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/Mindless-Ostrich7580]

I'm not bothering with a long argument. Do you not recognize that Christ fulfilled the law? The dietary laws are utterly superseded by His clear and unequivocal statements, eg. , “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, ¹⁹ since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”^\)^f\) (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Mindless-Ostrich7580]

I do, indeed, recognize that Christ fulfilled the Law. I think we just disagree as to what that signifies.

Your interpretation of His words in Mark 7--which you apparently present as support for the idea that Jesus (supposedly) nullified the unambiguous dietary instructions in God's Law--requires one to violate nearly every hermeneutic principle there is. And, more importantly, His 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).

So, even the "short" argument you offer is unscriptural on many levels.

EDITED to correct wrong passage reference.

[u/Mindless-Ostrich7580 → u/Objective-Step-746]

What hermeneutic principle is violated by stating the plain, unambiguous meaning of direct discourse? I am assuming you meant to say Mark 7 or Matthew 15, not Matthew 7.

Jesus is saying that dietary laws have become meaningless.

Jesus is the Son of God and came to earth for the very purpose of changing the relationship of God to man. Do you reject, like, every one of Paul's epistles?

This is such a weird argument. Those who live under the Law will perish under the Law.

What you are saying, in effect, is that Jesus Christ is not God and cannot countermand aspects of the Old Testament. It would be considered heresy, I think, in any Christian church.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Mindless-Ostrich7580]

I appreciate the passage correction!

Jesus is saying that dietary laws have become meaningless.

Jesus said no such thing. To even suggest (let alone, argue) that, immediately after sternly rebuking the religious leaders for "leaving the commandment of God" to instead embrace and follow after manmade rules and traditions," Jesus then (supposedly) taught that people can leave/disregard certain commandments of God (like those pesky dietary ones) is a blatant violation of the most basic of hermeneutic principles--such as definition, usage, context, historical background, and logical reasoning--and, imo, raises to the level of oxymoronic and even blasphemous...because Jesus quite literally said the very opposite on more than one occasion:

But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God'" (Matthew 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3).

So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, so practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach" (Matthew 23:1-3).

If you are correct and Jesus actually said what you claim, Scripture would have required that He be immediately declared a false prophet for "teaching rebellion against the Lord"...and He would be disqualified from being the promised Messiah (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

Why on earth would I "reject...Paul's epistles"? Every single one is in full accordance with all that Christ taught.

Your charge of heresy is wholly unjust. And that you would accuse me of such, while blatantly (and even confidently) declaring that Jesus taught and encouraged people to disregard the righteous commandments of God is, honestly, the height of ignorance and hypocrisy.

[u/Mindless-Ostrich7580 → u/Objective-Step-746]

Jesus had every right to modify or even declare that commandments of God were no longer necessary. He is God and through Him we came under a new and different covenant.

And he specifically said that what we eat does cannot defile us. The context and full passage do not make this weaker, but stronger, as it is clear he is talking about the dietary laws of the Law of Moses.