Pilate therefore, because of their rooted national prejudice, went out £ unto them beyond his court, to some open space convenient for hearing the case. Pilate is introduced here without any preliminary statement or title, as though the position of the man were well known to his readers—another proof that the synoptic narrative is presupposed. This scrupulousness contrasts with the summary proceeding of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1, Acts 12:2), and with the conduct of the Roman authorities (Acts 22:24). The very question he asks implies that something had conspired to provoke a certain sympathy on his part with Jesus, and to excite additional suspicion of the Jews. The statement of Matthew 27:19 may account for the former. The fact that he was ready to hear the case at this early hour shows that he must have been prepared for the scene, and even primed for it. Pilate (the manuscripts vary between Peilatos and Pilatos) was the fifth governor of Judaea under the Romans, and held office from A.D. 26-36. He is represented by Philo ('Legatio ad Caium,' 38) as a proud, ungovernable man; and, in his conflicts with the Jews, he had especial reason to detest their obstinate ceremonial and religious prejudices. Philo speaks of Pilate's "ferocious passions," says that he was given to fits of furious wrath, and that he had reason to fear that complaints laid before Tiberius for "his acts of insolence, his habit of insulting people, for his cruelty, and murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending inhumanity," might bring upon him the rebuke which ultimately the emperor gave him, in consequence of his endeavor to force from the Jews assent to his placing gilt shields in the palace of Herod. Josephus ('Ant.,' 18.2. 4) gives a better account of Pilate, and shows that a portion of his administration was not without beneficent purpose, thwarted by the fanatical opposition of the Jews. On this occasion he asked first of the mob of priests, What accusation do ye bring against this Man? He may have known, probably did know, but chose to give formality to the charge, and not simply to register their decrees.
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.