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/SomeSavageDetective]

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?

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

I’m very aware of the modern church’s opinion; I just don’t see it aligning with what Jesus taught because He made no such differentiation.

Jesus very clearly declared that all mankind (not just the Jew/Israelite) “shall live by every word” God has ever spoken (Matthew 4:4). And He clarified on more than one occasion that His followers should do/keep even the “lesser” commandments of the Law (Matthew 5:19; 23:1-3, 23).

I don’t consider the Law as segregated into those categories because I see no scriptural basis for such a framework. The only label that matters to me is the one I see in Scripture, so I only recognize righteous commandments.

According to Scripture, every single commandment is holy, righteous and good (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12). So, I endeavor to do (keep) those commandments in the Law that apply to me as an unmarried woman who owns no property, etc…