Luke 22:63

We are here told, as before in the other gospels,

I. How our Lord Jesus was abused by the servants of the high priest. The abjects, the rude and barbarous servants, gathered themselves together against him. They that held Jesus, that had him in custody till the court sat, they mocked him, and smote him (Luk 22:63), they would not allow him to repose himself one minute, though he had had no sleep all night, nor to compose himself, though he was hurried to his trial, and no time given him to prepare for it. They made sport with him: this sorrowful night to him shall be a merry night to them; and the blessed Jesus, like Samson, is made the fool in the play. They hood-winked him, and then, according to the common play that young people have among them, they struck him on the face, and continued to do so till he named the person that smote him (Luk 22:64), intending hereby an affront to his prophetical office, and that knowledge of secret things which he was said to have. We are not told that he said any thing, but bore every thing; hell was let loose, and he suffered it to do its worst. A greater indignity could not be done to the blessed Jesus, yet this was but one instance of many; for many other things blasphemously spoke they against him, Luk 22:65. They that condemned him for a blasphemer were themselves the vilest blasphemers that ever were.

II. How he was accused and condemned by the great sanhedrim, consisting of the elders of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes, who were all up betimes, and got together as soon as it was day, about five of the clock in the morning, to prosecute this matter. They were working this evil upon their beds, and, as soon as ever the morning was light, practised it, Mic 2:1. They would not have been up so early for any good work. It is but a short account that we have here of his trial in the ecclesiastical court.

1. They ask him, Art thou the Christ? He was generally believed by his followers to be the Christ, but they could not prove it upon him that he had ever said so totidem verbis - in so many words, and therefore urge him to own it to them, Luk 22:67. If they had asked him this question with a willingness to admit that he was the Christ, and to receive him accordingly if he could give sufficient proof of his being so, it had been well, and might have been for ever well with them; but they asked it with a resolution not to believe him, but a design to ensnare him.

2. He justly complained of their unfair and unjust usage of him, Luk 22:67, Luk 22:68. They all, as Jews, professed to expect the Messiah, and to expect him at this time. No other appeared, or had appeared, that pretended to be the Messiah. He had no competitor, nor was he likely to have any. He had given amazing proofs of a divine power going along with him, which made his claims very well worthy of a free and impartial enquiry. It had been but just for these leaders of the people to have taken him into their council, and examined him there as a candidate for the messiahship, not at the bar as a criminal. "But," saith he, (1.) "If I tell you that I am the Christ, and give you ever such convincing proofs of it, you are resolved that you will not believe. Why should the cause be brought on before you who have already prejudged it, and are resolved, right or wrong, to run it down, and to condemn it?" (2.) "If I ask you what you have to object against the proofs I produce, you will not answer me." Here he refers to their silence when he put a question to them, which would have led them to own his authority, Luk 20:5-7. They were neither fair judges, nor fair disputants; but, when they were pinched with an argument, would rather be silent than own their conviction: "You will neither answer me nor let me go; if I be not the Christ, you ought to answer the arguments with which I prove that I am; if I be, you ought to let me go; but you will do neither."

3. He referred them to his second coming, for the full proof of his being the Christ, to their confusion, since they would not now admit the proof of it, to their conviction (Luk 22:69): "Hereafter shall the Son of man sit, and be seen to sit, on the right hand of the power of God, and then you will not need to ask whether he be the Christ or no."

4. Hence they inferred that he set up himself as the Son of God, and asked him whether he were so or no (Luk 22:70): Art thou then the Son of God? He called himself the Son of man, referring to Daniel's vision of the Son of man that came near before the Ancient of days, Dan 7:13, Dan 7:14. But they understood so much as to know that if he was that Son of man, he was also the Son of God. And art thou so? By this it appears to have been the faith of the Jewish church that the Messiah should be both Son of man and Son of God.

5. He owns himself to be the Son of God: Ye say that I am; that is, "I am, as ye say." Compare Mar 14:62. Jesus said, I am. This confirms Christ's testimony concerning himself, that he was the Son of God, that he stood to it, when he knew he should suffer for standing to it.

6. Upon this they ground his condemnation (Luk 22:71): What need we any further witness? It was true, they needed not any further witness to prove that he said he was the Son of God, they had it from his own mouth; but did they not need proof that he was not so, before they condemned him as a blasphemer for saying that he was so? Had they no apprehension that it was possible he might be so, and then what horrid guilt they should bring upon themselves in putting him to death? No, they know not, neither will they understand. They cannot think it possible that he should be the Messiah, though ever so evidently clothed with divine power and grace, if he appear not, as they expect, in worldly pomp and grandeur. Their eyes being blinded with the admiration of that, they rush on in this dangerous prosecution, as the horse into the battle.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk 22:63-65. And the men that held Jesus mocked him — What has just been related concerning Peter, passed while the priests examined Jesus, of which examination, before Luke gives an account, he mentions the following remarkable circumstance, namely, that the men who held Jesus mocked him and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, struck him on the face — These circumstances are placed by Matthew and Mark after the council’s condemning him. Perhaps he was abused in the same manner both before and after his condemnation. Certainly “his judges and their retinue were abundantly capable of being thus unjust and barbarous toward him. Nevertheless, what Luke has said here, does not necessarily oblige us to suppose this. He might conclude his account of Peter’s denials with relating what followed upon our Lord’s being condemned, because it happened immediately after the last denial; and to show what a load of indignity was laid at once on the Son of God; namely, that while the most zealous of all his disciples was denying him with oaths and imprecations, the servants and others were insulting him in the most barbarous manner.” — Macknight. Saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? — “This usage of Christ,” says Dr. Hammond, “refers to that sport so ordinary among children, called μυινδα, in which it is the manner, first to blindfold, then to strike, (Luk 22:63,) then to ask who gave the blow, and not to let the person go till he had named the right man who had struck him. It was used on this occasion to reproach our blessed Lord, and to expose him to ridicule.” Many other things spake they blasphemously against him — The expression is remarkable. They charged him with blasphemy, because he said he was the Son of God: but the evangelist fixes that charge on them, because he was really so.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 134. JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS AND THE COUNCIL PRONOUNCED WORTHY OF DEATH AND INSULTED, Luk_22:63-71.

See notes on Mat_26:57; Mat_26:59-68; Mar_14:53; Mar_14:55-65; Joh_18:19-23.

In the present chapter of Luke Luk_22:63-65 must come after 66-71, as a comparison with the other evangelists will show.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

b. THE MOCKING AT THE LORD, AND HIS CONDEMNATION (Luk_22:63-71)

(Parallel with Mat_26:67-68; Mat_27:1 a; Mar_14:65; Mar_15:1)

63, And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. 64And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face,21 and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? 65And many other things blasphemously [or, contumeliously] spake they against him. 66And as soon as it was day, the elders [lit., the eldership, πρεσβυτέριον] of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into 67their council, saying, Art thou [or, If thou art] the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: 68And if I also [om., also22] ask you,23 ye will not 69answer me, nor let me go.24 25Hereafter [From henceforth] shall the Son of man sit [be seated] on the right hand of the power of God. 70Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am [or, Ye say it, for (ὅτι) I am26]. 71And they said, What need we any further witness [testimony]? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

General Remarks.—The maltreatment of which Luke now gives account appears to have taken place immediately after the sentence had been uttered in the night-session, even before its legal confirmation in a morning-session. Meanwhile, part of the Sanhedrists left the hall, so that the Prisoner remained behind in the hands of the servants. Without ground, Sepp, l. c. iii. p. 480, supposes that Christ was in prison; it appears rather that He remained in the same hall in which He had stood before the council. Respecting this whole act of scoffing, comp. Mat_26:67. That the act can in no way be excused, does not even need mention. Among all civilized nations the condemned, so long as he yet lives, stands under the protection of the law. Nay, he finds in the pitiable fate that awaits him a security against new injuries. But here they cannot even wait till the injured law has its course, and so the council of blood is changed into a theatre of insult and cruelty. The servants who guard the Prisoner have noticed the hatred of their lords against Him, and although hitherto, perhaps, withheld by some fear of the might of the Prisoner, yet now when it becomes evident that He will make no use of this, their terror passes over into unrestrained insolence. It is as if they would indemnify themselves for the discomfiture which they had suffered in Gethsemane. They mock Him especially in His prophetical and kingly character. First, He must with covered countenance make out which of them gave Him the hard blows of the fist, then He is mocked and spit upon, in token that He is much too contemptible for a king even of these meanest servants. But that even more than one maltreatment of the kind took place in the house of Caiaphas (Ebrard), we regard as a superfluous concession, in view of the comparatively little diversity of the different Synoptical accounts respecting this. Still less can we agree with Schleiermacher and Strauss in regarding it as in itself improbable that even counsellors took part in this maltreatment, when we consider how in Mat_26:67, those who maltreat the Lord are not definitely distinguished from those who condemn Him, Mat_26:66; and how according to Mar_14:65, the men who spit upon Jesus are especially distinguished from the servants, who, according to Mark as well as according to Luke, strike our Lord in the face. We are then rather led to the belief that their masters, in their hellish joy at the triumph achieved by them, made common cause with the servants, and themselves lent their hands to draw down their Victim into the mire of the deepest ignominy. If we unite the different features of the narrative which the individual Synoptics have preserved for us, with one another, we then obtain an image of outraged majesty which inspires up with terror, but at the same time also reminds us vividly of the prophecy, Isa_50:4-8.

Luk_22:66. And as soon as it was day.—The view that the Jewish council was only assembled once for the condemnation of our Lord (Meyer and Von Hengel) has, superficially considered, much, it is true, to commend it, but comes, nevertheless, carefully considered, into too direct conflict with the contents of all the Synoptical gospels to make it possible to accept it. Even in and of itself it is rather arbitrary to wish to determine the sequence of the events according to Luke, who goes to work with so much less chronological strictness in the history of the Passion than Matthew and Mark, amalgamates similar events, and even by the account of the maltreatment, Luk_22:63-65, tacitly presupposes that this must have been preceded by a condemnation, without which such an outrage could not possibly have taken place. The answer which our Lord, according to Luke, Luk_22:67-68, gives to the question of the Sanhedrim, would have been incongruous if He had now addressed His enemies for the first time, and if nothing at all had preceded which could justify so strong a tone. The narrative of Matthew, Mat_27:1, and Mark, Mar_15:1, would have been wholly purposeless, if the Sanhedrim had been only assembled once on this occasion, and although the account of Luke agrees in many points with the night session in Matthew and Mark, it has, however, on the other hand, its peculiar coloring, which sufficiently characterizes precisely this second official and decisive session of the council. It is this partial agreement itself that is the cause why Matthew and Mark speak only of the first, Luke only of the second sitting. The assembly which utters the first sentence of death bears all the marks of precipitation, incompleteness, and incompetence; the high-priest assists at it only in his common attire, as it was not permitted him to rend his magnificent official apparel. The bitterest-enemies of our Lord have in the night quickly run together in order without delay to introduce the case; but now in order not to violate, at least, the form of law, they come together the second time, early in the morning at a legally permitted hour and in fuller numbers, not in order to deliberate further, but in order to ratify, so far as requisite, a resolution already taken. Without doubt, the chief managers in the night session have already instructed the other counsellors sufficiently upon the state of the case as already reached, before the Prisoner is again brought in. The transaction of Caiaphas receives the approbation of the others, so that the thread is simply taken up again where his hand has let it fall. If we can from Luk_23:51, conclude that Joseph of Arimathæa also was present at this morning session, his voice then, it should seem, in connection with a few others, only hindered the unanimity, which indeed, according to all appearance, was not really obtained.

Luk_22:67. Art thou the Christ?—Now we see no more of the perplexity which even a few hours before betrayed itself in every word. They have now found a fixed point of departure in the declaration which the Prisoner under oath had deposed concerning Himself, and only desire yet to hear the repetition of the same, in order to press upon the already uttered condemnation the formal seal. For these judges are not come together in order to investigate, but in order to pronounce sentence. Therefore, they desire an affirmative answer, which our Lord now also gives them, in the presupposition that His previous answer is known to them; “If thou art the Christ, tell us,” so ask they all, because they all wish to hear it from His own mouth, comp. Luk_22:71, and therefore at the beginning, with prudent craft, do not place first the religious but the political side of the question. “They would have been only too glad to have extorted more from Him, but only succeed in hearing the same.”

If I tell you.—That this answer “does not suit well” (De Wette) would only be true if we identified both sessions, and forgot all that had already preceded this. Our Lord says nothing directly, but only presupposes what, according to the experience He had already had, would take place if He thought good to speak. The highest purpose of such a testimony, namely, to produce faith, would here not have been at all accomplished, and if He now began to do as they had done to Him, and that which He was well conscious of having a right to do, namely, to propose to His antagonists some questions, they would yet never have been able to answer these satisfactorily to Him, and would, therefore, bring their perplexity only so much the more to light. Of the possibility of being released, which is mentioned according to the critically suspicious reading ἤ ἀπολύσητε, He now no longer thinks. It is true, “questioning belongs only to the examining judge, not to the defendant” (De Wette); but here is a Defendant of a very special character, and He who had already spoken so many incomparable words hors de ligne to His judges, might also have well allowed Himself this freedom in speaking, without modern criticism needing to shake its head thereat.

Luk_22:69. From henceforth.—Our Lord will therewith simply say that the word previously uttered remains good, and places the future with all its glory over against the present with all its ignominy. Even the last time that He calls Himself the Son of Man He exhibits Himself in all the still magnificence of His majesty.

Luk_22:70. Art Thou then the Son of God?—It is known that the Jews also expected the Messiah as the Son of God, in the theocratical sense of the word. But that they now utter this name with a special emphasis is not because they would denote thereby anything essentially different from Luk_22:67, but because they can scarcely trust their ears that He, the one so deeply humiliated and already condemned to death, attributes to Himself the dignity that is supreme above all. They now take cognizance of the religious side of the case, and express themselves as strongly as possible, in order so to be the better able to give a reason for the sentence of blasphemy. To their question Jesus answers with a simple affirmative, while from Luk_22:68-69, it sufficiently appears why He does not add even a word more. Herewith the session has now reached its end, with a similar result to the former one. If Caiaphas had formerly, in view of two false witnesses, exclaimed: “What need we any further witness?” now, in answer thereto, his adherents, who find his statement sufficiently confirmed by Jesus’ own word, declare that they need no further testimony, since they have now heard it from Jesus’ own mouth. Now there is not even an express sentence of death uttered; the one formerly passed simply continues in force, since the crime is now satisfactorily established. But thereby they testify at the same time against themselves, and rob themselves thus of the last excuse for their sin.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. In the midst of the rudest maltreatment, as shortly before over against the false witnesses, we see our Lord observe an unmoved silence. Four times in the history of the Passion we have the mention of such a silence: before Caiaphas (Mat_26:63), before Herod (Luk_23:9), and twice before Pilate (Mat_27:12; Joh_19:9). It is one of the most admirable problems to interpret this silence in its full force, and not a little will it contribute to the augmentation of the knowledge of our Lord, if we consider when He has spoken and when He has kept silence.

2. As the Lord there keeps silence when He might have spoken, so does He also speak before the Jewish council when He might have kept silence. With the traces of the outrages received on His countenance, He might have counted them unworthy of any further answer, but with an indescribable dignity He once again deposes testimony; with Divine condescension which places itself in the position of His enemies, He unites infinite long-suffering; while He shows that He completely sees through His enemies, He yet, even to the last instant, leaves nothing unessayed which can serve for setting them right and convincing them. He spares where He could punish, He only warns where He could dash in pieces, and His very last word to the Jewish council justifies the eulogies of the officers, Joh_7:46.

3. With His own hand, as it were, our Lord here, even before His resurrection, as subsequently, Luk_24:26, after it, points to the inseparable connection between His suffering and His glory. “̓Απὸτοῦ νῦν ab hoc puncto, quum dimittere non vultis. Hoc ipsum erat iter ad gloriam.” Bengel.

4. That in the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrim shameful injustice was committed, and not even the form of law was respected, appears at once to any one who only takes the trouble to follow somewhat particularly the course of the process. The legal validity of the sentence, which especially Salvador defends, has been from a juridicial point of view controverted with the best success by Dupin, L’aîné, Jésus devant Caïphe et Pilate, Paris, 1829.

5. It is remarkable how once, almost with the same words, sentence was uttered upon the reformer Farel, when, in October, 1532, raging priests in Geneva exclaimed upon him: “He has blasphemed God; we need no more witnesses; he is worthy of death,” so that Farel, exasperated, raised his voice with: “Speak the words of God, and not those of Caiaphas.” (Leben Farels und Virets, by Dr. E. Schmidt, Elberfeld, 1860).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The Holy One of God the football of unholy sinners.—Wickedness, in appearance, humiliates the Lord, but in truth only itself.—The Saviour with covered face: 1. How much He sees; 2. how sublimely He keeps silence; 3. how powerfully He preaches.—Who is it that smote Thee? I, I and my sins.—Who when He was reviled, reviled not again, 1Pe_2:22-23.—The morning of the mortal day of Jesus illumined by the glory of His majesty: 1. He keeps silence where He could have spoken; 2. He speaks where He could have kept silence; 3. He spares where He could have punished.—Jesus’ condemnation by the Sanhedrim preaches to us: 1. The might of sin; 2. the greater might of grace; 3. the greatest might of the Divine Providence.—The Sanhedrim that rejects Jesus is itself smitten by the judgment: 1. Of blindness; 2. of hardening; 3. of reprobacy.—The deep humiliation of the Lord over against His future glory.—The depths of Satan looked through by the Searcher of hearts.—Even against the scribes of His day our Lord is unqualifiedly right, because He even to the end remains upon the standing-point of the Scripture. Dan_7:12-14.—The Christian also, after the unequivocal declaration of Jesus, needs, in reference to His heavenly dignity, no further witness.

Starke:—Be not angry when thou art injured in thy good name, for even the highest majesty has been blasphemed.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Jesus was brought before an unjust tribunal, that we might be able to stand before the righteous tribunal of God.—We must use modesty towards our rulers, how unjust soever they may be, Rom_13:7.—The last degree of the humiliation of Christ is the one next to His exaltation, 2Ti_2:11-12.—Brentius:—Sincerity is agreeable to God.—Quesnel:—O, how different are Christ’s auditors! Some rejoice at His words as words of life, but others grow fierce thereat and make thereof words of death.—Arndt:—Jesus before Caiaphas: 1. The confession; 2. the condemnation; 3. the maltreatment.—Krummacher, Passions-buch, p. 336 seq.:—Prophesy to us, O Christ! C. Palmer:—How the world seeks to rid itself of the truth.

Footnotes:

[21]Luk_22:64.—What the Recepta has here, ἔτυπτον αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον, καί, appears to be a glossematic addition, which has gradually got the upper hand. See Tischendorf and Meyer, ad locum. [As Alford clearly explains it, αυτου το προσωπον was substituted for αυτον from the parallel in Mark, then united with the text, ετυπτον being then inserted to account for παισας below. The variations confirm this explanation.—C. C. S.]

[22]Luk_22:68.—Καί before ἐρωτήσω omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Meyer, Tregelles, Alford,] according to B., [Cod. Sin.,] L., Cursives.

[23]Luk_22:68.—He means probably, as Bleek explains it, that if He should ask them questions as to the cause of His arrest, and the like, they would not answer him.—C. C. S.]

[24]Luk_22:68.—Μοι ἢ ἀπολύσητε. These words also awaken at least the suspicion, that they are a somewhat incongruous expansion of the text. See Tischendorf and Meyer. [They are omitted by B., Cod. Sin., L., Coptic Version, Cyril. Numbers are for them, weight of testimony and internal evidence against them.—C. C. S.]

[25]Luk_22:69.—After ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν insert δέ on the authority of A., B., D., [Cod. Sin.,] L., X., and many other authorities.

[26]Luk_22:70.—Van Oosterzee, agreeing with Luther, De Wette, Meyer, and others, translates ὅτι denn, “For,” as it appears to be used in Joh_18:37. The sentence then means: “I acknowledge the title, for I am the Son of God.” “Ye say,” the well known idiom of assent to another’s statement or question.—C. C. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

JESUS CONDEMNED BY THE SANHEDRIN

Mat 26:59-68; Mar 14:55-65; Luk 22:63-71;Joh 18:19-24. “Then the high priest asked Jesus concerning His disciples and teaching. Jesus responded to Him, I spoke boldly to the world. I always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; behold, they know the things which I said. He, speaking these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Do you thus answer the high priest? Jesus responded to him, If I spoke wickedly, testify concerning the wickedness; but if truly, why do you smite Me? Then Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.” Evidently, Annas and Caiaphas had their tribunals in the same great quadrangular building standing on Mount Zion, and now visited by the thirty thousand pilgrims annually going to Jerusalem. Having first been arraigned at the tribunal of Annas, He is now, about day-dawn, led bound to the tribunal of Caiaphas. You see how the high priest endeavored to make Him confess, hoping to utilize His own testimony against Himself, as they had no witnesses to amount to anything, and thus condescended to a very cowardly stratagem, which even if he had succeeded, the law pronounces the weakest of all evidence. It was awfully barbaric for that officer to smite a prisoner in bonds. You see, Jesus vindicates Himself reminding the man of the criminal impropriety of this uncouth assault upon a defenseless prisoner illustrating the right of all His followers to vindicate themselves from false accusation, violence, and tyranny, and refuting the idea somewhat prevalent that we are never to advocate our rights and vindicate ourselves against the oppression of the wicked.

Luk 22:66. “And when it was day, the eldership of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes were assembled, and led Him into the Sanhedrin.” As they had been on His track, like bloodhounds, three years, eager to take, His life (but restrained by the fear of the people; and well they might be, because a bloody civil war would have broken out immediately), such is their fear of the people that they attack Him at midnight, aiming to secure the death-warrant and kill Him before day. In this they are disappointed and woefully disconcerted, being unable to convene the Sanhedrin till day dawn, though keeping couriers running at race-horse speed all night, (notifying and urging them up. The Sanhedrin was the highest court of the politico-ecclesiasticism, the successor of the eldership organized by Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, during their wilderness peregrinations.

Mar 14:55-59. “And the high priest and all the Sanhedrin continued to seek testimony against Jesus to put him to death, and they found none.” Matthew says “false testimony.” Of course, they preferred true testimony if they could get it; but as there was none, they were anxious to take any kind they could get. “For many continued to testify falsely against Him, and their testimonies were not equal,” i. e., they contradicted one another, which in law invalidates both, so that they are thrown out of court. “And certain ones, rising up, falsely testified against Him, saying, We heard Him saying, That I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and in three days I will build another, made without hands. Indeed their testimony was not equal;” i. e., they contradicted one another. Perhaps some of the witnesses gave it correctly; but you have only to look at Joh 2:19, “Destroy this temple, and I will build it in three days,” to see that the above witnesses were false, as they testified that He said, “I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and build another, made without hands.” By comparison, you see that these witnesses did not quote Him correctly, as their testimony would make it mean that great stone edifice standing on Mount Moriah; while He did not mean that at all, but the temple of His body. Why did He not correct them when so grossly misrepresenting Him? Because it would have done no good, as Satan was in them, and they were thirsting for His blood.

Mat 26:62-66. “The high priest, standing up, said to Him, Do You answer nothing? What are they witnessing against Thee? And Jesus was silent.” Under temptation, the better policy is, like Jesus, to keep silent. You should never speak while under severe provocation. “The high priest, responding, said to Him, I assure Thee by the living God, that Thou mayest tell us if Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus says to him, Thou sayest it.” That is an Oriental form of affirmation. Here, you see, Jesus answers while under oath of affirmation, administered by the high priest. Hence you see His indirect approval appertaining to the civil oath of affirmation. Paul (1Th 5:23) administers a solemn oath to the Thessalonian saints to read his letter to all the members of the Church.

“Moreover I say unto you, Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.” The first clause of this wonderful prophecy of our Lord was fulfilled when they saw Him rise from the dead and ascend up to heaven from Mount Olivet; while the second clause, “coming in the clouds of heaven,” will be fulfilled when Jesus shall ride down on a cloud and receive all the kingdoms of this world (Dan 7:9-14) and reign forever. In this wonderful sentence there is not so much as a comma, yet those two clauses are separated by many centuries, the former being verified in a few days, and the latter still pending.

“Then the high priest tore His robes, saying, That He blasphemed; what need of testimony have we yet? Behold, now , you have heard His blasphemy. What seems good to you? And they, responding, said, He is worthy of death.” Mark says this verdict was unanimous, So here you see the issue of His prosecution before the Sanhedrin They unanimously condemned Him to die for blasphemy, according to the law of Moses. (Lev 24:16.) Thus you see, good and just laws become vehicles of tyranny and persecution when in the hands of bad men, and are no guarantee of fight and justice when the devil is in the administrators. Jesus died under the verdict of Divine law, and so did all the martyrs, there being no trouble about the law; but Satan was in the preachers and ruling elders. So it is this day. Some of the brightest saints that walk beneath the skies, have been excommunicated, while drunkards, libertines, blasphemers, and thieves have been retained without impeachment. Such was the case in the days of Luther and Wesley, and always will be so when Diabolus gets into the clergy and official laity.

Luk 22:63-65. “And the men who had charge of Jesus began to mock Him, beating Him; and covering Him, continued to strike His face, and ask Him, saying, Prophesy, who is the one smiting thee? And blaspheming Him as to many other things, they continued to speak against Him.” The truth of it is, Jesus had no trial, it was a mockery; to their infinite shame, barbarically abusing Him while a prisoner in chains, which is revolting to the very idea of civil, not to say ecclesiastical administration. Nicodemus certifies that Jewish law never condemned a man till he met his accusers face to face, and had a fair and impartial trial. Festus, the Roman proconsul, makes the same statement in reference to imperial law. Hence, Jesus was mobbed and outlawed. But did He not come into the world to die? Most assuredly; and He would have died to redeem the world from sin, death, and hell if neither Judas nor Caiphas had ever been born. Yet that is no apology for the diabolical treason, perfidy, and murder which they committed, overtly, without excuse.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 2. (Luk 22:63-71; Luk 23:1-25.)

Judgment without judgment.

We are now to see the Son of God before the judgment-seat of man. Luke is briefer here than any of the Gospels. The attempts of the false witnesses before the Jewish tribunal are entirely ignored, as well as the adjuration of the high priest. We have simply the Lord’s affirmation for Himself of who He is, which is sufficient for their purpose: any serious inquiry as to the truth they do not mean. Before Pilate we have only the simple fact of His acquittal of the charge preferred; spite of which He is delivered up to the people’s will. It is a judgment without judgment -without the poorest semblance of right. The reference to Herod is peculiar to Luke; but he merely scoffs, and is met on the Lord’s part by absolute silence. He is not in any place of authority that calls for recognition, as with Pilate and the Jewish high priest, and in his character there is nothing that can in the least measure claim it. He is past even reproof.

On the whole, Luke, following the other synoptists, seems to give simply the result morally of that of which they have given the history. The guilt of pursuing the Lord to death is that of Israel, Pilate guiltily yielding to them, indeed; and Herod being but the sign of how low Israel had fallen; even though, nay, even because himself (born of an Edomite father and a Samaritan mother,) no real Israelite.

1. As is everywhere apparent, the Jewish question was the supreme one of the Person of the Christ, -the fundamental question for every soul. Here also the fundamental witness is His own. As He stands before us, -as we see Him in every circumstance and relation of life, -who is so worthy to be believed as He?

Here, then; we have His testimony, the "Faithful and True"; and it is in faithfulness as in truth that He renders it. A passage peculiar to Luke points out this: for, when they ask, "Art Thou the Christ? tell us," He can say with assurance, "If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go." It was in fact the incriminating question; and since they asked it for an evil purpose, why should He give them the answer that they sought? But this does not influence Him. What they will make of it is for them to decide; He will not on that account refuse the testimony of such unspeakable importance to them. He is in their hands, for them to work their cruel will upon Him; yet only to bring Him out of His present humiliation, and set Him free for the glory before Him. "Henceforth shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God." They understand the claim and challenge it: "Art Thou the Son of God, then?" they ask. "Ye say it: for I am," He answers. He is condemned, not at the mouth of other witnesses, but His own.

2. He is carried before Pilate, charged with the notoriously false charge of forbidding tribute to Caesar: this based upon the truth that He is Christ a King. Pilate puts the question to Him, "Art Thou the King of the Jews?" to which John gives the full answer. Luke simply gives His affirmative reply, and the outcome of the examination, in which Pilate clears Him of all that would involve a crime against Caesar; from which judgment he never recedes. When he sentences Him at last to the death of the cross, it is with the carefully maintained acknowledgement that he is sacrificing an innocent man.

3. The scene with Herod is peculiar to Luke. Pilate sends Him to him, hoping for something from the ruler from whose jurisdiction Jesus has come, which may settle a case made troublesome by the persistence of the people. Herod has got over his fear of Christ, and is glad to have the opportunity of seeing Him, hoping even to see Him do some "sign" in his presence. His conscience more and more hardened by his evil course, he evidently regards the Lord simply as a magician; such as was Simon the sorcerer in Samaria afterwards, and who would be sure to take the opportunity to impress such an audience with proofs of his power.

He finds indeed a sign, such as he had not looked for, a Man silent and unmoved, answering nothing to his questions, nor to the accusations of the chief priests and scribes, who, fearing the effect upon Herod, vehemently accuse Him. There is not even a word of warning or rebuke, but only that unbroken silence so much more terrible.

The unhappy man answers it but with mockery. Arraying Him in a brilliant robe, perhaps that of a candidate for honors, he sends the Lord back to Pilate, as if to intimate that such claims as these merited no more serious consideration.

With this Pilate and Herod are made friends again: they had before been at enmity. They are often represented as united by their common enmity to Christ; but enmity is too strong a term: He had not in fact been enough to them even to draw out enmity. He was to them, as with so many, a mere circumstance in a day’s history, with Pilate an annoying one; with Herod, the possible material for amusement which it had failed to yield. Both men had enough of scepticism in them to make it impossible to give themselves to investigate a difficult problem, as to which the cost was much more certain than the profit. Their friendships were probably much less real than their enmities; but both were in a world where Christ was not. or an uncertain speculation at the most. Would that one could believe it an uncommon case.

4. The matter is again upon Pilate’s hands, however, who has just enough conscience and enough guilt of his own; to make him unwilling to burden himself with the guilt of others. These miserable Jews too, whom he despised and hated, but who held him by that formidable reminder of his accountability to Caesar, who was near and real, whatever might be thought of God. So he weakens and vacillates, -makes it not a question of righteousness as at first, but of mercy, -puts it thus into the hands of the Jews themselves whose malignity even he cannot understand, -Barabbas or Jesus? Barabbas? then they must tell him what to do with Jesus, this man in whom no evil has been found: crucify him? surely impossible; but he is now helplessly in their hands. With a last vain effort to have the guilt wholly theirs, he delivers up the Man whose innocency he has so openly declared to the death of the slave, of the criminal, and the curse of God (Deu 21:23).

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22:63 mocking and beating him: See 18:32; Isa 50:6; 53:3-5.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk 22:63-64. [Οἱ συνέχουτες, who held fast) during the whole night.—V. g.]—δέροντες· ἔτυπτον· παίσας) Δέρειν is used of beating the whole body; τύπτειν, of striking a part; παίειν, of smiting or wounding with violence, and so as to give pain. [No one of mortal men, not even the direst of malefactors, ever endured so great wantonness as Christ, the Just One, suffered to the utmost.—Harm., p. 540.]

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk_22:63-65. See on Mat_26:67 f.; Mar_14:65. Luke follows an entirely different traditiondifferent in respect of the time, the place, and the persons who were engaged in the mockery. The same characteristic ill-treatment (smitingdemand for prophecy), the original connection of which is in Matthew and Mark (in opposition to Schleiermacher), had arranged itself variously in tradition. Against the supposition of many times repeated mockery must be reckoned the identity and peculiarity of its essential element (in opposition to Ebrard and others).

δέρειν and παίειν are distinguished as to scourge (Jacobs, Del. Epigr. vi. 63) and to smite in general.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 22:63-65 . Indignities (Mat 26:67-68 , Mar 14:65 ). In Mt. and Mk. these come after the trial during the night which Lk. omits. In his narrative the hours of early morning spent by Jesus in the palace of the high priest are filled up by the denial of Peter and the outrages of the men who had taken Jesus into custody ( οἱ συνέχοντες αὐτὸν ).

Luk 22:63 . ἐνέπαιζον , mocked, in place of the more brutal spitting in parallels. δέροντες , smiting (the whole body), instead of the more special and insulting slapping in the face ( κολαφίζειν ).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(2.) Luk 22:63-65.

The evil treatment mentioned here is the same as that related by Matthew and Mark, and placed by them after the sitting of the Sanhedrim at the house of Caiaphas. It is the parody of the prophetic knowledge of Jesus, the ridicule of the Jews. We shall afterwards see the derision of the Gentiles.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ bare the shame that was due to our sins.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 63. Mocked him, and smote him.] This and the following verses are placed by Matthew and Mark before the relation of Peter's denial. For their explanation, see on Mt 26:67; Mt 26:68.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(63-73) And the men that held Jesus . . .—See Notes on Mat_26:59-68; Mar_14:55-65. The verbs “mocked” and “smote” are both in the tense that implies continued action.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

63. smote him] No less than five forms of beating are referred to by the Evangelists in describing this pathetic scene—derontes here (a general term); etupton, ‘they kept smiting;’ paisas in the next verse, implying violence; ekolaphisan, ‘slapped with the open palm,’ Mat_26:67; errapisan, ‘smote with sticks’ (id.); and rapismasin eballon, Mar_14:65. See the prophecy of Isa_1:6. The Priests of that day, and their pampered followers, were too much addicted to these brutalities (Act_21:32; Act_23:2), as we learn also from the Talmud.

63-65. The First Derision.

Hanan had simply tried to entangle Jesus by insidious questions.

The course of the trial before Caiaphas was different. The Priests on that occasion “sought false witness,” but their false witnesses contradicted each other in their attempt to prove that He had threatened to destroy the Temple. Since Jesus still kept silence, Caiaphas rose, walked into the midst of the hall, and adjured Jesus by the Living God to say whether He was “the Christ, the Son of God.” So adjured, Christ answered in the affirmative, and then Caiaphas, rending his robes, appealed to the assembly, who, most illegally setting aside the need of any further witnesses, shouted aloud that He was ‘A man of Death’ (ish maveth), i.e. deserving of capital punishment. From this moment He would be regarded by the dependents of the Priests as a condemned criminal.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And as soon as it was day,.... See Gill on Mat 27:1.

The elders of the people; or "the presbytery of the people", that were chosen from among the people to sit in the sanhedrim; the Israelites, as distinct from priests and Levites, and the doctors:

and the chief priests and the Scribes came together; which made up the great sanhedrim, or council of the nation:

and led him into their council; or sanhedrim, the place where the sanhedrim sat, which was in the temple, and in the chamber called , "the paved stone chamber" (n); here they usually met, and so the Persic version renders it, "where their congregation was daily there".

(n) Misna Saobedrin, c. 10. sect. 2. & Middot, c. 5. sect. 3.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.

Ver. 63. See Mat 26:27; Mar 14:65; Joh 18:22; Isa 50:6. They scoffed him, not so much with their tongues as hands; plucking his beard, and pulling away hair and skin too, as the word δερειν importeth.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

See the notes at Mat 26:57-68.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Concerning these abuses offered to our Saviour. See Poole on "Mat 26:67-68". See Poole on "Mar 14:65".

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 63-65. After the second examination, the officials of the Sanhedrin mock and ill treat Jesus as one doomed to death.

And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. The position of the Redeemer when the cruelties took.place, described in this and the two following verses, was as follows: After the arrest in Gethsemane, the guards, Jewish and Roman, escorted the Prisoner to the palace of the high priest in Jerusalem. There both Annas and Caiaphas apparently lodged. In the first instance, Jesus was brought before Annas, who was evidently the leading personage of the Sanhedrin of that day. Details of the preliminary examination are given apparently by Joh_18:13, Joh_18:19-24. In this first and informal trial Caiaphas was evidently present, and took part (ver. 19). At the close of this unofficial but important proceeding, Annas sent him to Caiaphas. The true reading in Joh_18:24 is apesteilen oun , "Annas therefore sent him." That is, at the close of the first unofficial examination, which took place in Annas"s apartments in the palace of the high priest, Annas sent him to be examined officially before Caiaphas, the reigning high priest, and a committee of the Sanhedrim This, the second trial of Jesus, is related at some length by St. Matthew (Mat_26:59-66) and St. Mark. (Mar_14:55-64) The priests on that occasion sought false witnesses, but their witness did not, we know, agree. Jesus kept silence until Caiaphas arose, and with awful solemnity adjured him to say whether he was the Christ, the Son of God. So adjured, Jesus answered definitely in the affirmative. Then Caiaphas rent his robe, and appealed to the assembly, who answered the appeal by a unanimous cry," He is guilty of death." After this hearing before Caiapnas and a committee of the Sanhedrin, the condemned One was conducted before the full assembly of the Sanhedrim While being led across the court, he heard Peter"s third denial. It was during the interval which elapsed before the great council assembled, that the mocking related in these verses (63-65) took place.

Vers. 63, 64. The patience of Christ.

In these touching words, which we cannot read without a sentiment of shame as members of the human race, we have

I A PICTURE OF SUPREME ENDURANCE. How much our Lord was called upon to endure, we shall be best able to realize when we consider:

1. The greatness of which he was conscious (see ver. 70). He knew and felt that he had a right to the most reverent homage of the best and highest, and was thus treated by the worst and lowest.

2. The power which he knew he wielded: with what perfect ease could he have extricated himself from these cruel insults!

3. The character of the men who were maltreating him the lowest amongst the low.

4. The nature of the indignities to which they subjected him; these went from bad to worse from binding him to beating him, from beating him to spitting upon him, from this most shameful indignity to the yet more cruel sneer at his holy mission," Prophesy unto us," etc. They vented upon him the very last extremes of human contumely and shame.

II A PICTURE OF SUBLIME PATIENCE. He bore it all with perfect calmness. Here shone forth in its full lustre "the meekness of Jesus Christ." "When he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not;" "As a sheep before her shearers," etc. And wherein shall we find the source and explanation of this sublime patience?

1. He was bent on bearing, to the full and to the end, his Father"s will.

2. He was determined to complete the work he had undertaken, and of that work those sufferings were a part. He was then "wounded for our trangressions," then he was "bruised for our iniquities," and by those "stripes were we healed.

APPLICATION.

1. Like our Divine Master, we ore called upon to endure. In doing those things we believe to be right of which others do not feel the obligation, also in abstaining from those things we feel to be wrong, which other people allow, we come into conflict, we excite displeasure, we incur odium, we suffer censure, opposition, ridicule; we "bear his reproach." Thorough loyalty to our Lord and to our own convictions means exposure to the assaults and indignities of the world.

2. We have the highest incentives to endure.

(1) As with our Master, it is the Fathers will that we should suffer.

(2) As with Christ, it is an important part of the testimony we are to bear and the work we are to do in this world.

(3) Only thus can we completely follow our great Leader; he who does not go with Christ into the valley of humiliation does not follow him all the way he trod.

(4) So doing, we are building up a strong Christian character, and are thus preparing for fuller and higher service.

(5) Then are we especially, pleasing our Master, and "great is our reward in heaven". C. (Mat_5:10-12)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Matt. xxvi, 67; Mark xiv, 65.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Jesus treated with contempt:

v. 63. And the men that held Jesus mocked Him, and smote Him.

v. 64. And when they had blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face, and asked Him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote Thee?

v. 65. And many other things blasphemously spake they against Him.

See Mat 26:67-68; Mar 14:65. The servants of the high priest and the elders were meanwhile having their sport with the captured Prophet of Galilee, and their rude jests and blasphemous mockeries were committed unreproved. They derided Him, they jeered and sneered at Him, they struck Him, not only in the face, but on the body; they put a heavy veil or cloth over His face and blasphemously ordered Him to prophesy as to who it was that was hitting Him. And when one form of cruelty palled upon them, they devised some new blasphemous trick to while away the time. That was the beginning of the martyrdom of Christ, of His suffering for the sins of the whole world. And if in our days the unbelievers, the blasphemous band of scoffers, jeer at the prophecy, at the Word of Christ, and wantonly persecute the servants of Christ, that is only the continuation of the sufferings of Christ. But the patience of Christ is our salvation as well as our example.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, the vile affronts, the horrid abuses, the injuries and indignities which were put upon the holy and innocent Jesus in the day of his sufferings; the rude officers and servants spit in his face, blindfolded his eyes, smote him with their hands, and in contempt and scorn bid him prophecy who it was that smote him. Verily there is no degree of contempt, no mark of shame, no kind of suffering which we ought to decline for Christ’s sake, who hid not his face from shame and spitting, upon our account.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

63–65. For notes on these indignities, see Matt. 26:67 and Mark 14:65.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

They put a cover over him

"They covered his eyes so that he could not see"

Prophesy! Who is the one who hit you?

The guards did not believe that Jesus was a prophet. Rather, they believed that a real prophet would know who hit him even if he could not see. They called Jesus a prophet, but they were teasing him and showing him why they did not think that he was a prophet. AT: "Prove that you are a prophet. Tell us who hit you!" or "Hey prophet, who hit you?" (See: Irony)

Prophesy!

"Speak words from God!" The implied information is that God would have to tell Jesus who struck him since Jesus was blindfolded and could not see. (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

Jesus

mock

prophet

blasphemy

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

63–65. THE FIRST DERISION

Hanan had simply tried to entangle Jesus by insidious questions.

The course of the trial before Caiaphas was different. The Priests on that occasion “sought false witness,” but their false witnesses contradicted each other in their attempt to prove that He had threatened to destroy the Temple. Since Jesus still kept silence, Caiaphas rose, walked into the midst of the hall, and adjured Jesus by the Living God to say whether He was “the Christ, the Son of God.” So adjured, Christ answered in the affirmative, and then Caiaphas, rending his robes, appealed to the assembly, who, most illegally setting aside the need of any further witnesses, shouted aloud that He was ‘A man of Death’ (îsh maveth), i.e. deserving of capital punishment. From this moment He would be regarded by the dependents of the Priests as a condemned criminal.

63. δέροντες. No less than five forms of beating are referred to by the Evangelists in describing this pathetic scene—δέροντες here (a general term); ἔτυπτον, ‘they kept smiting;’ παίσας in the next verse, implying violence; ἐκολάφισαν, ‘slapped with the open palm,’ Mat 26:67; ἐῤῥάπισαν, ‘smote with sticks’ (id.); and ῥαπίσμασιν ἔβαλλον, Mar 14:65. See the prophecy of Isa 50:6. The Priests of that day, and their pampered followers, were too much addicted to these brutalities (Act 21:32; Act 23:2), as we learn also from the Talmud.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

63-65.] He is mocked. Luke does not, as some Commentators say, place this mocking before the trial in Caiaphas’s house, but in the same place as Matt. vv. 67, 68, and Mark ver. 65, viz. after what happened there. The trial he omits altogether, having found no report of it. How those who take this view of Luke’s arrangement can yet suppose him to have had Matt. and Mark before him while writing, I am wholly at a loss to conceive.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

63-65. The First Mocking. As Lk. omits the examination by Caiaphas, it is impossible to determine whether he places this mocking before or after it. He knows that Jesus, after being denied by His chief Apostle, was insulted by His captors, and then taken before the Sanhedrin. His omissions seem to show that he is making no use of Mt. or Mk. Comp. Mat 26:67, Mat 26:68; Mar 14:65.

63. οἱ συνέχοντες αὐτόν. Not members of the Sanhedrin, but the servants or soldiers in whose charge Jesus had been left. Here only is συνέχειν used of holding fast a prisoner. Comp. 8:45; 19:43. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 160.

δέοντες . Comp. 12:47, 20:10. Of the five expressions which are used in describing these blows each Evangelist uses two: Lk. δέροντες and παίσας; Mt. ἐκολάφισαν and εηράπισαν; Mk. κολαφίζειν and ῥαπίσμασιν ἔλαβον. Comp. the treatment of the Apostles, Act 5:40; and of S. Paul, Act 21:32, Act 23:2. Lk. omits the spitting. All three have the Προφήτευσον .

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Smote [δεροντες] . Originally to flay; thence to cudgel. Compare our vulgarism, to tan or hide.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.