The reply I sent to her turned out to be a teaching which I believe is worth posting for others to read:

Dear ______ & ______,

Regarding what you think is a "doctrine of men" -concerning the example in your letter which you site as an example of a what you think is a "common misconception"-please consider the following:

Before you call it a "misconception" and say that a teaching has no foundation in the word of God, it would be wise to "inquire of the LORD Himself" to make certain that your own perception of what you yourself think is or is not valid is ITSELF a misconception of your own which you yourself have made based upon man's own limited understanding and perception.

In other words, make sure in your own misconceptions, you yourself are not ignorantly refuting what you think is a "doctrine of men" based upon your own traditions and/or derived from man's own understanding of a man-made study of scripture.

Did you look "at the word of God" and decide this was (as far as you can see "a common misconception" simply because you cannot see how it is supported in the word of God?

Did you inquire of the Lord first, or did you arrive at this conclusion by your own knowledge of the written word? Did you ask the Lord to take you to His word "by His Spirit" and did you pause to ask Him to give you His counsel? And did you ask the Lord to confirm His counsel by asking Him to open the eyes of your understanding, asking Him to open His word to you. And did you ask the Lord (by His Spirit) to verify -in the written word, that which you have been taught? --Or did you simply "search the word" yourself and gave your conclusions based upon your own understanding of what "you gleaned" from what you read?

There is an important and meaningful difference between the two different names by which the scripture clearly says (Acts 13:9) Paul was known.

The name "Saul" (means: ask) and the name "Paul" (means: little).    And it was the Lord Himself who made known to me the intentional spiritual significance behind the difference in those two names as it applied to Saul, i.e., versus Paul's life.   The difference in the two names reflects the difference in Saul before and then after his encounter with Jesus (who is Himself the Living Word) whom Paul encountered on the Road to Damascus!)

Acts 13:9 clearly and deliberately says "Saul who also is called Paul" because on the road to Damascus this man called "Saul" (a zealous Jew) was persecuting the Christians (the anointed of the Lord).   This man "Saul" is very much like his Old Testament namesake King "Saul" who sought to kill David and who also hounded and persecuted the Lord's anointed.   And it is not just a coincidence that BOTH men -called "Saul" did so because neither of them really asked or truly sought the counsel of the Lord!   And neither did either of these men called Saul "ask the Lord, concerning their ungodly actions!

The Saul who persecuted David found no place of repentance and justified himself before the prophet of the Lord.   The man named Saul also usurped the authority of the Spirit by not inquiring --by not asking of God (which has an important application for every believer no matter how called, appointed or anointed they may be.)

Not only did Saul not wait upon the Lord, Saul also did not "ask" or humbly inquire of God.   And because of his rebellion, the Spirit of the Lord departed from him.

In the New Testament in the Book of Acts, we see a man who -when he was called Saul was doing what Saul did.   But when confronted with a revelation of the Lord, this man called Saul does earnestly ask or inquire of God!   This man: "Saul who is also called Paul" has had a life changing encounter with the Lord of Glory, as a result of which he is humbled.   And so it is that he, who was called Saul, is made "little" spiritually speaking.

On the road to Damascus, Saul is literally knocked to the ground.   Saul ends up on his face at the Feet of Jesus and is forced to a place where (by means of this confrontation with the Lord whom he persecuted) Saul finally "asks"!      Saul is made to submit himself to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and having been humbled, he inquires of Him as "Lord" saying: "Lord, what would you have me to do?" (Which is precisely what the other Saul should have done!)

"On the surface of the word" it is not apparent that there would be any reason to think twice about the difference between the two names.   And most people would not be inclined to ask the Lord why by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit, He saw fit to even use the phrase: "Saul who is also called Paul" and have it preserved thus in the text of His word.   But in the depths of His word, the Spirit of the Lord delights in revealing truth by His Spirit, which is not always so obvious to us "on the surface of the word."

According to "the word of the Lord by the counsel of His Spirit" it pleased Him to make known to me that it was not an accident, nor was it some historical misconception (as you suggest).    In fact, HE HIMSELF has purposefully preserved that specific phrase in the Bible throughout many generations, because it is very significant and is rich in meaning concerning the actual conversion experience of "Saul who is also called Paul".

In something so seemingly simple as the difference between those two names (Saul and Paul) is the whole story of one who was "called to ask" and as a result, he becomes one who is also "called to be little".   There is an application of THAT truth that ought not to be overlooked!

While I can appreciate your good intentions, it is also important that we do not in any way diminish or take away from whatever it may have pleased the Lord to hide in His word.   We must be careful not to discount or cast off a teaching in God's word by assuming it is "only a tradition of men" lest we (even inadvertently) cast off a pearl of the wisdom of God and/or end up overlooking a hidden treasure (a word of truth) put in His word by His Spirit.

In the article, "Last Call to Repent, An Open Letter to the Churches" I was led of the Lord to mention the difference and as it was revealed to me by His Spirit, I was led to write concerning significance of the difference between these two names concerning this man called Paul, an "apostle out of season".

Before I sent that Open Letter out, -before it was posted on the Internet, I checked what the Lord had shown me, to see if the meaning in the Hebrew and the Greek (i.e., SAUL Vs. PAUL) would bear out according to what the Spirit of the Lord had showed me.   Those references (which you yourself should have checked) are as follows:

As used in verse 9 of Acts chapter 13 "Saul" (taking care to FOLLOW the actual word to it's derivative form: ASK) from the Strong's concordance: begins with #4569 the actual word used: "Saulos" which (quoting the Strong's concordance is:) "of Heb., or.,the SAME as #4549; Saulos (i.e., Shaul), the JEWISH name of Paul/but Paul is in italics, after which it indicates: --Saul."

Then following the Strong's specific numerical reference as it is sited above: #4569 is the "SAME" as #4549 (so the next step toward the meaning of the name/or word is to look up: #4549 -because with the previous reference (4569) you still only have the name itself and have NOT yet found it's generic or root meaning!)

#4549 (quoting directly from the Strong's concordance it) says:

"Saoul" of Hebrew origin [#7586]; Saul (i.e., Shaul) the Jewish name of Paul (again "Paul" is in italics) comp. #4569.

After checking both references, you still have only the name itself and not the root meaning of the word, of the name used in the text.   You must therefore continue to follow the name's meaning by going to the next appropriate reference given: [#7586] in order to ascertain the generic root, i.e., to ascertain the actual MEANING of the word -which in this case would be the precise meaning of "the name" that the Holy Spirit saw fit to preserve in the text!

#7586 is cited in the Strong's as the Hebrew derivative of the word, i.e., the name, "Saul" (given in Acts 13:9) -it is the very same word, i.e., name, as that of King "Saul"

In the Hebrew/Strongs reference #7586 is: "Sha'uwl" pass participle of 7592; (means: asked; Shaul, the name of an Edomite and two Isralites: Saul, Shaul (notice it gives here as the pass participle and cites the meaning of the word/name as: ASKED!)

#7586 being the pass participle of 7592 to further research the Hebrew meaning/root of the word/name "Saul" (Shaul) would require to look up the last reference which was cited, which is: #7592 ---which if you look it up you will find it is the primary root, meaning: to inquire, to request, to demand:---ask (counsel)

So as you can see, the meaning of the name "Saul" who is also called "Paul" (as quoted in Act 13:9) does indeed mean "to ask" in the sense of "inquiring" for the purpose of "obtaining counsel" (just exactly as the Holy Spirit had made known to me before I ever looked anything up -and it was in that order: first, by His Spirit and then secondly, confirmed by references and not the other way around!)

Now, let's look at the specific word/name: "Paul" with the same careful scrutiny:

#3972 Paul (Strongs concordance:) Paulos, of Latin origin: "little" (--remotely from a derivative: #3973 a primary verb meaning the same). Paulus, the name of a Roman -and of an apostle:--Paul, Paulus.

#3973 is the word "pauo" which itself means: ("pause") to stop, to restrain, quit, desist, come to an end: --cease, leave, refrain.

And so beyond perceptions of men based either upon traditions of men or based upon "useless geneologies" -beyond these, in the meaning of those two entirely different words, i.e., the two different names used by one man, is the testimony of Jesus!   The testimony of Jesus is hidden within the difference between these two names.   With the eyes of His Understanding, we can now see how the "former nature" of man (in this case Saul: a persecutor of Christians, a zealous one inflamed by religious zeal, sought to kill the Lord's anointed) is forever changed by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

A man with murder in his heart, a man called SAUL was confronted by the Spirit of the Lord on the road to Damascus (circle of blood) and that man was forced to "PAUSE" on the road to Damascus to consider his ways and his doings!   Saul was immediately forced "TO QUIT" his own agenda, by being "RESTRAINED" by the Hand of the Lord, who Sovereignly opposed him causing him (Saul) to have "to ask and inquire of the Lord".   And in the process of his personal encounter with the Lord Himself, Saul was instantly HUMBLED to the point where "Saul" sincerely "asked" of Jesus: "what would you have me to do?" calling upon Him whom he had aforetime denied, as "Lord".

To say there is no difference between the two names (which scripture itself says this man was called by) does the Spirit of the Lord and the testimony of Jesus in Paul's conversion a disservice.   It would be wise to examine, even question the rationale behind any desire to homogenize the meanings of these two names into one singularly "Jewish" name for Paul, and to carefully consider what purpose does doing that really serve?   And more importantly what does it accomplish? In your zeal or haste to try to "preserve the Jewishness" of Paul's name, have you inadvertently passed over an important lesson contained in the written word?

I would rather hold to its inherent value "as it is" in the written word of God, as a written example of humility, as a lesson to every believer; knowing also that whatsoever name the Lord calls a thing, that is what it shall be! Is it not far better to forego dismissing what we do not yet understand, and to wait upon the Lord, than forfeit His insight by simply dismissing something as what appears in the sight of men to be a linguistical oversight.

Clearly in the process of his encounter with the Living Lord Jesus Christ, Saul "asked" and was "made to come to the end of himself" and in the end, he was also called (made) "little" in his own sight.   This man "Saul who is also called Paul" did indeed become "little" in his own sight!   And as a result, this man "Paul" (little) also penned the words that (by grace through faith) he lived "in Spirit and in Truth"   ...I live, nevertheless, not I but Christ!

I submit this to you in the hope that you will take it before the Lord and reconsider what you wrote, because what-you-thought-you-knew was a common misconception, and an unscriptural doctrine of man.

In Christ,

Noteye (AKA: M. Weiland)