Stoning vs crucifixion

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishcolleen45
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

irishcolleen45

Guest
St Stephen was killed by stoning. Those who committed adultery were stoned to death according to Mosaic law. Yet the Pharisees claimed they couldn’t kill Jesus. Why not?
 
irishcolleen45 said:
Yet the Pharisees claimed they couldn’t kill Jesus. Why not?
Click to expand...
Because in the eyes of the Roman government, it would be nothing more than an illegal lynching. If you wanted a crucifixion, you’d have to get the Roman government to do it, because it was their capital punishment.
 
Last edited:
Stonings could be executed when Israel was an independent nation, but since they were under the control of the Roman empire, Israelites were subject to their laws. I imagine that St. Stephen’s murder went punished by the Romans if they were made aware of it.

As for Jesus, He was so well known by local and national authorities that anyone involved in His illegal execution would certainly be punished.
 
They did try, but Jesus kept miraculously slipping out of their grasp. I believe they did have soldiers assigned to the Temple and under the orders of the High Priest. In their mind, they must have thought that by involving the Romans officially they had more chance of success.
 
Jesus death was in fulfillment of the prophesies of the prophets.
 
Fauken said:
Because in the eyes of the Roman government, it would be nothing more than an illegal lynching. If you wanted a crucifixion, you’d have to get the Roman government to do it, because it was their capital punishment.
Click to expand...
And, let’s not forget that the crime that the Jewish leaders accused Jesus of was treason (He was proclaimed to be king and God, both titles belonging to Caesar.) Therefore, they were claiming a crime against Rome, which they didn’t have the power to prosecute. (At least, that’s the way they decided to spin it. 😉 )
 
Gorgias said:
Therefore, they were claiming a crime against Rome, which they didn’t have the power to prosecute.
Click to expand...
He was arrested by the Romans, tried by the Romans, and executed by the Romans for sedition, a crime so often repeated that thirty years later the Romans found it necessary to sack Jerusalem.

Later accounts, written when blaming the Romans would likely be seen as decidedly unhealthy, instead blamed the Jews for his death.

Maybe so, but I have my doubts.
 
Yes, they did say He claimed He was King but He told Pilate His kingdom was not of this world. OK. That’s probably the reason Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

Thank you.
 
Not sure the Romans interfered with religious decisions including stoning for adultery. Did they?
 
There’s religious freedom, and then there’s allowing people to kill others in the name of their false and silly god (in the eyes of the Romans). That would be an affront to public order, for one.
 
Yes that is true plus Jesus agreed to it. And in addition the Sanhedrin did not come to a conclusion about Jesus. They sent him to Pillates who made a decision (even if he was clueless - I see it as a sign of what’s wrong with humanity, judging even when unsure). But the mai significance is His Sacrifice as a sudden whole hearted help God gave humanity. Gis Sacrifice is also named that “Jesus betrayed Hell on the Cross”. He went to put Himself in Hell even as innocent to pull out those in it.
But He will come again and that time He will judge. Things will be different when He comes back. But first time He came He did the spiritual work that He came to do one being also presenting Himself to people.
 
You have to put things in context. Jesus was a popular religious figure and thousands were flocking to see him in the countryside and in the Temple. John the Baptist had been beheaded a little more than a year before by Antipas and John was thought to be a true prophet. Remember that the Jews had a revered history of God using common men to speak to the Jewish nation- prophets! John had been one and now Jesus was assuming his mantle!

When Jesus was arrested, while Caiaphas, Ananus and an executive council of the Sanhedrin could have sentenced him to a public stoning- Pilate alluded to as much. But Jesus had his supporters even in the Sanhedrin, and a conviction was not certain. Plus, it was the Passover and Jerusalem was teeming with people from the countryside- trying to organize a public stoning would be a dicey proposition at best and could well backfire. And ANY problems during the Passover would not reflect well on the High Priesthood, who only held power at the discretion of Rome.

So they took a throw-away line of Jesus’ “King of the Jews” and used that as pretext to get Pilate to crucify Jesus as an insurrectionist plotting against Rome’s authority. Pilate probably had a good chuckle when Jesus was brought before him on the charge. He tried to shuffle the problem off to Antipas, but Antipas sent him back after examination, not wanting to get involved.

Pilate was almost certainly well-bribed by the High Priesthood and subsequently ordered Jesus crucified. He did not have much of a choice.
 
Thank you for mentioning the possibility that Jesus could have been stoned to death and why it wouldn’t be done.
Obviously God was using all as instruments to do His will that Jesus was to be crucified not stoned.
Thank you again.
 
NotThatHarvey said:
Pilate was almost certainly well-bribed by the High Priesthood and subsequently ordered Jesus crucified. He did not have much of a choice.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure Pilate was bribed. Rather, he was pressured, as you obliquely indicate. In Matthew 27:24, it is said,

When Pilate saw that he was not successful at all, but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.”

Similar accounts indicate Pilate found Jesus innocent, but Pilate had to acquiesce to the crowds in order to prevent rioting.

Mark 15:15

So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas to them and, after he had Jesus scourged, handed him over to be crucified.

I could be mistaken, though. Anyway, we digress as the OP asked about stoning versus crucifying…
 
Last edited:
The Second Temple was a huge money-maker and Governorships in the empire were much sought-after. They were a way to get rich through the accepted and expected criminal methods of the day. The High Priesthood ruled at the pleasure of Rome. They would have done anything to keep Pilate happy.
 
With respect to the Romans prosecuting Jews for public stoning, I would imagine that depended heavily on who was getting stoned.

If some random, poor Jewish woman were caught in adultery and stoned by her own people, the Romans probably thought it was no big deal as long as the public disturbance was kept to a minimum. Wives and women were pretty much chattel in those days, and the Romans weren’t going to waste their time defending the rights of unimportant people they considered disposable, inferior resident aliens.

If, on the other hand, the person getting stoned was rich, important, a Roman citizen like Paul, or likely to cause major civil disorder like Jesus, the Romans would take more of an interest.
 
LOL. The Jews would not dare stone a Roman citizen. If they did, the Romans would crucify not only the one who threw the first stone, but anyone who threw ANY stones. And probably level the nearest village to boot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top