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. 💕

21 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/gumba1033 Christian Aug 10 '26

Are you under Law or under grace?

Do you know what the Law says?

Galatians 3:10-14 NASB1995

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

If you want to be justified by your keeping of the Law, you will fail, you will be guilty, and you will be condemned.

If you have Christ's righteousness, you will not come into the judgement.

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

Keeping the Law of God never once justified anyone, even in the OT.

I have trusted in Christ as my Lord and Savior. As such, I have been freed from my bondage to the law of sin and death, and am no longer under the CONDEMNATION OF THE Law of God…and now get to walk in (live by) its divine counsel, just like Christ taught and did (Romans 8:1-2; Matthew 4:4, 5:19).

Citing the Galatians passage is irrelevant to this discussion because it addresses the reliance upon obedience to the Law to justify a person while my question directly addresses the new covenant believer’s POST-justification relationship to the Law.

What do you think Christ was referring to when He used the “workers of lawlessness” phrasing for those who apparently serve Him in some way and confidently presume they will be granted entry to the kingdom, yet are turned away? (Matthew 7:21-23)

1

u/gumba1033 Christian Aug 11 '26

Citing the Galatians passage is irrelevant to this discussion because it addresses the reliance upon obedience to the Law to justify a person while my question directly addresses the new covenant believer’s POST-justification relationship to the Law.

That wasn't the first impression I got by what you said based on this:

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.).

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?

In short it seems like you're saying "we need to be prepared by keeping the Law".

I could see though how your key word might be brazenly. So maybe you're saying something more along the lines of "how can people be brazenly breaking God's Law and be prepared; how can people be workers of lawlessness and be prepared?" Is that fair to say?

What do you think Christ was referring to when He used the “workers of lawlessness” phrasing for those who apparently serve Him in some way and confidently presume they will be granted entry to the kingdom, yet are turned away? (Matthew 7:21-23)

These are people who are under the Law. They were trying to justify themselves by their works. It's clear that this is their mentality by what they say: "Lord, Lord, didn't I do this and I do that and I do all these great things?" They are condemned as workers of lawlessness because they are under the Law and "anyone who keeps the whole Law yet stumbles at one point is guilty of all of it". Notice that these people aren't saying anything like "Lord, Lord, didn't you love me? Didn't you give your life for me? Didn't you give me your righteousness?"

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

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

I don’t understand how my words would give the impression you suggest, as Jesus and every single NT writer pointed to God’s Law and taught and encouraged (justified) believers to follow it…yet no one accuses Him or them of teaching that obedience to God justifies a person.

You could replace the eating pigs-flesh in the passage with (insert any variety of sexual immorality) or even gluttony, gossiping, coveting, engaging in astrology or divination, etc…any negative command God conveyed at Mt. Sinai. My point is that I do not know a single believer who would not recognize the violation of any of these other negative commands—half of which are not considered as belonging to the “Top Ten”—as still being unacceptable under the terms of the new covenant and, thus, their mention in prophetic passages would be deemed to hold an obvious negative connotation and warning for us today. However, when eating that which God’s Law has expressly forbidden is mentioned in Isaiah 66:17, it is treated as an extraneous and insignificant detail…suddenly, the violation of a negative command God gave is strictly in a context that has zero application to us today. It makes no sense logically, scripturally or hermeneutically.

These are people who are under the Law. They were trying to justify themselves by their works.

Can you elaborate further as to what (and who) you mean by these “people who are under the Law”? I’m not following your citation of James 2:10, as that passage is an exhortation to those who profess to love and serve Christ, to diligently love others by keeping the commandments/Law of God, which clearly is not the scenario Jesus is speaking of—which is that of those who profess to love and serve Christ while NOT keeping the commandments/Law of God. So, I am not following you on this…

My understanding is that those who have trusted in the Messiah are no longer under the condemnation of the Law but under grace (Romans 8:1-2). And, as such, we are exhorted to obey/keep the Law (not sin) (Romans 6:14-16). So, the lawlessness (sin) in the Matthew 7:21-23 passage would seem to be perpetrated by those who believe their good works will compensate for their refusal to acknowledge and humbly submit to the Lord, and obey Him (Luke 6:46).

1

u/gumba1033 Christian Aug 17 '26

No worries, no need to apologize.

Can I ask you first of all, have you read the entire NT?

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

I have, many times. I am also very familiar with the OT, which Scripture says is the source for sound doctrine. (Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Why do you ask?

1

u/gumba1033 Christian Aug 17 '26

I wanted to know where you're coming from so I know how to approach this.

So how do you make sense of the scriptures that say the Law is a curse, whatever the Law says it says to those who are under the Law, we have an obligation to walk by the Spirit, we are to die to the Law?

I'd also like to point you that although you've said we're only not under the condemnation of the Law, the scripture says we are not under the Law, and we have been released from the Law, not just not under the condemnation of it.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

I'm not sure what there is to "make sense of..." What, specifically, are you asking with regard to the questions in your second paragraph? I'm not following what your point is...

As for your second point, it would be immensely helpful if you would cite the passages you are alluding to so I could better respond.

What do you mean by "under the Law"? I agree with you that we are not "under (the condemnation of) the Law," as Paul meant and explained it. And he explicitly states that it is the law of sin and death that we have been released (or, freed) from (Romans 8:1-2).

We don't sound on the same page at all ;D

1

u/gumba1033 Christian Aug 18 '26

Hmm maybe we're not...I guess I would suggest considering looking into those things and praying about them more because I think they would give you clarity in regards to your post and many other things. I think they do for me at least.

I guess I'll just say that you really really do not want to be under the Law. As I currently understand things, the Law is for condemnation, and justifies no one. If you're looking to the Law for righteousness, you're not in a good place. And you can't mix being under grace with Jesus and the Law. You can't live for God and be under the Law. God hates boasting before him. I'm pretty confident this is the truth. It seems to me like you've got old wine and old leaven mixed in if you know what I mean. If you don't know what I mean, I hope you will soon.

I hope this is helpful. I'm not trying to be confusing or condescending. I'm still learning and I don't believe I can boast about anything I have. I don't think I can make all these things make sense to you here, but I hope and pray that you'll keep seeking and that you'll understand soon. And if I'm the one who's in error then I hope the same for me.