For example, the OT requires us to keep God's holy days and the NT is commonly interpreted as speaking against being required to do that.
the question is not if we keep these holy days but how we keep them? to keep circumcision we may be circumcised of the heart and the flesh is not needed, in doing this we keep law because we are keeping the fulfillment of it that has been revealed to use through the new. So we no longer need to cut the flesh in ignorance, but since we know the truth can walk through the truth not through the old which is of ignorance.
While that verse can be interpreted in a way that turns it against following every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord, it is incorrect to do so, especially because the Bible never uses the Greek word "dogma" to refer to the Torah. In
Ephesians 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated form Christ, alienated from Israel and the covenants of promises, and without hope and God in the world, which is all in accordance with Gentiles at one time not being doers of the Torah, but through faith in Christ all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens, but are fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God, which is all in accordance with Gentiles becoming doers of the Torah, so you are not correctly identifying what was being broken down.
who are you talking to? no one is saying scripture is against scripture. this is a strawman argument.
It is important to recognize that the Bible can speak against doing something for an incorrect reason without speaking against doing it for the reasons for which God commanded it. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason instead of just incorrect reasons, then that would mean that according to
Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In
Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In
Exodus 12:48, a Gentile who wanted to eat of the Passover lamb was required to become physically circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as speaking against Gentile correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.
In
Isaiah 45:17, it says that all of Israel shall be saved, which has led to think that all a Gentile needs to do in order to become saved is to become a Jew, which involved physical circumcision, which is the position that Paul was opposing when he spoke against "works of the law". So it is important not to mistake what is said about circumcision in regard to whether a Gentile is required to become a Jew as speaking in regard to circumcision for the purposes for which God commanded it. There is nothing about circumcision that changed in the NT.
Paul was a contextualist. He was motivated in action by how it demonstrated the gospel not by how it demonstrated the law. He is quoted in 1 Cor 9:20 "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law". It wasn't important to Paul that you keep the letter of law or not, what was important was if you do or if you do not, do so in order to give glory to God and demonstrate the gospel to your mission. So if my mission only wore pink and thought every other colour was wrong then we may dress in pink not to affirm the color but so that we have access to a people group so that we may show them Christ. Paul concludes in v22 "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." So his goal is clear, it is to share the gospel.
We can see this demonstrated in the NT. Paul instructs Timothy to get circumcised (Acts 16), yet prevents Titus from being circumcised (Gal 2). So what is the issue at hand here? it's not actually circumcision. Timothy gets circumcised because of his Jewish history and because of the Jews in the area so for contextual reasons, where Titus had no Jewish heritage and to effectively demonstrate freedom of the gospel Paul prevents Titus from getting circumcised. The same value is being manifested here found in 1 Cor 9:22 "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." Paul wants to be received into his mission and not offend, so he jumps through whatever hoops they have, then once accepted he may show them Christ. Failing the first step the gospel will fall on death ears because it will never be received. This act of contextualization should be the first act of the gospel.
This is what prompts him to say
1 Cor 9:19
Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
1 Corinthians 10:23-24
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.
we are free, but should be slaves to our mission "to win as many as possible", but are not salves to the letter of the law.
you seem to be driven by the outward display of law which can be checkbox-driven and detached from our mission showing them arrogance instead of love. Paul was driven by his mission. Mat 12:12 say "it's lawful to do good on the sabbath." This begs the question then why not just do good? the direct example given is if a sheep falls into a pit will we not rescue it (v11) what are the sheep of God if not his people? (basic Sunday school knowledge) what are their states of despair that lead to death liken to a sheep fallen into a pit if not the state of the unsaved? so if our neighbour is in a spiritual pit the action we do to pull them out is lawful, even if that means doing whatever you can think of that is called "work" and on the sabbath, if it is able to show Christ through these actions it is good and iit is lawful. Or we could shut the curtains and ignore them saying it's a holy day and miss the opportunity.
This focus is not against the Sabbath, it keeps its higher meaning, thus keeps Sabbath. how dare we rest, when bleating sheep trapped in pits surround us.
