The stoning of Stephen – Why were the Jews allowed to stone Stephen but had to go through Pilate to kill Jesus?
The stoning of Stephen, as recorded in Acts 7, and the crucifixion of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, both took place in Jerusalem under Roman rule. However, there were some key differences that explain why the Jews were able to stone Stephen themselves but had to go through Pontius Pilate to have Jesus crucified.
Here are some of the main reasons:
1. The charges against Stephen and Jesus were different
Stephen was accused of blasphemy against the temple and the Mosaic Law (Acts 6:13-14). This was considered a Jewish religious offense and something the Sanhedrin had authority over. They were able to exercise their own justice in this case and did not need permission from the Romans.
Jesus, however, was accused of claiming to be the Messiah and calling himself the Son of God (Matthew 26:63-65; Mark 14:61-64). The Jewish leaders twisted this into a charge of rebellion against Caesar, which was a political offense Rome would not tolerate (Luke 23:2; John 19:12). This required the involvement of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.
2. The Sanhedrin’s authority was restricted under Roman rule
Though the Sanhedrin acted as the highest Jewish court and had autonomy over internal religious affairs, their power was limited under Roman occupation. They did not have authority to execute capital punishment without Roman approval (John 18:31).
When the Sanhedrin arrested Jesus and declared him deserving of death, they had to bring him before Pilate since only the Romans could carry out execution (Matthew 27:1-2; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66). In Stephen’s case, they took matters into their own hands and did not seek permission.
3. The accusations against Jesus threatened Roman rule
As mentioned, the charge against Jesus of claiming to be the Messiah was twisted into an accusation of insurrection against Caesar. This was a direct challenge to Roman authority, which Pilate could not ignore (John 19:12). The governor had to respond decisively to such a threat.
Stephen’s alleged crimes against the Jewish religion did not threaten Roman political power or warrant the same kind of response. The Sanhedrin likely moved swiftly against Stephen before the Romans could get involved.
4. Jesus was more high profile than Stephen
By the time of his trial and crucifixion, Jesus had become extremely well-known across Israel for his ministry, miracles, and Messianic claims. His popularity made the Jewish leaders envious and threatened their power (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10). It also concerned the Romans and led to heightened scrutiny.
Stephen was not nearly as famous or influential. He was one of seven men chosen to distribute food in the early church (Acts 6:1-6). His lower profile enabled the Sanhedrin to deal with him directly before attracting much attention.
5. The trials happened in different political climates
Jesus was crucified around 30-33 AD under the prefect Pontius Pilate. Pilate was known for being ruthless toward any perceived threats to his or Roman authority.
Just a few years later in 36 AD, Pontius Pilate was removed from office for his extreme brutality, including massacring Samaritan people. The governor at the time of Stephen’s stoning was Marullus, who may have been more tolerant of Jewish affairs.
Additionally, Caligula had just become Roman emperor. His volatile personality could have caused officials like Marullus to tread carefully to avoid upsetting the emperor.
6. Jesus predicted his own death while Stephen’s was spontaneous
The Gospels record how Jesus predicted his death multiple times before it happened (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). This gave the Jewish leaders time to coordinate with the Romans on having him executed.
Stephen’s stoning seemed to occur in the heat of the moment during an argument (Acts 7:54-58). There was no planning involved. The Sanhedrin seized the opportunity to punish Stephen on their own.
7. The council wanted to stop Jesus’ movement
The primary reason the chief priests and Pharisees wanted Jesus dead was to stop the growing Jesus movement before it became a major threat (John 11:47-50). Publicly crucifying the leader would help nip it in the bud.
Stephen was just one of many believers spreading the gospel in Jerusalem (Acts 6:8-10). Having him stoned would not have had the same deterrent effect on the church.
8. Jesus was crucified at Passover
Jesus was crucified during Passover when Jerusalem was filled with Jewish pilgrims (Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1). This allowed the Romans to send a very public message regarding the consequences of rebellion.
We don’t know when Stephen was stoned, but it was likely a less significant time when the Romans would not have felt the need to oversee his punishment.
9. Jesus submitted while Stephen rebuked the council
When accused by the Sanhedrin, Jesus mostly kept silent while Stephen boldly confronted the council and accused them of sin and resisting the Holy Spirit (Mark 14:61; Acts 7:51-53). This defiant attitude likely expedited Stephen’s sentencing and death.
Jesus’ submission to God’s plan also meant following the earthly authorities’ procedures, flawed as they were (Matthew 26:53-54). Stephen took a more defiant stance.
In summary, factors like the charges involved, Roman restrictions on Jewish authority, the threat to Roman power, differing political climates, spontaneity versus prediction of the deaths, and the council’s agenda to squelch early Christianity all contributed to the Sanhedrin having to go through Pilate to crucify Jesus while they could stone Stephen themselves.
The contrast shows how God is ultimately sovereign over human affairs to accomplish His purposes, whether that involves submitting to earthly powers or rebuking them boldly.