Some non-Judeans in Rome are known to have assimilated or accommodated many Judean religious characteristics, including Sabbath observance. However, non-Judean circumcision was a key contention, not only of religious, but also of ethnic change. [8] For non-Judeans, it was a key ethnic identifier used in critique of Judeans, (the circumcised). [9]
For Judeans, circumcision was the essential act for a male non-Judean to become a member of God’s covenant people. ...

What is important for Paul and his audience is that Abraham’s faith with God was credited to him before he was circumcised. Paul rearranges circumcision from a mark of the covenant and ethnic exclusivity to a seal of right relationship for Judeans in 4:11. Paul concludes that Abraham was the human forefather of not only Judeans, but also non-Judeans who had entered into a faith-based covenant with God that also resulted in righteousness – right relationship (4:9-13).

The Stoic philosopher Seneca laments that "the customs of this accursed nation [Jews] have gained such influence that they are now received throughout the world. The vanquished have given laws to their victors . . . the greater part of the [non-Jewish] people go through a ritual not knowing why they do so" [Quoted by Augustine in City of God 6, 11].

The testimony of Seneca is confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus when he writes: "There is not one Greek or barbarian nor a single nation to whom our custom of abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread, and where the fasts and the lighting of lamps and many of our prohibitions in the matter of food are not observed" [Josephus, Against Apion 2, 40. A similar statement is found in Philo, Vita Mosis 2, 20].

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/sabbath_new_testament/9.html

A few hundred years ago, Irish writer Jonathan Swift wrote: “But will any man say that if the words drinking, cheating, lying, stealing were by Act of Parliament ejected out of the English tongue and dictionaries, we should all awake next morning temperate, honest and just, and lovers of truth? Is this a fair consequence?”—Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal and Other Satires, (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995), p. 205.

In the same way, if God's law has been abolished, then why are lying, murder, and stealing still sinful or wrong? If God's law has been changed, then the definition of sin must be changed, too. Or if God's law was done away with, then sin must be, as well, and who believes that?

When we have done all that it is possible for us to do, we are to count ourselves as unprofitable servants. We deserve no thanks from God. We have only done what it was our duty to do, and our works could not have been performed in the strength of our own sinful natures. {RH, January 29, 1895 par. 4}

R:Good comment in the lesson material for Thursday:

A few hundred years ago, Irish writer Jonathan Swift wrote: “But will any man say that if the words drinking, cheating, lying, stealing were by Act of Parliament ejected out of the English tongue and dictionaries, we should all awake next morning temperate, honest and just, and lovers of truth? Is this a fair consequence?”—Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal and Other Satires, (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995), p. 205.

In the same way, if God's law has been abolished, then why are lying, murder, and stealing still sinful or wrong? If God's law has been changed, then the definition of sin must be changed, too. Or if God's law was done away with, then sin must be, as well, and who believes that?

Something for everyone here. How do you reconcile Paul's teaching that we are justified apart from our works and James' teaching that we are justified by our works?