I'm tired of the "abolished" argument...

Soyeong said:

Every time the Greek word "dogma" is used outside of Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15, it refers to something other than the Mosaic Law, so you need to make the case for why we shouldn't also interpret those verses as referring to the Mosaic Law instead of just insisting that they do.

Click to expand...

That is false logic, false construct and false separation.

Just because "ordinances" are used to refer to something other than the Mosaic laws does not mean the Mosaic laws are not ordinances.

Just because "pickled" is used to refer to some vegetables other than cucumbers in my cookbook does not mean the cucumbers are not "pickled" (in other recipes in the same book).

Clare73 said:

That is false logic, false construct and false separation.

Just because "ordinances" are used to refer to something other than the Mosaic laws does not mean the Mosaic laws are not ordinances.

Just because "pickled" is used to refer to some vegetables other than cucumbers in my cookbook does not mean the cucumbers are not "pickled" (in other recipes in the same book).

Click to expand...

I agree that just because every other use of the word "dogma" refers to something other than the Mosaic Law doesn't necessarily mean that it can't also be used to refer to the Mosaic Law, however, it does mean that you need to give justification for why "dogma" should be interpreted in Ephesians 2:15 as referring to the Mosaic Law instead of interpreting it in accordance with the context of how it used in other verses. The Greek word "nomos" is the word that is commonly used in reference to the Law of Moses in the NT, so if Paul were referring to the Law of Moses, then why would he use a different word that everywhere else it is used is in refence to something other than the Law of Moses?

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law, and in Romans 3:31, Paul confirmed that our faith does not abolish the law, but rather our faith upholds it, so if Ephesians 2:15 were referring to the Mosaic Law, then that would mean that Paul was contradicting himself and saying that Jesus lied. In Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are eternal. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to abolish God's law, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for him a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, everything spoke by God is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness, that the many of God may be complete, equipped to do every good work. In Ephesians 2:10, we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do God works, so it doesn't make sense to interpreted a few verses later as saying that Jesus abolish his laws for how to do good works. God did not make any mistakes when He gave the law, so He would have no reason to abolish His own eternal laws. God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Instructions for how to express God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God.

So I've given a number of reasons why it wouldn't make sense to interpret Ephesians 2:15 as referring to the Mosaic Law, so please explain why you think that those reasons are wrong and then give your own reasons for you think it would make sent to interpret "dogma" as referring to the Mosaic Law beyond simply insisting that it is.

Soyeong said:

I agree that just because every other use of the word "dogma" refers to something other than the Mosaic Law doesn't necessarily mean that it can't also be used to refer to the Mosaic Law, however, it does mean that you need to give justification for why

Click to expand...

Who made that rule?
I don't see that rule in either the NT nor hermeneutics.

for why "dogma" should be interpreted in Ephesians 2:15 as referring to the Mosaic Law instead of interpreting it in accordance with the context of how it used in other verses.

Click to expand...

It is interpreted in accordance with the context of how it is used in other verses, because it has more than one meaning, which makes it in accordance with those other verses.

The Greek word "nomos" is the word that is commonly used in reference to the Law of Moses in the NT,

Click to expand...

And who made the rule that nomos is the only word that can be used for "law"?

Speaking of which, the first meaning of nomos is "usage," and the second meaning is "custom" and the third meaning is "law;" i.e., law as prescribed by custom or by statute.
Shall I also "pretzelize" nomos regarding "law," as you do "decree" and "ordinance" regarding "law"?

so if Paul were referring to the Law of Moses, then why would he use a different word that everywhere else it is used is in refence to something other than the Law of Moses?

Click to expand...

Previously addressed. . .as a courtesy, I will repeat it.
Because the law of Moses is both a decree from Sinai as well as an ordinance to be obeyed.
It's not rocket science.

Yours is a doctrine in search of a proof and which, for the sake of establishing a proof, employs the erroneous methodology of a false hermeneutic--making different, things which are the same, and using the false difference to construct a contra-NT proof from the NT.
In this case, it is to make different the meaning of the word "law," based on it being both a "decree" and an "ordinance" of God.
Like "starch" can't be both a potato and a carbohydrate. . .only one or the other can describe "potato", but not both. . .
so God's law from Sinai can't be both an "ordinance" and a "decree". . .only one or the other can describe God's law, but not both. . .in this effort to construct a proof for your contra-NT doctrine by making different (decree, ordinance) things which are the same.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law, and in Romans 3:31, Paul confirmed that our faith does not abolish the law, but rather our faith upholds it, so if Ephesians 2:15 were referring to the Mosaic Law, then that would mean that Paul was contradicting himself and saying that Jesus lied.

Click to expand...

Previously addressed. . .you do not understand the Scriptures, so you set them against themselves.

The law has been rendered inoperative (Ephesians 2:15) because it has done what it was given to do. . . to reveal sin (Romans 3:20) and to lead to Christ (Galatians 3:24).
Now that it has done what it was given to do, we are no longer under its supervision.
Rather, we establish it on its right basis, not as a means of the righteousness of justification which is imputed to us, as it was to Abraham, but as the means of sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to that imparted righteousness, leading to holiness (Romans 6:6, Romans 6:9) of the already-justified and saved, that obedience not leading to salvation or justification.

In Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are eternal. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to abolish God's law, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for him a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, everything spoke by God is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness, that the many of God may be complete, equipped to do every good work. In Ephesians 2:10, we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do God works, so it doesn't make sense to interpreted a few verses later as saying that Jesus abolish his laws for how to do good works. God did not make any mistakes when He gave the law, so He would have no reason to abolish His own eternal laws. God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Instructions for how to express God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God.

Click to expand...

So I've given a number of reasons why it wouldn't make sense to interpret Ephesians 2:15 as referring to the Mosaic Law, so please explain why you think that those reasons are wrong and then give your own reasons for you think it would make sent to interpret "dogma" as referring to the Mosaic Law beyond simply insisting that it is.

Click to expand...

It's not about "making sense," it's about being true to what the Scriptures actually state in order to determine what they actually mean in context of the rest of the NT, rather than "pretzelizing" them in order to make them state what you want them to state as the "proof" you are trying to construct from them for your contra-NT doctrine.

After Colossians 2:14 Paul goes on to use dogma again, (dogmatizo), in the same chapter, and implies his meaning and usage by the surrounding context.

Colossians 2:20-22 ASV
20 If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, [G1379 dogmatizo]
21 Handle not, nor taste, nor touch
22 (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men?

This is clear enough for me but I also see dogma used in the LXX version of the book of Esther for the decrees of the king, and in Daniel 2, 3, 4, and 6, and again, for the decrees of kings and rulers. Dogma is never used or found anywhere in the LXX version of the Torah.

Clare73 said:

Who made that rule?
I don't see that rule in either the NT nor hermeneutics.

Click to expand...

Using the context of how other verses use a word is a basic rule of hermeneutics. You are the one claiming that Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15 are referring to the Law of Moses, so if you are unwilling to give any sort of reason for why these verses should be interpreted as referring to the Law of Moses and you're unwilling to counter the many reasons that I've given for why it couldn't be referring to the Law of Moses, then I find your claim to be utterly unpersuasive.

It is interpreted in accordance with the context of how it is used in other verses, because it has more than one meaning, which makes it in accordance with those other verses.

Click to expand...

You are assuming that it can also refer to the Law of Moses without giving any sort of justification, and if you assume that it has more than one meaning in order to establish that it has more than one meaning, then that is circular reasoning.

And who made the rule that nomos is the only word that can be used for "law"?

Speaking of which, the first meaning of nomos is "usage," and the second meaning is "custom" and the third meaning is "law;" i.e., law as prescribed by custom or by statute.
Shall I also "pretzelize" nomos regarding "law," as you do "decree" and "ordinance" regarding "law"?

Click to expand...

I didn't claim that nomos is the only that can be used for law, but that it is the word that is used when referring to the Law of Moses.

Previously addressed. . .as a courtesy, I will repeat it.
Because the law of Moses is both a decree from Sinai as well as an ordinance to be obeyed.
It's not rocket science.

Yours is a doctrine in search of a proof and which, for the sake of establishing a proof, employs the erroneous methodology of a false hermeneutic--making different, things which are the same, and using the false difference to construct a contra-NT proof from the NT.
In this case, it is to make different the meaning of the word "law," based on it being both a "decree" and an "ordinance" of God.
Like "starch" can't be both a potato and a carbohydrate. . .only one or the other can describe "potato", but not both. . .
so God's law from Sinai can't be both an "ordinance" and a "decree". . .only one or the other can describe God's law, but not both. . .in this effort to construct a proof for your contra-NT doctrine by making different (decree, ordinance) things which are the same.

Click to expand...

God's word should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying God. Your contra-God proof is based on equivocation.

Previously addressed. . .you do not understand the Scriptures, so you set them against themselves.

Click to expand...

You are projecting onto me what you are doing. I'm not the one insisting that Ephesians 2:15 should be interpreted in a way that is contrary to what Jesus and what Paul said, but rather that is what you are doing

The law has been rendered inoperative (Ephesians 2:15) because it has done what it was given to do. . . to reveal sin (Romans 3:20) and to lead to Christ (Galatians 3:24).
Now that it has done what it was given to do, we are no longer under its supervision.
Rather, we establish it on its right basis, not as a means of the righteousness of justification which is imputed to us, as it was to Abraham, but as the means of sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to that imparted righteousness, leading to holiness (Romans 6:6, Romans 6:9) of the already-justified and saved, that obedience not leading to salvation or justification.

Click to expand...

If you agree that the Law of Moses was given to reveal what sin is, then you should refrain from transgression it. The Law of Moses leads us to Christ because it is God's instructions for how to have a relationship with him, but don't lead us to Christ so that we can reject what he taught and go back to living in sin. The law was never given as a means of earning our righteousness, which is why there are so many verses that speak against that misunderstanding of the goal of the law. Jesus expressed his righteousness through His actions by living in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is also the way that we live when his righteousness has been imputed to us. In Romans 2:13, Paul said that only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified, so while we do not earn our justification by our obedience, choosing to obey it nevertheless leads to justification and salvation. Our salvation is from sin and sin is the transgression of the Mosaic Law, so living in obedience to it is inherently part of the concept of Jesus saving us from living in transgression of it.

It's not about "making sense," it's about being true to what the Scriptures actually state in order to determine what they actually mean in context of the rest of the NT, rather than "pretzelizing" them in order to make them state what you want them to state as the "proof" you are trying to construct from them for your contra-NT doctrine.

Click to expand...

Interpretations that make sense should be preferred over those that don't. Ephesians 2:15 does not actually state that that it is speaking about the Law of Moses, but rather that is what you are trying to force it in spite of many reasons why it couldn't say that, which is contra-NT and contra-God. You've given no reason for why it should be interpreted as referring to the Law of Moses and are ignoring all of the reasons that I have given for why it couldn't be referring to it, so you're standing on pretty shaky ground, and you'd rather accuse me of "pretzelizing" and such to disguise the fact that you don't have anything to offer to support your position other than wanting it to be referring to the Law of Moses.

Soyeong said:

Using the context of how other verses use a word is a basic rule of hermeneutics. You are the one claiming that Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15 are referring to the Law of Moses, so if you are unwilling to give any sort of reason for why these verses should be interpreted as referring to the Law of Moses and you're unwilling to counter the many reasons that I've given for why it couldn't be referring to the Law of Moses, then I find your claim to be utterly unpersuasive.



You are assuming that it can also refer to the Law of Moses without giving any sort of justification, and if you assume that it has more than one meaning in order to establish that it has more than one meaning, then that is circular reasoning.



I didn't claim that nomos is the only that can be used for law, but that it is the word that is used when referring to the Law of Moses.

Click to expand...

God's word should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying God.

Click to expand...

Strawman. . .

And which is precisely what you do in regard to the law being given to reveal sin (Romans 3:20)
and to lead to Christ (Galatians 3:24),
so now that faith in Christ has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law (Galatians 3:25),
it, "and any other commandment there may be" (Romans 3:8-10), being fulfilled in the laws of Christ (Matthew 22:37-40).

That is the explicit NT teaching which you deny, thereby speaking against obeying God's NT revelation, and then by making different, things which are the same, seek to construct a contra-NT rationale from the NT itself to support your denial and disobedience of God's NT revelation.

That is not hermeneutics, that is unbelief.

Your contra-God proof is based on equivocation.

Click to expand...

There is no equivocation in the above. . .there is only your unbelief, and more denial and disobedience of the plain texts.

Interpretations that make sense should be preferred over those that don't.

Click to expand...

Make sense according to your unbelief, or make sense according to NT teaching?

Those being contrary to one another.

DamianWarS said:

The "abolish" in question is G2647 kataluó of Mat 5:17. If you want to use other verses to build a point you are free to but for the sake of clarity be explict which "abolish" you're using so that another reading doesn't get confused, in fact I would prefer you don't even use the word and use a different English word since there is such wide c̶o̶n̶f̶u̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ abuse, so use it responsibly. Also bring it back to Mat 5:17 and don't start a side argument that is unrelated.

Click to expand...

Rom 3:31 and Matt 5:17 address the exact same point.

Rom 3:31 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Matt 5:17 17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The very Laws Jesus "fulfills" in Matt 5:17 He says we are to "DO" and to "Teach".

So when we continue to look at Matt 5 we see repeated references to the moral law of God contained in the "Law of Moses".

In fact in Mark 7:6-13 Jesus condemns the idea of using tradition to diminish/downsize the Law.

In Matt 19 when Jesus says "keep the Commandments" He is asked "Which ones?" - and answer with more of the "Law of Moses" -- the moral law of God .. quoting from the TEN also happens there just as in Matt 5.

Which means it is still "a sin" to "take God's name in vain" as we see in Ex 20:7

Clare73 said:

And which is precisely what you do in regard to the law being given to reveal sin (Romans 3:20)
and to lead to Christ (Galatians 3:24),

Click to expand...

The role of the Law for the lost person... still to this very day (instead of being "destroyed" (as Christ said in Matt 5 that He did not do) - is to convict of sin.

The role of the moral law - (known even to Jeremiah and his readers) in Jer 31:31-34 under the NEW Covenant in that chapter, is the same as it is in the New Testament in Heb 8:6-12 where Jer 31 is quoted verbatim. It is written on heart and mind.

So Paul can say in 1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the commandments of God"

Bob S said:

Have you never read in scripture that Jesus gave us a new command to love others .

Click to expand...

He says it this way --
Matt 22
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ (Deut 6:5) 38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Lev 19:18)

40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

He says all of scripture rests on these two solid commands.

Matt 19 when Jesus says "keep the Commandments" He is asked "Which ones?" - and answers with more of the "Law of Moses" -- the moral law of God .. quoting from the TEN also happens there just as in Matt 5.

No wonder Paul reminds us in Eph 6:1-2 that "'Honor your father and mother' is STILL the "first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of TEN

BobRyan said:

The role of the Law for the lost person... still to this very day (instead of being "destroyed" (as Christ said in Matt 5 that He did not do) - is to convict of sin.

Click to expand...

The law which has been set aside (Hebrews 7:18-19) was never given to the Gentiles.

The law of the New Covenant of the NT is for all mankind, including the Jews, is Matthew 22:37-40, which fulfills the Mosaic law "and any other commandment there may be" (Romans 13:8-10).

The role of the moral law - (known even to Jeremiah and his readers) in Jer 31:31-34 under the NEW Covenant in that chapter, is the same as it is in the New Testament in Heb 8:6-12 where Jer 31 is quoted verbatim. It is written on heart and mind.

So Paul can say in 1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the commandments of God"

Click to expand...

Precisely. . .and in the New Covenant of the NT those are the commandments of Christ (Matthew 22:37-40), which fulfill the OT commandments (Romans 13:8-10).

Clare73 said:

The law which has been set aside (Hebrews 7:18-19) was never given to the Gentiles.

Click to expand...

Not true. It was given to mankind "All the world" ... "every mouth closed".

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (not "just the Jews")

Rom 3:23 "ALL have sinned" -- (not "just the Jews")

John 16: 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin (not "just the Jews")

So then it is a "sin to take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 -- even when gentiles do it.

Even in the New Testament "sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John3:4

Clare73 said:

Precisely. . .and in the New Covenant of the NT those are the commandments of Christ

Click to expand...

The New Covenant of the NT is the New Covenant of the OT.

Jer 31:31--34 , quoted verbatim in Heb 8:6-12 as the New Covenant of the New Testament

BobRyan said:

Not true. It was given to mankind "All the world" ... "every mouth closed".

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (not "just the Jews")

Rom 3:23 "ALL have sinned" -- (not "just the Jews")

John 16: 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin (not "just the Jews")

So then it is a "sin to take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 -- even when gentiles do it.

Even in the New Testament "sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John3:4

Click to expand...

The law was given at Sinai to Israel but it was existed before Sinai ..Romans 5:13..sin was in the world BEFORE the law was given"..

Gal 3:17..law was added 430 years after Abraham..

pasifika said:

The law was given at Sinai to mankind but it was existed before Sinai ...Romans 5:13..sin was in the world BEFORE the law was given"..

Gal 3:17..law was added 430 years after Abraham..

Click to expand...

The Law determines what sin is.. ."Sin IS transgression of the LAW"
God tells Cain in Gen 4 "SIN is crouching at your door but you must master it"

1 Cor 15: 56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
Rom 5:13 13 sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 4:15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

The formal writing of the moral law of God was at Sinai... but it was sin for mankind to "take God's name in vain" from day one.

Notice that the clean animals go into the Ark by seven's in Gen 7 -- but Moses' reader does not get the definition for what that means until Lev 11.

This clearly informs the reader that Genesis is not a catalog of every word spoken 2000 years -- not even for every word God spoke for 2000 years. So for example Gal 3:8 tells us that the Gospel was preached to Abraham and Gal 1:6-9 says there is only one Gospel... not "one for Abraham" and "one for us".

Christ said "Abraham rejoiced to see My day... he saw it and was glad". Moses does not record that in the book of Genesis.

BobRyan said:

The Law determines what sin is.. ."Sin IS transgression of the LAW"
God tells Cain in Gen 4 "SIN is crouching at your door but you must master it"

1 Cor 15: 56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
Rom 5:13 13 sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 4:15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

The formal writing of the moral law of God was at Sinai... but it was sin for mankind to "take God's name in vain" from day one.

Notice that the clean animals go into the Ark by seven's in Gen 7 -- but Moses' reader does not get the definition for what that means until Lev 11.

Click to expand...

The verses you quoted just indicate the law was only known to God it wasn't given to man as it was in Sinai in (written form)

Hence why Romans 5:13 ..Sin was in the world "before" the law was given..

pasifika said:

The verses you quoted just indicate the law was only known to God it wasn't given to man as it was in Sinai in (written form)

Hence why Romans 5:13 ..Sin was in the world "before" the law was given..

Click to expand...

Romans 5 says Adam sinned - and because of that we have the fall of mankind.
It does not say "Adam could not have sinned for he did not know about the Law".

James 4:17 "to him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin"

Gen 4: 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

Knowing right from wrong... knowing what sin is... this is what God is claiming Cain knew in Gen 4. Even though there is no "Do not murder" command recorded by Moses before Genesis 4.

Noah takes the clean animals in the ark by sevens in Genesis 7. So Noah knew what the definition was for that term (so then not "just God" knowing it) ... but Moses does not tell the reader what that is until Lev 11.

This clearly informs the reader that Genesis is not a catalog of every word spoken 2000 years -- not even for every word God spoke for the first 2000 years. So for example Gal 3:8 tells us that the Gospel was preached to Abraham and Gal 1:6-9 says there is only one Gospel... not "one for Abraham" and "one for us". Moses did not tell his reader about that incident where God shows Abraham the life of Christ, the gospel.

BobRyan said:

Romans 5 says Adam sinned - and because of that we have the fall of mankind.
It does not say "Adam could not have sinned for he did not know about the Law".

James 4:17 "to him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin"

Gen 4: 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

Knowing right from wrong... knowing what sin is... this is what God is claiming Cain knew in Gen 4. Even though there is no "Do not murder" command recorded by Moses before Genesis 4.

Noah takes the clean animals in the ark by sevens in Genesis 7. So Noah knew what the definition was for that term (so then not "just God" knowing it) ... but Moses does not tell the reader what that is until Lev 11.

This clearly informs the reader that Genesis is not a catalog of every word spoken 2000 years -- not even for every word God spoke for the first 2000 years. So for example Gal 3:8 tells us that the Gospel was preached to Abraham and Gal 1:6-9 says there is only one Gospel... not "one for Abraham" and "one for us". Moses did not tell his reader about that incident where God shows Abraham the life of Christ, the gospel.

Click to expand...

Agreed, Adam sinned because of disobedience knowing good and evil rather choose evil. And we all know what right and wrong is even before the Gospel was preached to us (gentiles)..Romans 2:14

But, to keep a particular day for worship (7th day) is Not a matter of conscience unless it was told to keep and it was never command to keep from the beginning to mankind..

pasifika said:

Agreed, Adam sinned because of disobedience knowing good and evil rather choose evil. And we all know what right and wrong is even before the Gospel was preached to us (gentiles)..Romans 2:14

But, to keep a particular day for worship (7th day) is Not a matter of conscience unless it was told to keep and it was never command to keep from the beginning to mankind..

Click to expand...

Ex 20:11 says the Sabbath was made a holy day in Gen 2:1-3 -- and Genesis 2 says the same thing.
Mark 2:27 Jesus said it was made for mankind when it was made.

BobRyan said:

Ex 20:11 says the Sabbath was made a holy day in Gen 2:1-3 -- and Genesis 2 says the same thing.
Mark 2:27 Jesus said it was made for mankind when it was made.

Click to expand...

Agreed, that the Sabbath was made for mankind..and the Gentiles never knew that if not for Israel (law &Prophets in Old Testament and Jesus &Apostles NT teachings )..

But what mankind knew from the beginning is that "Love one another" is a noble thing to do and to have 1John 3:11
And love is the main message taught to Israel.."Gospel message"..Matt 7:12

Love fulfilled all commandments including "keeping Sabbath holy" so even if it wasn't given to Gentiles the Sabbath command, the "requirement" to fulfill that command it is already written in their hearts (Rom 2:14) which is "Loving others"..