TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Luke 22:63–71. His two-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
We are here told, as before in the other gospels,
I.How our Lord Jesus was abused by the servants of the high priest.
The abjects, the rude and barbarous servants, gathered themselves together against him. They that held Jesus, that had him in custody till the court sat, they mocked him, and smote him (Luk 22:63), they would not allow him to repose himself one minute, though he had had no sleep all night, nor to compose himself, though he was hurried to his trial, and no time given him to prepare for it. They made sport with him: this sorrowful night to him shall be a merry night to them; and the blessed Jesus, like Samson, is made the fool in the play. They hood-winked him, and then, according to the common play that young people have among them, they struck him on the face, and continued to do so till he named the person that smote him (Luk 22:64), intending hereby an affront to his prophetical office, and that knowledge of secret things which he was said to have. We are not told that he said any thing, but bore every thing; hell was let loose, and he suffered it to do its worst. A greater indignity could not be done to the blessed Jesus, yet this was but one instance of many; for many other things blasphemously spoke they against him, Luk 22:65. They that condemned him for a blasphemer were themselves the vilest blasphemers that ever were.
II.How he was accused and condemned by the great sanhedrim, consisting of the elders of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes, who were all up betimes, and got together as soon as it was day, about five of the clock in the morning, to prosecute this matter. They were working this evil upon their beds, and, as soon as ever the morning was light, practised it, Mic 2:1. They would not have been up so early for any good work. It is but a short account that we have here of his trial in the ecclesiastical court.
1.They ask him, Art thou the Christ? He was generally believed by his followers to be the Christ, but they could not prove it upon him that he had ever said so totidem verbis - in so many words, and therefore urge him to own it to them, Luk 22:67. If they had asked him this question with a willingness to admit that he was the Christ, and to receive him accordingly if he could give sufficient proof of his being so, it had been well, and might have been for ever well with them; but they asked it with a resolution not to believe him, but a design to ensnare him.
2.He justly complained of their unfair and unjust usage of him, Luk 22:67, Luk 22:68. They all, as Jews, professed to expect the Messiah, and to expect him at this time. No other appeared, or had appeared, that pretended to be the Messiah. He had no competitor, nor was he likely to have any. He had given amazing proofs of a divine power going along with him, which made his claims very well worthy of a free and impartial enquiry. It had been but just for these leaders of the people to have taken him into their council, and examined him there as a candidate for the messiahship, not at the bar as a criminal. "But," saith he, (1.) "If I tell you that I am the Christ, and give you ever such convincing proofs of it, you are resolved that you will not believe. Why should the cause be brought on before you who have already prejudged it, and are resolved, right or wrong, to run it down, and to condemn it?" (2.) "If I ask you what you have to object against the proofs I produce, you will not answer me." Here he refers to their silence when he put a question to them, which would have led them to own his authority, Luk 20:5-7. They were neither fair judges, nor fair disputants; but, when they were pinched with an argument, would rather be silent than own their conviction: "You will neither answer me nor let me go; if I be not the Christ, you ought to answer the arguments with which I prove that I am; if I be, you ought to let me go; but you will do neither."
3.He referred them to his second coming, for the full proof of his being the Christ, to their confusion, since they would not now admit the proof of it, to their conviction (Luk 22:69): "Hereafter shall the Son of man sit, and be seen to sit, on the right hand of the power of God, and then you will not need to ask whether he be the Christ or no."
4.Hence they inferred that he set up himself as the Son of God, and asked him whether he were so or no (Luk 22:70): Art thou then the Son of God? He called himself the Son of man, referring to Daniel's vision of the Son of man that came near before the Ancient of days, Dan 7:13, Dan 7:14. But they understood so much as to know that if he was that Son of man, he was also the Son of God. And art thou so? By this it appears to have been the faith of the Jewish church that the Messiah should be both Son of man and Son of God.
5.He owns himself to be the Son of God: Ye say that I am; that is, "I am, as ye say." Compare Mar 14:62. Jesus said, I am. This confirms Christ's testimony concerning himself, that he was the Son of God, that he stood to it, when he knew he should suffer for standing to it.
6.Upon this they ground his condemnation (Luk 22:71): What need we any further witness? It was true, they needed not any further witness to prove that he said he was the Son of God, they had it from his own mouth; but did they not need proof that he was not so, before they condemned him as a blasphemer for saying that he was so? Had they no apprehension that it was possible he might be so, and then what horrid guilt they should bring upon themselves in putting him to death? No, they know not, neither will they understand. They cannot think it possible that he should be the Messiah, though ever so evidently clothed with divine power and grace, if he appear not, as they expect, in worldly pomp and grandeur. Their eyes being blinded with the admiration of that, they rush on in this dangerous prosecution, as the horse into the battle.
Historical interpretation
Nine Centuries of Reception
9 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
By what means, however, are you going to prove to us that they pronounced the sentence "Ergo tu filius Dei es" interrogatively, and not affirmatively? Just as, (on the one hand, ) because He had shown them in an indirect manner, by passages of Scripture, that they ought to regard Him as the Son of God, they therefore meant their own words, "Thou art then the Son of God," to be taken in a like (indirect) sense, as much as to say, "You do not wish to say this of yourself plainly, so, (on the other hand, ) He likewise answered them, "Ye say that I am," in a sense equally free from doubt, even affirmatively; and so completely was His statement to this effect, that they insisted on accepting that sense which His statement indicated.
The Lord had rather prove Himself a King than call Himself one, that they might have no excuse for condemning Him, when they confess the truth of that which they lay against Him. It follows, And he said, Ye say that I am.
Jesus, the Lord of heaven and earth, sustains and suffers the mockings of the ungodly, giving us an example of patience.
(de Con. Ev. ut sup.) Now our Lord is supposed to have suffered these things until morning in the house of the High Priest, to which He was first led. Hence it follows, And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? &c.
When Christ spoke this, the company of the Pharisees were very wroth, uttering shameful words; as it follows, Then said they, What need we any further witness?
They say, "We no longer need any testimony," as being the hearers of Christ's words. What had they heard him say? O vile and senseless people, you wanted to learn if he were the Christ! He taught you that by nature and in truth he is the Son of God the Father, and he shares the throne of Deity with him. As you confessed, you now have no need of testimony, because you have heard him speak. You might now have learned best that he is the Christ. This would have proved for you the pathway to faith, had you only been one of those who would know the truth. Making even the pathway of salvation an occasion for their souls' ruin, they do not understand. They senselessly slay him, keeping but one aim in view in contempt of all law. They totally disregard the divine commands. It is written, "The holy and the just you shall not kill." They paid no regard whatsoever to the sacred commands but rushed down some steep hill to fall into the snares of destruction.
But they said: What further need do we have for testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from his own mouth. They accepted the testimony of the Lord, who himself said that he was Christ and the Son of God, in that he said: The Son of Man will be sitting at the right hand of the power of God. And to those asking: Are you then the Son of God? He answered: You say that I am. They therefore condemn themselves by their own judgment, who hand over to death him whom they know by the testimony of their own words and deeds to be God. They also condemn the Arians, who, after the Lord had already been glorified post-death, do not understand the words announcing divine majesty, which, while he was still bound, scourged, and mocked, the very executioners who were to crucify him understood.
They wished not for truth, but were contriving calumny. Because they expected that Christ would come only as man, of the root of David, they sought this of Him, that if He should say, "I am the Christ," they might falsely accuse Him of claiming to Himself the kingly power.
For He had often declared Himself to be the Christ; as when he said, l and my Father are one, (John 10:30.) and other such like things. And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me. For He had asked them how they said Christ was the Son of David, whereas David in the Spirit called Him his Lord. But they wished neither to believe His words nor to answer His questions. However, because they sought to accuse falsely the seed of David, they hear something still farther; as it follows, Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
They understood that He called Himself the Son of God in these words, The Son of man shall sit on the right hand of the power of God.
Likewise the Lord of prophets is derided as a false prophet. It follows, And they blindfolded him. This they did as a dishonour to Him who wished to be accounted by the people as a prophet. But He who was struck with the blows of the Jews, is struck also now by the blasphemies of false Christians. And they blindfolded Him, not that He should not see their wickedness, but that they might hide His face from them. But heretics, and Jews, and wicked Catholics, provoke Him with their vile actions, as it were mocking Him, saying, Who smote thee? while they flatter themselves that their evil thoughts and works of darkness are not known by Him.
He knew the secrets of their hearts, that they who had not believed His works would much less believe His words. Hence it follows, And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe, &c.
As if he said, There is no time left to you any longer for discourses and teaching, but hereafter shall be the time of judgment, when ye shall see Me, the Son of man, sitting on the right hand of the power of God.
When then they heard this, they ought to have been afraid, but after these words they are the more frantic; as it follows, All said, &c.
Whereby it is manifest, that the disobedient reap no advantage, when the more secret mysteries are revealed to them, but rather incur the heavier punishment. Wherefore such things ought to be concealed from them.
Continue studying Luke 22:71 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Luke 22:71 concludes the Jewish trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, capturing the council's unanimous decision that Jesus's own words provided sufficient grounds for condemnation. Having pressed Jesus on His identity, and receiving His direct affirmation of being the Son of God, the religious leaders declared that no further witness was needed, as they had heard what they deemed blasphemy directly from His mouth. This pivotal moment solidifies their intent to crucify Jesus, setting the stage for His subsequent trial before Pilate.
Context
Literary Context
This verse serves as the culmination of Jesus's interrogation by the Sanhedrin, which began in Luke 22:66. The council had pressed Jesus with two critical questions: "Art thou the Christ?" (Luke 22:67) and "Art thou then the Son of God?" (Luke 22:70). Jesus's responses, particularly His affirmation in Luke 22:70 ("Ye say that I am"), coupled with His declaration about the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God (Luke 22:69), were interpreted by the council as blasphemy. Luke 22:71 marks the Sanhedrin's verdict, eliminating the need for further testimony and effectively concluding the Jewish phase of Jesus's trial, directly preceding His delivery to Pilate for Roman judgment in Luke 23:1ff. This account finds strong parallels in Matthew 26:65-66 and Mark 14:63-64.
Historical & Cultural Context
The Sanhedrin was the supreme Jewish judicial and religious council, consisting of chief priests, scribes, and elders. Under Jewish law, a capital offense required the testimony of at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6, Deuteronomy 19:15). The Gospels indicate that the Sanhedrin struggled to find consistent and credible witnesses against Jesus (Mark 14:56-59). However, claiming divinity or equating oneself with God was considered the ultimate act of blasphemy, punishable by death under Mosaic Law (Leviticus 24:16). By interpreting Jesus's self-declaration as blasphemy, the Sanhedrin circumvented the need for external witnesses, as Jesus's "confession" was deemed sufficient. This trial was fraught with irregularities, including being held at night, a swift verdict without proper deliberation, and the use of Jesus's own words against Him, highlighting the religious leaders' predetermined malice.
Key Themes
This verse powerfully contributes to several key themes within Luke's Gospel and the broader biblical narrative. Firstly, it underscores the Rejection of Jesus's Divine Identity by the religious establishment. Despite clear declarations, the Sanhedrin's spiritual blindness and hardened hearts prevented them from recognizing the truth of who Jesus was, leading them to condemn Him rather than worship Him. Secondly, it highlights the theme of Judicial Injustice. The trial was a travesty of justice, driven by envy and a desire to eliminate Jesus, rather than a genuine pursuit of truth. The council's declaration in this verse signifies a predetermined verdict, not an impartial judgment. Finally, it subtly reinforces Jesus's Sovereignty and Submission. Even in His "condemnation," Jesus remains in control, fulfilling prophetic scriptures and willingly submitting to the Father's will, demonstrating His ultimate authority even as He appears to be at the mercy of human courts.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This word, derived from a root suggesting "employment" or "use," here signifies "necessity," "requirement," or "want." The Sanhedrin's rhetorical question, "What need we any further witness?", powerfully conveys their conviction that no additional evidence or testimony is required. In their view, Jesus's own words have fully satisfied their "need" for a charge, making any further search for witnesses redundant and unnecessary.
From the root martys (a witness), this term denotes "evidence," "testimony," or "report," often in a judicial context. The Sanhedrin had previously sought martyria against Jesus, but found none consistent enough to secure a capital conviction. Their declaration in this verse signifies that Jesus's direct statement has now provided the ultimate, irrefutable martyria in their eyes, rendering all other forms of evidence superfluous.
A primary verb meaning "to hear" in various senses, including to "give audience," "come to the ears," or "understand." The emphasis on "we ourselves have heard" highlights the direct, undeniable nature of their perception. They are not relying on secondhand accounts or conflicting testimonies, but on Jesus's own spoken words, which they claim to have personally and clearly understood as blasphemous.
Verse Breakdown
"And they said"
This phrase refers to the collective voice and unanimous decision of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court. It indicates a consensus among the chief priests, scribes, and elders present, signaling the culmination of their deliberation regarding Jesus's identity and culpability.
"What need we any further witness?"
This is a rhetorical question, not posed to elicit information, but to express a definitive and unanimous conclusion. It conveys that in the council's judgment, Jesus's own words were so damning that no additional external testimony was required to establish a charge against Him. It implies a sense of finality and sufficiency in their perceived evidence.
"for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth"
This clause provides the justification for their rhetorical question and their subsequent verdict. The emphasis on "we ourselves" and "his own mouth" underscores the directness and perceived self-incrimination of Jesus's statement in Luke 22:70. In their view, Jesus's clear affirmation of being the Son of God constituted blasphemy, and this direct auditory evidence from the accused himself was considered the most irrefutable and sufficient proof for condemnation.
Literary Devices
Luke employs several literary devices in this verse to heighten its dramatic and thematic impact. The most prominent is the rhetorical question, "What need we any further witness?" This is not a genuine inquiry but a powerful declaration of the Sanhedrin's unanimous and resolute conviction. It serves to underscore the perceived finality of their judgment and the sufficiency of Jesus's "confession" in their eyes. There is also a profound irony at play: Jesus's words, intended to reveal His divine truth and identity, are twisted and used as the very grounds for His condemnation. The ultimate truth-teller is condemned by His own true words. Furthermore, the phrase "we ourselves have heard of his own mouth" functions as a form of emphasis and repetition, stressing the directness and undeniable nature of the "evidence" from the council's perspective. This repetition reinforces their belief that no other testimony, however sought or fabricated, could be more conclusive than Jesus's direct statement.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Luke 22:71 stands as a stark testament to the profound spiritual blindness and hardened hearts of the religious leaders who rejected God's incarnate Son. Their declaration, "What need we any further witness?", reveals a judicial process driven by a predetermined outcome rather than a search for truth. They had struggled to find consistent external witnesses, but Jesus's own truthful declaration of His divine identity, though uttered in submission to God's will, was twisted into the ultimate charge of blasphemy. This moment highlights the tragic human capacity to reject undeniable truth when it challenges preconceived notions or threatens established power structures. The Sanhedrin, guardians of the Law, became its perverters, condemning the very source of life and truth, believing they were serving God while actively opposing Him. This rejection of Christ's explicit claims about Himself foreshadows the broader rejection He would face, yet it also sets the stage for the ultimate triumph of His divine authority through His death and resurrection.
Reflection and Application
Luke 22:71 serves as a profound mirror for self-reflection, challenging us to examine our own hearts and how we respond to the claims of Jesus Christ. The Sanhedrin's swift condemnation, based on what they perceived as blasphemy from Jesus's own mouth, underscores the danger of spiritual blindness and the human tendency to reject truth that disrupts our comfort or challenges our authority. Are we, like the Sanhedrin, allowing our preconceived notions, biases, or even our religious traditions to prevent us from fully embracing the radical truth of who Jesus is and what He demands of us? This verse calls us to an unwavering commitment to truth, even when it is unpopular or costly. Jesus stood firm in His identity, knowing it would lead to His death, providing a powerful example for believers to confess their faith boldly, regardless of the opposition. It also reminds us that true authority belongs to Christ, and human judgments, however powerful, are ultimately subject to His divine sovereignty.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why did the Sanhedrin consider Jesus's statement blasphemy?
For the Sanhedrin, claiming to be the Son of God, particularly in the divine, messianic sense that Jesus implied (as seen in Luke 22:69-70), was considered blasphemy. Under Jewish law, blasphemy was understood as insulting or dishonoring God, or, in its most severe form, equating oneself with God. The Jewish leaders believed that Jesus, a man, was making Himself equal with God, which they viewed as the ultimate transgression against the one true God of Israel. They fundamentally misunderstood or deliberately rejected Jesus's unique identity as the divine Son, interpreting His truth as a capital offense.
What was the significance of the Sanhedrin stating, "we ourselves have heard of his own mouth"?
This statement was highly significant because it meant the Sanhedrin no longer needed external witnesses, whose testimonies against Jesus had been inconsistent and unreliable (Mark 14:56-59). Jesus's direct affirmation of His divine identity in Luke 22:70 was, in their view, a clear and undeniable act of self-incrimination. By hearing it "of his own mouth," they considered the evidence to be irrefutable and sufficient for a verdict of blasphemy, allowing them to proceed directly to condemnation without further deliberation or the search for additional testimony.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Luke 22:71, though a scene of human condemnation, paradoxically highlights the profound Christ-centered fulfillment of God's redemptive plan. The Sanhedrin's declaration that "What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth" is a chilling testament to their rejection of the very Son of God standing before them. Yet, Jesus's "self-incrimination" was not a moment of weakness, but a deliberate and sovereign act of submission to the Father's will, fulfilling the ancient prophecies of the suffering Servant who would be condemned by His own people (Isaiah 53:7-8). The words from Jesus's mouth, which the Sanhedrin twisted into blasphemy, were in fact declarations of His true divine identity and His coming glory as the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power (Luke 22:69). This human verdict, intended to end His ministry, was the very catalyst for His ultimate triumph. The cross, to which this condemnation leads, becomes the means by which He atones for the sins of the world (John 1:29). The mouth that was condemned would later declare "It is finished" (John 19:30), securing victory over sin and death, and demonstrating that His true authority far transcends any earthly court. Thus, the Sanhedrin's rejection of the "Son of God" (Luke 22:70) becomes the very path to the salvation offered through the resurrected Christ.