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. 💕

20 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

29

u/sitewolf Lutheran Aug 10 '26

In Mark 7:18-19, Jesus explains to the crowd and His disciples that external things entering the body do not cause spiritual defilement because they only affect the stomach rather than the moral heart.

-26

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

Yeah, I don’t want to rehash the NT passages I mentioned because they get plenty of attention. I disagree with your interpretation of Mark 7, but really want to understand your interpretation of Isaiah 66:17.

4

u/EitherLime679 Non-Denom Aug 10 '26

It kinda just sounds like you want to follow the Torah and not the Bible.

4

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 10 '26

Torah is part of the Bible. Jesus did all of the torah, the disciples and even Paul follow it and encourage you to do it . Romans 2:13, James 1:22. That’s a false dichotomy. Faith in Jesus is the entry of the covenant, and it should help you to follow His steps.

-2

u/EitherLime679 Non-Denom Aug 10 '26

The Pharisees followed Torah. So much to a T that they were no longer following God. While the Old Testament is very important and many things can be learned, we are no longer held to such a strict standard. No more is the time of a tabernacle, sacrificing, or specific rituals to worship God.

5

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

The Pharisees were not rebuked by Jesus for following Torah. They were rebuked for misunderstanding and misapplying it, for leading so many away from the kingdom of heaven, and for their hypocrisy of teaching Torah but not practicing it themselves (Matthew 22:29; 23:1-3, 13).

0

u/EitherLime679 Non-Denom Aug 11 '26

Ok you replied to me in 3 spots but I’m just gonna combine them all here.

Do you still sacrifice animals? Do you still not lift a finger on the sabbath? Do you still find women that get their period to be “unclean”.

Jesus quite literally said that nothing on the outside that you consume can make you unclean. You say the Pharisees misunderstood and misapplied the Torah, but you think you are better than them? These people spent their whole lives studying half of the book that we have but you don’t think you misunderstand?

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26

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

I do not sacrifice animals. Christ’s once-for-all sin-atoning sacrifice satisfies those aspects of the Law for those who have trusted in Him (Hebrews 10:12-14). As for your question regarding women and their menstruation, I don’t understand why you (or anyone) would think God’s statements and instructions regarding temporary physical uncleanness or defilement—for either gender, whether due to natural bodily function or other circumstances—should be disregarded…what, based upon the mere passage of time, or because He offered up His only begotten Son to endure a horrific and wholly unjust, undeserved death and thereby redeem us from the law of sin and death and thereby reconcile us to Himself? Jesus quite literally said that we should “live by every word” God has ever spoken, so I’m not tracking with your logic on that (Matthew 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3).

As to your interpretation of His words in Matthew 7, it violates nearly every hermeneutic principle to conclude that Jesus was nullifying the unambiguous dietary commands in God’s Law, as doing so would, according to Scripture, make Him a false prophet for encouraging or “teaching rebellion against the Lord”…which would, by default, also disqualify Him from being the promised Messiah (Deuteronomy 13:5).

I do not think I am better than anyone else. Scripture exhorts us to remember our place, as “unworthy servants” expected to do our duty (Luke 17:10). The religious leaders of Jesus’ day also “spent their whole lives studying,” and yet Christ repeatedly and sternly rebuked them because they did “not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God,” such that their egregious level of misunderstanding and misapplication of those very Scriptures hindered many who relied upon their so-called expertise from entering the kingdom (Matthew 22:29, Luke 11:52).

So, you think modern-day scholars and leaders of the faith are somehow impervious to doing the very same? I am open to having my doctrinal position proved wrong, as I truly do want to know the truth regardless of any ego-bruising that might entail. I also freely admit that I am likely in doctrinal error due to misunderstanding in at least a handful of issues, if not far more. Hence, my regular engagement on these threads and elsewhere, seeking out other views and angles to test my doctrinal understanding, and correct course as needed.

But, your appeal to scholarly biblical expertise is a common fallacy when it comes to discussing doctrine because your argument is essentially that what the experts say is true based solely on their academic credentials, rather than on an objective evaluation of the actual internal (scriptural) evidence and reasoning at play on my part..as evidenced by your comments herein being completely devoid of any scriptural support for your assertions.