Luke 22:63 - Meaning and Application

We are told here, as in the other Gospels, how our Lord Jesus was mistreated by the servants of the high priest. Those low and brutal servants gathered around him. The men who held Jesus in custody until the court met mocked him and struck him (Luke 22:63). They would not let him rest even for a minute, though he had been awake all night. They gave him no time to compose himself, even though he was being rushed to trial and had no time to prepare.

They made a game out of him. This sorrowful night for Jesus was a merry one for them, and the blessed Jesus, like Samson, was made the fool in their sport. They blindfolded him and then, as in a common game among young people, they struck him in the face. They kept doing this until he named the person who hit him (Luke 22:64). They meant this as an insult to his prophetical office, that is, his role as the one who truly knows and speaks God’s message, and to the knowledge of hidden things that he was said to have.

We are not told that he said anything, only that he bore it all. Hell was let loose, and he suffered it to do its worst. No greater insult could have been done to the blessed Jesus, yet this was only one example among many, for they also spoke many other blasphemous things against him (Luke 22:65). Those who condemned him as a blasphemer were themselves the worst blasphemers who ever lived.

Next, we see how he was accused and condemned by the great Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council made up of the elders, chief priests, and scribes. They were up early and gathered as soon as it was daylight, around five in the morning, to carry this matter forward. They were planning evil in their beds, and as soon as morning came, they carried it out (Micah 2:1). They would never have risen so early for any good work. We are given only a short account of his trial before this religious court.

First, they asked him, “Are you the Christ?” His followers generally believed he was the Christ, the promised Messiah, but they could not prove that he had said this in those exact words. So they pressed him to say it plainly to them (Luke 22:67). If they had asked with a willingness to accept him as the Christ, and to believe if he gave enough proof, it would have been a good thing, and it might have been good for them forever. But they asked only to trap him, fully decided not to believe.

Second, he rightly complained about their unfair treatment of him (Luke 22:67-68). As Jews, they all claimed to expect the Messiah, and to expect him at that time. No one else had appeared claiming to be the Messiah. He had no rival, and was unlikely to have one. He had given amazing proof of divine power working with him, so his claims deserved a fair and careful hearing. It would have been only just for these leaders of the people to take him before their council and examine him there as a possible Messiah, not place him at the bar as a criminal.

But he said, in effect, “If I tell you that I am the Christ, and give you the clearest proof of it, you are determined not to believe. Why should the case be brought before you, when you have already decided against it and mean, right or wrong, to put it down and condemn it?” And again, “If I ask what you object to in the proofs I give, you will not answer me.” He was referring to their silence when he had asked them a question that would have led them to admit his authority (Luke 20:5-7). They were neither fair judges nor fair debaters. When an argument pressed them, they would rather stay silent than admit they were convinced. “You will neither answer me nor let me go. If I am not the Christ, you should answer the arguments by which I prove that I am. If I am, you should let me go. But you will do neither.”

Third, he pointed them to his second coming, when the full proof of his being the Christ would be seen, though they would not accept it now, to their conviction and shame (Luke 22:69). “After this,” he said, “the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of the power of God, and then you will not need to ask whether he is the Christ.”

Fourth, they drew from this that he was claiming to be the Son of God, and asked him directly whether he was (Luke 22:70). “Are you then the Son of God?” He had called himself the Son of Man, referring to Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man coming before the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:13-14). But they understood enough to know that if he was that Son of Man, he was also the Son of God. So they asked, “Are you that?” This shows that it was already the faith of the Jewish church that the Messiah would be both the Son of Man and the Son of God.

Fifth, he confessed it plainly: “You say that I am.” That is, “I am, as you say.” Compare (Mark 14:62). Jesus said, “I am.” This strengthens Christ’s witness about himself, that he truly was the Son of God, and that he held to that truth even though he knew he would suffer for it.

Sixth, they used this as the ground for condemning him (Luke 22:71): “Why do we need any more testimony?” It was true that they needed no more testimony to prove that he had said he was the Son of God, since they had heard it from his own mouth. But did they not also need proof that he was not the Son of God, before condemning him as a blasphemer for saying he was? Did they never consider that he might really be the Son of God, and that they would then bring terrible guilt on themselves by putting him to death?

No, they knew nothing, and they would not understand. They could not think it possible that he was the Messiah, even though he was clearly marked by divine power and grace, because he did not come in the worldly splendor and pride they expected. Their eyes were blinded by their love of that kind of grandeur, and so they rushed ahead in this dangerous prosecution, like a horse charging into battle.