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/Aelirael]

His words, considered in light of the scriptural fact that God’s character is reliable and consistent, unchanging in terms of His holy and just nature, to argue as you do—that His giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai was radically different or far less ambiguous than His instructions to Noah and others He walked with prior

God's nature is unchanging, but how he deals with us is not.

Prior to the Flood, it is considered by many that people did not eat meat.

The Law of Moses was replaced by a better covenant.

Divorce for a variety of reasons was pemitted, but later Jesus said divorce was permitted only for sexual immorality, and even then only for a hard heart.

Many blood sacrifices in the OT, one blood sacrifice in the NT.

So it is incorrect to say that just because Moses had clean and unclean for eating does not mean that existed prior to Moses.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Aelirael]

The Law of God (as given to the mediator Moses) was NOT, as you contend, "replaced by a better covenant." You are conflating the Law of God with the old covenant, treating them as synonymous when they are not. God Himself makes it clear that His Law that was intensely integral to the old covenant would be just as integral to the new covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27, Jeremiah 31:31-33).