I conclude you mean under the NC and not the OC...your question.
For sanctification no (Jewish..yes). Cleanliness...yes.
(I would need to study...but, I don't remember it being required under the OC...not sure...just A Jewish custom..perhaps???)
For sanctification no (Jewish..yes). Cleanliness...yes.
(I would need to study...but, I don't remember it being required under the OC...not sure...just A Jewish custom..perhaps???)
I propose that our understanding should be that law-requirements can be fulfilled through equivalency and that this principle is evident even in the OT by itself.
A servant's lost eye can be repaid by granting him freedom, manslaughter can be repaid by monetary compensation. And following from that, specific OT ordinances can be fulfilled by equivalencies described in the NT. Do you agree or disagree with this?
Cleanliness...yes
Supposing for a moment your answer is yes. If eating crayfish is sinful, would you deny a starving child crayfish?
I disagree with this: "I think it is fair to say that certain interpretations of the law can be disregarded. And that is not necessarily sinful."
The Pharisees clearly had an interpretation of the law that can be disregarded. The act of Jesus healing on the Sabbath was clearly not sin.
It is therefore necessarily the case that my quoted statement is true. The question comes back to "Which interpretations of law are correct?"
It can be a complicated topic at times.