1) The main point of the vision was not food, it was the fact that the Gospel was not reserved just for the Jews. It should not be the *first* place we look in discussing food laws. However, I do believe it is *a* relevant passage.
2) In this context, it is more likely that "common" and "unclean" are virtual synonyms than distinctly separate categories. More to the point, in v. 15, God corrects Peter not in the way YOU are suggesting, but by reminding him the He had "made" certain things clean, the clear intent being that those things *were* at one time "unclean."
See above. I don't believe you are interpreting the passage correctly.
This is a dishonest dumb-ass debating tactic, akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
It is not disobedience if the Law is no longer in effect.
In Gal. 3:10, Paul directly alludes to the "curse" for disobedience promised in Deut. 27:26. He follows by asserting that Christ "redeemed us from the curse of the Law," and in light of the context and of other Pauline writings, there's a good chance this is a synecdoche meaning we are redeemed from the curse of having to live by the Law.
I have occasionally heard Law-enthusiasts claim that "Love your neighbor as yourself" covered how we are to relate to each other, and "Love the Lord your God..." covered all the various and sundry other laws. That's an interesting notion, but I believe it misses the essence of the point Jesus was making.
In any case, all three of the Synoptists include those "Two Great Commandments," albeit in somewhat different forms and contexts. Matthew says the Second is "like" the First, and some lexicons say the word (homoios) literally means "the same as." Luke actually combines the two into one. That is consistent with Paul in Rom. 13 and Gal. 5, both of which say that obeying the Commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is all that is needed to fulfill the whole Law.
Further, both Matthew and Luke include the instruction to "treat others as you wish others to treat you." In Matthew, this is explicitly said to sum up the entire OT (Law and Prophets).
You are reversing Paul's point by your cherry-picking. The next chapter (Rom. 4) shows that the *way* faith upholds the Law is that the Law itself declared that Abraham was justified by *faith*, irrespective of "works."
This is, frankly, stupid mix-and-match Bible "study." Look to what 1 Peter itself says for what "holy conduct" means. Don't drag in the Obsolete Covenant unless Peter explicitly cited it. And if he did, you need to explain how and why he did it.
2) In this context, it is more likely that "common" and "unclean" are virtual synonyms than distinctly separate categories. More to the point, in v. 15, God corrects Peter not in the way YOU are suggesting, but by reminding him the He had "made" certain things clean, the clear intent being that those things *were* at one time "unclean."
Perhaps you would be right if Peter has just said that he had never eaten anything that was unclean or if God had told Peter not to call unclean what he had made clean, but Peter added that he had also never eaten anything that was common, and God only rebuked him for referring to something that was clean as being common. Yet you are ignoring what God actually rebuked him for doing and applying it to something else in order to do away with what God has commanded even though Peter interpreted his vision three times without even hinting at unclean animals now being permissible to eat.
Please either agree that it is immoral to disobey God or cite an example where disobedience to God was considered to be moral.
It is not disobedience if the Law is no longer in effect.
When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return to the Law was to first return to obedience to God's Law, which required them to have access to a temple that they didn't have access to while they were in exile, so if there is a law that has conditions that aren't met, then it is not disobeying God to refrain from obeying what it instructs and is thus not immoral, but we should nevertheless be faithful to obey as much as we can obey.
In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, God said that it is not too difficult to obey His Law and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life!
In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, God said that it is not too difficult to obey His Law and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life!
If someone is not acting in accordance with what the Law instructs, then they can't be said to be be following the heart of the Law. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so all of the other laws hang on the greatest two because they are all examples of what it looks like to correctly obey them.
In any case, all three of the Synoptists include those "Two Great Commandments," albeit in somewhat different forms and contexts. Matthew says the Second is "like" the First, and some lexicons say the word (homoios) literally means "the same as." Luke actually combines the two into one. That is consistent with Paul in Rom. 13 and Gal. 5, both of which say that obeying the Commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is all that is needed to fulfill the whole Law.
Further, both Matthew and Luke include the instruction to "treat others as you wish others to treat you." In Matthew, this is explicitly said to sum up the entire OT (Law and Prophets).
In Romans 2:13, Paul said only the doers of the Law will be justified. In Romans 2:26, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God's Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16). In Romans 3:31, our faith does not do away without need to obey God's Law, but rather our faith upholds it.
In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy and part of God's instructions for how to do that is to refrain from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45).
Comment