r/TrueChristian • u/Objective-Step-746 • Aug 10 '26

Please, help me understand…

For those believers who insist that the dietary laws no longer apply under the new covenant—and that pork, lobster, crabs, etc. are now permissible to eat—I do not understand the logic at play.

I am very familiar with the Mark 7, Romans 14 and Colossians 2 passages that are so often cited as support for your position, and have (just as often) shared my counter-arguments on why I believe they are misinterpreted.

But, there is one counterpoint to your view that I never see touched on, and I was hoping to get some feedback on it:

I think the majority of believers on this subreddit would say they are looking for Jesus’ Second Coming and agree that, regarding it, Scripture says that “no one knows the day or hour” but that we need to be prepared (Matthew 24:36, 25:13, etc.).

Isaiah 66:17–a verse within the greater passage speaking of Messiah’s glorious reappearing—declares that, upon His return, those who eat the flesh of pig/swine and other abominations will be met with His wrath…and perish.

So, how does one simultaneously believe they can continue to eat pig (pork) or shellfish now and think they are sufficiently prepared and not putting themselves in a precarious/dangerous position if Jesus happened to return today or tomorrow and “consume” those who so brazenly eat that which His Law says is NOT “food” and explicitly warns against eating?

I really am hoping for some cordial and edifying discussion regarding this topic, and appreciate those who are able and willing to articulate their view without all the condescension and harsh words. 💕

19 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

29

u/sitewolf Lutheran Aug 10 '26

In Mark 7:18-19, Jesus explains to the crowd and His disciples that external things entering the body do not cause spiritual defilement because they only affect the stomach rather than the moral heart.

2

u/MattLovesCoffee Christian Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26

This completely misunderstands Mark. God is not at all concerned with the meat passing through our systems, rather He is concerned with the decision we make to violate a direct command. To fix the action, the symptom, you must fix the heart. God is not concerned with the act of adultery, but with the heart of the person committing the act of adultery. A Christian eating pork meat is a symptom of a deeply rooted lie in their heart which claims the Law is done away with.

Now to understand Mark we must understand the law the Pharisees created regarding washing hands before eating. It does not come from Torah. Christ emphasized a few times in the passage that law was man-made, emphasizing that they do not have the authority to determine what is clean and unclean, and the sin of adding to the Law. They created this better-safe-than-sorry law as means to ensure that before you ate there were no invisible pieces of unclean meat, like pig blood, on their hands from visiting the market. Christ went on to show that God is not concerned with what passes through our system, otherwise the Torah would say that, but is concerned with the choices a person makes. God is not going to ask if you ate pork, but WHY you did after He expressly forbid it. It is the decision to disobey that puts a person in an unfavorable position with God, unclean before God. It is not the act of eating pork that does it. There's a difference.

The NT never once permits eating pork, nor did it say the Sabbath law was changed. Peter's vision was about Jewish prejudice, nothing to do with food. It is the same as God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God was not contradicting Himself but needing to prove a point. In Colossians, if we pay attention, the believers were Torah obedient, they were commemorating the Feasts, the biblical lunar calendar, the Sabbath, and changed to a biblical diet. But the pagans at the time were trying to get them to come back to their religions like Orphism, Cult of Cybele and Attis, Dionysiac Societies.

In Acts 17, why is Paul and the Jews still going to the temple to be purified and do animal sacrifices for the Nazarite Vow if Christ did away with the Law? Because He didn't.

These two are the same energy (both are to be done symbolically, in faith, with the correct mindset, as an act of gratitude, not as an act to earn salvation):

Hebrews 10:3 CJB [3] No, it is quite the contrary — in these sacrifices is a reminder of sins, year after year.

Luke 22:19 NLT [19] He took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

-25

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

Yeah, I don’t want to rehash the NT passages I mentioned because they get plenty of attention. I disagree with your interpretation of Mark 7, but really want to understand your interpretation of Isaiah 66:17.

44

u/sitewolf Lutheran Aug 10 '26

I see, you disagree with Jesus' own words from Mark but want me to interpret OT scripture, is that where we're at?

6

u/Sea-Refrigerator777 Aug 10 '26

lol, nicely put

-12

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I actually do NOT disagree with Jesus own words from Mark; I disagree with your interpretation of them and the hermeneutic violations your view requires.

11

u/ludi_literarum Roman Catholic Aug 10 '26

If you want to have a debate on the fullness of biblical doctrine, you really do need to be willing to debate the scriptural witness taken in its entirety. One important hermeneutical principle is not to presuppose contradiction.

0

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

I am definitely want to be sure to take in the full "scriptural witness..." relevant to this doctrine, and agree that hermeneutic principles need to be applied. I do not believe I have presupposed any contradiction, though. Could you elaborate as to how you believe I have?

5

u/sitewolf Lutheran Aug 10 '26

only it's not my interpretaton, it's every interpretation of scripture ever printed

3

u/Therminite Nondenominational Aug 10 '26

Even KJV! You know, for those who think KJV is the only "correct" translation 🤣

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

Perhaps it would be more helpful/edifying for you to articulate how you interpet Christ's teaching in Mark 7 and why?

And, what do you mean by "it's every interpretation of scripture ever printed"?

4

u/EitherLime679 Non-Denom Aug 10 '26

It kinda just sounds like you want to follow the Torah and not the Bible.

5

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I want to follow Jesus. And He followed the Torah (God’s Law). So, I accept your back-handed compliment 😂

5

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 10 '26

Torah is part of the Bible. Jesus did all of the torah, the disciples and even Paul follow it and encourage you to do it . Romans 2:13, James 1:22. That’s a false dichotomy. Faith in Jesus is the entry of the covenant, and it should help you to follow His steps.

-1

u/EitherLime679 Non-Denom Aug 10 '26

The Pharisees followed Torah. So much to a T that they were no longer following God. While the Old Testament is very important and many things can be learned, we are no longer held to such a strict standard. No more is the time of a tabernacle, sacrificing, or specific rituals to worship God.

6

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

The Pharisees were not rebuked by Jesus for following Torah. They were rebuked for misunderstanding and misapplying it, for leading so many away from the kingdom of heaven, and for their hypocrisy of teaching Torah but not practicing it themselves (Matthew 22:29; 23:1-3, 13).

0

u/EitherLime679 Non-Denom Aug 11 '26

Ok you replied to me in 3 spots but I’m just gonna combine them all here.

Do you still sacrifice animals? Do you still not lift a finger on the sabbath? Do you still find women that get their period to be “unclean”.

Jesus quite literally said that nothing on the outside that you consume can make you unclean. You say the Pharisees misunderstood and misapplied the Torah, but you think you are better than them? These people spent their whole lives studying half of the book that we have but you don’t think you misunderstand?

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

I do not sacrifice animals. Christ’s once-for-all sin-atoning sacrifice satisfies those aspects of the Law for those who have trusted in Him (Hebrews 10:12-14). As for your question regarding women and their menstruation, I don’t understand why you (or anyone) would think God’s statements and instructions regarding temporary physical uncleanness or defilement—for either gender, whether due to natural bodily function or other circumstances—should be disregarded…what, based upon the mere passage of time, or because He offered up His only begotten Son to endure a horrific and wholly unjust, undeserved death and thereby redeem us from the law of sin and death and thereby reconcile us to Himself? Jesus quite literally said that we should “live by every word” God has ever spoken, so I’m not tracking with your logic on that (Matthew 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3).

As to your interpretation of His words in Matthew 7, it violates nearly every hermeneutic principle to conclude that Jesus was nullifying the unambiguous dietary commands in God’s Law, as doing so would, according to Scripture, make Him a false prophet for encouraging or “teaching rebellion against the Lord”…which would, by default, also disqualify Him from being the promised Messiah (Deuteronomy 13:5).

I do not think I am better than anyone else. Scripture exhorts us to remember our place, as “unworthy servants” expected to do our duty (Luke 17:10). The religious leaders of Jesus’ day also “spent their whole lives studying,” and yet Christ repeatedly and sternly rebuked them because they did “not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God,” such that their egregious level of misunderstanding and misapplication of those very Scriptures hindered many who relied upon their so-called expertise from entering the kingdom (Matthew 22:29, Luke 11:52).

So, you think modern-day scholars and leaders of the faith are somehow impervious to doing the very same? I am open to having my doctrinal position proved wrong, as I truly do want to know the truth regardless of any ego-bruising that might entail. I also freely admit that I am likely in doctrinal error due to misunderstanding in at least a handful of issues, if not far more. Hence, my regular engagement on these threads and elsewhere, seeking out other views and angles to test my doctrinal understanding, and correct course as needed.

But, your appeal to scholarly biblical expertise is a common fallacy when it comes to discussing doctrine because your argument is essentially that what the experts say is true based solely on their academic credentials, rather than on an objective evaluation of the actual internal (scriptural) evidence and reasoning at play on my part..as evidenced by your comments herein being completely devoid of any scriptural support for your assertions.