Under Law

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

For example, at the end of Romans 7:2 "the law of marriage" or "the law of her husband" that the woman is released from is not a law found in God's law.

According to what Paul wrote, if a woman's husband died, she was "free to marry another". 
Her new husband would then be her "head" - not her dead one.  

You're saying that Paul was teaching something contrary to "God's law". 

Where - in the OT, is that covered? 

Maybe you can educate us about the "law" were it relates to a wife in the OT.   Was a woman - by the law - bound to her dead husband's house forever? 

I know the part about a woman with no son, marrying her dead husband's brother, to raise a son to inherit her dead husband's portion in "the land".   That was about the land.

"Married" to Christ, we will all "inherit" a portion in "the land". 

Besides, the Holy City (when it descends) will cover the entire land area promised to Abraham.   

 

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I believe that God Himself has "changed" His own Law.

I dont understand how this could be so. I have been following this topic with interest, but this seems a little off:

Quote

Mat 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

I can picture some now, crowding about this text and trying to figure out "which law," but Jesus made it pretty clear which law.

[8thdaypriest]

It would be interesting to go through all the laws written in the Torah, to discuss what is retained in the "New" Covenant, and what is not. 

[BlessedMan]

1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

It would be interesting to go through all the laws written in the Torah, to discuss what is retained in the "New" Covenant, and what is not. 

I think the problem with that would be the fact that "the law" and "the covenant" are not the same things. Whether one is talking about "the old or the new "covenant" the covenant is simply an agreement about the same law Jesus referred to in Mat 5:17, which is straight from those two stones Moses brought down from the mountain

[8thdaypriest]

1 minute ago, BlessedMan said:

I dont understand how this could be so. I have been following this topic with interest, but this seems a little off:

I can picture some now, crowding about this text and trying to figure out "which law," but Jesus made it pretty clear which law.

 Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law."

Some folks reject the Letter to the Hebrews, because of this "change of the law". 

I personally believe "the priesthood" was changed BACK to what it originally was - "the firstborn".  That is how Jesus can be High Priest, because He is "the firstborn over all creation". 

God changed His Law at Mount Sinai, to make Aaron and his sons "the priesthood"  - "instead of the firstborn".  When that sin was wiped away by the blood of Christ, the priesthood could go BACK to "the firstborn". 

[8thdaypriest]

2 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

I think the problem with that would be the fact that "the law" and "the covenant" are not the same things. Whether one is talking about "the old or the new "covenant" the covenant is simply an agreement about the same law Jesus referred to in Mat 5:17, which is straight from those two stones Moses brought down from the mountain

Messianics and Hebrew Roots don't see it that way.  They say "the Law" of God, is the entire Torah - every command in the 5 Books of Moses. 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/30/2019 at 9:40 PM, BlessedMan said:

HOW would you explain "natural" law, from the Bible?

Good question.  I don't think it's the term that is important.  I'm referring to the idea or principle that underlies Paul's explanations in Romans 6 of being enslaved to sin and being set free from sin. 

For example, in the verse I quoted Paul says, "Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?"  (Romans 6:16)  Is Paul referring to some "law" written in God's Law of Moses, or to some "law" that wouldn't exist unless it is found somewhere in Scripture?  I don't think so.  He seems to be referring to a principle that exists without being explicitly created by a declaration of God, but is built into human nature. 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/22/2019 at 1:58 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

And going one step further,  is it fair to say that Christ had the authority to "change" the means of reconciliation (atonement) - from animal blood to "the blood of Christ",  from "the [Aaronic] priest shall make atonement for you", to  Jesus Christ has made atonement for you (Romans 5:11).

There is no doubt that Jesus had authority to make changes.  But did he make changes?  If he did, he was mighty quiet about those changes, and never delivered that message to the Levitical priests.  Instead YHWH gave the Levitical priests messages through Moses and the prophets and in the book of Hebrews that indicate the Levitical priesthood was not changed and would not be changed as long as the covenant of day and night continues.

I'm not convinced that reconciliation is the same as atonement.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/22/2019 at 8:51 PM, Gustave said:

The Bereans were ONLY using the Old Testament to see if it was possible that Jesus could have been the Christ.  the Bereans were said to be noble because they were willing to search the Scriptures to see if it were possible what Paul was saying was true. 

The Bereans were checking to see whether Jesus could be the Messiah spoken of in the Scriptures.  If Paul had been teaching that Jesus had set aside portions of God's Law, and had made fundamental changes so that actions that were formerly sinful would no longer be sinful (as it sounds like you are teaching about Christ), the Bereans would never have been able to confirm any of that from the Old Testament scrolls that they searched daily.

The New Covenant says, "For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more,” but it doesn't say that God would change the definition of iniquity or of sin so that actions that were formerly wrong would become right.

[Gustave]

5 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

The Bereans were checking to see whether Jesus could be the Messiah spoken of in the Scriptures.  If Paul had been teaching that Jesus had set aside portions of God's Law, and had made fundamental changes so that actions that were formerly sinful would no longer be sinful (as it sounds like you are teaching about Christ), the Bereans would never have been able to confirm any of that from the Old Testament scrolls that they searched daily.

The New Covenant says, "For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more,” but it doesn't say that God would change the definition of iniquity or of sin so that actions that were formerly wrong would become right.

Your Salvation resides in Christ, its the merits of what Christ did that qualify you for salvation. 

The Law came to Israel bit by bit in order for them to stumble and eventually be stump busted by it. It was a form of punishment that was targeted at a specific group of People. Claiming that the circumcision spoken of negatively in the New Testament only referred to a form apart from what God instructed Abraham is a cognitive toggle that laughable. The fact is that within the 1st 5 Books of Scripture are laws that were alien to people apart from the Children of Israel - some of these laws were described as a sign between God and Israel. These laws had a part to play up until Christ came and fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. 

Somehow you've missed the meaning and parallel of the Sermon on the Mount.  

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/23/2019 at 1:46 PM, B/W Photodude said:

Paul had it right when he compared cutters to dogs.

Apparently the mutilators that were mentioned along with dogs were doing more than normal circumcision -- perhaps requiring that Gentile converts that were already circumcised with Abraham's circumcision be re-circumcised according to the man-made traditions of the Pharisees.

How do we know that normal circumcision was not considered mutilation by Paul?  Because Paul describes Jesus as our Passover lamb (1Cor. 5:7).  Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21).  The Law required that the Passover lamb (Ex 12:5) and other animal sacrifices be without blemish.  If Paul considered normal circumcision to be mutilation, then a circumcised Jesus would not have qualified to be our Passover lamb.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/1/2019 at 9:37 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

According to what Paul wrote, if a woman's husband died, she was "free to marry another". 
Her new husband would then be her "head" - not her dead one.  

Notice that she wasn't free to become promiscuous as would have been the case if she had been freed from God's Law.

She would be bound to her second husband by the very same law that had bound her to the first husband.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/1/2019 at 9:37 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

You're saying that Paul was teaching something contrary to "God's law".

Absolutely not.
 

On 10/1/2019 at 9:37 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Where - in the OT, is that covered? 

It's not.  That's what I was saying.  The "law of her husband" that Paul was using to illustrate the lesson he taught in Romans 6, is not contained in the Law of Moses.

Paul explicitly states at the beginning of Romans 7 that "I am speaking to those who know the law."  Yet we often hear people who don't know the Law expound incorrectly regarding Romans 7,  mostly because they start with false assumptions about the law, and because they disconnect Romans 7 from Romans 6.

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Your Salvation resides in Christ, its the merits of what Christ did that qualify you for salvation. 

That's correct.  The Law of Moses was never given as a means to earn salvation.  It was given to teach people how to live life. That's what Jesus followed.  Jesus called the way he lived "the Way", and taught his disciples to follow it.  That way of life, following God's Law of Moses, is a significant part of the "all" that Jesus commanded his disciples to teach to all nations. (Matt. 28:18)

The Israelites had already been redeemed from slavery when they arrived at Mt. Sinai and received God's instructions.  I think that's significant symbolically.

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

The Law came to Israel bit by bit in order for them to stumble and eventually be stump busted by it. It was a form of punishment that was targeted at a specific group of People.

Where in Scripture is that taught? 

You seem to be assuming (without any Scriptural support) that God's Law of Moses was something that people were better off without.

The Scriptures actually teach something quite different than what you have stated.  Apparently you haven't noticed that the people that God chose to be the parents of John the immerser, "were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." (Luke 1)  Being Levites, more of the Law of Moses was applicable to John's parents than to the average person, yet John's parents were not "stump busted" by that at all.  That's because the Law of Moses itself contains remedies for when people sin, and someone who follows those remedies after they sin is still considered "righteous".  King David was not "stump busted" by God's good Law of Moses.  The author of Psalm 119 had a much different view of God's Law of Moses than you do.

I think I have answered all the questions you've asked me, Gustave.  I've noticed that you have answered very few of my questions.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/1/2019 at 10:11 AM, BlessedMan said:

I think the problem with that would be the fact that "the law" and "the covenant" are not the same things. Whether one is talking about "the old or the new "covenant" the covenant is simply an agreement about the same law Jesus referred to in Mat 5:17, which is straight from those two stones Moses brought down from the mountain

Rachel is correct about how Messianics and/or Hebrew Roots people understand "the Law" in Matt 5:17-19.  When Jesus spoke of "the Law" and "the prophets" he was speaking of the Old Testament scrolls.  That's how those who were listening to the Sermon on the Mount would have understood what Jesus said -- "the Law" referred to all of God's Instructions recorded by Moses.

You are correct that the law is not the same as the covenant.  The stoned tablets were the covenant document that went into the Ark of "the Covenant".   God's part of the Covenant is often omitted when people depict the stone tablets: "I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

The term "Ten Commandments" can be misleading because it gives the impression that there were only ten "commandments" total, when in reality there were many more instructions given to Israel through Moses that were "commandments".   Both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures refer to the statements that God wrote with his finger on the stone tablets as the "Ten Words" or "Ten Statements", rather than as the "Ten Commandments".

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

The fact is that within the 1st 5 Books of Scripture are laws that were alien to people apart from the Children of Israel - some of these laws were described as a sign between God and Israel. These laws had a part to play up until Christ came and fulfilled the Law and the Prophets.

This is a nice-sounding man-made theory, but it is not taught in Scripture.  As I mentioned previously, it was impossible for Jesus to fulfill all of the Law, as you claim, because there were many Laws that pertained to roles that Jesus was not -- a woman, a farmer, a soldier, a seller of land, a Levitical priest, a slave owner, a jealous husband, etc.  Likewise, there are many prophecies in "the Prophets" that Jesus did not yet fulfill.  

Besides, you have again neglected to mention the other condition that Jesus clearly stated, "until heaven and earth pass away". 

Jesus also went on to teach that in the Kingdom of Heaven someone who teaches the least of the commandments of the Law and does them will be considered great.  When Jesus quoted "the greatest" commandments of the Law, he quoted parts of God's Law of Moses that were not included in the "Ten Commandments", so we would expect to find "the least" commandments also in God's Law of Moses, rather than in the "Ten Commandments".  The men and women who were originally listening to Jesus teach the Sermon on the Mount would have understood what Jesus said in a completely different manner than the way you have presented it.  They might even laugh if they heard your claims.

[BlessedMan]

33 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Rachel is correct about how Messianics and/or Hebrew Roots people understand "the Law" in Matt 5:17-19.  When Jesus spoke of "the Law" and "the prophets" he was speaking of the Old Testament scrolls.  That's how those who were listening to the Sermon on the Mount would have understood what Jesus said -- "the Law" referred to all of God's Instructions recorded by Moses.

You are correct that the law is not the same as the covenant.  The stoned tablets were the covenant document that went into the Ark of "the Covenant".   God's part of the Covenant is often omitted when people depict the stone tablets: "I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

The term "Ten Commandments" can be misleading because it gives the impression that there were only ten "commandments" total, when in reality there were many more instructions given to Israel through Moses that were "commandments".   Both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures refer to the statements that God wrote with his finger on the stone tablets as the "Ten Words" or "Ten Statements", rather than as the "Ten Commandments".

She may be correct about that, in its intended context.  My comment was from the point of view of the textual evidence for what Jesus was talking about.  The context my comment refers to is right in the preceding verses from Mat 5:17-18:

Quote

Mat 5:2  And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
Mat 5:3  Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:4  Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Mat 5:5  Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Mat 5:6  Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Mat 5:7  Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Mat 5:8  Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Mat 5:9  Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Mat 5:10  Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:11  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Mat 5:12  Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Salt and Light
Mat 5:13  Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Mat 5:14  Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Mat 5:15  Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Mat 5:16  Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

These 16 verses preceding mat 5:17-18 reflect perfectly the intended ten-commandment law. The Levite Laws were different: I have a study about it here

[BlessedMan]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

The fact is that within the 1st 5 Books of Scripture are laws that were alien to people apart from the Children of Israel - some of these laws were described as a sign between God and Israel. These laws had a part to play up until Christ came and fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. 

This is correct, I can certainly agree with this statement Its essential to recognize that when the Bible talks about "the law" that it means different things, at different times, to different people. Christ's death marked a point in salvational history where much of the law; especially that which The Levite priesthood had to go by for their Temple ministry, was by default rendered not needed. There is no reason in scripture to suppose that the ten commandment part has been "done away with."

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, BlessedMan said:

This is correct, I can certainly agree with this statement Its essential to recognize that when the Bible talks about "the law" that it means different things, at different times, to different people. Christ's death marked a point in salvational history where much of the law; especially that which The Levite priesthood had to go by for their Temple ministry, was by default rendered not needed. There is no reason in scripture to suppose that the ten commandment part has been "done away with."

That's because the 10 Commandments are Moral or "Natural" to literally all known societies excepting the specific timing of worship -which was absolutely ceremonial. A Germanic Barbarian kid KNEW he better "honor his Mom & Dad", and that Barbarian kids parents KNEW they shouldn't steal stuff from the folks that lived next door, etc, etc, etc. What I can tell you for certain is that the Germanic Barbarians or ancient Chinese peoples were not commanded by Nature to Observe Saturn's day as a Sabbath ergo the Command to set aside "some time" for the worship of something greater than yourself is indeed Moral but pushing it to a specific time apart from all other times requires special revelation  - i.e. it's ceremonial. 

 

 

 

[phkrause]

Not Under the Law” in Galatians by  Prof Pinchas Shir

In Galatians, Paul teaches his disciples, “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law” (Gal 5:18; cf. Rom 6:14-15; 1 Cor 9:20-21). What does Paul mean by “not under the Law”? The traditional answer is that Paul (Shaul) abandoned Torah for an alternative way of living—not a life of legal observance, but a life under “grace” and “faith.” This supposed shift in Paul’s lifestyle assumes that grace and faith are in opposition to God’s Law, but Paul himself denied such an opposition many times over (e.g., Rom 3:31; 4:16; 7:7-16; 10:5). A closer examination of Gal 5:18 shows that Paul does not disdain the Law (far from it), but rather he qualifies the Law’s scope in light of the Messiah’s arrival. I have to warn you, my explanation of the apostle’s words will take you far from the traditional path of reading Galatians.

https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/not-law-galatians/?via=4403748

This is an interesting article, thought it would be of some value

[8thdaypriest]

18 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Notice that she wasn't free to become promiscuous as would have been the case if she had been freed from God's Law.

She would be bound to her second husband by the very same law that had bound her to the first husband.

I'm thinking about the story of Ruth.  When she chose to go with Naomi, she said, "Your people shall be my people, AND your God my god."  Is the same not the case when a woman married?  His god became hers.  In marrying him, she accepted his god. 

I believe the Torah commanded that any woman brought into the "camp" of Israel, had to leave behind her "gods", and accept the God of Israel (and His Law). 

Though it doesn't seem to have worked with the "wives" of Solomon.  They brought their idols with them.  Also with the favorite wife of Jacob.  She brought the household idols of Laban with her. 

I'm not saying the Law of God is somehow left behind.  I'm saying the "widow" accepts the God of her new husband.  The new husband is Christ, and His God is the Father.  Therefore the newly married woman is under the Law of God the Father - the God of her new "husband".   

It is a "new" covenant, because it is a "new" marriage covenant - between the "woman" and the new "husband". 

The LORD promised a "new covenant".  As part of that covenant He will write His law in her heart. 

 Romans 7:1 "Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law (concerning her marriage), so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God." (NAS)

When the widow is "joined to another" that requires a new marriage covenant.  The first marriage covenant doesn't cover the new marriage.  One would certainly assume that the first covenant and the new covenant would bear striking similarity.  The "husband" of the first, and the "husband" of the second, both serve the same "God". 

[8thdaypriest]

Jesus would never do anything that His Father had not directed Him to do.  If there has been a "change of the Law" concerning "the priesthood",  we can assume that "change" was directed by God the Father. 

21 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

There is no doubt that Jesus had authority to make changes.  But did he make changes?  If he did, he was mighty quiet about those changes, and never delivered that message to the Levitical priests.  Instead YHWH gave the Levitical priests messages through Moses and the prophets and in the book of Hebrews that indicate the Levitical priesthood was not changed and would not be changed as long as the covenant of day and night continues.

    Aaron and his sons entered into a “blood covenant” with Yahweh on the day which began their consecration (Lev. 8:22).  They placed their hands on the head of the second ram and pledged obedience and faithfulness to Yahweh, on pain of death.  The covenant was conditional, and the promise was conditional.  So I would be quick to point out that only faithful sons of Aaron will continue as priests forever, under this Aaronic priestly covenant.

    Not a single one of the Aaronic priests obeyed perfectly.  They all stand condemned to death without the One Offering that can cover their sins.  The Covenant under which they ministered has been declared “obsolete”, and it would soon disappear completely.  Those who sought the LORD in humility of heart will be forgiven, and will be delivered into the Kingdom of Messiah, where they will continue as priests - under the New Melchizedek order which will include all of Israel redeemed.

    By the time of Christ, the position of high priest was occupied by a Roman appointee.  Annas and his sons were imposters.  They were not descended from Aaron.  Israel had no legitimate high priest at that time.  The Day of Atonement ceremony would therefore have been unacceptable to God - leaving the people still in their sins.

Here is a prediction, from the OT, that the Levitical priesthood through Aaron and Phinehas would come to an end.

1 Samuel 2:30 "Therefore the LORD God of Israel declares, 'I did indeed say that your house and the house of your father [Aaron] should walk before Me forever'; but now the LORD declares, 'Far be it from Me-- for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me will be lightly esteemed. 31 'Behold, the days are coming when I will break your strength and the strength of your father's house so that there will not be an old man in your house. 32 'And you will see the distress of My dwelling, in spite of all that I do good for Israel; and an old man will not be in your house forever." (NAS)

Eli was not from the line of Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas.  He was descended from Ithamar (Aaron's 4th son).  

"An old man" was a man of age to serve as a priest. 

Here's another one:

Jeremiah 3:16 "And it shall come to pass that when ye are multiplied and increased upon the land, saith the Lord, in those days they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Holy One of Israel: it shall not come to mind; it shall not be named; neither shall it be visited; nor shall this be done any more." (LXA)

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

5 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

1 Samuel 2:30 "Therefore the LORD God of Israel declares, 'I did indeed say that your house and the house of your father [Aaron] should walk before Me forever'; but now the LORD declares, 'Far be it from Me-- for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me will be lightly esteemed. 31 'Behold, the days are coming when I will break your strength and the strength of your father's house so that there will not be an old man in your house. 32 'And you will see the distress of My dwelling, in spite of all that I do good for Israel; and an old man will not be in your house forever." (NAS)

Eli was not from the line of Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas.  He was descended from Ithamar (Aaron's 4th son).  

"An old man" was a man of age to serve as a priest. 

Here's another one:

Jeremiah 3:16 "And it shall come to pass that when ye are multiplied and increased upon the land, saith the Lord, in those days they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Holy One of Israel: it shall not come to mind; it shall not be named; neither shall it be visited; nor shall this be done any more." (LXA)

Some have argued that only "the house of" Ithamar would come to an end, by this prophecy/curse. 

I would argue that the LORD never specifically said that "the house of Ithamar" would walk before Him as priests forever.  Therefore  "your father's house" in the passage, must refer to the house of one whom the LORD specifically promised a perpetual priesthood. Aaron was such, and so was Phinehas. 

 

[Gustave]

On 10/1/2019 at 10:11 AM, BlessedMan said:

I think the problem with that would be the fact that "the law" and "the covenant" are not the same things. Whether one is talking about "the old or the new "covenant" the covenant is simply an agreement about the same law Jesus referred to in Mat 5:17, which is straight from those two stones Moses brought down from the mountain

The early Church understood Jesus' "sermon on the mount" to replace the ministry of death Moses brought down from the mountain. 

"For when there is a change in the Priesthood there is necessarily a change in the law as well." Hebrews 7,12

"The Law" was only intended to be in force until it would be fulfilled by Christ (which He did). The New Covenant required a "change in the law". This is why it was so easy for Paul to say that for Christians "NOTHING IS UNCLEAN" - the context here is "FOOD" and the word itself means "Levitically unclean". It's quite simple - there is no such thing as clean and unclean foods in the Christian era. This is a definite change in the law. There are many other examples not pertaining to foods but this is a rather simple and straightforward one. 

[BlessedMan]

2 minutes ago, Gustave said:

This is why it was so easy for Paul to say that for Christians "NOTHING IS UNCLEAN"

Are you sure that its a good idea, exegetically, to leave out the other parts of this text and to make it out as only a part of the original? Also wondering how that text can be thought of as only talking about food? I think the context is MUCH different than this.