When we think about the apostle Paul, the characteristic of humility may not be the first thing that comes to mind. True, he wrote one of the greatest passages in the New Testament on the subject, which begins with, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). He also admonished the Corinthian brethren not to be “puffed up on behalf of one against the other” (1 Cor. 4:6). In the next verse he asks who made them different and what did they have that they did not receive, the point being that if they received it, what did they have to boast about?
When Paul comes to mind, we are far more likely to recall the controversial soldier of the cross, engaged in preaching and defending the gospel, and we usually don’t think of warriors as humble men. Much of what this great man of God wrote was designed to rebuke sin, set forth truth, and vanquish the arguments of false teachers. In our current age, anyone who attempts to do the same thing is viewed by many as arrogant, combative, negative, legalistic, unloving, and lacking an irenic spirit. Certainly, he will be viewed as practically anything but humble.
Can a person be at the forefront of things while retaining spiritual qualities? Moses could. This great, God-appointed leader of Israel “was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Likewise, Paul, the outspoken apostle, was a humble man. His humility is demonstrated in at least three events in his life: his conversion, his submission in the face of controversy, and his admission of misjudgment. Let’s consider each of these.
Paul’s Conversion
As he is introduced in the book of Acts, Saul is a zealous Jew and a fanatical persecutor of Christians. He is a ringleader of the Jews who stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58). He shut up in prison many of the saints, punished them in every synagogue, compelled them to blaspheme, and voted against them that they might be put to death (Acts 26:10-11). Verse 11 also records Paul saying that he was “exceedingly enraged” against Christians, persecuting them to foreign cities.
It was while Saul was engaged in this pursuit that the Lord appeared to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:12-18). Imagine how thunderstruck Saul was! Evidence that he was 100% wrong in his view of Jesus and the church engulfed and overwhelmed him. Jesus had not informed him that he was a teensy bit off in his theological views; he was completely and thoroughly wrong. How would he respond?
He could have said, “I don’t care about that appearance on the road to Damascus; I was born a Jew, and I’ll die a Jew.” He did not reason, “Well, there’s no doubt about my having been wrong, but I cant change. What would my friends say? What would my family say? What would the chief priests and the Pharisees think? No, it’s just too much; I can’t give all that up.”
Lest someone think that Saul did not have those options, he states: “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19), which implies that disobedience was a choice.
Saul of Tarsus, persecutor extraordinaire, had some serious soul-searching to do. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. His new family would be the very ones he had tried to destroy. He had put in prison and put to death innocent souls.
Surely Saul had no choice but to admit his error. Oh, really? How many times have people studied the words of Jesus (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”–Mark 16:16) and concluded that faith was all they needed? How many have heard what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”–Acts 2:38) and said, “I don’t care what the Bible says; I feel my salvation right here in my heart”?
“But Jesus didn’t say it to them directly,” someone protests. So what? He said it directly to the apostles, and they recorded it through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26). If Jesus were to say it to them personally, would it somehow be more valid? Truth is Truth, whether spoken or written (2Thess. 2:15). Saul could have rejected Jesus even after He appeared to him. What kept him from doing so was his respect for Truth and his conscience (Acts 23:1). What keeps many out of the kingdom of heaven is that they have no love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:15). Like the Pharisees, they prefer their religious traditions over the Word of God (Matt. 15:1-9).
Saul virtually had to put to death the old man to become a follower of Jesus. Saul died; the apostle Paul was born. His rebirth did not occur on the road to Damascus, however. Saul was not saved there. Nor was he saved as a result of fasting and praying for three days (Acts 9:9, 11). How do we know? A person cannot be saved and yet retain all of his sins; neither can he be born sinful. When Ananias comes to tell Paul what he “must” do (Acts 9:6), he asks him, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).
Saul was no longer his old self; his relationship to God had changed. So had his relationship to mankind. His old religion was replaced by the new; he was, for all practical purposes, dead to his old “brethren.” He becomes the apostle Paul, debtor to all men (Rom. 1:14). He may have been born a Jew, but he will die a faithful Christian. How? He will become the faithful apostle Paul, loved by Christians throughout all generations because he was humble enough to admit that what he had been taught was no longer correct or valid. The Jewish system had been replaced.
How sad that many today refuse to consider that what they have been taught and what they have believed could be wrong. They could have salvation if they just had the humility Saul did (Matt. 5:3).
The Jerusalem Conference
As Paul began his missionary journeys, he began teaching New Testament doctrine, which included the fact that Jesus is Lord, the prophet about whom Moses wrote (Deut. 18:15-19), the new lawgiver. In fact, the old covenant was done away with; it was nailed to the cross. Circumcision was not a requirement for Gentiles when they became Christians; neither were Gentiles required to obey any of the laws from the Old Testament. While the Gentiles undoubtedly appreciated this fact, Jewish Christians could not understand it.
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1).
First of all, it should be observed that these “certain men” were brethren. Such may be inferred from the fact that they had access to the brethren in Antioch, who gave them a hearing. Such may also be determined from the letter written to the church in Antioch, in which it is stated that those who troubled the church there “went out from us” (Acts 15:24). BUT, what they were teaching had not been authorized by the apostles in Jerusalem. They had not such a doctrine themselves, nor had they given them any such commandment to others. In other words, these men were teaching and trying to bind their opinions on the church.
The book of Galatians bears witness to the problems created by these Judaizing teachers, who were not reluctant in the least to infiltrate churches with their error. Years later they were still a force. When Paul came to Jerusalem, James and all the elders informed him:
“You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20).
Then, if the church persisted, he could have said, “Well, you go if you want, but it’s a waste of time. I already told you that Gentiles are not required to obey the law of Moses. That’s what they will say in Jerusalem, also, because there is one God, one Lord, and one Spirit. Furthermore, if you have so little confidence in me, why don’t you just find someone else to support? I’m resigning.” Instead Paul humbly submitted to the proposed solution.
Years later, when he returned to Jerusalem and it was suggested that he take a vow with four other men to demonstrate that he had not taught Jews to forsake the law of Moses (only that Gentiles were not subject to it), Paul humbly acquiesced (perhaps wrongfully so–Acts 21:21-24).
Again, a prouder man might have said, “Don’t you know I have preached the gospel in many parts of the world, laid my life on the line several times, and fought against this Judaizing mentality everywhere while you’ve been enjoying all the comforts of city dwelling? Furthermore, I have written letters to brethren in Galatia, Corinth, and Rome about circumcision, eating of meats, and so on. My position is clear; I’m not about to go along with this silly idea just to please a few addle-brained brethren.” Instead Paul acted out of humility.
A Change of Opinion
One of the hardest things for someone to do is to admit that he misjudged a person. Some people form first impressions and never change them, no matter what. Such an attitude does not allow for spiritual growth on the part of others (perhaps because there is none in that person’s life?).
Paul developed an unfavorable view of John Mark based on the fact that he left the evangelistic work they were doing. No reason is cited for his departure (Acts 13:13), but Paul was convinced that no reason could be sufficient. When they began to plan their second journey, Barnabas wanted to include John Mark, but Paul absolutely refused to take with them again one who “had not gone with them to the work.” The disagreement over this point was so sharp that the evangelistic team split up (Acts 15:37-41). Would Mark always be a spiritual ne’er-do-well in Paul’s eyes?
The young man was not some unknown quantity. It was to the house of John Mark’s mother, Mary, that Peter came when he was released from prison (Acts 12:12). He had been selected to accompany Paul and Barnabas (Acts 12:25). Furthermore, he was Barnabas’ cousin (Col. 4:10). But he had left the work for what Paul considered to be an invalid reason.
Although Paul refused to give this brother another chance on that occasion, he did change his view of him. “Only Luke is with me,” Paul wrote in his final letter to Timothy. “Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry” (2 Tim. 4:11). Less humble men would not have altered that previous opinion. “Why, ten years ago this brother wronged me (or made a mistake); that’s the reason I have such a low view of him.” Paul recognized that Mark had more than made up for his “leaving the work.” More conciliation and less confrontation among faithful brethren today would be a tremendous advantage for the kingdom of God.
Application
Today’s world does not exalt Truth; philosophers and educators teach young people that they cannot KNOW anything and that Truth does not exist. Their own presumptuousness does not dawn upon them; they label as arrogant those who know that Jesus died for the sins of the world and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. This form of narrow-mindedness would be bad enough, but there is a worse injustice.
There are professors in “Christian” universities parroting their secular counterparts. There are too many preaching in once-faithful congregations of the Lord’s church who may preach some Biblical sermons–but never the whole counsel of God. These ridicule and badmouth faithful proclaimers of the Word of God (but not to their faces–they’re too cowardly for that). They will call them proud and unreasonable men (notwithstanding they are the ones who refuse to discuss matters). And while there may be some who are full of themselves and think more highly of themselves than they ought, most faithful gospel preachers are humble men.
The fact that Paul’s preaching of the gospel involved controversy did not make him a factious trouble-maker. The fact that he called attention to the differences between Truth and error did not make him arrogant. He proved his sincerity in laying down his life for His Lord; many preachers today would imitate that exact pattern (unlike the large-salaried hirelings among us). Humility is not inconsistent with being concerned about DOCTRINE. One can be committed to Christ, sound in the faith, and a lover of Truth–and be humble at the same time. Paul serves as a premiere illustration of this fact.