ECT The Gospel in Romans 10

[beloved57]

Some say the Gospel isn't there. I say it is.

Paul has taught extensively in this chapter about the law and justification. The very first chapter speaks of the Gospel of Salvation. Are we just to forget the entire letter and claim Romans 10 has no back story? We "confess" what? That Jesus is Lord, the ONLY Saviour (God). Saviour from sin goes without saying. The Law with it's sacrifices for sin vs. the end of the Law for righteousness for all who believe. Separate the sacrificial death of Christ from the law, and the law has no meaning.

That He was "raised from the dead" includes His death burial and resurrection. With the heart man "believeth" unto righteousness. And what is in that word "believe"? The death, burial and resurrection is there. If it isn't then it isn't believing unto righteousness, as Paul has explained already. There it is.... the justification of faith. There isn't one single thing missing.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.​

Not with the Natural mans Heart, for it is desperately wicked Jer 17:9 and such believing in Rom 10:9-10 pleases God, which those in the flesh cannot do Rom 8:8

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

All the unregenerate are in the flesh, so the things the man does in Rom 10:9-10 an unsaved, unregenerate man cannot do, sorry ! So those things describe the actions of the saved !

 

[God's Truth]

Hi and Paul says in 1 Cor 15:29 that there BAPTIZO /BAPTISM for the Dead and does you EKKLESIA DO iT ??

Explain it please, as it is bible !!

dan p

That scripture is where Paul explains that if Jesus did not rise he is dead, and if Jesus is dead, why then are people getting baptized for a dead person?

 

[Tambora]

Hi and Paul says in 1 Cor 15:29 that there BAPTIZO /BAPTISM for the Dead and does you EKKLESIA DO iT ??

Explain it please, as it is bible !!

dan p

That scripture is where Paul explains that if Jesus did not rise he is dead, and if Jesus is dead, why then are people getting baptized for a dead person?

No.

The text does not allow "the dead" to be about a single person.
It is plural in the Greek.

Furthermore, that last of the verse ....

1 Corinthians 15 KJV
(29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?​

.... does not appear in many of the ancient manuscripts, but has "them". And even in the ancient manuscripts that do have "the dead" at the end, it is again plural.

 

[God's Truth]

No.

The text does not allow "the dead" to be about a single person.
It is plural in the Greek.

Furthermore, that last of the verse ....

1 Corinthians 15 KJV
(29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?​

.... does not appear in many of the ancient manuscripts, but has "them". And even in the ancient manuscripts that do have "the dead" at the end, it is again plural.

You have not disproved anything.

 

[Tambora]

No.

The text does not allow "the dead" to be about a single person.
It is plural in the Greek.

Furthermore, that last of the verse ....

1 Corinthians 15 KJV
(29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?​

.... does not appear in many of the ancient manuscripts, but has "them". And even in the ancient manuscripts that do have "the dead" at the end, it is again plural.

You have not disproved anything.

Scripture has disproved you.
Some old manuscripts use "them" at the end of the verse. And some old manuscripts use "the dead" at the end of the verse.
It is plural no matter which old Greek manuscript you use.

And to give further information .....
"dead" in the story of the prodigal son is singular, because in that instance it was talking about a singular person.

 

[God's Truth]

Scripture has disproved you.
Some old manuscripts use "them" at the end of the verse. And some old manuscripts use "the dead" at the end of the verse.
It is plural no matter which old Greek manuscript you use.

And to give further information .....
"dead" in the story of the prodigal son is singular, because in that instance it was talking about a singular person.

People get baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

There is "them".

 

[God's Truth]

By the way, I could not care any less about people trying to argue God's Truth with a different language; that is not how God gives understanding.

 

[patrick jane]

1 Corinthians 15:12 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:13-14 KJV -


1 Corinthians 15:15-18 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:19-22 KJV -


1 Corinthians 15:23-24 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:25-27 KJV -


1 Corinthians 15:28-29 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:30-31 KJV -


1 Corinthians 15:40 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:41 KJV -


1 Corinthians 15:42-42 KJV -


yep. plural -

 

[Danoh]

No.

The text does not allow "the dead" to be about a single person.
It is plural in the Greek.

Furthermore, that last of the verse ....

1 Corinthians 15 KJV
(29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?​

.... does not appear in many of the ancient manuscripts, but has "them". And even in the ancient manuscripts that do have "the dead" at the end, it is again plural.

Not necessarily. As in the phrase "our loved ones" - it can, for example, in some instances, also refer to the singular within a collective of individuals who each lost, is concerned about, etc., for a loved one.

In this, then, it can also refer to one individual, just as the word "they" in the passage can refer both to the individual; singular, as well as to individuals; plural.

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead.

Prior to His resurrection from among the dead [ones; plural] Christ had been one [singular] of the dead ones [plural].

1 Corinthians 15:

20. But now is Christ [singular] risen from the dead, [plural] and become the firstfruits of them that slept [plural].

Though, the baptism there I is obviously connection with an identification with death.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That He was "raised from the dead" includes His death burial and resurrection. With the heart man "believeth" unto righteousness. And what is in that word "believe"? The death, burial and resurrection is there. If it isn't then it isn't believing unto righteousness, as Paul has explained already. There it is.... the justification of faith. There isn't one single thing missing.

The most important thing about the gospel is the source of the blessings found in the gospel, the fact that the believer is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).

This speaks of the fact that "Christ died for our sin" (1 Cor.15:3) and I see no mention of that in the tenth chapter of the epistle to the Romans. Or perhaps I overlooked it in that chapter?

 

[Danoh]

Yeah, Romans 10 is about the Jews but to and for those who are justified by faith. Thus it is not wrong to claim it speaks of the Gospel of Salvation.


I see God's UNtruth is regurgitating all over this thread, so it may be pointless to discuss this here, anyway. :rip:

We can... ignore her, as to this thread, as she will not know what we are talking about anyway.

Anyway, the issue in Romans 10 is two-fold; the first part of the chapter deals with the word of faith - "the gospel of the uncircumcision" - that Paul preached among the Jews after Israel's fall.

The second part of the chapter deals with more info about how Israel fell from their own calling - "the gospel of the Circumcision" Acts 3:24-26; that now has Paul preaching the gospel given him to preach to both Jew and Gentile without distinction "the gospel of the uncircumcision" Gal. 2:7-9.

Paul weaves in and out of aspects of both throughout the entire chapter, though, and for the reasons he does; which, when not studied out in their own right can confuse understandings.

For example, depending on which of the two gospels Paul is dealing with as he deals with the issues he is addressing in chapter ten, this passage here - 9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Has two meanings - one of them being a reference to the Jew's practice of reciting aloud [out loud] their Torah. Doing so, they were confessing Christ. Problem is, they were not believing they were confessing! Thus, when He showed up, He Who they have supposedly been confessing all along, became their stumbling, for their failure to "believe with thine heart" Moses words about Him, "for He wrote of me," John 5.

Likewise with how the chapter ends; when those who found Him, confessed Him unto the rest, the rest continue to deny Him; now, in His resurrection also.

That is one aspect of this confessing, believing issue that Paul is addressing.

Messianic Jews, in their brand of confusion, for example, assert that that passage in Acts 15 - that is actually talking about this error - is actually talking about the Gentiles' need to take up Torah lessons from said lost Jews!


Acts 15:

8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

2 Corinthians 3:

14. But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

Romans 11:

25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

My point in this seeming diversion is my understanding that the way to understand these things is through their overall narrative, rather than through a passage here and there.

That; as our overall understanding deepens more and more, the more time we invest in it, so does our understanding of the various issues.

 

[Danoh]

The most important thing about the gospel is the source of the blessings found in the gospel, the fact that the believer is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).

This speaks of the fact that "Christ died for our sin" (1 Cor.15:3) and I see no mention of that in the tenth chapter of the epistle to the Romans. Or perhaps I overlooked it in that chapter?

Its there, per Paul's overall narrative - which the abundance of related passages from within Romans thru Philemon give one a sense of.

A simple example of this...

Romans 10:

4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The sense of this end is two-fold; He ended the Law for righteousness by His Own... and He was the end the Law had been meant to point the Jew to.

As is often the case; a great commentary on Romans as to these issues, is Galatians - that being here, Galatians 3.

Note all the various questions it deals with, as a summary of what Paul would later lay out in Romans but that he had been teaching long before, as Galatians is either his 1st or among the 1st of the first three Epistles he wrote; the other two being 1st and 2nd Thessalonians.

Galatians 3:

19. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul will later expand on many of these same themes in Romans, as it was his "my gospel...of Christ" Romans 1:16; 2:16 thru 16:25, 26.

Note how Galatians 3 actually begins:

1. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

 

[glorydaz]

The most important thing about the gospel is the source of the blessings found in the gospel, the fact that the believer is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).

This speaks of the fact that "Christ died for our sin" (1 Cor.15:3) and I see no mention of that in the tenth chapter of the epistle to the Romans. Or perhaps I overlooked it in that chapter?

I think it is there, Jerry. What is Paul having us confess? I think he's having us confess (acknowledge) that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Saviour. That we are to believe in our heart that it is He who died for our offenses and was raised for our justification. Thus we are saved. It's what the very words "believe unto righteousness" entail. What else could they possibly mean?

 

[glorydaz]

We can... ignore her, as to this thread, as she will not know what we are talking about anyway.

:thumb:

Anyway, the issue in Romans 10 is two-fold; the first part of the chapter deals with the word of faith - "the gospel of the uncircumcision" - that Paul preached among the Jews after Israel's fall.

The second part of the chapter deals with more info about how Israel fell from their own calling - "the gospel of the Circumcision" Acts 3:24-26; that now has Paul preaching the gospel given him to preach to both Jew and Gentile without distinction "the gospel of the uncircumcision" Gal. 2:7-9.

Paul weaves in and out of aspects of both throughout the entire chapter, though, and for the reasons he does; which, when not studied out in their own right can confuse understandings.

For example, depending on which of the two gospels Paul is dealing with as he deals with the issues he is addressing in chapter ten, this passage here - 9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Has two meanings - one of them being a reference to the Jew's practice of reciting aloud [out loud] their Torah. Doing so, they were confessing Christ. Problem is, they were not believing they were confessing! Thus, when He showed up, He Who they have supposedly been confessing all along, became their stumbling, for their failure to "believe with thine heart" Moses words about Him, "for He wrote of me," John 5.

Likewise with how the chapter ends; when those who found Him, confessed Him unto the rest, the rest continue to deny Him; now, in His resurrection also.

That is one aspect of this confessing, believing issue that Paul is addressing.

Messianic Jews, in their brand of confusion, for example, assert that that passage in Acts 15 - that is actually talking about this error - is actually talking about the Gentiles' need to take up Torah lessons from said lost Jews!


Acts 15:

8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

2 Corinthians 3:

14. But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

Romans 11:

25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

My point in this seeming diversion is my understanding that the way to understand these things is through their overall narrative, rather than through a passage here and there.

That; as our overall understanding deepens more and more, the more time we invest in it, so does our understanding of the various issues.

There is a lot there, for sure. Something for everyone I guess you could say. It's like when people jump to the conclusion that "confess" is talking about sin. It isn't, of course. It's acknowledging something, and that something is critical....the very deity of Christ. The very thing that people like Keypurr keep denying. The same with the word "believe". In order to "believe unto righteousness", it has to be something very specific. The very thing people like God's UNtruth keep denying.

 

[musterion]

I tend to agree with Robert Brock's point that this passage in Romans 10 is not the saving content of the Gospel (as in 1 Cor 15) but is Paul's describing a correct response to it, and he seems to have assumed they knew what that content was when he wrote it. Now that Jews and Gentiles were on equal footing before God, Paul could...

...quote the divine principle from the O.T. that "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved " (Joel 2:32). This is true of all dispensations. It is NOT THE MESSAGE PREACHED but the RESPONSE to the message that is important here in Romans 9 and 10, in calling on the name of the Lord for salvation.

I firmly believe that Romans 10:9-10 describes what should take place at the time of salvation. It is important to see that the resurrection of Christ is brought in as a truth to be believed. The Jews REFUSED to accept the resurrection of Christ (Acts 4:2-3), and consequently were not saved. Believing in your heart is a guard against believing in your mind or believing in your head, something that all religious unsaved people do. The apostle tells them what kind of belief is necessary for salvation - a heart belief. It is a CONTRAST with Israel who believed only in their minds that what they did was acceptable in God's sight.

Why do we have to believe in our hearts? Because v. 10 says "with the heart one believes unto RIGHTEOUSNESS." This is the 'righteousness of faith' found in Rom 9:30 and Rom 10:6. It is submitting to 'the righteousness of God' (Rom 10:3). Did the Apostle intend this to be only a Jewish teaching? I think not...

There is one unchanging principle that Paul gleaned from the O.T., which he did when he quoted from Isaiah 49:23 and Joel 2:32 -- that those who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.

When the Apostle quoted from the O.T., he rightly divided the Word of truth by picking out phrases that can be applied during the Age of grace. The Holy Spirit led him to take aspects of truth out of context and apply them to today.

 

[Danoh]

I think it is there, Jerry. What is Paul having us confess? I think he's having us confess (acknowledge) that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Saviour. That we are to believe in our heart that it is He who died for our offenses and was raised for our justification. Thus we are saved. It's what the very words "believe unto righteousness" entail. What else could they possibly mean?

Yes; there within that aspect of Romans 10 that is But Now, "Christ; the end of the Law for righteousness," this side of Israel's fall.

That, in Romans 10, is in contrast to that aspect of Romans 10 dealing with Time Past issues, before Israel fell, when Israel was busy headed towards that fall - this here:

18. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

You see both gospels there - the one the Little Flock had preached to Israel prior to Israel's fall - that Jesus had been/is Israel's promised Son of God; the Christ; the King of Israel risen from the dead - and - the gospel Paul preached after Israel's fall - that said Jesus had been Christ - the end the Law for righteousness had pointed to - the end of the Law for righteousness through His righteousness.

In other words, we know what was preached by whom to whom where, through the Apostle Paul's own, overall narrative. We read Acts through the Apostle Paul, not through Luke.

Why?

Because given the Mystery given him alone, he alone had been able to lay out how all things fit now, in light of this Mystery.

The Greek helps, but the Apostle Paul's overall narrative is more than oceans full of more than enough help; the supposed best translations, supposedly help, but, again; the Apostle Paul's overall narrative is more than oceans full of enough help; the external writings of this or that author at times may help, but again; the Apostle Paul's overall narrative is more than oceans full of more than enough help...

Acts 20:

27. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

 

[glorydaz]

I tend to agree with Robert Brock's point that this passage in Romans 10 is not the saving content of the Gospel (as in 1 Cor 15) but is Paul's describing a correct response to it, and he seems to have assumed they knew what that content was when he wrote it. Now that Jews and Gentiles were on equal footing before God, Paul could...

Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes; there within that aspect of Romans 10 that is But Now, "Christ; the end of the Law for righteousness," this side of Israel's fall.

That, in Romans 10, is in contrast to that aspect of Romans 10 dealing with Time Past issues, before Israel fell, when Israel was busy headed towards that fall - this here:

18. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

You see both gospels there - the one the Little Flock had preached to Israel prior to Israel's fall - that Jesus had been/is Israel's promised Son of God; the Christ; the King of Israel risen from the dead - and - the gospel Paul preached after Israel's fall - that said Jesus had been Christ - the end the Law for righteousness had pointed to - the end of the Law for righteousness through His righteousness.

In other words, we know what was preached by whom to whom where, through the Apostle Paul's own, overall narrative. We read Acts through the Apostle Paul, not through Luke.

Why?

Because given the Mystery given him alone, he alone had been able to lay out how all things fit now, in light of this Mystery.

The Greek helps, but the Apostle Paul's overall narrative is more than oceans full of more than enough help, the supposed best translations, supposedly help, but, again; the Apostle Paul's overall narrative is more than oceans full of enough help, the external writings of this or that author at times may help, but again; the Apostle Paul's overall narrative is more than oceans full of more than enough help...

Acts 20:

27. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Awesome, isn't it?

 

[Danoh]

I tend to agree with Robert Brock's point that this passage in Romans 10 is not the saving content of the Gospel (as in 1 Cor 15) but is Paul's describing a correct response to it, and he seems to have assumed they knew what that content was when he wrote it. Now that Jews and Gentiles were on equal footing before God, Paul could...

...quote the divine principle from the O.T. that "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved " (Joel 2:32). This is true of all dispensations. It is NOT THE MESSAGE PREACHED but the RESPONSE to the message that is important here in Romans 9 and 10, in calling on the name of the Lord for salvation.

I firmly believe that Romans 10:9-10 describes what should take place at the time of salvation. It is important to see that the resurrection of Christ is brought in as a truth to be believed. The Jews REFUSED to accept the resurrection of Christ (Acts 4:2-3), and consequently were not saved. Believing in your heart is a guard against believing in your mind or believing in your head, something that all religious unsaved people do. The apostle tells them what kind of belief is necessary for salvation - a heart belief. It is a CONTRAST with Israel who believed only in their minds that what they did was acceptable in God's sight.

Why do we have to believe in our hearts? Because v. 10 says "with the heart one believes unto RIGHTEOUSNESS." This is the 'righteousness of faith' found in Rom 9:30 and Rom 10:6. It is submitting to 'the righteousness of God' (Rom 10:3). Did the Apostle intend this to be only a Jewish teaching? I think not...

There is one unchanging principle that Paul gleaned from the O.T., which he did when he quoted from Isaiah 49:23 and Joel 2:32 -- that those who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.

When the Apostle quoted from the O.T., he rightly divided the Word of truth by picking out phrases that can be applied during the Age of grace. The Holy Spirit led him to take aspects of truth out of context and apply them to today.

Am not sure if I agree with that, as to the heart issue part of it, and so, find it interesting in contrast.

I guess it depends on what we believe/understand [the mind] what this issue of "with the heart man believeth" is dealing with.

I had just begun to restudy this heart issue earlier this morning, through passages...

Genesis Chapter 6:
5. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Genesis Chapter 8:
21. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Deuteronomy Chapter 8:
2. And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.


Romans Chapter 2:
14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;]

2 Corinthians 10:
5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Hebrews 4:
12. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

What I am getting a sense of again is that this "heart" issue is the heart or core of one's mind - the issue in Romans 10 being not that they had not believed but that they had believed in error.

Matthew 22:
29. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Romans 10:
2. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

That is the same issue with deal with with many on here - they believe with their heart, but in error.

What of this, then - Romans 9:
32. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

The issue is they believed their tradition's interpretation of Moses - Mark 7:

6. He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11. But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

He mentions Isaiah. His narrative - Isaiah 29's:

13. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14. Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

 

[Tambora]

By the way, I could not care any less about people trying to argue God's Truth with a different language; .

Yes, we know. You like to ignore what the text actually says and make stuff up as you go.