John 18:23

For since it is written, "Neither shall revilers inherit the kingdom of God," and again the Lord says in His Gospel, "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool; and whosoever shall say, Raca, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire," how can they evade the rebuke of the Lord the avenger, who heap up such expressions, not only on their brethren, but also on the priests, to whom is granted such honour of the condescension of God, that whosoever should not obey his priest, and him that judgeth here for the time, was immediately to be slain? In Deuteronomy the Lord God speaks, saying, "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest or to the judge, whosoever he shall be in those days, that man shall die; and all the people, when they hear, shall fear, and shall do no more wickedly." Moreover, to Samuel when he was despised by the Jews, God says; "They have not despised thee, but they have despised me." And the Lord also in the Gospel says, "He that heareth you, heareth me, and Him that sent me; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me, rejecteth Him that sent me." And when he had cleansed the leprous man, he said, "Go, show thyself to the priest." And when afterwards, in the time of His passion, He had received a buffet from a servant of the priest, and the servant said to Him, "Answerest thou the high priest so? " the Lord said nothing reproachfully against the high priest, nor detracted anything from the priest's honour; but rather asserting His own innocence, and showing it, He says, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? " Also subsequently, in the Acts of the Apostles, the blessed Apostle Paul, when it was said to him, "Revilest thou God's priest? […]

"If," He says, "you can find fault with what I said, then prove that I spoke wrongly; but if you cannot, then why do you strike Me?" Or also thus: "If I spoke wrongly," that is, if I taught wrongly when I taught in the …

"Jesus answered him." Here is noted the fourth point, namely the endurance of patience, which is indicated in the Lord's response, because he bears with the wicked servant: whence he adds: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil:" as if to say: …

Here is fulfilled the prophecy, I gave my cheek to the smiters. Jesus, though struck unjustly, replied gently: Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me?

2320 Jesus justified himself, saying, If I have spoken wrongly, in my answer to the high priest, bear witness to the wrong. That is, if you have reason to reproach me for what I have just said, show that I have spoken badly, because "Only …

As if to say, If thou hast any fault to find with what I have said, show it; if thou hast not, why ragest thou? Or thus: If I taught any thing unadvisedly, when I taught in the synagogues, give proof of it to the high priest; but if I taught aright, so that even ye officers admired, why smitest thou Me, Whom before thou admiredst?

Jesus answered him,.... For the high priest took no notice of him, nor any of the sanhedrim, though the action was so insolent and indecent, both as to the manner in which it was done, and the person, an officer, by whom it was done; and considering the circumstances of it, in the palace of the high priest, in his presence, and before so grand a council, and whilst a cause was trying; and it was a barbarous, as well as an impious action, considering the person to whom it was done.

Spoken evil - In my answer to the high priest. If there was any disrespect to the office, and lack of regard for the law which appointed him, then testify to the fact, and let punishment be inflicted according to the law; compare Exo 22:28. But if well ... - While an accused person is on trial he is under the protection of the court, and has a right to demand that all legal measures shall be taken to secure his rights.

If I have spoken, &c.--"if I spoke" evil, in reply to the high priest. (Also see on Mr 14:54.) if well--He does not say "If not" evil, as if His reply were merely unobjectionable: "well" seems to challenge more than this as due to His remonstrance [BENGEL]. This shows that Mt 5:39 is not to be taken to the letter.

In this part of John's history of Christ's sufferings, three wonderful things stand out upon the surface of the narrative. To these three let us confine our attention. We should mark, for one thing, the amazing hardness of unconverted men. We see this in the conduct of the men by whom our Lord was taken prisoner. Some of them most probably were Roman soldiers, and some of them were Jewish servants of the priests and Pharisees. But in one respect they were all alike.

In this part of John's history of Christ's sufferings, three wonderful things stand out upon the surface of the narrative. To these three let us confine our attention. We should mark, for one thing, the amazing hardness of unconverted men. We see this in the conduct of the men by whom our Lord was taken prisoner. Some of them most probably were Roman soldiers, and some of them were Jewish servants of the priests and Pharisees. But in one respect they were all alike. Both parties saw our Lord's divine power exhibited, when they "went backward, and fell to the ground." Both saw a miracle, according to Luke's Gospel, when Jesus touched the ear of Malchus and healed him. Yet both remained unmoved, cold, indifferent and insensible, as if they had seen nothing out of the common way. They went on coolly with their odious business; "They took Jesus, bound Him, and led Him away." The degree of hardness and insensibility of conscience to which men may attain, when they live twenty or thirty years without the slightest contact with religion, is something dreadful and appalling. God and the things of God seem to sink out of sight and disappear from the mind's eye. The world and the things of the world seem to absorb the whole attention. In such cases we may well believe miracles would produce little or no effect, as in the case before us. The eye would gaze on them, like the eye of a beast looking at a romantic landscape, without any impression being made on the heart. He who thinks that seeing a miracle would convert him into a thorough Christian has got much to learn. Let us not wonder if we see cases of hardness and unbelief in our own day and generation. Such cases will continually be found among those classes of mankind, who from their profession or position are completely cut off from means of grace.

NOTE the words in verse 13—"and led him away to Annas first." This man, Annas, has not become so infamous as Pontius Pilate because his name did not happen to be mentioned in the Creed, but, in some respects, he was even more guilty than the Roman governor. He was one of those who handed over our Lord to Pilate and he is included in the judgment, "he that delivered Me unto you has the greater sin."

NOTE the words in verse 13—"and led him away to Annas first." This man, Annas, has not become so infamous as Pontius Pilate because his name did not happen to be mentioned in the Creed, but, in some respects, he was even more guilty than the Roman governor. He was one of those who handed over our Lord to Pilate and he is included in the judgment, "he that delivered Me unto you has the greater sin." It must not be forgotten that he was first in trying the Savior—let him have the full benefit of it—"hey led him away to Annas first." Who was this man to whose palace the Lord Jesus was first conducted? He was a man who had been high priest actually for a time and had, for some 50 years, been regarded as high priest by the Jews, while members of his family, one after another, had in turns nominally held the office. The high-priesthood had been degraded from its permanence to become little more than an annual office and hence the Evangelist significantly says of Caiaphas that, "he was the high priest that same year." But Annas would seem to have been secretly regarded by the Jews as the real high priest and respect to him in that capacity was the more easily offered because, according to Josephus, five of his sons and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, had succeeded him in the sacred office. To him, then, it was due that the victim of the priests should be first taken. He shall have this mark of distinction—"they led him away to Annas first." The Sacrifice of God, the Lamb of His Passover, the Scapegoat of the Lord's Atonement shall be brought before the priest before He is slain. The house of Annas was united to that of Caiaphas and it was proposed to detain the prisoner there till the Sanhedrim could be hastily convened for His trial.