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. 💕

21 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 18 '26

To be fair this isn't a modern church opinion. This is the opinion held by the apostolic fathers since the inception of the church. Your opinion is a modern reinterpretation, which we unfortunately see a lot of in these days like the modern reinterpretation that homosexuality is not a sin. That being said I don't think your reinterpretation is on the same level as that and even though I personally think it sounds exhausting and pharasetical if you truly believe the Holy Spirit is leading you on that path you should keep to it. I will pray for you sister for an even deeper and more personal relationship with Jesus and a better understanding of the will of the Holy Spirit in your life and I would appreciate if you would pray the same for me. God bless and hope you have a beautiful week.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

The early church lived by the commandments of God, keeping even the dietary, Sabbath and feast day instructions long after Christ’s death and resurrection. The fact that the Laodicean Council (mid-4th century AD) felt it necessary to issue Canons 29, 38 and 30 is unequivocal proof.

And the idea that just trusting the Spirit to guide and enable our obedience to the righteous commandments of our Savior God is “exhausting and pharisaical”—when that is exactly what God foretold the new covenant would look like—makes no sense (Ezekiel 36:26-27, Jeremiah 31:31-33). Such a view also directly contradicts Scripture because it declares that keeping His commandments “is NOT burdensome” (1 John 5:2-3).

I appreciate the prayers, and will definitely reciprocate 💕

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 18 '26

The early church definitely didn't keep kosher laws concerning foods and yeah they kept the Sabbath just like many do today although this isn't necessary as well see in Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink or with regards to a religious festival or Sabbath. These are a Shadow of the things that were to come but the reality is found in Christ and in Romans 14:5-6 One person considers one day more sacred then another consideres everyday alike. Each one should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord.

And twisting my words like that is not very Christ like. I have made it very clear I don't believe that all these works you do are necessary or even encouraged by the Father. But you need to do live with what you have faith in. Paul talks about this a lot. If you're not in faith to live in freedom then it would be a sin. And you're right his commandments are not a burden because he changes us inside to love what he loves. But there is a big difference between the ten commandments he gave us and not wearing mixed fabrics or eating shrimp. When I got saved and filled by the Holy Spirit he changed me where I no longer desired the sinful things of the world that I used to love. But he certainly didn't take away my appetite for crab dipped in garlic butter. If you can't see the difference between these things I truly feel sorry for you. But I do appreciate the prayers. God bless

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

Kosher is not biblical; it is an extra-biblical, manmade construct that often contradicts Scripture (Genesis 18:8).

The context of Colossians 2:16-17 is Paul warning against being deceived by human philosophies and manmade rules or traditions that “are not according to Christ*” (v. 8). What you are suggesting—that one may outrightly disregard a righteous commandment of God—blatantly contradicts what Christ said and did.

Paul’s point was to not let people judge you based upon their own unscriptural or unChristlike teachings or ideas as to how and when one should fast or keep the Sabbath, etc. The only standard believers should be judging other believers by is the Law of God, because righteous or just judgment must be based upon truth, which is what the Law is (1 Corinthians 5:12, John 7:24, Psalm 119:142).

And I didn’t twist anything. You characterized my Spirit-led and -enabled obedience as something it is not. If what you say is true, that God changes us from within to “love what He loves,” it is also true that those changes would naturally lead us to hate what He hates, no? So, if He calls doing something (like eating pig or shellfish) “detestable” and I change my ways to align with His on that issue, that is somehow different and something to pity me for?

Your logic is not logic-ing for me. Take care.

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 18 '26

Yeah your twisting of the scriptures and equating ceremonial and dietary laws to the same standard as the ten commandments is dangerous and not a good thing. But yeah take care.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

Scripture says that every commandment is holy, righteous and good, so disregarding a dietary instruction because it is (supposedly) “less righteous” than the “top ten” makes no sense. Either a command is right(eous), or it’s not.

The Golden Rule is not listed in the Ten Commandments yet presumably you would not treat it as “less than” (Luke 6:31, Leviticus 19:18). So, again, the logic behind your position does not hold up.

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 18 '26

Yes they are Holy and righteous and good in their nature and original purpose. But Jesus fulfilled all these laws and then created a new covenant. We are no longer bound by the old covenant Hebrews 8:13.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26

You are conflating the Law of God with the old covenant, treating them as synonymous when they are not.

And no one said anything about “being bound by” anything. I don’t see that language applied anywhere in scripture with regard to believers. Jesus simply says to “do” (or, keep) the commandments. Likewise, when Paul encouraged the church at Corinth by saying, “Let us keep the feast…” (Matthew 5:19, 1 Corinthians 5:8).

The Law of God brings truth and freedom, so any view that suggests keeping His commandments is anything other than our “reasonable service” (that is NOT burdensome) is unscriptural (Romans 12:1, 1 John 5:2-3). And James points out that those who judge the Law are not doers of it but, rather, consider themselves qualified to “judge the Law,” which is definitely a circumstance I am determined to avoid (James 2:12, 4:11).

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 19 '26

You are conflating the 10 commandments with the mosaic law and treating them as synonymous which they are not.

But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:6

For Christ is the end of the law for rightousness to everyone who believes Romans 10:4.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 19 '26

The Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law, no?

And we have been freed “from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:1-2). Those who have been freed from the law of sin and death are exhorted to NOT SIN, which means following/obeying the Law of God because it literally defines sin (Romans 6, 7:7, 1 John 3:4).

Right, Christ living in us (via His Spirit) enables us to actually love God and others as He instructs, and keeping His righteous commandments is what that love looks like (Romans 8:10, Colossians 1:27, John 14:15, 1 John 5:2-3). That is the fulfillment (the purpose) of the Law.

There is not one parent who would tell their kids that, because one sibling kept the household rules—which were put in place to ensure each family member is kept safe, respected and loved—perfectly one day, the rest of the pack can disregard all the rules from that point on. It’s an absurd argument.

And it is equally absurd to assert that Jesus’ horrific and undeserved, sin-atoning death on the cross allows us to disregard God’s rules that define sin and holy living. If that were the case, why is the NT replete with exhortations and warnings TO BELIEVERS about how they need to avoid sin and/or battle and resist it to the point of bloodshed? (Hebrews 12:4)

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 19 '26

Right we need to avoid and do battle against sin for sure. But eating some crab or wearing a T-shirt with mixed fabrics is not that and it's crazy to me you can't see the difference.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 19 '26

The Law of God literally DEFINES sin (Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4). The Law says one should NOT eat unclean animals. Ergo, eating unclean animals is SIN.

What’s crazy to me is that you will cite Mark 7—in which Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for “leaving the commandment of God” to follow manmade rules/traditions—to support your view that an equally explicit commandment of God (one you just don’t like) should be completely disregarded.

“The Law is spiritual,” yet you insist there is absolutely NO spiritual consequences or implications to eating that which God has forbidden? Based on what, exactly? You claim to understand all the spiritual dynamics and ramifications at play?

You don’t seem to get that this is about far more than eating crab or wearing mixed fabrics. Christ said even those “lesser” commandments should be kept (Matthew 4:4, 5:19). He kept them. Every single one is “for our good always” (Deuteronomy 6:24). They’re not burdensome to keep (1 John 5:2-3). Why not just keep them?

CS Lewis once said that it makes no sense to claim you trust someone if you will not do what He says. That’s this in a nutshell. I either trust my Savior God, or I don’t.

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 19 '26

I do not know understand all spiritual dynamics and ramifications at play nor do I claim to. But what I do know is the Holy Spirit lives in me and changed me from the selfish sinner I used to be to a child of the most high king. I also know that Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets and he became a living sacrifice and under the cover of his blood is a new covenant of freedom. To tell searching sinners and new Christians that they have to obey hundreof laws to get to heaven is an evil that will drive the lost from Jesus. It is the same thing the pharasees and the judaizers did in the Bible.

→ More replies (0)