Why the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) is the Lord's Day, in the Bible

[GDL]

In 1 Cor 8 it says the Jewish Christians are the advanced informed ones - and the newly converted pagans are weak in faith since they are used to worshipping many gods.

1 Cor 8:​

4 Therefore, concerning the eating of food sacrificed to idols, we (Jews) know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us (Jews) there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him;​

I think you're taking some liberties here. I don't see any warrant to insert "Jews" as you have.

• Acts18:11 says Paul had been in Corinth for 18months teaching. Acts18:4-5 says he reasoned and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
• 1Cor1:1 says Paul is writing on behalf of himself and Sosthenes.
• Paul moves in and out of "we" & "I" and it's very difficult to track what "we" is referring to.
• Some consider the "we know that we all have knowledge" in 1Cor8:1 to be Paul referring to slogans the Corinthians apparently used to justify their behavior. The NET translation puts this phrase in quotes to show this. Then 8:2 Paul answers this slogan to call such people on their supposed knowledge.
• 1Cor8:4 & 6 can just as easily be a collective "we" and "us" being at minimum Paul and the Jewish and Greek Corinthians he had taught for 18 months.
• IOW, there is really no warrant for inserting Jews as you are doing.

even non-Christian Jews knew that to be the case - not just Christian Jews.

​

Deut 6:4 “Hear, Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!​

But that Deut 6 statement is all "news" to the pagans. So then former pagans newly converted to Christianity have a bit of an adjustment to make.

..."and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

7 However, not all people have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.​

There is only one group that were accustomed to idols "until now". And that would be newly converted Christians who left their old paganism.

I'd agree that Paul is likely shifting in 8:7 to speak re: newer Christians and former pagans. But he's speaking to the more knowledgeable Christians - Jews and Greeks - to tell them how to handle the spiritual infants.

Another note re: Rom14:

• I do see how you're making the connection to 1Cor8.
• However, just being literal, Paul does not look to me to be discussing idols. He rather is discussing clean and unclean foods (Rom14:14) as I mentioned before.
• Paul doesn't speak about these herbs/vegetables elsewhere, but the LXX uses the same Greek word in Gen9:3 which refers back to Gen1.
• IMO Rom14 is a bit different issue than meat & idols. If anything, clean & unclean are Jewish regulations from Torah.
  • So, I disagree that Rom14 has to be discussing pagan issues because 1Cor8 takes up a pagan issue.

 

[GDL]

God's law condemns all mankind as we see in places like Rom 3:19 and Gal 3 - for " all have sinned" Rom 3:23.

In Romans 7 Paul says the problem is "sin" and not God's Law - which he says is "holy , just and good".

The Law that says things like - "do not covet" and "do not take God's name in vain" is not the problem according to Rom 7 - the problem is sin.

The solution is not to announce God's law to be deleted - but rather the solution is to destroy sin, provide forgiveness, death to self, the new creation to begin.

I assume you're agreeing with what I pointed out. And I agree that God's Law did precisely what He designed and implemented it to do.

To be clear, I don't see God's Law to be deleted. If anything, at this point, I see it to be broader than just to Israel. I also see it as a factor in our Christian upbringing and the future judgment of all mankind.

Where I think we all need work, is re: what points of law are important in Christ in Spirit in the NC pertaining to what I just said above.

And based upon what I just posted to you in #361 and elsewhere, I think there's much discussion to be had re: days, months, seasons, years in Gal4 and judging days per Rom14 and similar statements in Col2.

 

[HIM]

I know you do Greek phrase searches and use interlinear works. You'd have to prove this quoted statement from the Text.

Here are the verses stoicheion is used in:

NKJ Gal. 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.
NKJ Gal. 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?
NKJ Col. 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
NKJ Col. 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--
NKJ Heb. 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
NKJ 2 Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
NKJ 2 Pet. 3:12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

Can you point to even one place where Paul says the "elemental principles of this world" or "commandments of men" or "Traditions of man" are "God's commandments" or are called "the book of the law"?

Can you point to one single place where one negative comment is made about the "Book of the Law" in all of scripture?

Deut 30: if you obey the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. It is never called "The elements of this world" or "The elementary principles of this world"

By contrast Paul says "what matters is keeping the commandments of God"
Eph 6:2 Children obey your parents is further established by pointing out "'honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise"


Josh 1:

This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will achieve success.

IT is from "The book of the law" that Jesus quotes in Matt 22 - for the two greatest commandments
"Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5
"Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18



God wrote the tablets of stone with his own hand. They are not in opposition to Him. "He spoke these ten words and added no more" Deut 5:22. It is the spoken Word of God in the special case of the TEN.

Under the New Covenant as stated in Jer 31:31-34 they are written on the heart along with all the moral law of God. But even without being written on the heart - they remain the Law of God - the rule by which the entire world is judged according to Rom 3:19


Moses responds that this was on purpose that the "fear of God may be on you and that you may not sin against God"

Another example where no condemnation is placed on the "Book of the Law"


That's the New Covenant which Jer 31:31-34 also speaks of and informs us that it is that very same moral law of God that is written on the heart under the new covenant.

But the judgments are there as well as we see in Rom 6:23 "the wages of sin is death" -- still even in the NT
Rom 3:19 - the curse still there "19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;"

Gal 3 - the curse is still there - even in the NT
10 For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them.” 11 Now, that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “the righteous one will live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “The person who performs them will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law,

It can still be said of the lost today - that they are under the curse of the law which condemns all as sinners and dooms them to the second death lake of fire - and for that reason all need the gospel.

God's solution was not to curse, delete, end, terminate His Law - the "book of the Law". Rather it is to uphold His Law by paying the penalty it demands and then to to write that law on the heart. But even when it is not written on the heart it is upheld by God and its judgment on sin executed in the case of the lost who reject the gospel.

No wonder Paul says of it "our faith establishes the Law of God" Rom 3:31

The Law, the Book of the Law is the context of Galatians. The Ministry that was through it. Now the ministry is to be of the heart through the Spirit, not of tables of stone and parchment, but the fleshly tables of the heart. Not of the letter but of the Spirit.

Galatians Chapters 2 and 3 are speaking of the book of the law and then all a sudden 4 is not after the first 7 verses are continuing in respect to the law and it being our tutor and governors? And In context to the Book of the Law verse 3 says WERE in bondage under the elements of the world. Then in verse 7, still speaking of the law it says ye were in bondage but now are free. And this is said in the 2nd person plural. And then continuing in the second person plural in verses 8 and 9 he asks," But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" Then in verse 21 the Law is mentioned directly again in respect to what was previously stated in verses 8 and 9. Which would be those who desire to be under the weak and beggarly elements of the world. If it was our schoolmaster until Christ and the faith he offers, what is it now? If it was our tutor until we have come to our sonship in Him in that we have put Him on, what is it now? We were never to be people of the Book, but of His Spirit through faith. Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Job to name a few walked with God, heard His voice and kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws. And these were not of the Book but of the Spirit. As the Book is of the Spirit. Are we stuck on verse 8 and it continuing in the 2nd person plural from 7 stating, "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods." Do we really think we know or knew God without His Spirit? Know ye not ye are the Temple of and His Spirit dwells in you. Him in us, us in Him that the world might believe. For it is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure. All shall know Him from the least uno the greatest.

 

[HIM]

IT is about the 1 Cor 8 problem where former pagan - turned Christian - are very worried about meats offered to idols sold in the market place and wishing to avoid it - they eat vegetables only. Paul ends 1 Cor 8 this way -

1 Cor 8:9 But take care that this freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, the one who has knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will his conscience, if he is weak, not be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through your knowledge the one who is weak is ruined, the brother or sister for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brothers and sisters and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to sin.​

​

Rom 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to have quarrels over opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but the one who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

Not sure why it is we think we need to make that connection between 1 Cor 8 and Rom 14 when it is NOT explicitly stated. The first two verses in chapter 14 show the context of what is about to be said. By trying to make that connect between 8 and 14 we create wiggle room for the nay sayers who think we can eat whatever we want in respect to things that were not designed for food and ignore God's Sabbath. The day He kept and sanctified.

 

[HIM]

Conclusion: Chapter 14 continues a discussion re: love neighbor based upon law - commands the stronger to be gentle with the weaker on the basis of not judging them and on the basis that Christ is the judge who will judge us all - then gets back into food issues again - including clean and unclean issues which are based in law - on the basis of peace and edification in God's Kingdom in Christ. Rom14 hardly changes context from law.

Yet there obviously were food issues related to conscience. Have you never looked at Genesis or read books re: foods and kosher that observe how it looks like man was going to eat plants foods before he sinned? Do you think we're so different today when we have vegetarians and some of them are absolutely against killing animals for foods? I don't recall saying the Torah says not to eat meat. The discussion in Rom14 is that foods and drinks should not be an issue in the Kingdom that God is working to build. Consciences and peace and building the faith are the issues of our era in Christ in Spirit.

Edited: I do recognize what @BobRyan is pointing out re: 1Cor8 food sacrificed to idols & weak consciences.

Speculation....What is unclean as stated by God will remain so. Nothing has changed in respect to what is food and what is not.

Thanks. I currently have 11 English translations on screen and 2 Greek Texts & most of the time am translating Greek for some of these discussions.

As if don't bother you got this? Or should we say, you are welcome praise God!

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The Law, the Book of the Law is the context of Galatians. The Ministry that was through it. Now the ministry is to be of the heart through the Spirit, not of tables of stone and parchment, but the fleshly tables of the heart. Not of the letter but of the Spirit.

Galatians Chapters 2 and 3 are speaking of the book of the law and then all a sudden 4 is not after the first 7 verses are continuing in respect to the law and it being our tutor and governors? And In context to the Book of the Law verse 3 says WERE in bondage under the elements of the world. Then in verse 7, still speaking of the law it says ye were in bondage but now are free. And this is said in the 2nd person plural. And then continuing in the second person plural in verses 8 and 9 he asks," But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" Then in verse 21 the Law is mentioned directly again in respect to what was previously stated in verses 8 and 9. Which would be those who desire to be under the weak and beggarly elements of the world. If it was our schoolmaster until Christ and the faith he offers, what is it now? If it was our tutor until we have come to our sonship in Him in that we have put Him on, what is it now? We were never to be people of the Book, but of His Spirit through faith. Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Job to name a few walked with God, heard His voice and kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws. And these were not of the Book but of the Spirit. As the Book is of the Spirit. Are we stuck on verse 8 and it continuing in the 2nd person plural from 7 stating, "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods." Do we really think we know or knew God without His Spirit? Know ye not ye are the Temple of and His Spirit dwells in you. Him in us, us in Him that the world might believe. For it is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure. All shall know Him from the least uno the greatest.

The way I have understood the "law" to mean is more of a generic term, there are lots of laws and as you are aware they serve different purposes. Which law is being referred to depends on the context of the scripture.

In Galatians 2 it appears to me the law being referred to in in this chapter is circumcision.

Gal 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.

Gal 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

Gal 2:12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

It seems obviously to me the law being referred to is circumcision, no one is justified by keeping any law, as you know keeping God's law is an outward expression that Jesus has changed someone from the inside and want to keep God's law due to a change in heart and kept through faith and love. But in this context, it seems like the Jews were requiring Gentiles to be circumcised as justification but as Paul taught in several places in scripture circumcision is nothing and here he says we are justified through faith in Christ not the law (circumcision).

Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

 

[expos4ever]

Not true - Paul says the Law condemn all humans not just Jews and that all are under the condemnation of the law.

We know that Paul believes the Law is for Jews only based on what he writes here:

28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also?

If one is to take the internal logic of these sentences seriously, there is no escaping the fact that, in these verses at least, Paul is saying that the Law is for Jews only.

That this is the case is witnessed by the fact that no one in these threads has ever mounted a real counterargument. The best that is offered is something like "well, in Romans 3:28-29 Paul cannot possibly mean that the Law is for Jews only because over here in this other passage, he says....."

And that is precisely the avoidance strategy you have taken. Here is your attempt to veer things away from Romans 3:28-29 and focus on other texts:

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written:

“There is no righteous person, not even one;
11 There is no one who understands,
There is no one who seeks out God;...
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; ...23 "ALL have sinned"

This, of course, is textbook evasion. To offer a real counterargument to my claim about Romans 3:28-29, one would need to offer an explanation of how, all other Biblical texts aside, the text of Romans 3:28-29 could possibly be read in a manner that doesn't force us to conclude that, based on the internal logic of the 2 verses, Paul believes the Law is for Jews only.

You cannot do this, and I suggest you know it.

 

[GDL]

Speculation....What is unclean as stated by God will remain so. Nothing has changed in respect to what is food and what is not.

I guess I'd have to see your take on the typical verses like: Rom14:14-15; Acts10:9-16; 1Cor8:8; Col2:16.

As if don't bother you got this? Or should we say, you are welcome praise God!

Just FYI and a little brotherly love to save you some work.

 

[expos4ever]

Here is a pattern we see often in these threads:

1. Someone will post a Biblical text "X" and assert that, short of a translation error, the text necessarily implies a conclusion "A'. An example: I posted Romans 3:28-29 and argued that it proves that Paul believes the Law is for Jews only.

2. Someone else will come along and argue that A cannot be correct, and then support that claim based on some other text "B".

How is it not smack-your-head-into-the-keyboard obvious that, if we all believe in inerrancy, that response 2 does not, repeat does not, undermine conclusion A?

I should not have to explain this. If, as is the case with Romans 3:28-29, conclusion A is an irrefutable conclusion about the meaning of A, then if B is also irrefutably true, we are in a situation where there is clear inerrancy in Scripture! But presumably none of this believe this!

That is what is going on here - people are ignoring texts that they cannot accommodate in their view by appealing to other texts. But that is not a fair approach - they also need to explain precisely how text A can be made sense of given their view.

 

[expos4ever]

To all those who believe that the law is for Jews only, please consider this text:

For we know that students are admitted from Harvard apart from considerations of membership in the Mount Royal Golf Club; or is Harvard only interested in admitting whites? No, Harvard is interested in all races.

Now then, do these statements not force us to conclude that whoever wrote them believes that membership in this golf club is limited to whites?

I predict we will see evasion and fancy footwork, as you guys know all too well what it would mean to provide the obvious correct answer to this question. And that answer is, yes the statement does force us to conclude that the writer believes that membership in the club is limited to whites.

 

[GDL]

To keep some context here:

Elements of this world would include the Book of the Law. The issue isn't what is written in it in respect morality but the ministry. God never chose a ministry of parchment and tables of stone. That was not His intention on Mt. Sinia. The people cried out for it through fear due to their conscience condemning them. They said Moses speak to us not God lest we die. IT WAS ALWAYS TO BE FROM THE HEART THROUGH HIM.

I know you do Greek phrase searches and use interlinear works. You'd have to prove this quoted statement from the Text.

Leading to this:

The Law, the Book of the Law is the context of Galatians. The Ministry that was through it. Now the ministry is to be of the heart through the Spirit, not of tables of stone and parchment, but the fleshly tables of the heart. Not of the letter but of the Spirit.

Thanks for the clarification and reiteration. It's helpful to see it again. Now I'll focus on the underlined portion just above along with the stoicheion.

Galatians Chapters 2 and 3 are speaking of the book of the law and then all a sudden 4 is not after the first 7 verses are continuing in respect to the law and it being our tutor and governors?

Rhetorical. The context does not change.

By "governors" I assume you're referring to Gal4:2.

And In context to the Book of the Law verse 3 says WERE in bondage under the elements of the world.

That's what it says. You seem to be working/thinking/explaining through this, so I'm going to do the same.

Who's "we" in Gal4:3?

How would you translate stoicheion to make it clearer? I assume you're correlating it to the "ministry" as you said - so, the tutor/guardian (Gal3:24-25), the "stewards/guardians/governors & stewards/administrators" (Gal4:2).

Then in verse 7, still speaking of the law it says ye were in bondage but now are free. And this is said in the 2nd person plural.

"ye" - Thou, you (pl), y'all. Are you using a certain translation or just translating as "ye" yourself?

Agree that's what it says.

Why the shift to the 2pl?

And then continuing in the second person plural in verses 8 and 9 he asks," But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?"

Agree that's what it says.

Then in verse 21 the Law is mentioned directly again in respect to what was previously stated in verses 8 and 9. Which would be those who desire to be under the weak and beggarly elements of the world.

BTW, FWIW, this intermixed narrative format is a lot of work to respond to.

Having skipped over Gal4:10 - are the "days, months, seasons & years - the "weak & ______ (however you'd like to translate this) stoicheion in the Book of the Law?

If it was our schoolmaster until Christ and the faith he offers, what is it now? If it was our tutor until we have come to our sonship in Him in that we have put Him on, what is it now?

It would be better if you'd answer your own question here.

We were never to be people of the Book, but of His Spirit through faith.

I assume you mean Book of the Law and more succinctly the Law of Moses.

Would you clarify what we do now that we have the BOOK and the Spirit?

Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Job to name a few walked with God, heard His voice and kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws.

Seems a good explanation of Gen26:5. Advocates of God's Law may be pleased.

Since they were all Gentiles (incl Abram), I assume you're one of those advocates the "Advocates of God's Law" just mentioned.

How do you explain with Scripture (a quick brief would suffice) that God's Law applies to mankind?

Do you share the view that the Book of the Law was just for Israel?

And these were not of the Book but of the Spirit.

And the voice.

As the Book is of the Spirit.

Including the Book of the Law, I assume, given for God's reasons and purposes.

Are we stuck on verse 8 and it continuing in the 2nd person plural from 7 stating, "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods."

I'm not.

Do we really think we know or knew God without His Spirit?

Sticking with Gal4, did Paul know God without His Spirit? Why is he saying "ye" in Gal4:8?

Know ye not ye are the Temple of and His Spirit dwells in you. Him in us, us in Him that the world might believe. For it is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure. All shall know Him from the least uno the greatest.

OK. So, you chose to answer my post about stoicheion by sticking to a contextual explanation and not branching out to other uses in the Text. Commendable, FWIW.

Since all this work, as far as I'm concerned re: the point of this thread, really boils down to the question I've highlighted in bold above re: Gal4:10 (continuing from 4:9), Would you mind answering that question so I'm not speaking for you? Here it is again to save you some scrolling:

Having skipped over Gal4:10 - are the "days, months, seasons & years - the "weak & ______ (however you'd like to translate this) stoicheion in the Book of the Law?​

​

Another question:

• You say the issue is the ministry of the Book of the Law. Does this mean the or some of the contents of the BoL are not an issue? IOW, what is the Spirit putting in minds and writing on hearts now?

 

[GDL]

I should not have to explain this.

But maybe you should. I've put myself out there in response to your double-dog dare. Maybe one of us or all of us will learn something if you explain your views more clearly.

 

[trophy33]

To all those who believe that the law is for Jews only, please consider this text:

For we know that students are admitted from Harvard apart from considerations of membership in the Mount Royal Golf Club; or is Harvard only interested in admitting whites? No, Harvard is interested in all races.

Now then, do these statements not force us to conclude that whoever wrote them believes that membership in this golf club is limited to whites?

I predict we will see evasion and fancy footwork, as you guys know all too well what it would mean to provide the obvious correct answer to this question. And that answer is, yes the statement does force us to conclude that the writer believes that membership in the club is limited to whites.

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith."
SBS

The justification by faith apart from the works of the Mosaic Law is for all, both Jews and Gentiles. Uncircumcised basically meant not having the Mosaic Law and the covenant surrounding it.

Thats how I read the text.

 

[expos4ever]

But maybe you should. I've put myself out there in response to your double-dog dare. Maybe one of us or all of us will learn something if you explain your views more clearly.

I believe my views are explained as clearly as I can. They are quite simple: I believe the Law of Moses in its entirety, including the 10 commandments, have been retired and we receive any moral guidance we need from the Spirit. In other words.....

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter: Romans 7:6

Whether you agree with me or not, I suggest my views should now be clear, if they were not before.

As for your response to my double-dog dare, I have not read it yet, but I will.

 

[expos4ever]

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith."
SBS

The justification by faith apart from the works of the Mosaic Law is for all, both Jews and Gentiles. Uncircumcised basically meant not having the Mosaic Law and the covenant surrounding it.

Thats how I read the text.

I am a tad surprised at your reply given that I thought you shared my view that only the Jew was ever under the Law of Moses. Your reply suggests, at least to me, that you believe that somehow the Law of Moses applied to Gentiles as well. I think we all agree that justification is for both Jew and Gentile - that was never the issue.

My point is that it is irrefutable, as a matter of the logic of english prose works and what words mean, that Romans 3:28-29 shows that Paul believes the Law only applies to Jews. Do you not agree?

 

[trophy33]

I am a tad surprised at your reply given that I thought you shared my view that only the Jew was ever under the Law of Moses. Your reply suggests, at least to me, that you believe that somehow the Law of Moses applied to Gentiles as well. I think we all agree that justification is for both Jew and Gentile - that was never the issue.

My point is that it is irrefutable, as a matter of the logic of english prose works and what words mean, that Romans 3:28-29 shows that Paul believes the Law only applies to Jews. Do you not agree?

Ah, I probably misread your post, you wrote:

"To all those who believe that the law is for Jews only, please consider this text:"

So it seemed to me that you believe the law is not for Jews only and challenged those who disagree (which surprised me a bit, too). The logic of your post did not make much sense to me, but now I understand.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith."
SBS

The justification by faith apart from the works of the Mosaic Law is for all, both Jews and Gentiles. Uncircumcised basically meant not having the Mosaic Law and the covenant surrounding it.

Thats how I read the text.

No one is justified through the law regardless of which law, but as the scripture states God is the God of Gentiles just as He is for Jews and all are justified through faith. Those with faith uphold the law Romans 3:31

Paul makes a case regarding circumcision and uncircumcision and said what matters is keeping the commandments of God 1 Cor 7:19. Paul is not in conflict with Jesus or God who gave the law for His children to keep, because God defines righteous, and all of His commandment are righteous Psalms 119:172 meaning the right thing for us to do.

 

[expos4ever]

But maybe you should. I've put myself out there in response to your double-dog dare. Maybe one of us or all of us will learn something if you explain your views more clearly.

You did not address my double-dog dare, you evaded it, as all appear to do. Here it is again - it is simple, clear, understandable. Please address what I am asking, rather than providing an answer that does not squarely address my "dare". Here is the dare:

Suppose I write these words:

For we know that students are admitted from Harvard apart from considerations of membership in the Mount Royal Golf Club; or is Harvard only interested in admitting whites? No, Harvard is interested in all races.

It is a fact, yes a fact, that the logic of these sentences, as a unit, force us to conclude that, even though it is not explicitly stated, that writer of these words believes the Mount Royal Golf club only admits whites!

I double-dog dare anyone to suggest otherwise.

 

[trophy33]

Those with faith uphold the law Romans 3:31

I am pretty sure your imagination what this means will go far away from common Christian view.

Let me guess - it means keeping the Sabbath.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I am pretty sure your imagination what this means will go far away from common Christian view.

Let me guess - it means keeping the Sabbath.

This is all encompassing, and according to God and Jesus the Sabbath is part of the law, just like the commandment not to have any other gods. Its not one or the other- you break one you break them all James 2:10-12

The common Christian view is not who I serve, I serve God and what He asks of His children.

We are actually warned about some Christians in the bible...

2 Tim 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power.

The power is God as He is our Creator and Judge so following Him and what He commands is allowing God to be God, doing what we think is righteous and ignoring what God deemed righteous Psalms 119:172 is denying His power.

Anyway, this is my view of scripture and of God.