|
SUBJECT: John 18:31---capitol punishment between
Jews and Romans
QUESTION: John 18:31 states that it was unlawful for
the Jews to put a man to death but we read in the New
Testament of the Jews doing just that. What is the
explanation here?
ANSWER:
John 18:31
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him
according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It
is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
The commentary will make this situation clear to you.
[Judge him
...] The Jews had not
directly informed him that they had judged him and
pronounced him worthy of death. Pilate therefore tells them
to inquire into the ease; to ascertain the proof of his
guilt, and to decide on what the law of Moses pronounced. It
has been doubted whether this gave them the power of putting
him to death, or whether it was not rather a direction to
them to inquire into the case, and inflict on him, if they
judged him guilty, the mild punishment which they were yet
at liberty to inflict on criminals. Probably the former is
intended. As they lied already determined that in their view
this case demanded the punishment of death, so in their
answer to Pilate they implied that they had pronounced on
it, and that he ought to die. They still, therefore, pressed
it on his attention, and refused to obey his injunction to
judge him.
[It is not lawful
...] The Jews were
accustomed to put persons to death still in a popular tumult
[a tempestuous uprising or a
riot] (Acts 7:59-60), but they had not the power
to do it in any case in a regular way of justice. When they
first laid the plan of arresting the Saviour, they did it to
kill him (Matthew 26:4); but whether they intended to do
this secretly, or in a tumult, or by the concurrence of the
Roman governor, is uncertain. The Jews themselves say that
the power of inflicting capital punishment was taken away
about 40 years before the destruction of the temple; but
still it is probable that in the time of Christ they had the
power of determining on capital cases in instances that
pertained to religion (Josephus, Antiq., b. 14: John 10,
Section 2; compare Jewish Wars, b. 6 chapter 2, Section 4).
In this case, however, it is supposed that their sentence
was to be confirmed by the Roman governor. But it is
admitted on all hands that they had not this power in the
case of seditions, tumults, or treason against the Roman
government. If they had this power in the case of blasphemy
and irreligion, they did not dare to exert it here, because
they were afraid of tumult among the people (Matthew 26:5);
hence, they sought to bring in the authority of Pilate. To
do this, they endeavored to make it appear that it was a
case of sedition and treason, and one which therefore
demanded the interference of the Roman governor. Hence, it
was on this charge that they arraigned him, Luke 23:2. Thus,
a tumult might be avoided, and the odium of putting him to
death which they expected would fall, not on themselves, but
upon Pilate! ~from Barnes'
Notes
Now here are two more commentaries as each gives good
perspective as to what is happening here.
John 18:31-32
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him
according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It
is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
Judge him according to your law. Pilate was satisfied that
the very vagueness of the statement by the Jewish leaders
indicated that the case was not one he needed to hear (cf.
Acts 18:14). It is not lawful for us to put any man to
death. All the Jews wanted was a verdict of death, the
authority of the governor to cover their own decision
against Jesus. The taking away of the right to inflict the
death penalty made the Jews realize they were a subject
people. This had exceptions, as in the case of a person,
even a Roman, who transgressed the barrier that separated
the Court of the Gentiles from the inner portion of the
temple area. Stephen's death seems to violate John's
statement, but it may have been based on the knowledge of
the Jews that the governor would not interfere in that case.
Verse 32. Jesus had predicted that he would die by
crucifixion, a Roman method of punishment, whereas the Jews
used stoning (cf. Matthew 20:19).
~from The Wycliffe Bible
Commentary
John 18:31
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him
according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It
is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
[It is not lawful for us to put
any man to death] They might have judged Jesus
according to their law, as Pilate bade them do: but they
could only excommunicate or scourge him. They might have
voted him worthy of death; but they could not put him to
death, if anything of a secular nature were charged against
him. The power of life and death was in all probability
taken from the Jews when Archelaus, king of Judea, was
banished to Vienna, and Judea was made a Roman province; and
this happened more than fifty years before the destruction
of Jerusalem. But the Romans suffered Herod, mentioned Acts
12, to exercise the power of life and death during his
reign. See much on this point in Calmet and Pearce. After
all, I think it probable that, though the power of life and
death was taken away from the Jews, as far as it concerned
affairs of state, yet it was continued to them in matters
which were wholly of an ecclesiastical nature; and that they
only applied thus to Pilate to persuade him that they were
proceeding against Christ as an enemy of the state, and not
as a transgressor of their own peculiar laws and customs.
Hence, though they assert that he should die according to
their law, because he made himself the Son of God, John
19:7, yet they lay peculiar stress on his being an enemy to
the Roman government; and, when they found Pilate disposed
to let him go, they asserted that if he did he was not
Caesar’s friend, John 18:12. It was this that intimidated
Pilate, and induced him to give him up, that they might
crucify him. ~from Adam
Clarke's Commentary
back to the top |