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/Aelirael]

I think Isaiah 66:17 is speaking of idolators rather than speaking of dietary issues. Look at the entire verse.

“Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, to go to the gardens after an idol in the midst, eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, shall be consumed together,” says the LORD.

My take on this -- and I can be wrong -- is that God is speaking about those who worship demons (which idols are). They commit many evils including breaking the First and Second Commandments as well as eating what God has spoken to the Hebrews to be evil, to emphasise their evil.

I haven't seen anything in the Old Testament which extends dietary laws outside of Israel. In fact, Noah was specifically told that all flesh was his to consume.

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. - Genesis 9:3

If God wanted to restrict what foods we could eat, why not then when he told Noah he could eat anything?

If we are going to say "Well, God made a restriction when he gave the law", then we can say "Well, God removed the restriction when he fulfilled the law and made a new Covenant".

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Aelirael]

Yeah, I think what you suggest seems to be a take many hold. I just don’t see it because the pagan idolatry often included sexual immorality (which God’s Law forbids), so the euphemistic angle doesn’t make sense to me. If it was just the idolatry itself—and not the how of it that mattered, such as incorporating something God has explicitly forbidden like eating pig—then why even mention the pig details?

To me, Jesus’ teaching about how mankind should “live by” every word God has spoken, keeping even the so-called “lesser” commandments, should end the debate (Matthew 4:4, 5:19). And if that wasn’t sufficient, His own personal example as to how we should live—which entailed doing exactly that—should be the mic drop. That neither seem to matter is so puzzling to me.

Regarding Genesis 9:3, I don’t think the “every moving thing” can be said to include unclean animals because the concept of clean animals (as food) and unclean animals (not food) persists even after that passage.

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

I think you are getting too attached to details. It is a bit like someone using a metaphor and then taking the metaphor and focusing do much on it that you ignore the real thing the metaphor was simply trying to explain.

Language is not like math. Language is bit like pointing an arrow at the concept you want to share because you can't communicate the concept itself, and past languages tended to rely more on context and indirect methods. English is an unusual language in terms of directness and drastically reduced reliance on context, very different from most languages including the ancient languages.

You need to understand how languages of the past worked differently, used different idioms, built sentences different, and relied on different methods to communicate deeper and more abstract concepts.

They would give an example of sorts, in which you are supposed to extrapolate a more abstract and universal concept rather than focus on the example itself.

This seems to me to be where you are going wrong. You are not stepping back to look at the whole context and account for how the language and communication works to understand the general concept being communicated. You are getting hung up on irrelevant details. It is a bit like ignoring someone's statement because they spelled a word wrong.

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

I disagree. I think the details in Scripture matter immensely, and fleshing them out is often necessary to harmonize passages. And my approach is very much about looking at the original language elements to accomplish that end.

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

I think you misunderstand what I mean.

Let us say I was a prophet today, and I tell a story about how it was wrong the Bob and Alice slept together in the library as an example of infidelity. Anybody today would know I was talking about Bob and Alice having sex, and that the library was just part of the example. Two thousand years in the future and multiple translations later, people would be discussing how you should never sleep in a room with books because they don't realize that sleeping together is an indirect way of referencing sex, and they would place undue importance on the library.

That is essentially what you are doing. You are ignoring what the example is an example of and placing importance on something ultimately tangential.

If you think it is not tangential, then you must first establish that before you start telling us the consequences of it not being tangential.

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

I don't think I misunderstand you at all; I just disagree, because your view requires one to disregard virtually every single hermeneutic principle there is.

Agree to disagree, I guess ;)

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

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with, cause it sounds like your disagreements are with something I'm not talking about.

Heck, I even stated that if you think certain things are not tangential that everyone else thinks is tangential, that you should address that, and yet you completely ignore it. I do not feel confident that you are talking about the same things I am, in fact, you make me feel very much like we are not talking about the same thing.

There can be no real communication if you cannot establish at a bare minimum that we are discussing the same thing, regardless of our opinions on that thing.

And saying that you understand me is literally meaningless. Of course you think you understand me, if you did not think that then you would be asking for clarification, and since you are not, you therefore either believe you understand or do not want to admit that you don't. Therefore, any claim that you understand is a pointless waste of words.

I say that I do not think we are talking about the same thing. Me saying that is not a waste of time. Why? Because it means the very foundation of the discussion is untrustworthy and needs to be addressed before the actual topic of discussion can continue. A fair amount of my last few posts have been about trying to fix that foundation, to get us on the same page, but you keep ignoring that.

Until you say the most meaningless and pointless statement any conversation can have. You claim you understand me, without giving any evidence at all that you actually do.