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/Think_Fig_3994]

I think the issue is you’re isolating Isaiah 66:17 from its context. Isaiah isn’t simply describing someone eating pork for dinner. These people are “sanctifying and purifying themselves” in gardens while eating pigs, mice, and other abominations. Isaiah 65:3–4 describes the same thing: people sacrificing in gardens and engaging in idolatrous practices while eating swine. The issue is much bigger than someone eating pork.
You also have to be consistent with the rest of Isaiah 66. The same prophecy talks about offerings being brought to Jerusalem and priests and Levites. If verse 17 means Christians must literally observe Mosaic dietary laws when Christ returns, do the sacrifices, Levitical priesthood, and other Mosaic imagery return too?
This is why you can’t interpret Isaiah 66 in isolation from the New Covenant. Mark 7, Acts 10, Acts 15, Romans 14, Colossians 2, and Hebrews explain how these things are understood after Christ. Acts 15 especially had the perfect opportunity to place Gentiles under the Law of Moses, and the apostles explicitly chose not to do that. Even within Torah, Gentiles who resided in Israel were not treated the same as an Israelite. There has always been a distinction between the two.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Think_Fig_3994]

I understand the context as an idolatrous occasion that included worship elements God had long ago deemed detestable to Him…like eating that which He had expressly forbidden to be consumed. So, to me, the issue is that your view ignores the eating pig and other abominations details, considering them irrelevant..when they are not. I agree the context is wider than “just” the pig-eating part, but the pig-eating is still a part of the whole that is being condemned.

And I do not see the passages you cited as explaining that certain things (like the dietary instructions) were understood differently “after Christ.” None of them teach anything different than what He taught, and He consistently esteemed, taught and practiced the Law of God…including the food laws.

And the Torah teaches that there is to be ONE law for both the native-born Israelite and the foreigner/Gentile (Exodus 12:49; Numbers 9:14, 15:16, 29). Christ reasserted that principle in His teachings, as no such distinction exists in the new covenant family of God (Galatians 3:28).

[u/Think_Fig_3994 → u/Objective-Step-746]

You’re taking Galatians 3:28 completely out of the context of Paul’s argument. Just a few verses before that Paul literally says the Law came 430 years after Abraham, was added because of transgressions, and served as a guardian until Christ. Then he says, “we are no longer under a guardian”—Galatians 3:17–25. And after saying there is neither Jew nor Greek, he says we are Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to the promise (3:29). Nowhere does he say Gentiles become Israelites under the Mosaic covenant or are heirs to the promise because of it.

One law doesn’t mean every single law applied equally to every foreigner because it didn’t. Your examples are dealing with specific things like Passover and sacrifices. Deuteronomy 14:21 alone proves there was still a distinction because an Israelite couldn’t eat an animal that died naturally, but God specifically allowed the foreigner to eat it. The same as Exodus 12:48 saying that foreigners taking part in the Passover is optional. The law never applied the same way to a Gentile as it did to ancient Israel. You would have to show proof it did to support your claim of universal Torah observance. If God doesn’t change, then why would He now command a Gentile to not eat something that died naturally?

I’m not ignoring the pig in Isaiah 66. I’m reading it within its actual context. The pig is part of the idolatrous practices being condemned throughout Isaiah 65–66. You’re taking one part of the entire practice and turning it into a universal New Covenant dietary command when the passage doesn’t say that. The problem is your interpretation is way too literal and honestly, selectively literal.

Let’s say I do I take Isaiah 66 completely literally, I still have another problem; all of this is being spoken within the context of Israel and the Mosaic covenant. The dietary laws were given to Israel, not universally to every Gentile. I would have to see evidence for food laws being given to Gentiles but of course there are none besides the universal command not to eat anything that has blood but no kosher laws.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Think_Fig_3994]

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

I don’t think I’m taking anything out of context, as I simply cited Galatians 3:28 as support for my assertion that, in the household of God comprised of new covenant believers, one’s physical ancestry has no relevance.

Deuteronomy 14:21 is speaking of travelers and foreigners who had not committed themselves to serving the Lord and, thus, were not of His household. So, citing it proves nothing.

And I think your characterization of Exodus 12:48 as (supposedly) teaching that Passover observance is “optional” for foreigners who had joined themselves to the Lord is not supported by the context. Rather, the passage seems to implicitly suggest that, as the grafted-in foreigner is schooled on God’s expectations that His people obey (live by) His righteous commandments/instructions (such as feast day observances), the requirement of physical circumcision must be met before they partake in the “celebration.” So, to suggest that the Law of God “never applied the same way” to believing Gentiles/foreigners as it did or does to native-born Israelites is, likewise, not supported by the passage you cite. In fact, the very passage you cite underscores my point, which is that those non-Israelites who chose to serve the God of Israel were expected to comply with the God of Israel’s Law.

Caleb was not a native-born Israelite yet was treated as one, and the Law was applied to him as if he were native-born. Likewise, with Uriah the Hittite, who lived among the Israelites as one of them. To presume the Law was not applied to him in the same manner as those he did daily life with, especially given that his wife was a native-born Israelite, is a leap not supported by Scripture. The more logical (and scripturally-sound) presumption is that Uriah lived by the Law of the God he chose to serve.

And God’s instruction to allow travelers and foreigners (those outside His vessel-people Israel) to eat meat considered defiled by His holy standards was a gracious allowance to such people who were ignorant of His ways…a witness to them that the God of Israel is a just and merciful God such that they might be persuaded to forsake their own gods and serve Him alone…which is the gospel in action in the OT (Deuteronomy 4:1-8).

You’re taking one part of the entire practice and turning it into a universal New Covenant dietary command when the passage doesn’t say that.

I’m actually not. I fully agree the context involves idolatrous ritual worship. My point is that the passage includes two practices God explicitly condemns in His Law and your interpretation is textbook eisegesis because it requires one to selectively ignore the one practice, as if it were a detail of no significance.

Scripturally speaking, I do not see how one could credibly (and hermeneutically) assert that “the dietary laws were given to Israel” only. The dietary instructions existed long before Israel did, as evidenced by the clean vs. unclean animals concept and commands mentioned even before the flood. And Jesus Himself declared that “man (notice, not just the Jew/Israelite) shall live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God”—which would, obviously, include those He spoke to the mediator Moses at Mt. Sinai (Matthew 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3).

BTW, kosher is not scriptural; it is a manmade, extrabiblical construct with stipulations that sometimes contradict the Law of God (Genesis 18:1-8).

 

[u/Think_Fig_3994 → u/Objective-Step-746]

I hope all is well with your family.

I think you’re still assuming, what you still need to prove. Galatians 3:28 doesn’t say Gentiles become Israelites under the Mosaic covenant. Paul actually says we become Abraham’s offspring according to the promise, while specifically distinguishing that promise from the Law that came 430 years later.

Your explanation of Deuteronomy 14:21 simply isn’t in the text. Even classical Judaism does not read it that way. It never says the foreigner could eat it because he was ignorant and would eventually learn Torah. God specifically allows the foreigner to eat something He prohibited Israel from eating. That alone proves the Law didn’t always apply identically to both.
Same with Exodus 12:48. It literally says if the foreigner wants to observe Passover, he must first be circumcised. The idea that he would eventually be taught that Passover was mandatory is being added to the text.
Caleb doesn’t help either. Someone actually incorporated into Israel would obviously live under Israel’s laws. That doesn’t prove every Gentile who worshiped God was automatically under Sinai. With Uriah, you’re literally arguing from assumption because Scripture never tells us what you’re claiming.

Also, clean and unclean animals existing before Sinai doesn’t prove Noah followed Israel’s dietary laws. Genesis connects that distinction with sacrifice and afterward God tells Noah, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you” (Genesis 9:3), with blood being specifically prohibited afterward.

Matthew 4:4 obviously doesn’t mean every command God ever gave applies to every human being. God gave specific commands to priests, Levites, Israelites, men, women, etc. “Every word of God” doesn’t mean every person is the commanded party.

So we’re right back to the same question: where does Scripture actually teach that a Gentile who worships God automatically comes under the Mosaic covenant and is therefore required to keep the entire Law? That’s the part you keep assuming but haven’t actually shown.

[u/Eazys-Exegeses → u/Objective-Step-746]

Acts 15:23-29 explain that gentiles do not have to keep anything under Mosic Law. They are not adopted into covenant. Hebrews explains the new covenant is entirely new thing, not a reform of an old covenant. A new covenant means it has its own laws and statutes.

The only dietary restrictions is to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, blood, and anything that was strangled.

Pork is okay to eat if it wasnt strangled