Pilate therefore said to them: Take him you, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said to him: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death;

“(Hom. lxxxiii. 4) 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 hath not sinned according to our law: His offence 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 spake, 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.”

“(de Cons. Evang. iii. 8) 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 Cæsar, saying that He Himself is Christ a King. (Luke 23:2) 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 unto them, Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law.”

“Here the handing over of Christ to the Gentiles is treated, and first the Evangelist tells how he is handed over to the governor; second, the charge against him is examined by the governor, at the place, "And he said: What accusation do you bring against this man?" Third, how his innocence is declared, at the place, "And when he had said this, he went out again." Concerning the first, he does three things. First he describes the place of the handing-over; second, the time; third, the manner. As to the place indeed, because into the praetorium: hence he says, "They lead Jesus therefore to Caiaphas into the praetorium," which is the place of judgment. Hence also in the army, where the tent of the commander was, it was customarily called the praetorium; hence here the house of the governor is called the praetorium. But how is he led to Caiaphas into the praetorium? To this it must be said that it can be said that Caiaphas had gone ahead into the house of Pilate, in order to inform him of the fact of Jesus being presented to him; hence, as he went out with Pilate into the praetorium, Jesus was assigned to him. Or it can be said that, since Caiaphas was the prince of priests, he had spacious houses, such that the governor also lodged in some part of them; and thus the sense is: they lead Jesus to Caiaphas, namely to his house, and this in the praetorium. Or it must be said that it is better as found in the Greek: they lead Jesus from Caiaphas into the praetorium; and thus every doubt is removed. The time is described: "Now it was morning"; for so great was their wickedness that no delay was interposed before they handed him over to Pilate to be killed. Micah 2:1: "Woe to you who devise what is useless, and work evil in your beds. In the morning light they do it, because their hand is against God"; Job 24:14: "At the very break of dawn the murderer rises, he kills the needy and the poor." But from this a grave question arises. For the three other Evangelists say that around the beginning of the night the Lord was scourged in the house of Caiaphas, and examined by him, when he said, "Tell us if you are the Christ"; and at earliest dawn he was led to Pilate. John, however, says that he was led to Caiaphas. To this it must be said that, if we wish to preserve our text, Caiaphas first saw him while he was in the house of Annas by night, and then he could have been examined by him. But still a doubt remains concerning what they say, that he was scourged in the house of Caiaphas. This whole matter is resolved according to what is found in the Greek, namely that they lead him from Caiaphas into the praetorium; because according to this, from the house of Annas he was led by night to the house of Caiaphas, where he was scourged and examined, and in the morning he was led by Caiaphas into the praetorium. "That they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover." Here first their vain superstition is designated, because they did not enter into the praetorium; second, the reverence of Pilate toward them, because he went out to meet them. But what he says as to the first point, that they did not enter in so as not to be defiled, involves a difficulty. For the other Evangelists say that Christ was captured in the evening on the day of the supper; and at that time it was the Passover, Luke 22:15: "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you." And in the morning, on the following day, he was led to the praetorium. How then could it be "that they might eat the Passover," when it was already the day after the Passover? But to this certain modern Greeks say that this took place on the fourteenth day of the moon, and that he was crucified on the day on which the Jews celebrated the Passover, saying that Christ anticipated the Passover by one day, knowing that his own killing was imminent at the Passover of the Jews; hence he celebrated the Passover on the thirteenth day of the moon, in the evening. And they say this because it is commanded in the law that from the fourteenth day of the moon of the first month until the twenty-first day of the month, no leavened thing should be found among the Jews. Hence they say that Christ consecrated his body from leavened bread. But this cannot stand, for two reasons. First, because it is nowhere found in the Old Testament that it was lawful for anyone to anticipate the celebration of the Passover; but if someone had an impediment, it was lawful to defer it until another month. Numbers 9:10: "A man who is unclean by reason of a soul, or is far off on a journey among your nation, shall keep the phase to the Lord, in the second month, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening." Since therefore Christ omitted nothing of the observances of the law, they speak falsely in saying that he anticipated the Passover. Second, because in Mark 14:12 it is expressly stated that Christ came on the day of unleavened bread, when it was necessary that the Passover be killed; and Matthew says that on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where do you wish that we prepare for you to eat the Passover?" It must not therefore be said that Christ anticipated the Passover. And therefore Chrysostom says otherwise, namely that Christ, fulfilling the law in all things, celebrated the Passover at its proper time, that is, on the fourteenth day of the moon, in the evening; but the Jews were so intent on the killing of Christ that they did not celebrate the Passover on its own day, but on the following day, namely the fifteenth day of the moon. Hence concerning this he says, "that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover," which they had omitted on the preceding day. But neither can this stand, because in Numbers 9:10 and following it is said that if anyone, on account of impediments, cannot celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth day of the moon of the first month, he celebrates it not on the following day, but on the fourteenth day of the moon of the second month. And therefore it must be said, according to Jerome and Augustine and other Latin doctors, that the fourteenth day of the moon is the beginning of the solemnity; but the Passover is called not only the evening, but the whole span of seven days, during which they ate unleavened bread, which had to be eaten by the clean. Hence, because the Jews contracted uncleanness from the praetorium of a foreign judge, they therefore did not enter into the praetorium, "that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover," that is, the loaves of unleavened bread. But note their impious blindness, for they feared to be defiled by a Gentile man, yet they did not fear to shed the blood of God and man. Isaiah 49:17: "Your builders have come; those who destroy you and lay you waste shall go forth from you." Consequently the reverence of Pilate toward them is set down, when he says, "Pilate therefore went out to them," and then received Christ, offered to him by them, and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" Here the examination of Christ is set forth, and first how he is examined by Pilate in the presence of his accusers; second, how by himself, at the place, "He entered therefore," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down Pilate's examination; second, his generous concession, at the place, "Take him yourselves," and so on. Concerning the first, first his examination is set down; second, the malicious answer of the Jews. Pilate therefore, seeing him bound, and led by so many to be condemned, says, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" They answered and said to him, "If he were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you"; as if they were saying: we have examined him, and having already condemned him we hand him over to you now to be punished — as if their judgment ought to be sufficient for Pilate. But they speak falsely in saying that he is an evildoer, because, as it is said in Acts 10:38, "he went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil." But they act according to that saying of Psalm 34:12, "They repaid me evil for good." But against this is what is said in Luke 23:5, that they imposed many crimes on Christ, whence they said, "He stirred up the people throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even to this place"; but here, none. I respond. It must be said that the Jews then spoke many words to Pilate, as Augustine says, but it could be that first there was this which John shows here, and afterward there was what Luke relates. Consequently the generous concession of Pilate is set down, when he says, "Take him yourselves"; and first Pilate's concession is set down; second, the refusal of the Jews, at the place, "The Jews therefore said to him"; third, the reason for the refusal, at the place, "that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled." He says therefore, "Take him yourselves," wishing to grant them a favor. So too Felix said to Paul, "if you are willing to be judged before the Jews," Acts 24. Or he said this reproaching them: for they themselves had examined and condemned him; hence he wished that those who had condemned him as an evildoer should pronounce the sentence, because, as it is said in Acts 25:16, "it is not the custom of the Romans to condemn any man before the accused has his accusers present, and receives opportunity to defend himself so as to clear away the charges." And thus the sense is: you seek our judgment; but you take him and condemn him according to your law — for I, however, will by no means become such a judge. But the refusal of the Jews is set down next, at the place, "The Jews therefore said to him, It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death." But against this: in Exodus 22:18 it is said, "You shall not suffer sorcerers to live." But they reckoned Jesus to be an evildoer. But, according to Augustine, they say, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," on a feast day — though at another time it would be lawful. Or, according to Chrysostom, the Jews had lost much of their power: for judgment concerning an offense against the commonwealth did not pertain to them, whereas they themselves chiefly intended to condemn him on the ground that he was acting against the commonwealth; below, John 19:12: "Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar." Hence they say, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," namely one who acts against the commonwealth; although it would be lawful for some sin against the law, judgment of which was reserved to them. Or it must be said otherwise, that something is not lawful for someone either because it is forbidden by divine law — and in this way it was not forbidden to them — or because it was forbidden to them by human law; and in this way it was not lawful for them to put anyone to death, because this power now resided with the governor. But then a question remains: for they stoned Stephen, Acts 7:58. But to this Chrysostom responds that it had been granted to the Jews by the Romans that they might make use of their own laws; hence, because the penalty of stoning was inflicted by the law, it was therefore granted to them by the Romans. But death by the cross was reproachful under the law; Deuteronomy 21:23: "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." And therefore this kind of death was not reserved to them. But the Jews, out of their malice, were not content merely to stone Christ; rather they wished to condemn him to the most shameful death, as it is said in Wisdom 2:20. And therefore now they say, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," namely by death of the cross. Or it must be said that Stephen was stoned during a change of magistracy; and at such a time many unlawful things are usurped which would not be done in the ordinary course of time. The reason for the refusal is subjoined when he says, "that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled": so that the word "that" is referred not to the intention of the Jews, but to the disposition of divine providence. For Jesus had said, Matthew 20:19, that he was to be killed by the Gentiles, and crucified, yet handed over by the Jews. And therefore, that this might be fulfilled, they themselves refused to judge and kill him.”

“It is not lawful for us to put any one to death . For the Romans, it appears, had deprived the Jews, as a conquered people, of the power of capital punishment, and claimed it for themselves. VOL. V. P Digitized by Google 226 This is the meaning of the words. See Rupertus, S. Thomas, Jansen, Suarez, and others. You will say the Jews stoned S. Stephen, and threw down S. James headlong. But this was not in course of law, but in a popular tumult. Josephus (Ant. xx. 8, al. 16) says that Annas was deposed from his office by the Roman governor for ordering S. James to be killed, and (Acts xviii.) the Jews did not dare to kill Paul, but handed him over to the Proconsul Gallio. But you will urge that Pilate had already given the Chief Priests liberty to judge and to put Him to death, when he said, “Take ye Him and judge Him according to your law.” I answer, that they could have done so, but were unwilling to accept his offer. They said, as it were, in their minds, Ye Romans have taken away from us altogether the power of the sword. We therefore do not wish to exercise it in this particular case. Either restore us this power absolutely, or else take your part in the deed. This they said as wishing Jesus to suffer the most ignominious death, that of crucifixion as a seditious person, and aiming at kingly power. And they wished to transfer from themselves to Pilate the unpopularity of His death. For they feared they should be stoned by the people, who were in favour of Jesus, or else be assailed by their revilings. Others reply (as S. Augustine and S. Cyril, and Suarez after them , par Hi. Quasi. Ixvii art. 4), that it was not lawful for the Jews to put Him to death at the Passover (being a solemn feast), but that it was lawful at other times. But Ribera replies, that it was specially the practice of the sect of the Pharisees not to condemn any one to death (see Josephus Ben-Gorion, Hist. Jud. iv. 6). They said therefore, “It is not lawful for us,” under the cloak of religion. For many, and the chief of those who aimed at the death of Christ, were Pharisees. And because they had authority with the people, others followed their lead”

“Then said Pilate unto them,.... Either ironically, knowing that they did not, or it was not in their power, to judge in capital causes; or seriously, and with some indignation, abhorring such a method of procedure they would have had him gone into, to condemn a man without knowing his crime, and having evidence of it: take ye him, and judge him according to your law; this he said, as choosing to understand them in no other sense, than that he had broken some peculiar law of theirs, though they had otherwise suggested; and as giving them liberty to take him away to one of their courts, and proceed against him as their law directed, and inflict some lesser punishment on him than death, such as scourging, &c. which they still had a power to do, and did make use of: the Jews therefore said unto him, it is not lawful for us to put any man to death; thereby insinuating, that he was guilty of a crime, which deserved death, and which they could not inflict; not that they were of such tender consciences, that they could not put him to death, or that they had no law to punish him with death, provided he was guilty; but because judgments in capital cases had ceased among them; nor did they try causes relating to life and death, the date of which they often make to be forty years before the destruction of the temple (i); and which was much about, or a little before the time these words were spoken: not that this power was taken away wholly from them by the Romans; though since their subjection to the empire, they had not that full and free exercise of it as before; but through the great increase of iniquity, particularly murder, which caused such frequent executions, that they were weary of them (k); and through the negligence and indolence of the Jewish sanhedrim, and their removal from the room Gazith, where they only judged capital causes (l): as for the stoning of Stephen, and the putting of some to death against whom Saul gave his voice, these were the outrages of the zealots, and were not according to a formal process in any court of judicature. Two executions are mentioned in their Talmud; the one is of a priest's daughter that was burnt for a harlot (m), and the other of the stoning of Ben Stada in Lydda (n); the one, according to them, seems to be before, the other after the destruction of the temple; but these dates are not certain, nor to be depended upon: for since the destruction of their city and temple, and their being carried captive into other lands, it is certain that the power of life and death has been wholly taken from them; by which it appears, that the sceptre is removed from Judah, and a lawgiver from between his feet; and this they own almost in the same words as here expressed; for they say (o) of a certain man worthy of death, "why dost thou scourge him? he replies, because he lay with a beast; they say to him, hast thou any witnesses? he answers, yes; Elijah came in the form of a man, and witnessed; they say, if it be so, he deserves to die; to which he answers, "from the day we have been carried captive out of our land, , we have no power to put to death".'' But at this time, their power was not entirely gone; but the true reason of their saying these words is, that they might wholly give up Christ to the Roman power, and throw off the reproach of his death from themselves; and particularly they were desirous he should die the reproachful and painful death of the cross, which was a Roman punishment: had they took him and judged him according to their law, which must have been as a false prophet, or for blasphemy or idolatry, the death they must have condemned him to, would have been stoning; but it was crucifixion they were set upon; and therefore deliver him up as a traitor, and a seditious person, in order thereunto. (i) T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 15. 1. Sanhedrin, fol. 41. 1. T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 18. 1. & 24. 2. Juchasin, fol. 51. 1. Moses Kotsensis pr. affirm. 99. (k) T. Bab. Avoda Zara fol. 8. 2. Juchasin, fol. 21. 1. (l) Gloss. in T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 8, 2. (m) T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 24. 2. (n) Ib. fol. 25. 4. (o) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 58. 1.”

“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 any thing 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 Act 12:1, etc., 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, Joh 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, Joh 18:12. It was this that intimidated Pilate, and induced him to give him up, that they might crucify him. How they came to lose this power is accounted for in a different manner by Dr. Lightfoot. His observations are very curious, and are subjoined to the end of this chapter.”