Part I. Saul’s Zeal and the Threat of a Davidic King?
The Problem of Saul’s Zeal
The New Testament depicts Saul of Tarsus as one of the fiercest opponents of the early Jesus movement. He “ravaged the church” (Acts 8:3), dragging men and women into prison, and “breathed threats and murder” against disciples on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:1). His own retrospective account in Philippians underscores this: “as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Phil 3:6). Saul presents himself as a model Pharisee, excelling beyond his peers in loyalty to ancestral traditions (Gal 1:14).
The New Testament depicts Saul of Tarsus as one of the fiercest opponents of the early Jesus movement. He “ravaged the church” (Acts 8:3), dragging men and women into prison, and “breathed threats and murder” against disciples on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:1). His own retrospective account in Philippians underscores this: “as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Phil 3:6). Saul presents himself as a model Pharisee, excelling beyond his peers in loyalty to ancestral traditions (Gal 1:14).
But why did Saul perceive the disciples of Jesus as such a dangerous threat? Standard Christian interpretation often blames his Pharisaic training, citing Acts 22:3, where Saul claims to have been educated “at the feet of Gamaliel.” Yet this is puzzling: Luke earlier portrays Gamaliel as a voice of moderation in the Sanhedrin.
Gamaliel had counseled restraint regarding the apostles, warning that violent opposition might inadvertently mean “fighting against God” (Acts 5:38–39). If Saul truly internalized his master’s wisdom, why did he not hesitate to unleash persecution? The answer must lie deeper than mere Pharisaic schooling. Saul’s zeal was shaped by broader covenantal and political anxieties, particularly the danger posed by Davidic claimants in Second Temple Judea.
The Davidic Heirs as a Political Flashpoint
From the Maccabean period onward, any figure connected to the line of David carried disruptive potential. Herod the Great, though himself not of Davidic descent, executed Hasmonean and Davidic rivals to secure his throne. Rome itself was wary of Jewish kingship claims: Josephus recounts how figures like Theudas and Judas the Galilean drew followers, only to be swiftly crushed by imperial power. Theudas, promising a miraculous parting of the Jordan, was captured and beheaded under the procurator Fadus; Judas, leading a tax revolt, was killed, and his sons later crucified by Rome.¹
In such an environment, the proclamation that Jesus of Nazareth — executed under the title “King of the Jews” — was alive and enthroned at God’s right hand was incendiary.
Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus, preserves a later episode from Domitian’s reign: the emperor summoned the grandsons of Jude, Jesus’ relative, precisely because “they were of the family of David.”² Though found harmless, their very existence unnerved Caesar. The danger was not theological hair-splitting; it was dynastic.
In this light, Saul’s persecution reads less as a narrow defense of halakhah and more as an attempt to extinguish a nascent Davidic messianic movement before it could ignite a political firestorm.
Stephen’s Testimony and Saul’s Fury
The story of Stephen in Acts 7 crystallizes this threat. Stephen accused the Sanhedrin of resisting the Spirit as their ancestors had resisted the prophets. Most provocatively, he testified that he saw “the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56). This was an unmistakable claim that Jesus — the crucified “Nazarene” — had been vindicated by God as the eschatological ruler of Daniel 7.
For Saul, this was intolerable. To proclaim a cursed man, who ‘hung on a tree’ (Deut 21:23) as God’s chosen king threatened covenantal fidelity and national survival. No wonder Saul approved of Stephen’s execution and intensified the campaign against “the Way.”
Hillel and Shammai: The Pharisaic Crossroads
To probe further into Saul’s zeal, one must examine the internal divisions within Pharisaism. By the early first century, two schools dominated: Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. Hillel’s school, represented by figures like Gamaliel, tended toward inclusivity, patience, and accommodation. Rabbinic tradition remembers Hillel as welcoming converts and teaching that the essence of Torah was love of neighbor (b. Shabbat 31a). Shammai’s school, by contrast, emphasized rigor, separation, and exclusivity. They resisted Gentile inclusion and, in some accounts, even employed force to assert their halakhic views (Tosefta Shabbat 1:15).
To probe further into Saul’s zeal, one must examine the internal divisions within Pharisaism. By the early first century, two schools dominated: Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. Hillel’s school, represented by figures like Gamaliel, tended toward inclusivity, patience, and accommodation. Rabbinic tradition remembers Hillel as welcoming converts and teaching that the essence of Torah was love of neighbor (b. Shabbat 31a). Shammai’s school, by contrast, emphasized rigor, separation, and exclusivity. They resisted Gentile inclusion and, in some accounts, even employed force to assert their halakhic views (Tosefta Shabbat 1:15).
Acts situates Saul as Gamaliel’s disciple, yet his behavior bears the hallmarks of Shammaite rigor. He guarded Israel’s purity with violence, sought to extinguish sectarian deviations, and viewed the proclamation of a crucified Messiah as an intolerable breach. Scholars such as Jacob Neusner have noted how Shammaite strictness became intertwined with the rising zealot spirit that fueled resistance to Rome.³ David Flusser likewise argued that the persecution of early Christians reflected the dominance of Shammaite exclusivism in Jerusalem after Herod’s death.⁴
Harvey Falk’s Insight: Jesus the Pharisee
Here Harvey Falk’s provocative thesis becomes illuminating. In Jesus the Pharisee, Falk contends that Jesus himself aligned with Hillel’s inclusive tradition, while his opponents often reflected Shammaite severity. Falk situates early Christian persecution in the context of Shammaite ascendancy, when their strict halakhic line carried political clout in Jerusalem.
For Falk, Paul’s biography embodies this tension: trained under Gamaliel (Hillelite), Saul nevertheless lived out Shammaite zeal, only to have his encounter with Jesus redirect him back toward Hillelite openness, now radicalized through Messiah.⁵
This framework explains the puzzle: Saul’s persecution is not Gamaliel’s moderation gone awry, but Shammaite rigor run its course. His later theology — Gentile inclusion without proselyte conversion, the primacy of love as fulfillment of Torah, the insistence that coercion has no place in God’s kingdom — bears the unmistakable mark of a Hillelite spirit, though now transfigured by Christ. In other words, Saul the Shammaite zealot becomes Paul the Hillelite apostle — not by abandoning Judaism but by embracing the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s story.
⸻
Endnotes
1. Josephus, Antiquities 20.97–98; cf. Jewish War 2.117–118.
2. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.20.5–7.
3. Jacob Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (New York: KTAV, 1973), esp. ch. 3.
4. David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 543–561.
5. Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1985), 47–61.
2. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.20.5–7.
3. Jacob Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (New York: KTAV, 1973), esp. ch. 3.
4. David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 543–561.
5. Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1985), 47–61.
