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? 23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? 24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. 25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. 26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? 27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew. (John 18:22-27 KJV)
William Burkitt’s Commentary
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, Matthew 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 Matthew 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, Matthew 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.