A few weeks ago I was skimming through another “must read” tome by Mr Pack and noticed a reference to the Apostle Paul, with a parenthetical “then still Saul”. This is an example of the assumption that the “conversion” of Saul was accompanied by a name change.
The traditional Protestant line has been, Saul was converted from Jew to Christian and had his name changed from Saul to Paul. Unlike Abram, Sarai, Jacob and others, there is no scriptural reference to a name change, formal or otherwise; that idea is another “missing verse” dilemma. The Damascus road account is in Acts 9; in Cyprus, Acts 13 mentions that Saul is “also called Paul”. Rather than a name change, we’re informed of an AKA, like Simon, with “called Peter” added twice in Matthew.
In Saul’s case, it had to do with Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Take for example the different meanings given words in dialects of English. I recall an Australian minister who said he use to razz one-time GTA aid Randy Dick. While Mr Dick’s surname may cause some awkward moments with various dialects of English, Randy, in the UK and Australia, add to it.
In first century colloquial Greek, Saul apparently sounded like a word meaning conceited or arrogant, and prostitute. Paul, on the other hand, was a common Greek name that sounded like Saul. Following the Saul/Paul clarification in Acts, there are two instances where the Damascus road story is recounted. In both cases, Saul spoke in Aramaic, and used the name Saul in the account.
If Saul had written his letters with his name transliterated into the Greek “saul”, could you imagine possible reactions? How would the Romans welcome a visit from Apostle Full-of-himself, or the Corinthians, being reprimanded for promiscuity, and told about love, by Apostle Want-a-good-time?
As far as conversion goes, Saul did acknowledge that Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) was the Messiah. But as the record shows, he was still a law keeping, Temple-going Jew, despite what Galatians appears to say.
By the way, the “must read” mentioned above promised an “unknown Bible prophecy” that apparently shows RCG is the true splinter. Can’t wait – could this possibly be a prophecy Dr Thiel hasn’t found?
Hoss.
Good info. Thanks for publishing this.
A careful reading of Romans shows that Paul focused on two basic covenants, both of which pertained to Abraham. The question is, was Paul trying to organize a christian church, as many accuse him of doing? That would be impossible, given Romans 8:7, 8:29-30, and 9:16-22. So why all the preaching? Obviously, he was preaching an idea of freedom from human authority and confusion. 1 Corinthians 9:19 gives a strong idea:
“For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant to all, that I might gain the more”. Gain them to what? Obviously freedom. If he himself was free from all men, but made himself servant, then he was merely trying to teach as others understood, so he could show them how they could be free.
Being a Jew, subject t the laws of the Jews, he kept the law, but he also pointed out that the covenant with Abraham had two different groups: the group that was given the law at Sinai, and the group that were of the promise made to Abraham over 400 years earlier.
As Paul pointed out, the birth of jesus was merely a fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, and had nothing to do with the law at Sinai. Either you are born of that promise, “born again”, or you are not. While Nicodemus was obviously familiar with trhe idea of being “born again” as a Jew, Jesus told him that such a birth was irrelevant. Jesus said one must be born “from above(Greek: ‘anothen’)” or one could not see the kingdom of God. IOW, one must be born of that promise made to Abraham, by the same terms, the same conditions, or one could not become part of that “firstfruit” kingdom.
After explaining the difference in these two births of “flesh(Israel)and “promise” or “spirit”(those born of the promise as Isaac, Romans 9:7-11), Paul goes on to say plainly that there is no way for us to decide to become one of those special children(Romans 9:16-22). Quite simply, any person who said otherwise, “here is Christ, or there”, would be a liar(Matthew 24:23). It simply can’t be done by human effort.
This doesn’t mean the law is “done away” as Jesus pointed out in Matthew 5:17-19, but the law actually serves a “due process” protection for those who are accused. One could not accuse anyone else by law without consideration of every “jot and tittle”, as James also pointed out in his epistle. If you follow the law, you must follow every point and obey, if you accuse another by law.
I had never realized how controversial St. Paul is, until becoming involved in all of the ex-WCG forums and blogs several years ago. Apparently, he is even more controversial amongst Class of ’95 Armstrong expatriates than he was to those of us from Class of ’75, and this controversy curiously extends even into the WCG atheists, as well. Basically, if I understand correctly, it was the writings of Paul that were chiefly used to leverage the corrections which were made to the false teachings of the Armstrongs, bringing WCG (sometimes protesting, kicking, and screaming) into the New Covenant. We were always taught what Peter had said about Paul being difficult to understand, but I was quite astonished at some of the theories people have advanced about Paul and his teachings.
Personally, I’ve found the writings of St. Paul, and even the allegedly pseudoepigraphical writings of Paul to be very inspiring at times. Lately, especially Romans and Galatians. But, then I was never one to really embrace the legalism of WCG as did some. While at AC, it became apparent that there would be no “spiritual” experience, just slavish adherence to carefully picked do’s and don’t’s which were supposedly grandfathered into the New Covenant from the Old. For half of my life, my parents made my existence downright hellish by inflicting upon my siblings and I the legalism which they felt they were under from their God, in their lives, that is if they wanted to eventually become “saved”. The God in whose valence they acted was also not a mentoring type, but was harsh, judgmental, and always waiting for any little opportunity to pounce and punish.
So, while Paul described the great freedom in Jesus Christ, we WCG members were not unlike various ascetic groups throughout history who felt that the path to spiritual enlightenment was self affliction. Serious problems arise in the spiritual process when self is driving the affliction. Paul’s own suffering seemed to be a natural result of his God-guided ministry, not conditions which he imposed upon himself. As goes slavish legalism, his own later observance of Pharisaic law can probably most accurately be described as “street theatre”, an attempt to be all things to all people, including the Jews, his brothers whose spiritual condition so deeply concerned him that in one of his laments, he stated that he’d even give up his own salvation if it meant that they would be saved.
The majority of the Jewish people during the time of Jesus were in a multi-cultural, dual citizenship mode. Often, they spoke Greek, and Hebrew, and had dual names. In Greek, our Savior is called Jesus, but his Hebrew name was Yeshua. The Romans allowed the nations which they conquered to govern themselves according to their own systems of law, insofar as this did not conflict with Roman rule. This practice made for greater loyalty amongst the vanquished, and strengthened Pax Romana, the famous Roman Peace. Jerusalem was a very important international city in the Roman empire, known as a center of both culture and commerce.
Whether we call him Saul (sah-ool), or Paul, I find him to be one of the most fascinating characters amongst the writers of the Bible. Much more fascinating than secular teachers, such as Plato.
BB
BB writes:
“The majority of the Jewish people during the time of Jesus were in a multi-cultural, dual citizenship mode. Often, they spoke Greek, and Hebrew, and had dual names. In Greek, our Savior is called Jesus, but his Hebrew name was Yeshua. The Romans allowed the nations which they conquered to govern themselves according to their own systems of law, insofar as this did not conflict with Roman rule”
This is precisely the point of Paul’s teachings in Romans. Scholars agree that if you really want to know what Paul thought doctrinally, study Romans. Paul himself came from Tarsus, which was the “New York City” of its day, with a multitude of religions vying for recognition and personal idols. Paul cleaned up the mess considerable by simply stating that true christians are born according to the same conditions given to Abraham, and under which Isaac was born. Isaac had no choice iover the conditions of his birth. God made a deal, Abraham agreed, and Isaac was born. Paul points this out in Romans 9:11. He further connects it in Galatians 3:29 and 4:28. Either you are born of that promise, under the same condition s as Isaac(predestined, foreknown, called, Romans 8:29-30) or you’re not, and there’s nothing you can do to change that fact. This means, quite simply, that ALL religious interpretations of how best to serve God are useless, as Paul further points out in Ephesians 2:8-10. Because of the obvious confusion emerging in Paul’s day, he simply set a standard that was not dependent on human decisions in any way. Those true “elect” are born exactly as isaac, under the same deal, without their prior consent, and they are chosen and called. But there is NO way any human can define the call. So simple and so easy, yet no one will believe it, because it puts a lot of power seekers out of business.