I Did Not Mean That
How can you accurately understand the Book of Truth (the Bible)?
Have you ever had someone put words in your mouth that you did not say? Have you ever then had someone assign a meaning that you did not mean to the words that you did not say ?
I have had this happen to me more than once and it is always very frustrating. It invariably leads to confusion and never ends well. I really hate it when someone does this to me.
I have investigated these incidences several times and have found one consistent underlying cause. The other party already had an idea about what I thought on the subject and was then interpreting everything I said to match up with their idea. I did not say anything to match up with that idea or even said the exact opposite of what they imagined that I thought. Yet they would somehow insert something that I did not say into their recollection of the conversation that matched up with what they were so sure was my opinion on the subject. This invariably lead to their response based on something that I did not mean.
Of course I did not mean that and I never even said it. I have had other witnesses (and at least once a recording) of the exact words I said and without exception it came out that I never said the words that upset them nor did I mean the meaning that they had assigned to those words. What can I say in such a case except "I did not mean that"?
I am not alone in this frustration. It is bad enough that people have done this to me but it is far worse that they have done it to the Father of Truth (YHVH aka God aka THE LORD). He too has a recording of His exact words in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that make up the Book of Truth. Yet translators sometimes put words in His mouth that He did not say and readers assign meanings to His words that He did not mean. What can we expect Him to say in such cases except "I did not mean that"?
I have investigated many of these incidences and have found one consistent underlying cause. The translators or readers already had an idea about what the Father of Truth thought on a subject and was began interpreting everything He said to match up with their idea. In these cases He did not say anything that matched up with their idea and in some cases actually said the exact opposite. Yet they would somehow insert something that He did not say into their translation or interpretation that matched up with what they were so sure was His opinion on the subject. This invariably lead to their response based on something that He did not mean.
To show what I mean we will look at three cases involving the subject of food. In each case we will look at the words that were not in the record of what actually He said and/or the interpretation of what He meant that does not match what He actually said. It will be plain why He would say "I did not mean that".
We will start with a little background information about somethings that the Father of Truth actually did say in the Law of Truth about food.
For the most part the definition of those things that people should eat and not eat concern animals.
The meat of land animals such as cattle, sheep, goats, deer, antelopes and the like are called food (Deuteronomy 14:4-5). The meat of all land animals that have split hooves and rechew their food (owing to a multi-chambered stomach) is called food (Deuteronomy 14:6). The meat of fish that have easily removed scales is also called food (Deuteronomy 14:9). The meat of most birds is also called food (Deuteronomy 14:11). The meat of grasshoppers (the word translated as "beetle" is the akrida or sword-tailed grasshopper) is also called food (Leviticus 11:21-22).
The meat of everything else is called filth in the Law of Truth.
Even animals whose meat is food still have some parts that are filth that must be separated from the parts that are food. These animals are referred to as being clean (although "cleanable" would be a more accurate translation). The bodies of other animals cannot be cleaned of filth by separating those parts because their entire bodies are filth. These animals are referred to as being unclean (although "uncleanable" would be a more accurate translation). So in the Law of Truth that the Father of Truth gave to Moses people are told which animals are cleanable because the parts of their bodies that are food that can be separated from the parts of their bodies that are filth and which animals are uncleanable because every part of their bodies is filth (Leviticus 11:46-47).
Now that we have looked at what the Father of Truth did say in the Original Covenant (Tanach aka Old Testament) we will look at what He did not say in the Renewed Covenant (B'rit Chadashah aka New Testament) concerning food.
The first passage worth examining is Mark 7:18-19. If you read the NIV translation or a translation based off of it then Mark 7:18-19 says: Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."). On the surface it seems that the Man of Truth is saying that does not matter what you eat.
However, the surface reading will lead you to the wrong conclusion for several reasons. The first reason is the entire sentence (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."). If you read the KJV translation or or a translation based off of it then Mark 7:18-19 says: 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive , that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? The KJV is missing that entire sentence. The fact is that this sentence is also missing from all of the Greek manuscripts that were used to compile the Greek text of the Renewed Covenant. This sentence was simply added by the translators of the NIV and other translations because they thought it should have been there. If you want to know more about it then you can read One Disturbing Sentence.
The second reason that people jump to the wrong conclusion is that the sentence added by the translators (but it is not in the Greek text of the Renewed Covenant) draws their attention away from what actually lead up to the Man of Truth telling parable. The controversy that prompted the parable was the issue of the washing of hands before eating (Mark 7:1-2). The point of the criticism from the Pharisees and Scribes was not that the disciple had eaten things contrary to the Law of Truth but that they had eaten with unwashed hands contrary to the traditions of the elders (Mark 7:3-5). That being the case then it would be bad hygiene that the Man of Truth was advocating instead of eating food that the Father of Truth called filth in the Law of Truth if that was actually the point of the parable. In fact, if that was actually the point of the parable then it would be wrong for the Children of Truth to teach people to wash their hands before they eat!
Third reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is because the Man of Truth was not saying that it does not matter what people put into their bodies when he told the parable (Mark 7:14-16). If that was the case then he would be saying it does not matter if people eat a plateful of hemlock which would kill them. If that was the case then he would be saying it does not matter if people drink too much alcohol and become drunk even though that will keep people out of the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). If that was the case then he would be saying it does not matter if people ingest every kind of narcotic even though the Renewed Covenant says those that do so will not inherit the kingdom of His Father (Galatians 5:19-21). [ The Greek word translated as "sorcery" is "pharmakia" and literally means taking hallucinogenic drugs.]
The fourth reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is that the Man of Truth only said that whatever was on their unwashed hands could not defile them because it would leave their bodies and end up in the sewer in the same way that all food is eventually purged from the body (Mark 7:17-19). In fact the people that he was talking to were all religious Jews and they knew that he was talking only about eating what the Law of Truth called food. Their issue was not the food that the disciples ate being unclean but whatever was on the hands of the disciples that was not cleaned off by washing their hands before eating. This is what would be purged from the body.
The fifth reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is that the Man of Truth never did anything contrary to the Law of Truth. The Father of Truth said that His will was that people did what was in the Law of Truth and that no one could change it (Deuteronomy 12:32). The Man of Truth did not come to destroy the Law of Truth but to fulfill it by do everything it required (Matthew 5:17). He said that the Law of Truth would still be in effect as long the Earth and the universe exist (Matthew 5:18). He said that those who taught others to do anything contrary to the Law of Truth would be the least in his kingdom so you can be sure that he was not teaching that people should eat the things that the Law of Truth said were not to be eaten (Matthew 5:19). He only did the will of His Father which was expressed in the Law of Truth (John 6:38). He never did anything contrary to the Law of Truth because sin is transgression of the Law of Truth (1 John 3:4).
That being the case anytime he talked about food he was using the same definition as the Law of Truth. The sentence that said (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."), would have only been saying the same thing as the Law of Truth - that which the Father of Truth says calls food is clean while everything else is filth that cannot be made clean. He certainly would not have been trying to change the definition of food given in the Law of Truth to include what it called filth. He would have been sinning by transgressing the Law of Truth if he had tried to do that. Yet that was exactly the intent of adding this sentence even though it is not in any of the Greek manuscripts.
The sixth reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is that the point of this parable was that it is the human heart that causes people to think evil thoughts and commit evil actions (Mark 7:20-23). Even if that sentence was actually there (but it is not) it is apparent from the context of story and the parable that the Man of Truth was not using this parable to teach that anything about food or eating with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:18-20). He was teaching in this parable that the human heart is the source of the doing things that are contrary to the Law of Truth so that people are defiled with sin.
Those who knew what the Father of Truth commanded them to not eat but ate it anyways were defiled with sin (Leviticus 11:42-44). The willful breaking of the Law of Truth by eating filth showed that those who did so were defiled by sin (Romans 7:7). This is why Daniel purposed in his heart to not eat anything that the Law of Truth called filth (Daniel 1:8).
So in short when someone uses this passage to show that the Man of Truth was advocating eating what the Law of Truth called filth then he would have to say "I did not mean that".
In like manner there is another story that bears examination to see what it says about food.
In this story Peter (Cephas aka Simon) the Jew got hungry while waiting for lunch and had a vision (Acts 10:9-10). In this vision he saw a bunch of animals that the Law of Truth says are unclean that he was told to kill and eat (Acts 10:11-13). He refused but the Father of Truth told him to not call unclean what He was calling clean (Acts 10:14-15). This occurred three times (once for each Gentile man sent by Cornelius) so that he would have no doubts about what he had seen and heard (Acts 10:16). On the surface it would seem that the Father of Truth had sent a message that He had made the animals that He had once said were not fit to be eaten were now fit to be eaten.
Was this vision about food?
Peter the Jew wondered what that vision could have meant when three Gentile men that had been sent by Cornelius asked for him (Acts 10:17-18). While he was still trying to figure it out when the Spirit of Truth (Ruach HaQodesh aka The Holy Spirit aka The Holy Ghost) began to clue him in to what this vision was really about (Acts 10:19-20). By the time that Peter the Jew arrived at the house of Cornelius the Father of Truth had already showed him that the vision about not calling people unclean (literally uncleanable) (Acts 10:28). Peter the Jew quit wondering what the vision was about once he realized that the vision was about the Gentiles being cleanable from their sin by the Father of Truth if they would repent (Acts 10:34-35). The sacrifice for sin that the Man of Truth made on the cross was able to clean anyone from sin that believed that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Acts 10:42-43). Just to make sure that everyone understood that the Gentiles had been cleaned from sin they were baptized in the Spirit of Truth with the evidence of speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44-46). There was no denying that the Father of Truth had cleaned the Gentiles from sin even though the Jews had thought that the Gentiles were uncleanable from sin so the Gentiles were then baptized in water (Acts 10:47-48).
So this vision had nothing to do with food.
Since the Father of Truth Himself said that this vision was about the Gentiles being cleanable from their sin then who are we to say that He got it wrong and the vision was really about calling things food that He had previously declared to be filth? Then why do people insist that this vision was about eating?
The truth is that they think that the Father of Truth somehow changed His mind about what was food and what was filth. What does the Book of Truth say about the Father of Truth?
The Father of Truth never changes (Malachi 3:6). His word never changes (Psalm 119:89). He remains the same forever (James 1:17).
You might be thinking then why did He change His mind about the Gentiles? If so, then I would ask you whose mind was really changed?
Peter the Jew had called the Gentiles uncleanable from their sin because he was following a law that the Jews had established until he had the vision of unclean animals and the Father of Truth told him what it meant (Acts 10:28-29). It was the Jewish believers that had called the Gentiles uncleanable from sin to the point that they would not even eat with them (Acts 11:2-3).
The Prophets of Truth had always said that the Gentiles would be cleaned from their sin by faith in the Man of Truth (Acts 10:43). The Father of Truth had said that the Gentiles were cleanable from sin from the very beginning (Acts 15:16-18).
The Jewish believers changed their minds about the Gentiles being uncleanable from sin due to the events that had started with the vision of unclean animals (Acts 11:16-18). The vision of unclean animals and the events that fulfilled the vision had opened the eyes of the Jewish believers to what the Father of Truth had already spoken through the Prophets of Truth (Acts 15:13-15).
So this vision was not given to show that the Father of Truth had changed His mind about what could be cleaned from filth to be fit to eat but to change the mind of the Jewish believers about who could be cleaned from sin to be fit for His kingdom. This vision had nothing to do with food.
It was no different than all other dreams and visions that the Father of Truth had given to people that involve animals and eating. The animals always represented something else and were never about the actual animals. The seven fat cattle and seven lean cattle in the dream that Pharaoh had represented the seven years of plenty that would be consumed by seven years of famine (Genesis 41:26-28). This dream was not about literal cows that ate other cows. The fourth animal that Daniel saw in a vision that devoured the previous three animals represented a kingdom that would replace the three kingdoms that came before it (Daniel 7:17-19). This dream was not about a literal indescribable animal made of iron that ate a winged lion which had became a man, a bear that with three ribs in its mouth and a leopard with four wings. The dragon that John (Yochanon) saw which tried to eat the baby as soon as the woman gave birth represented the Father of Lies (HaShatan aka Satan aka The Devil) who makes war against the Children of Truth (Revelation 12:15-17). This vision was not about a literal serpent that was waiting for a woman to give birth so it could eat her son as soon as he was born. In the same way the animals that could not be cleaned from filth so as to be fit to eaten represented the Gentiles who the Jews thought could not be cleaned from sin so as to be fit to be saved. This vision was not about Peter the Jew eating literal animals that were called uncleanable in the Law of Truth. This vision had nothing to do with food.
So to anyone that says that the Father of Truth sent this vision to show that the animals which He had called unclean in the Original Covenant but He was now calling them clean in the Renewed Covenant He would say "I did not mean that".
Then there is what Paul (Shaul aka Saul) the Jew wrote to the believers in Rome. Paul the Jew wrote that he was persuaded by the Man of Truth that nothing was unclean of itself but that it is only unclean when someone regards it as unclean (Romans 14:14). He even wrote in the same passage that all things were pure but it was evil for a man to eat anything that would cause him to stumble (Romans 14:20). [The Greek word translated as "meat" in this passage is "broma" and is literally "food".] So once again on the surface it seems that the Renewed Covenant is saying that it does not matter what you eat.
However, if we decide to dig deeper than the surface we will see things much differently. This passage starts off with a command for believers to accept each other rather than judge each other when they are on different sides of a particular controversy (Romans 14:1). The division is between believers that eat all kinds of food with and those that eat only vegetables (Romans 14:2). The believers that eat all kinds of food are not to judge those that eat only vegetables as not being believers and vice versa because the Father of Truth has accepted both of them (Romans 14:3). The controversy was over rather to eat all food or to only eat vegetables. It was not a disagreement between eating the meat of animals that the Law of Truth called clean and those that it called unclean.
The believers that at all kinds of food were not to cause grief to their fellow believer that thought believers should only eat vegetables by the food they ate (Romans 14:15). In particular the believers that eat meat are not to eat any flesh for it could cause those believers that eat only vegetables to sin by eating meat because they would not being doing so in faith that eating meat is right (Romans 14:21-23). If anything this passage is not giving people the right to kill and eat anything that moves but rather to avoid eating meat altogether.
This probably seems a little strange to most people today that believers would take eating meat so seriously that Paul the Jew had to write about this. In order to understand what is really going on we have to look a little deeper than just the surface.
First we have to consider who Paul the Jew was writing to. He wrote this letter to the believers in Rome (Romans 1:7). However he had never been to Rome to reach the Gentiles there when he wrote this letter (Romans 1:13-15). Yet he greeted by name a number of believers that were in Rome and thanked some of them for their previous help (Romans 16:3-15).
This brings up several questions. How did he know these believers? Where did he meet them? Why had they went to Rome?
He knew these believers because he had met them before in Corinth, for example Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1-3). They were Jews that had moved to Corinth when Claudius Caesar expelled all of the Jews from Rome in 50 AD (Acts 18:2). These same Jews, for example Aquila and Priscilla, returned to Rome when the Nero Caesar allowed the Jews to return to Rome in 56 AD (Romans 16:3). So Paul the Jew was writing to Jews in Rome that he had met in Corinth along with Gentile believers that they had reached when they returned to Rome.
Next we have to consider who was doing the writing.
Paul the Jew circumcised Timothy (Timotheus) the Jew so that unbelieving Jews would listen to him (Acts 16:1-3). After he wrote to the Jews in Rome he was accused of teaching Jews that came to faith in the Man of Truth to forsake the Law of Truth (Acts 21:18-21). Paul the Jew was advised to take on a vow to show that he was still keeping the Law of Truth and had never done any such thing (Acts 21:22-24). He took on the vow and went to the Temple because he was still keeping the Law of Truth and still taught Jews to keep the Law of Truth (Acts 21:26). He even still identified himself as Pharisee after he wrote his letter to the believers in Rome (Acts 23:6). Paul the Jew never taught the Jewish believers to do anything contrary to the Law of Truth.
We need to consider the overall theme of the letter.
Paul the Jew makes it very plain that he is addressing Jewish believers that they have been taught the Law of Truth (Romans 2:17-20). He confronts them about not keeping it (Romans 2:21-23). He confirms that it is better to be a Gentile who kept what is contained in the Law of Truth than a Jew that did not (Romans 2:25-27). He reminds them that Law of Truth said the the real Jew was the one whose heart had been circumcised by the Father of Truth (Romans 2:28-29). He points out that the Law of Truth is fulfilled when they love their neighbor as themselves in the passage proceeding the passage on the controversy of eating meat or only vegetables (Romans 13:8-10). In fact, the Law of Truth is discussed in more than 50 verses in the letter to the believers in Rome which is more than any other book in the Renewed Covenant. Paul the Jew stresses in the letter that he too is a Jew and the Father of Truth accepting the Gentiles believers does not mean that He has cast away the Jewish believers (Romans 11:1). This letter is very focused on Jewish issues. Now it makes sense why so much of this letter to the believers in Rome concentrates on the Law of Truth and other issues faced by Jewish believers.
Lastly we have to examine what he wrote carefully to understand what the controversy in this passage was about.
The flesh that Paul the Jew said that people should avoid eating to prevent those that ate only vegetables from stumbling is at the heart of the issue (Romans 14:21). What flesh? The answer is right there in plain Greek (Romans 14:21 Greek Text). The Greek word translated as "flesh" is not the usual word for "flesh" but is actually quite specific. The Greek word is "kreas" and is the flesh of a sacrificed animal (kreas).
In summary, Paul the Jew was writing to Jews, had never taught the Jewish believers to break any commandments of the Law of Truth (including the laws about what was food and what was filth) and the flesh at the center of the controversy was that of animals that could be sacrificed. This flesh of sacrificed animals that was at the center of the controversy could only be the meat of clean animals .
The Rabbis had added many rules in addition to those in the Law of Truth about how to properly prepare the meat of clean animals so that it was fit to eat. These Rabbinic dietary laws are called kashruth. The Rabbis had also taught the Gentiles were uncleanable from sin unless they first became Jews by taking on Jewish customs and being circumcised. The Law of Truth said that if the meat of clean animals was touched by something that was unclean then it also became unclean and was not to be eaten (Leviticus 7:19). Therefore the Rabbis taught that any meat touched by the Gentiles was unclean because they were unclean. Vegetables however were always clean.
The believing Gentiles knew nothing about these laws and only the basics from the Law of Truth that the Jewish believers had taught them. So some of the Jewish believers would not eat the meat of clean animals that Gentile believers had touched. They were afraid that the meat was not really clean because they were not really sure that the Gentile believers had not somehow made the meat unclean. So they only ate vegetables when they ate with the Gentile believers. (Similar to what Daniel had done when he had to eat with Gentiles.) Their faith that the Father of Truth had really cleaned the Gentile believers from sin without the Gentiles first learning Jewish customs and being circumcised was weak. Other Jewish believers would eat the meat of clean animals that the Gentile believers had touched because they believed that the Gentiles were able to prepare the meat of clean animals without first learning kashruth. Their faith that the Father of Truth had really cleaned the Gentile believers from sin without the Gentiles first learning Jewish customs and being circumcised was strong.
These Jews in Rome were not alone in struggling with these kinds of issues when it came to eating with the Gentiles. Peter the Jew, other Jewish believers and even Barnabas the Jew had even went so far as ceasing to eat with the Gentile believers when James the Jew had sent certain Jewish believers to the church in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-13). No Jewish believer wanted to be accused of eating filth.
Some translations even say Paul the Jew was persuaded by the Man of Truth that no food was unclean (Roman 14:14 translations). Like in the passage we examined earlier the word "food" does not even appear in the Greek Text and was added by translators who were sure that the point of the passage containing this verse was that Paul was sharing some secret revelation that what the Father of Truth had called filth in the Original Covenant He was now calling food in the Renewed Covenant (Romans 14:14 Greek Text). Even if the word "food" had been there then Paul the Jew would have been referring to what the Law of Truth called food and not what it called filth because He was talking to Jewish believers about a Jewish issue.
So it was the meat of clean animals that the Man of Truth convinced Paul the Jew was not unclean in itself (because it did not need kashruth to be made clean) but for those Jews that thought it was still unclean then it was unclean to them (Romans 14:14). The Man of Truth was not teaching that Jews were to disregard what the Law of Truth calls food and filth when he met with Paul the Jew after his resurrection while he had taught that people were to obey the Law of Truth before his death because he never changes (Hebrews 13:8). The Man of Truth was still not teaching that people should eat filth.
So to anyone that says that the Paul the Jew was teaching that the animals which the Father of Truth had called unclean in the Original Covenant but He was now calling them clean in the Renewed Covenant Paul the Jew would say "I did not mean that".
So in all of these passages neither the Man of Truth nor the Father of Truth nor Paul the Jew meant that animals that were uncleanable from filth were now cleanable from filth. In fact the Book of Truth plainly says that this will never be the case (Job 14:4). They would all say "I did not mean that".
So let us be careful to not put words in the mouth of the Father of Truth that He did not say nor assign meaning to those words that He did not mean. His Word is holy and we should treat it as such. This is essential to accurately understanding the Book of Truth.
However, what can be cleaned from filth is people. The Father of Truth did say that we are to not say that there is anyone who is uncleanable (Acts 10:28). The blood of the Man of Truth is able to clean everyone from the filth of their sin (1 John 1:7).
Anyone can come into the House of Truth by submitting to the Man of Truth in total surrender because they believe that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Romans 10:8-10). Anyone that comes into the House of Truth will cleaned from their sin (Romans 10:11-13).
Come into the House of Truth.
Have you ever had someone put words in your mouth that you did not say? Have you ever then had someone assign a meaning that you did not mean to the words that you did not say ?
I have had this happen to me more than once and it is always very frustrating. It invariably leads to confusion and never ends well. I really hate it when someone does this to me.
I have investigated these incidences several times and have found one consistent underlying cause. The other party already had an idea about what I thought on the subject and was then interpreting everything I said to match up with their idea. I did not say anything to match up with that idea or even said the exact opposite of what they imagined that I thought. Yet they would somehow insert something that I did not say into their recollection of the conversation that matched up with what they were so sure was my opinion on the subject. This invariably lead to their response based on something that I did not mean.
Of course I did not mean that and I never even said it. I have had other witnesses (and at least once a recording) of the exact words I said and without exception it came out that I never said the words that upset them nor did I mean the meaning that they had assigned to those words. What can I say in such a case except "I did not mean that"?
I am not alone in this frustration. It is bad enough that people have done this to me but it is far worse that they have done it to the Father of Truth (YHVH aka God aka THE LORD). He too has a recording of His exact words in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that make up the Book of Truth. Yet translators sometimes put words in His mouth that He did not say and readers assign meanings to His words that He did not mean. What can we expect Him to say in such cases except "I did not mean that"?
I have investigated many of these incidences and have found one consistent underlying cause. The translators or readers already had an idea about what the Father of Truth thought on a subject and was began interpreting everything He said to match up with their idea. In these cases He did not say anything that matched up with their idea and in some cases actually said the exact opposite. Yet they would somehow insert something that He did not say into their translation or interpretation that matched up with what they were so sure was His opinion on the subject. This invariably lead to their response based on something that He did not mean.
To show what I mean we will look at three cases involving the subject of food. In each case we will look at the words that were not in the record of what actually He said and/or the interpretation of what He meant that does not match what He actually said. It will be plain why He would say "I did not mean that".
We will start with a little background information about somethings that the Father of Truth actually did say in the Law of Truth about food.
Some things that people eat are
abominable and the Father of Truth told people in the Law of Truth (Torah aka The Law) that He gave to Moses to
not eat them (Deuteronomy
14:3). Abominable means filthy or disgusting. In
other words those things that people can eat but should not eat are
referred to as filth.
For the most part the definition of those things that people should eat and not eat concern animals.
The meat of land animals such as cattle, sheep, goats, deer, antelopes and the like are called food (Deuteronomy 14:4-5). The meat of all land animals that have split hooves and rechew their food (owing to a multi-chambered stomach) is called food (Deuteronomy 14:6). The meat of fish that have easily removed scales is also called food (Deuteronomy 14:9). The meat of most birds is also called food (Deuteronomy 14:11). The meat of grasshoppers (the word translated as "beetle" is the akrida or sword-tailed grasshopper) is also called food (Leviticus 11:21-22).
The meat of everything else is called filth in the Law of Truth.
Even animals whose meat is food still have some parts that are filth that must be separated from the parts that are food. These animals are referred to as being clean (although "cleanable" would be a more accurate translation). The bodies of other animals cannot be cleaned of filth by separating those parts because their entire bodies are filth. These animals are referred to as being unclean (although "uncleanable" would be a more accurate translation). So in the Law of Truth that the Father of Truth gave to Moses people are told which animals are cleanable because the parts of their bodies that are food that can be separated from the parts of their bodies that are filth and which animals are uncleanable because every part of their bodies is filth (Leviticus 11:46-47).
Now that we have looked at what the Father of Truth did say in the Original Covenant (Tanach aka Old Testament) we will look at what He did not say in the Renewed Covenant (B'rit Chadashah aka New Testament) concerning food.
The first passage worth examining is Mark 7:18-19. If you read the NIV translation or a translation based off of it then Mark 7:18-19 says: Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."). On the surface it seems that the Man of Truth is saying that does not matter what you eat.
However, the surface reading will lead you to the wrong conclusion for several reasons. The first reason is the entire sentence (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."). If you read the KJV translation or or a translation based off of it then Mark 7:18-19 says: 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive , that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? The KJV is missing that entire sentence. The fact is that this sentence is also missing from all of the Greek manuscripts that were used to compile the Greek text of the Renewed Covenant. This sentence was simply added by the translators of the NIV and other translations because they thought it should have been there. If you want to know more about it then you can read One Disturbing Sentence.
The second reason that people jump to the wrong conclusion is that the sentence added by the translators (but it is not in the Greek text of the Renewed Covenant) draws their attention away from what actually lead up to the Man of Truth telling parable. The controversy that prompted the parable was the issue of the washing of hands before eating (Mark 7:1-2). The point of the criticism from the Pharisees and Scribes was not that the disciple had eaten things contrary to the Law of Truth but that they had eaten with unwashed hands contrary to the traditions of the elders (Mark 7:3-5). That being the case then it would be bad hygiene that the Man of Truth was advocating instead of eating food that the Father of Truth called filth in the Law of Truth if that was actually the point of the parable. In fact, if that was actually the point of the parable then it would be wrong for the Children of Truth to teach people to wash their hands before they eat!
Third reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is because the Man of Truth was not saying that it does not matter what people put into their bodies when he told the parable (Mark 7:14-16). If that was the case then he would be saying it does not matter if people eat a plateful of hemlock which would kill them. If that was the case then he would be saying it does not matter if people drink too much alcohol and become drunk even though that will keep people out of the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). If that was the case then he would be saying it does not matter if people ingest every kind of narcotic even though the Renewed Covenant says those that do so will not inherit the kingdom of His Father (Galatians 5:19-21). [ The Greek word translated as "sorcery" is "pharmakia" and literally means taking hallucinogenic drugs.]
The fourth reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is that the Man of Truth only said that whatever was on their unwashed hands could not defile them because it would leave their bodies and end up in the sewer in the same way that all food is eventually purged from the body (Mark 7:17-19). In fact the people that he was talking to were all religious Jews and they knew that he was talking only about eating what the Law of Truth called food. Their issue was not the food that the disciples ate being unclean but whatever was on the hands of the disciples that was not cleaned off by washing their hands before eating. This is what would be purged from the body.
The fifth reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is that the Man of Truth never did anything contrary to the Law of Truth. The Father of Truth said that His will was that people did what was in the Law of Truth and that no one could change it (Deuteronomy 12:32). The Man of Truth did not come to destroy the Law of Truth but to fulfill it by do everything it required (Matthew 5:17). He said that the Law of Truth would still be in effect as long the Earth and the universe exist (Matthew 5:18). He said that those who taught others to do anything contrary to the Law of Truth would be the least in his kingdom so you can be sure that he was not teaching that people should eat the things that the Law of Truth said were not to be eaten (Matthew 5:19). He only did the will of His Father which was expressed in the Law of Truth (John 6:38). He never did anything contrary to the Law of Truth because sin is transgression of the Law of Truth (1 John 3:4).
That being the case anytime he talked about food he was using the same definition as the Law of Truth. The sentence that said (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."), would have only been saying the same thing as the Law of Truth - that which the Father of Truth says calls food is clean while everything else is filth that cannot be made clean. He certainly would not have been trying to change the definition of food given in the Law of Truth to include what it called filth. He would have been sinning by transgressing the Law of Truth if he had tried to do that. Yet that was exactly the intent of adding this sentence even though it is not in any of the Greek manuscripts.
The sixth reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is that the point of this parable was that it is the human heart that causes people to think evil thoughts and commit evil actions (Mark 7:20-23). Even if that sentence was actually there (but it is not) it is apparent from the context of story and the parable that the Man of Truth was not using this parable to teach that anything about food or eating with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:18-20). He was teaching in this parable that the human heart is the source of the doing things that are contrary to the Law of Truth so that people are defiled with sin.
Those who knew what the Father of Truth commanded them to not eat but ate it anyways were defiled with sin (Leviticus 11:42-44). The willful breaking of the Law of Truth by eating filth showed that those who did so were defiled by sin (Romans 7:7). This is why Daniel purposed in his heart to not eat anything that the Law of Truth called filth (Daniel 1:8).
So in short when someone uses this passage to show that the Man of Truth was advocating eating what the Law of Truth called filth then he would have to say "I did not mean that".
In like manner there is another story that bears examination to see what it says about food.
In this story Peter (Cephas aka Simon) the Jew got hungry while waiting for lunch and had a vision (Acts 10:9-10). In this vision he saw a bunch of animals that the Law of Truth says are unclean that he was told to kill and eat (Acts 10:11-13). He refused but the Father of Truth told him to not call unclean what He was calling clean (Acts 10:14-15). This occurred three times (once for each Gentile man sent by Cornelius) so that he would have no doubts about what he had seen and heard (Acts 10:16). On the surface it would seem that the Father of Truth had sent a message that He had made the animals that He had once said were not fit to be eaten were now fit to be eaten.
Was this vision about food?
Peter the Jew wondered what that vision could have meant when three Gentile men that had been sent by Cornelius asked for him (Acts 10:17-18). While he was still trying to figure it out when the Spirit of Truth (Ruach HaQodesh aka The Holy Spirit aka The Holy Ghost) began to clue him in to what this vision was really about (Acts 10:19-20). By the time that Peter the Jew arrived at the house of Cornelius the Father of Truth had already showed him that the vision about not calling people unclean (literally uncleanable) (Acts 10:28). Peter the Jew quit wondering what the vision was about once he realized that the vision was about the Gentiles being cleanable from their sin by the Father of Truth if they would repent (Acts 10:34-35). The sacrifice for sin that the Man of Truth made on the cross was able to clean anyone from sin that believed that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Acts 10:42-43). Just to make sure that everyone understood that the Gentiles had been cleaned from sin they were baptized in the Spirit of Truth with the evidence of speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44-46). There was no denying that the Father of Truth had cleaned the Gentiles from sin even though the Jews had thought that the Gentiles were uncleanable from sin so the Gentiles were then baptized in water (Acts 10:47-48).
So this vision had nothing to do with food.
Since the Father of Truth Himself said that this vision was about the Gentiles being cleanable from their sin then who are we to say that He got it wrong and the vision was really about calling things food that He had previously declared to be filth? Then why do people insist that this vision was about eating?
The truth is that they think that the Father of Truth somehow changed His mind about what was food and what was filth. What does the Book of Truth say about the Father of Truth?
The Father of Truth never changes (Malachi 3:6). His word never changes (Psalm 119:89). He remains the same forever (James 1:17).
You might be thinking then why did He change His mind about the Gentiles? If so, then I would ask you whose mind was really changed?
Peter the Jew had called the Gentiles uncleanable from their sin because he was following a law that the Jews had established until he had the vision of unclean animals and the Father of Truth told him what it meant (Acts 10:28-29). It was the Jewish believers that had called the Gentiles uncleanable from sin to the point that they would not even eat with them (Acts 11:2-3).
The Prophets of Truth had always said that the Gentiles would be cleaned from their sin by faith in the Man of Truth (Acts 10:43). The Father of Truth had said that the Gentiles were cleanable from sin from the very beginning (Acts 15:16-18).
The Jewish believers changed their minds about the Gentiles being uncleanable from sin due to the events that had started with the vision of unclean animals (Acts 11:16-18). The vision of unclean animals and the events that fulfilled the vision had opened the eyes of the Jewish believers to what the Father of Truth had already spoken through the Prophets of Truth (Acts 15:13-15).
So this vision was not given to show that the Father of Truth had changed His mind about what could be cleaned from filth to be fit to eat but to change the mind of the Jewish believers about who could be cleaned from sin to be fit for His kingdom. This vision had nothing to do with food.
It was no different than all other dreams and visions that the Father of Truth had given to people that involve animals and eating. The animals always represented something else and were never about the actual animals. The seven fat cattle and seven lean cattle in the dream that Pharaoh had represented the seven years of plenty that would be consumed by seven years of famine (Genesis 41:26-28). This dream was not about literal cows that ate other cows. The fourth animal that Daniel saw in a vision that devoured the previous three animals represented a kingdom that would replace the three kingdoms that came before it (Daniel 7:17-19). This dream was not about a literal indescribable animal made of iron that ate a winged lion which had became a man, a bear that with three ribs in its mouth and a leopard with four wings. The dragon that John (Yochanon) saw which tried to eat the baby as soon as the woman gave birth represented the Father of Lies (HaShatan aka Satan aka The Devil) who makes war against the Children of Truth (Revelation 12:15-17). This vision was not about a literal serpent that was waiting for a woman to give birth so it could eat her son as soon as he was born. In the same way the animals that could not be cleaned from filth so as to be fit to eaten represented the Gentiles who the Jews thought could not be cleaned from sin so as to be fit to be saved. This vision was not about Peter the Jew eating literal animals that were called uncleanable in the Law of Truth. This vision had nothing to do with food.
So to anyone that says that the Father of Truth sent this vision to show that the animals which He had called unclean in the Original Covenant but He was now calling them clean in the Renewed Covenant He would say "I did not mean that".
Then there is what Paul (Shaul aka Saul) the Jew wrote to the believers in Rome. Paul the Jew wrote that he was persuaded by the Man of Truth that nothing was unclean of itself but that it is only unclean when someone regards it as unclean (Romans 14:14). He even wrote in the same passage that all things were pure but it was evil for a man to eat anything that would cause him to stumble (Romans 14:20). [The Greek word translated as "meat" in this passage is "broma" and is literally "food".] So once again on the surface it seems that the Renewed Covenant is saying that it does not matter what you eat.
However, if we decide to dig deeper than the surface we will see things much differently. This passage starts off with a command for believers to accept each other rather than judge each other when they are on different sides of a particular controversy (Romans 14:1). The division is between believers that eat all kinds of food with and those that eat only vegetables (Romans 14:2). The believers that eat all kinds of food are not to judge those that eat only vegetables as not being believers and vice versa because the Father of Truth has accepted both of them (Romans 14:3). The controversy was over rather to eat all food or to only eat vegetables. It was not a disagreement between eating the meat of animals that the Law of Truth called clean and those that it called unclean.
The believers that at all kinds of food were not to cause grief to their fellow believer that thought believers should only eat vegetables by the food they ate (Romans 14:15). In particular the believers that eat meat are not to eat any flesh for it could cause those believers that eat only vegetables to sin by eating meat because they would not being doing so in faith that eating meat is right (Romans 14:21-23). If anything this passage is not giving people the right to kill and eat anything that moves but rather to avoid eating meat altogether.
This probably seems a little strange to most people today that believers would take eating meat so seriously that Paul the Jew had to write about this. In order to understand what is really going on we have to look a little deeper than just the surface.
First we have to consider who Paul the Jew was writing to. He wrote this letter to the believers in Rome (Romans 1:7). However he had never been to Rome to reach the Gentiles there when he wrote this letter (Romans 1:13-15). Yet he greeted by name a number of believers that were in Rome and thanked some of them for their previous help (Romans 16:3-15).
This brings up several questions. How did he know these believers? Where did he meet them? Why had they went to Rome?
He knew these believers because he had met them before in Corinth, for example Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1-3). They were Jews that had moved to Corinth when Claudius Caesar expelled all of the Jews from Rome in 50 AD (Acts 18:2). These same Jews, for example Aquila and Priscilla, returned to Rome when the Nero Caesar allowed the Jews to return to Rome in 56 AD (Romans 16:3). So Paul the Jew was writing to Jews in Rome that he had met in Corinth along with Gentile believers that they had reached when they returned to Rome.
Next we have to consider who was doing the writing.
Paul the Jew circumcised Timothy (Timotheus) the Jew so that unbelieving Jews would listen to him (Acts 16:1-3). After he wrote to the Jews in Rome he was accused of teaching Jews that came to faith in the Man of Truth to forsake the Law of Truth (Acts 21:18-21). Paul the Jew was advised to take on a vow to show that he was still keeping the Law of Truth and had never done any such thing (Acts 21:22-24). He took on the vow and went to the Temple because he was still keeping the Law of Truth and still taught Jews to keep the Law of Truth (Acts 21:26). He even still identified himself as Pharisee after he wrote his letter to the believers in Rome (Acts 23:6). Paul the Jew never taught the Jewish believers to do anything contrary to the Law of Truth.
We need to consider the overall theme of the letter.
Paul the Jew makes it very plain that he is addressing Jewish believers that they have been taught the Law of Truth (Romans 2:17-20). He confronts them about not keeping it (Romans 2:21-23). He confirms that it is better to be a Gentile who kept what is contained in the Law of Truth than a Jew that did not (Romans 2:25-27). He reminds them that Law of Truth said the the real Jew was the one whose heart had been circumcised by the Father of Truth (Romans 2:28-29). He points out that the Law of Truth is fulfilled when they love their neighbor as themselves in the passage proceeding the passage on the controversy of eating meat or only vegetables (Romans 13:8-10). In fact, the Law of Truth is discussed in more than 50 verses in the letter to the believers in Rome which is more than any other book in the Renewed Covenant. Paul the Jew stresses in the letter that he too is a Jew and the Father of Truth accepting the Gentiles believers does not mean that He has cast away the Jewish believers (Romans 11:1). This letter is very focused on Jewish issues. Now it makes sense why so much of this letter to the believers in Rome concentrates on the Law of Truth and other issues faced by Jewish believers.
Lastly we have to examine what he wrote carefully to understand what the controversy in this passage was about.
The flesh that Paul the Jew said that people should avoid eating to prevent those that ate only vegetables from stumbling is at the heart of the issue (Romans 14:21). What flesh? The answer is right there in plain Greek (Romans 14:21 Greek Text). The Greek word translated as "flesh" is not the usual word for "flesh" but is actually quite specific. The Greek word is "kreas" and is the flesh of a sacrificed animal (kreas).
In summary, Paul the Jew was writing to Jews, had never taught the Jewish believers to break any commandments of the Law of Truth (including the laws about what was food and what was filth) and the flesh at the center of the controversy was that of animals that could be sacrificed. This flesh of sacrificed animals that was at the center of the controversy could only be the meat of clean animals .
The Rabbis had added many rules in addition to those in the Law of Truth about how to properly prepare the meat of clean animals so that it was fit to eat. These Rabbinic dietary laws are called kashruth. The Rabbis had also taught the Gentiles were uncleanable from sin unless they first became Jews by taking on Jewish customs and being circumcised. The Law of Truth said that if the meat of clean animals was touched by something that was unclean then it also became unclean and was not to be eaten (Leviticus 7:19). Therefore the Rabbis taught that any meat touched by the Gentiles was unclean because they were unclean. Vegetables however were always clean.
The believing Gentiles knew nothing about these laws and only the basics from the Law of Truth that the Jewish believers had taught them. So some of the Jewish believers would not eat the meat of clean animals that Gentile believers had touched. They were afraid that the meat was not really clean because they were not really sure that the Gentile believers had not somehow made the meat unclean. So they only ate vegetables when they ate with the Gentile believers. (Similar to what Daniel had done when he had to eat with Gentiles.) Their faith that the Father of Truth had really cleaned the Gentile believers from sin without the Gentiles first learning Jewish customs and being circumcised was weak. Other Jewish believers would eat the meat of clean animals that the Gentile believers had touched because they believed that the Gentiles were able to prepare the meat of clean animals without first learning kashruth. Their faith that the Father of Truth had really cleaned the Gentile believers from sin without the Gentiles first learning Jewish customs and being circumcised was strong.
These Jews in Rome were not alone in struggling with these kinds of issues when it came to eating with the Gentiles. Peter the Jew, other Jewish believers and even Barnabas the Jew had even went so far as ceasing to eat with the Gentile believers when James the Jew had sent certain Jewish believers to the church in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-13). No Jewish believer wanted to be accused of eating filth.
Some translations even say Paul the Jew was persuaded by the Man of Truth that no food was unclean (Roman 14:14 translations). Like in the passage we examined earlier the word "food" does not even appear in the Greek Text and was added by translators who were sure that the point of the passage containing this verse was that Paul was sharing some secret revelation that what the Father of Truth had called filth in the Original Covenant He was now calling food in the Renewed Covenant (Romans 14:14 Greek Text). Even if the word "food" had been there then Paul the Jew would have been referring to what the Law of Truth called food and not what it called filth because He was talking to Jewish believers about a Jewish issue.
So it was the meat of clean animals that the Man of Truth convinced Paul the Jew was not unclean in itself (because it did not need kashruth to be made clean) but for those Jews that thought it was still unclean then it was unclean to them (Romans 14:14). The Man of Truth was not teaching that Jews were to disregard what the Law of Truth calls food and filth when he met with Paul the Jew after his resurrection while he had taught that people were to obey the Law of Truth before his death because he never changes (Hebrews 13:8). The Man of Truth was still not teaching that people should eat filth.
So to anyone that says that the Paul the Jew was teaching that the animals which the Father of Truth had called unclean in the Original Covenant but He was now calling them clean in the Renewed Covenant Paul the Jew would say "I did not mean that".
So in all of these passages neither the Man of Truth nor the Father of Truth nor Paul the Jew meant that animals that were uncleanable from filth were now cleanable from filth. In fact the Book of Truth plainly says that this will never be the case (Job 14:4). They would all say "I did not mean that".
So let us be careful to not put words in the mouth of the Father of Truth that He did not say nor assign meaning to those words that He did not mean. His Word is holy and we should treat it as such. This is essential to accurately understanding the Book of Truth.
However, what can be cleaned from filth is people. The Father of Truth did say that we are to not say that there is anyone who is uncleanable (Acts 10:28). The blood of the Man of Truth is able to clean everyone from the filth of their sin (1 John 1:7).
Anyone can come into the House of Truth by submitting to the Man of Truth in total surrender because they believe that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Romans 10:8-10). Anyone that comes into the House of Truth will cleaned from their sin (Romans 10:11-13).
Come into the House of Truth.
Labels: Bible Interpretation, Food
posted by The House Of Truth @ January 19, 2014
<< Home