The Old Testament forbids the eating of pork and that would include bacon and all pig meats of every kind; things like salami, bruschetta, and heaps of others too. But do you eat pork? Are you exempt from the laws about foods?
The following line of argument is not my own personal belief; it is presented as the strongest case for forbidding pork that I could conceive.
The Law of Moses explicitly forbids eating pork, declaring the pig “unclean” and its flesh not to be eaten or even touched (Lev 11:7–8; Deut 14:8). These commands are grounded not in health or culture but in God’s own holiness: “Be holy, for I am holy” (Lev 11:44–45). Because God’s holiness does not change (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17), a maximalist reading argues that what God once called unclean cannot later become clean without implying change in God Himself. This is strengthened by the fact that Jesus affirms the enduring validity of the Law—“not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law” (Matt 5:17–19)—and nowhere explicitly permits pork.
The prophets intensify this argument by placing pork-eating within the context of divine judgment. Isaiah condemns those who “eat swine’s flesh” (Isa 65:3–4) and, in an eschatological prophecy, declares that those who “sanctify and purify themselves… eating the flesh of swine” will be destroyed at the Lord’s final coming (Isa 66:15–17). Because this prophecy concerns the end times rather than the Mosaic covenant, a strict interpreter argues that pork-eating is not merely ceremonial but morally repugnant to God and remains so until the consummation of history.
The New Testament provides no explicit permission to eat pork. Peter, long after the Resurrection, still refuses unclean animals (Acts 10:14), and the Jerusalem Church remains Torah‑observant (Acts 21:20). The Apostolic Council imposes dietary restrictions on Gentiles (Acts 15:20, 29) but never mentions pork, which a maximalist reading interprets as evidence that the prohibition remained assumed. Paul affirms that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12) and never directly addresses pork. Thus, the strongest scriptural case concludes that the holiness code—including the prohibition of pork—reflects God’s unchanging holiness and remains binding unless explicitly revoked, which the canonical Scriptures never unambiguously do.
The following line of argument is not my own personal belief; it is presented as the strongest case for forbidding pork that I could conceive.
The Law of Moses explicitly forbids eating pork, declaring the pig “unclean” and its flesh not to be eaten or even touched (Lev 11:7–8; Deut 14:8). These commands are grounded not in health or culture but in God’s own holiness: “Be holy, for I am holy” (Lev 11:44–45). Because God’s holiness does not change (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17), a maximalist reading argues that what God once called unclean cannot later become clean without implying change in God Himself. This is strengthened by the fact that Jesus affirms the enduring validity of the Law—“not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law” (Matt 5:17–19)—and nowhere explicitly permits pork.
The prophets intensify this argument by placing pork-eating within the context of divine judgment. Isaiah condemns those who “eat swine’s flesh” (Isa 65:3–4) and, in an eschatological prophecy, declares that those who “sanctify and purify themselves… eating the flesh of swine” will be destroyed at the Lord’s final coming (Isa 66:15–17). Because this prophecy concerns the end times rather than the Mosaic covenant, a strict interpreter argues that pork-eating is not merely ceremonial but morally repugnant to God and remains so until the consummation of history.
The New Testament provides no explicit permission to eat pork. Peter, long after the Resurrection, still refuses unclean animals (Acts 10:14), and the Jerusalem Church remains Torah‑observant (Acts 21:20). The Apostolic Council imposes dietary restrictions on Gentiles (Acts 15:20, 29) but never mentions pork, which a maximalist reading interprets as evidence that the prohibition remained assumed. Paul affirms that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12) and never directly addresses pork. Thus, the strongest scriptural case concludes that the holiness code—including the prohibition of pork—reflects God’s unchanging holiness and remains binding unless explicitly revoked, which the canonical Scriptures never unambiguously do.
Last edited:
