Were the Jews allowed to Execute or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nfinke
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nfinke

Guest
After reading the Easter readings, I wanted to bring up something in Johns gospel that always confused me.

So when the Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate, Pilate tries to throw Jesus back on them basically saying to deal with Him themselves, and the Jews say “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31 in the KJV), but just a little later when Pilate says again he finds no fault in Jesus, the Jews say “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” (Jn 19:7 in KJV)

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?
 
I have always read the first verse as meaning they couldnt do it under Roman occupation, and the second being that the Torah says He should die. Two separate systems
 
The Romans were the"civil authorities" in Jesus’s time. Hence they were the only ones that could mete Capital Punishment. The Jewish authorities were tasked with keeping the peace and collect taxes on behalf of the Romans.
Peace!
 
nfinke said:
After reading the Easter readings, I wanted to bring up something in Johns gospel that always confused me.

So when the Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate, Pilate tries to throw Jesus back on them basically saying to deal with Him themselves, and the Jews say “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31 in the KJV), but just a little later when Pilate says again he finds no fault in Jesus, the Jews say “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” (Jn 19:7 in KJV)

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?
Click to expand...
Yes. One system is Jewish which called for the death penalty through stoning.

The other system is Roman, who forbade the occupied people from exercising the death penalty.

This is why the Jews had to spin the religious charge, which the Romans gave no care about, to a civil one. Pilate acquitted Jesus of that charge.

He executed him anyway.
 
These two systems were part of the trap that was set for Jesus when the adulterous women was brought before him.
 
nfinke said:
“It is not lawful for us to put any man to death”
Click to expand...
This verse bothers me too, because if it refers to Jews not being able to kill because the Romans wouldn’t let them, it contradicts other scriptural passages, like the stoning of the prostitute and the stoning of Stephan, who the Jews did kill, officially in at least the second case. And in neither case was it intimated that they were doing so in defiance of Roman law.

I still haven’t seen a good explanation for this.
 
Jbrady said:
40.png
nfinke:
“It is not lawful for us to put any man to death”
Click to expand...
This verse bothers me too, because if it refers to Jews not being able to kill because the Romans wouldn’t let them, it contradicts other scriptural passages, like the stoning of the prostitute and the stoning of Stephan, who the Jews did kill, officially in at least the second case. And in neither case was it intimated that they were doing so in defiance of Roman law.

I still haven’t seen a good explanation for this.
Click to expand...
The explanation is simple.

They did so as a mob in violation of Roman civil regulations. If there was a Roman platoon in the area, there would likely have been arrests.

As it was, they got away with it. It could have turned out differently.
 
But in that verse Pilate the Roman governor is telling them to take Him back and deal with Him themselves. Why would he say that if the Roman law he was the representative of said that couldnt be done?
 
porthos11 said:
The explanation is simple.
Click to expand...
Actually, I’m not convinced. I find it much more likely that the Romans were loath to interfere with petty local affairs that did not particularly involve the Romans themselves. Even Pilate shows a good deal of reluctance to get involved with what he at first thought was a purely local affair. It wasn’t until the Jews made Jesus out as an anti-Roman rebel that he reluctantly took up the case. The Romans had bigger fish to fry.
 
porthos11 said:
The other system is Roman, who forbade the occupied people from exercising the death penalty.
Click to expand...
this is what i thought, but in jn 19:6, the jews are calling out “crucify him” and Pilate says “Take ye him and cruficfy him, for I find no fault in him.” its to this that the jews reply we have a law that he ought to die.

So if the roman law said the locals couldnt put people to death on their own authority, why would the Roman governor say “I dont think this man is guilty, you locals take him and administer capital punishment on your own authority”? because it seems like thats what hes saying.
 
Last edited:
nfinke said:
Pilate, Pilate tries to throw Jesus back on them basically saying to deal with Him themselves, and the Jews say “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31 in the KJV), but just a little later when Pilate says again he finds no fault in Jesus, the Jews say “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” (Jn 19:7 in KJV)

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?
Click to expand...
Well… yes and no.

@porthos11 and @Jbrady are onto something important, here. If it were a quarrel between Palestinians, they might respond… or not. Just another spat between barbarians, eh?

On the other hand, if the dispute involved a Roman citizen or a crime against the Empire, then they would, generally speaking, take notice. (Keep in mind Paul’s trial – since he was a Roman citizen, he had rights that were honored.)

Moreover, the Jews are making a claim of sedition against the Emperor. Notice the end of your quote: “he made himself the Son of God.” One of the titles of the Emperor was “son of god”. Essentially, they’re trying to goad Pilate into action, based on the contention that Jesus was an insurrectionist who committed sedition against the person of the emperor himself.
 
nfinke said:
40.png
porthos11:
The other system is Roman, who forbade the occupied people from exercising the death penalty.
Click to expand...
this is what i thought, but in jn 19:6, the jews are calling out “crucify him” and Pilate says “Take ye him and cruficfy him, for I find no fault in him.” its to this that the jews reply we have a law that he ought to die.

So if the roman law said the locals couldnt put people to death on their own authority, why would the Roman governor say “I dont think this man is guilty, you locals take him and administer capital punishment on your own authority”? because it seems like thats what hes saying.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you’re overthinking it and reading too much into it.

We have a fairly accurate picture that it was as it’s commonly held: the Jews were forbidden from executing people, they were a troublesome backwater province who were not above mob justice when it suited them, and the Romans had varying tolerance for their shenanigans.

As for Pilate’s comment, it was simply in exasperation. Jews did not crucify, and Pilate likely knew that.

I really see no point in spending too much energy here arguing this so that’s my last word on the topic.
 
krayzevuze said:
I have always read the first verse as meaning they couldnt do it under Roman occupation, and the second being that the Torah says He should die. Two separate systems
Click to expand...
I believe this is the case. The law of Israel included the death sentence for some crimes, but once Rome conquered Israel, the Roman occupational government wouldn’t let the Jewish authorities execute people. Hence the Sanhedrin had to appeal to Pilate for permission to execute Jesus.
 
Zaccheus said:
Hence the Sanhedrin had to appeal to Pilate for permission to execute Jesus.
Click to expand...
They did no such thing. They called upon Pilate to execute Him, not to give them permission so that they could execute Him themselves. (Unless I am mistaken).
 
Last edited:
nfinke said:
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?
Click to expand...
The Jewish people were under Roman control. Roman law applied to Jerusalem. The Jewish people were not allowed to execute anyone themselves. If they did so, they were at risk of being arrested and punished themselves for acting outside the governing law of the state. In order to lawfully execute someone, the governor would normally have had to find him guilty of a crime under the Roman law, not the Jewish law.
 
Jbrady said:
They did no such thing. They called upon Pilate to execute Him, not to give them permission so that they could execute Him themselves. (Unless I am mistaken).
Click to expand...
You’re correct. They wanted Pilate to kill him because it would keep them from getting in trouble with the government or having to take responsibility with any of Jesus’ followers for Jesus’ death. So they portrayed Jesus to Pilate as having set himself up as a king in opposition to Caesar, which would have been a crime under Roman law. Pilate made clear he wasn’t buying it, but executed Jesus anyway to stop the High Priests from causing a civil disturbance, which he would have had to answer to his bosses back in Rome for.
 
Last edited:
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"?
 
Jbrady said:
40.png
Zaccheus:
Hence the Sanhedrin had to appeal to Pilate for permission to execute Jesus.
Click to expand...
They did no such thing. They called upon Pilate to execute Him, not to give them permission so that they could execute Him themselves. (Unless I am mistaken).
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top