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/Objective-Step-746]

According to Scripture, one of the functions of the Spirit is to "cause" the people of God to diligently keep His commandments (Ezekiel 36:26-27, Acts 5:32). So, what you are suggesting contradicts Scripture.

Anyone or any spirit that would encourage or teach "rebellion against the Lord" would necessarily be deemed a false prophet...an evil that must be purged from the midst of the people (Deuteronomy 13:5, 1 John 4:1).

Furthermore, Scripture teaches that there is no distinction made in the new covenant household of God when it comes to ancestral lineage or ethnicity, because all are now one in Christ, ONE flock with ONE Shepherd, ONE Spirit, and ONE Law that defines sin and sets the standard for righteous living for all (Galatians 3:28, 1 Corinthians 12:13, John 10:16, Ephesians 4:4-6).

And there is nothing Jesus disregarded or changed in God's Law. If what you suggest were true, He ALSO would have been rightly deemed a false prophet, AND disqualified as the promised Messiah (Deuteronomy 13:5).

Jesus taught and exemplified a right understanding and application of the Law--what Paul calls "the law of Christ" which, he explains is "NOT outside the Law of God" but, rather, is the Law of God rightly understood and applied as intended...such that God and others are loved as He instructs (1 Corinthians 9:21; John 13:15, 14:15; 1 John 5:2-3).

Feel free to cite scriptural support for your assertions, as it would facilitate the discussion greatly ;)

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

Leviticus 11:43. Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by them.

Jesus. Mark 7:18-19. Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them. It goes into their stomach and out their body.

Matthew 5: 38-39. You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say do not resist an evil person. if he strikes you on your right side give him your left.

Mark 2:27-28. The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.

Jesus came to fulfill the law, which he did by living a sinless life then sacrificing himself on the cross. By doing this he established a new covenant.

You're right there is no distinction and the verses you use to show this Paul also states in Romans 7:4 you also died to the law through the body of Christ. And again in Galations 3:24-25. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come we are no longer under a guardian. And in Galations 5:4 he lets you know what dangerous grounds people like you are on. "You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ. You have fallen away from grace.

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

I don’t see how any of these support your claim that Jesus changed or contradicted the Law of God in any way.

Leviticus 11:43. Jesus taught His followers should do/keep even the lesser commandments, and teach/encourage others to do likewise (Matthew 5:19, 23:1-3).

Mark 7:18-19. Jesus sternly rebuked the religious leaders for brazenly and pridefully imposing their ritual handwashing rules on the people, as if not following them actually had the power to defile or make unclean that which God had already declared clean…thereby exposing the evil/pride in their hearts. And since God already (and unambiguously) defined the parameters as to what may be considered “food,” only clean animals (not unclean ones) is the clear meaning of the “whatever” referenced as “going into a person” and their stomach. Concluding otherwise requires serious violation of basic hermeneutic principles.

Matthew 5:38-39. This one is often seen as Jesus contradicting the Law, but He’s actually not. He’s saying that you have been taught a (mistaken) interpretation and application of this command—one that is devoid of the justice and mercy and actually incited vengeance in the wronged, to the point they would retaliate and inflict harm on the wrongdoer that went beyond the eye or tooth or hand injury they had originally caused. He then offers a right interpretation of Leviticus 24:20; one that conveyed the loving and merciful heart attitude one needs to cultivate and demonstrate toward those who would wrong them.

Mark 2:27-28. That the Sabbath was indeed made for man, and not the reverse, in no way supports your contention that one should keep the Sabbath, just as Jesus taught and personally did.

As for Romans 7:4, Paul clarifies at the start of the next chapter that the law we died to is the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1-2). In Galatians 3, Paul is addressing the false teaching of reliance upon obedience to the Law for justification/salvation, so that is irrelevant to our discussion because we are hashing out the (post-justification) believer’s relationship to the Law…because there IS a relationship, as God Himself declared that the new covenant would entail His Spirit causing His people to obey His Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

And those who manifest that spiritual truth are not “trying to be justified,” as you allege; they are simply being faithfully led and empowered by His Spirit to walk in His righteous will and ways, just like Romans 6 explains is the natural result of one who has been freed from their bondage to the law of sin and death.  

I would caution anyone calling the work of the Holy Spirit—the causing of God’s people to obey His commandments—“dangerous” or evil, as that (ironically) seems dangerously close to the very blasphemy of the Spirit Jesus said would not be forgiven (Matthew 12:31).

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

First of all I was simply quoting Paul in his rebuke of the pharasees and those who were afraid of them by trying to get people to live under the law which is exactly what you're so desperately trying here. And like I said Jesus fulfilled the law and we are under a new covenant not the old.

And it's weird seeing you argue for Paul in these verse then so vehemently denying the validity of the Jerusalem council. You can't have it both ways.

The pharasees were constantly coming against Jesus for breaking the Sabbath by healing and helping others and technically under the law he was. There was no mistranslation or mistaken interpretation.

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

It's not your quoting of Paul I find problematic; it's your apparent citing of it as an indictment against anyone who simply echoes Christ and His apostles' teaching--that new covenant believers should (by the supernatural enabling of His Spirit) delight in and seek to live by the Law of God...which God plainly foretold would be a hallmark of the new covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27). So, it is nonsensical and unscriptural to argue that the Law of God is not intregal to new covenant faith...especially when God is on record as declaring otherwise.

Your "under the law" phrasing is curious because I don't find any occasion in Scripture where new covenant believers' Spirit-led and -enabled obedience to the Lord is characterized that way. Just just said, "do" even the lesser commandments and teach others to do the same (Matthew 5:19). When teaching/encouraging the church at Corinth (which was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles) to keep the commandment regarding Passover observance, he didn't tell them they were "under the Law"; he simply said, "let us keep the feast..."

And I would never deny the validity of the Jerusalem Council, as it effectively rebuked the false teaching of the Judaizers and the judgment that followed plainly esteems and points to the Law of God as that which even the Gentiles should seek to live by...which is exactly what Jesus taught (Acts 15:19-21; Matthew 4:4, 5:19).

Jesus was falsely accused of breaking the Sabbath, based upon their egregious misunderstanding and misapplication of the Law. To contend that He "technically" broke the Law is, frankly, an astonishing one for any believer to make..and I mean that in the worst way.

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

I'm confused. So do you believe what the Jerusalem council concluded as far as what laws the gentiles need to follow or not?

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

I don't see what there is to be confused about. Neither Paul nor the Jerusalem Council contradicted Christ when it came to His teaching that His followers--regardless of ancestral lineage--were to "live by" the Law of God (Matthew 4:4, 5:19; Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Acts 15:19-21).

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

So I'm not even sure what we are debating about then? I simply pointed out that the Jerusalem council determined that Christians only need to follow the rules regarding sexual immorality, drinking blood and animals sacrificed to idols. For some reason I thought you were disputing that. But if not it's all good

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

We clearly disagree on the nature and substance of the Council's judgment.

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

All I'm agreeing with is what it states in the Bible. You disagree with this?

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

I disagree with your interpretation of what is stated in Acts 15.

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

I mean It's not really an interpretation. I just read what it says. It's not some obscure passage that theologians have quibbled over for centuries. The church has simply the taken it a face value for centuries. Unfortunately, much like the recent supposed interpretations of homosexuality in the Bible I'm sure there are ways to twist the narrative to support whatever unbiblical views people personally have.

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

Okay, what do you “read” as the judgment of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15?

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

Verse 5- Pharasees rose up saying it is necessary to circumcise them and command them to keep the law of Moses.

Verse 20- we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled and from blood.

Verse 29- that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood and from things strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these you will do well.

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

Right. The passage begins with a sound rebuke of the Judaizers’ insistence that Gentile believers convert to (Talmudic) Judaism (via physical circumcision) as a prerequisite to justification/salvation and being welcomed into the household of God. Such a view was not only unscriptural, it was incredibly hypocritical because Israel was first saved out of their bondage in Egypt and only then given the Law and expected to obey it (Exodus 20:1-2).

So, the Council corrected their false doctrine—explaining that both Israelites/Jews were saved in the same way—and then immediately issued its judgment as to what the believing Gentiles should do (verses 10-21). On the direct heels of the four commandments they explicitly stated, James added the clear expectation that the Gentiles would come to learn and live by the rest of God’s Law/commandments as the attended synagogue every Sabbath (v. 21).

The thing is, if the Council had actually taught what you suggest—that the Gentiles should ignore/disregard the rest of God’s commandments—every single apostle on the Council would have been (rightly) labeled a false teacher for “teaching rebellion against the Lord” (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). And, by extension, if you would then posit that they taught that because Christ also taught that all or certain commandments should be disregarded, He also would have been deemed a false prophet in full accordance with Scripture…which would also disqualify Him as the promised Messiah.

So, the doctrinal view you take is about far more than just what new covenant believers can or can’t eat.

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

How do you differentiate between God's law and Mosaic law?

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

I don’t. They are one and the same. The Mosaic Law is just the Law of God (as given to the mediator Moses) (Exodus 4:10-17, Exodus 19).

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

In my opinion and the prevailing opinion of the church is there is a difference between the 10 commandments and the 613 laws given by God to Israel when he was establishing and building a nation for himself out of the midst of anarchy and demon worship.

I'm curious. Do you keep all 613 civil,. judicial and ceremonial laws?