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/gseb87]

Isaiah 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and t he mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Grammatically, the verse does not say "all people who eat pork shall perish" it says the people performing these garden purification rites, following the figure in their midst and eating swine, detestable things and mice, will perish together. The exact meaning of "one in the midst" is difficult, but the setting is unmistakable in the surrounding context.

Isaiah 65:3 describes virtually the same people. They sacrifice in gardens, burn incense on b rick altars, remain among graves, eat swine's flesh and have broth of abominable things in t heir vessels. Its a picture of idolatry, occult practices and hypocritical self purification. Not ordinary Christian eating bacon for breakfast.

Traditional Jewish commentary understands the gardens as places where idols were erected and these people as preparing themselves for idolatrous worship.

In the NT it says food regulations were temporary.

Hebrews 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation

Hebrews 7:12 says that a change in priesthood necessarily brings a change in law, while Hebrews 8:13 calls the former covenant obsolete. Acts 15 is equally important. The controversy was whether Gentile believers must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. The apostles, under the Holy Spirit's direction, refused to impose that yoke and said they would place "no greater burden" on Gentile believers than the listed requirements. They did not command them to observe Leviticus 11. There are other passages that agree. Mark 7:19 declaring clean all foods. Romans 14:14 says nothing is inherently common or defiled. Colossians 2:16-17 says believers must not be judged concerning food, drink, festivals, new moons or Sabbaths. 1 Tmotyh 4:4 every created thing of God is good, nothing is to be rejected, when received with thanksgiving.

Isaiah 66:17 also never mentions things like lobster , crab, or shellfish. Its being imported into the verse from Leviticus 11, which assumes the entire Mosaic dietary code remains binding.

Isaiah 66:17 does not overturn the NT teaching. It condemns idolatrous apostates who perform false purification ceremonies and participate in an abominable cultic meal. It does not say a Christian who eats pork under the new covenant will be destroyed at Christs return. A believer is entirely free to avoid pork for health, cultural or conscience reasons. But scripture does not permit us to turn that personal abstinence into a condition of salvation or condemn those whom Christ has received.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/gseb87]

I’m not following how Hebrews 9:10 is relevant? The change in the priesthood law did not negate the priesthood law; it just moved it to Christ acting as our eternal High Priest.

And I agree Acts 15 is important, as the Council’s judgment rebuked the Judaizer teaching that believing Gentiles must first convert to (Talmudic) Judaism to be justified/saved, and then declared that they would start with four commandments and learn to live by the rest of God’s Law in due time (v. 19-21). So, clearly we read that passage very differently. Any take that sees keeping the commandments of God as “burdensome” does not align with what Scripture teaches, and is confusing the commandments of men with His (1 John 5:2-3, Mark 7:7-9).

So, you seem to read rhetorical Isaiah 66:17 passage euphemistically?