Question regarding Jesus and St. Stephen

[Tangible]

Why did the Jews have to go before Pilate to get him to crucify Jesus when later they were able to stone St. Stephen to death themselves? Does it have to do with "celebrity" status of Jesus, vs. St. Stephen who was a common man?

 

[CalmRon]

Why did the Jews have to go before Pilate to get him to crucify Jesus when later they were able to stone St. Stephen to death themselves? Does it have to do with "celebrity" status of Jesus, vs. St. Stephen who was a common man?

I believe it had more to do with the claims that Jesus made and that the controversy happened on a high holiday when the Romans might have been more leery of insurrection. It says That in the gospel the pharisees were trying to catch him in something he said going so far as to gather false witnesses. With Steven, what he told the in his speech cut them so deep they just dragged him out of the Sanhedrin and killed him. Steven's murder was a crime of passion and jesus' murder was the result of the authorities looking for any reason at all and I believe orchestrated according to God's will and purpose.

 

[fatherjimparker]

Why did the Jews have to go before Pilate to get him to crucify Jesus when later they were able to stone St. Stephen to death themselves? Does it have to do with "celebrity" status of Jesus, vs. St. Stephen who was a common man?

Jesus' execution was an official act of the Sanhedrin. (Jewish ruling council) AS such, they were required to do everything in accordance with the laws of the Romans who allowed the Jews to have a ruling council. Roman law reserved the right to execute a criminal so the Jews who opposed Jesus, wanting everything to be done legally, went to Rome to make Jesus' execution legal and proper.

The stoning of Stephen was an illegal act of a mob. The Romans didn't have much interest in such things as they did not interfere with their ability to rule. They didn't care if the Jews killed one another.

 

[football5680]

The martyrdom of Saint Stephen was a mob act and we don't really know if it was sanctioned by the Sanhedrin. If it was sanctioned then this would be illegal because they were under Roman control, but I doubt Rome would have taken any actions against them. The Romans simply wanted to maintain control so they wouldn't do anything that might incite a riot.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Jesus' execution was an official act of the Sanhedrin. (Jewish ruling council) AS such, they were required to do everything in accordance with the laws of the Romans who allowed the Jews to have a ruling council. Roman law reserved the right to execute a criminal so the Jews who opposed Jesus, wanting everything to be done legally, went to Rome to make Jesus' execution legal and proper.

The stoning of Stephen was an illegal act of a mob. The Romans didn't have much interest in such things as they did not interfere with their ability to rule. They didn't care if the Jews killed one another.

Great post.
The death of both Jesus and Stephen was later avenged about 40 yrs later when God allowed the Roman army to destroy their City and Temple.

John 19:15
Those yet cry-out "take-away! take-away! crucify! Him".
Pilate Is saying to them "the King of ye I shall be crucifying?".
Answered the Chief-priests "not we are having a King except Caesar"

http://www.christianforums.com/t6719420-8/#post42547190
Stoning of Stephen against the Law

Correct. The OP is mistaking the Roman law for the Mosaic Law. Under The Law, assuming Stephen blasphemed God, killing him was legitimate. When before Pilate, they were speaking of Roman law, where they didn't have the authority to kill anyone. The only reason they were going to Pilate in the first place was that they thought they could legitimately kill Jesus under The Law.

Acts 6:10
And not they were strong to withstand to the Wisdom and to the Spirit to which he talked.
Acts 7:
1 And the High-priest said, "are these things so?"
54 Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed upon him with their teeth.
56 and said, "Look! I see the heavens having been opened and the Son of the Man standing out of rights of the God!"
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [the Lord], and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit"

http://www.bible.ca/pre-destruction70AD-george-holford-1805AD.htm
THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM 70AD

Reve 6:16
And they are saying to the mountains and to the rocks: 'Be falling upon us! and hide us! from Face of the One sitting upon the Throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb
17 that came the day, the great, of the wrath of Him, and who is able to stand'. [Hosea 10:8/Luke 23:30]

 

[Open Heart]

The death of both Jesus and Stephen was later avenged about 40 yrs later when God allowed the Roman army to destroy their City and Temple.

That's a pretty big assumption. If it was an act of God's revenge, why did God wait 40 years?

 

[Berean777]

That's a pretty big assumption. If it was an act of God's revenge, why did God wait 40 years?

I would not use the word revenge, because that leaves a sour taste don't you think? God judged them righteously! Why did God wait 40 years is the heart of the question.

IS God trying to tell them something?

Acts 1:3
After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Acts 13:18
And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness.

So why did God wait 40 years?

Because God showed them the same long suffering that he showed to their fathers who had walked in the wilderness with him for 40 years. They were given 40 years in the same way their disobedient fathers were also given 40 years.

40 years it took to sanctify them and to make a covenant with them on the mount of Sinai and 40 years to rip up that covenant and to send them on their way.