Luke 22:71

22:71 Why do we need other witnesses? The high council regarded Jesus’ confirmation that he was both the Messiah and the Son of God as a blasphemous claim and thus as proof of his guilt.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk 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. Act 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 ).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

71. ἠκούσαμεν. “We have heard” that He claims to be the Messiah and the Son of God. It is quite natural that in accusing Him to Pilate nothing is said about this charge of blasphemy,—one of great weight with the Sanhedrin, but which the heathen procurator would not appreciate.

Wsctt. Westcott.

אԠא Cod. Sinaiticus, sæc. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Petersburg. Contains the whole Gospel complete.

B B. Cod. Vaticanus, sæc. 4. In the Vatican Library certainly since 15331 (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul 3, etc., p. 86).

D D. Cod. Bezae, sæc. vi. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.

L L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, sæc. viii. National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

X X. Cod. Monacensis, sæc. ix. In the University Library at Munich. Contains 1:1-37, 2:19-3:38, 4:21-10:37, 11:1-18:43, 20:46-24:53.

TR. Textus Receptus.

A A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sæc. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles 1. in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete.

C

C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, sæc. 5. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: 1:2-2:5, 2:42-3:21, 4:25-6:4, 6:37-7:16, or 17, 8:28-12:3, 19:42-20:27, 21:21-22:19, 23:25-24:7, 24:46-53.

These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX and N.T.

R R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sæc. 8. Brought from a convent in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British Museum. Contains 1:1-13, 1:69-2:4, 16-27, 4:38-5:5, 5:25-6:8, 18-36, 39, 6:49-7:22, 44, 46, 47, 8:5-15, 8:25-9:1, 12-43, 10:3-16, 11:5-27, 12:4-15, 40-52, 13:26-14:1, 14:12-15:1, 15:13-16:16, 17:21-18:10, 18:22-20:20, 20:33-47, 21:12-22:15, 42-56, 22:71-23:11, 38-51. By a second hand 15:19-21.

Δ̠Δ. Cod. Sangallensis, sæc. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.

Jos. Josephus.

Syr Syriac.

Cur. Curetonian.

Aeth. Ethiopic.

Vulg. Vulgate.

Win. Winer, Grammar of N.T. Greek (the page refers to Moulton’s edition).

Sin. Sinaitic.

1 It has been asserted that Justin Martyr (Try. xli. and lxx.) is an exception. But this is a mistake. That Justin himself sometimes uses ποιεῖν in a sacrificial sense is possible; that he understood τοῦτο ποιεῖτε in this sense is not credible. No subsequent Father notes that Justin gives this interpretation, an interpretation so remarkable that it must have attracted attention.

T T. Cod. Borgianus, sæc. v. In the Library of the Propaganda at Rome. Greek and Egyptian. Contains 22:20-23:20.

Sah. Sahidic.

Boh. Bohairic.

Arm. Armenian.

Orig. Origen.

Beng. Bengel.

Euthym. Euthymius Zigabenus.

De W. De Wette.

Nösg. Nösgen.

L. J. Leben Jesu

Mey. Meyer.

F F. Cod. Boreeli, sæc. ix. In the Public Library at Utrecht. Contains considerable portions of the Gospel.

K K. Cod. Cyprius, sæc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

M M. Cod. Campianus, sæc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

S S. Cod. Vaticanus, sæc. x. In the Vatican. The earliest dated MS. of the Greek Testament. Contains the whole Gospel.

U U. Cod. Nanianus, sæc. x. In the Library of St. Mark’s, Venice. Contains the whole Gospel.

G G. Cod. Harleianus, sæc. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable portions.

Latt. Latin.

RV. Revised Version.

Tert. Tertullian.

Cypr. Cyprian.

Wetst. Wetstein.

Ambr. Ambrose.

Aug. Augustine.

Grot. Grotius.

Maldon. Maldonatus.

§ Found in Luke alone.

Cov. Coverdale.

Gen. Geneva.

Rhem. Rheims (or Douay).

Tyn. Tyndale.

AV. Authorized Version.

1 The Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface 8., a.d. 1302, bases the double power of the Papacy on this text. The following are among the most remarkable passages: Igitur Ecclesiæ, unius, et unicæ unum corpus, unum caput, non duo capita quasi monstrum, Christus scilicet et Christi vicarius, Petrus Petrique successor … In has ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem evengelicis dicits instruimur. Nam dicentibus Apostolis: Eccegladii duo hic; in Ecclesia scilicet, cum Apostoli loquerentur; non respondit Dominus nimis esse, sed satis … Uterque ergo in potestate Ecclesiæ, spiritualis scilicet gladius, et materialis: sed is quidem pro Ecclesia, ille vero ab Ecclesia exercendus; ille sacerdotis, is manu Regum et militum; sed ad nutum et patientiam sacerdortis. Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio, et temporalem auctoritatem spirituali subjici potesttati … sic de Ecclesia et ecclesiastica potestate verificatur vaticinium Jeremiæ [i. 10]: Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes, et regna, etc. quæ sequuntur … Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omnem humanam creaturam declaramus, dicimus et definimus omnino esse denecessitate salutis (Raynald. 23. p. 328; see Milman, Lat. Chr. Bk. xi. ch. ix.; Robertson, Bk. vii. ch. v.; Stubbs’ Mosheim, ii. p. 261; Zoeckler, Handb d. Theol. Wiss. ii. p. 167; Gregorovius, Stadt Rom, 5. p. 562; Berchtold, Du Bulle Unam Sanctam. München. 1888).

Luth. Luther.

D. B. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd edition.

WH. Westcott and Hort.

1 Even Meyer is disposed to admit that this strengthening by an Angel is legendary, because it is “singular” (absonderlich), and not mentioned by Mt. or Mk., who has Peter to rest upon. Let us admit that perhaps Lk. did not mention it either. That does not prove that it is legendary; unless we are prepared to admit that the ministry of Angels after the temptation, which is analogous to this, and which is attested by both Mt. (4:11) and Mk. (1:13), is legendary also.

2 In class. Grk. θρόμβος, both with and without αἵματος, may mean a drop of blood (Aesch. Eum. 184; Choëph., 533, 546; Plato, Crit. p. 120 A.).

Wic. Wiclif.

1 It was perhaps in memory of this treacherous act that the “kiss of peace” was omitted in public service on Good Friday. Tertullian blames those who omit it on fast-days which are less public and universal. But die paschæ, quo communis et quasi publica jejunii religio est, merito deponimus osculum (De Orat. 18.). At other times the omission would amount to a proclamation that one was fasting, contrary to Christ’s command.

Burton. Burton, N.T. Moods and Tenses.

Tisch. Tischendorf.

Cod. Am. Codex Amiatimus.

1 Synedrium magnum sedet a sacrificio jugi matutino ad sacrificium juge pomeridianum (Maimonides, Sanhed. 3.); sessiones judicii sunt instituendæ mane, non autem postquam homo edit et bibit (Synops. Soh. p. 56 n. 2).

Edersh. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

Schurer, Schürer, Jewish People in the Times of Jesus Christ.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 71. We ourselves have heard] We have heard him profess himself the Son of God; he is therefore guilty of blasphemy, and, as an impious pretender to a Divine mission, we must proceed against and condemn him to death. See Clarke on Mt 26:66. Thus they proceeded as far as they could; he must now be brought before Pilate, as the Jews had no power to put him to death. His trial before Pilate is related in the subsequent chapter.

ON our Lord's agony in the garden, related in the 43d and 44th verses, Lu 22:43-44 much has been written, but to little purpose. The cause of this agony seems not to have been well understood; and there have been many wild conjectures concerning it. Some think it was occasioned by "the Divine wrath pressing in upon him; for, as he was bearing the sin of the world, God looked on and treated him as if he were a sinner." There is something very shocking in this supposition; and yet it is truly astonishing how general it is. The ministry of the angel, in this case, is a sufficient refutation of this opinion; for what sort of strength could an angel give Christ against God's indignation? Angelic strength could not enable him to bear either the sin of the world or God's wrath. If an angel could have succoured him in this, an angel might have made the whole atonement. Indeed, the ministry of the angel, who must have been sent from God, and sent in love too, is a full proof that God's wrath was not poured out on our blessed Redeemer at this time. Dr. Lightfoot conjectures that his conflict in the garden was with a devil, who appeared to him in a bodily shape, most horrible; and that it was through this apparition that he began to be sore amazed, and very heavy, Mr 14:33; for, as Satan assaulted the first Adam in a garden in a bodily shape, it is not unreasonable to conclude that in the same way he assaulted the second Adam in a garden. St. Luke tells us, Lu 4:13, that when the devil had finished all his temptations, he departed from him for a season: this season in the garden, probably, was the season, or fit opportunity, for him to return-the prince of this world came and found nothing in him, Joh 14:30. But, though there was nothing in the immaculate Jesus on which Satan could work, yet he might, as the doctor supposes, assume some horrible shape, in order to appal his mind, and shake his firmness; and the evangelist seems to intimate that he had desired to be permitted to try or sift the disciples in this way, see Lu 22:31; and it is probable that it is to some personal, horrid appearance, that the apostle alludes when he speaks of the messenger of Satan that buffeted him, 2Co 12:7. The angel, therefore, from heaven, may be supposed to come against this angel from hell; and, as the one appeared to terrify, the other appeared to strengthen him. It was not necessary to exert the Divine power to crush this devil, and therefore an angel from heaven is sent to counteract his influence. This is the sum of Dr. Lightfoot's reasonings upon this very difficult subject.

Others suppose that, while our Lord was praying intensely in the garden, the extreme fervour of his application to God in the behalf of the poor deluded Jews, and in behalf of the world, was too much for his human nature to support; that he, in consequence, fell into a swoon, in which he had a VISION of an angel coming from heaven to strengthen him. Let these sentiments stand on their respective merits.

What renders this circumstance more difficult is, that there is no mention of it in any of the other evangelists: and it is worthy of remark that, among many of the ancients, the authenticity of these two verses, the 43d and 44th, Lu 22:43-44; Luke 22:44 has been doubted, and in consequence they are omitted in several MSS., and in some versions and fathers. The Codex Alexandrinus and the Codex Vaticanus, the two oldest MSS. in the world, omit both verses; in some other very ancient MSS. they stand with an asterisk before them, as a mark of dubiousness; and they are both wanting in the Coptic Fragments published by Dr. Ford. They are however extant in such a vast number of MSS., versions, and fathers, as to leave no doubt with most critics of their authenticity. After all that has been said, or perhaps can be said on this subject, there will remain mysteries which only the bright light of the eternal world can sufficiently illustrate. That Christ was now suffering, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, and that he was bearing in his body the punishment due to their sins, I have no doubt: and that the agony of his mind, in these vicarious sufferings, caused the effusion from his body, of the bloody sweat, may be easily credited without supposing him to be at all under the displeasure of his heavenly Father; for, as God can see nothing but as it is, he could not see him as a sinner who was purity itself. In every act, Jesus was that beloved Son in whom the Father was ever well pleased.

As to the angel strengthening him, probably no more is meant by it than a friendly sympathizing of one of those heavenly beings with their Lord in distress: this circumstance is the most difficult in the whole relation; but, understood thus, the difficulty is removed; for what strength could the highest angel in heaven afford to our blessed Lord in his atoning acts? Surely, none. The bare supposition is insupportable. But, if we allow that the angel came to sympathize with him during his passions the whole account will appear plain and consistent.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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

Ver. 71. See Mat 26:65.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

71. τί ἔτι ἔχομεν μαρτυρίας χρείαν; Caiaphas had made the same appeal to the audience at the night trial. Van Oosterzee mentions that at the trial of the Reformer Farel, the Genevan Priests addressed him in these very words, and he replied, “Speak the words of God, and not those of Caiaphas.”—This trial was followed by the second derision, in which it almost seems as if the Sanhedrists themselves took part. Mat 26:67. St Luke here omits the remorse and horrible end of Judas, on which he touches in Act 1:18.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

71.] How would it have been possible that these words should have been said, if no μαρτυρία had been brought forward at this examination, and if the very same question had been asked at the termination of the former one?

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.