What Laws are still valid to christians
- Thread starter vic1980
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi Elin
If you read that whole chapter you will see that Jesus is actually replying to the Pharisees question stated in Mk 7:5
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?
From the chapter and from Peter actions later it was clear what Jesus was stating. Not ceremonially cleaning before eating do not make you unclean. He was not declaring unclean meat clean. He was telling them not to introduce laws and traditions. Stick with the laws of Moses.
If you read that whole chapter you will see that Jesus is actually replying to the Pharisees question stated in Mk 7:5
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?
From the chapter and from Peter actions later it was clear what Jesus was stating. Not ceremonially cleaning before eating do not make you unclean. He was not declaring unclean meat clean. He was telling them not to introduce laws and traditions. Stick with the laws of Moses.
E
Even without the comment supposedly added by Mark (of which I see no proof. so not sure where your getting this) It still says what Jesus says, We ALL should come up to the same conclusion.
Whatever is taken in by the mouth to the stomach is purified when we (in the greek literally go out to the latrine, or toilet)
Whatever is taken in by the mouth to the stomach is purified when we (in the greek literally go out to the latrine, or toilet)
Hi E
OK we see different things. I see it as an answer to the question he was asked at the beginning.
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?
I also see Peter was still calling meat unclean years afterwards.
OK we see different things. I see it as an answer to the question he was asked at the beginning.
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?
I also see Peter was still calling meat unclean years afterwards.
To me this looks like attributes are being assigned to terms that do not necessarily have those attributes within the text. In Hebrews 7:18 it refers to one law. Strong's Lexicon goes so far as to list one of its definitions as a precept relating to lineage, of the Mosaic precept concerning the priesthood. I think you have a better case with Hebrews 7:19 where the word could be translated as a singular law or as the entire law system. But the word for perfect there I've heard should be rendered complete. This would eliminate the confusion as to what is and what is not being accomplished by the law. Because you seem to be taking it to mean to make someone righteous and in that way perfect. When I don't believe that's the focus here.
What I see of your post is saying that there is one commandment called weak and unprofitable in Christ's circumstances. Then the attributes for that one law in the context of Christ's circumstances are taken and applied to all laws for everyone and under all circumstances. But the entire chapter only deals with the priestly regulations as they concern Christ.
If you think about it, if all laws are weak and unprofitable, then we can come up with any legal and moral code we want. We don't need two witnesses to agree in testimony in order to convict someone of murder. We can just pass judgment on them, because they likely murdered someone - otherwise they wouldn't be on trial, right? Come to think of it, we don't need any of the Ten Commandments; they're part of the law - which has been called weak and unprofitable as a whole - and therefore should be thrown out. But I think you see where this is going. And I think you can agree with me that at least some of the laws in the Law are not weak and unprofitable, because they are summed up by two of the greatest laws in the Law - Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5 (i.e. the laws of love). So if some of the laws are not weak and unprofitable because they inherently carry with them the laws of love, then obviously the entire Law is not weak and unprofitable. But what we differ on is what laws are weak and unprofitable. You might only keep the two laws of love. I would go a little further than that and say that since the Law is summed up by the laws of love and comes directly from God's mouth that we should keep them all if we want to please him and conform our actions to a holy standard.
As for the sacrificial laws, I believe they should be observed. And when I say should I mean in the sense that one would do well to make use of a system of laws that God gave us for our own good. It only makes sense. And it would not only seem presumptuous but also be plainly incorrect to assume that we understand all of the reasons for all of the laws. That is, in my experience.
What I see of your post is saying that there is one commandment called weak and unprofitable in Christ's circumstances. Then the attributes for that one law in the context of Christ's circumstances are taken and applied to all laws for everyone and under all circumstances. But the entire chapter only deals with the priestly regulations as they concern Christ.
If you think about it, if all laws are weak and unprofitable, then we can come up with any legal and moral code we want. We don't need two witnesses to agree in testimony in order to convict someone of murder. We can just pass judgment on them, because they likely murdered someone - otherwise they wouldn't be on trial, right? Come to think of it, we don't need any of the Ten Commandments; they're part of the law - which has been called weak and unprofitable as a whole - and therefore should be thrown out. But I think you see where this is going. And I think you can agree with me that at least some of the laws in the Law are not weak and unprofitable, because they are summed up by two of the greatest laws in the Law - Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5 (i.e. the laws of love). So if some of the laws are not weak and unprofitable because they inherently carry with them the laws of love, then obviously the entire Law is not weak and unprofitable. But what we differ on is what laws are weak and unprofitable. You might only keep the two laws of love. I would go a little further than that and say that since the Law is summed up by the laws of love and comes directly from God's mouth that we should keep them all if we want to please him and conform our actions to a holy standard.
As for the sacrificial laws, I believe they should be observed. And when I say should I mean in the sense that one would do well to make use of a system of laws that God gave us for our own good. It only makes sense. And it would not only seem presumptuous but also be plainly incorrect to assume that we understand all of the reasons for all of the laws. That is, in my experience.
Last edited:
E
A few thoughts.
1. It could mean both. Thus would not hold it in stone.
2. Peter was also chastened by paul because he refused to eat with the gentiles. (eat meat)
3. Paul said specifically. Do not judge anyone because they eat a certain type of food. But also not to judge those who obstain from certain foods.
This in this context. We should not be judging each other. If I eat all meat as under God under grace. I am not in sin, If you chose to obstain, because you fear it is sin, I should not judge.
1. It could mean both. Thus would not hold it in stone.
2. Peter was also chastened by paul because he refused to eat with the gentiles. (eat meat)
3. Paul said specifically. Do not judge anyone because they eat a certain type of food. But also not to judge those who obstain from certain foods.
This in this context. We should not be judging each other. If I eat all meat as under God under grace. I am not in sin, If you chose to obstain, because you fear it is sin, I should not judge.
How about ill-prepared fugu? Maybe cyanide? Whatever?
Was Peter a slow learner?
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
Peter, who was with Christ, ate with Him, travelled with Him and stood beside Him as He taught, still refusing to eat unclean meats? Why did He doubt what the vision meant?
Acts 10:17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate. - NKJV
Why was he still wondering after the giving of the Holy Spirit?
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Because he did not have as much of the Spirit as you have? He didn't understand like you do? You don't suppose you have this backwards do you?
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Now why isn't there ONE WORD about food in Peter's explanation? Did it go right over his head?
Mar 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Mar 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Mark 7:17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable.
Mark 7:18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him,
Mark 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”[g]
Mark 7:20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man.
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mark 7:22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”
Interesting, but the comment of Elin's in blue is NOT in the KJV or the NKJV text. Again, we need to refer back to the context...
Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
This chapter is not about clean and unclean meats, it is about the Pharisaical traditions that some equate to the keeping of the Law...
Here is what Christ called it...
Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Another point to remember is this...
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
Paul was teaching clean and unclean meats here. Look at verse 5, what creatures are sactified BY THE WORD OF GOD?
Lev 11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
Right out of the mouth of the Word (Christ). It wasn't Moses speaking here, it was the Eternal who we know is Christ (ICor 10:4)
Why was Paul still teaching about meats that are set apart in the Word of God?
How about the Millenium?
Isa 66:15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
Isa 66:16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
Clean and unclean still in force in the Millenium.
Was Peter a slow learner?
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
Peter, who was with Christ, ate with Him, travelled with Him and stood beside Him as He taught, still refusing to eat unclean meats? Why did He doubt what the vision meant?
Acts 10:17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate. - NKJV
Why was he still wondering after the giving of the Holy Spirit?
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Because he did not have as much of the Spirit as you have? He didn't understand like you do? You don't suppose you have this backwards do you?
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Now why isn't there ONE WORD about food in Peter's explanation? Did it go right over his head?
Mar 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Mar 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Mark 7:17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable.
Mark 7:18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him,
Mark 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”[g]
Mark 7:20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man.
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mark 7:22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”
Interesting, but the comment of Elin's in blue is NOT in the KJV or the NKJV text. Again, we need to refer back to the context...
Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
This chapter is not about clean and unclean meats, it is about the Pharisaical traditions that some equate to the keeping of the Law...
Here is what Christ called it...
Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Another point to remember is this...
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
Paul was teaching clean and unclean meats here. Look at verse 5, what creatures are sactified BY THE WORD OF GOD?
Lev 11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
Right out of the mouth of the Word (Christ). It wasn't Moses speaking here, it was the Eternal who we know is Christ (ICor 10:4)
Why was Paul still teaching about meats that are set apart in the Word of God?
How about the Millenium?
Isa 66:15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
Isa 66:16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
Clean and unclean still in force in the Millenium.
Y
I would say the interpetation of the Law was changed.
Eph 2:15 when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace,
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
Jesus revealed part of what how we need to understand commanments in His sermon on the mount (Matthew 5)
Eph 2:15 when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace,
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
Jesus revealed part of what how we need to understand commanments in His sermon on the mount (Matthew 5)
Y
I think we need to understand how He had done that? I mean those who was very competent and knowledgable had always been wrong regarding to how Jesus read and understood the Law.
It would be enough for as an example how the pharisees and scribes misunderstood Jesus about His interpritation of Sabath.
It would be enough for as an example how the pharisees and scribes misunderstood Jesus about His interpritation of Sabath.
Yes, it was. . .and that is irrelevant.
And that why it was stated changes what was stated is an absurdity.
For example: "Why didn't you go to see your mother last weekend?"
"Because the bridge was out over the bay."
To say that why he stated the bridge was out changes what he stated (in saying this, he said that no one crossed the bay that day) is an absurdity.
As I also see Peter denying Christ in his presence. . .also irrelevant.
Both are a statement relevant only to Peter, and not to Jesus' teaching.
And that why it was stated changes what was stated is an absurdity.
For example: "Why didn't you go to see your mother last weekend?"
"Because the bridge was out over the bay."
To say that why he stated the bridge was out changes what he stated (in saying this, he said that no one crossed the bay that day) is an absurdity.
As I also see Peter denying Christ in his presence. . .also irrelevant.
Both are a statement relevant only to Peter, and not to Jesus' teaching.
5Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ ."Exodus 19
Although the whole earth is mine,
you will be for me
(for god) a kingdom of priests and a holy nation
2"I am the LORD your God, who brought you
out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.Exodus 20
I am the LORD your God, who brought you
(to the Israelites) out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.Exodus 20
then ten comandments were spoken.
22Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven:Exodus 20
8Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."Exodus 20
You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven:Exodus 20
(moses never etered the promised land)
18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people
Hebrews 9
20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."24For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.
Hebrews 9
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me; 6with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, my God.’ "Hebrews 10
15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." 17Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."Hebrews 10
all this has been spoken to a jewish people. then wrote, collected and became a bible.(to keep it short)
a new covenent. was spoken to all men.
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
because of the logus word is powerful, as sin got it power from the law or tryed to keep slaves to it. (for short)why we call abba father and because the law is being read and not understood sin is got what back?
you have to believe in jesus to be set free from the first covenent
because we believed in jesus christ .the gentles were given the holy spirit.
note.
the law of the land is a different thing altogether,(as in present day) the jewish people did not have, law of the land in, jesus s time.
and should not be confused with lawlessness (present day)ie goverment and police present day.(laws)
Although the whole earth is mine,
you will be for me
(for god) a kingdom of priests and a holy nation
2"I am the LORD your God, who brought you
out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.Exodus 20
I am the LORD your God, who brought you
(to the Israelites) out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.Exodus 20
then ten comandments were spoken.
22Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven:Exodus 20
8Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."Exodus 20
You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven:Exodus 20
(moses never etered the promised land)
18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people
Hebrews 9
20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."24For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.
Hebrews 9
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me; 6with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, my God.’ "Hebrews 10
15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." 17Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."Hebrews 10
all this has been spoken to a jewish people. then wrote, collected and became a bible.(to keep it short)
a new covenent. was spoken to all men.
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
because of the logus word is powerful, as sin got it power from the law or tryed to keep slaves to it. (for short)why we call abba father and because the law is being read and not understood sin is got what back?
you have to believe in jesus to be set free from the first covenent
because we believed in jesus christ .the gentles were given the holy spirit.
note.
the law of the land is a different thing altogether,(as in present day) the jewish people did not have, law of the land in, jesus s time.
and should not be confused with lawlessness (present day)ie goverment and police present day.(laws)
Y
I think that here isn't refers a literally animals, and animals it's just a image of essence of what authors of Scripture really wanted we known.
For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 1Cor 9:9-10
+
In an images of animals Peter later recognised people of other tribe and nation.
"And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered.
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.
So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me.” (Acts 10:27-29)
+
So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. (Acts 10:34-35)
About that more detail says an apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas (at least that is how it traditionally associated with).
For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 1Cor 9:9-10
+
In an images of animals Peter later recognised people of other tribe and nation.
"And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered.
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.
So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me.” (Acts 10:27-29)
+
So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. (Acts 10:34-35)
About that more detail says an apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas (at least that is how it traditionally associated with).