Hakham Shaul’s Igeret to Titus
1:1 Hakham Shaul, a courtier of Yeshua HaMashiach, called to be a Sh’liach, according to the faithfulness of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is following after godliness;
Hakham Shaul: Paul – Paulus: It is the transliteration of the Latin paulus (παῦλος) or paulles (παυλλες) meaning “little.” Wuest, K. S. (1997, c1984). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English reader (Ro 1:1). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
This name would have been very important to the Gentile converts in Diaspora. Likewise, they needed the Igeret (letter) in Greek. Within the Gentile congregations, the Igeret of Hakham Shaul would have been in Mishnaic Hebrew and translated by the Congregational Meturgeman. We do not need to make a big ordeal out of Hakham Shaul referred to as “Paul” in Gentile, Greek-speaking congregations.
Courtier: δοῦλος referring to the King’s agent or courtier. Thus, we see that δοῦλος is a coded phrase for saying that Hakham Shaul serves in the Kings (Messiah’s) court as a Hakham. This causes us to know that the Mesorah is of quintessential importance. Furthermore, the language is legal, which we would expect in a discourse concerning the Mesorah. On the use of Courtier see, Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. p. 50
Called: Called not converted! Hagner, Donald A. 1993. “Paul and Judaism The Jewish Matrix of Early Christianity: Issues in the Current Debate.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 3. 111 – 130 p. 114. Called B’ne Elohim – our vocation is to become B’ne Elohim (Ben Elohim)
Sh’liach: Sh’liach – (apostle – emissary) “plenipotentiary agent” The legal institution of the שְׁלוּחִים is old. It may be proved from the time after the Exile (2 Ch. 17:7-9), but is probably older still. Yet it is only around the 1st century that it takes distinctive shape. What characterizes the שְׁלוּחִים of all periods is their commissioning with distinctive tasks which take them greater or lesser distances away from the residence of the one who gives them. Thus, the point of the designationשְׁלוּחִים is neither description of the fact of sending nor indication of the task involved but simply assertion of the form of sending, i.e., of authorization. Fundamentally, therefore, it matters little whether the task is to proclaim religious truths (2Ch. 17:7 ff.) or to conduct financial business (T. Kid., 4, 2). The “agent” is sent to conduct business on behalf of his master. In this Tosefta the master, sent his agent to betroth in “such and such a place.” However, the agent found her (the woman to be betrothed) in “another place” The halakhic ruling is that she is betrothed. (see Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Vol. 1, Page 414)
Sh’liach: The term is legal rather than religious, and if the שָׁלִיחַ has religious significance this is not because he is a שָׁלִיחַ but because as such he is entrusted with a religious task. In other words, we simply have a consistent application of the sense ofשָׁלִיחַ (ἀποστέλλειν) irrespective of certain theological contexts in which it is given a particular flavor by the situation. The Rabbis traced back the institution to the Torah (b. Ned., 72b; But we find in the whole Torah that a man’s agent is as himself!) The agent is often “divine” or human. The terms מַלְאָךְ and שָׁלַח are frequently conjoined in numerous instances. As such, many שָׁלִיחַ are considered מַלְאָכִים being human rather than “divine.”
Hakham Shaul’s Bat Kol and Calling: In Hakham Shaul’s case, we can see that he is “called” through a Bat Kol (Daughter of the Voice) by Yeshua Himself. However, the “calling” of Hakham Shaul would be pointless if the Three Pillars of the Nazarean Bet Did had not accepted him. Therefore, the “calling” and “commissioning” are a result of being ‘set apart” by the Nazarean Bet Din. He did not meet the “Apostolic” qualifications of 2 Luqas 1:15-26. Nevertheless, he is appointed, sent and therefor a שָׁלִיחַ
Careful attention to the three accounts of the Damascus experience reveals that Hakham Shaul did not get his commission directly from the Bat Kol i.e. the Master. 2 Luqas (Acts) 9:1-27 (6); 22:5-11 (10); 26:12-20. The altered reading of chapter 26 can be attributed to anachronistically telling what his commission was after the Hakhamim had instructed him. Furthermore, we see from this that Hakham Shaul accepted the authority of the Nazarean Hakhamim and Bate Din. An interesting side note from the TDNT tells us that the name Silas is in fact actually a “title” borne by Jews who are ἀπόστολοι – apostoloi. Silas is a Latinized form of שְׁלִיחָא. Slias from שליחא as Messias from משיחא, Krauss, JQR, 17 (1905), 370, n. 4. Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. (1:414).
following after godliness: Contrary to popular myth it is possible to live a Godly life which pleases G-d and satisfies the righteous requirement of the Torah.
Luke 1:5 And now it happened in the days of Herod, king of Y’hudah, that there was a Kohen (priest) named Z’kharyah, of the (priestly) division of Aviyah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisheba. 6 And they were both righteous/generous before God, walking blamelessly (sinless) in all the mitzvoth (commandments) and statutes of the Lord.
division of Aviyah: Cf. 1Chr 24:7–18
Elisheba: The present introductory style can be found in typical “husband / wife” introductions in the Tanakh. Cf. 1Sa. 1:1-2
Statutes: This refers to the Chukim, pl.m. Chukot pl.f. Chukim/Chukot are statutes, inexplicable Laws of the Torah. The use here implies the extent of their “righteous/generosity” which is attested to by the use of “blameless/sinless.
Thus, we can see that both Z’kharyah and Elisheba were both considered as being tzedukim (righteous). This is not an “imputed righteousness.” Imputed righteousness is a concept in” Christian theology” proposing that the “righteousness of Christ … is imputed to [believers] — that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith.” It is on the basis of Jesus’ righvkkteousness that God accepts humans. This acceptance is also referred to as “justification.” Wikipedia How can a man receive a so called status of “righteousness” and live a life of debauchery and be considered “righteous?” Logic is thrown out for the sake of asking someone to just “believe” and it will be accepted as godly behavior. No truthful human being can fully believe this lie.