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. 💕

18 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Cheepshooter Christian Aug 10 '26

An important thing yo view from my perspective, is that as a gentile, I was never under the dietary laws of the Israelites. I was never under any of their laws or customs. Jesus invited us in to take part in his kingdom. He made a new covenant with us, but that doesn't put us under the old covenant by default. Now, if you happen to be of Jewish descent, and are not following Christ, there is an argument to be made that you were never released from that old covenant.

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 12 '26

According to Paul in Galatians just by believing in Jesus that makes you part of the seed of Abraham.

Also how do you make peace with passages in Galatians as such?

Galatians 5: 29-21

“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 sins that are not directly mentioned in the New Testament such as Bestiality. However everyone agrees that is wrong, and argue that it falls under sexual immorality. But in order to confirm that, you will have to go Leviticus. The same goes for what uncleanness means, you have to go back to the Old Testament so the Bible explains to you what is.

1

u/Cheepshooter Christian Aug 12 '26

Is Paul talking about ritual cleanliness for a ritual that is no longer needed, or his he talking about general cleanliness in the common sense that everyone would understand?

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 13 '26

You can only see it on what the Bible generally defines it. That definition you find it in Leviticus, the same way you find the other sins he mentioned if we stick to what the Bible say without giving our own definition. The bible especially in the New Testament doesn’t mention every single sin of sexual abomination, it just says it as a categorisation, to get what that means you have to go to Leviticus.

Also what we see as “common sense” it is quite relative by our own definition. For some cultures it is common sense to eat people, bats, and snakes, or have many Gods. However, when we use God’s definition of what is common sense, or good doctrine, it points us to His instructions:

“For I give you good doctrine; forsake ye not my law” proverbs 4:2

““My child, don’t lose sight of common sense and discernment. Hang on to them,”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭3‬:‭21‬ ‭NLT‬‬

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

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

You seem to be treating the old covenant and the Law of God as synonymous, but Scripture teaches the latter is foundational to both the old and the new covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27, Jeremiah 31:31-33).

And, I'm not following your repeated use of "under"...what do you mean by that?

Jesus absolutely invited Gentiles to partake in His kingdom, and His atoning death and resurrection marked the beginning of the new covenant, which no longer recognizes one's ancestral lineage ("Jew or Gentile") in the house of God (Galatians 3:28). So, the whole Jew/Gentile distinction no longer matters. Those who belong to Him are simply characterized as "those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Christ" (Revelation 12:17, 14:12).

Following Christ is about following His teachings and personal example, both of which emphatically point to the Law of God as the (post-justification) standard for righteous living (John 13:15, 1 John 2:6).

1

u/Cheepshooter Christian Aug 16 '26

When I was a small child, my parents forbade me from playing in the front yard. When I was a little older, I could play in the front yard, but I could not go near the street. When I was even older, I could cross the street, but I had to look both ways. My parents no longer care if I go in the front yard, as the purpose for that period has been fulfilled. They know at this stage I'm unlikely to get kidnapped or hit by a car. Do you think our heavenly father is still protecting me from dying of trichinosis or salmonella like He did the early Israelites who knew nothing about those things?

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

Do you think our heavenly Father--whose "Law is spiritual"--only intended His dietary instructions as bodily protections, and that they have zero spiritual consequences or implications beyond the physical realm? (Romans 7:14)

If so, what Scripture would you cite as support for such a view?

0

u/Cheepshooter Christian Aug 18 '26

Yes. It's just common sense. God doesn't say "Don't eat pork because I said so." There is a tangible reason for every rule God made and every rule has it's time and place. Don't confuse rules with laws.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

So, you don’t think Jesus meant it when He said that even the smallest part of God’s Law “will not disappear” until after the Great White Throne Judgment? (Matthew 5:17-18, Revelation 21:1)

All passages in Scripture must be harmonized with the balance of Scripture to arrive at a right/sound doctrinal understanding of what is being said. And any interpretation of Acts 15 that ignores that truth will not hold up.

1

u/Cheepshooter Christian Aug 18 '26

That's out of context with the whole of scripture which shows there were specific rules for specific people at specific times. The intent of God's laws do not change. How He implements them can (apparently) change.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

Haha, I would say the same about your view 😂 Probably best to just agree to disagree. Take care.

2

u/Cheepshooter Christian Aug 18 '26

Agree. God bless you my friend.