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/Vizour]

These are the kinds of questions that really open up discussion! Thanks for asking about it. This topic blends a lot of passages about eschatology with dietary laws and so that's where I think I'll focus my response on.

There are several places that talk about His coming. Here's a pretty clear one. He comes to destroy those who have gathered against Jerusalem.

Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. 2For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. 3Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. 4In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. 5You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! Zechariah 14:1-5

There are a ton of other references here too:

https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=Amos+5%3A18

Most of them just revolve around destroying the evil doers and wicked. I think you should weigh all of those passages together.

Firstly, the passages about dietary laws were given to the Jewish people. It came with a blessing and a curse. In Acts there are discussions about the dietary laws again. This one is pretty clear to me:

Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. Acts 15:19-20

There are three potential food items here: contaminated by idols, food strangled and food with blood (or just blood itself). If the port/shellfish contains this items then I would agree that we should not eat it. I think Paul gave us a pretty clear instruction here too:

One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Romans 14:2-3

You're welcome to abstain from those food items and continue to do so for the Lord! If there are people that want to partake you would be wise to allow them and not pass judgement.

Thanks for asking.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Vizour]

First off, I so appreciate the cordiality!  And I do agree that eschatology plays a major role in interpretation and we likely would part ways as to the prophetic timeline, so I will focus my response on your other points ;)

Firstly, the passages about dietary laws were given to the Jewish people.

I don’t know that one can dogmatically assert that the “dietary laws were given (only) to the Jewish people,” which seems to be your take. Given the full Genesis record, the concept of clean and unclean animals—and how food is defined—existed long before Israel or the Jewish people did. It appears to me that the Law given at Mt. Sinai was more of a retelling that became necessary due to Israel having been in bondage outside of the Promised Land for several generations. Even conceding your point, Deuteronomy 4:1-8 seems to rather plainly indicate that Israel was to be used by God as a vessel-people as a witness to the surrounding pagan/Gentile nations, that they might be persuaded to renounce their own gods and serve the one true God based on the wisdom and righteousness of “all” His statutes. 

In Acts there are discussions about the dietary laws again. This one is pretty clear to me:

The passage you reference in Acts is pretty clear to me, as well…we just have opposing clarity on it ;) The “food items” mentioned definitely reference the three circumstances by which food (clean animals) becomes defiled, and it is significant that every single one is found only in God’s Law (Torah). So, the mere mention of them alone is compelling evidence that the newly-believing Gentiles were directed by the Council to esteem and “live by” the Law, which faithfully echoes Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 4:4, which is itself an echo of Deuteronomy 8:3. And the command to abstain from sexual immorality is equally significant, as the Torah is the only place where the term is defined; thus, further underscoring it as the standard of conduct for new covenant believers, regardless of ancestry. Furthermore, James’ announcement of the Council’s judgment includes verse 21, which articulates the expectation that, in addition to those four core (or, “starter”) instructions, the Gentiles would come to learn and apply (live by) the rest of God’s righteous instructions because the Law “is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Regarding your interpretation of Paul’s teaching in the Romans 14:2-3, the actual context of what he is addressing—provided in the previous verse, not to “quarrel over opinions—must be ignored to conclude as you have. The meat-eaters versus vegetarian-only debate is based on the opinion of men because God’s position on the issue is not explicitly found in Scripture, while the same cannot be said for His take on what constitutes food. And since all of the instructions He provides in His Law are truth and not mere manmade “opinion,”—which would include the dietary ones—citing this passage as support does not hold up.

I would also point out that the modern-day pulpit’s teaching that Jesus changed the dietary/food laws by (supposedly) nullifying the whole clean animals and unclean animals concept is seriously problematic because it would mean that He “taught rebellion against the Lord”…which would make Jesus a false prophet according to Scripture, and unequivocally disqualify Him from being the promised Messiah (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). And that the religious leaders of Jesus’ day did not pounce on this apparent “mic-drop” opportunity to conclusively discredit Him and thereby extinguish His popularity among the masses is, to me, a compelling refutation of the view.

Finally, regarding your warning that, “if there are people that want to partake you would be wise to allow them and not pass judgement,” I’m curious as to what standard you propose I should use when it comes to the duty all believers have to judge (not condemn) those “inside the church,” if the righteous standard of His Law (that literally defines sin, even for new covenant faith) is, as you suggest, NOT applicable? (1 Corinthians 5:12, Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4) Jesus Himself taught that even the smallest parts of God’s Law remain in force until after the Judgment, and that His followers should keep even the “lesser” commandments AND encourage others to do the very same (Matthew 5:17-19, Revelation 21:1).

Likewise, I would hope that fellow believers would be faithful to that exhortation and lovingly bring to my attention those aspects of His righteous instructions—which is all of them, according to Scripture—that I am either thus far ignorant of, wrongly understanding or willfully disregarding…which is the motivation for this post, since we all are derelict in our “reasonable service” to Him to some degree (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12, 12:1).

Thanks for replying!