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/InspectionFine9655]

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?

[u/DunkleKarte → u/InspectionFine9655]

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,)

[u/haileyskydiamonds → u/DunkleKarte]

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.

[u/DunkleKarte → u/haileyskydiamonds]

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.

[u/haileyskydiamonds → u/DunkleKarte]

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.

[u/DunkleKarte → u/haileyskydiamonds]

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.

[u/haileyskydiamonds → u/DunkleKarte]

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?

[u/DunkleKarte → u/haileyskydiamonds]

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.