Unfortunately, like many in America, I have become desensitized to violence in this world. Frequent exposure to movies and media stories that include graphic pictures and detail ferocious actions have created an “emotional numbing” that I can sense happening. There was a time growing up when even the thought of another’s suffering would have a visceral psychological impact; an automatic sympathetic response. But, as I have gotten older, and I suspect, more numb to people’s pain and suffering, I detect a measurable decline in emotional, psychological, physiological, and empathetic responses.
This comes to mind as I read Acts 7. Particularly the end of the chapter where Stephen is martyred.
I can recall when I was much younger, and first ran across the story of the stoning of Stephen. I remember being horrified at the thought of a near-mob so filled with hatred that they are capable of throwing stones at another—with the intention, not just to hurt, but to kill. It seemed unimaginable that people would treat one another that way.
And yet, the theory behind the practice of stoning is instructive for the believer.
Stoning was one form of capital punishment practiced by the Israelites in Old Testament times. While beheading and hanging were also known, stoning seems to have been applied in special, unique, and specifically egregious cases. Laws demanding judicial executions for murder, sexual sin, and other offenses exist in Israel and surrounding cultures, but stoning was reserved for sins that specifically targeted our relationship with God. Hence, one finds in the Scripture an odd collection of sins which merit stoning: adultery, sorcery, idolatry, blasphemy, and disobedience of parents (Yes, disobedience!). What holds this group together? In each case, the ultimate “target” of the sin is God Himself—if you think about it, it will come to you.
Stoning was a judicial execution which required communal participation—it was a condemnation of sin which demanded everyone’s recognition and acknowledgement. The process was meant, not so much to punish the offender, but to purge the sin from the community as a whole—a process of purification, leading to holiness. Now, of course, the offender is executed, but there were easier ways to do that; stoning emphasized the infectious, corporate nature of evil—it affects us all, and is all of our responsibility. Hence, once the sinner had been judged guilty, the entire body was to participate in the sin’s rejection.
The stoning was not finished, however, simply when the perpetrator was dead—mercifully, I suspect blunt force trauma happened fairly quickly. Instead, however, the stoning of the victim would continue, until there was a sizable pile of stones visible. This pile would serve as a mnemonic device, reminding the community of the sin and its consequences (see, Joshua 4:21 for a similar situation).
Finally, the stone-pile also serves as an eschatological symbol, an end-times reminder. The resurrection from the dead awaits us all, but the community of God is communicating something symbolic by virtually burying someone under a heap of stones—the sin which led to this punishment is so vile, so ungodly, that the punishment should continue even into the afterlife. In other words, the pile of stones is a symbolic statement that resurrecting this particular sinner should be hard to accomplish. Of course, Israel knew that nothing is beyond God’s ability; they were not really creating a challenge for the Lord. However, they were expressing their rejection of the sin, but the metaphorical denial of an afterlife.
By the time we get to Stephen’s story, I’m afraid that a lot of the “lessons” of stoning have been lost to the people. Stephen’s fate appears more as a mob-action, than a judicial execution; more of a desire to inflict pain, than a rejection of sin; more of an act of emotion, than of holiness.
Of course, to the extent that this is so, we’ll explore together when we look at the closing verses of Acts chapter 7 this week in worship. Join us!
- What explains the contrast between Stephen and his opponents as described in verses 54 and 55? How does the biblical author describe the difference?
- Things really get bad when Stephen has a vision of heaven. What is it about his vision which would set off his opponents as it did? What does Stephen’s vision of heaven mean for his proclamation of the Gospel?
- Verse 59 might sound familiar. Look up Luke 23:46. Undoubtably there were people present at both Jesus’ and Stephen’s execution. How might they have heard Stephen’s words?
- We are told that Stephen “fell asleep” in verse 60; this could be a euphemism for “dying” or an act of God’s grace to Stephen to spare him pain and suffering. Which do you think might be the case?
- Larger picture: how did Stephen’s recounting of Israel’s history lead to this moment? How might we experience a similar reaction (though, hopefully, not so violent)?
By Henry Knapp