"Paul," "Apostle Paul," "Saint Paul"—Differences in Faith Perspectives Reflected in How We Address Him
*This article is speculative and does not endorse any particular position. Please read it while respecting the freedom of religion, thought, and conscience.
1. Introduction
It could be said that we unconsciously use different ways of addressing figures from the New Testament. "Paul," "Apostle Paul," and "Saint Paul"—it feels as though each of these three titles reveals a different perspective on faith and cultural distance.
Although it is not something we usually think about, it feels as though the difference in how we address him reflects the position of our faith. The heart chooses its words, and words are likely to reflect the human heart. It feels as though the depth of faith and the relationship of distance from God are hidden within this as well.
2. When we call him "Paul"—Dialogue as one person to another
When we simply call him by the name "Paul," it seems to be an attitude of viewing Paul as a human being. We read Paul's letters not as transcendental revelation, but as the words of a human being with struggles and passions. It feels as though a Bible-centered "priesthood of all believers"—a belief that does not set up a hierarchy between God and man—runs through this perspective.
In other words, when we call him "Paul," it feels as though the person is engaging in dialogue on the same level. It seems that rather than being confined within the interior of faith, they are accepting Paul's words as thought and as history.
3. When we call him "Apostle Paul"—From within the faith community
When we call him "Apostle Paul," it seems we can consider that person to already be standing within the faith community. This is because it can be seen as an expression that acknowledges Paul as a special witness chosen by Christ. This title carries the premise of accepting Paul's authority as part of the Bible, and it seems to signify respect and learning within the framework of faith.
Calling him "Apostle Paul" can be considered an act that expresses one's own position as a believer in Christ's choosing.
4. When we call him "Saint Paul"—Cultural respect and distance
The term "Saint Paul" is common in the Catholic Church and elsewhere, but in other contexts, it seems to be used more as a sign of cultural or symbolic respect. While respecting the person as a "holy being," one keeps a distance as someone different from oneself. It feels as though this includes a gaze that views holiness from outside of faith.
What is interesting is the fact that the stronger the Bible-centered tendency becomes, the more this title is avoided. The Reformation sought to reject the concept of a "holy mediator" intervening between God and man. Therefore, it feels as though calling him "Saint Paul" is accompanied by a sense of resistance to sanctifying a human being.
If there is a sense of resistance to calling him "Saint Paul," it may be an expression of a faith that centers on the Bible. A way of thinking such as "rather than a person being holy, God's grace makes a person holy." Therefore, as a believer, it seems there is a respect there that views Paul as a brother.
5. Between prophet and saint—The human structure of honoring after the fact
This structure actually seems to be a human habit that has been repeated since the Old Testament era.
It feels as though figures like prophets are easily rejected while they are alive and speaking, but after time has passed, they are easily honored as holy beings.
"You build beautiful tombs for the prophets, but the people of the past shunned those prophets."
It seems there is a way of thinking like this.
The voice of a living prophet is inconvenient and painful to the ears. However, after death, they become safe and easy to venerate. I feel that such a psychology may, in some way, overlap with the title "Saint Paul."
It is said that Paul himself was also fiercely rejected during his lifetime.
His mission to the Gentiles sparked controversy, and it is believed that he faced criticism even within the church.
However, today, we have "St. Paul's Cathedral" and cities named "São Paulo."
This feels like a manifestation of a historical tendency for humanity to reinterpret living witnesses as safe symbols of faith.
A Bible-centered sensibility seems to be an intuitive resistance to that trend.
"Do not turn Paul into a holy icon. His words are still alive and speaking today."
If one feels this way, it may be a form of courage in faith that seeks to accept the prophet as a living reality.
6. The Position of Faith Expressed in How We Address Him
It can be said that titles are not merely honorifics.
They seem to be words that express the distance at which a person stands before their faith.
"Paul" ⇒ Speaking as one human to another (dialogical/existential)
"Apostle Paul" ⇒ Respecting him as a great predecessor of the church (faith-community oriented)
"Saint Paul" ⇒ Looking up to him as a holy model (cultural/symbolic)
While one could argue that none of these are wrong, it feels as though each way of addressing him reflects a different stance of faith and the distance of the human heart.
7. Conclusion
We seem to call names casually in our daily lives.
However, it seems that the depth and sense of distance of our faith seep into how we address them.
"Paul," "Apostle Paul," "Saint Paul"—depending on which title we choose, it seems we are unconsciously speaking of the position of our own faith.
And perhaps that unconscious choice is the most honest confession of faith.