Why did the Jews not need the approval of Rome before killing Stephen as had been the case with Jesus?

Answer 1

One Answer:

The story of Stephen's death has many parallels to the death of Jesus, bringing into sharp contrast the need on the one ocasion for Roman approval, which is not sought on the next occasion. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) also points out that the scene involving Stephen's trial and death in Acts of the Apostles closely matches the death of Jesus in Luke's Gospel. Both accounts speak of the Son of Man at the right hand of God (Luke 22:69; Acts 7:56); both have a prayer for the forgiveness of those who are effecting this execution ( Luke 23:34a; Acts 7:60); both have the dying figure commend his spirit heavenward (L uke 23:46; Acts 7:59). Just as Jesus' death was not the end because the apostles would receive his Spirit to carry on the work, the death of Stephen is not the end, for observing is a young man named Saul (7:58) who will continue the work of Stephen. Scholars have long queried the historicity of this story, and Brown says that we can never verify the martyrdom or even existence of Stephen.

If the existence and martyrdom of Stephen are open to reasonable doubt, as Brown and others state, the story of Stephen could have been written as an introduction to Saul as the callow youth who supported stoning of Stephen but was unwilling to participate like a man, providing a graphic contrast to the saintly man he was to become. On this view, it would have been an unnecessary diversion to portray Roman approval for the execution of Stephen.

Another Answer:

At the end of his speech - Acts 7 - Stephen says to the Sanhedrin and crowd:

Acts 7:52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers,

This enrages the people and the crowd could contain their anger no longer. However Stephen, seemingly now oblivious to them, looked up and cried "Look! I see heaven open and the the Son Of Man standing on the right hand of God! To the Sanhedrin, this claim that the recently executed Jesus was standing by the side of God was such intense blasphemy that they covered their ears so as not to hear it.

In the words of Alban Butler (1711-73):

"In the fury of their blind zeal they staid not for a judicial sentence, not for the warrant of the Roman governor, without which no one could at that time be legally put to death amongst them. But stopping their ears against his supposed blasphemies, they with great clamour rushed upon him, furiously hauled him out of the city, and with a tempest of stones satiated their rage against him."

In short they did need approval but they were controlled by their anger and enraged, stoned Stephen.

And One Other Answer:

First, it should be noted that this question presupposes the Jews killed Jesus. They did not; the Romans did. But that said, here is another perspective.

There are many scholars, both Christian and Jewish, who find some New Testament stories historically problematic, especially use of "the Jews" as villains, and claims that "the Jews" hated Jesus or tried to kill his apostles. While some Christians take these stories as factual because the New Testament says so, it is worth noting that there is NO historical evidence the story of Stephen is factual. More likely, it is polemical. The early church sincerely expected that the Jews would become followers of Jesus. Most, however did not, which both puzzled and frustrated many of the leaders of the newly emerging Christian movement. And as Rome clamped down on the early Christians, some of the writers of the New Testament seem to have decided that blaming "the Jews" for persecution was safer for them than blaming their real persecutors-- the Romans.

Undoubtedly, some devout Jews did believe that the worship of Jesus was blasphemy. But the Sanhedrin rarely if ever sentenced anyone to death and it is doubtful that its members regarded Jesus with the degree of rage this story suggests. Rather, the New Testament writers needed a scapegoat, and decided to distort history and say "the Jews" were the problem, rather than bringing down the wrath of the Roman government. This distortion of history, sadly, has resulted in centuries of persecution, forced conversion, and animosity directed at Jews, who were blamed for rejecting (and killing) Jesus and also killing his apostles, even when that absolutely was not true. Historian and New Testament Scholar Amy-Jill Levine has written an excellent book "The Misunderstood Jew," which addresses some of the inaccuracies in the New Testament. It is worth reading, and I enclose a link.