Were the Jews allowed to Execute or not?

[Tis_Bearself]

That mostly makes sense, except when Pilate said ‘I find no fault in him, so you crucify him.’ isnt that the equivalent of a judge saying " I see no evidence this man is guilty, but go hang him outside the courthouse if you feel like it"?

I presume you’re referring to John 19:6. It’s possible Pilate was speaking out of frustration as he’d already gone back and forth with the Sanhedrin a couple times at that point. I can see him finally losing his cool and saying, “I’m not gonna do it, you take him and go crucify him if it’s so important to you!” The unspoken meaning being that if they did such a thing then probably some Jewish heads would roll for it. Pilate was obviously annoyed by that point because he didn’t want to crucify Jesus due to not having a legal basis for it, and (according to other gospels) being warned by his wife, and also because the Sanhedrin were doing a power play, in other words “crucify this person who we don’t like or else we’ll incite a riot”. Jerusalem was not a prime spot for Roman officials to be assigned, and Pilate was likely not the sharpest knife in the drawer or he’d have been back in Rome, not stuck out in a backwater putting down insurrections. The Sanhedrin were the smartest guys in their tribe and got the better of him.

 

[TMC]

I think @krayzevuze’s explanation is correct. Jewish law (arguably) called for death in some cases, but the Romans did not allow Jews to impose that punishment.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Strictly speaking, the whole region were Roman provinces under control of Romans. So by law, the Jews were not allowed to execute people.
However, the enforcement of the law is a different matter. Those were different times, the Roman Empire was not a police state in the modern sense, and there was a lot of ‘looking the other way’ when Jews killed other Jews, even if they were Christians. That explains the near stoning of the adulteress, the stoning of St Stephen, the beheading of St James the Greater, and numerous other martyrs. With Jesus it was a different story because he had broad-based support among Jews (at least at that point in time), so the Jewish authorities had to involve the Romans. With St Paul, again they had to involve the Romans because he was a Roman citizen.

 

[EndTimes]

So did the Jewish law of the time say Jesus ought to die for blasphemy,

or was it unlawful for someone to be put to death?

these seem like mutually exclusive claims.

Are they talking about two separate systems of laws?

The Jewish Leadership accused Jesus of Blasphemy for claim of Son of God
They handed Jesus over to the Romans to be their Executioner …
Since none besides Jesus fully Obeyed the law - the law in their case becomes moot?

 

[nfinke]

This makes sense. Thanks alot.

 

[EndTimes]

I presume you’re referring to John 19:6.
It’s possible Pilate was speaking out of frustration as he’d already gone back and forth with the Sanhedrin a couple times at that point.

Pilate did not give in for he found no Fault w/Jesus aka Pilate disagreed w/the Sanhedrin.

The Straw which Broke Pilate’s Back is when the Jewish Leadership threatened BlackMail

1. From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting,
2. “If you let this man go you’re no friend of Caesar. Anyone claims kingship opposes Caesar.”
3. When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement. It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.
4. “Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.
5. But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”
6. “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
7. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.
8. Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.