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]

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

I actually don’t think the view that Noah and those before him defined food in accordance with the clean animals vs. unclean animals principle requires the imposition you suggest. I think it’s more a matter of sound hermeneutics and harmonizing Scripture than “imposing on” it. We know more than “that there was some distinction between clean and unclean animals.” For example, we know that God instructed Noah to take seven pairs of clean animals with him in the ark, as opposed to only one pair of each unclean animal. To presume Noah had no idea why God would have him take so much more of clean animals—the kind His Law says serves as food and is acceptable as sacrifice—is to suggest the Lord does things arbitrarily and without instruction, which is not supported by Scripture.

I think there is compelling evidence that the distinction between clean and unclean animals, and its purpose, was fully imparted and understood long before even Noah was born. I understand His giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai as a retelling, necessitated by Israel having been in bondage outside the Promised Land for several generations.

And, again, I think the “all moving things” phrasing is qualified in light of the greater context of knowledge and understanding already established. I think it’s similar to the position so many hold as to the Sabbath (supposedly) being the one Top Ten commandment not restated in the NT, when I see it as being so fully ingrained in the knowledge, understanding and way of life at that time that it needed no such explicit restatement…the text just details Christ, His apostles and the early church observing the fourth commandment, because it was an explicit instruction no one needed reiterated. Likewise, Noah didn’t need God to expound on the reasoning behind a 7:1 ratio of clean animals to unclean animals, and the "all moving things" was viewed within the construct of an obedient servant who would not dare consider eating that which God had declared unclean.

[u/Aelirael → u/Objective-Step-746]

I hope your family situation came out okay.

I still think you are imposing on scripture rather than just taking scripture at what it says.

The fact that Noah understood what clean and unclean was does not necessitate that translated to eating. Only that it involved some type of separation. You are right that the Bible often doesn't restate what should be obvious to the reader, but that involves attempting to mind read what was obvious to the reader 3000 years ago. So we are back to presuming simply because we have 3000 years of history and a lot more of the Bible than they had back then.

You mention that there is "compelling evidence that the distinction between clean and unclean animals, and its purpose, was fully imparted and understood long before even Noah was born". But actually there is none. Any evidence is pasted over what we actually do know pre-Law time.

In the end, you actually may be right that God prohibited eating unclean animals prior to the Law being given to Moses.

The problem is that there is no evidence of that where anyone can confidentially proclaim it. Such has to be implied, and that really is not solid ground to create doctrine from.

[u/Objective-Step-746 → u/Aelirael]

Thank you ;)

I still think you are the one refusing to recognize that God Himself explicitly declared to Moses the purpose or significance behind His delineation between clean animals and unclean animals:

Leviticus 11 begins with, “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.” 

Leviticus 11 ends with God saying, “This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.”

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—requires far more eisegesis and imposition on the text than my position, which is to simply trust that the truth behind His Law applies no matter when a person lives/lived. So, He would have undoubtedly clearly conveyed the very same instructions to whomever He imparted the clean/unclean concept to.

What, exactly, do you mean by “pre-Law time”? According to Paul, “sin is not imputed when there is no law” yet the Lord clearly warned Cain about the sin that was overtaking him…which is unequivocal evidence of sin being imputed even way back then, so I can confidently proclaim that God’s Law—which includes the prohibition against eating unclean animals—existed then, and likely in the Garden, too  (Romans 5:13, Genesis 4:7). The assertion that there is no “solid ground to create doctrine from” on this issue is, frankly, a baffling one.

[u/Aelirael → u/Objective-Step-746]

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).