The Relationship of Jewish and Gentile Believers to the Law Between A.D. 30 and 70 in the Scripture

87 wine, and preferably bring your own food. " 95 Or as Daniel handled himself, drink only water and eat vegetables! In summary the textual and historical evidence would suggest that what both Peter and his fellows in Jerusalem objected to at first blush was his company rather than his menu. Therefore if there is little evidence to suggest that Peter violated the laws of kashrut it is especially ill-advised to posit on this basis that Peter understood the vision as a literal abrogation of the food laws of Moses. Criticism of the view Our first criticism of this view is that it is unnecessarily complicated or perhaps just unnecessary. That is, the proposition of "if the Gentile mission, then the end of the Law" is simply untrue . The Mosaic law in general and the food laws in particular did not stand in the way of the mission to the Gentiles. The abrogation of Moses was not a necessary step on the way to the Gentile mission. 96 To be sure, the Law did serve to make Israel distinctive and the food laws in particular did regulate and sometimes restrict interaction between Israel and her neighbors. Yet, ". . . there is a fundamental difference between the OT concept of I rael as Yahweh's 'special treasure' and the second commonwealth Jewish insistence upon I rael a 95 E. P . anders, "Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatian 2:11-14," in The onversation Continues, festschrift presented to J . Loui Martyn, ed . , Robert Fortna and Beverly Gaventa (Na hville : n.p ., 1990), 177. Even today thi i the accepted u tom in orthodox Jewi h circles in I rael. Dr . Channah afrai, per anal interview b author, J ru a– lem, I rael, July 20, 1992. per pe ti e the mi ion to th ntil n t i h r jecti n of th mi i n r pt d th t , " in Th ei a (Philad I