Stoning of Stephen against the Law

Hank77 said:

Theory only...
I don't think they broke Roman law when they stoned Stephen. Stephen was a Jew and was stoned because of a religious disagreement, not a Roman secular one. They couldn't, under Roman law, have stoned a Gentile for not following their religious beliefs. Paul, a Jew, once escaped the Jews by claiming his Roman citizenship and putting himself into the hands of the Romans.
The Romans didn't care about the Jews internal issues. It was only when they spilled over into causing problems for the Romans that the Romans got involved.
When the Jews said that they were not allowed to put anyone to death they were referring to people who had broken a secular/Roman law. That is why their argument to Pilate against Jesus was that He had claimed to be a King with a Kingdom which would have been a threat to the Roman Empire.

Anyway Jesus had to be put to death as a sin sacrifice for both Jews and Gentiles so both needed to take part in the sacrifice of Him.

Click to expand...

That appears to be a good theory.
Some more theories:

How could Stephen be stoned without a trial and conviction in front of the Roman Governor?

The Bible does not reveal the the legalities or illegalities of all the killings it records. From the scanty histories available, most scholars seem to think that at the time of Pontius Pilate, only the Roman governor had the authority to order capital punishment . We must remember, however, people back then did not enjoy the equal protection of the law we enjoy today in a democratic nation.

Politically, Rome would not have had any interest in this case, so the murderous mob may have had little to fear. On the other hand, many people knew and admired Jesus, so there may have been some political motivation for Rome to take notice of this case and assume the duty of legal arbitration. From Pilate's perspective, however, he may have thought that in this matter, being forgiven for an error in judgment was better than obtaining permission to make a judgment. Then, too, the crowd in its demonic hate gave Pilate a not-so-veiled threat,

"'If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be king opposes Caesar'" (John 19:12).

By referring to comments by Josephus, some of the better commentaries try to work out a scenario in which the lack of interest by Rome was only natural in this instance. From the Baker New Testament Commentary, p280, we read,

The question of the legality of Stephen’s death is a difficult one. By all appearances, his death is the result of mob action that the Romans did not prevent. Nevertheless, the Roman governor could conduct an inquiry, because the Jews might not administer capital punishment (John 18:31) . . .. That power belonged to the Roman governor. To illustrate: Josephus states that the Roman procurator (governor) Coponius, sent to Judea by the emperor, was “entrusted by Augustus with full powers, including the infliction of capital punishment.”

If we assume that Stephen died in A.D. 35, Pontius Pilate was still the governor of Judea. At that time Pilate’s troubles, resulting from his slaughter of numerous Samaritans at Mount Gerizim, were sufficient evidence to demand his recall (A.D. 36) at the request of Syria’s governor. . . . In this political climate, the Jews would not fear repercussions for killing Stephen. To be sure, in his last year in office Pilate had lost influence and authority in Judea.
===============================

Stephen was not killed pursuant to a lawful trial and execution. He was murdered by a mob. Mobs pretty much by definition don't obey the law. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that nobody ever does it. If that was true, there would be no need for such things as prisons.

To the best of my knowledge, neither the Bible nor Fox's Book of Martyrs nor any other history book I know of mentions any action by the Romans against those responsible. Of course the Jewish authorities weren't going to punish anyone as they were in favor of the whole thing. Maybe the Romans did nothing because they didn't want to create a conflict over one religious fanatic.

===================================


Whether or not the Jews were allowed to stone without direct Roman approval in each case is the question. Where does the idea that they were not allowed by the Romans to do this come from?

John 18:31-32 [31] Then said Pilate unto them, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law." The Jews therefore said unto him, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death": [32] that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

In the gospel of John this is what the Jewish leaders say to Pilate. But were they being entirely truthful? And what did they even mean by this?

Traditionally preachers have interpreted this as a legal statement conceding that under Roman rule they don't have the authority to execute anyone without Roman approval. But if that were the meaning, then surely Pilate had just given them the approval! "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law." So the real meaning is as the passage says, they said this because they wanted him crucified (not stoned). It is fairly clear that John intends for us to comprehend that the Jewish leaders are lying here, and that Pilate lets them get away with the lie, and that the reason Pilate ignores their lie is that divine providence is at work for God wants Jesus' saying specifying crucifixion as his means of death to come true.

LittleLambofJesus said:

The Bible does not reveal the the legalities or illegalities of all the killings it records. From the scanty histories available, most scholars seem to think that at the time of Pontius Pilate, only the Roman governor had the authority to order capital punishment . We must remember, however, people back then did not enjoy the equal protection of the law we enjoy today in a democratic nation.

Click to expand...

The Jews did not lose the right to execute for the crime of blasphemy till AD 39. This required a trial before the Sanhedrin which was controlled by the Pharisees not the High Priest and his Saduccee cronies. The Pharisees opposed the HP at nearly every turn. In addition the Pharisees had introduced rules of evidence that made it almost impossible to pass a death sentence (by stoning). Moreover they ensured that the victim was either killed or rendered unconscious by the first stone. The stoning of Stephen was an illegal mob action probably arranged by the HP.

LittleLambofJesus said:

edit:
Were the Judeans breaking the Law by stoning "Stephen" in Acts 7?
In John 18:13, they told Pilate it was not permitted to put to death anyone.
Any input on this would be appreciated. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Yep. It was illegal. And by the way even regarding Jesus' trial, it was illegal for the Sanhedrin to meet at night. But that didn't stop them. Pilate declared Jesus innocent. But that didn't stop him from being murdered. By Stephen's time Jerusalem had become even more lawless, which was leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem later in 70 AD.

bcbsr said:

Yep. It was illegal. And by the way even regarding Jesus' trial, it was illegal for the Sanhedrin to meet at night. But that didn't stop them.

Click to expand...

But the Sanhedrin was not convened. The illegal meeting was in the High Priest's house and likely consisted of the HP, some of his Sadducee cronies and perhaps some Herodians. The Pharisees would not have been there because they detested the HP as a quisling of the Romans. Not only was the Sanhedrin forbidden to meet at night but also in no other place than the Chamber of Hewn Stone on Temple Mount.

bcbsr said:

Pilate declared Jesus innocent. But that didn't stop him from being murdered.

Click to expand...

I am also convinced that the trial before Pilate was a foregone conclusion... a trial in name only. The Bible, however, portrays Pontius Pilate as a reasonable person, a gentleman who thought Jesus was innocent, albeit a little deluded. We also get the impression that Pilate is somewhat of a wimp in that he allows himself to be manipulated by the high priest and elders into executing Jesus.


In truth this portrayal of Pilate is far from factual. He was an ambitious, greedy and brutal man. He once ordered his troops into the temple to loot the treasury. It must be noted that he was not the first nor the last Roman governor to do this. This serves to indicate just how much he was swayed by the opinions or threats of the elders or the high priest who was after all his personal appointee. He was also responsible for the suppression of a number of rebellions at great loss of life. His main objective during his tenure of office seems to have been to be to see just how much he could get away with in offending Jewish religious sensibilities. He was eventually dismissed from office by the emperor for "causing an unnecessary massacre". I suppose that this is by way of contrast to all the necessary massacres he was responsible for. Are these the marks of a wimp? of a reasonable man? Certainly not! The trial of Jesus, if there was one, was in name only. Jesus had challenged Roman political authority...Jesus must die.