Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:67
Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote [him] with the palms of their hands,
67. buffeted him ] Struck Him with clenched fist.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then did they spit in his face – This, among the Jews, as among us, was significant of the highest contempt and insult, Num 12:14; Isa 50:6; Job 30:10.
And buffeted him – That is, they struck him with their hands closed, or with the fist.
Others smote him with the palms of their hands – The word used in the original here means literally to strike with rods. It also means to strike the mouth with the open hand, as if to prevent a persons speaking, or to evince abhorrence of what he had spoken.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 67. Then did they spit in his face] This was done as a mark of the most profound contempt. See Job 16:10; Job 30:10; Isa 50:6; Mic 5:1. The judges now delivered him into the hands of the mob.
And buffeted him] Smote him with their fists, . This is the translation of Theophylact. , says he, means, “to beat with the hand, the fingers being clenched. , or, to speak more briefly, to buffet with the fist.”
Smote him with the palms of their hands] . , says Suidas, means ” , to smite the cheek with the open hand.” Thus they offered him indignity in all its various and vexatious forms. Insults of this kind are never forgiven by the world: Jesus not only takes no revenge, (though it be completely in his power,) but bears all with meekness, without even one word of reply.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark hath much the same, Mar 14:65; And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands. Though there be nothing more barbarous and inhuman than to add to the affliction of the afflicted, yet this is no more than we ordinarily see done by a rabble of brutish people; spitting in the face was but an ordinary token of contempt, Num 12:14; Deu 25:9. And perhaps in all these indignities Isaiah was a type of Christ, Isa 1:6, if that text be not to be understood of Christ immediately. In the mean time, it lets us see that there is no degree or mark of contempt, or shame, or suffering which we ought to decline and grudge at for the name of Christ; who, through much more excellent than us, yet for our sake endured the cross, and despised the shame.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Then did they spit in his face,…. Not the judges, the members of the sanhedrim, but the servants of the high priest, and the officers that had Jesus in hold, and were the guard upon him; see Lu 22:63, who seeing him condemned as guilty of death, thought they might insult him at pleasure, and use him in the most indecent and barbarous manner; and therefore, in a way of contempt, spit in his face; than which nothing was more reproachful and disgraceful: the Jews x say, that he that spits before, or in the presence of his master, is guilty of death, so nauseous and filthy was it accounted; and how much more must it be so, to spit in the face of anyone? hereby a prophecy was fulfilled, Isa 50:6, “I hid not my face from shame and spitting”: and hereby, together with his sweat and blood, his visage was more marred than any man’s, and his form than the sons of men:
and buffeted him; cuffed, or boxed him with their double fists:
and others smote him, with the palms of their hands; gave him many a slap on the face with their open hands, or struck him on the face with rods, as the word will bear to be rendered: they rapped him with the wands they had in their hands, and struck him on the head with the rods or staves they had with them; whereby was accomplished the prophecy, in Mic 5:1, “they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek”. This was very injurious treatment, the Jews themselves being witnesses; who have in their canons enjoined y, that
“if a man strikes his neighbour with his double fist, he must give him a shekel; R. Judah says, on account of R. Jose the Galilean, a pound: if he gives him a slap of the face, he must pay him two hundred zuzims, or pence; and if with the back of his hand (which was accounted z the more ignominious) four hundred zuzims: if he plucked him by his ear, or plucked off his hair, or spit, so as that the spittle came upon him, or took away his cloak–he must pay four hundred zuzims, and all according to his honour or dignity.”
All these indignities were done to Christ; see Isa 50:6.
x T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 99. 1. y Misn. Bava Kama, c. 8. sect. 6. z Maimon. & Bartenora in ib.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Buffet [] . With the fist.
Smote with the palms of their hands. All expressed by one word, ejrapisan, from rJapiv, a rod, and meaning to smite with rods, not with the palms. The same word is employed Mt 5:39. It came to mean generally to strike.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
(67) Then did they spit in his face.We learn from St. Mark (Mar. 14:65) and St. Luke (Luk. 22:63) that these acts of outrage were perpetrated, not by the members of the Sanhedrin, but by the officers who had the accused in their custody, and who, it would seem, availed themselves of the interval between the two meetings of the council to indulge in this wanton cruelty. Here, also, they were unconsciously working out a complete correspondence with Isaiahs picture of the righteous sufferer (Isa. 1:6). The word buffeted describes a blow with the clenched fist, as contrasted with one with the open palm.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
67. Then did they spit in his face Probably upon the retirement of the high priest the apprehenders of Jesus (Luk 22:63) and the crowd proceeded to these insults, He who had at his first arrest plentifully demonstrated his absolute power over his adversaries, now bows his head in complete abandonment to all which their rage pleases to inflict.
Buffeted him Struck him with the clenched fist, and then with the palms or flat hands.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Then they spat in his face and hit him, and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah. Who is he who struck you?” ’
Having obtained the verdict that they needed Jesus was first openly repudiated by symbolic actions (spitting was an acknowledged way of showing legally based contempt – compare Deu 25:9) and then handed over to the guards for horseplay. It is quite likely that members of the Sanhedrin initially took part. It was an official and open way of indicating legally based contempt for the accused. They would indeed feel it necessary to indicate their view of this man openly, and no doubt considered that by spitting on Him, slapping Him and mocking His ability to prophesy, they were doing precisely that (compare Deu 25:9 which emphasises how important physical acts of repudiation were seen to be). In those days even high level people expressed their contempt more openly and physically than they do now, and that was what they were doing here. Being able to identify those who slapped him was, according to some traditions, in line with what the Messiah was expected to be able to do. So such an idea probably made them feel justified in behaviour that disgusts us (including many modern Jews). Then He would be left in the hands of the guards who would simply imitate their betters.
The guards then also proceeded to spit in His face, and knock Him around, aping their betters, while others continued the idea of slapping Him and crying out, ‘Come on, you Messiah, prophesy who it was who hit you.’ To have a supposed Messiah and prophet at their mercy was too good an opportunity to miss, and they were after all only following the example of their superiors, even if a little more brutally. Convicted prisoners were looked on as fair game. Their treatment of Him would probably be good for a few drinks among their fellow-guards as they recounted the experience afterwards. Little were they aware that they were fulfilling prophecy (Isa 50:6) and that they would go down in history for it.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 26:67-68. Then did they spit in his face Spitting in the face was the greatest contempt and disgrace which could possibly be shewn. See Num 12:14. Buffeting or striking with the fist on the temples, was esteemed one of the most disgraceful punishments by the Greeks, from whom the Romans might have adopted it: smiting with the open palms of their hands, was esteemed such a dishonour, as none but a slave ought to endure. See Luk 22:64 and Isa 53:3; Isa 53:7. Because St. Matthew says, that they who condemned Jesus spit in his face and buffeted him; and St. Mar 14:65.mentionstheindignitiesinparticularwhichtheservantsputuponhim,it appears that he was smitten, blind-folded, and buffeted even by some of the council; who to ridicule him for having pretended to be the great prophet foretold by Moses, bade him, sarcastically, to exercise his prophetical gifts in guessing who it was that smote him. Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee? The word rendered prophesy, signifies not only to foretel things that are future, but also to discover any thing obscure or beyond the reach of uninspired nature. It was hardly possible for these miscreants to invent any thing more expressive of the contempt in which they held our Lord’s pretensions to the Messiahship. Thus was the judge of the world placed at the bar of his own creatures, falsely accused by the witnesses, unjustly condemned by his judges, and barbarously insulted by all! yet because it was agreeable to the end of his coming, he patiently submitted, though he could with a frown have made his judges, his accusers, and those who had him in custody, all to drop down dead in a moment, or sink into nothing! See Macknight, Grotius, Wetstein.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 26:67 . Those to whom Matthew here refers are the members of the Sanhedrim (as are also the of Mar 14:65 ). , . . ., Euthymius Zigabenus. Coarse outburst of passion on the verdict being announced. A somewhat different form of the tradition is adopted by Luke (Luk 22:63 ), who, moreover, represents the maltreatment here referred to as having taken place before the trial. The way in which harmonists have cut and carved upon the individual features of the narrative is altogether arbitrary. The account in Joh 18:22 has no connection with that now before us, but refers to an incident in the house of Annas, which the Synoptists have entirely omitted.
.] buffetings, blows with the fist . Comp. the Attic expression .
.] slaps in the face with the palm of the hand; , Euthymius Zigabenus; comp. Mat 5:39 ; Hos 11:5 ; Isa 50:6 ; Dem. 787, 23; Aristot. Meteor . ii. 8. 9; 3 Esdr. 4:30; Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 176; Becker, Anecd . p. 300. It is in this sense that the word is usually taken. But Beza, Bengel, Ewald, Bleek, Lange, maintain that it is a blow with a rod that is meant (Herod. viii. 59; Anacr. vii. 2; Plut. Them . xi.), the sense in which the word is commonly used by Greek authors, and which ought to be preferred here, because (see on Mat 28:16 ) introduces the mention of a different kind of maltreatment, and because in Mar 14:65 the is imputed to the officers of the Sanhedrim, which, however, would not warrant us in identifying with the latter the of Matthew.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 1405
THE INDIGNITIES OFFERED TO CHRIST IN THE PALACE OF THE HIGH PRIEST
Mat 26:67-68. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ; who is he that smote thee?
THE sufferings of our blessed Lord were not confined to the garden or the cross; but were continued through all the intervening period without intermission. Those which he experienced immediately after his condemnation by the Sanhedrim, may be considered in a twofold view;
I.
As inflicted on him
We cannot read the account given us by the different Evangelists, without being filled with utter astonishment at,
1.
The impiety of his persecutors
[In every civilized state condemned criminals are held as objects of compassion: when once the law is put in force against them, they are treated at least with outward decorum and respect; and every one would wish rather to alleviate, than to aggravate, their sorrows. But in the servants of the high-priest, if not in some of the Council also, we behold the most savage barbarity, and the most wanton cruelty. To spit in the face of a person was the greatest indignity that could be offered him: and to pluck off his beard by force, must needs be attended with excruciating pain, Yet in this way, together with blows, did they insult and torment the victim of their malice.
To this cruelty they added the most horrid blasphemy. Our Lord was known to have professed himself the Christ; and to have shewn himself a Prophet, mighty in words and deeds. But they made the very offices which he sustained for our salvation a subject of profane derision: they blindfolded him, and then smote him with canes, and with the palms of their hands, saying unto him, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ; Who is he that smote thee? They had accused him of blasphemy: but another evangelist justly retorts the charge; and says, in reference to their present conduct, Many other things blasphemously spake they against him.
Who would have conceived that human nature should be capable of such atrocities?]
2.
The meekness and gentleness of Christ
[We are told in the foregoing verses, that Jesus held his peace amidst all the accusations of his enemies. The same conduct he observed under the aggravated trials that he now endured. Not an angry or vindictive word escaped his lips. How justly might he have vindicated his Divine character, by striking dead upon the spot the persons who so wantonly abused him! He might at least have dwelt more largely on the hint which he had suggested, when adjured by the high-priest to declare his real character [Note: ver. 64.]; and might have told them how he would resent and punish their impieties when they should stand before his tribunal. It might indeed be supposed that he uttered many things which are not recorded in this brief history; but, whatever he might say or do on other occasions, we are sure that, during the whole scene of his last sufferings, when he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.]
But these indignities are to be considered in another view, namely,
II.
As bearing testimony to him
The general agreement between our Lords character and the prophecies concerning him, is a convincing evidence of his Messiahship
[The circumstances which were foretold respecting him were so numerous, so minute, so improbable, and so contradictory, (if we may so speak,) that no one could have ventured to predict such things respecting an impostor; nor could they have been fulfilled in him by chance. None but God, who ordereth all things according to the counsel of his own will, could have foreseen them, or have secured their accomplishment: and therefore the things, so foreseen, and so accomplished, infallibly testify, that the person in whom they were accomplished was indeed the Christ ]
In these sufferings more especially we see a confirmation of all his pretensions and professions
[His trials, and his behaviour under them, were both subjects of prophecy. Let Micah tell us how the Messiah was to be treated: They shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek [Note: Mic 5:1.]. Let Isaiah describe his conduct under that and various other indignities: He gave his back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; he hid not his face from shame and spitting [Note: Isa 50:6. See also our Lords own prophecy, Luk 18:32.]. With these lights let me go and search for the Messiah. Where shall I find him? I go into the high-priests palace: I descend into the hall among the servants; there I see the indignities offered to the despised Nazarene: I behold him smitten on the face with sticks, as well as with the palms of their hands [Note: Beza justly translates bacillis ceciderunt. And this marks the accomplishment of Micahs prophecy.]: I see the inhuman wretches spitting in his face; whilst he endures all his sufferings with invincible patience. There, therefore, I recognize the Messiah, the Saviour of the world; and falling down before him, I exclaim with Thomas, My Lord, and my God!]
In this history we behold, as in a glass,
1.
How Christ is yet treated by an ungodly world
[It is not any longer in the power of any to offer him the same personal insults that are recorded in the text: but as they who live in sin are said to crucify the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame, so may they with equal justice be said to spit in his face and buffet him: and, while they imagine that he neither regards nor notices their impieties, they do in fact repeat the blasphemies of those who smote him, and say, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ; Who is he that smote thee? Let then the indignation which we feel against that blasphemous and inhuman rabble, be turned against ourselves: for, as often as we have violated his laws, and encouraged ourselves with hopes of impunity in sin, we have renewed the transactions of that awful day: and we have even more need to humble ourselves than they, inasmuch as we have professed to acknowledge him as our Saviour, whereas they really thought him an impostor, who deserved all that they inflicted on him.]
2.
How his disciples must expect to be treated
[The servant must not expect to be above his Lord: if they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, much more will they those of his household. Indeed, as in the case before us, the very name by which God himself has designated them is used against them in a way of profane derision, and made a term of the most malignant reproach. We appeal to all, whether the children of God are not continually called in Scripture the elect: yet is there not in the whole language one single term that is so offensive to the world at large, or that is used with more bitter sarcasm than this. Yes; this is regarded precisely as the terms Christ and Prophet were by those persecutors of our Lord: and the same idea of presumption and hypocrisy is now attached to those who claim the former title, as was annexed to the pretensions of our blessed Lord to the office and character of the Messiah. But as then the contempt poured on Jesus confirmed that very truth which it was designed to invalidate, so the reproach cast on Gods elect at this day, is an evidence in their favour: our Lord himself declared, that it should turn unto us for a testimony [Note: Luk 21:12-13.]. Let us not then think it strange if we are called to endure fiery trials; but let us expect to be conformed to our blessed Saviour as well in sufferings as in glory.]
3.
How we are to conduct ourselves under such treatment
[We should arm ourselves with the same mind that was in Christ Jesus. We should possess our souls in patience, and let patience have its perfect work. Being reviled, we should bless; being defamed, we should entreat; being persecuted, we should suffer it. We should not either in word or deed avenge ourselves, but give our cheek to the smiters like him [Note: Lam 3:30.], and commit ourselves to him who judgeth righteously; who will in due time recompense tribulation to them who trouble us, and to us who are troubled, rest.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Ver. 67. Then did they spit in his face ] Condemned prisoners are sacred things; and by the law of nations, should not be misused and trampled on, but rather pitied and prepared for death. But these barbarous miscreants (not without the good liking of their lords the priests and elders) spare for no kind of cruelty toward Christ, who was content to be spit upon, to cleanse our faces from the filth of sin, to be buffeted with fists, and beaten with staves, a to free us from that mighty hand of God, 1Pe 5:6 , and from those scourges and scorpions of infernal fiends.
a , bacillis ceciderunt. Beza.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
67. ] Luke gives these indignities, and in the same place as here, adding, what indeed might have been suspected, that it was not the members of the Sanhedrim, but the men who held Jesus in custody , who inflicted them on Him.
is to strike with the fist ; , generally, to strike a flat blow with the back of the hand but also, and probably here, since another set of persons are described as doing it, to strike with a staff .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:67-68 : to judicial injustice succeed personal indignities: spitting in the face ( ), miting with the fist ( , not Attic, used instead), or with the open hand ( , originally to beat with rods). Euthy. Zig. distinguishes the two last words thus: is a stroke on the neck with the hollow of the hand so as to make a noise, a stroke on the face. The p petrators of these outrages in Mk. are and , the former word presumably pointing to some Sanhedrists. In Mt. the connection suggests Sanhedrists alone. Incredible that they should condescend to so unworthy proceedings, one is inclined to say. Yet it was night, there was intense dislike and they might feel they did God service by disgracing a pretender. Hence the invitation to the would-be christ to prophesy ( ) who smote him when he was struck behind the back or blindfolded (Mar 14:65 ). Thus did they fill up the early hours of the morning on that miserable night. Sceptical critics, e.g. , Brandt, p. 69, also Holtz., H. C., suggest that the colouring of this passage is drawn from O. T. texts, such as Micah 4:14 (Sept [146] Mat 5:1 , A. V [147] ), Isa 50:6 ; Isa 53:3-5 , 1Ki 22:24 , and that probably the texts created the “facts”. That of course is abstractly possible, but the statement of the evangelist is intrinsically probable, and it is to be noted that not even in Mt. is there a “that it might be fulfilled”.
[146] Septuagint.
[147] Authorised Version.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 26:67-68
67Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, 68and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?”
Mat 26:67-68 It is uncertain whether these acts were perpetrated by the members of the Sanhedrin themselves and by their attendants. Mar 14:65 states they blindfolded Him, hit Him, and demanded He tell them who did it! This may be a fulfillment of Isa 53:3.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
in = on to. Greek. eis.
buffeted = cuffed, or slapped.
smote . . . hands. One word in the Greek Not necessarily implying “rods”. See Mat 5:39. Mar 14:65. Joh 18:22; Joh 19:3. Compare Isa 50:6 (Septuagint) and Hos 5:1; Hos 11:4 (Symmachus). Greek. rapizo. Occurs only in Matthew, here and Mat 5:39.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
67.] Luke gives these indignities, and in the same place as here, adding, what indeed might have been suspected, that it was not the members of the Sanhedrim, but the men who held Jesus in custody, who inflicted them on Him.
is to strike with the fist; , generally, to strike a flat blow with the back of the hand-but also, and probably here, since another set of persons are described as doing it, to strike with a staff.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:67. , …, then, etc.) As if no outrage would now be unjust towards Him. The elders insult Him with greater subtlety, the multitude more grossly. He who assails the honour of God, deserves every contumely. Such an one they considered Jesus to be.-, they struck Him) with the fist, with the hand.-, they smote Him) with rods, for the attendants carried these. See Mar 14:65. Chrysostom observes, , nothing is more disgraceful than this blow.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Ashamed of Jesus!
Mat 26:67-75
What a shameful travesty of justice! When men yield themselves to violence like this, their passion condemns them as perpetrating the devils work. But in the whirlwind of abuse and horror, the one thing that hurt our Lord was the defection of Peter, Luk 22:61.
It was love that led him to dare to follow to the court. John contrived to get him in, Joh 18:16. But he stood too near the fire amid that motley group, who were discussing their night adventure. He had been too self-confident, Joh 13:36; he had not watched unto prayer, Mat 26:40. The more he cursed and swore, the more he betrayed his Galilean brogue. Ah, the agony that ensued! Did he rush off to Gethsemane, and throw himself on the bent grass, where the form of the Master had so recently lain prostrate? Did his tears mingle with the sweat of blood? But Jesus loved him still, and was preparing a propitiation that would cleanse his sin, as He had already secured that his faith should not fail, Luk 22:32.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
did: Mat 27:30, Num 12:14, Deu 25:9, Job 30:9-11, Isa 50:6, Isa 52:14, Isa 53:3, Mar 14:65, Mar 15:19, 1Co 4:13, Heb 12:2
buffeted him: [Strong’s G2852], “smote him with their fists,” as Theophylact interprets.
and others: Mat 5:39; 1Ki 22:24; Jer 20:2; Lam 3:30, Lam 3:45; Luk 22:63; Joh 18:22, Joh 19:3; Act 23:2-3; 2Co 11:20-21
smote him: [Strong’s G4474], “smote him on the cheek with the open hand,” as Suidas renders. They offered him every indignity, in all its various and vexatious forms.
the palms of their hands: or, rods, Mic 5:1
Reciprocal: Jdg 16:25 – sport 2Ch 18:23 – Zedekiah Job 16:10 – they have smitten Job 30:10 – spare not to spit in my face Job 30:11 – let loose Psa 69:7 – shame Psa 109:20 – them Isa 3:5 – base Isa 49:7 – to him whom man despiseth Jer 37:15 – the princes Mat 20:19 – to mock Mar 10:34 – spit Luk 6:29 – smiteth Luk 18:32 – mocked 2Co 12:7 – to buffet 1Pe 2:20 – buffeted
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:67
The Sanhedrin could pronounce a sentence of death but it could not execute it, hence they gratified their wicked hearts by this contemptible treatment of Jesus. According to Num 12:14 and Deu 25:9 it was regarded as a disgrace to have another spit in one’s face. Thayer says to buffet means “to strike with the fist, give one a blow with the fist,” which would be intended to cause pain. To smite with the open hand was not so much to cause pain as it was to treat with contempt.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 26:67. Then did they spit in his face. The guard chiefly, but probably the members of the Sanhedrin also (Act 7:54; Act 7:57; Act 22:2). At all events they permitted it. It was an expression of the greatest contempt. Our Lord was treated as one excommunicated, though the final sentence had not been passed.
And buffet him. Struck Him with their fists.
And some (the officers, Mar 14:65) smote him. Either with the hand, or with rods, probably both. Comp, the similar treatment at the examination before Annas (Joh 18:22). This probably took place in part when Jesus was led into the court to be kept there until the morning. The officers were probably those warming themselves by the fire, and just then Peter denied Him for the third time, so that our Lord turned and looked on him (Luk 22:61).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 26:67-68. Then did they spit in his face, &c. Spitting in the face was the greatest contempt and disgrace which could possibly be shown. See Num 12:14. Buffeting, or striking a person with the fist on the temples, was esteemed one of the most disgraceful punishments by the Greeks, from whom the Romans might have adopted it. Smiting with the open palm of their hands, was such a dishonour as none but a slave ought to endure. Because Matthew here says, that they who condemned Jesus spit in his face, and buffeted him: and Mar 14:65, mentions the indignities which the servants in particular put upon him; it appears that he was smitten, blindfolded, and buffeted even by some of the council; who, to ridicule him for having pretended to be the great prophet foretold by Moses, bade him exercise his prophetical gift in guessing who it was that struck him; Prophesy unto us, thou Christ It was hardly possible for those miscreants to invent any thing more expressive of the contempt in which they held our Lords pretensions to be the Messiah. Thus was the Judge of the world placed at the bar of his own creatures, falsely accused by the witnesses, unjustly condemned by his judges, and insulted by all. Yet, because it was agreeable to the end of his coming, he patiently submitted, though he could with a frown have made his judges, his accusers, and those who had him in custody, all to drop down dead in a moment, or to shrivel into nothing. Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 67
They; the soldiers and attendants who had the prisoner in charge.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Jesus’ messianic claims did not impress or intimidate His accusers. They proceeded to humiliate Him for what they considered to be His false pretensions. [Note: See Laurna L. Berg, "The Illegalities of Jesus’ Religious and Civil Trials," Bibliotheca Sacra 161:643 (July-September 2004):330-42; The New Scofield . . ., p. 1042.] Jesus’ passive acceptance of these indignities only reinforced their assumption and encouraged them to be even more hostile (cf. Isa 53:7). Mark and Luke recorded that they blindfolded Jesus (Mar 14:65; Luk 22:64). Perhaps Matthew’s omission of this fact suggests that the leaders and or their servants beat Jesus so badly that He could not see who was doing the beating even if they had not blindfolded Him (cf. Isa 52:14). If He was the Messiah, He should have been able to tell (prophesy in the sense of revealing something unknown) who hit Him.