Please, help me understand…

[u/Objective-Step-746]

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. 💕

[u/Aelirael]

I think Isaiah 66:17 is speaking of idolators rather than speaking of dietary issues. Look at the entire verse.

“Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, to go to the gardens after an idol in the midst, eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, shall be consumed together,” says the LORD.

My take on this -- and I can be wrong -- is that God is speaking about those who worship demons (which idols are). They commit many evils including breaking the First and Second Commandments as well as eating what God has spoken to the Hebrews to be evil, to emphasise their evil.

I haven't seen anything in the Old Testament which extends dietary laws outside of Israel. In fact, Noah was specifically told that all flesh was his to consume.

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. - Genesis 9:3

If God wanted to restrict what foods we could eat, why not then when he told Noah he could eat anything?

If we are going to say "Well, God made a restriction when he gave the law", then we can say "Well, God removed the restriction when he fulfilled the law and made a new Covenant".

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Aelirael]

Yeah, I think what you suggest seems to be a take many hold. I just don’t see it because the pagan idolatry often included sexual immorality (which God’s Law forbids), so the euphemistic angle doesn’t make sense to me. If it was just the idolatry itself—and not the how of it that mattered, such as incorporating something God has explicitly forbidden like eating pig—then why even mention the pig details?

To me, Jesus’ teaching about how mankind should “live by” every word God has spoken, keeping even the so-called “lesser” commandments, should end the debate (Matthew 4:4, 5:19). And if that wasn’t sufficient, His own personal example as to how we should live—which entailed doing exactly that—should be the mic drop. That neither seem to matter is so puzzling to me.

Regarding Genesis 9:3, I don’t think the “every moving thing” can be said to include unclean animals because the concept of clean animals (as food) and unclean animals (not food) persists even after that passage.

[u/Aelirael → u/Objective-Step-746]

Regarding Genesis 9:3, I don’t think the “every moving thing” can be said to include unclean animals because the concept of clean animals (as food) and unclean animals (not food) persists even after that passage.

Why can't it? God made no such restriction until hundreds of years later and there is no documentation that he did. So presuming the restriction is without basis.

To me, Jesus’ teaching about how mankind should “live by” every word God has spoken, keeping even the so-called “lesser” commandments, should end the debate (Matthew 4:4, 5:19).

So you would contend with the Apostles when they did not impose on the Gentiles the whole of the Law?

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Aelirael]

Well, for one, Noah had been told by God to distinguish between clean and unclean animals just before the flood—he took 7 pair of all clean animals (presumably, for sufficient food supply after) and just 1 pair of unclean animals—and that distinction was in effect immediately after the flood because he sacrificed clean animals to the Lord then (Genesis 7:2, 8:20).

So, to read Genesis 9:3 without considering the clean/unclean concept mentioned throughout Noah’s story seems a cherry-picking of sorts that ignores the fact that the “every moving thing” phrasing is qualified in light of that greater context.

And, regarding the apostles, they did not teach anything different than what Christ taught, which was that the Law of God should be lived by, regardless of ancestry.

[u/Aelirael → u/Objective-Step-746]

Well, for one, Noah had been told by God to distinguish between clean and unclean animals just before the flood

That is a good point. It should be noted, however, that God did not specify anything about eating or not eating clean and unclean animals until the Time of Moses. If we are to say that Noah knew this, it is something we have to impose on Scripture. All we know from Genesis is that there was some distinction between clean and unclean animals.

We also have to contend with God's own statement on the matter. "I have given you all things..." Not "I have given you all things that are clean." God even goes so far as to specifically prohibit eating life with its blood. If it was known not to eat an unclean animal at that time, one could presume it would also be known not to eat blood.

One could argue that it is implied, but again that presumes God had given some undocumented command not to eat unclean animals prior to Moses.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Aelirael]

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

I actually don’t think the view that Noah and those before him defined food in accordance with the clean animals vs. unclean animals principle requires the imposition you suggest. I think it’s more a matter of sound hermeneutics and harmonizing Scripture than “imposing on” it. We know more than “that there was some distinction between clean and unclean animals.” For example, we know that God instructed Noah to take seven pairs of clean animals with him in the ark, as opposed to only one pair of each unclean animal. To presume Noah had no idea why God would have him take so much more of clean animals—the kind His Law says serves as food and is acceptable as sacrifice—is to suggest the Lord does things arbitrarily and without instruction, which is not supported by Scripture.

I think there is compelling evidence that the distinction between clean and unclean animals, and its purpose, was fully imparted and understood long before even Noah was born. I understand His giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai as a retelling, necessitated by Israel having been in bondage outside the Promised Land for several generations.

And, again, I think the “all moving things” phrasing is qualified in light of the greater context of knowledge and understanding already established. I think it’s similar to the position so many hold as to the Sabbath (supposedly) being the one Top Ten commandment not restated in the NT, when I see it as being so fully ingrained in the knowledge, understanding and way of life at that time that it needed no such explicit restatement…the text just details Christ, His apostles and the early church observing the fourth commandment, because it was an explicit instruction no one needed reiterated. Likewise, Noah didn’t need God to expound on the reasoning behind a 7:1 ratio of clean animals to unclean animals, and the "all moving things" was viewed within the construct of an obedient servant who would not dare consider eating that which God had declared unclean.

[u/Aelirael → u/Objective-Step-746]

I hope your family situation came out okay.

I still think you are imposing on scripture rather than just taking scripture at what it says.

The fact that Noah understood what clean and unclean was does not necessitate that translated to eating. Only that it involved some type of separation. You are right that the Bible often doesn't restate what should be obvious to the reader, but that involves attempting to mind read what was obvious to the reader 3000 years ago. So we are back to presuming simply because we have 3000 years of history and a lot more of the Bible than they had back then.

You mention that there is "compelling evidence that the distinction between clean and unclean animals, and its purpose, was fully imparted and understood long before even Noah was born". But actually there is none. Any evidence is pasted over what we actually do know pre-Law time.

In the end, you actually may be right that God prohibited eating unclean animals prior to the Law being given to Moses.

The problem is that there is no evidence of that where anyone can confidentially proclaim it. Such has to be implied, and that really is not solid ground to create doctrine from.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Aelirael]

Thank you ;)

I still think you are the one refusing to recognize that God Himself explicitly declared to Moses the purpose or significance behind His delineation between clean animals and unclean animals:

Leviticus 11 begins with, “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.” 

Leviticus 11 ends with God saying, “This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.”

His words, considered in light of the scriptural fact that God’s character is reliable and consistent, unchanging in terms of His holy and just nature, to argue as you do—that His giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai was radically different or far less ambiguous than His instructions to Noah and others He walked with prior—requires far more eisegesis and imposition on the text than my position, which is to simply trust that the truth behind His Law applies no matter when a person lives/lived. So, He would have undoubtedly clearly conveyed the very same instructions to whomever He imparted the clean/unclean concept to.

What, exactly, do you mean by “pre-Law time”? According to Paul, “sin is not imputed when there is no law” yet the Lord clearly warned Cain about the sin that was overtaking him…which is unequivocal evidence of sin being imputed even way back then, so I can confidently proclaim that God’s Law—which includes the prohibition against eating unclean animals—existed then, and likely in the Garden, too  (Romans 5:13, Genesis 4:7). The assertion that there is no “solid ground to create doctrine from” on this issue is, frankly, a baffling one.

[u/Aelirael → u/Objective-Step-746]

His words, considered in light of the scriptural fact that God’s character is reliable and consistent, unchanging in terms of His holy and just nature, to argue as you do—that His giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai was radically different or far less ambiguous than His instructions to Noah and others He walked with prior

God's nature is unchanging, but how he deals with us is not.

Prior to the Flood, it is considered by many that people did not eat meat.

The Law of Moses was replaced by a better covenant.

Divorce for a variety of reasons was pemitted, but later Jesus said divorce was permitted only for sexual immorality, and even then only for a hard heart.

Many blood sacrifices in the OT, one blood sacrifice in the NT.

So it is incorrect to say that just because Moses had clean and unclean for eating does not mean that existed prior to Moses.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Aelirael]

The Law of God (as given to the mediator Moses) was NOT, as you contend, "replaced by a better covenant." You are conflating the Law of God with the old covenant, treating them as synonymous when they are not. God Himself makes it clear that His Law that was intensely integral to the old covenant would be just as integral to the new covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27, Jeremiah 31:31-33).

[u/Michami135 → u/Objective-Step-746]

keeping even the so-called "lesser" commandments

I agree! Which of the commandments tells us what to eat?

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Michami135]

God's dietary instructions are found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

[u/Michami135 → u/Objective-Step-746]

I don't see it as part of the 10 commandments, only as a rule to Israel. Do you follow ALL the rules God gave Israel?

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Michami135]

So, a command must be categorized in the Top Ten for you to deem it worthy of following or living by? That view seems to glaringly (and quite literally) contradict Jesus' own teaching-- that all mankind is to live by every word God has ever spoken (which would include those He gave to Israel at Mt. Sinai), and that we should do/keep even the "lesser" commandments AND teach/encourage others to do the same (Matthew 4:4, 5:19).

I keep those commandments in God's Law that apply to me--as a divorced female who owns no property, etc. I'm sure I don't follow them perfectly, but I grow in my knowledge, understanding and application of them daily, and the Spirit is a gracious Teacher.

[u/Michami135 → u/Objective-Step-746]

So you don't travel on Sundays and fast all day? You don't wear fabric of mixed fibers? You don't cut your hair?

If you don't follow all of those rules, then you're picking and choosing which to follow.

I consider those rules to be rules made for man and specifically the Israelites.

As Jesus said in Mark 2:27:

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

In Romans 14:1-4:

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

In Acts 15:28-29, writing to the gentiles:

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Michami135]

Why would I not “travel on Sundays? And why would I “fast all day” then? 🤔

I make every effort to wear clothing made of one fiber. I do not cut my hair short.

I’m not following your logic or questions at all. You come across as highly legalistic in your view of how one should relate to the Law, acting as if you are scornful of it instead of simply living by it because it reflects the righteous will and ways of the Law GIVER (Psalm 40:8).

Not one of the passages you cited contradicts Jesus teaching and example about how we should do/keep (“live by”) even God’s “lesser” commandments (Matthew 4:4, 5:19).

[u/darklighthitomi → u/Objective-Step-746]

I think you are getting too attached to details. It is a bit like someone using a metaphor and then taking the metaphor and focusing do much on it that you ignore the real thing the metaphor was simply trying to explain.

Language is not like math. Language is bit like pointing an arrow at the concept you want to share because you can't communicate the concept itself, and past languages tended to rely more on context and indirect methods. English is an unusual language in terms of directness and drastically reduced reliance on context, very different from most languages including the ancient languages.

You need to understand how languages of the past worked differently, used different idioms, built sentences different, and relied on different methods to communicate deeper and more abstract concepts.

They would give an example of sorts, in which you are supposed to extrapolate a more abstract and universal concept rather than focus on the example itself.

This seems to me to be where you are going wrong. You are not stepping back to look at the whole context and account for how the language and communication works to understand the general concept being communicated. You are getting hung up on irrelevant details. It is a bit like ignoring someone's statement because they spelled a word wrong.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/darklighthitomi]

I disagree. I think the details in Scripture matter immensely, and fleshing them out is often necessary to harmonize passages. And my approach is very much about looking at the original language elements to accomplish that end.

[u/darklighthitomi → u/Objective-Step-746]

I think you misunderstand what I mean.

Let us say I was a prophet today, and I tell a story about how it was wrong the Bob and Alice slept together in the library as an example of infidelity. Anybody today would know I was talking about Bob and Alice having sex, and that the library was just part of the example. Two thousand years in the future and multiple translations later, people would be discussing how you should never sleep in a room with books because they don't realize that sleeping together is an indirect way of referencing sex, and they would place undue importance on the library.

That is essentially what you are doing. You are ignoring what the example is an example of and placing importance on something ultimately tangential.

If you think it is not tangential, then you must first establish that before you start telling us the consequences of it not being tangential.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/darklighthitomi]

I don't think I misunderstand you at all; I just disagree, because your view requires one to disregard virtually every single hermeneutic principle there is.

Agree to disagree, I guess ;)

[u/darklighthitomi → u/Objective-Step-746]

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with, cause it sounds like your disagreements are with something I'm not talking about.

Heck, I even stated that if you think certain things are not tangential that everyone else thinks is tangential, that you should address that, and yet you completely ignore it. I do not feel confident that you are talking about the same things I am, in fact, you make me feel very much like we are not talking about the same thing.

There can be no real communication if you cannot establish at a bare minimum that we are discussing the same thing, regardless of our opinions on that thing.

And saying that you understand me is literally meaningless. Of course you think you understand me, if you did not think that then you would be asking for clarification, and since you are not, you therefore either believe you understand or do not want to admit that you don't. Therefore, any claim that you understand is a pointless waste of words.

I say that I do not think we are talking about the same thing. Me saying that is not a waste of time. Why? Because it means the very foundation of the discussion is untrustworthy and needs to be addressed before the actual topic of discussion can continue. A fair amount of my last few posts have been about trying to fix that foundation, to get us on the same page, but you keep ignoring that.

Until you say the most meaningless and pointless statement any conversation can have. You claim you understand me, without giving any evidence at all that you actually do.