One of the officers - One of the inferior officers, or those who attended on the court.

With the palm, of his hand - This may mean: "Gave him a blow either with the open hand or with a rod" - the Greek does not determine which. In whatever way it was done, it was a violation of all law and justice. Jesus had showed no disrespect for the office of the high priest, and if he had, this was not the proper way to punish it. The Syriac reads thus: "Smote the cheek of Jesus." The Vulgate and Arabic: "Gave him a blow."

One of the officers - struck Jesus - This was an outrage to all justice: for a prisoner, before he is condemned, is ever considered to be under the especial protection of justice; nor has any one a right to touch him, but according to the direction of the law. But it has been observed before that, if justice had been done to Christ, he could neither have suffered nor died.

And when he had thus spoken,.... What was so right and reasonable, in so becoming a manner, without heat or passion:

one of the officers which stood by; it may be one of those who had been sent to him and had been a hearer of him, whom Jesus might look wistfully at, or point unto, when he said the above words, at which he might be provoked: and therefore

stroke Jesus with the palm of his hand; or gave him a rap with a rod, or smote him with a staff, as some think, is the sense of the phrase; though the Syriac, agreeably to our version, reads it, he smote him, , "upon his cheek"; gave him, what we commonly call, a slap on the face; and which is always esteemed a very great affront, and was a piece of rudeness and insolence to the last degree in this man:

saying, answerest thou the high priest so? This he said, as well as gave the blow, either out of flattery to the high priest, or to clear himself from being a favourer of Christ; which, by what had been said, he might think would be suspected: some have thought this was Malchus, whose ear Christ had healed; if so, he was guilty of great ingratitude.

Struck - with the palm of his hand (ἔδωκε ῥάπισμα)

Literally, gave a blow. Interpreters differ as to whether it was a blow with a rod, or with the hand. The kindred verb ῥαπίζω, from ῥαπίς, a rod, is etymologically related to ῥαβδίζω, from ῥάβδος, a rod, and occurs Matthew 5:39, of smiting on the cheek, and Matthew 26:67, where it is distinguished from κολαφίζω, to strike with the fist. This latter passage, however, leaves the question open, since, if the meaning to smite with a rod can be defended, there is nothing to prevent its being understood there in that sense. The earlier meaning of the word was, undoubtedly, according to its etymology, to smite with a rod. So Herodotus of Xerxes. "It is certain that he commanded those who scourged (ῥαπι.ζοντας) the waters (of the Hellespont) to utter, as they lashed them, these barbarian and wicked words" (vii., 35). And again: "The Corinthian captain, Adeimantus, observed, 'Themistocles, at the games they who start too soon are scourged (ῥαπίζονται)'" (viii., 59). It passes, in classical Greek, from this meaning to that of a light blow with the hand. The grammarian Phrynichus (A. D. 180) condemns the use of the word in the sense of striking with the hand, or slapping, as not according to good Attic usage, and says that the proper expression for a blow on the cheek with the open hand is ἐπὶ κόρρης πατάξαι. This shows that the un-Attic phrase had crept into use. In the Septuagint the word is clearly used in the sense of a blow with the hand. See Isaiah 50:6 : "I gave my cheeks to blows (εἰς ῥαπι.σματα). Hosea 11:4, "As a man that smiteth (ῥαπίζων) upon his cheeks" (A.V. and Rev., that take off the yoke on their jaws). In 1 Kings 22:24, we read, "Zedekiah - smote Micaiah on the cheek (ἐπάταξε ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα)." The word in John 18:23, δέρεις, literally, flayest, hence, do beat or thrash (compare Luke 12:47), seems better to suit the meaning strike with a rod; yet in 2 Corinthians 11:20, that verb is used of smiting in the face (εἰς πρόσωπον δέρει), and in 1 Corinthians 9:27, where Paul is using the figure of a boxer, he says, "So fight I((πυκτεύω, of boxing, or fighting with the fists), not as one that beateth (δέρων) the air." These examples practically destroy the force of the argument from δέρεις. It is impossible to settle the point conclusively; but, on the whole, it seems as well to retain the rendering of the A.V. and Rev.

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?

18:15-27 For the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas and the denial of Peter, see notes on Mt 26:57-75. Compare Mr 14:53-72 Lu 22:54-71.

18:22 Answerest thou the high priest so? - With so little reverence?

with...: or, with a rod

22. struck Jesus with the palm . Answerest Thou the high priest so-(See Isa 50:6; and compare Ac 23:2). (Also see on [1898]Mr 14:54.)

18:13-27 Simon Peter denied his Master. The particulars have been noticed in the remarks on the other Gospels. The beginning of sin is as the letting forth of water. The sin of lying is a fruitful sin; one lie needs another to support it, and that another. If a call to expose ourselves to danger be clear, we may hope God will enable us to honour him; if it be not, we may fear that God will leave us to shame ourselves. They said nothing concerning the miracles of Jesus, by which he had done so much good, and which proved his doctrine. Thus the enemies of Christ, whilst they quarrel with his truth, wilfully shut their eyes against it. He appeals to those who heard him. The doctrine of Christ may safely appeal to all that know it, and those who judge in truth bear witness to it. Our resentment of injuries must never be passionate. He reasoned with the man that did him the injury, and so may we.