The Self-Drawn Portrait of the Apostle Paul. (2)
Posted by Marvin Pagkanlungan on Monday, May 26, 2014
by Charles H. Welch
#2. His Independence.
“Here we see that fearless independence with which he ‘withstood Peter to the face’.” (Conybeare and Howson).
The first feature sketched in by Conybeare and Howson is the Apostle’s independence, the particular passage quoted being Gal. ii. Like many other things, the quality of independence can be a very fine or a very ugly feature. The kind of independence that sets aside the fear of man, and originates in a consciousness of the sovereignty of God and the sacredness of one’s call and commission, is something to be desired and preserved. The kind of independence, on the other hand, that has its roots in pride, self-sufficiency, and lack of Christian charity, can only be deplored. In the Apostle’s case we find the true kind of independence that is tempered and softened by graciousness and humility. Peter himself could not but admire the spirit that withstood him to the face before all, and at the same time would not speak against him behind his back or listen to the voice of slander.
Evidence for the Apostle’s independence is to be found at the very threshold of his written ministry, in the epistle to the Galatians. The first chapter opens with the challenging statement:
“Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, Who raised Him from the dead);” (Gal. i. 1).
Later in the same chapter the challenge is carried over from Paul’s apostleship to his gospel:
“I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. i. 11, 12).
The Apostle then passes on from his message to speak, in similar terms, of the commission he received:
“When it pleased God . . . . . to reveal His Son in me . . . . . I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem, to them which were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia” (Gal. i. 15-17).
It will be readily seen that the whole of the first chapter of Galatians is written round these three items which speak of the Apostle’s independence. We observe, however, that there is no pride here. Paul’s apostleship is from God, and all that he is, all that he has to say, and all the authority he possesses are of the Lord and by His grace. If he sets aside man, he also acknowledges that the gospel was his by the revelation of Jesus Christ. If he speaks of “conferring not with flesh and blood”, we know that it was because it was God Who had separated him, God Who had called him, and it was with God alone, in “Arabia”, that he would spend those opening hours of new life and lofty vision.
So important does the Lord deem this question of the Apostle’s independence that the subject is pursued into the second chapter of the epistle. There is the spirit of true independence in almost every line here. In the first verse we read:
“Fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem” (Gal. ii. 1).
Who but an independent minister could stay away from the normal seat of authority for fourteen years without loss or condemnation?
The words: “I went up by revelation” in verse 2 set aside any idea of a command coming either from Jerusalem or Galatia. Moreover, in the first verse we read that the Apostle took Titus with him, although Titus was a Greek.
In the second verse we read:
“I communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles” (Gal. ii. 2).
Every line rings with the note of independence. In verse 5 we read that the Apostle “gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour”, while in verse 6 the pillars of the Church are referred to as those who “seemed to be somewhat”. For the Apostle, standing as he does in the conscious presence of the God Who accepteth no man’s person, intimidation is impossible, and man-pleasing forgotten. And so, when the need arises to preserve the truth of the gospel, he does not hesitate to withstand Peter to the face.
Paul’s independence is seen on various other occasions in Scripture, the particular manifestation varying with the particular circumstances. How touching, for example, is the alternation, in Phil. iv., of gratitude for the Philippians’ fellowship, with the independence that loathes even the appearance of “desiring a gift”.
“I rejoiced . . . . . that your care of me hath flourished again” (Phil. iv. 10).
Here it is gratitude that speaks. The Apostle, however, is extremely sensitive, and prison bars have not broken his God-given independence. So he immediately follows this remark with the words: “Not that I speak in respect of want” (Phil. iv. 11), and explains how, whether abased or abounding, he is strong for all things through Christ. His courtesy and gentleness now come to the fore. Will this boasting in Christ perhaps sound ungrateful in the ears of the Church? He immediately rectifies any impression of this kind by saying:
“Notwithstanding ye have done well, that ye did communicate with my affliction” (Phil. iv. 14).
This leads his grateful memory to record that “in the beginning of the gospel” the Philippian Church stood alone in this blessed communication of “giving and receiving”; and then, in verse 17, we have once more the note of independence:
“Not because I desire a gift; but I desire fruit that may abound to your account” (Phil. iv. 17).
Who would not count it an honour to be permitted to help such a man? He has all, he abounds, he is full—not because of a foolish independence, but because the gifts sent by the Philippians were like “an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God”. Nevertheless, with all his humble gratefulness, independence has the last word, as he exultingly concludes:
“BUT MY GOD shall supply all YOUR need, according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus” (Phil. iv. 19).
The Apostle’s independence is again in evidence in his first epistle to the Corinthians:
“But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of man’s judgment; yea, I judge not mine own self. For in myself, I am conscious of nothing (wrong): yet am I not hereby justified: but He that judgeth me is the Lord” (I Cor. iv. 3, 4).
To tabulate all the references in Paul’s epistles that speak, either directly or indirectly, of his independence, would turn this one article into a series, and would tend to magnify this one feature beyond its true proportion. Paul was very much more than merely independent, and we shall only truly appreciate his independence when we see it in association with the other qualities that go to make up his spiritual character. The Apostle has been given to the Church as an example. With all humility, with true gratitude for all fellowship, and with every acknowledgment of our own frailty and unworthiness, let us, at the same time, reach out after that independence of spirit that should mark the Lord’s “free men”.
----------------------
(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 31, page 153).
---------------------
#2. His Independence.
“Here we see that fearless independence with which he ‘withstood Peter to the face’.” (Conybeare and Howson).
The first feature sketched in by Conybeare and Howson is the Apostle’s independence, the particular passage quoted being Gal. ii. Like many other things, the quality of independence can be a very fine or a very ugly feature. The kind of independence that sets aside the fear of man, and originates in a consciousness of the sovereignty of God and the sacredness of one’s call and commission, is something to be desired and preserved. The kind of independence, on the other hand, that has its roots in pride, self-sufficiency, and lack of Christian charity, can only be deplored. In the Apostle’s case we find the true kind of independence that is tempered and softened by graciousness and humility. Peter himself could not but admire the spirit that withstood him to the face before all, and at the same time would not speak against him behind his back or listen to the voice of slander.
Evidence for the Apostle’s independence is to be found at the very threshold of his written ministry, in the epistle to the Galatians. The first chapter opens with the challenging statement:
“Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, Who raised Him from the dead);” (Gal. i. 1).
Later in the same chapter the challenge is carried over from Paul’s apostleship to his gospel:
“I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. i. 11, 12).
The Apostle then passes on from his message to speak, in similar terms, of the commission he received:
“When it pleased God . . . . . to reveal His Son in me . . . . . I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem, to them which were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia” (Gal. i. 15-17).
It will be readily seen that the whole of the first chapter of Galatians is written round these three items which speak of the Apostle’s independence. We observe, however, that there is no pride here. Paul’s apostleship is from God, and all that he is, all that he has to say, and all the authority he possesses are of the Lord and by His grace. If he sets aside man, he also acknowledges that the gospel was his by the revelation of Jesus Christ. If he speaks of “conferring not with flesh and blood”, we know that it was because it was God Who had separated him, God Who had called him, and it was with God alone, in “Arabia”, that he would spend those opening hours of new life and lofty vision.
So important does the Lord deem this question of the Apostle’s independence that the subject is pursued into the second chapter of the epistle. There is the spirit of true independence in almost every line here. In the first verse we read:
“Fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem” (Gal. ii. 1).
Who but an independent minister could stay away from the normal seat of authority for fourteen years without loss or condemnation?
The words: “I went up by revelation” in verse 2 set aside any idea of a command coming either from Jerusalem or Galatia. Moreover, in the first verse we read that the Apostle took Titus with him, although Titus was a Greek.
In the second verse we read:
“I communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles” (Gal. ii. 2).
Every line rings with the note of independence. In verse 5 we read that the Apostle “gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour”, while in verse 6 the pillars of the Church are referred to as those who “seemed to be somewhat”. For the Apostle, standing as he does in the conscious presence of the God Who accepteth no man’s person, intimidation is impossible, and man-pleasing forgotten. And so, when the need arises to preserve the truth of the gospel, he does not hesitate to withstand Peter to the face.
Paul’s independence is seen on various other occasions in Scripture, the particular manifestation varying with the particular circumstances. How touching, for example, is the alternation, in Phil. iv., of gratitude for the Philippians’ fellowship, with the independence that loathes even the appearance of “desiring a gift”.
“I rejoiced . . . . . that your care of me hath flourished again” (Phil. iv. 10).
Here it is gratitude that speaks. The Apostle, however, is extremely sensitive, and prison bars have not broken his God-given independence. So he immediately follows this remark with the words: “Not that I speak in respect of want” (Phil. iv. 11), and explains how, whether abased or abounding, he is strong for all things through Christ. His courtesy and gentleness now come to the fore. Will this boasting in Christ perhaps sound ungrateful in the ears of the Church? He immediately rectifies any impression of this kind by saying:
“Notwithstanding ye have done well, that ye did communicate with my affliction” (Phil. iv. 14).
This leads his grateful memory to record that “in the beginning of the gospel” the Philippian Church stood alone in this blessed communication of “giving and receiving”; and then, in verse 17, we have once more the note of independence:
“Not because I desire a gift; but I desire fruit that may abound to your account” (Phil. iv. 17).
Who would not count it an honour to be permitted to help such a man? He has all, he abounds, he is full—not because of a foolish independence, but because the gifts sent by the Philippians were like “an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God”. Nevertheless, with all his humble gratefulness, independence has the last word, as he exultingly concludes:
“BUT MY GOD shall supply all YOUR need, according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus” (Phil. iv. 19).
The Apostle’s independence is again in evidence in his first epistle to the Corinthians:
“But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of man’s judgment; yea, I judge not mine own self. For in myself, I am conscious of nothing (wrong): yet am I not hereby justified: but He that judgeth me is the Lord” (I Cor. iv. 3, 4).
To tabulate all the references in Paul’s epistles that speak, either directly or indirectly, of his independence, would turn this one article into a series, and would tend to magnify this one feature beyond its true proportion. Paul was very much more than merely independent, and we shall only truly appreciate his independence when we see it in association with the other qualities that go to make up his spiritual character. The Apostle has been given to the Church as an example. With all humility, with true gratitude for all fellowship, and with every acknowledgment of our own frailty and unworthiness, let us, at the same time, reach out after that independence of spirit that should mark the Lord’s “free men”.
----------------------
(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 31, page 153).
---------------------
