John 18:30Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

O madness! Why do you not state the crime itself, but conceal it? Why do you not expose the evil?

Do you see how everywhere they refuse a direct accusation and can say nothing? Annas asked about the teaching and, having heard the answer, sent Him to Caiaphas.

Caiaphas, in turn, questioned Him again and, finding nothing, sent Him on to Pilate. Pilate says, "What accusation do you bring against this Man?" But even here they can say nothing, and again resort only to assertions.

But they, having nothing to say, answer, "If He were not a criminal, we would not have delivered Him to you."

Do you see how everywhere they evade proofs? Annas questioned Him and, finding nothing, sent Him to Caiaphas. Caiaphas, after judging Him somewhat, sends Him to Pilate.

Then Pilate again asks, "What accusation do you bring against this Man?" Even here they can say nothing.

They cannot point to any real guilt. They conceal, as it were, the shame of their impiety and their evident intention to commit an unjust murder.

They falsely claim that they would by no means have brought Jesus for condemnation and punishment if, as they say, He had not been convicted of some crime.

They hypocritically still show concern for keeping the Law, which commands right judgment over all. What is astonishing, they contend for the fulfillment of the Law, demanding to be regarded as keepers of the Law.

Yet they themselves hasten to accuse the Lawgiver. They say that He did evil who came to destroy evil.

Let those delivered from an unclean spirit be questioned and give answer. Let those healed of paralysis, cleansed of leprosy, the deaf who received hearing, the mute who spoke, the blind who saw, and the dead who rose answer.

Above all, let fools who received understanding answer whether Christ was a criminal. But this was said by those of whom He Himself foretold through the prophet: "They repay me evil for good" (Ps 34:12).

You will find the explanation of all this in the interpretation of the words, "Now Jesus stood before the governor" (Mt 27:11).

But why was Jesus Christ silent when the Jews said that He was a criminal? Since He was not asked about this, He only listens patiently.

They considered it necessary to show Pilate that such a question offended them and proved the governor's distrust of them. Meanwhile, the Sanhedrin, appearing in full assembly, deserved a different attitude from him.

Therefore the chief priests answered Pilate, "If He were not a criminal, we would not have delivered Him to you."

From such an answer Pilate could see that the Sanhedrin did not acknowledge the Roman governor's right to review its sentence. It demanded only submissive confirmation and execution.

"If He were not a criminal, would we, all the members of the Sanhedrin, have delivered Him to you for execution?" This was the answer of the elders, who still hoped that their personal dignity would replace every proof.

But such indefinite and personal language increasingly betrayed the secret of Jesus' enemies. Their self-confidence stirred Pilate's pride still more, and inwardly he may have rejoiced at the chance to vex his enemies.

The chief priests and scribes did not wish to present the required accusation in definite terms. "If He were not a criminal," they said, "we would not have delivered Him to you."

On this formal question, one of the chief accusers should have answered. But the assembly was in great agitation.

Therefore, instead of a formal and calm reply, several voices came from the crowd, rudely and insolently murmuring, "If He were not a criminal, we would not have delivered Him to you."

"If He were not a criminal," and so forth: the answer is very cunning. It shows what position the accusers wished to take toward the procurator in this case from the very beginning.

They had tried and condemned Him. Pilate was to be merely the executor of the sentence they had pronounced, without investigating the case on his own.

In this way, they would be the judges, while Pilate would be assigned only the role of executioner.

So said the members of the Sanhedrin. Vexation and malice sounded in this answer.

The Sanhedrin did not even wish to think that Pilate would allow himself to question the verdict of the full Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin makes it understood that the voice of the full Sanhedrin deserves trust.

"They consider it sufficient that He was seized by them, as though they could not commit injustice." Proud Sanhedrin does not even name the One of whom it speaks to Pilate. It calls Him a criminal, though He had done so much good for the Jewish people.

Ammonius, in Cat. Patr. in Iohan. p. 428.