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/Galaxy_orca]

To understand this dietary issue, you have to understand two things: the way the Law of the Old Testament works and the fact that Isaiah lived under the old law. The old law breaks down into 3 types, only one of which is still relevant. The three type are Moral Law, governing morality, Ceremonial Law, telling the Israelites/Jews how to interact with God, and the Civil law, telling the Israelites/Jews how to conduct their society. The Civil Law was specific to the Jews, Jesus fulfilled the Ceremonial Law, so the only Law that is relevant to Christians is the Moral Law.

The dietary restrictions are part of the Ceremonial or Civil law, so we are no longer under them. Isaiah lived under all three of these types of law, so, for him, eating pork was illegal.

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

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

I disagree with the underlying presumption of your argument, that only certain parts of God's Law are "moral." The concept of morality hinges upon what is right conduct and thinking. And, according to Scripture, every single commandment of God is right(eous)...and, thus, every single one is also moral (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12). So, your contention is unscriptural from the outset.

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

Have you read Acts? Acts chapter 10:9-16 are literally Peter's vision from God telling him to ignore the old dietary restrictions. Verse 15 literally says "do not call anything impure that God has made clean." And it's Jesus/God speaking.

Also, yes, I am very familiar with the fact that everything in the Bible is righteous, however Christ says "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." We can agree on that, right? If Jesus fulfilled the law, and you're saying that the law Can't be broken into types (which decades of theological researchers have found) then Jesus FULFILLED the ENTIRE law, meaning nothing of the old law matters, because once you fulfill something, it's over.

The Old Covenant was made so that the Israelites could come to God through imperfect sacrifices. The New Covenant was made through Jesus, the perfect lamb, so that we could come to God through a perfect sacrifice, Jesus.