You should not interpret Hebrews 8:13 in a way that contradicts Exodus 34:15-17 or Leviticus 24:8.
That's what you are doing.
Physical circumcision was an eternal sign (Genesis 17:13).
Is it still binding?
Last edited:
You should not interpret Hebrews 8:13 in a way that contradicts Exodus 34:15-17 or Leviticus 24:8.
Thank you.^This.
Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so while we do not earn our salvation as a wage as the result of obeying it, living in obedience to it through faith in Jesus is nevertheless intrinsically part of the concept of him saving us from not living in obedience to it.The fact that we are no longer under law just means keeping the law has nothing to do with salvation. But the Holy Spirit is working in us to wish to be obedient.
No. If everything that was part of the Mosaic Covenant is incorporated into the New Covenant, then the Mosaic Covenant remains eternal, and this is in accordance with Hebrews 8:10 stating that the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law. In Exodus 33:14-17 and Leviticus 24:8, it states that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal, not that it is supposed to be eternal, and you are interpreting Hebrews 8:13 to say that the Mosaic Covenant is not eternal, which is contradicting Exodus 33:14-17 and Leviticus 24:8.That's what you are doing.
No. If everything that was part of the Mosaic Covenant is incorporated into the New Covenant, then the Mosaic Covenant remains eternal, and this is in accordance with Hebrews 8:10 stating that the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law. In Exodus 33:14-17 and Leviticus 24:8, it states that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal, not that it is supposed to be eternal, and you are interpreting Hebrews 8:13 to say that the Mosaic Covenant is not eternal, which is contradicting Exodus 33:14-17 and Leviticus 24:8.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.Thank you.
Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so while we do not earn our salvation as a wage as the result of obeying it, living in obedience to it through faith in Jesus is nevertheless intrinsically part of the concept of him saving us from not living in obedience to it.
Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law other than the Law of God, such as the law of sin and works of the law, so it is important to correctly identify which law he described as us not being under. In Roman 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not describe the Law of God, which is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us (Romans 7:12), but rather it is the law of sin where sin had dominion over us. Furthermore, in Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 3:20, it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of sin, so we are still under it and obligated to obey it. In addition everything else in Romans 6 speaks in favor of obedience to the Law of God and against sin.
Sorry, I didn't see it, it might have been edited after I replied.Answer the question from my previous post.
Of course, it states that it is an eternal sign. Either Paul only spoke against becoming circumcised for incorrect reasons or according to Galatians 5:2, he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:4) and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcise in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. The Jerusalem Council did not have the authority to countermand God, so they should not be interpreted as ruling against obeying what God has commanded, especially because they were servants of God.That's what you are doing.
Physical circumcision was an eternal sign (Genesis 17:13).
Is it still binding?
Do you think that those verses agree or disagree with what I said?15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
Of course, it states that it is an eternal sign.
Paul only spoke against circumcision being required for incorrect reasons, but not against circumcision for the reasons that God commanded it for. When God has commanded something and if Paul had taught to rebel against obeying what God has commanded, then which one has the higher authority and which one do you think we should follow?And yet Paul teaches it is not required.
Paul only spoke against circumcision being required for incorrect reasons, but not against circumcision for the reasons that God commanded it for.
There are correct reasons for why a Gentile should become circumcised that are in accordance with what God has commanded, such as in order for a Gentile to eat of the Passover lamb (Genesis 12:48), so a Gentile who had eaten of it without being circumcised would have been sinning.If a man who is a Christian refuses to get physically circumcised is he sinning?
There are correct reasons for why a Gentile should become circumcised that are in accordance with what God has commanded, such as in order for a Gentile to eat of the Passover lamb (Genesis 12:48), so a Gentile who had eaten of it without being circumcised would have been sinning.
It is questionable whether that is possible for someone to today without there being a temple, but if it were possible for a Gentile to do today, then it would still be a sin. Paul was a servant of God, so he should not be interpreted as teaching against obeying anything that He has commanded, though the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if he had done that, then we should be quicker to disregard everything that he has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded.A Christian today.
In the context of the manna...is not every day the sabbath?
GINOLJC, to allWhere in scripture does it suggest every day is a Sabbath? Has God blessed, sanctified, and made holy every day? Where does that say in scripture?
I don't see any reference in that passage to a day. I see rest, and praise God we all can, and should, experience that. But there's nothing there regarding any change to the seventh day Sabbath.GINOLJC, to all
here is that suggestion. Matthew 11:28 "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:29 "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls."
101G.
Nor do I see any reference to the commandments in that passage, yet Christians of every shade and hue have used it as you have in an attempt to convince Sabbath keepers that that verse somehow confirms the idea that the 4th commandment in particular has been replaced with a so called spiritual rest. Honesty on the part of those of like mindedness as you would confess that such a doctrinal concept is founded on nothing more threatening or judiciously demanding than their own imagination, and an authority they think supercedes the one Who wrote the commandments on Sinai.I don't see any reference in that passage to a day. I see rest, and praise God we all can, and should, experience that. But there's nothing there regarding any change to the seventh day Sabbath.
that's right, it's EVERY DAY........ (smile).I don't see any reference in that passage to a day.
Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:" Colossians 2:17 "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."yet Christians of every shade and hue have used it as you have in an attempt to convince Sabbath keepers that that verse somehow confirms the idea that the 4th commandment in particular has been replaced with a so called spiritual rest