Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
Bound Jesus was brought first to Annas for questioning about His followers and teaching, and when He pointed to His open teaching in synagogue and temple and told His questioner to ask those who heard Him, an officer struck Him in the face for answering so. When struck He answered mildly and calmly without retaliation or violence, demanding witness of the evil if He had spoken evil and asking why He was smitten if He had spoken well, thereby exposing the injustice and illegality of the blow. No sin had been proved against Him, yet He submitted to shameful treatment as humanity's substitute and surety, enduring abuse in human weakness to bear sin and save humanity when He could have used divine power to overcome His persecutors. By enduring taunts and blows meekly in human form with a sinless, patient heart that would not be provoked, He set an example of dignified forbearance under unjust treatment. His reply provides a model for defending oneself respectfully by demanding evidence and inviting correction if error can be proved, as Luther did in asking to be convinced from Scripture, and His treatment shows what His followers must be prepared to endure for His name.
Judgment Hall Setting
Bound Jesus was led first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that same year and who had given counsel that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. There the high priest questioned Him about His disciples and His doctrine, and He answered by pointing to His open teaching to the world in the synagogue and in the temple where the Jews always resort, to His having said nothing in secret, and to the duty to ask those who had heard Him what He had said. For answering the high priest in that way, one of the officers standing by struck Him in the face with the palm of his hand, and to that blow He made the reply about bearing witness if evil had been spoken and not smiting Him if He had spoken well. That reply came in a hostile examination in which He was coarsely accused, sneeringly questioned, and reviled. In that same hour hearing Peter deny Him caused Him a keener pang than the treatment He received from His enemies.
The examination belonged to a mock trial that was kept secret under a pretense of legality, so that the people could not come forward with testimony about His mighty works that would have condemned the actions of the Sanhedrin and led to His release. That trial was witnessed by Peter and John. John had entered openly as His follower and remained near Him in a secluded place where he could hear and see what took place.
Calm Rebuke Without Retaliation
Struck in the face for His answer, He replied mildly and calmly without retaliation or violence, demanding that witness be given of the evil if He had spoken evil and asking why He was smitten if He had spoken well. His answer was a calm, reasoned rebuke that called for evidence and challenged the assailant to explain himself, thereby exposing the injustice and illegality of the blow. No wrongdoing had been proved against Him, yet the blow was struck, and His demand laid bare that it had no cause and no right.
That calm reply came from a sinless, patient, gentle heart that would not be provoked, showing dignity without resentment. Through the insults, mockery, and scourging He spoke only what was essential, and spoke it in a way that glorified God. His fairness under the blow held together patience and dignity, answering evil with truth rather than anger.
No sin had been proved against Him, yet He submitted to shameful treatment and death as humanity's substitute and surety. Though He could have used divine power to overcome His persecutors and could have called angels to protect Him, He endured their abuse in human weakness as part of His mission to bear sin and save humanity. Enduring such insults in His humanity belonged to that mission, to suffer taunts and blows in human form rather than to deliver Himself. By enduring taunts and blows meekly in human form, He set an example of patient forbearance under unjust treatment.
Pattern for Faithful Witness
The verse gives a pattern for answering an unjust charge by demanding proof rather than submitting to it without evidence, calling for testimony to any wrong in what was said and refusing the blow if nothing wrong was spoken. That defense is respectful and calm, insisting that accusers identify and establish the evil alleged, and it invites correction if error can be shown from Scripture. Luther took that pattern as his own, asking his accusers and judges to prove his error from Scripture and from the prophets and declaring that he would retract if convinced by such proof.
The treatment surrounding the words also shows what followers must be prepared to endure for His name and for obedience to God, namely abuse and persecution when no wrongdoing has been proved. The trial itself was one He had prepared His disciples to face, since He was betrayed, condemned, humiliated, and reviled by a crowd that had once hailed Him as king. Their earlier experience with fickle followers helped them withstand insult and kept faith from resting on the changing opinions of the world. By contrast, Peter's failure to bear witness for Jesus in the time of test, when he trusted in himself and denied his Lord, exposes the danger of self-confidence when called to witness for Christ.
Bound Jesus was brought first to Annas for questioning about His followers and teaching, and when He pointed to His open teaching in synagogue and temple and told His questioner to ask those who heard Him, an officer struck Him in the face for answering so. When struck He answered mildly and calmly without retaliation or violence, demanding witness of the evil if He had spoken evil and asking why He was smitten if He had spoken well, thereby exposing the injustice and illegality of the blow. No sin had been proved against Him, yet He submitted to shameful treatment as humanity's substitute and surety, enduring abuse in human weakness to bear sin and save humanity when He could have used divine power to overcome His persecutors. By enduring taunts and blows meekly in human form with a sinless, patient heart that would not be provoked, He set an example of dignified forbearance under unjust treatment. His reply provides a model for defending oneself respectfully by demanding evidence and inviting correction if error can be proved, as Luther did in asking to be convinced from Scripture, and His treatment shows what His followers must be prepared to endure for His name.
Judgment Hall Setting
Bound Jesus was led first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that same year and who had given counsel that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. There the high priest questioned Him about His disciples and His doctrine, and He answered by pointing to His open teaching to the world in the synagogue and in the temple where the Jews always resort, to His having said nothing in secret, and to the duty to ask those who had heard Him what He had said. For answering the high priest in that way, one of the officers standing by struck Him in the face with the palm of his hand, and to that blow He made the reply about bearing witness if evil had been spoken and not smiting Him if He had spoken well. That reply came in a hostile examination in which He was coarsely accused, sneeringly questioned, and reviled. In that same hour hearing Peter deny Him caused Him a keener pang than the treatment He received from His enemies.
The examination belonged to a mock trial that was kept secret under a pretense of legality, so that the people could not come forward with testimony about His mighty works that would have condemned the actions of the Sanhedrin and led to His release. That trial was witnessed by Peter and John. John had entered openly as His follower and remained near Him in a secluded place where he could hear and see what took place.
Calm Rebuke Without Retaliation
Struck in the face for His answer, He replied mildly and calmly without retaliation or violence, demanding that witness be given of the evil if He had spoken evil and asking why He was smitten if He had spoken well. His answer was a calm, reasoned rebuke that called for evidence and challenged the assailant to explain himself, thereby exposing the injustice and illegality of the blow. No wrongdoing had been proved against Him, yet the blow was struck, and His demand laid bare that it had no cause and no right.
That calm reply came from a sinless, patient, gentle heart that would not be provoked, showing dignity without resentment. Through the insults, mockery, and scourging He spoke only what was essential, and spoke it in a way that glorified God. His fairness under the blow held together patience and dignity, answering evil with truth rather than anger.
No sin had been proved against Him, yet He submitted to shameful treatment and death as humanity's substitute and surety. Though He could have used divine power to overcome His persecutors and could have called angels to protect Him, He endured their abuse in human weakness as part of His mission to bear sin and save humanity. Enduring such insults in His humanity belonged to that mission, to suffer taunts and blows in human form rather than to deliver Himself. By enduring taunts and blows meekly in human form, He set an example of patient forbearance under unjust treatment.
Pattern for Faithful Witness
The verse gives a pattern for answering an unjust charge by demanding proof rather than submitting to it without evidence, calling for testimony to any wrong in what was said and refusing the blow if nothing wrong was spoken. That defense is respectful and calm, insisting that accusers identify and establish the evil alleged, and it invites correction if error can be shown from Scripture. Luther took that pattern as his own, asking his accusers and judges to prove his error from Scripture and from the prophets and declaring that he would retract if convinced by such proof.
The treatment surrounding the words also shows what followers must be prepared to endure for His name and for obedience to God, namely abuse and persecution when no wrongdoing has been proved. The trial itself was one He had prepared His disciples to face, since He was betrayed, condemned, humiliated, and reviled by a crowd that had once hailed Him as king. Their earlier experience with fickle followers helped them withstand insult and kept faith from resting on the changing opinions of the world. By contrast, Peter's failure to bear witness for Jesus in the time of test, when he trusted in himself and denied his Lord, exposes the danger of self-confidence when called to witness for Christ.