Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:22
And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
22. struck Jesus with the palm of his hand ] Literally, gave a blow, and the word for ‘blow’ (elsewhere Joh 19:3, Mar 14:65 only) etymologically means a ‘blow with a rod,’ but is also used for a ‘blow with the open hand.’ The word used for ‘smite’ in Joh 18:23 is slightly in favour of the former: but Mat 5:39 and Act 23:2 are in favour of the latter.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
One of the officers – One of the inferior officers, or those who attended on the court.
With the palm, of his hand – This may mean: Gave him a blow either with the open hand or with a rod – the Greek does not determine which. In whatever way it was done, it was a violation of all law and justice. Jesus had showed no disrespect for the office of the high priest, and if he had, this was not the proper way to punish it. The Syriac reads thus: Smote the cheek of Jesus. The Vulgate and Arabic: Gave him a blow.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. One of the officers – struck Jesus] This was an outrage to all justice: for a prisoner, before he is condemned, is ever considered to be under the especial protection of justice; nor has any one a right to touch him, but according to the direction of the law. But it has been observed before that, if justice had been done to Christ, he could neither have suffered nor died.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This lets us see in what indecent disorder the Jewish government was at this time, that an inferior officer dared to strike a supposed criminal, standing before the judgment seat, and defending himself by their own known rules and methods; for what had our Saviour said or done, more than making use of the liberty their own law allowed; not confessing any thing against himself, but putting them upon the proof of what they laid to his charge? Yet we read of no notice taken of this disorder.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22. struck Jesus with the palm . . .Answerest Thou the high priest so(See Isa50:6; and compare Ac 23:2).(Also see on Mr 14:54.)
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And when he had thus spoken,…. What was so right and reasonable, in so becoming a manner, without heat or passion:
one of the officers which stood by; it may be one of those who had been sent to him and had been a hearer of him, whom Jesus might look wistfully at, or point unto, when he said the above words, at which he might be provoked: and therefore
stroke Jesus with the palm of his hand; or gave him a rap with a rod, or smote him with a staff, as some think, is the sense of the phrase; though the Syriac, agreeably to our version, reads it, he smote him, , “upon his cheek”; gave him, what we commonly call, a slap on the face; and which is always esteemed a very great affront, and was a piece of rudeness and insolence to the last degree in this man:
saying, answerest thou the high priest so? This he said, as well as gave the blow, either out of flattery to the high priest, or to clear himself from being a favourer of Christ; which, by what had been said, he might think would be suspected: some have thought this was Malchus, whose ear Christ had healed; if so, he was guilty of great ingratitude.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
When he had said this ( ). Genitive absolute of second aorist active participle of , to say.
Standing by (). Perfect active (intransitive) participle of (transitive), to place beside. One of the temple police who felt his importance as protector of Annas.
Struck Jesus with his hand ( ). Late word is from , to smite with a rod or with the palm of the hand (Mt 26:67). It occurs only three times in the N.T. (Mark 14:65; John 18:22; John 19:3), in each of which it is uncertain whether the blow is with a rod or with the palm of the hand (probably this, a most insulting act). The papyri throw no real light on it. “He gave Jesus a slap in the face.” Cf. 2Co 11:20.
So (). As Jesus had done in verse 21, a dignified protest in fact by Jesus.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Struck – with the palm of his hand [ ] . Literally, gave a blow. Interpreters differ as to whether it was a blow with a rod, or with the hand. The kindred verb rJapizw, from rJapiv, a rod, is etymologically related to rJabdizw, from rJabdov, a rod, and occurs Mt 5:39, of smiting on the cheek, and Mt 26:67, where it is distinguished from kolafizw, to strike with the fist. This latter passage, however, leaves the question open, since, if the meaning to smite with a rod can be defended, there is nothing to prevent its being understood there in that sense. The earlier meaning of the word was, undoubtedly, according to its etymology, to smite with a rod. So Herodotus of Xerxes. “It is certain that he commanded those who scourged [. ] the waters (of the Hellespont) to utter, as they lashed them, these barbarian and wicked words” (vii. 35). And again : “The Corinthian captain, Adeimantus, observed, ‘Themistocles, at the games they who start too soon are scourged [] ‘” (viii. 59). It passes, in classical Greek, from this meaning to that of a light blow with the hand. The grammarian Phrynichus (A. D. 180) condemns the use of the word in the sense of striking with the hand, or slapping, as not according to good Attic usage, and says that the proper expression for a blow on the cheek with the open hand is ejpi korrhv pataxai. This shows that the un – Attic phrase had crept into use. In the Septuagint the word is clearly used in the sense of a blow with the hand. See Isa 50:6 : “I gave my cheeks to blows [ . ] . Hos 11:4,” As a man that smiteth [] upon his cheeks “(A. V. and Rev., that take off the yoke on their jaws). In 1Ki 22:24, we read,” Zedekiah – smote Micaiah on the cheek [ ] . “The word in ver. 23, dereiv, literally, flayest, hence, do beat or thrash (compare Luk 12:47), seems better to suit the meaning strike with a rod; yet in 2Co 11:20, that verb is used of smiting in the face [ ] , and in 1Co 9:27, where Paul is using the figure of a boxer, he says,” So fight I (pukteuw, of boxing, or fighting with the fists), not as one that beateth [] the air. ” These examples practically destroy the force of the argument from dereiv. It is impossible to settle the point conclusively; but, on the whole, it seems as well to retain the rendering of the A. V. and Rev. 52
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And when he had thus spoken,” (tauta de autou eipontos) “Then when he had said these things,” referring the high priest to the kind of testimony required of his own law, certifying that such was available without harassing Him, whose testimony they had already rejected as invalid or inadequate, Joh 1:11; Joh 5:43; Joh 11:47-48; Joh 11:53.
2) “One of the officers which stood by,” (eis parestekos ton hupereton) “One of the attendants or officers stood by,” one of the Levite officers, not a Roman Soldier, one also religiously biased, who had gone out with the Roman band to arrest Him in the night-hours, led by Judas Iscariot, who had been paid by the priests and rulers to lead them to Jesus in privacy, away from the multitudes, Joh 18:3; Luk 22:52.
3) “Struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying,” (edoken krapisma to lesou eipon) “Dealt a blow to Jesus repeatedly saying,” with reproach in humiliating derision, Job 16:10. This is a similar treatment to that shown Paul at the orders of Ananias the high priest, Act 23:2-3.
4) “Answerest thou the high priest so?” (houtos apokrine to archierei) “Do you answer the high priest like this?” Perhaps no answer would have satisfied them, so dastardly were they pursuing their deed, without regard for their own law. They became a law unto-themselves.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
22. When he had said these things. This is added, in order to inform us, first, how great was the rage of the enemies of Christ, and how tyrannical their government was; and, secondly, what sort of discipline existed among those priests. They sit like judges, but they are as cruel as ferocious beasts. A council is assembled, in which the utmost gravity ought to have prevailed; and yet a single officer is so daring and presumptuous, that, in the midst of the judicial proceedings, and in the presence of the judges, he strikes the person accused, who was not found to be in any respect guilty. We need not wonder, therefore, that the doctrine of Christ is condemned by so barbarous an assembly, from which not only all justice, but likewise all humanity and modesty, are banished.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(22) With the palm of his hand.The Greek word occurs again in the New Testament only in Joh. 19:3, and Mar. 14:65 (see Note there, and on Mat. 26:67). It is uncertain whether it means here a blow with the hand or, as the margin renders it, with a rod. The word originally means a stroke with a rod, but in classical usage it acquired also the meaning of a slap in the face, or box on the ear, and the corresponding verb is certainly used in this sense in Mat. 5:39. We may gather from Act. 23:2 that a blow on the face was a customary punishment for a supposed offence against the dignity of the high priest; but in that case it was ordered by the high priest himself, and the fact that it was here done without authority by one of the attendants confirms the opinion that this was not a legal trial before the judicial authority.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. One of the officers struck Jesus Flattering the high dignitary by a forward and unbidden avenging of his slighted dignity. In truth the very fact that Annas was not a regular official may have rendered his adherents and retainers more jealous for his honour and authority.
With the palm It is uncertain from the Greek whether the blow was with the hand or a staff.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And when he had said this one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Do you answer the High Priest in this way?” Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken evil testify in what way it is evil, but if well, why do you hit me?”
An officer who stood by struck Him. This behaviour was typical of arrogant authority. This man did not like Jesus making a confident reply. The purpose of this hearing was in order to bring Him to submission, not so that He could defend Himself. Bullies will always take advantage of situations to make themselves look important and win appreciation from their superiors. Annas could have demonstrated his character by intervening. But his aim too was subjection. His character was shown to be lacking. The brutal and unreasonable nature of the examination is clearly brought out.
And Jesus quietly made them all aware of their guilt. It was not His supposed evil they were concerned with but their own self-aggrandisement.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 18:22-23. One of the officersstruck Jesus As the word is supposed by many etymologists to be derived from , a staff, or stick, Beza would therefore render the passage, he smote Jesus with a staff. But the word is apparently used for any blow, and would most literally be rendered, gave Jesus a blow; though from Mat 5:39 one would be apt to interpret it in the sense which our translators have given it. Suidas also explains it in the same sense. The meaning of Joh 18:23 considered as our Lord’s immediate reply to the officer who struck him, is sufficiently manifest. Mr. Bonnell, however, and some other expositors, suppose that the original conveys the following more extensive sense: “If thou hast been one of my hearers, and canst say that I at any time have spoken evil, either of God or man, in the course of my preaching, thou wilt do well to bear thy testimony concerning that evil, and give it in evidence to the court; but if I have spoken well, can reason be answered by blows? or can such a sober appeal to it deserve them?” Thus our Lord became an example of his own precept, Mat 5:44 bearing the greatest injuries with a patience which could not be provoked.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 18:22-23 . Whether is a blow on the face, box on the ear (so usually), or stroke with a rod (Beza, Bengel, Godet), cannot be decided. Comp. on Mat 26:67 . But the former, because the blow was wont to be the chastisement for an impudent speech (comp. Act 23:2 ), is the more probable, and is not opposed to it (2Co 11:20 ). That which here one of the officers of justice, who stood in waiting (see the critical notes), takes upon himself for the honour of his master (“fortis percussor et mollis adulator,” Rupert.), can hardly be conceived as taking place in an orderly sitting of the Sanhedrim before the acting high priest (in Act 23:2 it is done at the command of the latter), but rather at an extra-judicial sitting.
] So unbecomingly (Fritzsche, ad Marc . p. 150 f.; Bremi, ad Lys. et Aesch . p. 124, 355); comp. on 1Co 5:3 .
Joh 18:23 . Important for the ethical idea expressed in Mat 5:39 . [214] Comp. the note on Mat 5:41 .
] bear witness . He must, in truth, have been an ear-witness.
[214] Luther: “This thou shouldest therefore understand, that there is a great difference between these two; to turn the cheek to the one, and with words to punish him who strikes us. Christ must suffer, but nevertheless the word is put in His mouth, that He should speak and punish what is wrong. Therefore, I should separate the mouth and the hand from one another.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
Ver. 22. One of the officers ] Because our Saviour gave not the high priest his usual titles, but dealt freely with him, this officer, to curry favour, Veluti pontificii honoris vindex, beats our Saviour with his hand or stick, and is the better thought of. Like master, like man. So the bishop of Geneva’s servant discharged his pistol at Farellus (that faithful man of God) when he was convented before his Lord; but by God’s good providence missed him. Disploso sclopeto a Vicarii famulo, sed frustra impetitur. (Scultet.) Great men’s vices go as seldom unattended as their persons; they shall be sure of such about them as will lick up their spittle, and load the mouse with the lion’s praises. Ne leonum laudibus murem obruas.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
22. ] See Act 23:2 .
. . . was probably one of the band who took Jesus (cf. , Joh 18:12 ), and had brought Him hither.
uncertain whether with the hand or a staff. , , Hesych [246] ; , Suidas: see Mat 5:39 . is not good Greek: see Phryn. p. 175, and Lobeck’s note. They had staves, and perhaps thus used them: see note on Mat 26:67 . This blow was a signal for the indignities which followed.
[246] Hesychius of Jerusalem, cent y . vi.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 18:22 . ; . The older meaning of was “to strike with a rod” sc. ; but in later Greek it meant “to give a blow on the cheek with the open hand”. This is put beyond doubt by Field, Otium Noru. , p. 71; cf. Rutherford’s New Phryn. , p. 257. R.V [90] marg. “with a rod” is not an improvement on R.V [91] text.
[90] Revised Version.
[91] Revised Version.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
And when He had thus spoken = But He having said these things.
struck . . . with the palm, . &c. = gave a blow. Greek. rapisma. Only here, Joh 19:3. Mar 14:65. This beginning of indignities may have been with or without a weapon.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
22.] See Act 23:2.
. . . was probably one of the band who took Jesus (cf. , Joh 18:12), and had brought Him hither.
-uncertain whether with the hand or a staff. , , Hesych[246];- , Suidas: see Mat 5:39. is not good Greek: see Phryn. p. 175, and Lobecks note. They had staves, and perhaps thus used them: see note on Mat 26:67. This blow was a signal for the indignities which followed.
[246] Hesychius of Jerusalem, centy. vi.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 18:22. , a stroke) with a rod or stick [Engl. Vers. with the palm of his hand]. Comp. ch. Joh 19:3, note; [not as Engl. Vers. They smote Him with their hands, but with a reed, as appears from Mar 15:19; or else with rods, as appears from] Mat 26:67, where is the word used to express blows with the hand; , blows with rods, which the servants had, note, Mar 14:65.-, so) in such a manner. He was not able to impugn the truth itself; he wishes to indicate that Jesus erred in the manner, as each most innocent person is often accused by the unjust. But Jesus defends even His manner, declaring that He has spoken, not ill, but well.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 18:22
Joh 18:22
And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?-The answer was construed as impertinent and one of the officers struck him on the mouth, and reproved him for so answering the high priest. [To hear a prisoner stand upon his rights and boldly defend them was new to the officer so he struck Jesus.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
struck: Job 16:10, Job 30:10-12, Isa 50:5-7, Jer 20:2, Mic 5:1, Mat 26:67, Mat 26:68, Mar 14:65, Luk 22:63, Luk 22:64, Act 23:2, Act 23:3
the palm of his hand: or, a rod
Answerest: Act 23:4, Act 23:5
Reciprocal: 2Ch 18:23 – Zedekiah Pro 17:26 – to strike Isa 50:6 – gave Jer 37:15 – the princes Luk 6:29 – smiteth Luk 18:32 – mocked Heb 12:3 – contradiction
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
Palm is from RHAPISMA, which seems to have a rather indefinite meaning. It is rendered “a rod” in the margin, but the lexicons do not require that translation, though they admit that the word sometimes may have that meaning. Both Thayer and Robinson prefer the definition, “A blow with the flat of the hand, a slap in the face.” It was intended as an insult and indignity. Answerest thou
the high priest sof They pretended that Jesus had shown disrespect to the dignity of the court.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 18:22. And when he had said these things, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? When we remember that the court in which the examination was going on could not be large, it seems probable that this officer said to have been standing by was one of those referred to in Joh 18:18 as the officers who stood by the fire. If so, the circumstance is important, as showing that Peter must have been in the immediate vicinity of Jesus at the moment when the blow was given. Under no circumstances indeed can he have been far off; and the fact is to be kept in view, for it constitutes one of the points of distinction between his first and his subsequent denials. The blow was a rude, perhaps a cruel one. It was also wholly unprovoked, for in the answer of Jesus there had been no want of courtesy. Yet it failed to disturb in the least degree the equanimity of the Sufferer, or to provoke Him out of His spirit of submission to His Heavenly Fathers will.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. How insolently and injuriously an officer strikes our Saviour in this court of judiacature: One of the officers struck Jesus with the palm of his hand.
What had the holy and innocent Jesus done, to deserve these buffetings?
He only made use of the liberty which their law did allow him, which was not to accuse himself, but to put them upon the proof of those accusations which were brought against him.
But from this instance of our Saviour’s sufferings, we learn, that Christ did endure painful buffetings, ignominious and contemptuous usage, even from inferior servants: giving his cheek to the smiters, to testify that shame and reproachful usage which was deserved by us, and to sanctify that condition to us, whenever it is allotted for us.
Observe, 2. The meek and gentle reproof which the Lord Jesus gives to this rude officer: he doth not strike him dead upon the place, nor cause that arm to wither which was stretched forth against the Lord’s Anointed; but only lets him know, that there was no reason for his striking of him.
Where note, that though our Saviour doth not revenge himself, yet he vindicates himself, and defends himself both with law and reason: If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?
Hence we learn, 1. That we are not literally to understand the command, Mat 5:39 of turning the cheek to him that smites us. For Christ himself did not this, but defends the innocency of his words.
2. That to stand up in defence of our own innocency, is not contrary either to the duties of patience and forgiveness, or to the practice and example of our Lord Jesus.
Note, 3. That when the soldier had struck Christ upon one cheek, he did not turn to him the other also, according to Mat 5:39. Which evidently shows, that that precept, If they smite thee on one cheek, turn the other also, commands only this, that rather than take revenge, we should bear a second injury.
Christians ought rather to suffer a double wrong, than to seek a private revenge: Christianity obliges us to bear many injuries patiently, rather than avenge one privately.
But though it binds up our hands from private revenge, yet it doth not shut our mouths from complaining to public authority. Christ’s own practice here expounds the precept elsewhere, Mat 5:39. For he complains here of the officer’s injustice in smiting him before the judicatory, and challenges the man to bear witness of the evil.
Observe, lastly, how our Lord was not only buffeted, but bound, and sent bound from Annas to Caiaphas, from Caiaphas to Pilate, from Pilate to Herod, and from Herod to Pilate again: and all this on foot through the streets of Jerusalem, from one end of the city to the other; partly to render his passion more public, being made a gazing-stock to the world, and a spectacle both to angels and men.
And his condescending to go bound from one tribunal to another, teaches his people what delinquents they were before the tribunal of God, and what they deserved by reason of sin; even a sentence of eternal condemnation at the tribunal of the just and holy God.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 22, 23. When he had said this, one of the officers, who was at his side, struck him with a rod, saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so? 23. Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if I have spoken well, why dost thou smite me?
The answer of Jesus certainly contained a tacit rebuke intended for the one who thus interrogated Him. An officer who wished to court the favor of his chief takes occasion to remind Jesus of the respect due to the ruler of Israel. The word properly means: a blow with a rod. Undoubtedly in Mat 5:39 the verb is taken in the sense of striking in the face. The proper sense, however, is here the more natural one; comp. the term , to flay, Joh 18:23. : to prove by a regular giving of testimony.
Jesus does not literally fulfil here His own precept, Mat 5:39; but by this reply, full of dignity and gentleness, He endeavors to bring the man to himself, which is precisely the moral fulfilment of that precept.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
The officer (Gr. hypereton) who struck Jesus was probably one of the Jewish temple police (cf. Joh 18:3). He interpreted Jesus’ response as discourteous and used it as an excuse to strike Him. The Greek word rhapisma translated "blow" (NASB) means a sharp blow with the palm of the hand. Jesus’ response to this attack was logical rather than emotional or physical. He simply appealed for a fair trial (cf. Act 23:2-5). The man who stuck Him was not treating Him fairly. This was a case of police brutality. Jesus had shown no disrespect for Annas. [Note: See Laurna L. Berg, "The Illegalities of Jesus’ Religious and Civil Trials," Bibliotheca Sacra 161:643 (July-September 2004):330-42.]