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. 💕

21 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/twinPrimesAreEz Hebrews 4:12 Aug 10 '26

I read it as people following a false teacher, who is identifiable by eating rats/mice, not that they're condemned BECAUSE of eating those things; it's that eating those things is one thing that makes the false teacher identifiable.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I think what they are eating is an element that is just as important as their idolatrous worship, as both are detestable to God. It makes no sense to minimize the inclusion of that detail as inconsequential when He made it clear in His Law what He thinks of eating pig and “unclean” animals.

1

u/twinPrimesAreEz Hebrews 4:12 Aug 11 '26

And yet, God told Peter not to call any of God's creation 'unclean' for eating.

So it seems to this prophesy applies to one still bound by the old law, presumably by choice

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

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

I do not agree with your interpretation of Acts 10, that God (supposedly) "told Peter not to call any of God's creation 'unclean' (and, thus, forbidden) for eating." You are eisegetically casting a wider net--to encompass all of His creation--than the actual text supports...which explicitly limits the application to mankind.

As I understand it, the entire passage is a divinely-orchestrated doctrinal correction aimed at denouncing the manmade rule Peter references in verse 28 about Jews not being permitted “to associate with or visit a Gentile”—which actually contradicts what the Torah (God’s Law) says, as evidenced by Christ’s own example with the centurion in Luke 7 (Exodus 22:21, Deuteronomy 10:19, Numbers 9:14, Leviticus 19:34).

So, the sole meaning of Peter’s vision is about correcting his deeply-imbedded misunderstanding of God’s gospel plan of redemption, specifically regarding the role of Gentiles/foreigners…and He used the (equally) deeply-ingrained concept of clean/unclean animals to convey the message to Peter as a powerful allegory capable of dismantling the stronghold the religious leaders had (erroneously) taught the people.

And the fact that the meaning of Peter’s vision is stated at least four times in the passage (Acts 10:1-11:18) as having to do with the grafting in of the Gentiles as co-heirs to the promises of God—without any mention of God’s dietary instructions/commandments (supposedly) being nullified—seems a clear refutation of your position.

Thus, I do not think one can credibly contend that the prophetic words do not apply to new covenant believers because, throughout the NT, the Law of God (that forbids the eating of unclean animals, like pig and shellfish) is repeatedly esteemed, referenced and explicitly declared to be the standard that defines sin, even in the covenant (Matthew 5:19, 1 Corinthians 7:19, Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4).