) And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? (65) And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. (66) And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, (67) Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: (68) And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. (69) Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. (70) Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. (71) And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.”
I will only for the present in this place beg the Reader to notice the cruelties exercised on Christ’s person, and the blasphemy they were guilty of to his divine offices. In their mockery, they insulted his Kingly office. In their blindfolding him, his Priestly: for there were to be no blemishes in those who ministered in holy things. And in demanding who smote him, they did despite to his Prophetical. But, amidst all these reproaches, we hear no murmur. Yea, no answer, until demanded whether he was the Son of God. And, oh! how blessed the good confession; Ye say that: I am. For so it should be stopped. Precious Lord! in what a blessed view is this testimony of the Lord in all the hearts of his redeemed!
63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him .
Ver. 63. See Mat 26:27 ; Mar 14:65 ; Joh 18:22 ; Isa 50:6 . They scoffed him, not so much with their tongues as hands; plucking his beard, and pulling away hair and skin too, as the word importeth.
63 65. ] HE IS MOCKED. Luke does not, as some Commentators say, place this mocking before the trial in Caiaphas’s house, but in the same place as Mat 26:67-68 , and Mar 14:65 , viz. after what happened there. The trial he omits altogether , having found no report of it. How those who take this view of Luke’s arrangement can yet suppose him to have had Matt. and Mark before him while writing, I am wholly at a loss to conceive.
Luk 22:63-65 . Indignities (Mat 26:67-68 , Mar 14:65 ). In Mt. and Mk. these come after the trial during the night which Lk. omits. In his narrative the hours of early morning spent by Jesus in the palace of the high priest are filled up by the denial of Peter and the outrages of the men who had taken Jesus into custody ( ).
Luk 22:63 . , mocked, in place of the more brutal spitting in parallels. , smiting (the whole body), instead of the more special and insulting slapping in the face ( ).
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 22:63-65
63Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking Him and beating Him, 64and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?” 65And they were saying many other things against Him, blaspheming.
Luk 22:63 “the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking Him and beating Him” Jesus was beaten by the Jewish guards, Herod’s guards, and the Roman guards. These beatings may be a fulfillment of Isa 53:2.
Luk 22:64-65 These Roman soldiers took out their anger and frustration against the exclusivism and continuing rebellion of the Jewish population on Jesus. He became the object of their ridicule!
the men. Greek. p1. of aner. App-123. Not thesame word as in Luk 22:10.
mocked = were mocking. Greek. empaizo. Compare Luk 18:32.
and smote = smiting.
63-65.] HE IS MOCKED. Luke does not, as some Commentators say, place this mocking before the trial in Caiaphass house, but in the same place as Mat 26:67-68, and Mar 14:65, viz. after what happened there. The trial he omits altogether, having found no report of it. How those who take this view of Lukes arrangement can yet suppose him to have had Matt. and Mark before him while writing, I am wholly at a loss to conceive.
Luk 22:63-71. And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Thereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, what need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.
Luk 23:1. And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
This exposition consisted of readings from Joh 18:12-14; Joh 18:19-26; Mar 14:53-65; and Luk 22:63-71; Luk 23:1.
Luk 22:63-64. [ , who held fast) during the whole night.-V. g.]- ) is used of beating the whole body; , of striking a part; , of smiting or wounding with violence, and so as to give pain. [No one of mortal men, not even the direst of malefactors, ever endured so great wantonness as Christ, the Just One, suffered to the utmost.-Harm., p. 540.]
Luk 22:63-71
9. JESUS BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN
Luk 22:63-71
63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him,-The officers and soldiers treated Jesus as they would treat a common slave who had committed some heinous crime and was worthy of death with all the cruelties that they could impose upon him. They “mocked him” with insulting language and accusations. While Peter was shamefully denying his Lord in the courtyard, the night examination and trial of Jesus before the high priest went on, and the guards were permitted to heap all sorts of cruelties upon the prisoner. Judas had “received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” (Joh 18:3), when he betrayed Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane; hence, these officers were the ones who helped to mock Jesus. They “beat him” with their fists and with other things they smote him severely. The guards permitted others to mock, beat, blindfold, smite, and revile the Son of God. Matthew and Mark record these insults before the account of Peter’s denial Luke records the three denials of Peter together, while the other writers record what occurred between the denials. While Peter was denying his Lord, the enemies reviled him and smote him. Possibly no common slave received worse treatment than did our Lord.
64, 65 And they blindfolded him,-Matthew records that some smote him with their fists, and Mark records that the servants struck him. They made sport of him by imitating the children’s play of “blindman’s bluff.” After he was blindfolded they struck him and asked him to “prophesy” or tell them who hit him; this was a mockery on his claim to he a prophet. Little did they know how much he knew, but he chose not to gratify their curiosity; he permitted them to do what they would with him. They smote him on the face; they spit in his face and buffeted him. (Matthew 2(i:67; Mar 14:65.) “And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.” Luke is the only writer that records this verse; it shows that their hatred found outlet not only in acts of violence and insult, but in the most abusive language. They had pronounced condemnation on him for blasphemy, yet they were the only ones who spoke blasphemous words, and that too of the most appalling nature. Strange that they were guilty of the very things with which they charged Jesus.
66 And as soon as it was day,-Matthew and Mark say “Now when morning was come” (Mat 27:1; Mar 15:1) they led Jesus away to the Sanhedrin. The trials before Annas and Caiaphas that night were not legal; the Jewish Sanhedrin did not meet at night for legal procedures; so after daylight the Sanhedrin assembled in formal meeting to confirm what had already been determined. There had been a smaller meeting in the night; the Sanhedrin formerly met in the hall Gazith, the hall of square stone, in the temple area, but its meeting had been removed to another, the hall of Purchase, on the east side of the temple court. However, some think that this meeting was held in the palace of the high priest. This meeting was to pass in a formal way the sentence on Jesus. Luke gives very brief details of this meeting. At this meeting they conferred together as to the best means of putting Jesus to death, and formulating the twofold charge of blasphemy and treason; the Sanhedrin could condemn to death, but could not put the sentence into execution without the sanction of the Roman governor. (Joh 18:31.) The Jews lost the power to execute the penalty of death when Archelaus was deposed, about A.D. 6.
67, 68 If thou art the Christ, tell us.-They were fully prepared to condemn him; this question was asked in a very malicious and cunning way; whatever answer he might give would be used against him. The question was designed to force him to incriminate himself in their judgment. They would not believe any answer that he would give, as they were ready to condemn him for blasphemy. Hence, Jesus said: “If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer.” Jesus says that if he should tell them plainly and emphatically that he was the Christ, they would not believe his statement; neither if he would ask them a question, or propose a question in support of his claims that they would not answer him; if he convinced them that he was the Christ, they would not release him. They had already seen convincing proof of his Messiahship and had rejected it; if he should present convincing proof now, they would not release him, for they were bent on his death.
69-71 But from henceforth shall the Son of man-This is a Messianic prediction from Psa 110:1 and Dan 7:9-14. The Jewish rulers should have understood this reference, but it is very likely that they did not. It was a claim to be the Messiah, as he was fulfilling these claims. Jesus meant that soon after his resurrection he would ascend to the Father and accusation for blasphemy was based on 2Ki 18:37. The unexpected answer of Jesus, declaring his divine glory and judgeship, aroused the hatred, rage, and horror of the high priest to the utmost bounds, and he rends his garments as if too narrow to contain his exasperated emotion; he does this as if in holy indignation and horror; terribly excited feelings and hypocrisy were mingled. He accused Jesus of blasphemy.
Rejected of Men
Luk 22:63-71
This scene of mockery is very terrible. How difficult the twelve legions of angels must have found it to restrain themselves. See Mat 26:53. Here we have an exhibition of the hidden evil of the human heart, which is drawn forth in contact with infinite purity, as the stench of stagnant water is elicited by the summer sun.
Our Lord answered not a word to all the false accusations that were leveled against Him. He left the false witnesses to refute each other. But as soon as His divine claims were challenged, He could not keep silence. It is very noticeable that, in this Gospel, which lays such stress on Christs pure humanity, Luke makes it so clear that the unwavering affirmation of His equality with God was the cause of His death, Joh 5:18. Is there not a sense in which the eye of faith always beholds Him seated at the right hand of Gods power?
Jesus Before The Priests — Luk 22:63-71
And the men that held Jesus mocked Him, and smote Him. And when they had blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face, and asked Him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote Thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against Him. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led Him into their council, saying, Art Thou the Christ? tell us. And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go. Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art Thou then the Son of God? And He said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of His own mouth- Luk 22:63-71.
We have considered the agony in Gethsemane and the arrest of our blessed Lord when He was taken to the high priests house in the middle of the night. Then we noticed the failure, the denial of the apostle Peter; and as we looked a little farther on in the record we saw how graciously he was restored. Now we come back to the house of the high priest. It was directly contrary to Jewish law to conduct a trial in Jerusalem in the night-time, but all this was forgotten when the hatred of His enemies stirred their hearts to seek the condemnation and destruction of the Lord Jesus Christ.
As we consider this portion we find several things emphasized. One is this: in order to be saved it is not enough that a person be religious. I suppose these priests were as religious as anyone in all Israel at this particular time. They were the religious leaders of the people; they believed firmly in the revelation that Jehovah had given of Himself as the one true and living God. Some have the idea that if one believes in one God nothing more is required; but we remember the apostle James (Jam 2:19) has said, Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder (literal rendering). Demons recognize the truth of the unity of the Godhead, and they know that some day they are going to be called to judgment before Him; so they shudder at the very mention of His name. Mere faith, mere recognition rather, of the fact that there is one God does not save anyone. A man might turn from the worst kind of heathenism, fetishism, or any other form of paganism, and accept the idea that there is only one God and henceforth profess to serve Him, and yet not be saved at all. These priests believed in one God, but they were not saved. More than that, they believed in the inspiration of the Bible; they accepted the sacred writings as divinely given, and they believed in the prophetic character of those writings. They knew the Scriptures foretold the coming of the Messiah into the world. For centuries their forefathers had been studying the writings of the prophets; and they, themselves, had been looking forward to the coming of this Just One. Yet when the Lord Jesus Christ actually came in fulfilment of all that was written aforehand, they did not recognize Him. They refused to accept Him; they spurned Him, and turned Him over to Pilate that He might be crucified. There is something here that you and I may well take to heart. Many profess to accept the Bible as a revelation from heaven, at least to recognize the fact that God has spoken in it to mankind as in no other book. In that respect they are orthodox. But remember, one may believe all this and yet not know Gods salvation. It is not enough to know the Scriptures in order to be saved. Years ago when I first visited the Jerry McAuley Mission in New York, I sat through a very interesting service, and at the conclusion a man pointed to an old Scotsman over in one corner of the room, and he said to me, That is Old Chapter-and-Verse. I inquired what he meant by that. He replied, Well, that is the name we have given him-Old Chapter-and-Verse. He is an alcohol addict; we never have known him to be sober. Yet every night he is at the meeting. He sleeps through most of it, but let anyone get up to give a testimony and misquote a scripture and Old Chapter-and-Verse wakes up at once. He has such a knowledge of the Bible from his Scotch bringing-up that it stirs him when he hears anyone misquote Scripture. The other night somebody got up and quoted that passage in Mat 11:28 according to the old English prayer-book rendering, rather than from the Authorized Version: Come unto Me, all ye that are weary.
Old Chapter-and-Verse jumped up at once and said, Haud on noo. Dinna ye be handlin the Word o God deceitfully. It does na say, All ye that are weary, it says, All ye that labor and are heavy laden; then he dropped back to go to sleep until somebody else misquoted another scripture. Poor old man! He had a head full of Bible and a heart full ,of sin. The Bible says no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God. This man knew the Bible but not the Saviour of whom it speaks.
These priests knew their Bibles, and yet they rejected the Christ of the Bible. They knew the Bible so well that some thirty years before, when Herod had heard of the birth of the King and inquired where Christ should be born, the scribes and chief priests turned at once to the prophecy, and answered, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet. And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule My people Israel (Mat 2:6). They knew exactly where Messiah was to be born, and yet they did not receive Him for themselves. As He grew up to Manhood and went about ministering the Word among His own people, they actually fulfilled their own Scripture by condemning Him. So it is not enough to be acquainted with Scripture. One needs to open his heart to Christ and receive Him as his personal Saviour: for the Bible says, There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Act 4:12).
The men who took Jesus mocked Him and smote Him. I suppose these were the riff-raff, the reckless mob. They realized their religious leaders were against Christ, so they turned against Him too. And when they had blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face, and asked Him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote Thee? Our blessed, adorable Lord, who was led as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before the shearers was dumb, answered not a word. And many other things blasphemously spake they against Him.
As the first light appeared upon the horizon, the leaders, chief priests, and scribes came together and led Him into their council. This was the supreme council in Israel which was made up of seventy of their most noted elders. They were there to judge the Lord Jesus Christ; and we are told in another Gospel that they brought a great many false witnesses to testify against Him-men who declared they had heard Him say certain things which they pieced together with other sayings which they tried to prove He had said, but which He never had said at all. In this way they endeavored to convict Him of blasphemy. They asked Him, Art Thou the Christ? The Lord Jesus answered, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me, nor let me go. That is, if He were to assert Himself and say, I am the Messiah, giving Scripture to show how the Word of God had been fulfilled in Him, they would not believe. He knew their hearts were set upon rejecting Him. There was no evidence of repentance, and there was no sense of their need of a Saviour. That is why men and women are lost today: they reject Christ; they imagine they can get along without Him; they have no realization of the innate deceitfulness of their hearts. I have known many persons who objected to the truth of the gospel, claiming they could not believe it; until at last, broken down under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit of God, they realized their lost condition and the sinfulness of their lives, and found that only Jesus could meet their need. They had no difficulty trusting Him then; for they saw, as John Hambleton, the converted actor, used to put it, that Jesus Exactly Suits Us Sinners.
The Lord Jesus Christ never attempted to answer these objectors, because He knew they had no desire to understand the truth. He said on one occasion, If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself (Joh 7:17). But these people had no desire to make such a test; they were not ready to face things honestly in the presence of God.
Jesus went on to make a marvelous declaration. He told them that though they spurned Him then, Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God. To them this was the very height of blasphemy; it amounted to nothing less than a claim to actual Deity. They continued the examination by inquiring-though not with any desire to know the truth-Art Thou then the Son of God? Doubtless they remembered what was written by Daniel the Prophet, of one like the Son of Man who came to the Ancient of Days to receive power, and glory, and a kingdom. Did Jesus mean that this prophecy referred to Himself? Was He the Son of the Highest? He answered, Ye say that I am. That is, they had spoken the truth in using that title when referring to Him. He was indeed the Son of God. They were full of indignation and cried, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of His own mouth. So they put Him down as guilty of blasphemy. And they were right if, as many claim today, He were only a man, even though the best and greatest of humankind; because for any mere man to claim what Jesus claimed for Himself would rightly prove Him to be either self-deceived or a blasphemer. But the Word reveals ,our blessed Lord to be God the Eternal Son who came down to this world, taking humanity into union with Deity, in order that He might go to the cross to give His life a ransom for sinful men.
Chapter 48
Majesty On Trial
While our Lord Jesus was before Caiaphas in the dead of night, before the Sanhedrim had been fully gathered together to hold their trial at daybreak, our dear Redeemer was treated with the utmost cruelty and abuse. His enemies were so anxious to condemn him that as soon as he was brought into the high priests house, they began tormenting him, as they blasphemed. Then, early in the morning, the Jewish Sanhedrim gathered to condemn the Lord of Glory. That is what is described in this portion of holy scripture.
Like wild beast, or enraged savages, The men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. They vented their utmost hatred upon the man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. His tormentors had no pity for him in their hard, calloused hearts. None were found to vindicate his character, or plead his cause. No man stood with him. There were none to pity him.
What gross cowards these men were! Cruelty is always the badge of cowardice. They were the very same men who in the garden, went backward, and fell to the ground, when our Lord said, I AM. They went out, with swords and staves, to take him prisoner. Yet, they fell to the ground when he simply spoke a single word to them. But now they think they have him in their power. He stands before them as a sheep before her shearers; and they are determined to be as cruel as possible in tormenting him.
Yet, even this record of their cruelty is set before us in the Word of God that we, through patience and consolation of the scriptures, might have hope. Blessed Holy Spirit, whose Word we have read, be our Teacher and show us wondrous things out of thy law this hour, for Christs sake.
God In Great Humiliation
First, we have before us a vivid picture of that which the Apostle wrote concerning God our Saviour, when he said, he humbled himself! Here is God, the eternal God of Glory, in great, indescribable humiliation.
And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him (Luk 22:63-65).
There stands Jesus of Nazareth, God in human flesh, the God-man our Mediator. I will not attempt to picture him. No artists brush can paint the picture. No mortal tongue can describe it. But, here God the Holy Spirit paints a picture of our Saviours humiliation with words of infinite skill, in the eloquence of simplicity, without the slightest hint of overstatement.
May God the Holy Spirit give us eyes to see him who was tormented in the high priests house on that dark, dark night. Do you see him standing before his implacable foes, clothed with a seamless garment, bound, delivered over to the officers, and now surrounded by them, as they mock him, scoff at him, and beat Him? Let your eye rest on him. Set your heart on him. There he stands, our Saviour, very God of very God. What do you see?
I see Omnipotence held captive. The Spirit of God speaks of the men that held Jesus. Is God held prisoner by men? Yes, he was. The man they held is himself over all God, blessed forever, the Creator of heaven and earth. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. He was, at that very moment upholding all things by the word of his power. In all his weakness and in all his sufferings, he was still over all, God blessed forever.
Though mocked, beaten of men, and blasphemed, the holy angels adore him. Surely, there is something wondrous in this! Omnipotence held captive! He who can create or destroy, according to the good pleasure of his own will, took upon himself our nature, and in that nature sank so low as to become subject even to the very utmost cruelty of man. What a wondrous stoop of condescension! The omnipotent God allows himself to be bound, and never proves himself more truly omnipotent than when he permits himself to be held as a prisoner by sinful men. Our omnipotent God became the captive prisoner of wicked men, that wicked men held in the captivity of their own sin and guilt might be set free. The Lord Jesus Christ went into captivity that he might lead captivity captive and set us free.
Behold the Man again. This man is the glory of God. Looking stedfastly on him, I see glory mocked, for the men that held Jesus mocked him. They could not see his glory, because they were blind, and because he veiled his glory, hiding it from them. But the angels of God beheld it. And because he has revealed it to us and given us eyes to see, we behold his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
It is amazing to me that the God who reigns in glory over myriads of holy angels should be mocked by miscreants, who could not even have lived for a second in his presence if he had not given them life and sustained them in it. Yet, there he is; he who made the heavens and the earth, despised and rejected of men, treated with the utmost scorn and mockery.
His glory was mocked that we might be glorified together with him, we who have so horribly mocked his glory! What is sin, but the mockery of the glory of God? While I am indignant with those men who so mocked my Saviour, I am even more indignant with myself for all the mockery I have heaped upon his glory! Oh, how I have mocked him!
Behold the man again. Looking upon my Saviour as he stands silently before his tormentors, I see goodness smitten; perfect, infinite, unutterable goodness stricken, bruised, assailed, assaulted, and smitten. The men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. To smite wickedness is an act of justice; but to smite goodness is an abomination (Pro 17:15). The Son of God who stood there had within his soul mercy which endures forever. Yet, they smote him. There burned in his holy heart a love which many waters cannot quench, and which the floods of waters cannot drown. Yet, they smote him! He had come to bring peace and goodwill to men, and to set up a kingdom of joy and love, of righteousness and peace. Yet, they smote him!
Never was goodness so good as when our blessed Saviour, the good and the just was smitten, not of men, but of God, that all the goodness of God might be ours in him (Pro 17:15; 1Pe 3:18; 2Co 5:21). Oh what great goodness there is here! He was smitten of God and afflicted. He was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon him. And with his stripes we are healed! Yet, again my heart is compelled to cry, How very grievously have I smitten him, even in his own house!
I see something else here. I see omniscience blindfolded. When they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? Of course, omniscience can never be blinded. Yet, here is God in human flesh blindfolded. Why did our Saviour endure this indignation? What is the meaning of this? Why is it written here? I do not presume to think I know the answer to such questions fully. Yet, when I see omniscience blindfolded, and hear these men ask the God ofGlory who smote him, Num 23:21 comes to my mind. By the sufferings and death of Christ, the God of Glory has been, in absolute justice, forever blinded to our sins, so blinded that he does not even see us as the sinners who have smitten him! Blessed be his name forever, he hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them. The precious blood of Christ has so thoroughly blotted out our sins that God does not behold iniquity in Israel!
Indescribable Depravity
Next, look at our Saviours tormentors. In the actions of these men, I see a terrible, but clear portrayal of the indescribable depravity of humanity, the indescribable depravity of your heart and mine.
There is much talk these days about the will of man. Some fools even talk about mans free will. Here are men, religious men, the temple guards, acting in the dark of night, acting not by order, not by law, not by the influence of others, but acting by the impulse of their own will. The things they did to the Son of God draw an ugly, but unmistakably clear picture of the nature of man and the nature of his will. They have God himself in their hands. What will man do in his time of utmost liberty and freedom? And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him (Luk 22:64-65). Oh, what enmity fallen man has for God! How utterly depraved we are! Fallen man hates God. Ours is a race of rebels who defy Gods justice. We defy his omniscience. We are a people whose lives are lives full of blasphemies and insults to the Almighty. Fallen man is more relentlessly cruel than any wild beast.
Majesty In Misery
Yet, I see something else here. I see majesty in my Saviours misery. Amid all this evil there stands God our Saviour, glorious in majesty, wonderful in goodness, majestic in glory. As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, he opens not his mouth. No flush of anger appears on his face. No glare of wrath shoots from his eyes. He bore it all, bore it in his very soul, with Divine patience, the very patience of the God of patience. He bore all in patience, knowing that he bore these things from men by the will and hand of his heavenly Father. Never man spake like this Man, when he spoke not a word! What an example he sets for us to follow (1Pe 2:21-24).
Our Saviour was triumphant in submission. Submitting to the will of his Father, his persecutors could not make him give way to anger. They could not destroy his devotion. They could not keep him from doing all that he came to do for us. No, the strong-souled Christ persevered in his merciful work until he had accomplished our redemption by the Sacrifice of himself.
Obstinate Unbelief
And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go (Luk 22:66-68).
They were determined not to believe in him and receive him. Their unbelief was wilful and obstinate. They defied that which was clearly and indisputably set before them. Therefore, our Saviour said, Ye will not believe. This is the great evil that lies at the root of most mens sins, they believe not in Jesus Christ, whom God hath sent. It is this of which the Spirit of God convinces men, as our Saviour foretold concerning him: He will convince the world of sin … because they believe not on me. Yet, there is nothing more reasonable, nothing more worthy to be believed than the revelation God has given of his Son to us in the holy scriptures.
Christ My God
Behold the man again. I see Christ my God confidently declaring his everlasting glory as our Saviour.
Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth (Luk 22:69-71).
Our Saviour plainly asserted that Daniels vision (Dan 7:13-14) would be fulfilled in him, thus asserting that he is God our Saviour, the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God. These religious rebels heard the word out of our Saviours own mouth. Yet, they would not believe. What a glaring proof these men are that faith is the gift of God.
Love In Labour
Behold the Man one more time. Here I see love in labour. All this shame and suffering was endured by our Saviour because of his great love for us, because of the joy that was set before him, the prospect of giving us eternal life and salvation. He loved me, and gave himself for me.
Let every believing sinner take this personally. For you, as much as if there were no other person in the whole universe, for you, the King of glory became the King of scorn, and bore all this shame and misery. For you, as your Substitute, he bore it all, and indescribably more, when he was made sin for you. He shed his blood, laid down his life, bore all the wrath of God, sacrificed himself and made atonement for you, for your sin! For me! For my sin!
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied. What does that mean? It means that the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ shall never be discovered a miscarriage. Every sinner for whom he died shall be saved. His souls travail shall not be in vain! Yet, it means more. It means that when he has brought his ransomed home to glory, he shall be satisfied with you. He shall be satisfied with me. And we shall be satisfied with him forever!
And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost
the men: Mat 26:59-68, Mar 14:55-65, Joh 18:22
mocked: Job 16:9, Job 16:10, Job 30:9-14, Psa 22:6, Psa 22:7, Psa 22:13, Psa 35:15, Psa 35:16, Psa 35:25, Psa 69:7-12, Isa 49:7, Isa 50:6, Isa 50:7, Isa 52:14, Isa 53:3, Mic 5:1, Mat 27:28-31, Mat 27:39-44, Mar 15:16-20, Mar 15:27-32, Heb 12:2, 1Pe 2:23
Reciprocal: 2Ki 1:11 – O man 2Ch 30:10 – they laughed 2Ch 36:16 – mocked Psa 22:16 – assembly Jer 20:7 – I am Mat 26:67 – and others Mat 26:68 – Prophesy Mar 10:34 – mock Mar 14:65 – General Mar 15:19 – they smote Luk 18:32 – mocked Act 4:27 – the people Act 17:32 – some
3
These actions against Jesus were to show their disrespect of Him.
WE should notice, firstly, in these verses, the shameful treatment that our Lord Jesus Christ underwent at the hands of His enemies. We read that the men who held Him, “mocked” Him, “smote” Him, “blindfolded” Him, and “struck Him on the face.” It was not enough to have taken a prisoner a person of most blameless and charitable life. They must needs add insult to injury.
Conduct like this shows the desperate corruption of human nature. The excesses of savage malice to which unconverted men will sometimes go, and the fierce delight with which they will sometimes trample on the most holy and the most pure, almost justify the strong saying of an old divine, that “man left to himself is half-beast and half-devil.” He hates God and all who bear anything of God’s image about them. “The carnal mind is enmity against God.” (Rom 8:7.) We have probably a very faint idea of what the world would become, if it were not for the constant restraint that God mercifully puts upon evil. It is not too much to say that if unconverted men had their own way entirely, the earth would soon be little better than a hell.
Our Lord’s calm submission to insults like those here described, shows the depth of His love towards sinners. Had He so willed, He could have stopped the insolence of His enemies in a moment. He who could cast out devils with a word, could have summoned legions of angels to His side, and scattered those wretched tools of Satan to the winds. But our Lord’s heart was set on the great work he had come on earth to do. He had undertaken to purchase our redemption by His own humiliation, and He did not flinch from paying the uttermost farthing of the price. He had undertaken to drink the bitter cup of vicarious suffering to save sinners, and “for the joy set before Him He despised the shame,” and drank the cup to the very dregs. (Heb 12:2.)
Patience like that which our blessed Lord exhibited on this occasion should teach His professing people a mighty lesson. We should forbear all murmuring and complaining, and irritation of spirit, when we are ill-treated by the world. What are the occasional insults to which we have to submit compared to the insults which were heaped on our Master? Yet “when He was reviled He reviled not again. When He suffered He threatened not.” He left us an example that we should walk in His steps. Let us go and do likewise. (1Pe 2:21-23.)
We should notice, secondly, in these verses, the striking prophecy which our Lord delivers about His own coming glory. He says to His insulting enemies, “Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.” Did they find fault with His lowly appearance, and want a glorious Messiah? They would see Him in glory one day.-Did they think He was weak, powerless, and contemptible, because at present there was no outward majesty about Him? They would behold Him one day in the most honorable position in heaven, fulfilling the well-known prophecy of Daniel, with all judgment committed to His hands. (Dan 7:9-10.)
Let us take heed that the future glory of Christ forms a part of our creed, as much as Christ’s cross and passion. Let it be a first principle in our religion, that the same Jesus who was mocked, despised, and crucified, is He who has now “all power in heaven and earth and will one day come again in His Father’s glory with all His angels.” We see but half the truth if we see nothing but the cross and the first advent. It is essential to our own comfort to see also the second advent, and the crown. That same Jesus who stood before the bar of the high priest and of Pilate, will one day sit upon a throne of glory and summon all His enemies to appear before Him. Happy is that Christian who keeps steadily before his mind that word “hereafter”! Now in this present time believers must be content to take part in their Master’s sufferings and with Him to be weak. “Hereafter” they shall share in His glory, and with Him be strong.-Now like their Lord they must not be surprised if they are mocked, despised, and disbelieved. “Hereafter” they shall sit with Him on the right hand of God.
We should notice, lastly, in these verses, what a full and bold confession our Lord makes of His own Messiahship and divinity. We read that in reply to this question of His enemies, “Art thou the Son of God,”-“He said unto them, Ye say that I am.” The meaning of this short sentence may not be clear at first sight to an English reader. It signifies in other words, “You speak the truth. I am, as you say, the Son of God.”
Our Lord’s confession deprived His enemies of all excuse for unbelief. The Jews can never plead that our Lord left their forefathers in ignorance of His mission, and kept them in doubt and suspense. Here we see our Lord telling them plainly who he was, and telling them in words which would convey even more to a Jewish mind than they do to ours. And yet the confession had not the least good effect upon the Jews! Their hearts were hardened by prejudice. Their minds were darkened by judicial blindness. The veil was over the eyes of their inward man. They heard our Lord’s confession unmoved, and only plunged deeper into the most awful sin.
The bold confession of our Master upon this occasion, is intended to be an example to all His believing people. Like Him, we must not shrink from speaking out when occasion requires our testimony. The fear of man, and the presence of a multitude must not make us hold our peace. (Job 31:34.) We need not blow a trumpet before us, and go out of our way, to proclaim our own religion. Opportunities are sure to occur in the daily path of duty, when, like Paul on board ship, we may show “whose we are and whom we serve.” (Act 27:23.) At such opportunities, if we have the mind of Christ, let us not be afraid to show our colors. A confessing Master loves bold, uncompromising, and confessing disciples. Them that honor Him by an outspoken, courageous testimony, He will honor, because they are walking in His steps. “Whosoever,” He says, “shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven.” (Mat 10:32.)
==================
Notes-
v63.-[Mocked Him, &c.] We must understand that this took place after our Lord’s first examination before the priests, of which Luke gives no account. That there were two separate examinations, will be seen in the next note.
v66.-[A soon as it was day.] Some little explanation is necessary at this point in Luke’s history of our Lord’s passion. It is clear, from the account of the evangelists Matthew and Mark, that as soon as our Lord was taken prisoner, He was brought at once before Caiaphas, the high priest, and examined.-It is also clear from the same evangelists, that Peter’s thrice-repeated denial of his Master took place after this examination. How then are we to explain the fact that Luke speaks of Peter’s denial, as having taken place before any examination of our Lord at the High Priest’s bar?
The most satisfactory reply to this inquiry, is the explanation given by Gerhard, Scott, Burgon, and Stier. They maintain that after the council had condemned Jesus the first time, they separated, and met again early in the morning, and that the words used by Luke, “as soon as it was day,” refer to this second meeting of the council.-“Nor is it improbable,” says Scott, “that the high priest should again put the same questions to our Lord, as he had done the night before; both to see whether he would stand to what he had said, and also that such members of the council as had been absent might hear his answers.”
Two arguments may be mentioned in support of the above explanation.-One is the great improbability that our Lord’s enemies, having taken Him prisoner, would wait until it was morning before they examined Him. On the contrary it is plain, from Matthew and Mark, that Jesus was taken before Caiaphas as soon as he was apprehended.-The other argument is the great improbability that the men who held Jesus would have mocked and insulted Him as they did, if He had not been already examined and condemned.
We must understand, then, that our Lord was twice examined before the chief priests and elders, and that the examination mentioned by Luke, is the second of the two, and answers to the morning “consultation,” mentioned by Mark. (Mar 15:1.)-I am aware that Poole, Doddridge, and Alford, maintain that there was only one examination before the priests. But their reasoning does not satisfy me.
Horne remarks, in his Introduction to Scripture, “According to the Talmud, capital causes were prohibited from being heard in the night, as also was the institution of an examination, pronouncing a sentence, and carrying it into execution on one and the same day. It was enjoined that at least the execution of a sentence should be deferred to the following day. How flagrantly these injunctions were disregarded in the case of Jesus Christ, it is scarcely necessary to mention.”
v67.-[Ye will not believe.] Assuming the correctness of the view put forth in the last note, there is much point in these words. When our Lord had told them who He was at the first examination, they would not believe. To this unbelief He here seems to refer.
v68.-[If I ask you.] This expression has occasioned some surprise, and called forth many remarks. It seems strange at first sight, that a prisoner should talk of putting questions to his judges.
Major paraphrases the expression, “If I advance any arguments to prove that I am the Messiah.” He adds, “to interrogate was a usual mode of argumentation among the Hebrews.” (See Luk 20:4; Luk 20:44.)
Pellican paraphrases the passage, “If I enquire of you what kind of Messiah is promised in Scripture, and ask you whether the signs of Messiah appear sufficiently in me, you will not give me an honest answer.”
Gill renders it, “If I require an answer to the arguments proving me to be the Messiah, or desire to know what objection can be made to them, you will not answer me, or dismiss me though I should appear to be the Messiah. You are resolved, right or wrong, to detain me in bonds and take away my life.”
Heinsius mentions an opinion of some, that the Greek word rendered “ask” might also be rendered “petition or supplicate.” This, however, would be a most undignified sense to put on the words, and is utterly improbable.
v69.-[Hereafter…Son of man…right hand… God.] There is a plain reference in these words to the famous prophecy of Daniel. (Dan 7:9-14.) Our Lord evidently implies that He was the person to whom that prophecy pointed, and that, although condemned by the Jews, He would shortly be exalted to the highest position of dignity in heaven. The Jews saw this at once, and proceeded to put the question of the next verse.
This, be it noted, is the last occasion on which our Lord ever called Himself the “Son of man.”
v70.-[Art thou…Son of God.] It is very worthy of note here, that our Lord in the preceding verse had called Himself the “Son of man.” His enemies in this question, ask Him if He is the “Son of God.” They did so, because His solemn saying about sitting at God’s right hand, showed them that He claimed to be the Messiah and very God.
[Ye say that I am.] It is almost needless to remark, that this expression means, “Ye say rightly that I am.” Major gives instances of a similar form of speech both in Greek and Latin writers.
Luk 22:63-65. THE MOCKERY AT NIGHT. See on Mat 26:67-68; Mar 14:65. (Joh 18:22 refers to a different occurrence.) Matthew and Mark place this mockery in a different position. This suggests that it began at the close of the hearing, continuing for some time, thus both preceding and following our Lords look on Peter. Luke here moreover gives substantially the same facts in a manner peculiar to himself. He tells us more particularly who were the chief actors in the mockery: the men that held Jesus (Luk 22:63); details how they covered His face (Mark), blindfolded Him (Luk 22:64); and sums up the whole in the significant words of Luk 22:65 : and many other things spake they against him, reviling him, literally, blaspheming him See on Mat 26:68.
Section 2. (Luk 22:63-71; Luk 23:1-25.)
Judgment without judgment.
We are now to see the Son of God before the judgment-seat of man. Luke is briefer here than any of the Gospels. The attempts of the false witnesses before the Jewish tribunal are entirely ignored, as well as the adjuration of the high priest. We have simply the Lord’s affirmation for Himself of who He is, which is sufficient for their purpose: any serious inquiry as to the truth they do not mean. Before Pilate we have only the simple fact of His acquittal of the charge preferred; spite of which He is delivered up to the people’s will. It is a judgment without judgment -without the poorest semblance of right. The reference to Herod is peculiar to Luke; but he merely scoffs, and is met on the Lord’s part by absolute silence. He is not in any place of authority that calls for recognition, as with Pilate and the Jewish high priest, and in his character there is nothing that can in the least measure claim it. He is past even reproof.
On the whole, Luke, following the other synoptists, seems to give simply the result morally of that of which they have given the history. The guilt of pursuing the Lord to death is that of Israel, Pilate guiltily yielding to them, indeed; and Herod being but the sign of how low Israel had fallen; even though, nay, even because himself (born of an Edomite father and a Samaritan mother,) no real Israelite.
1. As is everywhere apparent, the Jewish question was the supreme one of the Person of the Christ, -the fundamental question for every soul. Here also the fundamental witness is His own. As He stands before us, -as we see Him in every circumstance and relation of life, -who is so worthy to be believed as He?
Here, then; we have His testimony, the “Faithful and True”; and it is in faithfulness as in truth that He renders it. A passage peculiar to Luke points out this: for, when they ask, “Art Thou the Christ? tell us,” He can say with assurance, “If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go.” It was in fact the incriminating question; and since they asked it for an evil purpose, why should He give them the answer that they sought? But this does not influence Him. What they will make of it is for them to decide; He will not on that account refuse the testimony of such unspeakable importance to them. He is in their hands, for them to work their cruel will upon Him; yet only to bring Him out of His present humiliation, and set Him free for the glory before Him. “Henceforth shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.” They understand the claim and challenge it: “Art Thou the Son of God, then?” they ask. “Ye say it: for I am,” He answers. He is condemned, not at the mouth of other witnesses, but His own.
2. He is carried before Pilate, charged with the notoriously false charge of forbidding tribute to Caesar: this based upon the truth that He is Christ a King. Pilate puts the question to Him, “Art Thou the King of the Jews?” to which John gives the full answer. Luke simply gives His affirmative reply, and the outcome of the examination, in which Pilate clears Him of all that would involve a crime against Caesar; from which judgment he never recedes. When he sentences Him at last to the death of the cross, it is with the carefully maintained acknowledgement that he is sacrificing an innocent man.
3. The scene with Herod is peculiar to Luke. Pilate sends Him to him, hoping for something from the ruler from whose jurisdiction Jesus has come, which may settle a case made troublesome by the persistence of the people. Herod has got over his fear of Christ, and is glad to have the opportunity of seeing Him, hoping even to see Him do some “sign” in his presence. His conscience more and more hardened by his evil course, he evidently regards the Lord simply as a magician; such as was Simon the sorcerer in Samaria afterwards, and who would be sure to take the opportunity to impress such an audience with proofs of his power.
He finds indeed a sign, such as he had not looked for, a Man silent and unmoved, answering nothing to his questions, nor to the accusations of the chief priests and scribes, who, fearing the effect upon Herod, vehemently accuse Him. There is not even a word of warning or rebuke, but only that unbroken silence so much more terrible.
The unhappy man answers it but with mockery. Arraying Him in a brilliant robe, perhaps that of a candidate for honors, he sends the Lord back to Pilate, as if to intimate that such claims as these merited no more serious consideration.
With this Pilate and Herod are made friends again: they had before been at enmity. They are often represented as united by their common enmity to Christ; but enmity is too strong a term: He had not in fact been enough to them even to draw out enmity. He was to them, as with so many, a mere circumstance in a day’s history, with Pilate an annoying one; with Herod, the possible material for amusement which it had failed to yield. Both men had enough of scepticism in them to make it impossible to give themselves to investigate a difficult problem, as to which the cost was much more certain than the profit. Their friendships were probably much less real than their enmities; but both were in a world where Christ was not. or an uncertain speculation at the most. Would that one could believe it an uncommon case.
4. The matter is again upon Pilate’s hands, however, who has just enough conscience and enough guilt of his own; to make him unwilling to burden himself with the guilt of others. These miserable Jews too, whom he despised and hated, but who held him by that formidable reminder of his accountability to Caesar, who was near and real, whatever might be thought of God. So he weakens and vacillates, -makes it not a question of righteousness as at first, but of mercy, -puts it thus into the hands of the Jews themselves whose malignity even he cannot understand, -Barabbas or Jesus? Barabbas? then they must tell him what to do with Jesus, this man in whom no evil has been found: crucify him? surely impossible; but he is now helplessly in their hands. With a last vain effort to have the guilt wholly theirs, he delivers up the Man whose innocency he has so openly declared to the death of the slave, of the criminal, and the curse of God (Deu 21:23).
Observe here, the vile affronts, the horrid abuses, the injuries and indignities which were put upon the holy and innocent Jesus in the day of his sufferings; the rude officers and servants spit in his face, blindfolded his eyes, smote him with their hands, and in contempt and scorn bid him prophecy who it was that smote him. Verily there is no degree of contempt, no mark of shame, no kind of suffering which we ought to decline for Christ’s sake, who hid not his face from shame and spitting, upon our account.
Luk 22:63-65. And the men that held Jesus mocked him What has just been related concerning Peter, passed while the priests examined Jesus, of which examination, before Luke gives an account, he mentions the following remarkable circumstance, namely, that the men who held Jesus mocked him and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, struck him on the face These circumstances are placed by Matthew and Mark after the councils condemning him. Perhaps he was abused in the same manner both before and after his condemnation. Certainly his judges and their retinue were abundantly capable of being thus unjust and barbarous toward him. Nevertheless, what Luke has said here, does not necessarily oblige us to suppose this. He might conclude his account of Peters denials with relating what followed upon our Lords being condemned, because it happened immediately after the last denial; and to show what a load of indignity was laid at once on the Son of God; namely, that while the most zealous of all his disciples was denying him with oaths and imprecations, the servants and others were insulting him in the most barbarous manner. Macknight. Saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? This usage of Christ, says Dr. Hammond, refers to that sport so ordinary among children, called , in which it is the manner, first to blindfold, then to strike, (Luk 22:63,) then to ask who gave the blow, and not to let the person go till he had named the right man who had struck him. It was used on this occasion to reproach our blessed Lord, and to expose him to ridicule. Many other things spake they blasphemously against him The expression is remarkable. They charged him with blasphemy, because he said he was the Son of God: but the evangelist fixes that charge on them, because he was really so.
(2.) Luk 22:63-65.
The evil treatment mentioned here is the same as that related by Matthew and Mark, and placed by them after the sitting of the Sanhedrim at the house of Caiaphas. It is the parody of the prophetic knowledge of Jesus, the ridicule of the Jews. We shall afterwards see the derision of the Gentiles.
JESUS CONDEMNED BY THE SANHEDRIN
Mat 26:59-68; Mar 14:55-65; Luk 22:63-71;Joh 18:19-24. Then the high priest asked Jesus concerning His disciples and teaching. Jesus responded to Him, I spoke boldly to the world. I always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; behold, they know the things which I said. He, speaking these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Do you thus answer the high priest? Jesus responded to him, If I spoke wickedly, testify concerning the wickedness; but if truly, why do you smite Me? Then Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. Evidently, Annas and Caiaphas had their tribunals in the same great quadrangular building standing on Mount Zion, and now visited by the thirty thousand pilgrims annually going to Jerusalem. Having first been arraigned at the tribunal of Annas, He is now, about day-dawn, led bound to the tribunal of Caiaphas. You see how the high priest endeavored to make Him confess, hoping to utilize His own testimony against Himself, as they had no witnesses to amount to anything, and thus condescended to a very cowardly stratagem, which even if he had succeeded, the law pronounces the weakest of all evidence. It was awfully barbaric for that officer to smite a prisoner in bonds. You see, Jesus vindicates Himself reminding the man of the criminal impropriety of this uncouth assault upon a defenseless prisoner illustrating the right of all His followers to vindicate themselves from false accusation, violence, and tyranny, and refuting the idea somewhat prevalent that we are never to advocate our rights and vindicate ourselves against the oppression of the wicked.
Luk 22:66. And when it was day, the eldership of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes were assembled, and led Him into the Sanhedrin. As they had been on His track, like bloodhounds, three years, eager to take, His life (but restrained by the fear of the people; and well they might be, because a bloody civil war would have broken out immediately), such is their fear of the people that they attack Him at midnight, aiming to secure the death-warrant and kill Him before day. In this they are disappointed and woefully disconcerted, being unable to convene the Sanhedrin till day dawn, though keeping couriers running at race-horse speed all night, (notifying and urging them up. The Sanhedrin was the highest court of the politico-ecclesiasticism, the successor of the eldership organized by Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, during their wilderness peregrinations.
Mar 14:55-59. And the high priest and all the Sanhedrin continued to seek testimony against Jesus to put him to death, and they found none. Matthew says false testimony. Of course, they preferred true testimony if they could get it; but as there was none, they were anxious to take any kind they could get. For many continued to testify falsely against Him, and their testimonies were not equal, i. e., they contradicted one another, which in law invalidates both, so that they are thrown out of court. And certain ones, rising up, falsely testified against Him, saying, We heard Him saying, That I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and in three days I will build another, made without hands. Indeed their testimony was not equal; i. e., they contradicted one another. Perhaps some of the witnesses gave it correctly; but you have only to look at Joh 2:19, Destroy this temple, and I will build it in three days, to see that the above witnesses were false, as they testified that He said, I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and build another, made without hands. By comparison, you see that these witnesses did not quote Him correctly, as their testimony would make it mean that great stone edifice standing on Mount Moriah; while He did not mean that at all, but the temple of His body. Why did He not correct them when so grossly misrepresenting Him? Because it would have done no good, as Satan was in them, and they were thirsting for His blood.
Mat 26:62-66. The high priest, standing up, said to Him, Do You answer nothing? What are they witnessing against Thee? And Jesus was silent. Under temptation, the better policy is, like Jesus, to keep silent. You should never speak while under severe provocation. The high priest, responding, said to Him, I assure Thee by the living God, that Thou mayest tell us if Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus says to him, Thou sayest it. That is an Oriental form of affirmation. Here, you see, Jesus answers while under oath of affirmation, administered by the high priest. Hence you see His indirect approval appertaining to the civil oath of affirmation. Paul (1Th 5:23) administers a solemn oath to the Thessalonian saints to read his letter to all the members of the Church.
Moreover I say unto you, Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven. The first clause of this wonderful prophecy of our Lord was fulfilled when they saw Him rise from the dead and ascend up to heaven from Mount Olivet; while the second clause, coming in the clouds of heaven, will be fulfilled when Jesus shall ride down on a cloud and receive all the kingdoms of this world (Dan 7:9-14) and reign forever. In this wonderful sentence there is not so much as a comma, yet those two clauses are separated by many centuries, the former being verified in a few days, and the latter still pending.
Then the high priest tore His robes, saying, That He blasphemed; what need of testimony have we yet? Behold, now , you have heard His blasphemy. What seems good to you? And they, responding, said, He is worthy of death. Mark says this verdict was unanimous, So here you see the issue of His prosecution before the Sanhedrin They unanimously condemned Him to die for blasphemy, according to the law of Moses. (Lev 24:16.) Thus you see, good and just laws become vehicles of tyranny and persecution when in the hands of bad men, and are no guarantee of fight and justice when the devil is in the administrators. Jesus died under the verdict of Divine law, and so did all the martyrs, there being no trouble about the law; but Satan was in the preachers and ruling elders. So it is this day. Some of the brightest saints that walk beneath the skies, have been excommunicated, while drunkards, libertines, blasphemers, and thieves have been retained without impeachment. Such was the case in the days of Luther and Wesley, and always will be so when Diabolus gets into the clergy and official laity.
Luk 22:63-65. And the men who had charge of Jesus began to mock Him, beating Him; and covering Him, continued to strike His face, and ask Him, saying, Prophesy, who is the one smiting thee? And blaspheming Him as to many other things, they continued to speak against Him. The truth of it is, Jesus had no trial, it was a mockery; to their infinite shame, barbarically abusing Him while a prisoner in chains, which is revolting to the very idea of civil, not to say ecclesiastical administration. Nicodemus certifies that Jewish law never condemned a man till he met his accusers face to face, and had a fair and impartial trial. Festus, the Roman proconsul, makes the same statement in reference to imperial law. Hence, Jesus was mobbed and outlawed. But did He not come into the world to die? Most assuredly; and He would have died to redeem the world from sin, death, and hell if neither Judas nor Caiphas had ever been born. Yet that is no apology for the diabolical treason, perfidy, and murder which they committed, overtly, without excuse.
Verse 63
Mocked him; mocked and ridiculed his alleged claim to the character of king.
22:63 {20} And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote [him].
(20) Christ bore the shame that was due for our sins.
2. The mockery of the soldiers 22:63-65 (cf. Matthew 26:67-68; Mark 14:65)
Evidently this mockery happened during Peter’s denial and at the end of Jesus’ hearing before Caiaphas. Luke probably placed it here in his narrative as a transition to contrast Peter’s attempts to avoid suffering with the sufferings of Jesus. It introduces Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ trials. Luke’s is the longest of the synoptic accounts. It presents Jesus as a real man suffering unjustly at the hands of His accusers.
The men holding Jesus in custody were the religious leaders (Luk 22:52; cf. Mat 26:66-67; Mar 14:64-65). Luke presented Jesus as a prophet. He probably included this incident to show that Jesus’ failure to prophesy was not due to inability but to His purpose to lay down His life as a sacrifice. Jesus’ passive acceptance of all this foul treatment shows the same thing. [Note: See Laurna L. Berg, "The Illegalities of Jesus’ Religious and Civil Trials," Bibliotheca Sacra 161:643 (July-September 2004):330-42.]
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)