September 14, 2006
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
O'Donnell on ABC: 'Radical Christians' no different than murderous radical Muslims
Neither O'Donnell nor ABC has apologized
Dear Ruth,
ABC's Rosie O'Donnell told a nationwide audience this week that "radical Christians" are the same as radical Muslims who piloted hijacked jetliners into New York 's Twin Towers , who chop off the heads of individuals and who bomb innocent children in suicide attacks. O'Donnell made her comments as host of ABC's "The View."
"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state," O'Donnell said. She had been saying that America was attacked "not by a nation." She continued: "And as a result of the attack and the killing of 3,000 innocent people, we invaded two countries and killed innocent people." Even her liberal co-hosts were shocked by her comments.
Co-host Joy Behar protested that Christians are not trying to impose mass murder on America . "This group (radical Muslims) is threatening to kill us." Replied O'Donnell: "No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?"
O'Donnell was saying there is no difference between the radical Muslims who kill in the name of Allah and Bible-believing Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus.
Neither O'Donnell nor ABC apologized for the comments. Had she made similar comments about minorities or homosexuals, there would have been an apology, and she would have probably been fired.
The message from ABC is that bashing Christians is acceptable, even comparing them with murderers who kill in the name of Allah.
Take Action
Tell ABC that O'Donnell's comments deserve an apology and a reprimand.
1. Send the email to ABC asking for an apology and a reprimand.
2. Forward this to your friends and family, and ask them to send the email to ABC.
Send Your Email to ABC Now!
Thank you
Todd Charske
Todd Charske
How to get the highest price for your homeTodd Charske real estateMax One real estateHome maintenace tipsReal Estate Glossaryother blogLawyers suck blogTodd Charske remy new job's website -
Ashton PlasticsBengals BlogPark Realtors search the mls anywhere in Ohio
There are no free lunches. These people will get paid--with your money.
Anybody else getting the paypal password changed scam? or yahoo pasword change scam
The best site I found that explores the various scams etc that floats thru our emails frequently is http://www.snopes.com/
It's basically an internet legend site broken up into various categories.
The latest thing I received was an email petition that the late
Madalyn Murray O'hare's organization had a hearing before the FCC scheduled to ban all religious programming on TV or the radio. It was #14 on the 25 hottest urban legends.
Read your 100- we have 2 mastiffs - way smaller but still bulls in a china store
I'm always getting the email that say their father has dies and left them a lot of money and they just need my personal S.S. number and bank account and they'll send me some. I don't think so - but it amazes me who some people would fall that that stuff.
Take care and thanks for the visit to my house - keep in touch.
Why can't they just leave us alone!!!!
Oh yoo hoo Todd I am now over here, yesssss I am everywhere, and nope I am no longer a blogstream virgin
Well see the sense of touch would allow a blind man to read my body language, you know Boobism, Buttism, Vaginaism. Now if you were blind and not completely mute perhaps you could speak in tongues as you explore my body to see that yes I am female.
And I can't put my pics on my profile because it says that they must be shrunk down and I don't want to ruin them, I like the size they are. Hehehe I really have no idea how to get them on there. And hey people put fake pics on their profiles, I have met guys who told me women on dating sites send old pics or even pics not of themselves ( hmmm I would think that would be really stupid when you meet the guy how do you explain those fake pics?), so I would imagine some people on regular sites, not ones for dating probably post fake pics, I wouldn't but I'm sure others would and do.
And ohhh my vagina and breasts are flattered that you like hearing about them, they are quite excited over that knowledge, and yeah baby period woooo wooooo it will be here pretty soon as a matter of fact, I can feel the PMS starting! Better watch out there Todd I can be one mean PMSer!!!!! Lorenna Bobbit has nothing on me!!!
I'm neither by the way happily married to a women a very hot one at that!
BTW, you don't believe in tongues???????
How do pray when you don't know how to pray? When you don't know what to pray? No offense, bud, but tongues is where the POWER is!
WHOO-HOO-HOO-HOO!
Time, Touch, Acts of Service, Words of Affirmation, Gifts.
Time and Words, man, those are mine. Gifts....who cares? Acts of service are nice but I can get that from the gas station attendant. Touch is okay, but it always turns sexual. Time and Words.....oooooooo.....dat hits da spot!
Guess I won't worry about the legitimacy of my prayer language since God gave me a grandchild from the womb of a daughter who was told by a doctor that she was infertile. Two weeks after I prophecied over her she conceived. Okay, it must have been a fluke. Not. I told the story on one of my posts but to be honest, right now I can't think of what it was called.
Most internet scams and viruses are being written out of Romania, Russia and Hungary. I can speak for Romania and Hungary...their secondary education is free but the pay in Romania (middle class) is about $150 per month. Hungary is a little more. This entices peopleto take computer programming (to write such code-to make a better living). In Hungary, part of the EU in 2004, they are positioning themselves as the "spa capital" of Europe to bring tourist money. But the people are still living in very poor conditions - Then watching the rich bring $ to the already rich. Both countries, of course, having hundreds of years of conquerors, dicators and communism...Since 1965 (I think that is the exact year) this is the first time since the Turks invaded that they have had any freedom. Conquer communism without a plan and a lot of people are left with nothing!
I am NOT justifying these actions or disagree with your statement....just putting out there how people will do what they need to do for a better life. Unfortunately at another's expense
Todd Charske
any word?
Todd Charske
Please take a sneak preview of my yearbook project....I am not done yet so I am going to delete it tonight....but I still need more high school graduation pictures !
I am now taking prom pix as well also sports & club pix from high school.
I NEED YOUR PIX!!
Email to:
bloggerlucy@aol.com
You can remain anonymous if you chose, if not when you email a pix tell me your blog name please.....
Thanks!
Love Lucy
This comment was removed by the blog owner.
Posted on Tuesday October 31, 2006 @ 2:22 PM
thanks for the blog...I will send it out. I never watch that show because of HER now.
Todd Charske
Baby YOU are a star !
Come take a look...
Lucy
- Todd Charske
#10 Life is sexually transmitted.
#9 Good health is merely the slowest rate at which one can die
#8 Men have two emotions: Hungry and Horny. If you see him without an erection, make him a sandwich.
#7 Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and they won't bother you for weeks.
#6 Some people are like a slinky... Not really good for anything, but
you still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.
#5 Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in the hospital dying of nothing.
#4 All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.
#3 Why does a slight tax increase cost you two hundred dollars, and a substantial tax cut saves you thirty cents???
#2 In the 60's, people took LSD to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
AND THE NUMBER ONE THOUGHT FOR 2007: We know exactly where one cow with mad-cow disease is located among the millions and millions of cows in America, and where one strain of e-coli got into the spinach, but we haven't a clue as to how to apprehend thousands of known criminals, including serial killers, pedophiles, Internet predators, identity thieves, would-be and actual terrorists, foreign students whose visas have expired, illegal aliens, suspect members of Congress, crooked CEO's and CFO's etc. Maybe we should just put the Department of Agriculture
in charge of everything
#10 Life is sexually transmitted.
#9 Good health is merely the slowest rate at which one can die
#8 Men have two emotions: Hungry and Horny. If you see him without an erection, make him a sandwich.
#7 Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and they won't bother you for weeks.
#6 Some people are like a slinky... Not really good for anything, but
you still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.
#5 Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in the hospital dying of nothing.
#4 All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.
#3 Why does a slight tax increase cost you two hundred dollars, and a substantial tax cut saves you thirty cents???
#2 In the 60's, people took LSD to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
AND THE NUMBER ONE THOUGHT FOR 2007: We know exactly where one cow with mad-cow disease is located among the millions and millions of cows in America, and where one strain of e-coli got into the spinach, but we haven't a clue as to how to apprehend thousands of known criminals, including serial killers, pedophiles, Internet predators, identity thieves, would-be and actual terrorists, foreign students whose visas have expired, illegal aliens, suspect members of Congress, crooked CEO's and CFO's etc. Maybe we should just put the Department of Agriculture
in charge of everything
- Todd Charske
mirror mirror on the wall who is the bloggiest of them all?
Mirror:
blogstream has many to choose
most of who type instead of drinking booze:
when it's all said and done
it really came down to just one
while some say on the blogginess it's Rita B
but we all know that it's really LUCY
That's an original by
- Todd Charske
( I know it stinks but it's funny! )
- Todd Charske
- Todd Charske
Just type in what you are looking for and then there ya go!
Todd Charske
We are having a blogstream party if you want to participate..
Stop by my blog for info!
- Todd Charske
FOOTPRINTS...A New Version
Imagine you and the Lord Jesus are walking down the road together. For much of the way, the Lord's footprints go along steadily, consistently, rarely varying the pace.
But your footprints are a disorganized stream of zigzags, starts, stops, turnarounds, circles, departures, and returns.
For much of the way, it seems to go like this, but gradually your footprints come more in line with the Lord's, soon paralleling His consistently. You and Jesus are walking as true friends!
This seems perfect, but then an interesting thing happens: Your footprints that once etched the sand next to Jesus' are now walking precisely in His steps.
Inside His larger footprints are your smaller ones, you and Jesus are becoming one.
This goes on for many miles, but gradually you notice another change. The footprints inside the large footprints seem to grow larger.
Eventually they disappear altogether. There is only one set of footprints. They have become one.
This goes on for a long time, but suddenly the second set of footprints is back. This time it seems even worse! Zigzags all over the place. Stops. Starts. Gashes in the sand. A variable mess of prints.
You are amazed and shocked.
Your dream ends. Now you pray:
"Lord, I understand the first scene, with zigzags and fits. I was a new Christian; I was just learning. But You walked on through the storm and helped me learn to walk with You."
"That is correct."
"And when the smaller footprints were inside of Yours, I was actually learning to walk in Your steps, following You very closely."
"Very good.. You have understood everything so far."
When the smaller footprints grew and filled in Yours, I suppose that I was becoming like You in every way."
"Precisely."
"So, Lord, was there a regression or something? The footprints separated, and this time it was worse than at first."
There is a pause as the Lord answers, with a smile in His voice.
"You didn't know? It was then that we danced!"
To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven: A time to weep, a time to laugh, a time to mourn, and a time to dance.
Ecclesiastes 3:1,4.
It's not WHAT you have in your life, but Whom you have in your life that counts... Think about that.
I ASKED GOD
I asked for a flower,
He gave me a garden.
I asked for a tree,
He gave me a forest.
I asked for a river,
He gave me an ocean.
I asked for a friend,
He gave me "YOU."
- Todd Charske
Huh?
- Todd Charske ?!?!?!
- Todd Charske
- Todd Charske
http://sakahari.imeem.com/music/UDNX7xNz/shadow_of_ourselves/
Lucy
Todd Charske
Thanks for all your help - Todd Charske!
Was Paul a Man-Pleaser?
(Galatians 1:10-2:10)
Taught by Todd Charske at First Baptist of Kettering?!?!? Thanks for your help
Introduction
Anybody Fast for me?
Can anyone think of a time you attempted to please man (woman)?
How do we know we’re pleasing God? (Bible)
Tell story of trying to please someone.
Likely each of you can remember stories about yourself, too. All of us have been guilty of trying to please men. Paul was accused of being a man-pleaser by those who proclaimed a gospel different from that which the apostle preached. This accusation was intended to undermine Paul’s authority and to accredit the “different gospel,” which the Judaizers had been preaching among the Galatian churches. Paul, however, was innocent. The passage which we are to study is a part of Paul’s defense against the charge of being a man-pleaser.
We need first to refresh our memories with respect to the context in which our passage is found. The first two chapters of Galatians are introductory and foundational. The Galatian Christians had deserted God by adopting a perverted version of the gospel (1:6-9). This, we shall see more clearly, was the result of the teaching of the Judaizers, who sought to add the keeping of the Old Testament law to faith as a requirement for salvation. The Judaizers attacked Paul’s apostleship as part of their teaching of a “different gospel,” a gospel different from that which Paul had proclaimed. Chapters 1 and 2 are a defense of both Paul’s apostleship and of the gospel which he had proclaimed. Chapters 3 and 4 expose the theological error of Judaism by turning back to the Old Testament law, demonstrating that it was neither intended, nor able, to accomplish what the Judaizers promised. Finally in chapters 5 and 6 Paul explains how God has made provision for holiness through the grace of the gospel. Thus, it is only grace which supplies the holiness which the law demanded.
The Issue of Paul’s Motives and Message
(1:10-12)
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. 11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
There is nothing indirect about Paul’s approach in chapter 1. He has already bluntly stated that some of the Galatian saints have forsaken God by following another gospel. Having outlined the false teaching within the church, he hastened to address the problem which the church seemed to have with him. The Judaizers could not attack the gospel Paul preached without attacking him. This they did by an assault on his character. They alleged that Paul had changed not for the better, but for the worse, and that his message was motivated by a desire to win man’s approval, rather than God’s. Such charges are implied by Paul’s statement in verse 10:
For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
The word “now” appears first in the Greek text, underscoring its emphasis. It centers upon the change in Paul since his conversion. Indeed, it almost begrudges his conversion. The charges infer that Paul once sought to please God, but now he only wishes to please men. Paul focuses on this change which has occurred and upon the motive which his opponents are suggesting underlies his gospel. Paul’s opponents charged that he had thrown out the requirements which had been historically laid upon Gentile proselytes to Judaism. Now, he was preaching that Gentiles could be saved apart from Judaism, by mere faith in a Jewish Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. They claimed that he acted not out of integrity, not out of necessity, but out of a desire to gain easy converts who would be indebted to Paul and who would look upon him with favor.
QUESTION? Have you ever looked at someone and said I’m staying away from him God would want me to? Why? God loves everybody? Safety of family? Where’s the line? We’re not a seeker church we’re biblical. We dress up here how dare that person were jeans? Etc. Spirit leads you when accept Christ to do what’s right with God – dress right etc?
It is very difficult for us to feel the intensity of emotion involved in this issue. Let me attempt to illustrate it in a way that comes a little closer to home. Suppose that you were a white, southern aristocrat who belonged to a very private club. A reason for the club’s exclusiveness was the extremely high initiation fee. For years and years membership had been restricted to only those whom the members themselves chose to admit. The club even had its own religious rituals, all very formal and “high church.” Suddenly, with the change in federal law, such private clubs were now outlawed. Members could not be excluded on the basis of race, creed, or social status. One of the members radically changed his mind and began to bring in new members, precisely those who had previously been purposely excluded. To add insult to injury, this person had the audacity to bring in new members without requiring any initiation fee whatsoever.
There is a mentality, common among religious fundamentalists, which suspects anything which is too easy.31 This mindset distrusts anything that appears to be too tolerant and not sufficiently difficult and demanding. The underlying assumption is the more demanding the duty, the more painful the process, the higher the price of piety, the more likely it is to be of God. Thus, there is an immediate suspicion concerning anything which appears to be too easy. Contradictory to this attitude is the fact that biblical Christianity is founded upon the principles and the processes of grace. The danger of a fundamentalist mindset (as good as this may be), is that it may question the grace upon which salvation and sanctification rest. Paul not only preached grace, he practiced it, and in so doing brought about a strong reaction from the Judaizers who questioned both Paul’s message and his motives.
Do we practice grace? Ask yourself? His child isn’t a good athlete do I accept him or do I think I don’t want my child hanging out with them or his child isn’t very smart or his child is a jock or his child is a different color etc etc.
There is an element of truth in the accusation of the Judaizers against Paul. Paul admitted to changing his conduct depending upon the cultural preferences of his audience. This he did to avoid undue offense to the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23). While Paul was willing to make cultural concessions, he was unbending concerning any concession with regard to the gospel which he preached. He was unwilling to make any requirements of the Gentiles concerning the keeping of the Old Testament law, for this was contrary to grace.
Why do we have the Law? Why the Old testament?
The issue in question is whether Paul deliberately diluted his message to suit his audience in order to gain status among them. Paul’s defense begins with the word “still” in verse 10. He thus turned the tables on his opponents. His conversion was not a change for the worse, but a change for the better. It was not that he had begun to be a man-pleaser since his conversion, but that he had ceased to be so. As a zealous Pharisee he was a man-pleaser. Had he not been converted, he would still be a man-pleaser. In verses 11 and 12 Paul gives a general answer in his own defense: “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Paul’s motives, according to the Judaizers, were human. They claimed that he desired more to please men than he did to please God. Furthermore they charged that the divine message had been corrupted by Paul’s fallen humanity. Paul insisted that nothing could be farther from the truth. The details of his conversion and growth as a Christian (and an apostle) refute the charge that he was a man-pleaser. What he learned about the gospel, he learned apart from men (vv. 11, 12). No one could claim more independence from human contamination of the gospel than he. Paul buttresses his argument by more specific examples from his experiences: (1) his conversion (1:13-17); (2) his relationship to the apostles in Jerusalem (1:18–2:10); and (3) his confrontation of Peter (2:11-21).
Paul’s Conversion
(1:13-17)
13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
Was Paul always walking with God? Why was this important?
The gospel Paul preached was that same message by which he was saved; thus, his gospel and his conversion were intertwined. In verses 13-17 Paul outlines his conversion experience. Verses 13 and 14 describe him as he was before his conversion. He was devoutly religious as a defender of Judaism.32 Not only was Paul zealous for Judaism, but he was also successful as a Pharisee. He claimed that before his conversion he was “advancing in Judaism” beyond many of his contemporaries (1:14). No one advances in prominence and position unless people “MEN” are pleased with his performance. Paul, therefore, informs us that it was his devotion to duty which earned him his status within Judaism.
I’m in sales people pleasing is kind of my business! Are you successful at work? At what cost? Are you Godly? If you could get a huge promotion but your boss said you had to ________ would you do it? Would you justify it by saying it’s best for my family? What really is best for your family?
Not only was Paul’s success as a Pharisee the result of pleasing men, but his belief in Judaism was based upon the teachings of men. According to verse 14 Paul was a devotee of Judaism with a zeal for his “ancestral traditions.” Would his opponents charge him with forsaking that which was divine for that which was human? They were wrong, for Judaism was a religion that men had prescribed and promoted. Paul’s zeal to advance within the ranks of Judaism was based upon his desire to win the favor and approval of his contemporaries.
Does our church work as a church prescribed to men (remember what the church is – us)? What are the ways we can improve?
Paul’s new faith came about in an entirely different way, as he describes in verses 15-17. His conversion was initiated by God, rather than by any human agent. God had set him apart, even while in his mother’s womb, for the express purpose of preaching Christ to the Gentiles (1:15-16). God revealed His Son in Paul, not just “to” him (1:16). Specifically, Paul’s conversion was one which took place “within” him through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit who brings the dead to life (cf. John 3:8; Eph. 2:5; Titus 3:5). You will remember that in Paul’s recorded encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus Paul was directly addressed by the risen Lord; however, though Paul’s companions heard the sound, they did not understand Christ’s voice (Acts 22:9). Paul’s conversion resulted from a direct confrontation with the risen Son of God.
That’d be cool?!?! I haven’t done that yet so how do we know what we’re doing is of God?
Do we all have a quiet time? See below - Also Jesus grew this way when he was praying to the father alone many times. Moses went away to be with the father many times, etc.
To be sure, there was human instrumentality. It was through Ananias that the way of salvation was made known to Paul, along with his calling as God’s instrument to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 9:10-18). Paul spent several days with the saints at Damascus (Acts 9:19). Apart from these minimal involvements with human instruments, Paul’s conversion and spiritual growth was primarily the result of direct divine encounter. Paul claims that he did not immediately confer with men in general, nor with the apostles in Jerusalem, but instead he grew largely in solitude (1:16b-17).33 During the critical, early formative years of Paul’s life as a Christian, he had few men about him to corrupt the gospel. Paul’s salvation and the gospel he was being taught were remarkably free from human contamination.
Paul’s First Visit to Jerusalem
(1:18-24)
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas (Peter), and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.
It was not until three years after his conversion that Paul finally went to Jerusalem.34
Why did it take 3 years? (To demostrate his independence of the apostles – emphasize his being saved was of God not of Man.)
This chronological fact easily meshes with Luke’s abbreviated account in the book of Acts.35 In Acts 9 we are told that Paul was converted in Damascus (vv. 8-19a), where he spent several days with the believers (v. 19b). We are told that he boldly preached Christ (v. 20), and that after “many days had elapsed,” Paul left Damascus because of a death plot (v. 23) and went up to Jerusalem (v. 26). As a result of a plot to kill Paul in Jerusalem, he was sent to Caesarea and then on to Tarsus, his home town36 (vv. 29-30). Thus we can account for a period of three years from the time Paul was first saved in Damascus to the time he fled “after many days” to Jerusalem, only to flee again after a very brief stay.
Even three years after his conversion, Paul did not seek to formulate his gospel on the basis of apostolic approval. Paul tells us in verse 18 that he went up to Jerusalem “to become acquainted with Cephas.” This expression does not suggest a desire to have his message given the “apostolic seal of approval.” Instead, it conveys Paul’s desire to know Peter better. What a wealth of information Peter could supply about the life of our Lord—matters about which Paul would have intense interest, just as you and I do. The visit with Peter lasted for fifteen days (v. 18). In addition to Peter, only James,37 the brother of our Lord, was seen by Paul.
The gospel which Paul preached had very little human input, especially from those who were regarded to be significant—the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Paul was known more by reputation than by appearance to Christian leaders in Jerusalem. While he was an enemy of the church and trying to destroy it, no one wanted to see him. (Gal. 1:22-24) Once he became a believer, few were able to see him. Nevertheless, the saints in Jerusalem rejoiced at the report that Paul, who had once persecuted the church, now proclaimed the gospel himself.
The Implications of Paul’s Conversion Experience
Summary of Chapter 1
What were the two major implications which establish Paul’s apostolic authority and demonstrate the superiority of his gospel to that “different gospel” which some were preaching?
(1) If any religious system promoted man-pleasing it was Judaism, not Paul’s gospel. Judaism had become a tradition-bound religion. Before his conversion and while a Pharisee, Paul was zealous for his “ancestral traditions” (1:14). Paul’s zeal and success were fueled by the nature of Judaism, which placed an excessive emphasis on appearances and external criteria for commitment. Paul’s diligence was based upon a desire to win the approval of his peers. Judaism did not seek to prevent man-pleasing; it promoted it. Let those who insinuated that Paul had changed from a God-pleaser to a man-pleaser give more careful thought to the nature of Judaism. Judaism focused attention on man’s self-righteousness as judged by other men; the gospel focuses attention on God’s righteousness as given to men apart from works. The true saint has reason only to boast in Christ.
(2) Judaism failed to produce the righteousness which it promised. Notice the contrast between Paul’s conduct as a zealous Pharisee and his conduct as a Christian. In verses 13 and 14 Paul claimed to be at “the head of the pack” concerning his zeal and performance as a Pharisee. With this his opponents would have agreed. Their complaint was that Paul had changed—for the worse. The facts reveal just the reverse. It was as a zealous, but unbelieving Jew that Paul was a persecutor and destroyer of the church. Apparently the Judaizers measured righteousness by the number of Christians one had killed or imprisoned. However, in verses 23 and 24 the Christians of Jerusalem were able to praise God that the one who had once persecuted Christians now preached Christ.
Has anyone here experienced this kind of change in a person that’s filled with Christ? Sinful Flesh vs Holy spirit!
Now stop and think about the implication of Paul’s conversion for a moment. The error of the Judaizers seemed to originate from the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15:1, 5). Paul was able to write that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, while they did not know Paul personally, were able to praise God because of his conversion from a persecutor to a preacher. Yet it was some of these same Christians who would foolishly teach that adding the traditions of Judaism to the requirement of faith was beneficial to the promotion of godliness.
In what way had Judaism promoted purity and piety in the life of the apostle? The more diligent (and praised) he was, the greater became his persecution of the church. Judaism contributed nothing to godliness in the life of Paul. It produced the very opposite. It was the power of the gospel which transformed Paul from a persecutor to a preacher. How, then, could the Judaizers possibly contend that the gospel was not sufficient to save and to sanctify the sinner? How could they conceivably believe that adding Judaism to the gospel would in any way contribute to godliness? Paul’s conversion proved the opposite. What Judaism could never accomplish, the gospel did.
Paul’s Second Journey to Jerusalem
(2:1-10)
1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 And it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
Why do you think this was done in private rather than to the entire church body? Did he want the apostles to approve his Gospel in case he was preaching it wrong? Answer: Common courtesy to speak and get the blessings of the leaders first. This would avoid any problems the church leaders may have prior to presenting to the entire church.
Paul’s purpose in seeking a private interview with the apostles41 is explained in verses 2 and 3. At first glance, one would suppose that Paul sought apostolic approval of the gospel he preached, but this can hardly be so. Let me enumerate some of the reasons for the conclusion that Paul was not submitting his gospel for approval. First, the context militates against it. Since Paul is trying to establish the fact that his gospel was obtained independently from men, to say he was seeking the approval of the apostles would be contradictory. If Paul had received his message directly from the Lord, why would he feel compelled to seek the approval of men, even of the apostles? In verse 6, Paul makes a point of saying that the apostles “contributed nothing to him.” This was not intended to disparage the role of the apostles, but to emphasize the independence of Paul’s gospel while in full agreement with the gospel which the apostles preached. Second, Paul would hardly have waited 14 years to gain such approval. Paul had been preaching for 14 years without any approval. If he had serious doubts (as the need to seek apostolic approval would suggest), why would he have waited so long to approach the apostles? Why would he not have obtained approval on his first visit, for example?
Third, the Greek word rendered “submitted to them” in verse 2 does not suggest an act seeking official approval. In the ancient Greek papyri, it had the sense of “… ‘impart,’ ‘communicate,’ with a view to consultation.”42 This term is found elsewhere only in Acts 25:14, where “Festus laid Paul’s case before the king [Agrippa].” In the context, it is evident that Agrippa was not asked to decide this matter, nor to approve the decision of Festus, but rather was consulted for an opinion which was not binding. In fact, Agrippa did not really make a pronouncement, other than to agree with what Festus had concluded. So, also, in Galatians 2:2. Paul was not nervously seeking the sanction of the apostles, but was consulting with them.
What, then, was Paul’s purpose for this private meeting? It is my understanding that Paul happened to be in Jerusalem and in contact with Peter, James, and John in connection with the collection he and Barnabas were conveying to the elders of the church. It was an appropriate moment for Paul to speak privately so as to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding between himself and the leaders of the Jerusalem church, especially in light of growing opposition from the Judaizers, who claimed to be supported by the apostles.
Paul did not say that he feared his message might be in error, but rather that “he might be running, or had run, in vain” (2:2). Paul’s fear was that, because of a misunderstanding of his message, there might be an unnecessary rift between himself and the other apostles who were in Jerusalem. To “run in vain” is to run in such a way as to fail to achieve the goal. Any rift between Paul and the apostles could mean division and strife between those Jews and Gentiles who had been saved and brought into unity through the gospel (cf. Eph. 2:11-22). This would only hinder the proclamation of the gospel. Paul approached the apostles privately in order to prevent any misunderstandings which would hinder the gospel in its proclamation or practice.
3 But not even Titus who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
What’s the big deal about being circumcised? Law vs Grace! (See 4 paragraphs below)
4 But it was because of the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. 6 But from those who were of high reputation what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles, 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.
What’s the significance of giving the “right hand of fellowship?
During his second visit to Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas received a mixed response to their presence. The first response was that of the Judaizers concerning Titus, who was an uncircumcised Greek Christian (vv. 3-5). The second response was that of the principal leaders, James, Peter, and John, who recognized God’s hand upon Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles and who gave Paul and Barnabas the “right hand of fellowship” (vv. 6-10). The contrast in these two responses to Paul provide yet another argument in favor of Paul’s apostolic authority, and thus, for the gospel which he preached.
When Paul and Barnabas arrived with Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile (2:3), the Judaizers immediately began to demand that he be circumcised (2:4). Paul referred to these men as “false brethren,” which raises a question concerning their salvation. Their aim, Paul wrote, was to replace the liberty of the grace of the gospel with the slavery of righteousness by self-effort (2:4). Paul refused to surrender to such pressure, and we have no indication that the apostles pressured Paul to capitulate by having Titus circumcised.43 To have given in to the Judaizers would have been to surrender to those who had perverted the gospel (2:5).
We are not taken by surprise that Paul would refuse to have Titus circumcised, for he would have viewed this as a surrender to those who had directly attacked the truth of the gospel (cf. 2:5). I believe the point Paul is stressing here is that even under strong pressure to compel Titus to be circumcised, the apostles did not insist upon his circumcision as a matter of necessity. What the Judaizers demanded, the apostles did not. Paul and Barnabas thus were in accord with the apostles in withstanding the Judaizers.
While the Judaizers accused and accosted Paul and Barnabas, the apostles accepted them (vv. 6-10). In verses 3-5 the apostles in Jerusalem supported the decision of Paul and Barnabas not to h