The grace and sovereignty of God, free will, heaven, hell, church, etc.,

Letter To An Israelite on Law and Grace
A great opportunity to teach the differences between Peter's gospel and Paul's

Dear Martin,

ToothacheI settled back on Friday evening to enjoy your latest newsletter, but found myself very saddened instead. I enjoyed it  like a toothache. I think I must have cried myself to sleep that night after reading it. It appears to me that you have never really read through all of the law of God, much less studied it, before presuming to chop it into firewood for burning.

The first page was really atrocious! Do you really feel that God is/was so unjust as to subject those who sin in ignorance to capital punishment? The strident tone made it seem clear that you were accusing its author-God Himself-of sin and unrighteousness. Mr. Zender Sir, the Bible does not teach what you accused God of doing. Numbers 15:25 says, "it shall be forgiven them, for it is ignorance..." Please see all of verses 24 through 36.

As I started reading, I thought, "I'll bet he doesn't mention or even consider verses from the Gospels which contradict his argument." Sorry to say, I guessed right. To use your own reasoning, Matthew 5:17-19 does not need to be explained, only believed.

I believe that, in some sense the law continues for the Christian today, and in some sense it does not. Truth is seldom found at the extremes. Just as it is not true to say that the law saves us, the other extreme which says the law of God is totally done away is also very untrue. The key is to understand what that continuing purpose is for us today. Important to understand is that God's law was not to be abolished for the Christian, but instead to be written on our hearts and put into practice. Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8:10 tie this to the New Covenant, so it is something which has begun to take place during this present "Pentecostal Age," not just in a future age.

Sorry for the tone of this letter, but I cannot hide my disappointment with your latest writing. In my opinion, it seemed poorly researched, outright false on page one, disparaging to God's righteousness, and one-sided in its view of this subject in the New Testament.

--I am an Israelite 

Dear Israelite,

Don't be sorry about writing this letter. As you are an Israelite according to the flesh, you have provided me with a unique opportunity to explain the vital differences between God's dealings with your race, and His dealings with mankind as a whole. An appreciation of these differences will help many people to better understand the law of Moses.

Willfully sinning donkeys?

Before I get into the law of Moses, I have some necessary defending to do. How is it that I accuse God of sin and unrighteousness on page one of my latest offering? I simply quote Exodus 19:11-13: God said, "Set a boundary for the people round about, saying: Guard yourselves concerning ascent into the mountain (Sinai) or touching its outmost part. Everyone touching the mountain shall be put to death, yea death. No hand shall touch him, for he shall be stoned, yea stoned or shot, yea shot; whether beast or man, he shall not live." Then I give a fictitious example of Moses carrying this out. Whether any man or beast actually touched the mountain and incurred the penalty is immaterial. The point I was making was that the rule existed, that it would be enforced, and that fear of death attended the coming of law.

You are so anxious to "prove" that God could never be "so unjust as to subject those who sin in ignorance to capital punishment," that you are seeking refuge in a law that didn't even exist at the time. I have read Numbers 15:24-36. These verses do say that sins of ignorance are forgiven. But the passage I quoted was from Exodus, chapter nineteen, verses eleven through thirteen. These passages detail events occurring before the coming of law. An ignorant boundary-crosser may have phoned his lawyer, but not even F. Lee Bailey could have cited a nonexistent precept.

Besides, the death penalty for touching Sinai applied to both man and beast. Note: "No hand shall touch hiSinning donkeym, for he shall be stoned, yea stoned or shot, yea shot; whether beast or man, he shall not live." As beasts are not willful sinners, how else could they have trespassed except in ignorance?

The issue here is neither ignorance nor willfulness. The issue is: touch the mountain and die.

Have you not read in First Chronicles, chapter thirteen, of how a man named Uzza attempted to steady the ark of the covenant (which contained the tablets of the law) and was struck dead on the spot? The ark was riding on an ox-drawn cart, the oxen stumbled, and the ark started to fall. Uzza instinctively reached out to steady it. Who wouldn't have? It was the ark of the covenant, for crying out loud. But he touched the ark (that was a no-no) and God killed him instantly (verse ten). Sheeesh! So much for Numbers 15. David had a real problem with God's tactics here (verse 11), and no doubt you still do, if you believe this passage at all.

I'll admit that this rule, "Touch the mountain and die," seems harsh. If Moses had dreamed it up, it would have been a sin. But since God Himself drafted it, it's righteous. God is righteous in all His ways (Ps. 145:17).

You are obviously upset. Either 1) God's methods are troubling you, or 2) you are ignorant of or cannot accept the fact that the present purpose of Mosaic law is to kill (2 Cor. 3:6). In any case, you're taking out your frustrations on me. Dude, I didn't make up that rule. I just quoted Scripture. Personally, I would have let folks off with a verbal warning.

Sunflowers on Sinai

Though you don't mention it in your letter, you have told me personally that you try to do the Mosaic law. This helps explain your attempt to plant flowers around Mount Sinai. You are in a state of denial. You are like the person who stands over a corpse at a funeral home and says, "Uncle Harold sure looks swell."

In denying the horribleness of death, the person at the funeral home, deep down, wants to be immortal. In denying the mercilessness of Sinai, you are, deep down, still wanting to please God with the keeping of law. You have what Paul calls "a zeal of God, but not in accord with recognition" (Rom. 10:2).

Fake smileIn this segment of Scripture dealing with Israel, Paul writes, "For Christ is the consummation of law for righteousness to everyone who is believing. For Moses is writing of the righteousness which is of law, that a man who does the same shall be living in it. Yet the righteousness of faith is....believing in your heart that God rouses Him from among the dead" (Rom. 10:4-6, 9).

Contrast the difference between the righteousness that comes from one's own efforts with the righteousness that comes simply by faith in the living Christ, who consummated law on your behalf.

This horse ain't moving, bro

Your brethren at Sinai had an excuse for attempting law, in that the law's underlying purpose to revive sin (Rom. 7:9), to cause offenses to increase (Rom. 5:20), to dispense condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9), and to deal out death (2 Cor. 3:7), was hidden from them. Even if you haven't grasped these Scriptures to the nations, you should know from the book of Hebrews that "there is coming to be a repudiation of the preceding precept because it is weak and without benefit; for the law perfects nothing" (7:18).

You are still trying to accomplish something that is "weak and without benefit and perfects nothing." Either you are the most frustrated person alive or a master of self-deception. It's not the law's fault that it perfects nothing; the law is infirm because of the flesh (Rom. 8:3). But God did what was impossible to the flesh by sending His own Son (Rom. 8:3). You are now exhorted to have faith in this Son (Heb. 10:38), not elbow into His accomplishment.

Yes, after all this, the law will still fare forth from Zion (Is. 2:3). How? Because there is to be a transference of law (Heb. 7:12). It will still be law, every jot and tittle of it (Mt 5:17-19), but it won't be law in accord with the fleshly precept (Heb. 7:16). It won't be the variety of law that made Moses say, "do this and live in it!" (Rom. 10:5). That's the dead horse you're still trying to ride. It will be the variety that He has already consummated: "Christ is the consummation of law for righteousness to everyone who is believing." But you are an Israelite and so this is too simple for you. You stumble on the stumbling stone:

"The nations who are not pursuing righteousness overtook righteousness, yet a righteousness which is out of faith. Yet Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, into a law of righteousness does not outstrip. Wherefore? Seeing that it is not out of faith, but as out of law works, they stumble on the stumbling stone..."                                                                                                                 -Rom. 9:31-32.

Honestly, now

Honestly, are you really attempting law? Are you going to Jerusalem three times a year? Are you slaughtering animals on the temple altar? You say, "the ceremonial law (the divine service) has been abolished while the moral law (the Ten Commandments) has not." But you are making this up. There is no such thing in the Scriptures as splitting the law in this manner. The Scriptures say, "Accursed is everyone who is not remaining in all things written in the scroll of the law, to do them" (Gal. 3:10).

understand that you can't do the whole law today. For one thing, His sanctuary is not in your midst (Ez. 37:28). For another thing, the house of Israel is still among the nations (Amos 9:9). For another thing, the Mount of Olives has yet to receive His feet (Zech. 14:4). For another thing, David, who will preside as king when God's statutes are finally observed (Ez. 37:24), is still dead (Ac. 2:29). But, brother, don't whack the law short to accommodate your failure. There's nothing wrong with the law, it's your timetable that's flawed.

That you are currently trying to do law (and failing, I safely assume) witnesses to the fact that the new covenant has not yet begun. When the law is written on your heart (which is the essence of the new covenant, Jer. 31:31) then you won't be able to help doing it. Then the law will be an inward reality, not an outward compulsion, as at present. In claiming the powers of the new covenant now, you're doing exactly as your brethren of old; you are "pursuing a law of righteousness that is not out of faith, but as out of law works" (Rom. 9:31-32). The antithetical thoughts here are pursuing and faith.

Be like Abraham and give up

The new covenant comes when your people stop pursuing. By dabbling in law now, you are like your father Abraham who "dabbled in" Sarah's maid in an attempt to produce the promised seed. It's no good. In the current era, the law is supposed to humble you (Rom. 7:7-24), not challenge you. Only when Abraham stopped pursuing and apprehended his worthlessness (Rom. 4:19) did the promised seed come. Likewise, only when you stop playing law and are reduced to faith (which is actually a promotion), will you appreciate the righteousness of God (Rom. 10:3). The well-apprised Israelite today is found waiting for the promise (Hab. 2:3), not struggling to fulfill it. Messiah is coming to rescue you (Rom. 11:26), not congratulate you.

Now, faith.

As described in your own Scriptures (the letter to the Hebrews), faith is "an assumption of what is being expected" (Heb. 11:1). The writer confirms elsewhere that the new covenant (Heb. 10:16) is an expectation (Heb. 10:23, 7:19). "Now expectation, being observed, is not expectation, for what anyone is observing, why is he expecting it also?" (Rom. 8:24). It is your faith that is to be perfected now (Heb. 12:2), not your law-keeping skills.

Here's your list of things to do

The letter to the Hebrews was written for those of your brethren who had tasted of the wonders of the kingdom at Pentecost, but had seen that kingdom withdraw to an undetermined time in the future (Acts 1:6-7, Rom. 11:15,25). Now, resigned to a future fulfillment of the promises (Heb. 11:13), yours becomes a matter of saluting the promises ahead (Heb. 11:13), of retaining the avowal of the expectation (Heb. 10:23), of inciting one another to love and ideal acts (Heb. 10:24), and of not forsaking the assembling of yourselves (Heb. 10:25). Elsewhere, you are instructed to wait for Christ's physical return (Zech 14:4), to anticipate the reuniting of the kingdoms (Ez. 37:15-23), and to look forward to being planted permanently on sacred soil (Amos 9:15). None of this mentions "attempting the Mosaic law."

Wondering, trying, pretending
Middle East violence
The new covenant is not a good Israelite here and a good Israelite there; it is to be a national covenant (Jer. 31:34) that will energize the corporate heart of your people to do all the law (Jer. 31:33). Even the new birth (Jn. 3:7) awaits fulfillment, for this concerns the entire nation Israel (Is. 66:8), not scattered individuals from among it. When the Rescuer does arrive out of Zion, "He will be turning away irreverence from Jacob" (Rom. 11:26). This will happen at the same time the new covenant begins (Rom. 11:27). Has God already begun to turn away irreverence from Jacob? Not according to recent AP reports from the Middle East.

When the law is finally written on your heart, you and your brethren--as well as the whole world--will know it. He will be your God, and you shall be His people (Zech. 8:8). Then, the law shall fare forth from Zion (Is. 2:3). In other words, there will be no more trying. There will be no more wondering if, or pretending that, the kingdom has come. When the kingdom does come, it will be so obvious that those who thought it was "spiritual" (that is, an unobservable, non-political kingdom) will laugh with delight. But what could be more spiritual than Christ literally fulfilling His literal promises to literal Israel?

Tapping the vein

I did not dodge Matthew 5:17-19. It's just that eight pages on my newsletter, The Idle Babbler Illustrated, accommodates only so much babbling. With this question, you have forced this newsletter into a tremendously broad vein of truth. The following cannot be a play-by-play analysis, but only a highlight film.

Rather than reprint the entire context of Matthew 5:17-19, I will play excerpts from it against statements from Paul:

I came not to demolish [the law], but to fulfill [it].

Yet now, apart from law, a righteousness of God is manifest (Rom. 3:21).

Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota (the smallest Hebrew letter) or one serif (the small projection which distinguishes Hebrew letters) may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring.

Yet now we were exempted from the law (Rom. 7:6).

Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them (the precepts of the law), he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.

You were put to death to the law through the body of Christ (Rom. 7:4).

Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called.

We are reckoning a man to be justified by faith apart from works of law (Rom. 3:28).

Now we're getting to the crux of a long-running theological argument: Is the law done away with, or isn't it? As usual, Paul throws a wrench into everything. In these verses, Paul seems to be undoing everything Jesus said. He even seems to be pitting our Lord against Himself. In the second to last example, we have believers being put to death to the law through the same Christ Who forbade His followers to annul it.

When we try to reconcile these, we end up making confusing statements like the one you made on page one of your letter: "In some sense the law continues for the Christian today, and in some sense it does not."

I disagree with you that truth is "seldom found at the extremes." Truth lives there.

Here's the answer to the argument: the statements quoted above are not supposed to be reconciled.

Tremendous differences

There are tremendous differences between what are known in the Scriptures as "the evangel of the Uncircumcision" and "the evangel of the Circumcision" (Gal. 2:7). This is not the same evangel ("gospel") going two different directions. No, these are two different evangels (different "good newses"), one going to Israel via Peter, and one going to non-Israelites (and to those of the chosen nation who could hear it), via Paul. Peter did not pass the baton of the Circumcision evangel to Paul, as is popularly supposed.

Peter & PaulPaul states in Galatians 1:12 that he did not accept his particular good news "from a man." Obviously, then, he did not receive it from Peter. This, along with the fact that Paul had to explain his evangel to Peter (Gal. 2:1-2), demolishes the idea that Paul dispensed the evangel of the Circumcision. "Nor was I taught it," Paul declares, "but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:12).

Understand the differences between these two evangels, and many so-called contradictions in the Bible will disappear. Scriptures that wax fragrant in one place smell like fish elsewhere. Kept where they belong, all Scriptures satisfy the soul.

The differences between these evangels lie at the heart of our argument about law. In failing to understand these differences, you continue under the false assumption that the words our earth-bound Lord spoke to Israel must be reconciled with those the risen Christ gave to the nations via Paul. Instead of "correctly cutting the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15)," you have tried to fix it.

Let no man join what God has put asunder.

"In some sense the law continues for the Christian today, and in some sense it does not." No, my friend. Law and grace do not and cannot mix. By trying to make the grace of Paul "fit" into the law of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews, James and the rest, you have created a Frankenstein. In short, you have "distorted the evangel of Christ" (Gal. 1:6-7).

The evangel of the Circumcision

When Christ was on earth, He was "the Servant of the Circumcision, for the sake of the truth of God, to confirm the patriarchal promises" (Rom. 15:8). Jesus Himself said, "I was not commissioned except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt. 15:24). The Circumcision, obviously, are your brethren according to flesh. The patriarchal promises include the promise God made to your forefather, Abraham. This promise concerns Abraham's descendants (which includes yourself) becoming a channel of blessing to all the families of the earth (Gen. 12:3). Later, the good news that these promises would be fulfilled through Jesus Christ, the Messiah, became known as "the evangel ("gospel," or "good news") of the Circumcision" (Gal. 2:7).

It concerns the earth

Only an Israelite-or one closely associated with the chosen nation-would have understood the evangel of the Circumcision. Not only was Israel the sole recipient of Circumcision, but she was the only nation selected to mediate between God and other nations. Under the headship of Messiah, she would teach the other nations about God during a glorious, thousand-year kingdom (Rev. 20:4) on a restored earth (Ac. 3:21; Ez. 34:27), when the law would finally go forth with power (Mic. 4:2). After our Lord ascended to heaven following His rejection, death and resurrection, Peter became the caretaker of this evangel.

Again, the promises and prophecies from God to Israel concerned the earth. The "kingdom of the heavens" Jesus constantly referred to was heavenly in character, (it was of the heavens), but it was located on the earth (Mt. 5:5). Even the holy City, new Jerusalem would not be in heaven, but would descend out of it (Rev. 21:2), to earth. If you had asked Peter, after Christ's resurrection, "What do you think heaven is going to be like?" he might have answered, "I've never really thought about it." Why would he? Peter's heart's desire was to sit on a throne and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt. 19:27-28). In heaven? No. "Thou dost also make them a kingdom and a priesthood for our God, and they shall be reigning on the earth" (Rev. 5:10). No human being had ever heard of "going to heaven" until Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians.

Limited and local

Map of Holy Land
Up until now, we have dealt exclusively with your expectation, and that of your brethren according to flesh, who are Israelites. I think you have forgotten that the Mosaic law (and the evangel of the Circumcision) was given only to your nation and its proselytes. It was not given to anyone removed from the sphere of Judaism. Paul says in Romans 2:14 that the nations (understood in this context to mean non-Israelites) "have no law." You are trying to include everyone under a set of decrees that was given exclusively to members of your race. As the law never came to non-Israelites, it certainly cannot continue with them. I am not claiming that the law is totally done away for you and those of your race who embrace the evangel of the Circumcision. What I am claiming is that the law does not even exist for those among the nations to whom it never came.

The Mosaic law is not the foundation of God's dealing with humanity as a whole. The law was a limited, local, and national demonstration for one nation (Israel) and one land (from Dan to Beersheba) and one religion (Judaism). It was not designed for all men in every land and every nation. For these, God had a completely different program in mind, with a completely different good news ("gospel," or "evangel") to go with it. We will be looking into that evangel shortly.

One bomb at a time

Jesus Christ's focus during the days of His flesh was purposely narrow. As our Lord ministered to His brethren concerning the earthly kingdom, none could have dreamed of the new evangel He would announce after His ascension among those who had never heard of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This new evangel would not flower until about thirty years later, when the apostate nation had been temporarily cast away (Acts 28:26-28, Rom. 11:15).

Our Lord's kin couldn't even understand their call to shepherd the earthbound (Gen. 12:3), let alone a ministry among celestial beings where they would lose their fleshly advantage (Eph. 3:6). Jesus said to Nicodemus: "If I told you of the terrestrial and you are not believing, how shall you be believing if I should be telling you of the celestial?" (Jn. 3:12).

While He was on earth, our Lord did not tell Nicodemus, or anyone else, about the celestial inhabitants who, just as much as the earthly ones, needed reconciled to God (Eph. 6:12; Col. 1:20). These deeper, more radical counsels would come out later with the proclamation of the new evangel, to become known as "the evangel of the Uncircumcision" (Gal. 2:7).

Under our Lord's earthly ministry, non-Israelites could only receive the scraps that fell from the table of the chosen nation (Mt. 15:27). At that time, non-Israelites were "apart from Christ, being alienated from the citizenship of Israel, and guests of the promise covenants, having no expectation, and without God in the world" (Eph. 2:12).

Enter a new evangel
Things began to change when a bloodthirsty Pharisee named Saul encountered Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts, chapter nine), outside the land of Israel. The risen Lord was now apprehending a messenger who would disclose His deepest counsels, including heretofore unimagined aspects of the cross (Col. 1:20) and unheard-of realms of ministry (Eph. 2:6). This unworthy (renamed Paul) was given secrets (1 Cor. 4:1, Eph. 3:3, Col. 1:27) that were, until that time, concealed in God (Eph. 3:8-9). That's right. You will find no hint of this ministry in either the Old Testament, or in the four gospel accounts, or in the book of Acts, or from Hebrews on to the end of the Bible.

(Why did Christ choose Saul? Christ's message through Saul/Paul was to be one of utter grace: no law, no baptism, no Sabbath-keeping, no covenants. Grace of such novel proportions shined brightest among the vile. And so that is where it first went. As with Saul, this message changed those it engulfed.)

This new evangel, while not displacing the Circumcision evangel (important to note), would eclipse it in sphere and in glory. While God-fearing Israelites hoped for forgiveness (Acts 5:31), a new birth (Jn. 3:7), and an earthly inheritance (Mt. 5:5), tree-worshipping sodomites were encountering justification (Rom. 4:5), a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), and every spiritual blessing among the celestials (Eph. 1:3). Do you see problems arising? Me, too.

Scratching heads, throwing rocks

So radical were the truths Paul dispensed among non-Israelites that not even Peter could fully grasp them. In 2 Peter 3:16, the disciple of our Lord writes that there are, in Paul's epistles, "some things hard to apprehend." Those Israelites who couldn't write threw rocks.

Because this evangel (Paul boldly calls it "my evangel" -Rom. 2:16) operated apart from their law, apart from their covenants, apart from their baptisms, apart from their circumcisions and (this really irked them) apart from their mediation, most Israelites (believing Israelites, mind you) hated it. Some, like you, denied that it even existed. Most vented their frustrations upon the lonely caretaker of this evangel-Paul. Again, while this new evangel did not displace the evangel of the Circumcision, it clashed with it on nearly every point. And it still does today. Like the disputes in the first century churches, most modern theological arguments stem from a failure to distinguish between these two good newses.

Take Paul's letters out of the Bible, let the book of Acts snap up against the book of Hebrews, and you have a complete, smooth, and consistent revelation of God's counsels for the earth, via the priesthood and kingship of Israel. Paul is a pause in God's program with the chosen nation. (Even Paul's name, in the Greek, means "pause.") For the Scriptures to make sense, Paul's writings must be considered a separate revelation.

Speak for thy self

You quote Jeremiah, chapter 31 and Hebrews, chapter 8 to prove that "God's law was not to be abolished for the Christian, but instead to be written on our hearts and put into practice." Again, the law cannot be abolished among people to whom it never came. When you say "the Christian" and "our hearts," you must be speaking for yourself and your fellow Israelites. Not only are these passages excerpted from writings given to your brethren (Jeremiah and Hebrews), but you are the only nation on the face of the earth to be given God's law (Rom. 2:14,17-18; 9:4). The law of God was never to be written on the hearts of any but Israelites. God deals with the Uncircumcision apart from law (Rom. 3:21). Those who receive Paul's evangel are "exempted from" the law (Rom. 7:6), most having never received it in the first place. Why would anyone "put into practice" something he is exempted from?

Again, I am not discarding God's promises to you. The key here is: to you. One of the biggest mistakes believers make today is spiritualizing (which is only a fancy word for disbelieving) God's literal promises to literal Israelites concerning a literal kingdom. Because they don't see this kingdom happening, they either pretend that it's happening ("preterism") or suppose that it won't happen ("amillennialism").

Square peg, round holeBecause blessings come now apart from Israel (Rom. 11:15), those who spiritualize Scripture imagine it will always be so. If they could grasp the difference between the evangel of the Uncircumcision and that of the Circumcision, they would not try to force so many of God's promises onto peoples and times where they do not and cannot belong.

In closing

The evangel of the Uncircumcision is not limited to non-Israelites. Rather, it calls together into one body those chosen to hear it (Eph. 1:4), who lose their national distinctions (Gal. 3:28) under the headship of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-13). This evangel must be distinguished from that of the Circumcision, which, even in the thousand years (Mt. 19:28), and in the new earth (Rev. 21:1), continues to recognize Israelites (Rev. 21:12).

Friend, God has already chosen you long ago for one or the other. Either you are a part of the bride of the Lambkin (John 3:29; Rev. 21:9), or you belong to the body of Christ (Col. 1:24). You cannot be both, any more than a bride can simultaneously be a bridegroom. Your zealousness for law, your national pride, and your puzzlement over Paul do seem to tie you to the former. But only God knows. Paul invites you to greater graces.

To everyone else who is reading this:
Have the words and actions of our Lord on earth sometimes disquieted rather than comforted you? Our Israelite friend is comforted by these words, yet puzzled by Paul. Perhaps it has been the opposite for you. Does the gospel of God's lavish grace you read of in Romans, chapters three through eight, thrill you? Do these radical doctrines suit your disposition? Does the idea of righteousness apart from law cause your spirit to soar? Does the earth seem a foreign place to your feet? Yes! But how often has your spirit been shipwrecked when trying to make this gospel fit with the rigid severity of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews, James and Revelation? Just when you thought you were saved for good, a foreign gospel pummeled your peace.

All Scriptures were written for us, but not all of them were written to us. The Jesus Who walked the earth will not be disappointed if you now turn to hear His grand, celestial secrets, whispered from heaven to an unworthy sinner named Saul. 

Sincerely, Martin.

P.S.--To the website reader: Click HERE to see the many differences between the Gospel of the Circumcision, and that of the Uncircumcision.