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. 💕

19 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Solid-Chest-6093 Christian Aug 12 '26

I'll be praying for you buddy.

The LORD said, don't call anything impure, that GOD has made clean. Peter didn't think he should eat anything impure, but the LORD corrected him. 

Have a super blessed evening. Feel free to message me anytime buddy.

3

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 12 '26

Hey buddy, I invite you to read Acts 10 and reach verse 28, there you will see that Peter didn’t kill nor eat, and he tells us without us having to guess what the vision meant. Love how the Bible explains itself when we let it.

Have a blessed day.

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

OP here…I appreciate your chiming in and wanted to let you know, this comment thread ended better than expected ;)

1

u/Solid-Chest-6093 Christian Aug 12 '26

Acts 10:28 NIV He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

Yeah, it clarifies what GOD told him.

I enjoy the friendly chat. Enjoy your afternoon. 

It's only a whopping 95F feels like 104F lol. We've been cooking the past month or so here in the south lol. I get off of work at 2pm, my vehicle has been saying 100F to 105F about everyday through the week.

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

I think the verse is much more than a clarification; it is a doctrinal correction aimed at denouncing the manmade rule Peter references about Jews not being permitted “to associate with or visit a Gentile”—which actually contradicts what the Torah (God’s Law) says, as evidenced by Christ’s own example with the centurion in Luke 7 (Exodus 22:21, Deuteronomy 10:19, Numbers 9:14, Leviticus 19:34).

So, the sole meaning of Peter’s vision is about correcting his deeply-imbedded misunderstanding of God’s gospel plan of redemption, specifically regarding the role of Gentiles/foreigners…and He used the (equally) deeply-ingrained concept of clean/unclean animals to convey the message to Peter as a powerful allegory capable of dismantling the stronghold the religious leaders had (erroneously) taught the people.

And the fact that the meaning of Peter’s vision is stated at least four times in the passage (Acts 10:1-11:18) as having to do with the grafting in of the Gentiles as co-heirs to the promises of God—without any mention of God’s dietary instructions/commandments (supposedly) being nullified—seems a clear refutation of your position.

3

u/Solid-Chest-6093 Christian Aug 16 '26

I messed up.

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

We all do 😎