Critique of Bob Enyart's "Plot of the Bible"

Bob Enyart is very good at presenting the basic truths of the gospel and relating them to our society, as he did on his TV show--but as a theologian he is way off base. I certainly can't address all of the ideas he propounds in his lengthy manuscript, "The Plot of the Bible," but I don't need to. A lot of the material he presents is good Biblical teaching, and one can learn much from reading it. The main problem I have with the book concerns just a few of his ideas. Unfortunately, the ideas I have problems with are the very central ideas of his book.

So I'm going to address just a few of Bob's central ideas and arguments. He relies very heavily on just a few verses to establish the main idea of his book, and everything flows from that. I'll concentrate most of all on those few verses.

Here's Bob's main thesis about the Plot of the New Testament, the basis of the idea which he says clears up so many Bible difficulties and doctrinal disagreements:

The plot: God had a plan. It was to send his Son, Jesus, to his people, Israel. If Israel accepted Jesus, God would then use Israel to take the gospel to the whole world.

So God sent his Son to Israel. But they rejected him, thus foiling God's plan. But not God's purpose. For when Israel rejected Christ, God abandoned them as his means of evangelizing the world and instead chose another avenue. He called the apostle Paul to take the gospel to the Gentiles, and through him God established the Church, also called the Body.

So there was a big "plot twist" in the New Testament. When Israel rejected God, he in turn rejected them (although not permanently), and instead of using Israel to take forth the gospel, God through Paul established another group to do it--the Body.

Okay. But now here's where it gets weird. Not only does Bob Enyart say that God changed the plan from using Israel (Plan A) to using the church (Plan B), but Enyart also says that at the time of this change God also changed the GOSPEL that was to be taken to the world. Under Plan A Israel was to remain under the law and was intended to bring the Gentiles into the Kingdom of God as PROSELYTE JEWS, believing in Jesus but also following the Old Testament laws. It was only when Israel completely rejected their Messiah Jesus Christ that God changed the means of salvation to grace instead of law. And when did this rejection by the Jews and change in gospels occur? It was in the book of Acts when the Jewish nation began persecuting the apostles and the other Jewish Christian believers, killing Stephen and bringing about the Diaspora (the flight of Jewish Christian believers into other nations). That was when God in turn rejected Israel and called Paul to go to the Gentiles.

Okay. There you have it. That's Bob's Plot idea. And I can actually go along with most of it. But what I reject, based on the Bible, is the whole idea of a change from one gospel to another AT THE TIME OF THE CONVERSION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. The implications of this idea are far-reaching and cause much error.

What Bob says this change in gospels means is that Peter, James, John, and the rest of the apostles other than Paul (I call them "the Twelve," or "the Jerusalem apostles") were living under the law, not under grace, with no destiny ahead of them other than to continue under the law and bring the Gentiles in also to live under the law along with them. The idea of grace came in only when Paul was given his commission to the Gentiles. And EVEN THEN, the Twelve and the other Jewish believers who had become Christians before the conversion of Paul, WERE STILL SUPPOSED TO LIVE UNDER THE LAW FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, AND NOT UNDER THE NEW COVENANT OF GRACE THAT PAUL BEGAN TO PREACH.

Since the Twelve, and those who were saved before the coming of the New Covenant with Paul, always remained under law, they never were sent to preach the gospel of grace. That was for people who were saved after the New Covenant came in. After the arrival of the New Covenant no one was to be saved under the law any more--even Jews saved after the beginning of the New Covenant were saved under grace and not law. So the Twelve no longer had any mission of evangelism. They just remained among those who had been saved under the Old Covenant and ministered to them.

Therefore when apostles from among the Twelve--such as Peter, James and John--wrote their epistles that we now have in the Bible, they wrote only to Old Covenant believers. The Twelve were always part of the Old Covenant and spoke only to believers from the Old Covenant--Jews converted before the conversion of Paul.

THEREFORE the books of the New Testament not written by Paul are not part of the New Covenant. They were not written for New Covenant believers like us, and like everyone converted since the time of Paul (whether Jew or Gentile). In effect then, Bob Enyart's teaching leaves us thinking that the major part of the New Testament is not really for us to follow today--it was just something written by those old apostles of the Old Covenant for old believers who happened to have been converted before Paul came onto the scene. This effective nullification of most of the New Testament is the greatest harm I see resulting from Enyart's teaching. And since, as Bob Enyart says, ideas have consequences, I think he badly needs to reconsider some of his own theological ideas.

Well, now it's time to turn to the scriptures Bob uses to try to prove his whole idea about two gospels in the New Testament--Paul's gospel of GRACE versus the gospel of LAW preached in the other books of the New Testament. Enyart relies very heavily on just a few scriptures to do this, especially Acts 10-11, Acts 15, Galatians 2:7-9, Acts 21:20-26, and Matthew 28:19-20.

Here's how Bob develops his basic Plot idea: In Acts 10 Peter is told by God in a vision to eat unclean foods, and then is led to visit the Gentile Cornelius. Peter resists both these things, because he is still following the regulations of Jewish law.

Then later In Acts 15 we see that a disagreement arose among some of the early Jewish Christians about whether new Gentile converts had to be circumcised. There was even a conference called to debate the matter. Enyart says this whole disagreement about circumcision is evidence that the Twelve were at that time still living under the law, with its requirements for circumcision and so forth.

The dispute over circumcision is resolved, and Paul and the Twelve agree (Gal. 2:7-9) that Paul is to preach the "gospel of the uncircumcision" (KJV) and the Twelve are to preach the "gospel of the circumcision" (again KJV). Enyart thinks that two different gospels are being spoken of here.

Later still, in Acts 21:20 it says that there were many from among the Jews who believed in Christ, and they were "all zealous of the law." So Bob says that even at that later date the Old Covenant believers were STILL living under the law.

Also Bob says that Jesus taught the law, and in Matthew 28:20 commanded the disciples to go teach the nations to do "all that I have commanded you," so, according to Bob, it must have been God's Plan A to have the disciples continue to live under the law and teach others to do so.

Those five scriptures then are the backbone of Bob's whole idea of two gospels in the New Testament: Peter's refusal, the Acts 15 council, the seeming mention in Galatians of two gospels, the Jews being "zealous for the law," and the Great Commission. But do these evidences for Bob's Plot really hold up under scrutiny? Let's look at them.

As to Peter's refusal to eat unclean food or go into a Gentile's house, I agree that at this early date he refused because he was still living according to the law. But we must ask: WHY THEN DID GOD ASK PETER TO DO THESE THINGS? What was God trying to teach Peter by asking him to do them? Maybe God was trying to teach Peter that now Peter himself was supposed to be free from the law! Is there any Biblical evidence that maybe this is what God was doing? We'll find out shortly.

Now what about the Acts 15 council? Enyart says that that is also evidence that Peter and the other Jewish believers were living under the law. His reasoning goes like this:

...the Twelve themselves continued to keep the law themselves, [sic] which is the only possible reason why they would consider whether or not the Gentiles should do so. After all, if the Twelve and their followers were not under the law, there is no conceivable reason why they would ever consider whether or not the Gentiles should "keep the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). (The Plot, p. 4-25, italics and boldface in original)

So Bob says the fact that the Twelve called the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 is proof that they themselves were living under the law, because if they weren't, they wouldn't have needed a council to decide if the Gentiles should too. That's the only possible reason they would have called the council, according to Bob.

Well, it may be the only possible reason Bob can think of, but there IS a different reason they could have called the council. Let's look at what was going on there.

In Acts 15:1 it says, "But some men came down [to Antioch] from Judea and were teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." But Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, so they all went up to Jerusalem to see what Peter and the other apostles there would say. There they all came together and had a council to discuss it.

In the council it says they debated, then Peter got up and said that when God had sent him to Cornelius he had shown that "he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith" (verse 9). Notice what Peter says: NO DISTINCTION between Jews and Gentiles! Does this sound like a man who believes that Jews have to follow one gospel and Gentiles another? No!

Peter then goes on to say that they should not put a "yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear. But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will" (verses 10-11). He says circumcision, which symbolizes the law (Gal. 5:3), is a "yoke" that even the Jews themselves cannot bear. It doesn't sound like he's recommending that ANYONE be put under that yoke! And he says again that Jews and Gentiles are both saved in the same way, through grace.

Now Enyart does try to explain away these verses in his Plot (p. 3-33). (Problem verses to be explained away? I thought Bob's ideas would do away with problem verses!) But his attempt is very unconvincing. He says that when Peter calls the law a "yoke" that the Jews couldn't bear he means that Israel had been rejected by God. And Bob tries to explain away where Peter says that Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same way by saying Peter was just using the Gentiles as the paradigm with which to compare the Jews ("just as they"), implying that somehow salvation by grace was more true for the Gentiles than the Jews.

Anyway, that's how Bob tries to explain away Peter's statements. But Bob's explanations avoid the clear meaning of Peter's statements that there is "no distinction" between Jews and Gentiles, and that both are saved in the same way--not under two different gospels, one of LAW and one of GRACE!

So does this mean that Peter and the other Jerusalem apostles (the Twelve) were not living under the law at that time? If so, then what other possible reason could they have for calling the council? That's easy. Notice in Acts 15:1 it says that "some men" started claiming that the Gentiles had to be circumcised. Who were these men? Not the Twelve apostles. That's clear from the letter the apostles drafted as a result of the council, in which they wrote to the Gentile believers, "we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, ALTHOUGH WE GAVE THEM NO INSTRUCTIONS..." (verse 24). So it was not the apostles that went to Antioch and started making trouble; it wasn't even the apostles that SENT those men there to advocate circumcision for the Gentiles.

Well, who was it then that was saying the Gentiles should be circumcised? The Bible tells us, right there in Acts 15:5. "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.'" That's who it was, not the apostles.

And that's why the Jerusalem apostles called the council. They had two groups fighting with each other: the believers from among the Pharisees on one hand, and Paul and Barnabas on the other. They just called a meeting to come together and allow everyone a chance to state their arguments. They wanted everyone to have a chance to be heard.

But even if Peter and the others of the Twelve WERE living according to the law up to that time, it doesn't matter. Because if they were, their minds were changed as a result of that council. This is clear from Peter's statements that there is "no distinction" between Jews (himself included) and Gentiles, and that they are all saved in the same way.

Whether or not Peter was living by the law up until the council, it is crystal clear that at a later time in his life he was not. How do we know? Because in Galatians 2:14 Paul said so. In this verse Paul tells us about another time when he and Peter were together. Paul says:

I said to Cephas [Peter] before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (Gal. 2:14)

Paul says Peter at that time was LIVING LIKE A GENTILE! So obviously he didn't live his whole life under the law, as Enyart claims.

Well, on to the third scripture passage Bob uses as evidence for his Plot: Galatians 2:7-9. In Galatians 2:7 Paul says that Peter and the others apostles "saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter."

It sounds like two different gospels here, doesn't it? It sounds as if Paul felt that he was sent to preach uncircumcision, and Peter was to preach circumcision. This is THE main verse from which Bob derives his idea of two gospels being in effect at that time. But his interpretation of the verse is wrong.

First of all--and Enyart says this in his book--the words "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" in this verse don't refer to the act of circumcision itself. In this verse they really mean "Jews" and "Gentiles." What the verse is saying is that Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. And Bob acknowledges that this is what this verse means.

But Bob also thinks that not only were Paul and the other apostles sent to two different groups, they were sent with two different gospels. After all, the verse does seem to mention two gospels. But is this a good interpretation?

The reason it sounds like two gospels is because of the words "of the," repeated twice in the verse. If Paul had said, "I agreed to take the gospel to the Gentiles, and Peter decided to take the gospel to the Jews," there would be no reason to think they were talking about two gospels--just about taking "the gospel" to two different groups of people.

But in the King James Bible, which Enyart uses, Paul is quoted as saying that he was given the gospel "of the" Gentiles and Peter was given the gospel "of the" Jews. The phrase "of the" is the crucial phrase that makes it seem as if it might be two gospels.

"Of the" is how the King James translates it. But not every Bible does so. For example, the Revised Standard says, "I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised." So it's not even clear that "of the" conveys the exact meaning of the original Greek.

Furthermore the NASB translation has it this way: "seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter [had been] to the circumcised..." This points out the fact that the word "gospel" does not even appear twice in that verse in the original Greek.

But we don't have to examine the original Greek to see that "of the" doesn't have to mean two different gospels. Even in English we could think of an example where in context it wouldn't have such a meaning. For example, imagine two guys who decide to organize a nationwide association for playing horseshoes. They plan to organize teams of horseshoe players in cities all across the country. But that's a big job, so they decide to split it up. One guy will take the eastern half of the country and the other will take the western half. There. That's better, they say. And one guy says to the other, "You'll be in charge of the horseshoes of the western U.S. and I'll be in charge of the horseshoes of the eastern U.S." Notice the guy said "of the." But does that mean that the game of horseshoes the western guy is going to teach people will be different from the horseshoes the eastern guy is going to teach? Are they going to use different rules, a whole different game of horseshoes for the east and for the west? No. Obviously, when the guy said "of the" he was only referring to the groups of people each horseshoe guy was in charge of--easterners or westerners. "Of the" doesn't have to mean two different games of horseshoes--AND it doesn't have to mean two different gospels!

So whether it's "of the" (KJV) or "to the" (RSV, NASB), Bob Enyart is hanging way too much meaning on Galatians 2:7 when he tries to use it as the main verse that tells us that Paul and the other apostles preached two different gospels. All Galatians is talking about is the fact that Paul had a ministry to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. There is just no clear statement in this verse that there are two gospels.

Now we turn to the fourth of the five main scripture passages Bob uses to support his Plot idea: Acts 21:20-26. This passage talks about another time when Paul went up to Jerusalem. On this occasion, when Paul arrived, the believers there said to him, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law" (verse 20, KJV). There you go, says Bob--proof that even by the time of Acts 21 the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were still living according to the law! Therefore it must be that they were living under a different gospel than the Gentile Christians.

But here again Bob is extracting way too much out of a single verse. First of all, the KJV here is clearly not the best translation. The RSV says, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are AMONG the Jews of those who have believed..." The word "among," omitted in the KJV, is definitely in the Greek text (in Greek it's the little word "en"). Why does this matter? First of all, because when it says there were thousands of believers among the Jews, and that they are all zealous for the law, we cannot be sure who "they" is referring to--does it mean the believers? Or does it mean the non-believing Jews, "among" whom the believers lived? It seems that the "they" who were so zealous may be referring not to the believing Jews, but to the other Jews of the community. Why? Because if we read on we see that the person speaking to Paul (his name is not given) is afraid that "they" will hear Paul has come! Why is this person so afraid that "they" will hear Paul has come? Who are "they"? It's either the believing Jews or the non-believing Jews.

As we read further we see that the fears of the person who spoke to Paul are justified, for in verses 27 and following we see that some Jews seized Paul in the temple and proceeded to try to kill him (verse 31)! These people who were trying to kill Paul seem to be the same "they" that the believer who spoke to Paul was so afraid of. AND from the text the "they" whom the believer was afraid of is the same "they" who he said were "zealous for the law." So whoever it was that was said to be zealous for the law, they ended up trying to kill Paul. But that doesn't sound like very Christian behavior, does it? So it becomes pretty questionable to think that the "they" who the believer said was zealous for the law and of whom he was also so afraid were the Christian Jews.

I can't prove that that's the correct interpretation of this passage, but it just shows that Bob's is not the only possible interpretation, which makes it foolhardy to put so much emphasis on this verse as a "proof" that the original Jewish believers lived under a different gospel.

Other interpretations are possible too, for example it could be that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem followed the law zealously not because they were under a covenant obligation to do so, but simply in order to avoid offending the other Jews living there. Sometimes things were done at that time for precisely that reason, as Bob states in his book. This interpretation would also go along with the actions Paul took in verses 23-26.

But let's move on to the last of the five main passages Bob uses to support his ideas: Matthew 28:20. In this passage we have the Great Commission, and in verse 20 Jesus tells the disciples to go into all the world, "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." Now Bob points out that while Jesus was on earth he commanded people to keep the law. Therefore when Jesus said to go to all nations and teach them to do everything Jesus had commanded, that included keeping the law. That shows, says Bob, that the original Plan A (which was in effect until the Jews totally rejected and persecuted the Christians and God changed to Plan B using Paul) was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews to all live under the law.

It's easy to show that when Jesus said "all things I have commanded you" he didn't mean literally everything. Just look at Luke 9:21. There Jesus is talking to his disciples, and then Peter says that Jesus is the Christ. In response it says that Jesus "charged and commanded them to tell this to no one..." Also in Matthew 16:20 Jesus "strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ."

So one command Jesus gave his disciples was to tell no one that he was the Christ. Does this mean then that when Jesus said in Matthew 28 to teach all nation to do everything he had commanded his disciples that he meant that they should go and teach all nations to tell no one that Jesus was the Christ?? Of course not! And yet it was a command that Jesus gave his disciples while he was with them.

So if you defend Bob Enyart's interpretation of Matthew 20:28, let me ask you--how do you explain the fact that the disciples were no longer supposed to obey or teach Christ's command to tell no one he was the Christ? Well, you might say, when Jesus said "all that I have commanded you" he obviously meant only the things he had commanded that were still RELEVANT. Fine. I agree. But the point is that any argument you use to exclude Jesus' command to tell no one can also be used to exclude Jesus' commands to follow the law.

Because it was only on a few occasions that Jesus explicitly said to follow the law! Most of what Jesus taught was not the law! That will come as a surprise to Bob Enyart though, because he says Jesus taught only the law.

It's clear that on certain occasions Jesus told people to keep the law or implied that they should (Matt. 8:4, Matt. 5:18-19, Matt. 23:2-3, etc. See The Plot pp. 2-4 to 2-6). But Enyart says Jesus taught nothing but the law. Because of course, according to Enyart, the covenant of grace did not even appear until Paul, when God had to abandon his Plan A of using the law for everybody.

One way Bob tries to prove that Jesus taught only law is by pointing out that in the gospels Jesus never mentioned the word "grace." But does that make a difference? Let's look at John 1:14, 16-17.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of GRACE and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. And from his fulness have we all received, GRACE upon GRACE. For the law was given through Moses; GRACE and truth came through Jesus Christ.

So when Jesus came to earth he came "full of grace," and those who knew him "received" of his grace. Furthermore, John clearly shows that Jesus was not like Moses, who brought only law. Jesus brought grace.

Bob Enyart does try to explain away this passage (another problem text??) by saying that John wrote later than the other gospels and that his mention of grace is very brief (The Plot, p. 8-5). So I guess because this passage is brief, Enyart wants us just to ignore it.

But another way Bob tries to prove that Jesus taught only law is by pointing out places where Jesus commands that his followers produce "works" of some kind. Grace is not based on works, Enyart reasons, therefore any time works are said to be necessary for salvation, it's law.

Bob lists some of these demands by Jesus for works in The Plot (pp. 7-9 to 7-11). It's interesting to note, however, that if these are law, then Paul is also teaching law when he says that "neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10; see also Gal. 5:21, Eph. 5:5), since that's also a statement based on works. But if Paul is teaching law, then Enyart's claim that Paul taught only grace is false.

What this actually shows is that Enyart is wrong when he says requiring works for salvation is law. So this "proof" that Jesus taught only law is also wrong.

As I have already stated, Jesus did command obedience to the law on occasion. But he did not teach only law. Jesus was the transition from law to grace, so he taught the validity of both. I'll now give some examples where he taught grace.

According to Bob, the law is based on "faith plus works" (The Plot pp. 7-12, 7-4; actually that's incorrect--Paul says the law is based on works only: Galatians 3:12), and Bob says grace is based on "faith only" (this is correct). Bob tries to use places where Jesus requires works to show that he taught only the law. Unfortunately Bob totally ignores the fact that in many places Jesus talked about people being saved by faith only, with no mention of works. Here are some of them:

In John 11:25 Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who BELIEVES in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and BELIEVES in me shall never die." Notice that he said salvation comes through BELIEVING. He didn't say it came from believing plus works. Jesus here is teaching faith only, and that's grace.

In Luke 7:50 Jesus "said to the woman, 'Your FAITH has saved you; go in peace.'" Again Jesus preaches salvation by faith, not works. And there are other places where the same thing is taught in the gospels: John 6:40, John 1:12, John 20:31, Mark 16:16, and Luke 8:12.

And then there's the matter of forgiveness. Bob says Paul taught "GOD forgives first" BEFORE we have to do anything, so that's grace. But Bob says Jesus taught that WE have to forgive others first, before God will forgive us, so in Jesus' teaching forgiveness is a matter of works (law), not grace.

But it's just not so. In the parable of the unmerciful servant that Jesus told in Matthew 18:23-35, God (the king) forgives the servant first, and then the servant is expected to forgive others. Bob never explains why Jesus would teach in this parable that God forgave first.

Actually I think this parable is a good illustration of how the teachings of the whole New Testament fit together in one single gospel. First, God forgives us, when we believe on Jesus Christ. But then we are expected to forgive others and bring forth other good fruits in our works (Rom. 7:4). We're supposed to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). Why with fear and trembling? Because anyone who claims to have faith but has no good works will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven (Eph. 5:3-5). The king's forgiveness for the servant in the parable was retracted when the servant failed to produce good fruit.

So salvation is first given to each of us on the basis of no works, as Paul says. But once we are saved, we are expected to produce works (not on our own power, but through the Holy Spirit) as a result of that faith, as James says. It all fits together in one gospel throughout the whole New Testament.

Whenever you read or listen to someone giving Bible interpretation, it's always a good idea to keep one question uppermost in your mind: Which parts of what this guy is saying are actually IN THE BIBLE, and which parts are just this guy's INTERPRETATION? You've got to constantly be looking for that. For example:

Bob points out that Paul uses the term "my gospel." Bob takes this to mean that God gave Paul a gospel that was different from the gospel the other apostles preached. But that's just what Bob says. Is there anything IN THE BIBLE to show that when Paul said "my gospel" he was differentiating his gospel from what was preached by the other apostles? No. Paul never talks about "Peter's gospel"; he never says that the other apostles have a different gospel that they're supposed to be following. He doesn't mention it. It's just not in there.

So why does Paul talk about "my gospel"? It does seem as if he's differentiating his gospel from some other gospel. Well, if we look to see what's actually IN the Bible, we see that Paul does mention "other gospels." But the "other gospels" he mentions are not other true gospels preached by the other apostles. The other gospels are FALSE GOSPELS:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to A DIFFERENT GOSPEL--NOT THAT THERE IS ANOTHER GOSPEL, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-8; see also 2 Cor. 11:4)

These FALSE gospels are what Paul is differentiating his gospel from. Incidentally, Paul uses the term "our gospel" as often as he uses "my gospel"--both are used three times in his writings--which further undercuts Enyart's interpretation of "my gospel" as meaning a gospel that was revealed uniquely to Paul. For then what would "our gospel" mean? "The gospel we preach"? Well, then "my gospel" could just as easily mean "the gospel I preach," not "a gospel uniquely revealed to me."

TO SUM IT ALL UP THEN: There is no reason to think that Jesus told his disciples that after he was gone they should go teach others to keep the law--because, for one thing, Jesus himself preached grace. It's true that it took some time for Peter and the others to learn the whole meaning of everything Jesus had taught them, but by the time of the Jerusalem council we see Peter preaching that there was NO DIFFERENCE between any Jews and any Gentiles, and that all were saved in the same way--by grace. And we see that after this Peter himself lived "like a Gentile," according to Paul. Bob Enyart's forced interpretations of Gal. 2:7 and Acts 21:20 cannot themselves prove that there were two gospels at that time, and the only gospels Paul differentiates his gospel from are false gospels; he makes no mention of another true gospel that was only for the other apostles. Jesus, Paul, Peter (1 Pet. 1:9), and other New Testament authors preached grace: salvation through faith. And Jesus, Paul, and Peter and the others also preached works--not as law, but as a result of faith. The whole New Testament fits together into ONE gospel.

But after going through all this, you might be thinking, "Wouldn't it be great if there was just ONE SINGLE VERSE that could disprove Bob Enyart's whole "Plot of the Bible" error? One verse that could clear up all the confusion promulgated by Enyart's misguided theology? Well, I've got a verse for you. And it's not some obscure verse; in fact it's the most famous verse in the whole Bible--John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

These are the words of Jesus, and in these words he's teaching salvation through FAITH (believing); he's not teaching works! And salvation through faith only is grace! So if Jesus was teaching even before his death and resurrection that salvation is by grace, then Bob Enyart's notion that grace came only with Paul is blown out of the water.

If I could say one thing to Bob Enyart I'd say: Know yourself. Stick with what you're good at--presenting the basic truths of the gospel on TV or radio. Don't try to be a theologian, because as a theologian you don't quite cut it.