Originally Posted by aron
. . .in Galatians chapters 1 & 2, Paul said that didn't receive his gospel from men, nor the counsel of men, nor was he taught by men, but received revelation from Jesus Christ (1:11, 12).
Now, why would Paul make such a fuss about this? Why is it noteworthy? I think because he sets the source of his ministry independent from the others. His view and experience is not dependent upon the view, nor experience of others. Eventually, he did go and get fellowship from others, and got the "right hand of fellowship" (2:2,9). But this was the apostles recognizing him as a peer, not as their disciple.
This is significant as a contrast to Apollos for example, in Acts 18. Apollos needed to get his vision under the vision of the ones before him. Paul didn't.
Today, should we be Apollos, and go up to Jerusalem to get our vision adjusted by the leading ones? Or should we be Paul, and not go up to those who were apostles before us, but rather go to our own versions of "the regions of Syria and Cilicia" (Gal 1:21)? I think if Paul had gone straight up to the Headquarters in Jerusalem, and reported to James or Peter, then his ministry wouldn't have amounted to very much. Since he would have "owed" James & Peter, he wouldn't have been able to stand up to Peter (Gal. 2:12)when some came from James, who were zealous for the law. Paul was connected, but not dependent, not subservient.
We should likewise not be subservient to Paul. Nor to Peter nor James, nor to Witness Lee, nor to Dong Yu Lan, nor to Titus Chu, nor to Benjamin Chen, nor to James Reetzke, nor to Ed Marks, nor to Benson Philips, nor to Ron Kangas, nor to James Lee, nor to anyone. We are their peers. We both give and expect to receive the right hand of fellowship from them (and all Christians). But we look to Jesus Christ for our revelation, and not to any of His servants. In this we can be "like Paul". . .
|