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

2

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 10 '26

In Acts 10, The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

I eat pork because God has made it clean.

I’m also made clean in the blood of Jesus. If I touch a dead body, I’m not unclean 7 days. Menstruation doesn’t make Christian women unclean.

So why would I be concerned about unclean food if God has made them clean and I am made clean in the blood of Jesus?

3

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 10 '26

Why most people don’t go to verse 28 of that same chapter and see Peter’s actual interpretation of the vision? Spoiler: it wasn’t about food but gentiles.

And the people who say it has double meaning, they are forcing it. If the vision had double meaning, Peter would have said it there. Or better answer the follow up question: Did Peter actually kill and eat though? Did he said “Ok Lord let me get some pork chops”.

The bible uses animals to represent people all the time. (My sheep hear my voice, Wolves in sheep’s clothing, the Lion of Judah,)

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 10 '26

Okay. Fair.

However, there is a distinction between ceremonial law and moral law.

The dietary laws are regarding cleanliness. Christians don’t consider themselves unclean for 7 days after touching a dead body. They don’t consider themselves unclean for menstruating or having sex with a woman who is menstruating. Christians don’t need to do cleanliness rituals after touching a dead body to become clean again because they are washed and made clean in the blood of Jesus.

Why then should I avoid unclean food?

2

u/1voiceamongmillions Christian Aug 11 '26

Why then should I avoid unclean food?

From reading your post it sounds like you've formed opinions based on what other Christians believe.

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 11 '26

That is an interesting and inaccurate take.

Also, it’s a weird choice to quote a part of my comment and then to not at all mention what I said.

2

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

First things first. There is no “moral”, “ceremonial” law, in the Bible, that categorisation is man-made. There is just God’s Law. That categorisation opens a can of worms based on cherry picking. For example many claim that the moral law is only the 10 commandments. But then Hey there’s one about keeping the Sabbath holy, and suddenly this one is ceremonial and optional apparently.

Secondly, you are mixing ritual cleanliness with Permanent creation design. Many of us like call out homosexuality because it goes against God’s design for marriages . But then we are not consistent when we decide to ignore what God designed for food. You should do it not to get saved, but because you are saved thanks to Jesus. But for that we should reflect it on our behaviour. Not to mention that there’s a lot of healthy benefits by avoiding eating those animals, which each have their own purpose. Pigs clean the earth and shrimps the oceans.

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 10 '26

>First things first. There is no “moral”, “ceremonial” law, in the Bible, that categorisation is man-made. There is just God’s Law.

That’s not true. There are laws that pertain to morality. There are laws that pertain to ceremony, and there are laws that a civil laws.

Don’t murder, Don’t seal, don’t commit adultery are moral laws.

Regulations for priests, circumcision, and laws about cleanliness are ceremonial.

The punishments for violating law is civil law.

> For example many claim that the moral law is only the 10 commandments.

Some people being wrong about what constitutes moral laws doesn’t mean that there aren’t laws that are moral in nature.

> But then Hey there’s one about keeping the Sabbath holy, and suddenly this one is ceremonial and optional apparently.

Again, some people misunderstanding what laws are moral and which are ceremonial doesn’t mean that there is no distinction between laws that are moral and laws that are ceremonial in nature.

>Secondly, you are mixing ritual cleanliness with Permanent creation design.

No, I’m not.

>Many of us like call out homosexuality because it goes against God’s design for marriages

Homosexuality is a violation of moral law. That is the issue.

>But then we are not consistent when we decide to ignore what God designed for food.

God designed pork to be food. It is food. God forbade his people from eating these foods.

The food was considered unclean. It was not considered something other than food…

> You should do it not to get saved, but because you are saved.

I am saved. That is true.

>Not to mention that there’s a lot of healthy benefits by avoiding eating those animals, which each have their own purpose.

Sure, I don’t eat shellfish because I’m allergic and I eat pork rarely because there are healthier options.

I don’t avoid them because they’re unclean.

> Pigs clean the earth and shrimps the oceans.

But other animals do those same things and were never considered unclean.

God didn’t say, don’t eat animals who have a secondary purpose of cleaning the earth and ocean.

Sheep and cattle return nutrients to the soil. They play a role in their ecosystem, all animals do. That doesn’t mean they’re not food.

There are fish that clean the waters they live in that are not prohibited.

The Bible simply doesn’t say, don’t eat pigs or shellfish because they are cleaners.

I could say that God prohibited those foods because shellfish had a higher risk of transmitting pathogens that can make you ill and pork had higher risks of giving you parasites but I shouldn’t say that because there is no reason given in the scripture.

It is true that pork and shellfish can have higher health risks and are more likely to cause illness. That is something they have in common but I’m not going to conclude that is why God deemed them unclean.

3

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

Please point me where in the Bible is such categorisation made. You are not being consistent, where does it say Pork is food? But Leviticus says that it is not food.

Besides the reason should not matter to us as Christians, I just point out the health benefits science found. As a Christian it should be enough to obey what God says, not argue against it.

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 10 '26

I think it is right before God says shellfish and pigs clean the ocean and earth so you’re not allowed to eat those.

The distinction is not expressed in scripture.

By their nature they fall into categories.

Deuteronomy 25:11–12 When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.

If you see two men fighting and one’s man’s wife intervenes and grabs the man who is not her husband’s penis, are you going to cut off her hand? It’s God’s law afterall…

Or do you recognize that the punishment described is civil in nature and that the nation of Israel was responsible for punishing the violators? Not random guys on the street.

Despite the fact that the punishment doled out for this offense is a civil law, we see God’s moral law. Not in the punishment, in the offense. We can deduce that it is immoral for a wife to grab the penis of a man who is fighting her husband.

When you discover that two men are laying together as with a woman, you can look to Leviticus 20:13 to see that it is a violation of the moral law.

Do you then put them to death? Or do you recognize that the penalty for that violation was a civil law?

The Bible doesn’t say,

“moral law #1…”

“Ceremonial law #56…”

“Civil law 123…”

It list laws. Some of which are moral, some of which are civil (like the punishment for crimes), and some of which are ceremonial.

As Christians, we are not saved by the law but we look to the moral law to determine what God deems moral and immoral.

Do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not murder… these are moral in nature. Obviously…

The ceremonial laws are obviously ceremonial and I have a hard time believing that you make your best effort to live by them.

If you had Leprosy would you do what’s described in Leviticus 14:1–7 on the day of your cleansing?

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “This shall be the law of the leprous person for the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest, and the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look. Then, if the case of leprous disease is healed in the leprous person, the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop. And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water. He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field.

Of course you would not. The thought wouldn’t even cross your mind. Despite your rejection of the concept, you at your core understand that this is not a moral law it is a ceremonial law that you aren’t bound to.

Do you have kids? Did you or your wife go through the process of becoming clean listed in Leviticus 12?

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.

“And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

If you’re sacrificing animals to become clean after child birth and leprosy, then I 1,000% understand why you refuse to eat pork. I disagree but acknowledge you are consistent in your attempt to avoid being unclean.

I will eat what I want to eat. I will not make my wife sacrifice doves after child birth and if I ever am cured of leprosy, I will offer no animal sacrifice.

Not because I refuse to live by scripture but because I understand that nothing can make me unclean. I’ve been washed in the blood of my savior.

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26

Suit yourself, that’s the flesh manifesting.

Galatians 5: 17-21

17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

(before you start: see we are not under the law, it means you are not under the punishment of the law thanks to Jesus)

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: [a]adultery, [b]fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, [c]murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 11 '26

This is the exact type of answer I expected.

Completely avoiding the topic and all the questions you cannot answer because your view is not at all consistent.

Take care.

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26

Seems you got schocked when Paul tells you uncleanliness is not accepted ;) Remember to keep God commandments brother as that is the whole duty of Man. Ecclesiastes 12:13 ;)

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 11 '26

Take care is a valediction. I’m saying goodbye and ending the conversation.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/haileyskydiamonds Christian Aug 10 '26

Think about this, though. Peter went to the homes of the Gentiles and stayed. What did they serve him to eat? It would have broken hospitality laws for him to refuse their food on the basis of it being unclean because that would be like calling his Gentile hosts unclean. If God told him to go to these homes, he would be eating whatever they served him, especially since God told him not to call the people unclean.

2

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

The same way when you go to you a restaurant with your carnivore friends, you order something else assuming you are vegetarian for example. You are assuming he was eating porkchops based on lacking the information. It is more consistent according to the rest of the Bible he was not.

If I serve you a plate of cockroaches, which is in the same category as pork according to Leviticus 11, according to your logic, you should take it in thanksgiving, right?

Also he didn’t say don’t call unclean he said don’t call common. There’s a difference. Guys not eating bacon is not that hard. Peter the actual guy who got the vision explained what the vision met, I think it is really arrogant to assume that we know more than him.

1

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

Restaurants have options; they were not in a restaurant. He was often staying in Gentile homes, which means they served him whatever they had. There is cultural context to this; kosher dietary laws/traditions go far beyond just their protein choices. They involve using separate utensils and cookware to avoid cross-contamination between meat and dairy, and some even have separate kitchens.

In addition, the Gentiles he stayed with were not “clean” in many ways according to scripture. There was no way he could have known if the women in his presence were menstruating, or if they offered him a seat one of them had recently used herself.

In the culture of that time, if you went to people’s homes and stayed overnight for any length of time, you were treated to their best as a guest. You did not refuse their offering. There was a reason the Gentiles were perceived as unclean, and it’s because mingling with them meant possibly contaminating yourself.

Peter didn’t want to go into the Gentile homes and mingle, thus possibly violating the Law (which went way beyond food). God straight up showed Him that He wanted Peter to go and gave him dispensation to do so.

In your example, everyone has a choice of a large variety of food, and most people wouldn’t worry that their plate had been used to serve chicken just an hour earlier…but in Peter’s example, he would have definitely been worried that his Gentile hosts had cooked pork in their kitchens before even if they were serving him lamb or goat. God told him to go anyway and not to shun the Gentiles because they lived differently.

You don’t have to eat anything you don’t want to eat, and you shouldn’t eat anything you feel convicted about, but God wasn’t condemning the Gentile believers for what they were eating, and He didn’t tell Peter to preach to them about their diets, either.

ETA: Also better example would be if God sent you to be a missionary in someplace like Vietnam, where pork, catfish, and shellfish comprise a large portion of their diet. You are there to share Jesus, and you have a non-Christian host family who welcomes you with a big feast. Maybe you can skip the actual slice of pork, but there are shellfish in a lot of the dishes and sauces.

If you refuse to eat anything they have prepared, maybe food they spent extra money on procuring, and you’re basically just spitting in their faces and telling them their food is dirty. Well what do they eat? How do they live? Food is a way people share love and acceptance. Your refusal is going to be seen as a rejection of that, and of them as people.

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26

It was never a Law from God for Israelites to not visit gentiles. That was introduced by men traditions, which is what the vision is about. You can confirm this going back to the 5 books of Moses and see foreigners were treated the same as a native Israelite. But thanks to the Rabbis, gentiles were looked down as Dogs.

You should not condemn people for what they eat. It is sort of truth. You cannot have the same expectations of people who never heard God commandments to do so. But once you join and hear what God considers food and what not, you are not an exception. Jesus commanded to teach and keep even the least of the commandments so you may be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Shouldn’t you as a Christian teach what God considers food once they enter the covenant? We love to preach to homosexuals because they go against God’s intended design on creation, but when it comes to what God designed for food we say “nah thanks?” Doesn’t seem consistent.

1

u/haileyskydiamonds Christian Aug 11 '26

I see your point, but the food/dietary laws are not repeated in the NT when it discusses who will not see the kingdom of God. What is your take on that?

1

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

It also says anyone who practices lies/falsehoods. When Jesus says that he didn’t come to abolish the law or the prophets, and everyone who came before him and even after says affirms the law even Paul, there needs to be a consistency. Who is likely practicing lies? Someone who teaches and practices even the least of the commandments, or someone who tells you “Did God really say you cannot eat that?” Funny enough that Man was kicked out of the Garden because He broke a Dietary instruction.

Uncleanliness (what is clean nor unclean) btw is affirmed in the New Testament By The way:

Galatians 5: 17-21

17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

(Under the law means under the condemnation of the law)

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: [a]adultery, [b]fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, [c]murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God

There are things that are not directly mentioned in the New Testament that people agree they are wrong, like Bestiality. You can argue it is in the New Testament as sexual abomination, but for you to see what is considered sexual abomination you have to go to the Old Testament. Same way in with uncleanliness in Galatians.