There was a significant lack of knowledge in the early years of the church. The cross and resurrection changed everything, resulting in the elimination of a covenant that had been in place for centuries. Consider if a Jewish person who believed in Jesus after the cross ... but still also believed the law of Moses was still to be applied for all Jewish people ... just exactly what did that mean for them? How did the blood of Jesus fit into that compared with the continued attempts to be doers of that old word? And what did it mean for Gentiles who never had the law?

When encouraging them to work at fulfilling that law, faith alone would be considered insufficient for salvation and justification. Righteousness would continue to be pursued by works plus faith. It formed a mindset that people such as Abraham and Rahab were not justified by believing, but by works being added in order to make faith perfect. How is this much different from the legalistic mumbo jumbo many of us have heard in works-based churches for so long? Let's take a closer look at the Rahab factor in the context of being justified.

--Available on Amazon - "Clash of The Covenants: Escaping Religious Bondage Through the Grace Guarantee" https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0713ZSKY7