John 18:31

The Evangelist returns to the part where he had left off, in order to relate Peter’s denial: Then led they Jesus to Caiaphas to the hall of judgment: to Caiaphas from his colleague and father in law Annas, as has been said. But If to Caiaphas, how to the praetorium, which was the place where the governor Pilate resided;

The praetorium is the place where the praetor sat. Praetors were called prefects and preceptors, because they issue decrees.

Where then for some urgent reason Caiaphas proceeded from the house of Annas, where both had been sitting, to the praetorium of the governor, and left Jesus to the hearing of his father in law: or Pilate had established the praetorium in the house of Caiaphas, which was large enough to afford a separate lodging to its owner, and the governor at the same time.

According to Matthew, When the morning came, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate. But He was to have been led to Caiaphas at first. How is it then that He was brought to him so late? The truth is, now He was going as it were a committed criminal, Caiaphas having already determined on His death. And He was to be given up to Pilate immediately. And it was early.

He was led to Caiaphas before the cock crowed, but early in the morning to Pilate. Whereby the Evangelist shows, that all that night of examination, ended in proving nothing against Him; and that He was sent to Pilate in consequence. But leaving what passed then to the other Evangelists, he goes to what followed.

And they themselves entered not into the judgment hall: i.e. into that part of the house which Pilate occupied, supposing it to be the house of Caiaphas. Why they did not enter is next explained: Lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

For the Jews were then celebrating the passover; He Himself celebrated it one day before, reserving His own death for the sixth day; on which day the old passover was kept. Or, perhaps, the passover means the whole season.

The days of unleavened breed were beginning; during which time it was defilement to enter the house of a stranger.

The passover was strictly the fourteenth day of the month, the day on which the lamb was killed in the evening: the seven days following were called the days of unleavened bread, in which nothing leavened ought to be found in their houses. Yet we find the day of the passover reckoned among the days of unleavened bread: Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, Where will you that we prepare for you to eat the passover? And here also in like manner: That they might eat the passover; the passover here signifying not the sacrifice of the lamb, which took place the fourteenth day at evening, but the great festival which was celebrated on the fifteenth day, after the sacrifice of the lamb. Our Lord, like the rest of the Jews, kept the passover on the fourteenth day: on the fifteenth day, when the great festival was held, He was crucified. His immolation however began on the fourteenth day, from the time that He was taken in the garden.

O impious blindness! They feared to be defiled by the judgment hall of a foreign prefect, to shed the blood of an innocent brother they feared not. For that He Whom they killed was the Lord and Giver of life, their blindness saved them from knowing

Pilate however proceeds in a more gentle way: Pilate then went out to them.

It was the custom of the Jews when they condemned any one to death, to notify it to the governor, by delivering the man bound.

Pilate however seeing Him bound, and such numbers conducting Him, supposed that they had not unquestionable evidence against Him, so proceeds to ask the question: And said, What accusation bring you against this Man? For it was absurd, he said, to take the trial out of his hands, and yet give him the punishment. They in reply bring forward no positive charge but only their own conjectures: They answered and said to him, If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up to you.

Ask the freed from unclean spirits, the blind who saw, the dead who came to life again, and, what is greater than all, the fools who were made wise, and let them answer, whether Jesus was a malefactor. But they spoke, of whom He had Himself prophesied in the Psalms, They rewarded Me evil for good.

But is not this account contradictory to Luke’s, who mentions certain positive charges: And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ a King. According to John, the Jews seem to have been unwilling to bring actual charges, in order that Pilate might condemn Him simply on their authority, asking no questions, but taking it for granted that if He was delivered up to him, He was certainly guilty. Both accounts are however compatible Each Evangelist only inserts what he thinks sufficient. And John’s account implies that some charges had been made, when it comes to Pilate’s answer: Then said Pilate to them, Take you Him, and judge Him according to your law.

As if to say, Since you will only have such a trial as will suit you, and are proud, as if you never did any thing profane, take you Him, and condemn Him; I will not be made a judge for such a purpose.

Or as if he said, you who have the law, know what the law judges concerning such: do what you know to be just. The Jews therefore said to him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.

But did not the law command not to spare malefactors, especially deceivers such as they thought Him? We must understand them however to mean, that the holiness of the day which the’ were beginning to celebrate, made it unlawful to put any man to death. Have you then so lost your understanding by your wickedness, that you think yourselves free from the pollution of innocent blood, because you e deliver it to be shed by another?

Or, they were not allowed by the Roman law to put Him to death themselves. Or, Pilate having said, Judge Him according to your law, they reply, It is not lawful for us: His sin is not a Jewish one, He has not sinned according to our law: His offense is political, He calls Himself a King. Or they wished to have Him crucified, to add infamy to death: they not being allowed to put to death in this way themselves. They put to death in another way, as we see in the stoning of Stephen: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spoke, signifying what death He should die. Which was fulfilled in that He was crucified, or in that He was put to death by Gentiles as well as Jews.

As we read in Mark, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief priests, and to the scribes; and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles. Pilate again was a Roman, and was sent to the government of Judea, from Rome. That this saying of Jesus then might be fulfilled, i.e. that He might be delivered to and killed by the Gentiles, they would not accept Pilate’s offer, but said, If is not lawful for us to put any man to death.

35. Let us next take the account of these same incidents, that is to say, those in which Pilate was engaged, as it is presented by John. He proceeds thus: “And they themselves went not into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.” We must look into this passage in order to show that it contains nothing inconsistent with Luke’s version, which states that certain charges were brought against Him, and also specifies their terms. …

42. In due order, let us now inquire how it is that Mark, after telling us that they parted His garments when they were crucifying Him, casting lots upon them what every man should take, has appended this statement, “And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him.” Now here he had already made the declaration, “And crucifying Him, they parted His garments;” and the other evangelists also certify that, when He was crucified, they parted His garments. …

9. For “the chief priests answered, We have no king but Cæsar. Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified.” For he would have every appearance of acting against Cæsar if, on their declaration that they had no king but Cæsar, he were wishing to impose on them another king by releasing without punishment one whom for these very attempts they had delivered unto him to be put to death. “Therefore he delivered Him unto them to be crucified.” But was it, then, anything different that he had previously desired when he said, “Take ye him, and crucify him;” or even earlier still, “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law?” And why did they show so great reluctance, when they said, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,” and were in every way urgent to have Him slain not by themselves, but by the governor, and therefore refused to receive Him for the purpose of pu …

For in proof that indeed they had power to have put Him to death, even amongst themselves, hear what Pilate saith: “Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law.” But they would not, that He might seem to have been put to death as a transgressor, as an usurper, as a mover of sedition. Therefore also they crucified thieves with Him; therefore also they said, “Write not that this man is King of the Jews; but that He said it.”

And wherefore did he scourge Him. Either as one condemned, or willing to invest the judgment with due form, or to please them. And yet he ought to have resisted them. For indeed even before this he had said, “Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law.” And there were many things that might have held back him and those men, the signs and the miracles, and the great patience of Him, who was suffering these things, and above all His untold silence. For since both by His defense of Himself, and by His prayers, He had shown His humanity, again He showeth His exaltedness and the greatness of His nature, both by His silence, and by His contemning what is said; by all leading them on to marvel at Himself. But to none of these things did they give way.

(Recapitulation.) “And when they heard,” ( ch. xvii. 32 ) what great and lofty doctrines, they did not even attend, but jeered at the Resurrection! “For the natural man,” it saith, “receiveth not the things of the Spirit.” ( 1 Cor. ii. 14 .) “And so,” it says, “Paul went forth.” ( v. 33 .) How? Having persuaded some; derided by others. “But certain men,” it says, “clave unto him, and believed, among whom was also Dionysius the Areopagite and some others.” ( v. 34 .) “And after these things,” etc. “And having found a certain Jew by name Aquila, of Pontus by birth, lately come from Italy, because that Claudius had ordered all Jews to depart from Rome, he came to them, and because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tent-makers.” ( ch.xviii. 1-3 .) Being of Pontus, this Aquila * * * . …

Ver. 31, 32 . “Take ye him and judge him according to your law. They therefore said, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” But this they said, “that the saying of the Lord might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying by what death He should die.” “And how did the expression, ‘It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,’ declare this?” Either the Evangelist means that He was about to be slain not by the Jews only, but by the Gentiles also, or that it was not lawful for them to crucify. But if they say, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,” they say it with reference to that season. For that they did slay men, and that they slew them in a different way, Stephen shows, being stoned. But they desired to crucify Him, that they might make a display of the manner of His death. Pilate, wishing to be freed from trouble, doth not dismiss Him for a long trial, but,