Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:30
They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
30. a malefactor ] Literally, ‘doing evil’ or an evil-doer; not the same expression as Luk 23:32. The Jews are taken aback at Pilate’s evident intention of trying the case himself. They had expected him merely to carry out their sentence, and had not come provided with any definite accusation. Blasphemy, for which they had condemned Him (Mat 26:65-66), might be no crime with Pilate (comp. Act 18:16). Hence the vagueness of their first charge. Later on (Joh 19:7) they throw in the charge of blasphemy; but they rely mainly on three distinct charges, which being political, Pilate must hear; (1) seditious agitation, (2) forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, (3) assuming the title, ‘King of the Jews’ (Luk 23:3).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
If he were not a malefactor – A violator of the law. If we had not determined that he was such, and was worthy of death, Mat 26:66. From this it appears that they did not deliver him up to be tried, but hoped that Pilate would at once, give sentence that he should be executed according to their request. It is probable that in ordinary cases the Roman governor was not accustomed to make very strict inquiry into the justice of the sentence. The Jewish Sanhedrin tried causes and pronounced sentence, and the sentence was usually approved by the governor; but in this case Pilate, evidently contrary to their expectations, proceeded himself to rehear and retry the cause. He had doubtless heard of the miracles of Jesus. He seems to have been strongly pre-possessed with the belief of his innocence. He knew that they had delivered him from mere envy Mat 27:18, and hence, he inquired of them the nature of the case, and the kind of charge which they expected to substantiate against him.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 30. If he were not a malefactor] So they did not wish to make Pilate the judge, but the executor of the sentence which they had already illegally passed.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
They had in their sanhedrim before judged him guilty of blasphemy, Mat 26:65, but this they durst not mention, lest Pilate should have rejected them, as being not concerned in questions of their law; they therefore only exclaimed against him in the general as a great malefactor, but of what kind they do not say. It should seem they would have had Pilate have added his civil authority to confirm and execute their ecclesiastical censure, without so much as hearing any thing of the cause (as at this day frequent in popish countries); but they met with a more equal judge.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
30. If he were not a malefactor, wewould not have delivered him up unto theeThey were consciousthey had no case of which Pilate could take cognizance, andtherefore insinuate that they had already found Him worthy of deathby their own law; but not having the power, under the Romangovernment, to carry their sentence into execution, they had comemerely for his sanction.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
They answered and said unto him,…. Offended at the question put to them, and filled with indignation that they should be so interrogated, with an air of haughtiness and insolence reply to him:
if he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee; insinuating, that he was guilty of some very wicked action; not merely of a breach of some of their laws peculiar to them; for then they would have tried and judged him according to them, and not have brought him before him; but they suggest, that he was guilty of some crimes recognizable by Caesar’s court; and which they did not care to mention expressly, lest they should not succeed, not having it may be as yet, their witnesses ready; and hoped he would have took their own word for it, without any further proof, they being men of such rank and dignity, and of so much knowledge, learning, and religion; and therefore took it ill of him, that he should ask such persons as they were, so famous for their prudence, integrity, and sanctity, such a question: however, they own themselves to be the betrayers and deliverers up of our Lord, which Christ had before foretold, and which Stephen afterwards charged them with.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
If this man were not an evil-doer ( ). Condition (negative) of second class (periphrastic imperfect indicative), assumed to be untrue, with the usual apodosis ( and aorist indicative, first aorist plural with ). This is a pious pose of infallibility not in the Synoptics. They then proceeded to make the charges (Lu 23:2) as indeed John implies (John 18:31; John 18:33). Some MSS. here read (malefactor) as in 1Pet 2:12; 1Pet 2:14, with which compare Luke’s (23:32f.; so also 2Ti 2:9), both meaning evil-doer. Here the periphrastic present participle with emphasizes the idea that Jesus was a habitual evil-doer (Abbott). It was an insolent reply to Pilate (Bernard).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Malefactor [] . Rev., evil – doer. From kakon, evil, and poiew, to do. Luke uses a different word, kakourgov, from kakon, evil, and ergw, to work. See on 1Pe 2:12.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “They answered and said unto him,” (apekrithesan kai eipan auto) “They answered and said directly to him,” in feigned sanctity, the entire milling multitude of priests, scribes, elders, and the whole council of the Sanhedrin, Mar 15:1; Luk 23:1.
2) “If he were not a malefactor,” (ei me hen houtos kakon poion) “Unless this one was repeatedly doing evil,” a general insolent smear, without any particular charge, just a derisive name-smearing job, as saying, “He is a criminal,” not at first even agreeing what crime He had committed, for He had not committed any, Heb 7:26.
3) “We would not have delivered him up unto thee.” (ouk an soi paredokamen auton) “We would not have delivered him directly to you,” trying to dictate the actions of the Roman governor; nice fellows that we are; But the Sanhedrin had already condemned Him to death, and would not have their decision revised, Mat 26:65-66; Mar 14:64; though Jesus knew them to be, “children of the devil,” and “murderers,” Joh 8:44. But Pilate had enough character, and a position of reputation among the Romans, that he would not endanger it without requiring some specific charge against Jesus (from them), before he would act in any judicious manner on the case. For they must clearly state what kind of deed He had done that made Him a malefactor or an habitual criminal; For every word (charge) filed in criminal court required specific testimony, not mere general hearsay or character besmirching insinuations, Num 35:30; Deu 17:6; 2Co 13:1.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
30. If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him to thee. They indirectly complain of Pilate, that he has not a proper reliance on their integrity. “Why do you not, without further concerns” say they, “hold it to be certain, that the person whom we prosecute deserves to die?” Such is the manner in which wicked men, whom God has raised to a high degree of honor, blinded as it were by their own greatness, allow themselves to do whatever they choose. Such, too, is the intoxicating nature of pride. (151) They wish that Christ should be reckoned a malefactor, and for no other reason (152) but because they accuse him. But if we come to the truth of the matter, what deeds of a malefactor shall we find in him, except that he has cured every kind of diseases, has driven the devils out of men, has made the paralytics and the lame to walk, has restored sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and life to the dead? Such were the real facts, and those men knew them well; but, as I said a little ago, when men are intoxicated with pride, nothing is more difficult than to arouse them to form a sound and correct judgment.
(151) “ Voyla aussi comme orgueil remplit les gens d’une yvrognerle, et les met hors du sens.” — “See, too, how pride fills people with a sort of drunkenness, and puts them out of their senses.”
(152) “ Et non pour autre raison.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(30) If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.They take the position that the Roman is the executive, and their own the judicial power. They bring no legal charge against Jesus, but assert, in effect that they themselves, who understood and had investigated the whole matter, had condemned Him to death, and that the fact that they had done so was in itself sufficient proof that He was worthy of death. They use the vague word malefactor, evil-doer, though in the trial before Caiaphas they had not sought to prove any evil deed, and they expect that upon this assertion Pilate will pronounce on Him, as on other malefactors, the sentence of death.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
30. If not a malefactor Uttered in a sarcastic tone, this reply would be of a very irritating character. Uttered, however, in a tone of courteous sauvity, it apologizes for troubling Pilate, assuring him that nothing but the fact that they had a malefactor could have brought them there.
Their real purpose, under either meaning, is to precipitate Pilate into the slaying of Jesus. They first wished to do this, if possible, by making Pilate execute him in implicit compliance with their judgment. Or, failing in that, they will accuse Jesus of treason, and induce Pilate to condemn and crucify. And failing in that, they will boldly threaten Pilate himself, and compel him to execute whether he condemn or not. Pilate, after availing himself of every possible subterfuge, finally yields to their last master-stroke.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
Ver. 30. If he were not a malefactor ] Why? what evil had he done them? Might he not have said to them, as Themistocles to his Athenians, Are ye weary of receiving so many benefits by one man?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
30. ] They do not mention the charge of blasphemy brought against Him by the Sanhedrim, for fear of the entire rejection of their cause, as by Gallio, Act 18:16 . The Procurators in such cases had a discretionary power. On what they did say, Grot. observes, “Quod probationibus deerat, id supplere volunt sua auctoritate.”
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
malefactor = evildoer. Greek. kakopoios. Only here and 1Pe 2:12, 1Pe 2:14; 1Pe 3:16; 1Pe 4:15. Compare Luk 23:32. They expected Pilate to take their word for it, and condemn Him unheard. See Act 25:16.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
30.] They do not mention the charge of blasphemy brought against Him by the Sanhedrim, for fear of the entire rejection of their cause, as by Gallio, Act 18:16. The Procurators in such cases had a discretionary power. On what they did say, Grot. observes, Quod probationibus deerat, id supplere volunt sua auctoritate.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 18:30. , if not) It is a monstrous calumny to treat the cause of an innocent person as if it were a case of notorious criminality. They wish to relieve Pilate of the labour of investigation, so as that he should not trouble himself about their law, but only inflict the punishment.-, this man) Answering to, against this man, in Joh 18:29.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 18:30
Joh 18:30
They answered and said unto him, If this man were not an evil-doer, we should not have delivered him up unto thee.-It is clear that they had no thought of a regular legal trial. They had not given him this in their own council. Nicodemus very pointedly asked the Sanhedrin: Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth? (Joh 7:51). There must be a specific charge and clear proof of guilt in the thing charged. They give to Pilate an indefinite and evasive answer, which shows that they expected him to give his judgment to please them regardless of facts. The results show that they did not misjudge him.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
If: Joh 19:12, Mar 15:3, Luk 20:19-26, Luk 23:2-5
delivered: Mar 10:33, Luk 24:7, Act 3:13
Reciprocal: Psa 64:6 – search Jer 26:11 – saying Luk 18:32 – delivered Joh 9:24 – we know Act 21:33 – and demanded Act 25:5 – if
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0
This verse states a cowardly reply to the question asked by the governor. The word malefactor is indefinite, meaning an evildoer of any rank or degree. The statement of these Jewish leaders implied that Pilate should take for granted that Jesus was guilty of lawlessness from the mere fact of their bringing him into court. This was contrary to the usages of all courts in any civilized land.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 18:30. They answered and said unto him, If this man were not an evil-doer, we should not have delivered him up unto thee. There is pride in the reply, a lofty sense of their own importance and dignity,that importance and dignity which they are so soon to sacrifice. The person whom we bring before thee is a malefactor: is it not enough that we say so, and that we deliver him up to thee?
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The spokesmen for the Jews eventually evaded Pilate’s question. Luke recorded that they initially charged Jesus with misleading Israel, with forbidding the Jews to pay their taxes to Caesar, and with claiming to be Israel’s king (Luk 23:2). However they could not impress Pilate with those charges sufficiently.
They hesitated to bring the charge of blasphemy against Jesus because Pilate might dismiss it as unworthy of his consideration (cf. Act 18:12-16). They evidently did not accuse Him of treason because this too would have incited His many followers, and they would have had difficulty proving it. Consequently they did not name the charge but assumed that it was serious and implied that Pilate should trust them and "rubber stamp" their decision. Perhaps the fact that Pilate had provided troops to arrest Jesus encouraged them to think that he had already judged Jesus guilty. They did not appreciate Pilate’s question since it suggested that they would have to go through a formal trial from beginning to end.
"It is possible that they were taken by surprise at Pilate’s indication that he would try the case himself. They had had his cooperation in making the arrest; now they apparently expected that he would take their word for it that the man the Romans had helped to arrest was dangerous and should be executed." [Note: Ibid., p. 676.]
Pilate realized that the Jewish leaders had determined to do away with Jesus (cf. Mat 27:18), but he had no evidence that Jesus had done anything worthy of death.