Jesus had been hit for an answer that was true and respectful, and He asked the officer to justify the blow. His question sets two choices side by side. If He had spoken evil, the officer should prove it with testimony. If He had spoken well, the blow had no cause. Barnes explains Jesus' point: if there had been any disrespect to the office, the officer should testify to it, and let punishment be inflicted according to the law. Gill says Jesus answered "without making use of his divine power as the Son of God," and "mildly and rationally argues with him."

The text records no reply from the officer. The next words are, "Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest" (John 18:24). No evil is recorded for him to "bear witness of." Later the mistreatment continued: "others smote him with the palms of their hands" (Matthew 26:67).

The verb translated "smitest" is dero. Thayer gives its root meaning as "to flay, skin," and in the New Testament, to beat or smite. John 18:22 says the officer struck Jesus "with the palm of his hand," a slap. Gill calls it "a piece of rudeness and insolence to the last degree" and says that under Jewish rules such an affront carried a fine of two hundred zuzim (silver coins).

Barnes describes the officer as one of the "inferior officers, or those who attended on the court." He also addresses Jesus' teaching to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). Barnes says that precept concerns private wrongs rather than court proceedings, and that a person on trial is "under the protection of the court." Asking for justice in court did not contradict Jesus' own teaching.

Jesus' question shows the meekness and the firmness of Christ together. He did not strike back or call down judgment, yet He did not pretend that wrong was right. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary draws the lesson: "Our resentment of injuries must never be passionate."

The Son of God stood bound before men who could not find a true charge against Him. A question with two parts, "if I have spoken evil... but if well," left only one honest answer, and no one gave it. The silence of His accusers shows His innocence. He was struck not because He had done wrong but because He told the truth.