I guess the point being raised is that as circumcision was a higher law than the Sabbath, if one insists that the Sabbath is binding on Christians, one should likewise insist that circumcision is binding on Christians. Such a view, 'though incorrect, is more consistent that insisting on Sabbath keeping, but leaving circumcision up to the conscience of the individual believer.
There is no command in OT or NT for gentiles to be circumcised
There is no example of circumcision in Genesis 2 - but we do have Marriage and the Sabbath in Genesis 2.
There is no claim in actual scripture that circumcision is a 'higher law' than the Bible Sabbath. Circumcision only applies to males in Israel - so not even all of Israel were subject to it... but the Sabbath is "for all mankind" in both OT Isaiah 66:23, Isaiah 56:1-8. and in NT Mark 2:27.
We have gentile Sabbath keeping in the actual Bible in both OT and NT for all mankind and for all eternity in Isaiah 66:23
We have not ONE example of such a thing for circumcision.
How then do you even get to your premise let alone your conclusion?
Except that the work of circumcision was still performed on the Sabbath
And people sleep on the Sabbath
And people eat on the Sabbath.
And they get dressed on the Sabbath.
And they brush their teeth on the Sabbath
And the priests killed animals on the Sabbath - before the cross.
I suppose we could try to build an "odd doctrine by inference" that way about brushing teeth and getting dressed being more important than that Sabbath - but one thing we do know "
from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23 which includes "for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth" in that case.
All Israel were subject to circumcision. Although females can't be circumcised
indeed so... 'not all Israel'
, a woman was still obligated to ensure all the males in her household were circumcised. Although it would be unusual for a woman to be the head of her household
Indeed - no bible command at all in that regard.
There was no command nor law to keep the Sabbath in Genesis 2 - only the creation of it.
That is wrong on several counts.
1. The Genesis 2 text does not just say God rested - it specifically says the day was sanctified - made a holy day - it was binding on mankind then.
2. In Ex 20:11 legal code - God Himself points to Genesis 2 and says that it is THEN that the Sabbath is binding
3. Even the pro-Sunday scholars admit this is true.
4. God says that "SIN" is crouching at Cain's door and he must overcome in Genesis 4. But murder and hate are never stated as being a "sin" in the first 3 chapters of Genesis. The inference you are using does not work
5. Noah takes 2 of the unclean and 7 pairs of the clean animals in Genesis 7 - but no statement is given in Genesis 1-6 about what is clean and what is unclean.
6. Moses' readers have the other books of Moses to tell them more details about what is meant.
7. Abraham "kept my statutes, commandments and Laws" Genesis 26:5 not explicitly written out in Genesis - but included later in the other books of Moses.
8. Christ Himself addresses the "MAKING" of BOTH the Sabbath and mankind in Genesis saying
the Sabbath was "MADE" for mankind" (the very thing you deny) Mark 2:27
9. Is 66:23 shows that the OT scope for the Bible Sabbath was "ALL mankind" just as we see for gentiles in Isaiah 56:1-8
Bible details matter.
Likewise, there was no command to marry - only an example of it. Which does not mean that marriage was "undefined" or unknown. And the Laws about adultery not "unknown" even though not mentioned.
Even the pro-Sunday scholars admit that all TEN of the TEN Commandments are binding on all Christians.
Eph 6:2 shows that the TEN Commandments are still binding on all the saints - TEN as a unit.
Paul did not sin by not marrying but not marrying is not a violation of any of the TEN Commandments - the moral law of God - neither is it violation of marriage - but adultery is violation of marriage for both Jew and gentile
Refer to Genesis. All Abraham's (male) descendants were to be circumcised, not just those descended from Jacob (Israel), as later commanded in Exodus and Leviticus.
Abraham is never said to be the "father of gentiles" ... the command you are referencing is merely to the "children of the flesh" and does not include gentiles. Millions on earth besides Abraham. Your argument is not from scripture but rather "by extreme inference alone".
The point remains - never in the Bible are gentiles required to be circumcised - either OT or NT.
Esaus' decedents wiped out.
This has already been demonstrated, and even Jesus referred to it to demonstate it was not wrong to heal on the Sabbath.
Yes before the cross the Sabbath was fully observed when one was doing acts of mercy. It would be like says "someone brushed their teeth on Sabbath so brushing teeth is a "higher law" than Sabbath. Such "reaches" such extreme stretching of the argument and point - does not hold up.
The day was set apart in Genesis 2 as the day God rested and blessed and made holy. In Ex 20:11 the point is made by God that the Genesis 2 act "alone" makes it binding on all mankind.
Christ confirms in Mark 2:27
We see gentiles obligated to the Sabbath commandment in Isaiah 56:1-8
And "all mankind" scope for Sabbath in both OT and NT texts - Isaiah 66:23, Mark 2:27
The point remains.
I'm not denying this. I'm saying its not binding on Christians. Christ is our Sabbath.
Indeed "Christ is our Sabbath" would make it binding on all Christians - but as has been pointed out , your "Christ is our Sabbath" text is merely "you quoting you".
Colossians 2 is about not being deceived by the "Commandments of men" - it is not about rejecting the word of God.
As for those who do not marry
It is certainly not a fulfillment of the command given in Genesis to fill the Earth,
Again your argument by "extreme inference" having no such command saying it is violation of God's Word if you do not get married is nonsense since Adam and Eve on day one were created in the married relationship. Unlike all other humans.
Having no Bible texts saying what you propose - you rely on extreme inference alone.