Stoning Stephen (Acts 6:5)

How was Stephen killed? He was stoned to death

Stephen enters the Biblical text by being elected as one of the first seven deacons (Acts 6:5). It appears he stood out from his peers as he is listed first and is characterized in language typically reserved for prophets - “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:5 NASB)”.

The nascent Christian movement was growing rapidly (Acts 6:7) and Stephen’s talents (Acts 6:5, 8) placed him at the forefront. One group’s success is another’s threat and Stephen faced opposition from a contingent of Disapora Jews from the Synagogue of Freedmen (Acts 6:8). Unable to handle the truth or refute it, they convinced some men to serve as false witnesses claiming that Stephen spoke “blasphemous words against Moses and against God (Acts 6:11 NASB).”

Though the resistance began with only a small party it escalated, a riot ensued (Acts 6:14) and the incident culminated with an audience before the high priest (Acts 7:1). Throughout the charges, Stephen remained silent until he faced the high priest and when he finally spoke, he delivered one of the longest speeches in the book of Acts (Acts 7:2-53). The filibuster reviewed “salvation history” (heilsgeschichte) and concluded with the acknowledgment that the religious establishment had a long history of persecuting prophets (Acts 7:52).

The trial transformed into a lynching and Stephen was stoned (Acts 7:58-60), a common method of death in such situations (II Chronicles 24:20-22; Philo (20 BCE-50 CE), Special Laws 1.54-57; Josephus (37-100), Antiquities 14.2.1). Midrash clearly outlines the protocol for stoning (Midrash Sanhedrin 6.1-4) and in the case of Stephen, it was not followed aside from holding the execution outside court in conjunction with Leviticus 24:14. This is because Stephen was a victim of lynching, not capital punishment.

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) explains:

The stoning makes clear that they thought Stephen was blaspheming. It should be noted that nothing is said about the high priest offering a verdict, no formal sentence is announced, and nothing here suggests anything other than a lynching, an act of violent passion. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 276)

Stephen’s innocense is highlighted throughout the account. The text claims that “all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel (Acts 6:15 NASB).” As he died, the deacon experienced a theophany (divine appearance) uttering among his famous last words - “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56 NASB).” After asking Jesus to take him and forgive his persecutors, Stephen died (Acts 7:59-60).

Why was Stephen killed? The charge against Stephen was the same Jesus faced - was the rationale the same? Is anyone today in danger of dying for similar reasons? Should contemporary Christians pose a threat to the religious establishment?

Stephen’s death is a turning point in Christian history and the book of Acts. Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) analyzes, “Stephen is a pivotal figure: he anticipates the future success and conflict of the mission among the nations, but his death also puts a close to the Jerusalem narrative (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 112).”

The lynching made Stephen the first Christian martyr. The word “martyr” comes from the Greek martyros meaning “witness”. The man who was murdered because of false witnesses remains a witness centuries after his death. If Stephen’s death was intended to be a deterrent for conversion, the action failed. As Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) wrote, “The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins (Kierkegaard, Papers and Journals, 352).”

To what lengths are you willing to go to for your faith? Are you willing to die? Are you grateful that you don’t live in a region where you need to? Do you respect others who die for their faith whatever that faith may be?

“The prophet and the martyr do not see the hooting throng. Their eyes are fixed on the eternities.” - Benjamin Cardozo (1870-1938)

Paul is Dead

In what chapter of the Book of Acts is Paul’s death recorded? None.

Though Paul is the primary human protagonist in the second half of the book of Acts (Acts 13-28), his death is not recorded. At the book’s conclusion, Paul is awaiting trial in Rome (Acts 28:16, 30). The only apostle whose death is documented in Acts is James (Acts 12:2).

The consensus among scholars is that Paul was indeed dead at the time Acts was written. Though the Bible and history are silent regarding Paul’s death, church history indicates that he was martyred in Rome during Nero’s reign around 64 CE. His death is commemorated at Tre Fontane Abbey. Early church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339) references Paul’s martyrdom twice (Historia Ecclesiastica 2.21, 2.25). He claims that Paul successfully defended himself before Nero in Rome (correlating to his incarceration in Acts 28) and was released only to be imprisoned again and ultimately beheaded. While Peter is crucified upside down, Paul is decapitated, the standard form of capitol punishment for Roman citizens (Acts 22:28). Eusebius sites Caius of Rome as his source and was likely also influenced by the non-canonical Acts of Paul, which he lists among spurious works. The Acts of Paul also depicts the famed apostle being decollated (Acts of Paul XIV).

Some have dated Acts at 62 CE because Paul’s death is absent [e.g. Norman Geisler (b. 1932), Donald Guthrie (1915-1992)]. Eusebius, himself, believed that the book was published prior to the apostles’ martyrdom (Historia Ecclesiastica 2.22). Most scholars, however, assert that Acts was written at the earliest in 80 CE, long after the death of Paul. Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989) concludes, “The farewell speech in Miletus [Acts 20:25-38] leaves no doubt as to how this came about: Paul was executed. But Luke did not wish to tell about that. The purpose of the book has been fully achieved; therefore we ought to reject all hypotheses which understand the book as incomplete or which declare the ending to be accidental.” ¹

Joseph Fitzmyer (b. 1920) notes emphatically, “Homer’s Iliad is not seen to be incomplete because it does not describe Achilles’ death!” .”²

If Paul was dead at the time of the writing of Acts, why is his death omitted? Why leave the reader in doubt as to a hero’s fate?

The book of Acts is not a biography of Paul, but rather a documentation of the Holy Spirit’s involvement in the world. Acts is the last narrative book in the canon and details the history of the early church. The book’s conclusion is open-ended, leaving the reader to continue the story.

How are you carrying out the Holy Spirit’s work in the world?

¹Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible). (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 227-228.

²Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: a new translation with introduction and commentary. The Anchor Bible v. 31. (New York: Doubleday, 1998) 791-792.