Letter To An Israelite on Law and Grace
A great opportunity to teach the differences
between Peter's gospel and Paul's
I 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
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 him, 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
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.
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
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).
In 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
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
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).
I 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
Jesus: I came not to demolish [the law], but to fulfill [it].
Paul: Yet now, apart from law, a righteousness of God is manifest (Rom.
Jesus: 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
Paul: Yet now we were exempted from the law (Rom. 7:6).
Jesus: Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them (the precepts of the
law), he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.
Paul: You were put to death to the law through the body of Christ (Rom.
Jesus: 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.
Paul: 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.
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.
Paul 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
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"
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
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?
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").
Because 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.
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
P.S.--To the website reader:
to see the many differences between the Gospel of the Circumcision, and that of