Who ordered Saint Stephen to death?

Although Ken Graham offers one interpretation of the events leading to the stoning of Saint Stephen, I would like to propose an slightly different perspective which I think better fits the biblical text: Especially Acts 6-7. On an intersting note, Stephen's grave has recently been uncovered in the West Bank City of Ramallah. My simple answer regarding who ordered the stoning of Stephen would be, the governing body in Jerusalem, headed by the Sanhedrin.

Point 1: Stephen was arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Much as Jesus was arrested and taken before the high Priest, Acts 6:12 tells us that Stephen was arrested by the Elders and Teachers of the Law and taken before the Sanhedrin on specific legal charges: namely he spoke against the temple and the law, in the name of the recently executed criminal Jesus.

Point 2: He is officially questioned by the high Priest. In Acts 7:1 we read that the high priest at the time (unnamed) questions Stephen as to these specific charges. What follows is his official defense of his views.

Point 3: He charged with blasphemy and stoned in accordance with the law. At this point he seems to be declaring the divinity of Christ (7:56) and in a fury the Sanhedrin and the people take him outside of the city of Jerusalem (a procedure for officially stoning someone) and kill him. Act 7:58 mentions witnesses who lay their coats at the feet of Saul, suggesting that in accordance with Jewish law, the accusations made were given by proper witnesses as in a court of law.

Conclusion: Although certainly carried away by their emotions and their desire to defend the temple and their law, the execution of Stephen seems to follow at least several elements of legal procedure.

The act of stoning is a specific and intentional act wherein a community as a whole takes responsibility for the execution of a criminal, but while the stoning of Stephen bears several marks that indicate it was according to Jewish law (arrest, questioning, presentation of witnesses, stoning outside of the city) this doesn’t mean it was an entirely legal affair from the Roman perspective. Much like exists in many Islamic countries with significant Christian minorities, there seems to have existed a parallel system of justice which permitted Jewish authorities some latitude to act in accordance with their own laws. For example: Jewish authorities were not required to enforce tax laws and Roman Soldiers were not required to enforce sabbath laws.

It seems according to John 18:31 that among the powers which the Roman authorities had not leased out to the Jewish religious authorities, was the right to execute criminals. So, the question arises as to whether the execution of Stephen, even if according to the Jewish law, was a legal procedure in terms of Roman authority. The basic answer here seems to be that it was not legal under Roman law. However three points suggest that this still doesn’t categorize it as merely a ‘mob gone wild’.

Firstly, extrajudicial executions (from the Roman perspective) seem to have been commonplace in that time, but which where nevertheless in accordance with Jewish law. Consider the John 7:53-8:11 incident which occurs between Jesus and the woman caught in adultery – although not authentic to the earliest manuscript of John, it nevertheless represents a plausible real-life encounter within first century Palestine. Even today, cultures similar in their views of women engage in ‘honor killings’ and often receive little attention from authorities. In the same way, the killing of violators of the law – which did not threaten peace would probably be overlooked by the Romans, but this doesn’t mean that they violated Jewish law. This seems to be what Pilate says to the Religious leaders at the end of John 18:31 – ‘judge him according to your own law.’

Secondly, the difference between Jesus and Stephen mean that while Jesus’ execution may have caused Roman reprisals, the execution of Stephen would not. This source suggests that although the execution of criminals may have been common-place outside of the official Roman sanction, because Jesus was a major religious leader followed by crowds of people, the Religious leaders knew that his death would likely result in riots and uprisings.

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.

These would certainly draw the ire of the Roman authorities, and at that point they would not have a (Roman) legal leg to stand on. However, the execution simply of one of Jesus’ followers, was unlikely to result in any unrest and so would go unnoticed and unpunished by the Roman governors.

Finally, since Stephen seemed to be speaking along the exact same lines as Jesus who was recently executed, it is possible that the Romans, if they got wind of the execution of Stephen merely saw it as the stamping out of the final embers of the “king of the Jews” as so viewed it as sanctioned under their condemnation and execution of Jesus. At the very least, it is possible they did not view this execution as a threat to their authority or to the state of the Pax in Palestine.