John 18:30-31 - Exposition

They answered and said, if he were not a malefactor, £ we should not have delivered him up to thee. This was somewhat audacious. It was as much as to say, "We have judged, you have only to register our decisions. We are not bound to go through our evidence before you." If it had been so, the deprivation of the jus gladii , the power of capital execution would have mattered little to them. Pilate, in scorn and irony, replies, "If that be so, why have ye brought him to me? If you are unwilling to comply with the terms of Roman jurisprudence, then it must be some ease which you can dispose of according to your own rules." Take ye him yourselves, and according to your Law judge him . Pilate saw their animus, and that they were thirsting for the blood of Jesus, and wished at once to flout them and make them confess their impotence and admit his suzerainty. For them to judge ( κρίνειν ) was not equivalent to put to death ( ἀποκτεῖμαι ), and Pilate clearly suggested that much. The Jews [ therefore £ ] said to him, It is not lawful ( οὐκ ἔξεστι ) to us to put any man to death. This was perfectly true, notwithstanding the tumultuary and violent acts and threats, and incipient stonings of Jesus, to which the Gospel refers ( John 8:3 , John 8:59 ; John 7:25 ). Other interpretations of this exclamation have been supplied, viz. "to execute criminals of state" (Krebs), "to do so on feast-days" (Semler); but the power had been formally taken from even the supreme court, forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. £ The instance of the massacre of James the Just, occurring between the departure of one Roman governor and the arrival of another, is mentioned by Josephus ('Ant.,' 20.9. 1) as a distinct infringement and violation of law. The stoning of Stephen in a wild tumult, and the proceedings of Herod Agrippa, are rather confirmations than violations of the rule. Thus the malign disposition and distinct purpose of the Jews were revealed. They would not have brought Jesus at all before the Roman governor, nor admitted his claim to decide any case involving religious ideas and practices, if they had not fully decided that Jesus must die. Bat John sees a deeper reason still.