John 18 22

John 18:22 kjv

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?

John 18:22 nkjv

And when He had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, "Do You answer the high priest like that?"

John 18:22 niv

When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded.

John 18:22 esv

When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"

John 18:22 nlt

Then one of the Temple guards standing nearby slapped Jesus across the face. "Is that the way to answer the high priest?" he demanded.

John 18 verses

John 18 22 Meaning

John 18:22 describes the pivotal moment during Jesus's illegal preliminary interrogation before Annas when physical abuse begins. Following Jesus's dignified assertion that He had taught openly and that His accusers should question His hearers for testimony rather than demanding self-incrimination, an officer responds by striking Jesus with an open hand, accompanied by an accusation of disrespect toward the high priest. This act, known as a rhapisma, was a profound public humiliation and an outright violation of Jewish legal procedures, which strictly forbade striking an accused person prior to conviction. The officer’s violent outburst, fueled by a perceived challenge to authority, starkly illustrates the lawlessness, hypocrisy, and spiritual blindness permeating the religious establishment’s pursuit of Jesus.

John 18 22 Context

The events of John 18:22 occur during the clandestine, pre-dawn interrogation of Jesus, immediately following His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus has been brought first to Annas, the influential former high priest and father-in-law of the current high priest, Caiaphas. This initial questioning by Annas (John 18:19-21) was likely an extra-legal fishing expedition, seeking to extract self-incriminating statements from Jesus or gather charges to present to Caiaphas and the full Sanhedrin. Jesus, instead of privately testifying, asserted His open teaching and demanded witnesses, which directly precipitated the officer’s violent reaction. From a historical and cultural standpoint, this slap was a blatant violation of Jewish judicial norms that prohibited striking an accused person before conviction, prohibited trials at night or during feast days, and demanded justice. The scene therefore sets a tone of rampant illegality and corruption, revealing the true character of those intent on condemning Jesus.

John 18 22 Word analysis

• And when he had said these things (καὶ ταῦτα αὐτοῦ εἰπόντος - kai tauta autou eipontos): This phrase highlights the direct cause-and-effect; the officer's violent response was provoked by Jesus’s words in John 18:20-21, indicating a refusal to submit to their arbitrary procedure and an assertion of His integrity.

• one of the officers (εἷς τῶν ὑπηρετῶν - heis tōn hypēretōn):

  • ὑπηρέτης (hypērētēs): This Greek term denotes a subordinate attendant, servant, or temple guard. These individuals operated under the authority of the high priest. His anonymity implies he acted as an extension of the broader, hostile atmosphere among the religious authorities.
  • His role was to maintain order, not to pass judgment or administer punishment. His action therefore exemplifies abuse of power.

• standing by (παρεστηκώς - parestēkōs): Signifies his immediate proximity and active observation of the preceding verbal exchange, implying he heard Jesus's "disrespectful" reply firsthand. His stance is indicative of a general readiness within the crowd to react to Jesus's perceived defiance.

• struck Jesus with his hand (ἔδωκεν ῥάπισμα τῷ Ἰησοῦ - edōken rhapisma tō Iēsou):

  • ἔδωκεν (edōken): Aorist active indicative of δίδωμι (didōmi), meaning "to give" or "to administer." This emphasizes the deliberateness of the act.
  • ῥάπισμα (rhapisma): A crucial Greek word, referring specifically to a slap with the open hand, usually to the face. More than a simple hit, it was a deliberate act of public insult, degradation, and shaming. In ancient Near Eastern cultures, such a blow profoundly dishonored the recipient and established the dominance of the inflictor.

• saying, 'Is that how you answer the high priest?' (εἰπών, Οὕτως ἀποκρίνῃ τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ; - eipōn, Houtōs apokrinē tō archierei?):

  • 'Is that how you answer...?': This rhetorical question expresses extreme indignation and functions as an accusation of insubordination. The officer projects his own interpretation of Jesus's calm and lawful response as blatant disrespect.
  • 'the high priest' (τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ - tō archierei): While Annas was no longer the reigning high priest, the officer uses this title to inflate Annas's perceived authority and thus magnify Jesus's alleged offense. It highlights the underlying issue of submission to human religious authority being prioritized over truth.

Words-group by words-group analysis:

• "And when he had said these things, one of the officers standing by...": This phrase connects Jesus's articulate defense directly to the officer's irrational aggression. It signifies the inability or unwillingness of Jesus's interrogators to engage with truth or legitimate legal process, resorting instead to intimidation and physical violence. The presence of the officer "standing by" underscores a collective, hostile atmosphere within the trial.

• "...struck Jesus with his hand, saying, 'Is that how you answer the high priest?'": This composite action encapsulates the core conflict. The physical violence ("struck Jesus with his hand," emphasizing humiliation via a rhapisma) is immediately legitimized in the officer's mind by an appeal to perceived disrespect for authority ("Is that how you answer the high priest?"). It exposes how truth spoken with integrity was interpreted as an insult, triggering a swift and unlawful suppression tactic rather than honest dialogue or due process.

John 18 22 Bonus section

• The striking of Jesus with an open hand, a rhapisma, was considered an extremely grave insult in Jewish law, so much so that if inflicted by a superior, it carried a severe penalty for the aggressor. The fact that a subordinate officer dared to strike Jesus indicates the deep disdain held for Jesus by those in power and an absolute disregard for the very law they supposedly upheld. It was an expression of contempt that Jesus, a Galilean teacher, dared to defy Annas's authority.
• This specific act served multiple purposes: it was a physical blow, a profound humiliation, a means of intimidation, and an attempt to elicit a desired confession or reaction. Its illegality further exposes the mock trial as a sham, highlighting the hypocrisy of those who pretended to operate under God's law while flouting its basic tenets.
• The incident highlights Jesus’s unwavering commitment to truth, even when it cost Him His dignity and invited physical abuse. His previous teaching, always "publicly in the temple and in the synagogues," stands in stark contrast to the secretive, unlawful interrogation he now faces. This scene emphasizes the constant tension between Christ's light of truth and the world's preference for darkness (John 3:19).

John 18 22 Commentary

John 18:22 graphically illustrates the spiritual bankruptcy of the religious establishment confronting Jesus. When faced with Jesus’s lawful and reasonable appeal to public testimony rather than private self-incrimination, the response was not logical engagement, but illegal physical violence. The officer's slap (ῥάπισμα), far from being a mere reprimand, was a calculated act of humiliation and degradation designed to break Jesus's spirit and coerce submission. It starkly reveals that the authorities were not seeking justice or truth, but rather justification for their predetermined condemnation of Jesus. His crime, in their eyes, was not merely blasphemy (which came later), but an insubordination that challenged their illegitimate authority. This act initiates the pattern of physical suffering that Jesus endured, prefiguring the cross and underscoring His patient endurance in the face of profound injustice. It calls believers to stand firm in truth even when met with undeserved hostility, following the example of Christ's dignified response. For example, when one faces unrighteous anger or a false accusation for upholding truth, responding with a calm, discerning question (as Jesus does in John 18:23) rather than retaliating, models Christ's own conduct.