John 19:7

The Jews are as determined that Pilate shall condemn Jesus as he is resolved not to condemn Him, and to his declaration of the prisoner's innocence they reply, Ἡμεῖς νόμον ἔχομεν … ἐποίησεν. He may have committed no wrong of which your Roman law takes cognisance, but “we have a law (Leviticus 24:16), and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself God's Son”. For the construction see John 5:18. The occasion they refer to is His profession to the Sanhedrim recorded in Mark 14:62. υἱὸν Θεοῦ here means more than “Messiah,” for the claim to be Messiah was not apparently punishable with death (see Treffry's Eternal Sonship), and, moreover, such a claim would not have produced in Pilate the state of mind suggested by (John 19:8) μᾶλλον ἐφοβήθη, words which imply that already mingling with the governor's hesitation to condemn an innocent man there was an element of awe inspired by the prisoner's bearing and words. The words also imply that this awe was now deepened, and found utterance in the blunt interrogation (John 19:9), Πόθεν εἶ σύ; “Whence art Thou?” What is meant by your claim to be of Divine origin? To this question Jesus ἀπόκρισιν οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ, “did not give him an answer”. Pilate had no right to prolong the case; because already he had three times over pronounced Jesus innocent. He needed no new material, but only to act on what he had. Jesus recognises this and declines to be a party to his vacillation. Besides, the charge on which He was being tried was, that He had claimed to be King of the Jews. This charge had been answered. Legal procedure was degenerating into an unregulated wrangle. Jesus therefore declines to answer.