AN EXAMINATION
OF JOHN 18:31
“IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR US TO
PUT ANY MAN TO DEATH”
JOHANNINE LITERATURE
SS 301
DR. BASIL DAVIS
BY
JOSEPH E. CAZENAVETTE
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
DECEMBER 3, 2003
Introduction
Among
the Gospel accounts, the Johannine Passion Narrative provides the only
explanation of why the Jewish authorities did not execute Jesus themselves.[1]
Pontius Pilate requested their accusation against Jesus (Jn 18:28-29), and the
Jews responded by suggesting he was an “evildoer” (Jn 18:30; cf. Lk 23:2).[2] Then, “Pilate said to them, ‘Take him
yourselves and judge him by your own law.’
The Jews said to him, ‘It is not lawful for us to put any man to death’”
(Jn 18:31). Thus, according to the
Gospel of John, the Jews took Jesus to Pilate because it was unlawful for them
to inflict capital punishment on anyone.
The historical question of whether the Jewish leadership in Judea,
specifically the Sanhedrin, had the authority to execute anyone at the time of
Jesus is a matter of scholarly debate.
The better position, supported by canonical and extra-canonical
evidence, favors the historicity of the Jews’ general assertion to Pilate that
it was unlawful for them to execute.[3]
Initially,
it must be determined whether the Jews’ response that it was unlawful for them
to impose the death penalty is a reference to illegality under the Mosaic Law
or the Roman law. St. Augustine and St.
John Chrysostom, as well as some modern scholars, argue that the Jews were
referring to the Mosaic Law,[4]
which mandated death by stoning for blasphemy.
Specifically, “He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; all
the congregation shall stone him” (Lev 24:16).
Respect for this law is evident earlier in the Gospel of John when Jesus
arouses the passions of the Jews who wish to stone him for blasphemy (Jn 8:58-59; 10:31-33). In the latter instance, the Jews explicitly
level their charge against Jesus by saying:
“We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy; because you, being a
man, make yourself God” (Jn 10:33).
Although the Mosaic Law clearly sanctioned death by stoning for
blasphemy, it has been argued that the Law was qualified by prohibiting
executions on the eve of a feast or during Passover.[5]
For instance, King Herod
Agrippa I had Peter arrested “during the days of Unleavened Bread” but intended
to keep him in prison until after the Passover and only then pass judgment
(Acts 12:1-5).[6] Although the mishnaic tractate Sanhedrin (m.Sanh.) was not compiled until the end of the second century AD,[7]
this practice found in Acts may reflect a custom that was later codified at m.Sanh. 4:1[8]
– “[I]n capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day,
but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore, trials may not be held on the eve
of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival-day.”[9] Otherwise, persons would be subject to
conviction and execution on a religious holy day. It is likely in this context that St. John Chrysostom said: “But if they say, ‘It is not lawful for us
to put any man to death,’ they say it with reference to that season.”[10] Thus, St. Chrysostom and similarly St.
Augustine (In Joannis evangelium tractus
CXIV, 4; PL
35:1937) have helped fashion the argument that the Jews’ response to Pilate in
Jn 18:31 was in reference to the illegality under the Mosaic Law of convicting
and executing anyone during Passover.
The Jewish authorities, believing Jesus guilty of blasphemy (Jn 19:7),[11]
demand his death at the hands of Pilate, given their inability to impose the
sentence.
This interpretation of Jn
18:31 as referring to the Mosaic Law has been challenged on the grounds that
the text contains no qualifications, temporal or otherwise, to the Jews’
inability to execute Jesus. “Precisely
the decisive word ‘today’ is missing in John,”[12]
because the Jews’ response constituted a categorical claim that they did not
have the authority to execute anyone.[13] Thus, the more prevalent view is that the Jews
were referring to their lack of power under Roman law, by which the prefect of
Judea enjoyed the imperium –
essentially the exercise of the Emperor’s authority within the province. This authority, which Josephus indicates was
given to Coponius, the first Roman prefect of Judea (AD 6-9), included a full coercitio – the right to coerce or
punish – that would naturally extend to the power to execute or “the right of
the sword” – ius gladii.[14] It is likewise reasonable to conclude that
the successors of Coponius, including Pontius Pilate, could exercise ius gladii as the ultimate legal
sanction.[15]
Although Pilate’s authority
to impose the death penalty is evidenced by his handing Jesus over to be
crucified (Jn 19:16; cf. Mt 27:26, Mk 15:15, Lk 23:24-25), the question remains
whether the Jewish authorities in any respect shared this power with the Roman
prefect. The principle Jewish authority
in Judea under the Roman prefecture was the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. It was an administrative and judicial body
responsible for both secular and religious matters. The Sanhedrin was led by the high priest and consisted primarily
of the chief priests, elders, and scribes.
Customarily, the Sadducees have been associated with the priestly caste,
and among the scribes there may have been Pharisees (cf. Acts 23:6). At the time of Christ, the high priest was
chosen by the Roman prefect; the chief priests most likely included former high
priests and men with sacerdotal duties who were respected family members of
recent high priests; the elders were probably wealthy men who came from
distinguished families and may have also included scholars; and the scribes
were likely men revered for their learning.[16] Thus, persons such as these led by the high
priest Caiaphas (Jn 11:49; 18:13) constituted the Sanhedrin that tried Jesus
before presenting him to Pilate (Mt 26:57-75; Mk 14:53-72; Lk 22:54-71).
Although at one time the
Jews had jurisdiction to impose capital punishment, the Roman government
revoked this power. “A tradition
preserved in a baraita (early
edition) in [the Jerusalem Talmud] Sanhedrin
18a and 24b (related to Mishna Sanhedrin
1.1 and 7.2) states that the right of pronouncing sentences of life and death
was taken from Israel forty years before the destruction of the Temple (thus AD 30).”[17] In this context, the reference to forty
years appears to be a round number and probably relates back to AD 6 at the arrival of the
prefect Coponius when the province of Judea was founded.[18] Additionally, the very early Jewish Fasting Scroll corroborates a Roman
removal of jurisdiction. The scroll
indicates that five days after the Roman cohort withdrew from Jerusalem in
September AD
66, the Jews began executing evildoers and thereafter established a national
holiday on which fasting was banned in celebration of their renewed capital
jurisdiction.[19] There are also canonical and extra-canonical
references to certain judicial actions, which support the assertion that during
the Roman prefecture (AD 6-66) the Romans assumed the power to execute.
Josephus reports that the
Romans gave the Jewish authorities permission to execute any non-Jew who went
beyond the outer Court of the Gentiles into the inner section of the
Temple. Archeological findings of an
inscription to this effect support the historical accuracy of Josephus’
claim. Undoubtedly, there would be no
need for permission from the Romans if the Jewish authorities had the power to
impose capital punishment.[20] Apparently, failure to receive permission
had consequences. Josephus also recounts
that in AD 62
the high priest Ananus II convened the Sanhedrin, tried James the brother of
Jesus and other Christians accused of violating the Law, and had them stoned to
death. The high priest conducted the
trial and the executions after the death of the prefect Festus and before the
arrival of his successor, Albinus.
According to Josephus, citizens of Jerusalem informed King Herod Agrippa
II and Albinus of the high priest’s conduct, and Ananus II was subsequently
removed from office.[21] The deposing of Ananus II had its intended
effect. Josephus reports that shortly
thereafter in AD
62, the Jews presented to Albinus the case of Jesus ben Hanan who had been
prophesying against Jerusalem and the Temple.
Although threats against the Temple were capital offenses, the Jews did
not prosecute him themselves, and Albinus elected to release Jesus after
flogging him.[22]
There is also evidence in
Acts (ch. 21:27 to ch. 25) of the appropriate deference owed to Roman
authorities in capital cases. While in
Jerusalem in about AD 58, Paul was accused by the Jews of bringing Greeks into the Temple
and thereby defiling the sacred place.
A Jewish mob seized Paul and attempted to kill him, but a Roman cohort
commander intervened and took Paul into custody. In an effort to discover the truth of the matter, the commander
ordered the Sanhedrin to convene and presented Paul for examination, but a
violent conflict erupted between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Eventually, the commander had Paul taken to
the prefect Felix in Caesarea. The
“high priest Ananias came down with the elders and a spokesman to present the
case against Paul (24:1), but he was never returned to their jurisdiction. Clearly, in this instance the Romans
overrode a Sanhedrin on a capital case.
The next procurator, Festus
(Acts 25), also refused to turn Paul over to a Jewish Sanhedrin.”[23] Admittedly, Paul’s Roman citizenship
influenced the reaction of the Roman authorities, despite the fact that they
had previously permitted the Jews to execute even non-Jews for defiling the
Temple – the initial charge against Paul (Acts 21:28). Thus, the behavior of the cohort commander
and the prefect Felix and then Festus indicates that the Roman prefect enjoyed
complete discretion in capital cases unless he decided otherwise.[24]
If this conclusion, which
supports the historical accuracy of Jn 18:31, is correct, then certain passages
in the New Testament that appear to reveal Jewish jurisdiction in capital cases
must be addressed. Near the end of the
Roman trial of Jesus, Pilate tells the chief priests and the officers: “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I
find no crime in him” (Jn 19:6). It has
been suggested that if the Johannine account of the trial of Jesus is
historically accurate, then this statement by Pilate indicates that the Jews
not only had authority to execute but to crucify.[25] This, however, is not a necessary
implication of Pilate’s statement.
Certainly, he did not want to hear the case against Jesus (Jn 18:31),
and his retort to the chief priests (Jn 19:6) was more an expression of
exasperation in this regard.[26] Furthermore, Pilate is signifying “the
refusal of the Jewish desire: I do not
give my consent to crucify Jesus; if you want his crucifixion, then you must
undertake it yourselves! That is,
Pilate refuses the demand of the Jews with wrathful irony,”[27]
knowing they cannot execute Jesus.
There is, therefore, no inherent contradiction between Jn 18:31 and Jn
19:6.
In the Gospel of John, there
is also the matter of the woman caught in adultery (Jn 7:53-8:11). Although the Mosaic Law considered adultery
a capital offense (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22), there is no indication that the
scribes and Pharisees who present the woman to Jesus intend to stone her. “They are not interested in either the fate
of the woman or the injured husband who is never mentioned, but in the
possibility of finding fault with Jesus.”[28] The woman is, therefore, presented as a test
to determine whether Jesus will support the Law.[29] This is evident from the text: “‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in the
act of adultery. Now in the law Moses
commanded us to stone such. What do you
say about her?’ This they said to test
him, that they might have some charge to bring against him” (Jn 8:4-6). Thus, this episode of the scribes and
Pharisees testing Jesus does not support the proposition that the Jewish
authorities in Judea necessarily had the power to impose the death penalty.[30]
There remains, however, the
difficult question of the circumstances surrounding the stoning of Stephen
(Acts 7:57-60). Although he was on
trial before the Sanhedrin (Acts 6:12ff), there is no indication from the text
that the Sanhedrin formally sentenced Stephen to death, as was the case with
Jesus (Mt 26:66; Mk 14:64). “It is
nowhere indicated what relation the Sanhedrin’s potential sentence, which was
prevented by the wild tumult, would have borne to the execution. Hence, the majority of scholars rightly
regard the execution of Stephen as one of those tumultuous acts of lynch law,
which the Jews had no legal right to carry out, but which the Roman authorities
were not always able to prevent.”[31] Other incidents indicative of Jewish
vigilante tendencies are found in Acts 5:26; 9:29; 21:30f; 22:22-24; 23:12,[32]
as well as when stones were raised against Jesus in Jn 8:58-59; 10:31-33.[33] Stephen’s execution is, therefore, best
understood in a context of charged emotions that exacerbated the tension
between the Mosaic Law that the Jews believed required death and the Roman law
that reserved to the Roman prefect the power to execute.[34] Thus, the mob stoning of Stephen does not
contradict the Jews’ declaration in Jn 18:31 – “It is not lawful for us to put
any man to death.”
The Sanhedrin most likely did not
have independent authority under Roman law to impose the death penalty. This did not prevent them from trying
persons accused of capital offenses and sentencing them to death, as in the
case of Jesus. Nonetheless, Jewish
death sentences had to be reviewed by the Roman prefect who had jurisdiction to
impose capital punishment.[35] Only in very limited cases, such as defiling
the Temple, did the Romans allow the Jews to adjudicate and execute capital
offenders. Consequently, without power
to execute under Roman law, the Jews presented Jesus to Pilate for crucifixion
– the Roman means of executing non-Roman citizens.[36] Ironically, this was necessary to fulfill
Jesus’ own words regarding his glorification (Jn 12:23, 32), and it satisfied
the Jewish desire for Jesus to be crucified (Jn 19:6)[37]
in order to make him accursed by God (cf. Deut 21:23).[38] “It affirms that the illegality of the Jews
is grounded in the divine teleology:
according to his own word Jesus had to suffer death through the cross;
therefore he could not be executed by the Jews, but only by the Romans.”[39]
[1] Cf. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), The Anchor Bible Series, ed. William F. Albright and David N. Freedman, vol. 29A (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1970), 849.
[2] All biblical citations will be from the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, 1966 edition.
[3] Brown, The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, The Anchor Bible Reference Library, ed. David N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 1:371.
[4] Ibid., 1:747.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Herbert Danby, ed., The Mishna (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), xiv.
[8] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina Series, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., vol. 5 (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1992), 211.
[9] Mishna, 387.
[10] St. John Chrysostom, “Homily LXXXIII on the Gospel According to St. John,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, vol. 14 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1956), 310.
[11] Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, ed. R. W. N. Hoare and J. K. Riches, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 660.
[12] Josef Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus, 2d rev. and enl. ed., trans. Isabel and Florence McHugh (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1959), 158.
[13] Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), 850.
[14] Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:331-32, 1:337-38, 1:748.
[15] Blinzler, 161.
[16] Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:340-41, 1:349.
[17] Ibid., 1:365.
[18] Ibid., 1:365-66.
[19] Blinzler, 161.
[20] Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:366-67.
[21] Ibid., 1:367.
[22] Blinzler, 162.
[23] Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:367.
[24] Ibid., 1:366-67.
[25] Severino Pancaro, The Law in the Fourth Gospel, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, ed. W. C. van Unnik, vol. XLII (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1975), 312-13.
[26] Brown, Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), 877.
[27] Bultmann, 659.
[28] Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B., The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina Series, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., vol. 4 (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998), 261.
[29] Ibid., 260.
[30] Cf. Blinzler, 161.
[31] Ibid., 162-63.
[32] Ibid., 163.
[33] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971), 474, 524.
[34] Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:370.
[35] Blinzler, 157, 160.
[36] Cf. Brown, Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), 850.
[37] Ibid., 748, 850.
[38] Morris, 766.
[39] Bultmann, 653.
WORKS CITED
Brown, Raymond E., S.S. The
Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi).
The Anchor Bible Series, ed. William F. Albright and David N. Freedman,
vol. 29A. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1970.
__________. The
Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on
the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. The Anchor Bible Reference Library, ed. David N. Freedman. New York:
Doubleday, 1994.
Blinzler, Josef. The
Trial of Jesus, 2d rev. and enl. ed.
Translated by Isabel and Florence McHugh. Westminster, Maryland:
Newman Press, 1959.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The
Gospel of John: A Commentary. Edited by R. W. N. Hoare and J. K.
Riches. Translated by G. R.
Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971.
Chrysostom, St. John. “Homily LXXXIII on the Gospel According to
St. John.” In Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on
the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews. A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, vol. 14. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1956.
Danby, Herbert, ed. The
Mishna. London: Oxford University Press, 1958.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The
Acts of the Apostles. Sacra Pagina
Series, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., vol. 5. Collegeville, Minnesota:
Liturgical Press, 1992.
Moloney, Francis J.,
S.D.B. The Gospel of John. Sacra
Pagina Series, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., vol. 4. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998.
Morris, Leon. The
Gospel According to John. The New
International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971.
Pancaro, Severino. The
Law in the Fourth Gospel.
Supplements to Novum Testamentum,
ed. W. C. van Unnik, vol. XLII.
Leiden, Netherlands: E. J.
Brill, 1975.