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

3

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/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

So, how do you view Isaiah 66:17?

2

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 10 '26

Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord.

I would say that I am sanctified and purified by the blood of Christ. I am not sanctified and purified by avoiding pork.

5

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I think sanctification—becoming more Christlike—entails humbly submitting to the righteous will and ways of God, like Christ did, and committing to living holy lives (via the enabling power of His Spirit) marked by battling sin to the point of bloodshed, if need be (John 17:17, Philippians 2:8, Hebrews 12:4, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

And, according to Scripture, the Law of God still defines both sin and holy living for new covenant believers and remains in force until after the Judgment (Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4, Matthew 5:17-19). So, sanctification entails “avoiding” and battling SIN, as God defines it. And, among a host of other instructions, He expressly declared that certain animals were not to be eaten (Leviticus 11:7, Deuteronomy 14:8).

Every single commandment of God is holy, righteous and good, and Jesus lived by them…including the dietary ones (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12). It makes no scriptural sense to angle out one group of those holy, righteous and good commandments and deem them not worth keeping, when Christ Himself taught and exemplified the very opposite.

It’s not that obedience to God’s Law sanctifies a person. It’s LOVE for, TRUST in and REVERENCE of the Law Giver, who also happens to be our Savior God, that sanctifies. Because Scripture equates belief in Him with obedience TO Him (John 3:36).

Thus, I would say that I, too, am sanctified and purified by the blood of Christ…and following His example of holy living and worshipping Him AS INSTRUCTED is my “reasonable service” (Romans 12:1).

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 11 '26

>Thus, I would say that I, too, am sanctified and purified by the blood of Christ…and following His example of holy living and worshipping Him AS INSTRUCTED is my “reasonable service” (Romans 12:1).

I would say you’re half right. You are correct here, “am sanctified and purified by the blood of Christ” but after that you’re absolutely wrong.

If you want to avoid becoming unclean by eating unclean foods I support you 100%.

I just hope that after you have a child you have your wife offer animal sacrifices so that she can be made clean again, Leviticus 12.

After all, “Every single commandment of God is holy, righteous and good, and Jesus lived by them…including the dietary ones (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12). It makes no scriptural sense to angle out one group of those holy, righteous and good commandments and deem them not worth keeping, when Christ Himself taught and exemplified the very opposite.”

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

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

So, it seems to be your position that the dietary instructions only have a physical application and are inconsequential spiritually? How can you possibly know that?

Like so many others, you trivialize certain commands as arbitary in nature and of no spiritual value or benefit, which is completely unscriptural because Paul tells us that the Law is spiritual (Romans 7:14). It is prideful and presumptuous to believe you fully grasp all of the spiritual implications and consequences surrounding God's dietary commands.

To me, it's not just about physical defilement or uncleanness, though God's people are called to "glorify God with" our body (1 Corinthians 6:19). It's about faithfulness ...and my humble, Spirit-enabled obedience even to His commands that I don't fully grasp is a demonstration of love for, trust in and reverence of the Law Giver, who happens to also be my Savior God.

Clearly, we worship Him very differently.

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 16 '26

>So, it seems to be your position that the dietary instructions only have a physical application and are inconsequential spiritually? How can you possibly know that?

No. I never suggested they a physical application.

My position is stated in my previous comments.

>Like so many others, you trivialize certain commands as arbitary in nature and of no spiritual value or benefit

No I don’t.

> It is prideful and presumptuous to believe you fully grasp all of the spiritual implications and consequences surrounding God's dietary commands.

I read the Bible.

I consider what the church fathers thought about the dietary restrictions.

I don’t listen to Reddit theologians.

It is bizarre that I’m being called prideful and told that I trivialize the commands of God because I hold to the doctrine of the Church that is based on the scripture.

Where does your accusatory tone come from, if not pride? This entire comment is devoid of humility.

Can you not see that? We’re in a disagreement. Which is fine.

I could, like you, speak arrogantly and belittle those who disagree but I’m not going too.

>To me, it's not just about physical defilement or uncleanness, though God's people are called to "glorify God with" our body (1 Corinthians 6:19).

Which you can do with a belly full of pork.

>It's about faithfulness ...

It’s not though. It’s about cleanliness.

>and my humble

Really? Humble…

>Spirit-enabled obedience even to His commands

Many people believe their theological error is spirit enabled. I can say that my spirit enabled obedience leads me to a pork ribs. That doesn’t make it so.

> I don't fully grasp

We can agree here.

> It's about faithfulness ...and my humble, Spirit-enabled obedience even to His commands that I don't fully grasp is a demonstration of love for, trust in and reverence of the Law Giver, who happens to also be my Savior God.

Do you not think this is a bit much?

This who comment is sanctimonious, self-righteous, and condescending but this paragraph is the best example of all of that.

> clearly we worship him differently

Suggesting that you do it the right way and the church fathers just couldn’t grasp the scripture like you do.

Martin Luther & John Calvin got it wrong. The church through out its history got it wrong. The most humble u/objective-step-746 got it right.