Romans Series Overview - Intro and 'Are There Two Evangels?'

Hi.

What gives me the right to teach on the Bible?

It’s a fair question, truly! Peter himself tells us to beware, especially in the end days, for false teachers run rampant all over the world (2 Pet. 2:1-3).  Surely I, with no professional college degree or credit in religious study, could not have anything to offer to shine light on God’s Word?

Here’s the thing: I agree! I don’t for one moment believe you should speak to any one person on the Bible and take their word as fact. Seriously, you could ask three different wise elderly women (like the kind you see sitting in their rocker over yonder by the house on the prairie) what God says will occur on and after the Day of the Lord, and each of them will reply differently. Shoot, they may not even know what the Day of the Lord even is! The only common adjective to define their answers, it seems, would be “magnificent,” or, to some atheists, “improbable.” But you can’t take their word as fact, and the reality is that they are three elderly ladies who have seen the world change in so many ways you simply can’t comprehend yet. What can you do? They made up their minds sixty years ago.

With this notable understanding of human psychology in mind, this study of Paul’s thirteen epistles is not designed with my personal feelings or thoughts on any one matter defined – my simple goal is to study Scripture itself, as well as the Scripture’s context (when was it written, where, and why.)

Before we get into all that, I feel an introduction is due. Hi! My name’s Stephen. I’m not famous, or special by any means. Born and raised in Baltimore, I have a much smaller life down here, making my way through college and looking for an apartment, just like most in their early 20s. I will be honest: I have never been to a church service outside of necessity for school, weddings, or funerals. I have, however, spent my entire elementary and majority middle school years in a Baptist school, where they beat me over the head with the Ten Commandments and grape juice.

It may sound as though I mock their faith, but I don’t want you to get the wrong idea. I do not mock the faith of any religious person. They believe what they believe and that is their complete right by the Grace of God. However, as a wannabe intellectual I believe it’s fair to challenge common perceptions, because human logic is flawed, but Christ’s is not. Under intense scrutiny, the Word of God can and does hold up flawlessly, and if you can find flaws in the common perceptions (and I know many of you do,) then maybe what’s being taught has less to do with Christ than initially believed.

This study is for anyone. Believer, unbeliever, Christian, Buddhist, whomever is interested or fascinated by history, or discussion about God. To any, I am in your debt to share this great news (Rom. 1:14, 8:12-14.) If you disagree, please, let me know, while rightly dividing the Scriptural context, and we can discuss it.

Why?

The million-dollar question: why Paul’s Letters? Why not study, say, the Sermon on the Mount, or all of Jesus’ miracles? Shouldn’t those accounts just blow us away?

Well, here’s the thing. Most of the thinking modern world is not impressed upon by “miracle.” The deification of science (as in, the treatment of scientific hypothesis as foundational fact,) and the modernist philosophies of existentialism/fatalism/nihilism, spur disbelief in Christ’s miracles for various reasons. Aside from their illogical nature (water into wine, feeding 5,000 from 5 loaves of bread, walking on water, etc.) many philosophers disregard Scripture entirely because of the kind of miracles performed. Why did Jesus “turn water into wine”? What does this represent? The fact that so many different interpretations are given leads philosophers to believe that Jesus was a con-artist, and not the Son of God.

So, mankind mourns. Jesus explains some of His miracles, but not all. And even then, the context by which these miracles are explained are typically ignored. According to many Christian sects and teachers, as well as secular historians/atheists, there is simply no way to know ‘what God means’ in His own word, so we must infer.

So… what if man’s reasoning is wrong?

Let me ask that again: what if… man’s reasoning is just… wrong?

What if (almost) everything we’ve been taught by Christianity, from multiple different “Bibles,” is incorrect? What if tradition as we know it is intentionally delaying our peace of mind? What if there’s something more at play than our surface perception?

Hence the purpose of our study. Despite not being a mockery, this is an indictment on the faith of Christendom. No, not on the individual on a personal level, but on the doctrines they have faith toward. We are going to be covering the various claims of Christianity, considering whether or not they hold ground. Moreover, we are going to perform a deep dive into Paul’s epistles, while doing our best to rely solely on the text, as opposed to the underlying assumptions enforced by the Baptists, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, and so on.

But why Paul? Shouldn’t we learn about Jesus? I mean, He’s the proposed Savior of the Scriptures – not Paul, right?

Well, yes. While it is true that Jesus is the Savior, the fact of the matter is that we do not learn of the effects of Christ’s sacrifice until reading Paul’s arguments in Romans. Moreover, before Christ’s birth in Jerusalem, God, while the Creator of all, was only speaking to Israel. The only group of people who received the Mosaic law were Israelites (Ex. 19:1-8.) Later, proselytes (anyone of another nation who became a Jew) were able to partake of some of the Israelites’ blessings, but the entire Old Testament is not written to all of mankind, but to the Jews and guests of their promised kingdom.

That is a heavy statement that will immediately shut off most, and I guess that’s fine. If God intended Scripture to reach everyone’s ears, then He would have made it reach everyone’s ears. This study is for everyone, but it is not to everyone. It is for anyone, but it is to honest truth seekers. How will you be able to tell?

Because I will be providing as much evidence as possible for you, dear reader. I will be citing my God time and time again, before inevitably covering the cited verses in great detail. This priority and dedication to the fact of a matter, verifiable by God’s Word, is what distinguishes this study. But it is not with an air to ask God any particular question. Instead, we are here to be enlightened. When we take a seat in the student’s chair, instead of the teacher’s chair, we find ourselves in a more desirable position – to receive unimaginable wealth at the hands of the Creator of the universe.

Are you interested? Good! I hope we learn together, for most of my writings will include findings I too have not previously seen. But in order to proceed, a few structural and literary concerns about the Bible itself must first be considered. Yes – even in the overview, I’m going to start citing verses to demonstrate the position and mindset that I will have, going into Paul’s letter to the Romans, from a thematic perspective.

Who Is Jesus’ Audience?

Before the death of Christ, God kept the world out of his affairs with Israel – law or otherwise. Oh, he used the world to mold Israel, sure (take their deliverance from Egypt, for example, or their multiple raids through the lands of Canaan,) but he never exclusively worked outside of the Jews. They were His chosen people, and the covenant contracted with Abraham in Gen. 12:1-3 is the beginning of Israel’s history – a promise, to Abraham, to be the forefather of a great nation. Such a grand promise is not given to any other nation! It is only Israel’s history (the good, the bad, and the ugly) documented by the Old Testament – no other nation receives this careful treatment from God.

Now, you would think that Jesus was so radical because He ‘changed’ that. But no! That’s simply not the case at all. When Jesus was on earth, He was explicitly teaching what Matthew titles the “evangel of the kingdom” (Matt. 4:23.) That is: good news concerning the kingdom that God promised to Abraham. All of Jesus’ teachings (the Sermon on the Mount, in Matt. 5-8, for example,) were in relation to the kingdom, which at the time had drawn close to Israel (Matt. 3:2.)

Jesus explicitly claimed that the goal of His life on earth was to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17,) which, again, was given to the Israelites – not the entire world. And, during His earthly ministry, says in Matthew 15:24, “I was not commissioned except for the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” He even goes as far as to call a Canaanite woman a “dog” two verses later!

If you have never conducted an in-depth, careful analysis of the original Scriptures, this side of the story may be unknown to you. It doesn’t help that one of the largest religions on the planet proclaims Jesus’ teachings as those that we must follow today! Most of the world has been completely upturned simply because they have not considered the context – who Jesus was addressing (Israel,) where He was addressing them (Jewish temples,) and when He was addressing them (before His crucifixion.)

Post-resurrection, Israel is placed on the backburner (see: Romans 9-11.) Paul, being the first member of the Body of Christ, shown the Head of Christ on the road to Damascus in Acts 9, writes letters to Rome, Ephasus, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Galatia – none of which are Jewish nations. Indeed, the apostle Paul is entrusted with a teaching of the gentiles, or all nations (Rom. 15:8-9, Gal. 2:7-8.) He was severed for an entirely separate evangel (Matt. 4:23, Rom. 1:1.)                       

The Secret Evangel

We will go over various delineations between these two evangels shortly, but first, of course, let me consider the possibility that I am wrong – that I am incorrect in my understanding that there are two separate evangels (one for Israel and one for the rest of the nations.) To fact check myself, I will dwell on a verse that many present in order to combat this assertion. This verse is Matt. 24:14, where Jesus says:

And heralded shall be this evangel of the kingdom in the whole inhabited earth for a testimony to all the nations, and then the consummation shall be arriving.

Those that cite this verse assert that, because Jesus cites that the “evangel of the kingdom” will inevitably be heralded in the whole earth, and the fact that Paul is clearly teaching to ecclesias (‘gatherings’) outside of Israel, reason that the evangel Paul must be teaching is a variation of the same ‘evangel of the kingdom,’ but in some revised format to account for the fact that Jesus died and was resurrected.

But is this truly the case? The only way that Paul can be teaching a variation of the same evangel is if there are additions, few differences, and the same conclusion for both. If, for (a theoretical) example, Peter says, “You must pray three times to enter the kingdom promised to Abraham,” and then Paul says, “You must pray five times to enter the kingdom promised to Abraham,” then we would be dealing with two additions, thus two differences, with the same agenda, and thus the same conclusion.

Yet in truth, a simple survey of Peter’s and Paul’s respective thesis statements indicates two radically different messages. We see Peter teach repentance – that those who would like to enter the kingdom must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be pardoned of their sins. To believe otherwise on the matter is condemnable (Mark 16:16.)

Yet Paul, in contrast, hardly mentions the concept of repentance (save a few times in 2 Corinthians,) or baptism (and once, he explicitly says that he was not commissioned to baptize – 1 Cor. 1:13-17!) Paul speaks not of works of baptism or repentance, but of belief, doled out by God (Rom. 1:16.) Moreover, we do not see the same conclusion for both evangels at all! Peter teaches a pardon, as in, you sinned, but God has forgiven you judicially. But a pardon can be retracted (Matt. 18:21-35,) by which the pardoned one can still be made guilty. In contrast, Paul teaches of justification, as in, because of the evangel, God sees you as innocent, judicially (Rom. 3:21-26.)

Woah, Woah, What Did You Say?

Yes, Romans will justify you, not condemn you. It’s a lot to explain, but why should I waste time trying to explain myself when we will be able to read Romans ourselves and enjoy it??

I do not wish to press this difference too greatly at present, for we will consider it in more detail when we dive into Romans’ nitty-gritty details. That said, there is a great difference between being called “pardoned” of guilt, and being “justified” as innocent! To lump these two together would simply be emotional reasoning, rooted in unfounded logic, and we should not seek to do that, here. We should seek to learn what God Himself says, for He does not misspeak, nor does He mesh incongruent concepts together for His own personal whimsy.

So, let’s move on, considering a few more notable teachings that Jesus and His disciples gave, compare them with Paul’s doctrine, and see if they hold water. For starters (and this is a minor point, but I feel fit to mention it anyway,) Peter is commissioned to preach the evangel of the circumcision by Jesus (Matt. 16:15-19.) He is commissioned inside of Israel, at the time of his recognizing the evangel of the kingdom that Jesus taught. Observe Matt. 4:18, 23–

Now, walking beside the sea of Galilee, He perceived two brothers, Simon, termed Peter, and Andrew, his brother, casting a purse net into the sea, for they were fishers.

And Jesus led them about in the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and heralding the evangel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every debility among the people.

In contrast, may we ask where Paul was commissioned? If he is commissioned inside of Israel, then we do not have so much as a figure of imagery by which we can sustain our claim. Yet we read, clearly and definitively, in Acts 9:3, that Paul is called on the road to Damascus, which is far and away outside of Jerusalem–

Now in his going he came to be nearing Damascus. Suddenly, a light out of heaven flashes about him.

How fascinating, already! If Christ wanted to clarify the similarities between Peter and Paul, then He’s surely doing a bang up job of that by calling Peter inside Israel, while calling Paul outside of Israel. Of course, we cannot solely go by this, but let it be known that Paul was on his way to one of the oldest cities outside of Israel, while Peter was delegated, for most of his experience, inside of Israel (Acts 1.)

On that note, let us consider another difference. The next point I am about to make may sound obvious as you read, yet surprisingly, this statement is completely ignored by modern Christendom! If you read the beginning of each document that makes up the New Testament, you may find yourself in for a shock at how few letters are truly directed to you. James 1:1 and 1 Pet. 1:1 both clearly state that they are writing to the twelve tribes of the dispersion – that is, the Israelites of the era (I will be reinforcing this whenever and wherever I can.)

Now, if you, dear reader, have already assumed that there is only one gospel in all of Scripture, then you will automatically presume that these letters, while written to the twelve tribes, are also now written to you (and, again, Matt. 24:14, in theory, proves this point.) Yet, in contrast, Paul explicitly clarifies that his evangel is to the nations. Observe Eph. 3:8–

To me, less than the least of all saints, was granted this grace: to bring the evangel of the untraceable riches of Christ to the nations…

And, sure enough, Ephesus is not Israel. Moreover, Paul clarifies a little more in this verse that his evangel carries the “untraceable riches of Christ!” Does the evangel of the kingdom teach this same point, though our knowledge of said kingdom was undoubtedly apparent long before Jesus was even born? Let’s find out.

I will, here, begin to distinguish between Paul and Peter a little more carefully. Throughout the first five books of the New Testament, God’s chosen people reject their allotted Messiah a whopping twenty-one times. Yes, that’s twenty-one times that Jesus is rejected by Israel (Matt. 26:48-49, Acts 7:57-60, 9:1-2, 9:23-25, 10:29-30, 12:1-23, 13:8-12, 13:50, 14:5-6, 14:19, 14:27, 17:5-9, 17:13, 18:12-17, 19:13-20, 19:23-41, 20:3, 21:27-36, 22:22-23, 23:10, 28:24-29.) After proclaiming the kingdom this many times to a group of people, and being rejected as often, God’s tactic is revealed to the nations. Here: observe Rom. 11:11–

…in [Israel’s] offense is salvation to the nations, to provoke them to jealousy.

And again, in 11:15–

For if their casting away is the conciliation of the world, what will the taking back be if not life from among the dead?

The promise given to Abraham, and the covenant contracted with Israel, is cast away, according to Paul. I don’t see Peter telling the Israelites that they are cast away! Could there, perchance, be something that the largest religion on the planet is missing? Could God, perchance, have a better plan than man’s derivations?

This is But a Sample of the Following Studies

The differences could go on for another hundred pages. Those who adhere to Peter’s evangel are called the bride of Christ (John 3:28, Rev. 21:9,) while those who adhere to Paul’s evangel are called the body of Christ (Eph. 5:29-30 – last I checked, ‘bride’ and ‘body’ are two completely different words. But what do I know?)

Peter distinguishes between races (Matt. 19:28, Rev. 21:10-12,) while Paul does not (1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27-28.)

Those in Israel had to be baptized by water (Acts 2:38,) whereas those of the nations do not 1 Cor. 1:17, 2:13.)

Jesus tells Nicodemus that an Israelite must be born again (John 3:3,) whereas Paul speaks of believers becoming a new creation entirely (2 Cor. 5:17.)

James tells you that “faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:20.) Yet Paul states the exact opposite – that you do not need to ‘work’ to keep faith alive (Rom. 4:5.)

Many have written entire books about these differences. Heck, I myself am about to embark on a long journey where I will be clarifying many of these noticeable contrasts. Most of Christendom has tried to reconcile them. Many others have accepted their differences. Some use them to proclaim that Scripture is inconsistent. But few seem to grasp, not simply the logic, but the vitality of these differences, and even fewer proclaim them anymore. Yet they are ever-present, and trying to join these differences together would require a radical shift, changing words to fit new meanings, “spiritualizing” difficult phrases, and most egregiously, mixing different phrases written years apart from each other (in some cases, we’re talking over 1500 years) in order to form new teachings.

In the future, I will be making many more differentiations between the evangel that Peter teaches, and the evangel that Paul teaches. For now, however, there is only one final point that I would like to clarify between the two. This is the fact that the law is taught in the evangel of the kingdom, and it is not taught in Paul’s evangel. Observe, first, Micah 4:2 (this is in the Old Testament, prophesying that the laws given to Moses on Mt. Sinai will in fact be the law of the kingdom promised to Abraham):

Many nations will come and say: Come, and let us ascend to the Mount of Yahweh, And to the House of the Elohim of Jacob, And He shall direct us out of His ways, So that we may indeed walk in His paths. For from Zion shall go forth the law, And the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem.

This is far from the only time that the law is said to be unveiled for Israel’s coming kingdom (Exodus goes into far greater detail on the matter, as well as Deut. 30:15-19, Ps. 119:9-10, etc.) When we look into the New Testament, we read of Jesus stating time and time again in His teachings that we are to follow the precepts of the law. Here, for example, is Jesus, during His “Sermon on the Mount,” in Matt. 5:18-19–

For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring.

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.

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

Of course, Jesus is referring to the very kingdom that had been promised for the entire Old Testament. We have no reason to believe that the subject matter has changed at this point in Scripture, as Jesus has not been crucified yet, meaning Israel has not yet committed their first rejection of their promised kingdom. I say this because the phrase “of the heavens” has been used to claim that this kingdom is actually in Christendom’s “heaven,” which is an assumption that occurs when you only read the “words in red.”

Don’t believe me? Fine, fine, I understand. At least, before you go, take a look at a few other words in red. Here’s Matt. 19:16-19–

And lo! one coming to [Jesus] said, “Teacher, what good shall I be doing that I should be having life eonian?”

Yet He said to him, “Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good. Yet if you are wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts.”

He is saying to Him, “Which?”

Now Jesus said, “These: ‘You shall not be murdering.’ ‘You shall not be committing adultery.’ ‘You shall not be stealing.’ ‘You shall not be testifying falsely.’ ‘Be honoring father and mother,’ and ‘You shall be loving your associate as yourself.’”

Let all who wish to believe Jesus’ words accept, then, that He is truly preaching for the coming terrestrial kingdom, which He is to be ruling as Messiah. Here is another example, in John 14:15–

If you should be loving Me, you will be keeping My precepts.

Indeed, those who are subject to the imminent kingdom would be told to follow His precepts! Here’s another, in John 15:10–

If ever you should be keeping My precepts, you will be remaining in My love, according as I have kept the precepts of My Father and am remaining in His love.

Of course, Jesus’ followers, James and John, also tell the circumcision to follow the whole law, which is for the subjects of the kingdom. Here’s John, in 1 John 2:4–

He who is saying that “I know Him” and is not keeping His precepts, is a liar, and the truth of God is not in this one.

And again, in 2 John 1:6–

And this is love, that we may be walking according to His precepts. This is the precept, according as you hear from the beginning, that you may be walking in it…

James, as we’ve covered before, spends a wealth of time meditating on the law – persevering to actually do the law (Jam. 1:25, 2:10-20.)

Can You Deal With the Objection Already? I’ve Got Lunch Plans…

I think it has become abundantly clear to us at this point that the vast majority of the Scriptures speak of the Mosaic law, and the fact that those under law must follow it. We’ve also thoroughly seen that this message was solely bestowed upon Israel.

Let us now return to the immediate objection: If Jesus’ message was only to Jews of that era, then why are we reading that the ‘evangel of the kingdom,’ of Abraham’s kingdom, will be heralded throughout the entire world? This objection, again, asserts that Paul is bringing the same message with slight variation, fulfilling the statement Jesus makes in Matthew.

Now, I’m no genius, but within the boundaries of what we’ve considered so far, I can only see one way that Paul could possibly prove, definitely and clearly, that he is teaching a completely separate declaration. Even if we ignored all of the circumstantial evidence – Paul’s calling and commission outside of Jerusalem, teaching salvation in spite of Israel’s offense instead of through their repentance, teaching of faith apart from works, and more – we only have one clear way to see that Paul is severed for another evangel. And here it is:

For you are not under law, but under grace.

…Wait, what?

…you also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ…

Wait a second, I–

For whoever are of works of law are under a curse…

Okay, okay, hang on. We need to slow down. So let me get this straight. If what I’m reading is correct, Paul is blatantly declaring a message that states that we, according to his message, are not under law as believers!?

Is this not the exact opposite of the statements Jesus is making concerning the law? Jesus never said “whoever are of works of law are under a curse!” Jesus never said the Israelites were put to death to the law! Jesus never even remotely declared such a thing! In fact, Jesus indicated that such a message would have been impossible for the Jews to apprehend at that time (John 3:12!)

This is, indeed, a startling contrast. Here we don’t just have Paul giving a different teaching from that of Jesus, but of every other writer in the Bible. Approximately zero other writers make such radical claims as the samples we just read from the apostle Paul (in Rom. 6:14, 7:4, and Gal. 3:10.) This means one of two things: either Paul is a false apostle going against the twelve disciples, or Paul’s evangel is simply a separate teaching, and it is not what Jesus was referring to in Matt. 24:14.

The good news is that we can rule out the idea that Paul is a false apostle before we even get started. A Jewish writer writes the book of Acts, documenting both Paul and Peter’s journeys. Moreover, Peter himself vouches for Paul (2 Pet. 3:15-16,) and Paul tells us of his personal experiences with Peter (Gal. 2.) This cross reference, again, shares an undeniable proof that these two crossed paths, and could confirm each others’ apostleship.

So if Jesus was not referring to Paul’s evangel in Matt. 24:14, and the evangel of the kingdom is truly not the evangel of the untraceable riches of Christ that Paul identifies himself with, then what is He referring to?

When we stick to the text, and do not go above what is written, we are slammed with a harsh reality, which no expositor can reconcile rationally:

The discipling of the nations has simply not happened yet.

Seriously, out of the whopping one hundred and ninety-five countries that exist today, not one can claim to be “fully Christian” (simply, the entire nation professes a belief in Jesus’ message presented in Matthew.) While the majority of these countries certainly profess a religious creed, which ties back to some sect of Christendom, the reality is that, for all of the missionary work these churches would proclaim that we do, the efforts of man to achieve this “discipling” have not led to the advent of the millennial kingdom. The will of the Father is not being done at the seat of any centralized power, as Christ proclaims will occur when His kingdom arrives (Matt. 6:10, 25:31-34, cf Deut. 32:43.) The other nations are not currently subject to Israel, as would be the case if the nations had been discipled by now (Is. 14:1-2, Rev. 2:26-27.) In the future, nations are said to openly submit to the nation (Is. 49:22-23,) and those who do not will be said to perish (Is. 60:10-12.)

All of this, of course, cannot have happened yet, as many countries are still in open rebellion against Holy Writ, and those that are refuse to acknowledge the context for many of its passages, including this Matt. 28:18-20 that may be used out of its context against the believer today. The verse itself expressly clarifies that “Jesus was given all authority over heaven and earth.” If He wished for the news of His imminent arrival to be spread over the earth, then He would have made it so. Instead, 2,000 years have passed, with radio silence concerning this kingdom.

It is oft-forgotten that this kingdom is also serving as a royal priesthood. As we know, a priest is a visual mediator between God and man. The nation of Israel will be used to bless all nations with its divine blessings (Gen. 12:3, 17:1-8, Is. 61:5-6, Hos. 1:9-11, 2:23, 1 Pet. 2:9.) Then – and only then – will this “great commission” be truly carried out. It will not be “some individuals in all the nations,” but “all the nations” which shall be discipled (do not be fooled by such additions to God’s word!) Jesus clarifies, further, at the end of the passage, that He will be “with them until the conclusion of the eon.” Of course, as we know, He is taken up a short while after giving these declarations, so He naturally cannot be referring to this eon (which will end with the seven years of Revelation – more on this in “Let's Talk About the Eons.”)

When we rightly divide the word of God, carefully delineating His self-stated markers, and let go of our attempts to “change” them or shift the goalposts for our own personal benefit on earth, we come face to face with the truth: Jesus ministry is simply not to us today. With this, it becomes imperative that we find and read Romans, in a proper translation, or in the Greek, immediately.  

okay, So if Jesus’ Ministry isn’t To us, then What Is?

If God hasn’t finished His preparation for this massive kingdom, then simple logic proclaims that He must be doing something in the background, right? He must have some kind of story going on while He prepares for the fallout and subsequent submission of the nations, yeah?

So what is it??

Let us take a look at one more major passage, and it is written by Paul. Here is Galatians 2:7-8, which, if you have read the Bible before, this verse may clearly stand out to you for the first time:

I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision…

Yes, Paul has been given one evangel to the nations (to the “uncircumcised,”) while Peter has been given one evangel to the Hebrews (to the “circumcised.”) This is one of the clearest delineations between the two separate evangels taught in Scripture that you could read. The verse, I think, speaks very clearly for itself. There does remain one objection, which has been dealt with by many expositors. This objection says, “No, no, the verse you just read speaks to the audience that Peter or Paul is speaking to – it is not describing the kind of message each one presents.”

There are two facts that poke a hole in such an argument. The first is simply that we must pay strict attention to God’s grammar, for He is correct, and does not misspeak, nor should we pridefully take it upon ourselves to assume additional words need be written. If we are going to study a text like this, we must be on the same page with simple grammatical structure. God never shuts up about “words” in Scripture. He tells us that His words are “clean words, silver refined in a kiln, fine gold refined seven times” (Ps. 12:6!) Let’s do something crazy and test that theory! If He says something, let’s take Him at His word, and see where it takes us!

By paying strict attention to grammar, we note that Paul says his evangel is that of the Uncircumcision! Notice, again: the word of. Of the Uncircumcision.

Let me ask you a clear, simple, non-leading question:

What is the difference between the music to the Mexicans, and the music of the Mexicans?

I’ll give you a minute to think about it.

Get it? Got it? Good! Yes, you are correct: if the music you are playing is to the Mexicans, then you must be literally sharing the music with a Mexican. However, if you are playing music of the Mexicans, then you are literally playing music that originates in Mexico – which means you can play it wherever you’d like, and it is still of the Mexicans!

The same is true of Paul’s evangel. If the evangel Paul teaches is to the Uncircumcision, then he can only be sharing the music with those of the nations. As such, if the verse said “to the Uncircumcision,” as many of our false translations would bear, then the objector would have a point! Yet the verse, in fact, says the evangel of the Uncircumcision, so that we recognize that the evangel does not originate in Israel.

This is, again, confirmed for us by the very first difference I stated earlier – that Paul is called outside of Israel. Moreover, you can see this in the fact that Paul’s evangel is apart from the Mosaic law (Rom. 3:21.)

The second fact that pokes a hole in our objector’s misplaced assumption is the fact that the phrase “of the Uncircumcision” is made up of two Greek words in the three oldest manuscripts of the New Testament: ho (the) and akrobystias (of-uncircumcised.) Both of these words, in Greek, are written in the genitive case, which means it is a descriptive phrase – not a directional one (that is, the dative case.) When a word in Greek is in the genitive case, then its preceding preposition is “of.” Hardly, if ever, does the genitive in scripture denote a “to” instead of an “of,” where applicable. It would be like saying “the gospel to God” (which is, of course, silly, for God does not need to declare His own good news to Himself.) The clause “of the Uncircumcision” literally describes the “evangel,” showcasing that it is, conclusively, about the kind of evangel, as opposed to its source. And, if they were the same, then why on earth would Paul distinguish between them so clearly and decisively?

This leads me, ultimately, to the purpose of our study. The Disciples continued to preach Jesus’ Earthly Ministry – which, again, is clearly divided by both Jesus and Paul (Matt. 15:24, Gal. 2:7-8) – and Paul began a separate ministry a few short years afterward. What is this news from Paul, and what does God have to say to the uncircumcised? Up until now, He had remained closely to Israel. What does He have to tell us? We will see this distinction explained within Romans, down to Paul’s verbiage, and, indeed, we will be shown a good message.

*   *   *

Paul leaves his religious institution to pursue a knowledge in Christ. I plan on doing the same thing. It is, simply, not about our creeds, but about His word. Let us place every personal feeling of ourselves aside, and, instead of theorizing about what God may have meant, let us instead consider, in full force, what God definitely said.

It is my humble privilege and honor to bring you my findings within the book of Romans. This has been a long, and wonderful journey, and with the completed series, I will have completed my current mission on this earth, to share the evangel which God would graciously give in abundance to one small and unknown individual as myself.

Who is the God of Scripture?

What does He want?

What is this special message that He seems to have delegated to only a select, careful few, called “saints?”

These letters from Paul will go above and beyond in providing a clear, declarative, and sensible answer to these otherwise impossible questions. The answers, you may find, are so supernaturally sensible, yet profound, that you would be compelled to continue to study the argument through to its logical conclusion.

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing