Luke 22:71

And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

22:63-71 Those that condemned Jesus for a blasphemer, were the vilest blasphemers. He referred them to his second coming, for the full proof of his being the Christ, to their confusion, since they would not admit the proof of it to their conviction. He owns himself to be the Son of God, though he knew he should suffer for it. Upon this they ground his condemnation. Their eyes being blinded, they rush on. Let us meditate on this amazing transaction, and consider Him who endured such contradiction of sinners against himself.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

See the notes at Matthew 26:57-68.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

Lu 22:63-71. Jesus Condemned to Die and Shamefully Entreated.

(See on [1730]Mr 14:53-63; [1731]Joh 18:19, &c.; and [1732]Lu 22:55-62.)

Matthew Poole's Commentary

See Poole on "Luke 22:66"

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And they said,.... That is, the council, as the Persic version reads; some of the members of the sanhedrim, or the whole body of them:

what need we any further witness? or give any further trouble in getting witnesses, and hearing them:

for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth: his blasphemy, and what amounts to a sufficient charge of that kind; upon which they all pronounced him worthy of death, and determined to deliver him into the hands of Pilate the Roman governor, in order to pass sentence on him, and put him to death.

Geneva Study Bible

And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Expositor's Greek Testament

Luke 22:71. μαρτυρίας: instead of μαρτύρων, no mention having been previously made of witnesses.

J. Weiss (in Meyer, eighth edition) finds in this section clear evidence of the use of a Jewish-Christian source from the correspondence between the account it gives of the questions put to Jesus and His replies and the Jewish-Christian ideas regarding the Messiahship. These he conceives to have been as follows: In His earthly state Jesus was not Messiah or Son of Man; only a claimant to these honours. He became both in the state of exaltation (cf. Acts 2:36 : “God hath made Him both Lord and Christ”). He was God’s Son in the earthly state because He was conscious of God’s peculiar love and of a Messianic commission. So here: Jesus is to become (ἔσται) Messianic Son of Man with glory and power (δόξα and δύναμις); He is Son of God (ἐγώ εἰμι). On this view Sonship is lower than Christhood. Was that Lk.’s idea? On the contrary, he evidently treats the Christ question as one of subordinate importance on which it was hardly worth debating. The wider, larger question was that as to Sonship, which, once settled, settled also the narrower question. If Son, then Christ and more: not only the Jewish Messiah, but Saviour of the world. The account of the trial runs on the same lines as the genealogy, in which Davidic descent is dwarfed into insignificance by Divine descent (υἱὸς … τοῦ θεοῦ).

Luke 22:71