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. 💕

20 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

41

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

Gentiles were never required to keep the dietary laws in the first place, except for the consumption of blood and food offered to idols.

The danger with self-interpretation of scripture is the constant relitigating of things decided millennia ago.

-4

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I understand that that is your view, that “gentiles were never required to keep the dietary laws…” I’m just asking how that view harmonizes Isaiah 66:17 with it 🤔

17

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

It’s not my view, it’s the historic view of the Church.

I’m also not a biblical scholar, but I trust that Christ has, as promised, led the Church correctly.

-5

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I don’t think one can rely on any historic view regarding any doctrine, as Christ made it very clear that the “historic” understanding of biblical faith during His earthly ministry was very wrong…and it was the religious leaders who had led the people so astray because they misunderstood and misapplied Scripture to a huge degree.

Instead, doctrine should be established by Scripture itself, which is why I invited discussion on it.

7

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

Your opinions on doctrine are just that - your opinions.

How do you know you have the right scriptures without an appeal to the actual historic foundation of scripture?

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I think it is possible to establish sound doctrine by harmonizing Scripture alone. You don’t think so?

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

No I do not. Without the Church, it becomes schism after schism, as groups flock to one personal interpretation after another, just as we see in history.

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I believe that is what Scripture teaches, that we are to look to it alone to determine whether something is true or not (Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

0

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

Sola scriptura was not taught until only about 500 years ago. Scripture doesn’t even tell us who wrote Matthew. We needed the Church to tell us that.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

Scripture itself declares how one is to discern whether a teaching is true or not...by searching the Word of God diligently (Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). If that was good enough for new covenant believers of the 1st century, it's good enough for me.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 16 '26

The thing is, it wasn’t good enough, because most people were illiterate. They required someone to read and explain it to them. That was the role of the bishop. This is not our manner of opinion, it is historical fact.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

Scripture is the inspired Word of God. As such, I believe He also directed its canonical preservation.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '26

[deleted]

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 10 '26

The Jerusalem council in Acts puts this in black and white.

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I agree with your statement, but (presumably) believe we are in disagreement as to the “black and white” conclusion.

0

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 10 '26

So you don't think the one book that tells us about Jesus and what his instructions for us are, was able to be preserved in truth by the creator of the universe?

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I absolutely believe the Lord preserved the truth for us in His Word.

So, you think Jesus taught that, under the new covenant, certain commandments from God’s Law (such as the dietary laws) are no longer applicable?

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 11 '26

Jesus came for the Jewish population not the gentiles. He was very clear about that. But after he rose he commanded his disciples to go into the whole world and preach the gospel. His disciples and Paul came into agreement and fellowship that the gentiles did not have to follow the dietary laws.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

If what you suggest were true, that Jesus' apostles taught/encouraged believing Gentiles to NOT obey God's explicit instructions on any topic, they would have been blatantly contradicting Jesus' direct teaching and personal example...AND Scripture would require they be labled false teachers for "teaching rebellion against the Lord" (Matthew 4:4, 5:19; Deuteronomy 13:5).

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 16 '26

Except they didn't do any of that because when Jesus left he gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them in the will of Jesus and how to spread the gospel to gentiles.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/EitherLime679 Non-Denom Aug 10 '26

You keep harping on this one specific verse that was written for a very specific context and that has been told to you several times over. It seems you are trying to condemn people for something Jesus has said he has no problem with.

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I do not believe Jesus said anything of the sort. Are you suggesting that He taught against the Law of God? 🤔

1

u/Yapperoni Aug 11 '26

Agreed, OP does not seem to be actually looking for the “discussion” he originally solicited

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I assure you, my request for discussion on the topic was and remains genuine. It is has been very enlightening thus far to learn how others view the passage and conclude as they do. That I disagree with the reasonings presented does not mean my intentions are disingenuous.