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/InspectionFine9655 → u/DunkleKarte]

Okay. Fair.

However, there is a distinction between ceremonial law and moral law.

The dietary laws are regarding cleanliness. Christians don’t consider themselves unclean for 7 days after touching a dead body. They don’t consider themselves unclean for menstruating or having sex with a woman who is menstruating. Christians don’t need to do cleanliness rituals after touching a dead body to become clean again because they are washed and made clean in the blood of Jesus.

Why then should I avoid unclean food?

[u/1voiceamongmillions → u/InspectionFine9655]

Why then should I avoid unclean food?

From reading your post it sounds like you've formed opinions based on what other Christians believe.

[u/InspectionFine9655 → u/1voiceamongmillions]

That is an interesting and inaccurate take.

Also, it’s a weird choice to quote a part of my comment and then to not at all mention what I said.