More than once in the last 50 years it has occurred to me that Paul might have known Jesus before He appeared to Paul on the Damascus road, but I had never taken up the notion in earnest until recently when I ran into a book by Stanley Porter titled When Paul Met Jesus.1 Porter is especially interested in the history of the idea and why scholars today dismiss the possibility that Paul knew Jesus during His earthly life. In this short essay, I am interested in simply offering evidence that Paul must have known of Jesus during His earthly life and that it is highly probable that Paul personally encountered Jesus before the resurrection.
There are two suppositions, which, if taken together, would entirely undermine this hypothesis: 1) that Paul had left Jerusalem before Jesus’ ministry began and did not visit again until after Jesus’ resurrection; 2) that during the period of Jesus’ ministry Paul had no communication with any other Pharisees or Jews who knew of Jesus. Even if it were reasonable to assume that Paul left Jerusalem before Jesus’ ministry began and never returned until after the resurrection — a highly unlikely proposition — the very suggestion that Paul might have had no communication with other Pharisees or Jews who knew of Jesus is patently absurd. Jesus was simply too well-known and too much talked about for Paul to have been completely ignorant of Him: “The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, ‘You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!’” (John 12:19)
I believe it is reasonable to assume that Saul/Paul was in Jerusalem during Jesus’ ministry, though it is not impossible that he traveled to Tarsus to visit his family sometime during the approximately three and a half years Jesus taught in Galilee and Judea. Of course, other travel is possible as well. However, given the fact that he was young and had been sent to Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel, probably the greatest Jewish rabbi of the day by Jewish reckoning, it is likely that a young ambitious Pharisee would have spent much if not most or all of his time in Jerusalem and Judea. With John the Baptizer and Jesus stirring up the whole society, young men would be attracted to the scene of the action.
It is from Paul’s own testimony that we know that he studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem: “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” (Acts 22:3). But when might this have been? When might Paul have gone from Tarsus to Jerusalem?
I begin my speculation with thoughts about Saul and his persecution of Christians (Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2).2 In Acts 7:58, Saul is described as a “young man,” but the designation is not very helpful for determining Paul’s age, since apparently it could be applied to a rather broad range of ages, something like 20-40. However, the fact that Paul had access to the high priest and was given a commission perhaps suggests that he would have been at least 25 — the age at which Levites began to assist the priests (Numbers 8:23-26) — though he might have been somewhat older. The point is that though he is still called a “young man,” he is old enough to be appointed to a position of rather weighty responsibility. We are not certain of his age at the time, but Wright opines that Paul was born sometime in the first decade of the first century.3 If Paul was about 25 in Acts 7:58, it suggests that he had been in Jerusalem for about 10 years, since Gamaliel would probably have taken him in as a disciple when Paul was about 15. If that is the case, Saul had perhaps finished or was very near the completion of his time with Gamaliel. Of course, this is speculation, but it is reasonable and not original with me.
I should add that N. T. Wright assumes that Saul probably followed the stricter teaching of Shammai, even though he was a disciple of Gamaliel, the grandson of the great Jewish Rabbi, Hillel the Elder, because Paul describes his days as a Pharisee in terms of “zeal,” even to the point of persecuting the church (Philippians 3:6). According to Wright, Paul seems to have modeled himself after Phinehas (Numbers 25:6-13) — the Old Testament model of zeal.4
The ministry of John the Baptizer probably began in AD 25 or 26. It drew such attention that priests and Levites of the Pharisees were sent to investigate (John 1:19, 24). Thus, Jesus’ forerunner, too, caused a stir among the leaders in Jerusalem — something all the Pharisees, including young Saul, would have heard about. Also, Daniel’s prophecy included a time-table for the coming of Messiah and the Pharisees were well aware that the time was about up, so the concern about John the Baptizer sprung from the deep well of Messianic expectation. Though John made it clear that he was not the Messiah, he was widely regarded and respected as a prophet.
At the first Passover after His baptism, Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple, drawing symbolic attention to the ministry He had embarked upon (John 2:13-19). During this Passover, Jesus did so many miracles that Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee (John 3:1), came at night to visit Him and ask questions, declaring significantly, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). It is highly doubtful that any students of a prominent rabbi like Gamaliel or any young, zealous Pharisee would have been ignorant of Jesus, even from this early time in His ministry.
Porter suggests that “at some point Jesus was seen to cross the line from interesting curiosity to increasing annoyance and perhaps provocative adversary to perceived threat to the religious establishment.”5 I cannot, however, find the period of “interesting curiosity.” From the first passover, we learn Jesus provoked the Pharisees (John 2:13-19). The friction never lessened. John 4:1-4 tells us that Jesus left Judea because the Pharisees heard that He was making more disciples than John the Baptizer. Throughout His Great Galilean Ministry,6 (Autumn of 27 to Spring of 29) — which included a visit to Jerusalem and a controversial Sabbath healing probably at Passover (John 5:1-47) — friction between Jesus and the Pharisees was common (Matthew 9:1-8, 9-13, 14-17; 12:1-8, 9-14; Luke 7:29-35; Matthew 12:22-37, 38-45; 927-34 ), not to mention the fact that the people of Nazareth tried to kill Jesus on His first visit to them after His ministry began (Luke 4:16-31). Rejection of Jesus became more intense during the Later Judean Ministry from the feast of Tabernacles to the feast of Dedication (John 7:1-10:21) and after, including attempts to arrest Him (John 7:30, 45-52; 11:57) and kill Him (John 7:1, 19, 25; 8:59; 10:31, 39; 11:8, 16, 53 ).
It seems to me, therefore, that from the beginning of His ministry, Jesus crossed the line that John the Baptizer had also crossed. There is no evidence that a significant percentage of the Pharisees were ever curiously interested in Jesus, for Nicodemus was the exception, not the rule. We may assume, I think, that the young and zealous Pharisaical Saul was himself caught up in the Pharisees anti-Christ accusations, deceived into hatred of Jesus (1 Timothy 1:13; cf. Acts 3:17), whether from the beginning or gradually — perhaps especially after the Sabbath issue became central. We may not know when or why Paul adopted the Pharisaic perspective, but he seems to have joined them in absolute opposition to Jesus.
Porter summarizes the Jewish leaders accusations against Him: “The major accusations against Jesus were that he was an antinomian (he broke the law and encouraged others to do so), he was demon-possessed and hence was doing Satan’s rather than God’s work, he was a glutton and drunkard and readily associated with those who ate and drank too much, he was a false prophet, he made implicit if not explicit claims to be the king of the Jews that would have aroused the Roman authorities, and, finally, he was a blasphemer who in fact blasphemed in front of the high priest by claiming to be God’s equal and coming with God in judgment (Mark 14:62 and parallels). Not only was Jesus seen by many as an antinomian, and hence he would probably have been destined to arouse the response if not ire of the Pharisees (as the Gospels so ably depict), but others of the accusations would also have touched sensitive legal issues for the Pharisees. These would have involved his perceived opposition to God by his being Satan’s advocate, his eating and drinking with those who would have been unclean and hence his becoming a law-breaker, his leading people astray from God’s law by being a false prophet, his claiming kingly status, which would have involved both messianic claims that would have alienated the Jewish leadership (possibly including the Pharisees) and the Roman authorities, and his blaspheming, a clear violation of God’s law. When his numerous violations of Jewish law gained enough momentum and his teaching and activities could be construed as posing a possible threat to the Jewish and especially Roman authorities, Jesus’ death became an inevitable reality.”7
The young Pharisee, Saul, may or may not have seen the Pharisees’ faults that Jesus condemned as hypocrisy, but he might have been part of, or at least aware of, the failed plot to entangle Jesus in His words (Matthew 22:15) and he might have been present to hear Jesus terrifying denunciation (Matthew 23:1-39). After all, how could a young and brilliant Pharisee miss a confrontation in the temple itself, as Pharisees gathered to expose the infamous false prophet who was leading Israel astray? If Paul was in Jerusalem that day, I think we can assume he would have gone to the temple to at least witness the Jewish leaders unmask the lying prophet from Nazareth. The fact that it was Jesus who won the war of words probably only infuriated Paul and other Pharisees as well, pushing them further toward fulfilling their murderous intentions.
I suggest that for the Pharisee Saul, the crucifixion itself would have been the final and greatest proof that Jesus was a false prophet. Though He presented Himself as a servant of God and even more, as Israel’s Messiah, He died! But the true Messiah could not have died, especially He could not have been defeated by Gentiles and crucified. The scandal of the cross — crucifixion by Romans! — was the public vindication of the Pharisaic interpretation of Jesus. Does it not seem highly likely that a young Pharisee in Jerusalem would join the throngs — if not filled with zeal to see Jesus punished, at least out of curiosity to see how this man who had so severely denounced the Pharisees in the temple would face His death?
There are other occasions during Jesus’ time in Jerusalem during which it would seem highly likely that Saul would have been present, not as a leader, but as a young observer. After all he had seen and heard, both before and after Jesus’ death, zealous young Saul (Acts 8:3) took the initiative to obtain a commission to Damascus (Acts 9:1-2). Perhaps he saw it as the opportunity he looked for to advance his career as a rabbi.
Jesus changed all of that — giving Saul a new faith, new zeal, and a new commission, not to mention eventually also, a new name (Acts 9:3-20).
Then, three years after his conversion and calling, Saul/Paul went up to Jerusalem and visited with Peter for 15 days, also meeting with the Lord’s brother James. We cannot doubt what they talked about during their time together, nor should we doubt that Paul would have learned much about Jesus Himself and His teaching, though he says, concerning a later occasion, that the Jerusalem leaders added nothing to him (Galatians 2:6). Surely he did not mean that the time with them was in vain or that Paul and the Jerusalem leaders did not have edifying and mutually encouraging fellowship about Christ. He meant that they did not add anything to his basic understanding of the Gospel. Nothing that Peter and others told him about Jesus changed his insights into the Gospel of grace.
Porter considers at length and in detail passages that directly suggest that Paul had personally meet Jesus, offering thought provoking exegesis of Paul’s conversion story in Acts 9, 22, and 26,8 and of 1 Corinthians 9:19 (“Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?”) and 2 Corinthians 5:1610 (“Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we knowHim thus no longer.”). I find his exegesis of these passages persuasive, but there is far too much material even to provide a simple summary.
In his last chapter, Porter addresses the issue of whether Paul might be quoting or alluding to teaching from Jesus that Paul had heard firsthand.11 I found this chapter least helpful because of my understanding of the dates for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. If, as I have argued, Matthew was written in AD 30,12 not long after Pentecost, and Mark written not long after the conversion of Cornelius’ household, then all of Paul’s allusions to Jesus’ teaching could have come from his knowledge of written Scripture. Luke, Paul’s traveling companion, would have composed his Gospel not long after Paul’s early epistles had been written. Of course, Paul and Luke, traveling together and spending time together in Rome while Paul was under house arrest, would have had long conversations about Jesus and His teaching. If my understanding of the dates for the composition of the Gospels is roughly correct, most of Porter’s speculation about Paul hearing Jesus in person is superfluous13 — though not necessarily mistaken. I do assume that Paul probably did hear Jesus in person and may well have been present for at least Jesus’ public trial before Pilate, if not the private Jewish trials that preceded it. Also, it is unthinkable to me that a zealous young Pharisee in Jerusalem would have missed the opportunity to witness the crucifixion.
If Matthew wrote his Gospel in AD 30 and it was popular and widely distributed — which manuscript evidence seems to support — then Paul did not need to rehearse the details of Jesus’ life or teaching in his letters, for they had been well-known from the beginning. Again, if Mark wrote his Gospel not long after Cornelius’ conversion, — about 40+ AD — there could have been two Gospels in circulation before Paul and Barnabas set out for their first missionary journey in AD 45 or 46. The story of Jesus was the most popular story among early Christians, as now.
Readers who are persuaded of that Paul must have known Jesus before the Damascus-road meeting will, in their reading of the Gospels and the epistles of Paul, discover innumerable provocative potential insights and edifying speculations. The perverse notions that Paul was largely ignorant of Jesus’ earthly life or that he was opposed to Jesus’ teaching should certainly be buried in a sealed tomb. Though we can not actually join their fellowship in person, we can, with a renewed imagination, participate in the conversations that Peter and Paul had during the 15 day meeting near the beginning of Paul’ ministry (Galatians 1:18) and also in the heart to heart exchanges that Paul, Luke, and Mark enjoyed while Paul was imprisoned in Rome — yes, the authors of two of our Gospels were with Paul in his house-arrest! (Colossians 4:10, 14).
Notes
- Stanley E. Porter, When Paul Met Jesus: How an Idea Got Lost in History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016). ↩︎
- I follow James Jordan’s outline of the chronology of this period, according to which everything in Acts 1:4-9:20 occurs in AD 30, including Saul’s witnessing the martyrdom of Stephen and his conversion. Thus, I assume that Saul would not only have been in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus’ ministry, training as a Pharisee and perhaps embarking on his own work as a young Pharisee, but also very likely present at Jesus’ crucifixion. See, James B. Jordan, “Chronology of the Gospels,” in Biblical Chronology, vol. 4, no. 12, December, 1992. ↩︎
- N. T. Wright, Paul: A Biography (San Francisco: Harper One, 2018), p. 34. ↩︎
- Ibid., p. 36. ↩︎
- Porter, p. 24. ↩︎
- I take the titles for aspects of Jesus’ ministry from A. T. Robinson’s A Harmony of the Gospels and I basically follow his timeline. A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ: Based on the Broadus Harmony in the Revised Version (New York: Harper and Row, 1950). ↩︎
- Porter, p. 24. ↩︎
- Porter, pp. 75-94. ↩︎
- Porter, pp. 94-105. ↩︎
- Porter, pp. 63-69, 105-119. ↩︎
- Porter, pp. 122-177. ↩︎
- “Dating Matthew, 1” https://theopolisinstitute.com/dating-matthew-1/ and “Dating Matthew, 2” https://theopolisinstitute.com/dating-matthew-2/. ↩︎
- What I mean is this, Porter assumes that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were not written early enough for them to be sources for Paul’s epistles. When he sees what looks like an allusion to Jesus’ teaching, he argues that it might well have come from Paul’s personal experience as a member of Jesus’ audience. While that might in fact be true, it is equally possible that Paul was drawing from the Gospels themselves, or perhaps from both experience and written sources. According to Wenham, even the Gospel of Luke was written relatively early, for he believes Paul speaks of Luke and his Gospel in 2 Corinthians 8:18: “With him we are sending the brother who is famous in the Gospel among all the churches.” According to Wenham, AD 55 is the “latest possible date for Luke” (John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem, p. 223.) ↩︎