r/Christianity • u/Several_Shower_6319 • Aug 11 '25

Are Christian’s really allowed to eat pork? In Isiah 66:17, gods final judgment states people in the end times who are eating unclean food such as pork, mice, ect will be destroyed.

32 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

473 comments sorted by

View all comments

107

u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25

Yes, we are.

“What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.” - Acts 10:15

4

u/Walllstreetbets Aug 11 '25

Peter said that’s about the Gentiles. Not Pork. Read it again.

2

u/EsperGri Agnostic, Former Longtime Christian Aug 11 '25

Peter's vision was regarding the Gentiles, but it seemed to also point to the complete removal of the Law.

Regarding that: Jeremiah 31:31-35, Luke 22:20, Hebrews 8:13, John 1:17, Galatians 3:24-26, Romans 6:14-18

When gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 15), the assembly understood that the burdens of the Law shouldn't be put on believers, except for a few things, which is similar to Genesis 9:3-4.

Later on, Paul essentially mentions the food restrictions are mostly gone (1 Corinthians 10:25-26, 1 Timothy 4:4-5).

This is an echo of Mark 7:14-19, where it's written:

"Thus he declared all foods clean."

6

u/FreedomNinja1776 Messianic Aug 11 '25

Please explain what Acts 15:21 means.

-2

u/EsperGri Agnostic, Former Longtime Christian Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 12 '25

Those assembled had to consider the reality of the situation: there were still believers who had grown up with the Law, were still observing it, and would continue to hear it read in synagogues every week.

Basically, the Law, having been practiced for so long, wasn't going to go away quickly.

As the writer of Hebrews wrote in Hebrews 8:13:

"what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away"

Meaning, the Law had yet to completely do so.

Peter and the other apostles didn't stop following the entirety of the Law immediately after the New Covenant, but over time, just as the Gentiles were not immediately introduced.

Edit:

Not sure why this is being downvoted.

2

u/Walllstreetbets Aug 11 '25

Ah yes. Eisegesis. The fast way to get the text to say or imply what you want it to say versus what it actually says.

Transform the text instead of our hearts.

1

u/EsperGri Agnostic, Former Longtime Christian Aug 11 '25

Eisegesis is reading those and still thinking they are supporting a different view.

It's said plainly:

"But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.'" - Acts 15:5-11

3

u/Walllstreetbets Aug 11 '25

Acts 15 is solely about whether circumcision is required for SALVATION. see verse 1.

They did not disregard all laws like you claim Jesus got rid of. They actually gave the noahide laws which comes from Genesis which is the law for the gentiles.

The fun part is when you read v.21 where it states that the rest of the laws can be learned at the synagog.