This is an important question, because the account of Stephen's death raises a real historical and legal problem. The answer is not entirely certain, and several hypotheses have been proposed.
1- Could the Sanhedrin pass a capital sentence?
Under Roman rule, the right to pronounce, and above all to carry out, a death sentence normally belonged to the authority. This is, moreover, what the Jewish leaders themselves declare at the trial of Jesus:
“It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death” (John 18.31).
That is why Jesus was handed over to Pontius Pilate, the only representative of Rome empowered to pass a capital sentence legally.
This situation also explains why Paul, several years later, would be sent before Felix, then Festus, and finally before Caesar, rather than being judged definitively by the (Acts 23.23-35; Acts 25.10-12).
2- The account in Acts 7 mentions no condemnation
Luke does not report:
- any deliberation of the ;
- any vote;
- any official sentence;
- any consultation of the Roman authorities;
- any intervention of the procurator.
After Stephen's vision (Acts 7.55-56), the members of the court burst out in anger:
“But they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; and they cast him out of the city and stoned him” (Acts 7.57-58).
The scene resembles an outburst of collective fury more than a regular judicial procedure.
3- Several hypotheses have been put forward
1- A popular lynching tolerated by the authorities
This is probably the simplest explanation.
The , unable to obtain a Roman condemnation, gives way to anger and abandons all legal procedure. Stephen would then be the victim of a summary execution, comparable to a lynching.
This interpretation fits well with the speed of the events described by Luke.
2- A period of administrative vacuum
Some historians have suggested that at the time of Stephen's death Judea was going through a period of political instability.
The governor Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome around AD 36, while his successor arrived only later. During this interval, the would have enjoyed greater freedom of action.
This hypothesis could explain why no Roman intervention is mentioned.
3- An exceptional judicial execution
A few authors think that a formal condemnation may have been pronounced, but that Luke did not preserve its details.
However, this theory runs up against the silence of the text, which mentions no sentence.
4- The example of James in AD 62
An interesting parallel is provided by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. He reports that the high priest Ananus son of Ananus took advantage of the temporary absence of the procurator to have James, the brother of the Lord, stoned in AD 62.
Yet this initiative was judged abusive by several influential Jews, which shows that the probably did not have a normal and permanent right to pass the death penalty.
5- A remarkable irony
It is possible that Stephen was never officially condemned. Yet, by putting him to death, his judges demonstrate precisely the truth of his speech.
He had just declared:
- that Joseph had been rejected;
- that Moses had been rejected;
- that the prophets had been persecuted;
- that Jesus had been put to death (Acts 7.52).
And immediately after these words, his hearers repeat the same behavior toward him.
Thus the of Stephen constitutes, in a way, the historical and dramatic proof of the rightness of his accusation. His speech does not end with verse 53; his death is its concrete confirmation.
This is probably why Luke placed the account of the martyrdom right after the speech: the deeds of the members of the confirm what their lips refused to admit.