Paul claims to have been educated by Gamaliel, one of the premier teachers of the Law in the first century. Gamaliel taught between A.D. 22-55, giving us an approximate early date for Paul’s education. If Paul began study at the latest age of 16, we can guess a birth year of about 6 at the earliest. Polhill observes that several rulings of Gamaliel appear in the Mishnah, mostly having to do with marriage and divorce. Perhaps Gamiliel’s views influenced Paul’s personal comments on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 (Polhill, Paul and his Letters, 30).
Gamaliel was himself a Pharisee in the tradition of the great Hillel. A generation before Christ there were two great rabbis, Hillel and Shammai. While this is a generalization, many of the rabbinic debates of the first century come down to the opinion of Hillel versus Shammai. With respect to Hellenism, Hillel was more open to Hellenism than Shammai and was therefore more open to cooperation with the Romans.
Evidence for this more accommodating opinion is found in the book of Acts. Gamaliel is reported to have offered somewhat lenient advice concerning the early preaching of the apostles in Acts 5:34-39. Basically, he said that if the movement is from God then it cannot be stopped, if it is not then it will not succeed. Gamaliel is reflecting the Hillel tradition of non-violence and allowing God to deal with parties that against the Jews (Polhill, Paul and His Letters, 31).
This is certainly not the opinion of his young disciple Saul when we meet him in Acts 9 and according to Paul’s own self-description. He was a ruthless persecutor who sought to stop what he saw as an aberration within Judaism. The people who Paul persecuted were diaspora Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah and claimed that he was raised from the dead. How can we account for this violent reaction in a man trained by Gamaliel?
It is possible that Paul was not of the Hillel form of Pharasism, but rather the more radical Shammaite party. N. T. Wright describes the Shammaite Pharisee as a militant “hard-liner” that was not willing to work with Rome as long as they could study the Torah, as Hillel had said (What Saint Paul Really Said, 26). Paul was a Diaspora Jew who claimed to have been raised in a family which kept the Jewish traditions without fault. He was an ultra-conservative reacting to what he perceived as a dangerous liberal view (Jesus was the Messiah and the High Priest killed him!)
38 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 7, 2011 at 10:38 am
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
More Wright supposition! Jesus as the Messiah was not so much a liberal view, as one of supposed profane or contemptuous speech, i.e. blasphemy! (John 10:33) This is still the issue with many Jews, God simply cannot become fully “Incarnate”.
September 7, 2011 at 11:08 am
Phillip J. Long
I think the point was not that Jesus was the Messiah, but rather that Peter and John are stating that the High Priest killed the Messiah and God vindicated him by raising him from the dead. There were plenty of other messianic pretenders besides Jesus, the difference is that some claimed that he was raised form the dead. Wright (and others) point out that Gamaliel II seems more, er, pacifist Acts, while Paul seems to want to zealously pursue those who are accusing the High Priest of killing an innocent man.
For Rabbi Saul, the idea that the messiah could be killed is wrong – but is it enough to account for a violent reaction like Acts 7 and the stoning of Stephen? There is more to Saul’s violence than preaching Jesus as Messiah.
September 10, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Kimmy Haney
Quick question (not one of my posts), was Paul around/among those that put Jesus to death?? Was he working around/with the High Priests, or would he still have been studying under Gamaliel?
September 25, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Phillip J. Long
I did not see this question before, sorry. IMHO, Paul was not an eyewitness to the crucifixion. I would think that he would include that in his self-description as the chief of sinners.
September 7, 2011 at 11:11 am
Phillip J. Long
Dang, I wrote that and didn’t respond to your last point. I am not sure
“God as incarnate” is the issue, that is certainly not what is preached in Acts 2-3. I think Jesus was God incarnate, but the preaching in Acts 2-3 that brings the increasingly violent reaction is that the Jews killed their true messiah and God raised him from the dead, *and* that he is coming back to judge the nation (starting with Caiaphas?).
September 7, 2011 at 11:58 am
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
Yes, this subject can get indepth, but I think it is better myself to keep it simple, and what we can know, from Scripture itself. Rather than the many trails of supposition. There is so much theological supposing these days! St. Paul was always proud of his Roman citizenship, indeed I think we can surmise biblically, that Paul was always something of a Jewish Pharisee, and too a Jewish-Hellenist, but foremost caught-up in his calling as an “Apostle” of Christ! (Rom. 1:1, / 1 Cor. 15: 8-11 etc. / 2 Tim. 1:3 ; 1:11-12, etc.)
September 10, 2011 at 8:00 am
Last Week’s Reading: Evangelicals, Water, and the Theology of Paul « New Ways Forward
[...] Phil Long asks, did Paul study at the feet of Gamaliel? [...]
September 10, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Sam Whittaker
Supposition isn’t the problem. There will always necessarily be a need for supposition and inference. It’s nice and tidy to say “I just accept what the Bible says,” but whose interpretation? We can’t read without any number of lenses (Suppositions) coloring our reading.
It’s no stretch to say Gamaliel was a Hillelite and Saul was a Shammaite. Both clearly exhibit traits of each respective tradition.As to Paul’s Hellenistic tendencies and use of his Roman citizenship, we only see him make use of those things POST conversion. We have no evidence that I know of to describe his attitude toward those things prior to his Damascus Road and Arabia experiences. As a side note, Wright has an excellent article on that on http://www.ntwrightpage.com here:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_Arabia_Elijah.pdf
As to paul’s seemingly at odds relationship with his teacher Gamaliel, it is no odd thing for a student to differ from a teacher, especially if the student is quite a zealous one.
I differ from many of my former teachers, though I still appreciate their perspective.
September 10, 2011 at 2:59 pm
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
WE are not even in this game! St. Paul is simply an elect vessel, as an Apostle! And we can but make some comparisons in ‘ourselves’.
April 19, 2012 at 3:25 pm
al smith
“But whose interpretation?”
Is the Word of God a revelation to man? If we need a man or a group of men to interpret the Word for us, that would make it a revelation that needs to be revealed. We can know God’s will. When Christ was first preached multitudes “gladly received the word”. We can now understand as they did then, what God wills, what Christ said, and His ambassadors taught. The will of God is plainly revealed, showing all that man is to do, to be, to suffer, and enjoy.
It makes sense to affirm that the God Who made us gave us a revelation of himself that we can understand. Surely it makes no sense at all that our loving Creator could or would give us a message we cannot understand. God made us and loves us and He does reveal His will in language we can gladly receive, comprehend and obey. The Lord Jesus clinches this point: “if ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:31-32)
See also John 17:17; Eph 5:17; Acts 2:41.
September 10, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Phillip J. Long
“we only see him make use of those things POST conversion,” this is true enough, but we do not really have a very large database of material to assess Paul’s Hellenistic worldview prior to his conversion.
On example: I think that it is likely he on his way to being a master of Greco-Roman rhetoric prior to conversion. I do not think that after conversion he started reading manuals of style in order to communicate better with Gentiles, he already was well aware of these styles because the were pervasive in the culture. All Jews were Hellenized to some extent, perhaps Paul made more use of Hellenisitic categories after the Damascus Road, but as a citizen of Tarsus it is impossible for him to be completely and solely “Jewish” in his thinking.
September 10, 2011 at 3:00 pm
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
Amen!
September 10, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Jim ~ Random Arrow
Phillip, thank you. Helpful. Provocative. Thanks also for your series on New Perspectives. Helpful.
I keep wondering how far N.T. scholars can go in making probable rather than possible (speculative) inferences?
For example, are we missing any casuistry from Gamaliel which might demonstrate Gamaliel’s dissent from Hillel in specific cases presenting unique facts? On analogy to Supreme Court Justices dissenting in limited and specific cases (anomolies) as a dissenting minority against a majority with whom the dissent would normally agree? For another example, individual jurists can be notoriously incongruent and self-contradictory under just the right environmental pressures – I’d need to look at liberal justices becoming conservative post 9-11 to relax protections for civil liberties. Is it possible that Paul did conceive of certain individual missions against Christians as consistent with a rendering of ‘mercy’, that is, mercy to the stability of cultural Judaism rather than ‘mercy’ to minority Jews (i.e., Christians)? If the Hillel tradition did not offer plasticity enough to justify Paul’s missions against Christians, is it possible that Paul felt that he stayed basically faithful to Gamaliel/Hillel’s school and to mercy because the predominant number (majority of cases) of Paul’s concrete cases against Christians did not require threats of death (i.e., how many Christians caved in?). Or is it possible that Paul privately harbored more overall agreement with Gamaliel/Hillel than with Shammaite Pharisees, and that Paul felt himself to be a lone dissenter in rare cases (Christians) against his former master’s legal hermeneutics of mercy? Are the lines differentiating Gamaliel/Hillel from Shammaite Pharisees sufficiently filled out by robust bodies of exhaustive casuistry? If yes, then are Paul’s subjective states really discernible as correlates to these two different schools based only on Paul’s texts? If ‘probably,’ then how would we know whether Paul ever pulled a rare Justice Rehnquist move, where Rehnquist sides with liberal Justices and dissents against conservatives in weird and inexplicable single cases or two?
I feel that (not competent to know) clusters of questions like these make me second-guess just how far N.T. scholars can go in offering probable rather than speculative inferences?
No need to answer. Just babbling out loud.
Jim
September 10, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Jimmy Buffett
Phil,
My problem is with your assumption that just because Paul differs from Gamaliel makes him a radical Shammaite Pharisee. You cite NT Wright as describing the Shammaite Pharisee as “a militant ‘hard-liner’ that was not willing to work with Rome as long as they could study the Torah.” I do not, however, see this as the case in the rest of the book of Acts, where Paul “works” the Roman system in his favor. This does not seem so radically opposed to Rome. He is also quick to associate with gentiles, so he does not have a deep-seated hate for Romans in general as well. While it is true that Paul did persecute early Christians, it was for his love of the Torah and not because he was rebelling against Roman oppression. Granted Shammaite pharisees love their Torah to that extent as well, but it is not a distinctly Shammaite practice.
In my reading, it would seem that many doubt the claim that one as zealous as Paul could not have sat at the feet of Gamaliel. Critics also say that Paul’s exegesis takes from later documents. Both, it would seem, are not the case. As has been said multiple times above, it is fairly common for a pupil to break off from his teacher’s opinion. It is also possible that Paul adopted many of Gamaliel’s teachings but, due to his youthful age, he decided to be more proactive. I find this convincing since Paul seems, at least in part, to return to Gamaliel’s tutelage after his conversion. This also convinces me that even though it seems he split from Gamaliel, early on, that did not change him into something completely opposite. He comes back to nonviolence and tolerance in his ministry (how he handles the riots and the scourgings).
“Some of its magic, some its tragic, but I’ve had a good life along the
way.” -Jimmy Buffett
September 10, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Phillip J. Long
Good to see the parrot-heads well represented here. I will punt the description of the Shammites back to Wright, I have read extensively on the topic, but the characterization he gives in *What Saint Paul Really Thought* is a bit more than I think the evidence can bear. Maybe Shammites were more conservative, Hillites more liberal, but that is only relative – from the perspective of the Essenes they were all too liberal on the Law!
Sticking with Acts, Gamaliel counsels caution in Acts 5, Rabbi Saul seems to abandon caution by Acts 7. I think Sam is right (somewhere up the thread), one can differ from his teacher, sometimes radically.
September 11, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Jimmy Buffett
I would agree that Saul takes a different approach than Gamaliel to the upstart church at the beginning of Acts, but I will insist that he returns to the teachings of his youth after his conversion (no doubt in no small part due to the Holy Spirit). He just doesn’t suddenly become submission to government and punishment, or in his words “a prisoner of Jesus Christ.” He is, at least, in some small way returning to what he could have been taught by Gamaliel. “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22.6). Paul being the “prodigal student,” as it were, and departing from his mentor to do whatever he wants, abandoning his teachings, and then returning later when he realizes how foolish he was.
I also imagine Yoda being Gamaliel and Luke Skywalker being Paul. Perhaps this may not be too much of a stress, no? (I dare you to use this in your class)
“I know a girl made of memories and phrases, lives her whole life in chapters and phases…” -Jimmy Buffett
September 10, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Emily Renberg
I find it interesting to look at this perspective that you pointed out, PLong: “He was an ultra-conservative reacting to what he perceived as a dangerous liberal view.” Everyone seems to give Saul a bad rap (and rightly so) for his actions towards believers before his conversion, however, this at least gives us a context to understand him better. I also was struck by the context in Paul’s frequent use of athletic analogies. He uses this in Philippians 3:12-14 to describe the Christian walk. He uses these references quite often throughout many of his books in the NT. While Paul was studying under Gamaliel he was exposed to Hellenism, including the gymnasium. “Paul’s athletic references are too pervasive in his letters for him to have shared the antipathy that some Jews felt toward the games”. (11)
September 10, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Phillip J. Long
“Paul’s athletic references” – good point Emily. Similar to my discussion with Sam above, the evidence for Paul’s athletic metaphors is late, maybe 20 years after conversion. Plenty of time for him to get familiar with popular Greek culture in order to draw appropriate analogies. If I were a missionary to England, I would certainly want to learn all I could about football, tea, and Doctor Who.
September 11, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Andrew Clark
I found Paul’s athletic references to be really intriguing as well Emily. As an athlete and sports enthusiast, the references really stuck out to me and are passages of scripture that I have read multiple times. I’m not sure if there is any evidence of Paul having any athletic prowess on the field but his understanding of Greek athletics is well documented. His knowledge and metaphors have helped me relate more to what his letters say. For example, “But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified (1 Corinthians 9:27 ESV).” In athletics and my walk with Christ, I must remain disciplined in all that I do. Polhill goes on to talk about Paul studying Greek and by him studying under Gameliel and Hellenism, he would be around the gymnasium. “This was where the institution derived its name, gymnos being the Greek word for “naked.” For Jews, nakedness was religiously offensive (11).” By Paul being Jewish and involved in the gymnasium, he was going against the norm. This was like most of Paul’s ministry, always doing what God told him and doing what was against the grain. In his letters to the Corinthians he says, “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some (1 Corinthians 9:22 ESV).”
September 11, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Phillip J. Long
I cannot imagine Paul competing in the gymnasium, even if he was Hellenized. IMHO, most of the sports analogies are from the Olympic styled games which were found throughout the empires. I can use football analogies even if I have never actually been a football player.
September 11, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Phil Miller
I am surprised that no one has brought the tradition that Gamaliel was sympathetic to “Christianity,” if not himself baptized. Forgive me, but it easier to cite the following from the Wikipedia. Paul might indeed have been a follower of the School of Shammai, but his mentioning Gamaliel’s name might have been intended to his (Paul’s) having studies in Jerusalem when Gamaliel was head of the Sanhedrin.
“Ecclesiastical tradition maintains that Gamaliel had embraced the Christian faith and his tolerant attitude toward the Early Christians is explained by this. According to Photius, he was baptized by Saint Peter and Saint John, together with his son and Nicodemus. The Clementine Literature suggested that he maintained secrecy about the conversion and continued to be a member of the Sanhedrin for the purpose of covertly assisting his fellow Christians.[22] The Roman Catholic church views him as a Saint and listed him in the Roman Martyrology for August 3. It is said that in the 5th century, by a miracle, his body had been discovered and taken to Pisa Cathedral.[23] The Orthodox church also venerates Gamaliel as a saint, where he is commemorated on August 2, the date when tradition states that his relics were found, along with those of the Apostle and Protomartyr Stephen and Nicodemus.
The Jewish account maintains that he remained a Pharisee until his death. Contemporary Jewish records continue to list him first among the Sanhedrin.[24]“
September 11, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Phillip J. Long
This is a good point, although I am not sure that the tradition is totally reliable. Something I would like to believe, though!
I will say, “The Jewish account maintains that he remained a Pharisee until his death” makes perfect sense since we know that there were other Pharisees who were Christians in Acts 15, and Paul still claims to be a Pharisee when he testifies before the Sanhedrin in Acts 23:6. Christian Pharisees were not unknown, even if we cannot know for sure if the wishful thinking of the traditions is true about Gamaliel and Nicodemus.
September 11, 2011 at 9:06 pm
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
Indeed in this case Christian tradition cannot really be trusted, in my opinion. But we surely can trust that Paul was as Acts 22:3 states: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.”
September 11, 2011 at 7:42 pm
cwitt89
It is interesting in seeing the difference in view points of Saul and Gamaliel. Their differing viewpoints do not seem like enough cause, to me, to doubt that Saul studied with Gamaliel. it is not uncommon for a student to disagree with his teacher’s viewpoints. Polhil states that “…perhaps around the age of fourteen to sixteen Paul went to Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3),” (30). Being in his mid-range teens allows for plenty of time for Paul’s family to teach him the strict conservative Jewish ways that he often brings up. But there is a notable difference in Paul from pre- to post-conversion. (I know, captain obvious). But this seems to be where the peaceful teachings of Gamaliel shine stronger. Not to say that Paul completely left his Jewish heritage (that’s a separate blog) and the almost violent passion with which he held onto them (see Galatians 5:12).
September 11, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Phil Miller
Reliability is certainly an issue. But until 1956 he was Saint Gamaliel according to the Catholic Church’s Roman Martyrology. (Two other saint also removed at that timer were St. Philomena and St. Christopher. Needless to say, many still revere Philomena and Christopher as saints. As Gamaliel’s “Christianity” is attested in the Clementine Literature, one may, with care, posit an early date for the tradition. But it begs the question” Why would early Christians claim Rabban as one of their own? Perhaps on the basis of a preserved tradition that he oversaw the body of St. Stephen.
September 11, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Phillip J. Long
Do you have a reference handy mentioning Gamaliel in the Clementine lit? As for burying Stephen, even if Gamaliel was not a Christian he would have been motivated to care for the dead, as demonstrated in Tobit.
September 11, 2011 at 10:06 pm
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
The biblical Christian has but one authority and “tradition”, trust and Sola…Holy Scripture! Note I was raised and somewhat educated Irish Roman Catholic, so no axe to grind here! But I am a Reformed Anglican.
September 11, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Chris Thompson
I almost wonder if his upbringing had anything to do with the way that he thought and he acted towards Christians. Polhill does say “So perhaps around the age of fourteen to sixteen Pawl went to Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel (Polhill 30).” So even if he did go off at the age of 15 then that is still 15 years of being influenced by his father. If his father was a very zealous man as well, then there is the possibility that that affected the way that Paul thought even before he entered into the teaching of Gamaliel.
Also Gamaliel was apart of the Sanhedrin which were the people that ultimately were the people who decided Jesus’ fate and persecuted many of the Jews. Even though Gamaliel was the one who stated in Acts 5:34-39 that if this “Jesus movement” were from God there would be no way to stop it, they should just let it run its course, Paul was still influenced heavily by the persecution mindset that the rest of the Sanhedrin had.
September 11, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Phil Miller
I would need to find an online edition of the Clementine Literature and hope there is a “search” capacity. Of course Gamaliel might have buried St. Stephen as an act of charity, given his stature in the community, not withstanding the hostility of the public. Tobit is a good reference In the Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim 97b and 100b there are statements given in the name of Rabbi Akiva that in the case of an unclaimed body, if no one is attending to it, the responsibility for the buriasl of this corpse falls on this person, who must do it despite any obstacles, regardless if one is a High Priest or Nazirite, neither of whom are allowed to become tamei, ritually impure.
September 11, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Phillip J. Long
That is OK, if it is not handy then I can look it up myself. (Soon, in the Logos Library!) Thanks for the pointer.
September 11, 2011 at 10:03 pm
1laurenasmussen
“He was a ruthless persecutor who sought to stop what he saw as an aberration within Judaism. The people who Paul persecuted were diaspora Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah and claimed that he was raised from the dead. How can we account for this violent reaction in a man trained by Gamaliel?”
As a devout young Jewish man who was taught by quite a peaceful, “que sera sera,” member of the Sanhedrin, it is somewhat surprising that Paul (Saul at the time) would be one to persecute Jewish Christians so vehemently. Pohill points out that Gamaliel seemed to be very resigned about this new Jesus movement, saying that if Christianity was not of God’s will, they would end in disaster just like the false messianic movements in Israel’s past did (pg 31). Paul, however, I think was so strongly devoted to the strict teachings of the Torah, that he had to fundamentally had to disagree with his teacher. While Gamaliel was seemingly somewhat relaxed in his view of the Torah, Paul seemed to take it so seriously, that he believed the Christians truly did deserve to be persecuted for believing in a “false” Messiah. (Acts 8:1-2, 9:1-2)
It is easy to gather from his writings that Paul was a very passionate person all around. This passion is evident in his active persecution of those he saw as going against what the Torah taught about the Messiah. After Paul’s conversion, his passion seems to push him to even greater lengths as he then proclaims the very Jesus he had persecuted! (Acts 9:20-22) I think his training with Gamaliel was a large influence on his passion though. Without such a solid basis in the Torah and the Jewish Law that he got from studying under Gamaliel, I doubt Paul’s conversion and ministry thereafter would have been as impacting or provocative. It is the drastic nature of the difference in his life after he surrenders to Jesus that testifies to the Power and Truth of who Christ is, as well as to the wonder of the great mystery that is later revealed to Paul! (Eph. 3)
September 11, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Jason Magnuson
According to Polhill “there were many individual groups in First century Judaism before the war of 66-70… The different groups had much in common… But each had its own combination of characteristics” (Polhill 28). My question is, is it too outrageous to see Paul’s tendency (pre-conversion and post-conversion) as one that is either starting up a new hybrid of Jewish thought or a member of one of the smaller groups already formed? Paul may very well have studied under Gamaliel and from there established the groundwork from which to build a new movement. This idea can even be applied to his post-conversion work seeing how he sought to integrate the Gentiles into the Church when it was still a controversial issue. I admit this is all speculation and I don’t have a shred of evidence for any of this but it makes me wonder if Paul was trying to start something extraordinary within Judaism (As he mentions in his defense in Acts 22) and God harnessed that ambition for the glory and advancement of His Church.
Within Acts 22 he mentions how he zealously persecuted the followers of the Way, something that up until that point, had not been done by anyone within Judaism to that extent. The Zealots were against the Political oppressors, the Sadducees were complacent and the Pharasees were die hard conservatives that had a history of killing over the strict preservation of the law (Polhill 27-28). As sort of my own counter point against my first paragraph, It is not surprising then that Paul acts out the way he does. Paul may be seeing this as another threat to the Law and acts as his predecessors did to preserve the culture and traditions of the Pharisaical movement and interpretations. While he agrees with Gamaliel, Paul wants to protect that which he loves.
September 11, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Micah Widdis
It was very interesting to me that it was likely that Paul was raised in a very Jewish home, trained in all the Jewish ways and teachings, and a student of Gamaliel…and yet he did react to Christianity in such a violent and zealous form. When P. Long said above that he was an “ultra conservative reacting to what he perceived as a dangerous liberal view”, it made me think of this situation more in terms of the present times. To Paul, Christianity was dangerous, and to his Jewish thinking, very wrong. I believe that his reaction was not majorly a reflection of his upbringing and teaching, but rather of a fear that the tradition and comfort of the Jewish ways was being challenged by a “dangerous liberal view” (P. Long), and he thought it his duty to protect his lifestyle and beliefs as a “Hebrew of Hebrews”, a “Pharisee”, and of the “Tribe of Benjamin” (Phi 3:5-5).
September 11, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Joe Stanitzek
I am trying to understand this whole post, but think the discussion is mainly about Paul and why he acted the way he did in persecuting christians after studying under Gamaliel who was more concerned with non violent acts. On page 38 Polhil writes, “Paul certainly showed more the attitude of the zealots than of Gamaliel.” Polhil also mentions in Phillipians 3:5-6, “Paul refers to his persecuting in close connection with his zeal for the law.” Polhil then mentions that a modern Zionist would have a ‘yearning for the independence of the nation and the restoration of the glory of the temple by the Messiah.” After reading our sections it seems to me that although Paul studied under Gamaliel, his actions resembled more closely to the Shammaite party. If anything Paul reacted on his duty to do what he thought was right and purify what was most important to him, the law. Christians threatened his view and interpretation of the law until his conversion in Acts 9.
September 18, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Pastor Niko Thapa
I have been looking and wanted to know about the Gamaliel , because in Nepal we have competition for the ranking and I’m bit aware of this and I have burden for our people in Nepal not go this way and I want to teach as a teacher to be out from this kinds of Gamaliel position, who just want to be in the meeting not taking burden of their neighbor who need Jesus than taking a position in the Gamaliel meetings.
I got lots of note on it I thank God and I praise God.
Pastor Niko Thapa
September 19, 2012 at 7:54 am
Phillip J. Long
Hello Pastor Thapa – your problem is not unique to Nepal, people everywhere like to rank themselves above others. But Jesus said, do not take the best seats (Luke 14:7-11), and to be like a child (Luke 18:15-17). Gamaliel is not a Christian, but he certainly demonstrates that attitude in this story!
February 5, 2013 at 3:07 am
bb
whats d equivalence of studying at d feet of Gamaliel to todays education.
February 5, 2013 at 7:47 am
Phillip J. Long
That is a good question, I am not sure if anyone has ever asked me that before! A scribe would be among the most highly educated in Judaism, and since “at the feet of Gamaliel” implies a mentoring relationship, it seems to me that a near-equivalent would be a serious specialized Master’s Program, if not a PhD. This is not the sort of education most people would even want, so it is not really a college degree.
There are Rabbinic schools today, of course, who would study the sorts of things Paul would have, so perhaps a yeshiva is a good parallel to Paul’s education. (check out wikipedia on yeshiva, that will give you a feel for a Torah / talmudic education, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshiva)