John 18:31

Then said Pilate Pilate therefore (John 18:3) said. If they will not make a specific charge, he will not deal with the case. Pilate, impressed probably by his wife's dream (Matthew 27:19) tries in various ways to avoid sentencing Jesus to death. (1) He would have the Jews deal with the case themselves; (2) he sends Jesus to Herod; (3) he proposes to release Him in honour of the Feast; (4) he will scourge Him and let Him go. Roman governors were not commonly so scrupulous, and Pilate was not above the average: a vague superstitious dread was perhaps his strongest motive. Thrice in the course of these attempts does he pronounce Jesus innocent (John 18:39; John 19:4; John 19:6).

Take ye, &c. Literally, Take him yourselves, and according to your law judge Him. -Yourselves" and -your" are emphatic and slightly contemptuous. The -therefore" which follows is wanting in most of the best MSS.

It is not lawful, &c. These words are to be taken quite literally, and without any addition, such as -at the Passover" or -by crucifixion," or -for high treason." The question whether the Sanhedrin had or had not the right to inflict capital punishment at this time is a vexed one. On the one hand we have (1) this verse; (2) the statement of the Talmud that 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews lost this power; (3) the evidence of Josephus (Ant. xx. ix. 1; comp. xviii. i. 1; xvi. ii. 4, and vi.) that the high priest could not summon a judicial court of the Sanhedrin without the Procurator's leave; (4) the analogy of Roman law. To this it is replied (Döllinger, First age of the Church, Appendix II.); (1) that the Jews quibbled in order to cause Jesus to be crucified at the Feast instead of stoned after all the people had dispersed; and Pilate would not have insulted the Jews from the tribunal by telling them to put Jesus to death, if they had no power to do so; (2) that the Talmud is in error, for the Roman dominion began 60 years before the destruction of Jerusalem; (3) that Josephus (xx. ix. 1) shews that the Jews hadthis power: Ananus is accused to Albinus not for putting people to death, but for holding a courtwithout leave: had the former been criminal it would have been mentioned; (4) that the analogy of Roman law proves nothing, for cities and countries subject to Rome often retained their autonomy: and there are the cases of Stephen, those for whose death S. Paul voted (Acts 26:10), and the Apostles, whom the Sanhedrin wished to put to death (Acts 5:33); and Gamaliel in dissuading the council never hints that to inflict death will bring trouble upon themselves. To this it may be replied again; (1) that Pilate would have exposed a quibble had there been one, and his dignity as judge was evidently not above shewing ironical contempt for the plaintiffs; (2) that the Talmud may be wrong about the date and right about the fact; possibly it is right about both; (3) to mention the holding of a court by Ananus was enough to secure the interference of Albinus, and more may have been said than Josephus reports; (4) autonomy in the case of subject states was the exception; therefore the burden of proof rests with those who assert it of the Jews. Stephen's death (if judicial at all) and the other cases (comp. John 5:18; John 7:1; John 7:25; John 8:37; John 8:59; Acts 21:31) only prove that the Jews sometimes ventured on acts of violence of which the Romans took little notice. Besides we do not know that in all these cases the Sanhedrin proposed to do more than to sentenceto death, trusting to the Romans to execute the sentence, as here. Pilate's whole action, and his express statement John 19:10, seem to imply that he alone has the power to inflict death.