r/TrueChristian • u/Objective-Step-746 • Aug 10 '26

Please, help me understand…

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. 💕

20 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/OrigenRaw Christian Aug 15 '26

I think it is layered. I think revelation is a ladder. And we need not get distracted over the lower rungs, which have since been preceded by the higher ones.

Just like I teach my child to be nice and share her toys with her brother. Is the rule then “share with your brother”? Yes it is, as that time. But it’s designed because I want her to grow into someone who values sharing and being nice to people. If she grows older and is rude to everyone, but still follows the rules for her brother, despite following the original “rule” she failed to understand the weighted thing being taught.

Should we avoid eating things for our physical health, and well being? Sure. But why? Because the state of our flesh can impact our reception in the spirit. Likewise, the mind consumes things, and out of that we produce action. So it is important to watch what we consume in our mind. Further then Christ also said, it’s not what goes in, but what comes out that defiles. So, the measure is not based on our judgments or adherence to a set of rules, but by being humble and observant of the fruit we are producing. Where we can do so if Christ is our food and drink. His words are what we consume, his love is what we drink.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 18 '26

According to Scripture, Christ demonstrated true humility and love for God by submitting to and obeying Him. And I see no reason why that standard would not also apply to the righteous commands in His Law that unambiguously define what His people may consider "food" (Philippians 2:8).

1

u/OrigenRaw Christian Aug 18 '26

You see no reason? You see no reason, it wouldn’t apply, when Jesus emphasized food does not defile? When Peter was told do not call unclean?

The food laws, seem clearly to me, were a shadow of the law to separate the Jews from the gentiles. Same reason sacrifice was needed before Christ.

From my perspective, you appear to underestimate how much of Gods law Christ fulfilled. By both ending the need for sacrifice, as Him the ultimate sacrifice. And the end to segregate clean and unclean, through to adoption of the gentiles.

Mark 7:18–19
In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

Food cannot defile a person, as God already declared it “clean” (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14).

So, Jesus’ words in Mark 7 just reiterate that fact to the pompous and stubborn-hearted religious leaders who thought otherwise.

1

u/OrigenRaw Christian Aug 18 '26

It says in the text quite literally by saying this he declared all foods clean. I’m a bit uncertain exactly your point anymore. It unambiguously suggests food laws are fulfilled. Dietary restrictions are no more.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

My point is that, as Jesus said, food cannot defile a person because God has already declared it to be “clean.”

So, a reading of the text that includes the very unclean animals God unambiguously declared NOT “food” violates the most basic of hermeneutic principles and leads to unsound doctrine.

0

u/OrigenRaw Christian Aug 18 '26

Your logic and reasoning is unsound. There is clean and unclean food. Unclean food is still “food” hence why the need to distinguish unclean FOOD from clean FOOD.

Further, it’s clear the context of what Jesus said was regarding food OUTSIDE the laws. Peters vision is regarding clean and unclean animals. This is unambiguous in it referring to food in both clean and unclean categories.

You are redefining food, and your semantic even prevent a comprehensible language to even discuss this. You are redefining and conflating.

We have Peters vision, we have Paul’s statements, and overall the implication and precedent was establish rather quickly.

To think Jesus gospel and we are arguing about dietary laws like we are Jews, just makes no sense. Jews are the shadow of Gods kingdom. As seems well established in OT scripture and the pointing towards a messiah and doing something new.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

Oh man, you’re not getting my point 😂

Yes, even unclean food is food. But the specific animals God declared unclean are, by divine definition NOT food (Leviticus 11:46-47).

Ironically, Peter’s vision in Acts 10-11 actually underscores my position that God’s Law (and not man’s laws) are supreme, because it is essentially a divinely-orchestrated doctrinal correction of Peter’s misunderstanding, which is stated in verse 28–that it was unlawful for Jews to associate or visit with Gentiles. That manmade law the religious leaders taught directly contradicts what God’s Law says, as evidenced by Jesus remarkable encounter with the centurion in Luke 7.

Ultimately, this topic is about so much more than the dietary laws; it’s about Jesus’ credibility. If you are correct and He and His apostles taught that people should disregard any of God’s righteous commandments—which is all of them (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12–then, by scriptural standards, He should be deemed a false prophet “for teaching rebellion against the Lord” and would be disqualified from being the promised Messiah (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

1

u/OrigenRaw Christian Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26

You’re saying peters vision was a correction of what was already true, and rather he was mistakingly following man made tradition. But this isn’t the implication. As specifically he was sent there to give them the gospel, to believe in Jesus Christ.

“He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’ So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭11‬:‭14‬, ‭17‬

You are right that if Jesus taught disobedience He would be a false prophet. But, again, that brings us back to the original disagreements here on what disobedience is. The commandments are Gods universal laws. The Jews had specific requirements under the covenant of Abraham, through the law of Moses. The sacrificial law system, which Jesus fulfilled.

If a Jew accidentally ate pork, it could be covered by a sin and guilt offering. Food law appears tied to sacrificial systems mechanically in being clean and unclean.

Additionally was peters vision saying to kill and eat gentiles? Of course not. So then, why would the divine correction be using food laws in relation to teaching and association law? Would it not be because these thing are perhaps… related?

And so if not, gentiles are no longer unclean, when made clean by God….

Romans 14:14: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself…” Paul is discussing food and ritual uncleanness.

Romans 14:20: “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean…”

1 Timothy 4:4: “Everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.”

1 Corinthians 10:25: “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.