Thread: No, 'Saul the Persecutor' Did Not Become 'Paul the Apostle

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...l-the-apostle/

I keep coming across a "sticky" misconception that God (specifically, Jesus) changed the name of an important figure we now typically refer to as "Saint Paul."

In a recent sermon, I heard: "Just like Saul the persecutor can become Paul the apostle, God is gracious to us." On an exam, one of my brightest students wrote: "It is Saul, who is re-named as Paul, who is the primary messenger of the gospel." A church member asked me, "Wait, you mean Jesus didn't change Saul's name to Paul on the Damascus Road?"

The problem is that such a view, however common, isn't accurate. I hate to ruin the fun.
Popular But Unbiblical

I'm unclear on the origins of this idea—though some industrious person has no doubt studied it—but it seems this Saul-renamed-Paul notion is a clever re-reading of an Old Testament storyline onto that of the great apostle.

As is well known, God prominently changed the names of two Old Testament patriarchs: Abram to Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and Jacob to Israel (Gen. 32:28). The idea seems to be that something similar happened to Paul when he encountered Jesus on the Damascus Road (Acts 9).

I've heard the name change thing in sermons all my life... I truly had a lightbulb moment when I read this.

Again, this would be odd if Jesus had changed his name to Paul.

I never did think Jesus changed his name. I thought Saul himself changed it to Paul. I remain convinced of that. This article doesn't change my mind.

Well, he was known as Saul up to that point, and then he is called Paul after that. I'm not sure what he's questioning.

FO, what was the lightbulb moment? I really don't get what the guy is saying or trying to say or whatever. Let's say God did change it, and then let's say God didn't change it...so what's the point being made?

Originally Posted by fuego

Well, he was known as Saul up to that point, and then he is called Paul after that. I'm not sure what he's questioning.

FO, what was the lightbulb moment? I really don't get what the guy is saying or trying to say or whatever. Let's say God did change it, and then let's say God didn't change it...so what's the point being made?

The lightbulb was for just taking it for granted that God changed Saul's name to Paul. Like I said, I've heard sermons where it was said that God changed his name after the "Damascus Road" experience, and people (myself included) just accepting it as fact. That Luke was the one that changed it to Paul in his writing, not God..

People having "Damascus Road" experiences, where they may have been steeped in sin but now saved and changed (even someone's "name" or identity), makes for inspiring sermons, but it's not based on fact.

As it turns out, “Saul”—derived from the famous first king of Israel, from the tribe of Benjamin, to which Saul/Paul himself belonged (Phil. 3:5)—is simply the Hebrew name for this person. “Paul”—a normal koine name—is his Greek name, derived from the Latin surname Paulus.

For someone born in Tarsus (Acts 21:39) but educated under Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3) in a strict form of Pharisaism (Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5–6), this is not unusual. Much as many immigrants to English-speaking worlds take an Anglicized name on top of their ethnic name, many Greek-speaking Jews in Paul’s day would have a Jewish/Hebrew name and a Hellenistic/Greek name.

Here’s the smoking gun: When Paul recalls his conversion, he specifically notes that Jesus was “saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’” (Acts 26:14). Paul draws attention to how Jesus addressed him in his Hebrew name, and makes no mention that it is now abandoned.

When Saul/Paul launches his Gentile-focused ministry among primarily Greek-speakers (beginning with Acts 13:9), it’s natural for Luke, the author of Acts, to begin referring exclusively to him by his Greek name. Nor is it surprising that he’s later referred to as “Paul” in Jerusalem, since there were Greek speakers there too. Indeed, Luke could be making a thematic point by shifting from Saul to Paul around chapter 13, given the broader theme of Acts (e.g., 1:8). After all, the church’s nucleus is shifting from predominantly Jewish-centered Jerusalem to the Greek-centered “ends of the earth,” such as Rome.

Or are you dismissing the article because it comes from a Calvinist site?

Originally Posted by FaithfulOne

The lightbulb was for just taking it for granted that God changed Saul's name to Paul. Like I said, I've heard sermons where it was said that God changed his name after the "Damascus Road" experience, and people (myself included) just accepting it as fact. That Luke was the one that changed it to Paul in his writing, not God..

People having "Damascus Road" experiences, where they may have been steeped in sin but now saved and changed (even someone's "name" or identity), makes for inspiring sermons, but it's not based on fact.



Or are you dismissing the article because it comes from a Calvinist site?

I'm not dismissing it at all. I really didn't understand what was being said, or rather the point of what was being said. I thought maybe I was missing a deeper point or something. And I didn't even go to the link.

Paul testified that Jesus called him Saul in his conversion in Acts 9

Decades later Jesus called him Paul because it was recorded in Acts 23:11 when Jesus appeared to him.

I've never heard anyone claim that Jesus changed his name.

Originally Posted by victoryword

But my question is, what does any of this have to with the price of tea in China?

That's what I was asking in my posts.

Originally Posted by victoryword

Been a long time since me and Bookie agreed on something. But like the book-meister, I never thought that Jesus changed his name. Always thought it was Paul that did that.

But my question is, what does any of this have to with the price of tea in China?

Some (maybe not you and Fuego ) preach that Jesus changed his name on the Damascus road, from Saul the persecutor to Paul the Apostle..The author probably has heard enough preachers/teachers teach that, hence the article. don't blame the messenger (me) I didn't write the thing!