English
Português
Español
Français
Answer
When Jesus was tried, Jewish religious leaders approached the Roman governor, Pilate, as they lacked the authority to carry out capital punishment. When Pilate suggested that the Jews handle Jesus’ trial according to Jewish law, they replied, “We are not permitted to execute anyone” «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: », (John 18:31). However, later on, a group instigated by these same leaders stoned Stephen to death in Jerusalem «and cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. », (Acts 7:58). This situation raises a question: if the religious leaders were not authorized to impose the death penalty, why did they carry out Stephen’s execution? Or, if they had the power to enforce capital punishment, why involve Pilate in Jesus’ crucifixion?
The explanation lies in the differing circumstances of these two events. In Jesus’ case, the religious authorities were concerned that Jesus’ widespread popularity might provoke Roman retaliation (John 11:47—48). Specifically, they feared that any uprising incited by Jesus could result in Rome holding the Jewish leaders accountable. Therefore, part of the reason for engaging Pilate was to demonstrate—or at least create the impression—that the Jewish leadership remained loyal to the Roman Empire. This is evident in the chief priests’ bold declaration to Pilate, “We have no king but Caesar” «But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no
King but Caesar.” (John 19:15).
There was no question that Jesus and the religious leaders had been in conflict. “Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should show it, that they might take him.” (John 11:57), and that they wanted Jesus dead (verse 53). But it would have been impossible for them to kill Jesus without making it obvious that they had overstepped their legal bounds under Rome. Even a mob attack on Jesus would have aroused suspicion. On the other hand, having the Romans execute Jesus would give the Jewish leaders two layers of protection: Rome would not object—legally—to His death, and Jesus’ supporters would be discouraged from attempting revenge.
Pilate was already in a precarious political position when Jesus was brought before him. Historical records suggest that Pilate had been criticized for being too violent in his response to Jewish unrest in the past (see Luke 13:1). So, when the Jewish leaders incited a mob to demand the death of Jesus, Pilate was more interested in political harmony than justice (John 19:4,6, 15-16). The situation only grew worse for Pilate in the time between Jesus’ crucifixion and Stephen’s stoning. In AD 36, a few years after Stephen’s martyrdom, Pilate lost his governorship.
The difference in Stephen’s case was that Stephen did not have an extensive history of antagonizing the Jewish religious leaders. Stephen was a relative unknown, and his stoning was not likely to attract any attention from Rome. The crowd who actually killed Stephen could always be blamed for taking matters into their own hands, without the official sanction of the Sanhedrin. And, given Pilate’s growing political weakness, there was little ch
Once he would respond to an incident of mob justice, from the Jews, against a Jew. Beyond that, Stephen’s sermon seems to have so infuriated the crowd that it’s possible nobody was thinking logically «When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. », (Acts 7:54,57) «Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, », (Acts 7:54,57).
The long and short of it is that the Jewish religious leaders did not have the legal right to exact the death penalty. However, Rome’s interest in enforcing that rule was subject to many factors, not the least of which was whether or not the incident was— in Rome’s view— worth pursuing. The stoning of Stephen by the Jews was technically illegal, but the Romans had no vested interest in the matter, and the temple leaders in Jerusalem rightly felt that Rome would not respond. Jesus, on the other hand, had caught the attention of many powerful people, and the Jews would not venture to violate Roman law by executing Jesus on their own.
