Food For Thought
What does the Renewed Covenant (B'rit Chadashah aka The New Testament) say about what people should and should not eat?
Among the Children of Truth (those who obey The Father of Truth because they love Him) there has been much debate about this question. Some will say that the Renewed Covenant says that it does not matter what you eat since the diet proscribed in the Law of Truth (Torah aka The Law) were only temporary regulations to illustrate certain principles until the Law of Truth was replaced by the Renewed Covenant. Others say that the Law of Truth was never done away with by the Man of Truth (Yeshua HaMashiach aka Jesus Christ) and that the Children of Truth should still eat according to the Law of Truth (Torah aka The Law) that the Father of Truth (YHVH aka God aka THE LORD) gave to Moses. So still the question remains.
The answer to this question requires diligently looking to see what the Book of Truth (the Bible), particularly the Renewed Covenant, says about what people eat. If you have never spent the time to do this, then you might have to take some time to get your head around the answer. It is definitely food for thought.
It is appropriate to start with a brief overview of what the Original Covenant (Tanach aka Old Testament) says about what people should and should not eat to provided an understanding of the background of the Renewed Covenant when we examine it to see what it says about the subject.
When it comes to what people can eat the foundational truth in the Law of Truth is that not everything that people can eat is actually called food. Just because people can manage to eat something does not mean that it was meant to be eaten. For example, hemlock can be eaten but it is usually fatal to do so. So hemlock should not be treated as food even though it can be eaten. It should be treated as poison because that is what it is.
In the same way some things that people can and do eat should not be called food. Those things the Father of Truth calls abominable and told people in the Law of Truth to not eat them (Deuteronomy 14:3). Abominable means "filthy or disgusting" so anything that is abominable should be called filth. So those things that people can eat but should not eat are referred to as filth because that is what they are.
For the most part the definition of what is filth and what is food concerns the meat of 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 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. Just to be clear we will look some examples of animals whose meat is filth. Land animals such as camels, coneys, rabbits that rechew their food but lack split hooves cannot be be cleaned from the pollution that is in their bodies so their meat is called filth (Deuteronomy 14:7). Land animals such as pigs that have split hooves but do not rechew their food (because they lack a multi-chambered stomach) cannot be be cleaned from the pollution that is in their bodies so their meat is called filth (Deuteronomy 14:8). Anything that lives in the water that is not a fish (such as shrimp, clams, oysters, or lobster) or is a fish without easily removed scales (such as catfish or sharks) cannot be be cleaned from the pollution that is in their bodies so their meat is called filth (Deuteronomy 14:10). Birds that are scavengers (such as eagles, hawks, owls, crows and vultures) or wade around in the filth at the bottom of bodies of water (such as herons or gulls (mistranslated as "cuckow") or flamingos/ibises (mistranslated as "swan") ) or scoop up the filth at the bottom of bodies of water to find their food (such as pelicans) cannot be be cleaned from the pollution that is in their bodies so their meat is called filth (Deuteronomy 14:12-17).
Even animals whose meat is food still have some parts that are filth that must be separated from the parts that are food. Everything in the gut cavity including the fat that lines the gut cavity and all organs such as the kidneys are called filth that must be removed instead of being eaten (Leviticus 3:3-4). In fact, all fat of the animals whose meat is called food is not be eaten (Leviticus 7:23). In the same way blood is not to be eaten (Leviticus 7:26). Blood is so filthy that it is to be poured out and buried as soon after the animal is killed as possible (Leviticus 17:13). Blood is to be treated the same as the filth that comes out of the human body when people use the restroom (Deuteronomy 23:13).
The bodies of some animals can be cleaned by separating the parts of the their bodies that are filth from the rest of their bodies 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 were 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). It is food for thought.
You can learn more about the definition of food in the Law of Truth by reading What's For Dinner.
It is worth noting that animals were already defined as clean or unclean before Noah ever entered the Ark (Genesis 7:1-3). When Noah made sacrifices after leaving the Ark to thank the Father of Truth for preserving the human race he only sacrificed the animals that the Law of Truth would call clean more than 500 years later (Genesis 8:19-21). So animals were already either clean or unclean before people even began to eat animals (Genesis 9:1-3). It is worth noting that every thing moves was not meant to be food any more than ever thing that grows, like hemlock, was meant to be food. Noah had already demonstrated that he understood this when he choose to only sacrifice those animals that the Law of Truth would spell out as being food (clean) more than five hundred years later. Just as sin had already existed before the Law of Truth was given to Moses so also animals were already either clean or unclean before the Law of Truth was given to Moses (Romans 5:13). The Law of Truth only spelled out what as already filth in the same way that it spelled out what was already sin (Romans 7:7). It is food for thought.
Now that we briefly examined what the Original Covenant says about food we are ready to compare that to what the Renewed Covenant says about food. Many people have raise various objections against the rules regarding food that are laid out in the Original Covenant based on various passages in the Renewed Covenant. We shall examine these passages one by one in order to get a clear picture of what the Renewed Covenant says about food.
People have often observed that the Renewed Covenant has two parts. The first part is the Gospel accounts of the life of the Man of Truth while he lived on this Earth. The second part is an account of the work of the Apostles of Truth after he left this Earth. Some people believe that the Law of Truth was completely done away with sometime during the lifetime of the Man of Truth while others believe that this occurred sometime after he was resurrected. Their thought is that the definition of food changed at that time to include things that the Law of Truth called filth. It is important to understanding the passages on food in the Renewed Covenant if the Man of Truth and the Apostles of Truth were using a different definition of food in those passages than the one given in the Law of Truth.
We shall start by examining what the Man of Truth, who is the central figure of the Renewed Covenant, said about the Law of Truth. This will give us a firm foundation for understanding his definition of food.
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 was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). 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 in the Gospels he was using the same definition as the Law of Truth. It is food for thought.
Now that we have established that only those things that can be eaten according the Law of Truth are called food by the Man of Truth we are ready to examine what he had to say about food while he was living on the Earth.
The first place to start is Mark 7:19. If you read this verse in the NIV (New International Version) or any number of other translations based off of the same scholarship as the NIV then you will find that Mark 7:18-19 says something like: 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.").
However, there are many problems with this translation. First and foremost is the fact that the entire sentence "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")" does not actually appear in any of the Greek manuscripts used to translate the Renewed Covenant. That is why when you read the KJV (King James Version) and translations that are based off of its scholarship then you will find that Mark 7:18-19 says something like: 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?.
Also the passage in Mark 7 is about eating with unwashed hands - not eating what the Law of Truth called filth (Mark 7:1-2). The point of the parable was that it is what is in the heart that makes a man unclean (Mark 7:20-23). As pointed out the parallel passage of Matthew 5 eating with unwashed hands does not make a man unclean (Matthew 5:19). So the Man of Truth was not breaking the Law of Truth that His Father gave in this passage by calling things food that His Father had called filth.
You can read about this passage in greater detail by reading I Did Not Mean That.
The only other place where the Man of Truth says anything else about food in the Gospels is Luke 11. He says that all things are clean (Luke 11:41). What things was he referring to?
He was eating with a Pharisee and you can be sure that the Pharisee was not serving him anything that the Law of Truth called filth (Luke 11:37). Once again he was eating with unwashed hands and this is what the Pharisee was wondering about (Luke 11:38). Again it was the inside of people that was unclean and needed cleaning - not the food that was being served (Luke 11:39-40). He was telling the Pharisee that he would be clean on the inside if he would give alms to take care of the poor to show the love of the Father of Truth in addition to obeying what the Law of Truth said about outward things like tithing (Luke 11:41-42). So the Man of Truth was not breaking the Law of Truth that His Father gave in this passage by calling things food that His Father had called filth. It is food for thought.
Now that we have seen that the Man of Truth never called food what the Law of Truth called filth while he lived on the Earth we will examine what the writers of the Renewed Covenant did and said about the Law of Truth. This will give us a firm foundation for understanding their definition of food.
We will start with Peter (Cephas aka Simon aka Simeon) the Jew. He was the first Apostle to invite the Gentiles to come into the House of Truth (Acts 10:45-48). He was the first Apostle to defend the right of the Gentiles to come into the House of Truth (Acts 11:1-18). He was the first Apostle to defended the right of the Gentiles to come into the House of Truth without first becoming Jews through circumcision 14 years later (Acts 15:5-11). Peter the Jew was without a doubt a champion of the Gentiles coming into the House of Truth without being brought under the Law of Truth.
Does that mean that Peter the Jew changed his mind about the things that the Law of Truth called filth now being food?
Peter the Jew never ate anything that the Law of Truth called filth before the Gentiles came into the House of Truth (Acts 10:14). Even after championing the right of the Gentiles to come into the House of Truth for 14 years, Peter the Jew lead the other Jewish Children of Truth in ceasing to eat with the Gentile Children of Truth in Antioch when the Jewish believers of Jerusalem sent by James the Jew arrived (Galatians 2:11-13). Even when Paul (Shaul aka Saul) the Jew rebuke him it was for his treatment of the Gentiles - not for refusing to eat what the Law of Truth called filth (Galatians 2:11-13). Peter the Jew did not want other Jews thinking that he was eating anything that could in anyway be perceived as filth under the Law of Truth. Peter the Jew said with his actions that the definition of food had not been changed in the Renewed Covenant.
This might surprise you and you might be wondering about the vision of uncleanable animals that had been given to Peter the Jew by the Father of Truth (Acts 10:9-16). Peter the Jew did not know what this vision was about (Acts 10:17). The Father of Truth told Peter the Jew that this vision was about not calling the Gentiles uncleanable from sin (Acts 10:9-16). So this vision had nothing to do with things that had been called filth in the Law of Truth becoming food in the Renewed Covenant.
You can read about this passage in greater detail by reading I Did Not Mean That.
Now we can see that nothing that Peter the Jew experienced or did even suggests that the definition of food changed in the Renewed Covenant. It is food for thought.
You might be thinking this definition of food was only meant for Jewish Children of Truth. After all, Peter the Jew was primarily sent to Jewish believers while Paul (Shual aka Saul) the Jew was primarily sent to Gentile believers (Galatians 2:7-9). Paul the Jew was the Apostle sent to the Gentiles (2 Timothy 1:11). So we shall examine what Paul the Jew had to say about food.
The best place to begin is the fact that Paul the Jew remained a Jew after he became an Apostle to the Gentiles. There were many Pharisees that were also Children of Truth (Acts 15:5). He still identified himself as a Pharisee after he had completed his third mission to the Gentiles (Acts 23:6). He was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin - the only tribe that stayed loyal to the tribe of Judah and to worshiping the Father of Truth (Romans 11:1). He was still a Jew among Jews (Philippians 3:3-6).
Next we need to examine what Paul the Jew said about the Law of Truth. He said that faith in the Man of Truth did not make the Law of Truth void (Romans 3:31). He said that just because the Children of Truth were not under the Law of Truth it did not give them a right to sin (Romans 6:14-16). He says that the Law of Truth was given so we could clearly know what defined sin (Romans 7:7). He said that the Law of Truth is holy and every commandment in it is holy, just and good (Romans 7:12). He said that these commandments let us know how terrible sin really is (Romans 7:13). Paul the Jew said that the Law of Truth was spiritual (Romans 7:14). He said that his spirit delighted in the Law of Truth (Romans 7:22). He said that he served the Law of Truth with his mind (Romans 7:25). Paul the Jew said that the Renewed Covenant is nothing more than the Law of Truth being written on our hearts instead of on tablets of stone (Hebrews 8:8-10).
Now let us consider what Paul the Jew did about the Law of Truth. He continued to observe the Feasts commanded in the Law of Truth (Acts 18:18-21). Paul the Jew even kept the week long Feast of Unleavened Bread with the mostly Gentile congregation at Philippi (Acts 20:6). He then went up to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of the Father of Truth (Acts 21:17-19). When he arrived he was accused of teaching Jews to no longer keep the Law of Truth (Acts 21:20-21). He then received instructions about how to show that this accusation was not true and that he did still keep the Law of Truth (Acts 21:22-24). He then proceeded to follow these instructions because he was not teaching Jews to disregard the Law of Truth nor was he breaking it himself (Acts 21:26).
So Paul the Jew never taught Jews to disregard a single commandment in the Law of Truth either in person nor in his epistles. Paul the Jew was using the same definition of food in every epistle that he wrote where there even one single Jewish Child of Truth in the congregation. It is food for thought.
Now that we understand the definition of food that Paul the Jew was using we are ready to look at what he wrote about food.
First we need to recognize that in all of the passages written by Paul the Jew which we will examine that the Greek root word translated as "meat" in these passages is "broma" and is literally "food". The word "meat" meant "food" long ago but now "meat" has a more narrow definition of the parts of animals that are eaten so it should have been updated to say "food" in all these passages.
Next we need to recognize that each epistle with one of these passages is written to a congregation that contains some Jewish Children of Truth. They were among the readers in Rome (Romans 2:17-20). They were among the readers in Corinth (1 Corinthians 12:13). They were among the readers in Colosse (Colossians 3:9-11). Timothy was a Jew that was circumcised by Paul the Jew (Acts 16:1-3). So he was obligated to follow the entirety of the Law of Truth (Galatians 5:3). They were the primary audience that Paul the Jew addressed in his epistle to the Hebrews to show them that the Law of Truth could not make them perfect (Hebrews 7:19). So in each of these passages the definition of food that Paul the Jew is using is the same definition as the Law of Truth because he never taught the Jews to do anything contrary to the Law of Truth. It is food for thought.
We will begin with where 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 wrote in the same passage that all things were pure but it was sinful for a man to eat anything that he believed was wrong to eat (Romans 14:20).
This passage was about whether people should only eat vegetables or if they should also eat meat (Romans 14:2). The meat was literally the flesh of animals that could be sacrificed (Romans 14:21). [The Greek word is "kreas" translated as "flesh" is literally "the flesh of a sacrificed animal".] Since Paul the Jew never taught Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth then the food that was not unclean in itself but pure was meat from animals that the Law of Truth called clean and could be offered as sacrifices.
The Man of Truth had not convinced Paul the Jew that Jews were to call food what the Law of Truth called filth when he met with him 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).
You can read about this passage in greater detail by reading I Did Not Mean That.
Then there is where Paul the Jew said that our relationship with the Father of Truth is not defined by food (1 Corinthians 8:8).
The food that he was discussing in this passage was food offered to idols - not things that the Law of Truth called filth (1 Corinthians 8:1). This is food offered to idols is also the flesh of a sacrificed animal that Paul the Jew would no longer eat if necessary to keep others from going against their conscience (1 Corinthians 8:12-13). Since Paul the Jew never taught Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth then the food that he would no longer eat if necessary was the meat of animals that the Law of Truth called clean.
Later in the same letter Paul the Jew says to ask no questions about meat that you buy in the butcher shop (1 Corinthians 10:25-26). He even says to eat what is set before you when you eat with someone else (1 Corinthians 10:27).
Now if we only look at this only on the surface, then Paul the Jew would be saying that if you went to an area where cannibals lived then you were to not ask them about the meat that they were selling and to eat whatever the cannibals set before you. In fact, he would be saying if someone sets a bowl of hemlock before you then you should go ahead and eat that. Is that what he was saying? No, once again he was talking about meat that might have been offered to an idol (1 Corinthians 10:28). His point was for us to be more concerned with bringing people into the House of Truth than demanding our own rights about what we can eat (1 Corinthians 10:31-33). Once again Paul the Jew never taught Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth so the meat that we might have to avoid eating for sake of other people is the meat of animals that the Law of Truth called clean. It is food for thought.
Next there is where Paul the Jew says that we are to let no man judge us over food that was commanded in the Law of Truth because they are only shadows of the Man of Truth (Colossians 2:16-17).
The first thing to notice is that it is eating what the Law of Truth defines as food that Paul the Jew says that we are not allow any man to judge us over. Is this passage about ignoring what the Law of Truth calls food and filth? No, this passage is about ignoring the traditions of men (Colossians 2:8). It is the commandments and doctrines created by men that we are not to be subject to (Colossians 2:20-22).
The Law of Truth was given to Moses by the Father of Truth (Exodus 24:12). It came from Him like everything else in the Book of Truth (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It was written by the Spirit of Truth (Ruach HaQodesh aka The Holy Spirit aka The Holy Ghost) like everything else in the Book of Truth (2 Peter 1:19-21). The Law of Truth is not the traditions of men, it is not the commandments of men, and it does not contain the doctrine of men.
Then what are these traditions of men? Who created the commandments and doctrines that we are to not be subject to? They are the traditions of religious professionals like the Rabbis. The Rabbis had their own traditions about eating food (Matthew 15:1-2). They had commandments that were contrary to the commandments found in the Law of Truth (Matthew 15:3-6). These were the commandments and doctrines of men concerning food (Matthew 15:7-9).
Again we see that Paul the Jew is not teaching Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth but only that the Children of Truth are not to allow themselves to be judged for eating what the Law of Truth called food when they are doing so in a manner that is not in accordance with the traditions, commandments and doctrines of religious professionals like the Rabbis. It is food for thought.
In like manner Paul the Jew warned that people will leave the House of Truth in the latter days and command people to not eat certain foods (1 Timothy 4:1-3). He even said that everything created by the Father of Truth is good and not be refused since it is sanctified by the Word of Truth and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). [The Greek word translated as "creature" is "ktisma" means "a created thing" - not just an animal.]
Again, on the surface Paul the Jew would seem to be saying that people can eat anything that the Father of Truth created including hemlock. This is still a wrong answer because plainly people should not eat anything that grows or moves. So what is he talking about?
The first thing to notice is that those that leave the House of Truth will do so because they listened to the Spirits of Lies (devils aka demons aka unclean spirits aka gods) and their doctrine (1 Timothy 4:1). The Law of Truth was given to Moses by the Father of Truth so this is not the doctrine that they will listen to. Next notice that the food that they command people to abstain from is food that the Father of Truth has created to be eaten by those that believe and know the truth (1 Timothy 4:3).
What truth is Paul the Jew referring to? The truth that is found in the Law of Truth (Psalm 119:142). This is part of the truth that is found in the Word of Truth (John 17:17). It is the very opposite of the doctrine of the Spirits of Lies for the Father of Lies (HaShatan aka Satan aka The Devil) is the source of their doctrine (John 8:44).
So no one can forbid anyone to eat are the things that are called good to eat in the Law of Truth (1 Timothy 4:4). Those things have been defined as food by the part of Word of Truth that is given in the Law of Truth (1 Timothy 4:5).
Once again we see that Paul the Jew is not teaching Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth but only that the Children of Truth are not to allow anyone to forbid them from eating what the Law of Truth called food because that is the doctrine of the Spirit of Lies. It is food for thought.
Then there is where Paul the Jew wrote to Jews (Hebrews) that it could not make the performer of the services perfect since it was only concerned with food and the like until the Man of Truth would come (Hebrews 9:9-10).
What is the "it" that he is referring to? It is the commandments in the Law of Truth concerning the service at the Temple and particularly the Day of Atonement when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies offer the blood of animals for the sins of Israel (Hebrews 9:7-8). His point was that the blood of the Man of Truth was what could actually make people perfect by removing their sin (Hebrews 9:11-14).
Once again we see that Paul the Jew is not teaching Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth because this passage has nothing to do with the definition of food. It is food for thought.
Finally there is where Paul the Jew wrote that the heart of the Children of Truth is established by the grace of the Father of Truth and not the food they have eaten (Hebrews 13:9).
What food is he referring to? The food that is served on the Alter in the Temple from the animals sacrificed there in accordance with commandments the Law of Truth concerning the Temple service (Hebrews 13:10-11).
The grace of the Father of Truth that establishes the heart is total surrender to the Man of Truth who was sacrificed for our sins (Hebrews 13:10-11).
Since the Man of Truth never changes it would a strange and diverse doctrine to use this verse that has nothing to do with the definition of food to teach that he is now calling food what he called filth while he walked the Earth (Hebrews 13:8-9).
For the final time we see that Paul the Jew is not teaching Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth because this passage has nothing to the definition of food but rather to avoid any strange and diverse doctrine that teaches that the Man of Truth has ever changed his mind about anything. It is food for thought.
So the truth is that there is nothing in the Renewed Covenant that has changed what the Law of Truth called filth to now be food. The definition of food has not changed because the Father of Truth never changes (James 1:17).
On the other hand, there is nothing in the Renewed Covenant that says that you must stop eating filth if you are a Gentile (Acts 15:23-27). Just know that you are eating filth and not food. However there are some things that the Renewed Covenant says are so filthy that you must not eat even if you are a Gentile - food offered to idols, blood, and strangled animals (Acts 15:28-29).
Even if you decide to stop eating filth it will not justify you because the Law of Truth cannot justify you (Romans 3:20). The Law of Truth demands that you keep it perfectly to live (Romans 10:5). If you have transgressed even one commandment just one time in your life then you are guilty of breaking the Law of Truth (James 2:10). You have sinned by transgressing the Law of Truth (Romans 3:9-12).
You can only be justified by faith in the Man of Truth (Romans 3:21-24). Only the blood of the Man of Truth can make you clean from sin (Romans 3:25-26). Faith in the Man of Truth will justify you even if you continue to eat filth (Romans 3:27-28).
You are cleaned from sin when you come into the House of Truth (1 John 1:7). You come into the House of Truth when you submit your life in total surrender to the Man of Truth because you believe that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Romans 10:8-10).
Come into the House of Truth.
Among the Children of Truth (those who obey The Father of Truth because they love Him) there has been much debate about this question. Some will say that the Renewed Covenant says that it does not matter what you eat since the diet proscribed in the Law of Truth (Torah aka The Law) were only temporary regulations to illustrate certain principles until the Law of Truth was replaced by the Renewed Covenant. Others say that the Law of Truth was never done away with by the Man of Truth (Yeshua HaMashiach aka Jesus Christ) and that the Children of Truth should still eat according to the Law of Truth (Torah aka The Law) that the Father of Truth (YHVH aka God aka THE LORD) gave to Moses. So still the question remains.
The answer to this question requires diligently looking to see what the Book of Truth (the Bible), particularly the Renewed Covenant, says about what people eat. If you have never spent the time to do this, then you might have to take some time to get your head around the answer. It is definitely food for thought.
It is appropriate to start with a brief overview of what the Original Covenant (Tanach aka Old Testament) says about what people should and should not eat to provided an understanding of the background of the Renewed Covenant when we examine it to see what it says about the subject.
When it comes to what people can eat the foundational truth in the Law of Truth is that not everything that people can eat is actually called food. Just because people can manage to eat something does not mean that it was meant to be eaten. For example, hemlock can be eaten but it is usually fatal to do so. So hemlock should not be treated as food even though it can be eaten. It should be treated as poison because that is what it is.
In the same way some things that people can and do eat should not be called food. Those things the Father of Truth calls abominable and told people in the Law of Truth to not eat them (Deuteronomy 14:3). Abominable means "filthy or disgusting" so anything that is abominable should be called filth. So those things that people can eat but should not eat are referred to as filth because that is what they are.
For the most part the definition of what is filth and what is food concerns the meat of 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 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. Just to be clear we will look some examples of animals whose meat is filth. Land animals such as camels, coneys, rabbits that rechew their food but lack split hooves cannot be be cleaned from the pollution that is in their bodies so their meat is called filth (Deuteronomy 14:7). Land animals such as pigs that have split hooves but do not rechew their food (because they lack a multi-chambered stomach) cannot be be cleaned from the pollution that is in their bodies so their meat is called filth (Deuteronomy 14:8). Anything that lives in the water that is not a fish (such as shrimp, clams, oysters, or lobster) or is a fish without easily removed scales (such as catfish or sharks) cannot be be cleaned from the pollution that is in their bodies so their meat is called filth (Deuteronomy 14:10). Birds that are scavengers (such as eagles, hawks, owls, crows and vultures) or wade around in the filth at the bottom of bodies of water (such as herons or gulls (mistranslated as "cuckow") or flamingos/ibises (mistranslated as "swan") ) or scoop up the filth at the bottom of bodies of water to find their food (such as pelicans) cannot be be cleaned from the pollution that is in their bodies so their meat is called filth (Deuteronomy 14:12-17).
Even animals whose meat is food still have some parts that are filth that must be separated from the parts that are food. Everything in the gut cavity including the fat that lines the gut cavity and all organs such as the kidneys are called filth that must be removed instead of being eaten (Leviticus 3:3-4). In fact, all fat of the animals whose meat is called food is not be eaten (Leviticus 7:23). In the same way blood is not to be eaten (Leviticus 7:26). Blood is so filthy that it is to be poured out and buried as soon after the animal is killed as possible (Leviticus 17:13). Blood is to be treated the same as the filth that comes out of the human body when people use the restroom (Deuteronomy 23:13).
The bodies of some animals can be cleaned by separating the parts of the their bodies that are filth from the rest of their bodies 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 were 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). It is food for thought.
You can learn more about the definition of food in the Law of Truth by reading What's For Dinner.
It is worth noting that animals were already defined as clean or unclean before Noah ever entered the Ark (Genesis 7:1-3). When Noah made sacrifices after leaving the Ark to thank the Father of Truth for preserving the human race he only sacrificed the animals that the Law of Truth would call clean more than 500 years later (Genesis 8:19-21). So animals were already either clean or unclean before people even began to eat animals (Genesis 9:1-3). It is worth noting that every thing moves was not meant to be food any more than ever thing that grows, like hemlock, was meant to be food. Noah had already demonstrated that he understood this when he choose to only sacrifice those animals that the Law of Truth would spell out as being food (clean) more than five hundred years later. Just as sin had already existed before the Law of Truth was given to Moses so also animals were already either clean or unclean before the Law of Truth was given to Moses (Romans 5:13). The Law of Truth only spelled out what as already filth in the same way that it spelled out what was already sin (Romans 7:7). It is food for thought.
Now that we briefly examined what the Original Covenant says about food we are ready to compare that to what the Renewed Covenant says about food. Many people have raise various objections against the rules regarding food that are laid out in the Original Covenant based on various passages in the Renewed Covenant. We shall examine these passages one by one in order to get a clear picture of what the Renewed Covenant says about food.
People have often observed that the Renewed Covenant has two parts. The first part is the Gospel accounts of the life of the Man of Truth while he lived on this Earth. The second part is an account of the work of the Apostles of Truth after he left this Earth. Some people believe that the Law of Truth was completely done away with sometime during the lifetime of the Man of Truth while others believe that this occurred sometime after he was resurrected. Their thought is that the definition of food changed at that time to include things that the Law of Truth called filth. It is important to understanding the passages on food in the Renewed Covenant if the Man of Truth and the Apostles of Truth were using a different definition of food in those passages than the one given in the Law of Truth.
We shall start by examining what the Man of Truth, who is the central figure of the Renewed Covenant, said about the Law of Truth. This will give us a firm foundation for understanding his definition of food.
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 was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). 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 in the Gospels he was using the same definition as the Law of Truth. It is food for thought.
Now that we have established that only those things that can be eaten according the Law of Truth are called food by the Man of Truth we are ready to examine what he had to say about food while he was living on the Earth.
The first place to start is Mark 7:19. If you read this verse in the NIV (New International Version) or any number of other translations based off of the same scholarship as the NIV then you will find that Mark 7:18-19 says something like: 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.").
However, there are many problems with this translation. First and foremost is the fact that the entire sentence "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")" does not actually appear in any of the Greek manuscripts used to translate the Renewed Covenant. That is why when you read the KJV (King James Version) and translations that are based off of its scholarship then you will find that Mark 7:18-19 says something like: 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?.
Also the passage in Mark 7 is about eating with unwashed hands - not eating what the Law of Truth called filth (Mark 7:1-2). The point of the parable was that it is what is in the heart that makes a man unclean (Mark 7:20-23). As pointed out the parallel passage of Matthew 5 eating with unwashed hands does not make a man unclean (Matthew 5:19). So the Man of Truth was not breaking the Law of Truth that His Father gave in this passage by calling things food that His Father had called filth.
You can read about this passage in greater detail by reading I Did Not Mean That.
The only other place where the Man of Truth says anything else about food in the Gospels is Luke 11. He says that all things are clean (Luke 11:41). What things was he referring to?
He was eating with a Pharisee and you can be sure that the Pharisee was not serving him anything that the Law of Truth called filth (Luke 11:37). Once again he was eating with unwashed hands and this is what the Pharisee was wondering about (Luke 11:38). Again it was the inside of people that was unclean and needed cleaning - not the food that was being served (Luke 11:39-40). He was telling the Pharisee that he would be clean on the inside if he would give alms to take care of the poor to show the love of the Father of Truth in addition to obeying what the Law of Truth said about outward things like tithing (Luke 11:41-42). So the Man of Truth was not breaking the Law of Truth that His Father gave in this passage by calling things food that His Father had called filth. It is food for thought.
Now that we have seen that the Man of Truth never called food what the Law of Truth called filth while he lived on the Earth we will examine what the writers of the Renewed Covenant did and said about the Law of Truth. This will give us a firm foundation for understanding their definition of food.
We will start with Peter (Cephas aka Simon aka Simeon) the Jew. He was the first Apostle to invite the Gentiles to come into the House of Truth (Acts 10:45-48). He was the first Apostle to defend the right of the Gentiles to come into the House of Truth (Acts 11:1-18). He was the first Apostle to defended the right of the Gentiles to come into the House of Truth without first becoming Jews through circumcision 14 years later (Acts 15:5-11). Peter the Jew was without a doubt a champion of the Gentiles coming into the House of Truth without being brought under the Law of Truth.
Does that mean that Peter the Jew changed his mind about the things that the Law of Truth called filth now being food?
Peter the Jew never ate anything that the Law of Truth called filth before the Gentiles came into the House of Truth (Acts 10:14). Even after championing the right of the Gentiles to come into the House of Truth for 14 years, Peter the Jew lead the other Jewish Children of Truth in ceasing to eat with the Gentile Children of Truth in Antioch when the Jewish believers of Jerusalem sent by James the Jew arrived (Galatians 2:11-13). Even when Paul (Shaul aka Saul) the Jew rebuke him it was for his treatment of the Gentiles - not for refusing to eat what the Law of Truth called filth (Galatians 2:11-13). Peter the Jew did not want other Jews thinking that he was eating anything that could in anyway be perceived as filth under the Law of Truth. Peter the Jew said with his actions that the definition of food had not been changed in the Renewed Covenant.
This might surprise you and you might be wondering about the vision of uncleanable animals that had been given to Peter the Jew by the Father of Truth (Acts 10:9-16). Peter the Jew did not know what this vision was about (Acts 10:17). The Father of Truth told Peter the Jew that this vision was about not calling the Gentiles uncleanable from sin (Acts 10:9-16). So this vision had nothing to do with things that had been called filth in the Law of Truth becoming food in the Renewed Covenant.
You can read about this passage in greater detail by reading I Did Not Mean That.
Now we can see that nothing that Peter the Jew experienced or did even suggests that the definition of food changed in the Renewed Covenant. It is food for thought.
You might be thinking this definition of food was only meant for Jewish Children of Truth. After all, Peter the Jew was primarily sent to Jewish believers while Paul (Shual aka Saul) the Jew was primarily sent to Gentile believers (Galatians 2:7-9). Paul the Jew was the Apostle sent to the Gentiles (2 Timothy 1:11). So we shall examine what Paul the Jew had to say about food.
The best place to begin is the fact that Paul the Jew remained a Jew after he became an Apostle to the Gentiles. There were many Pharisees that were also Children of Truth (Acts 15:5). He still identified himself as a Pharisee after he had completed his third mission to the Gentiles (Acts 23:6). He was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin - the only tribe that stayed loyal to the tribe of Judah and to worshiping the Father of Truth (Romans 11:1). He was still a Jew among Jews (Philippians 3:3-6).
Next we need to examine what Paul the Jew said about the Law of Truth. He said that faith in the Man of Truth did not make the Law of Truth void (Romans 3:31). He said that just because the Children of Truth were not under the Law of Truth it did not give them a right to sin (Romans 6:14-16). He says that the Law of Truth was given so we could clearly know what defined sin (Romans 7:7). He said that the Law of Truth is holy and every commandment in it is holy, just and good (Romans 7:12). He said that these commandments let us know how terrible sin really is (Romans 7:13). Paul the Jew said that the Law of Truth was spiritual (Romans 7:14). He said that his spirit delighted in the Law of Truth (Romans 7:22). He said that he served the Law of Truth with his mind (Romans 7:25). Paul the Jew said that the Renewed Covenant is nothing more than the Law of Truth being written on our hearts instead of on tablets of stone (Hebrews 8:8-10).
Now let us consider what Paul the Jew did about the Law of Truth. He continued to observe the Feasts commanded in the Law of Truth (Acts 18:18-21). Paul the Jew even kept the week long Feast of Unleavened Bread with the mostly Gentile congregation at Philippi (Acts 20:6). He then went up to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of the Father of Truth (Acts 21:17-19). When he arrived he was accused of teaching Jews to no longer keep the Law of Truth (Acts 21:20-21). He then received instructions about how to show that this accusation was not true and that he did still keep the Law of Truth (Acts 21:22-24). He then proceeded to follow these instructions because he was not teaching Jews to disregard the Law of Truth nor was he breaking it himself (Acts 21:26).
So Paul the Jew never taught Jews to disregard a single commandment in the Law of Truth either in person nor in his epistles. Paul the Jew was using the same definition of food in every epistle that he wrote where there even one single Jewish Child of Truth in the congregation. It is food for thought.
Now that we understand the definition of food that Paul the Jew was using we are ready to look at what he wrote about food.
First we need to recognize that in all of the passages written by Paul the Jew which we will examine that the Greek root word translated as "meat" in these passages is "broma" and is literally "food". The word "meat" meant "food" long ago but now "meat" has a more narrow definition of the parts of animals that are eaten so it should have been updated to say "food" in all these passages.
Next we need to recognize that each epistle with one of these passages is written to a congregation that contains some Jewish Children of Truth. They were among the readers in Rome (Romans 2:17-20). They were among the readers in Corinth (1 Corinthians 12:13). They were among the readers in Colosse (Colossians 3:9-11). Timothy was a Jew that was circumcised by Paul the Jew (Acts 16:1-3). So he was obligated to follow the entirety of the Law of Truth (Galatians 5:3). They were the primary audience that Paul the Jew addressed in his epistle to the Hebrews to show them that the Law of Truth could not make them perfect (Hebrews 7:19). So in each of these passages the definition of food that Paul the Jew is using is the same definition as the Law of Truth because he never taught the Jews to do anything contrary to the Law of Truth. It is food for thought.
We will begin with where 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 wrote in the same passage that all things were pure but it was sinful for a man to eat anything that he believed was wrong to eat (Romans 14:20).
This passage was about whether people should only eat vegetables or if they should also eat meat (Romans 14:2). The meat was literally the flesh of animals that could be sacrificed (Romans 14:21). [The Greek word is "kreas" translated as "flesh" is literally "the flesh of a sacrificed animal".] Since Paul the Jew never taught Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth then the food that was not unclean in itself but pure was meat from animals that the Law of Truth called clean and could be offered as sacrifices.
The Man of Truth had not convinced Paul the Jew that Jews were to call food what the Law of Truth called filth when he met with him 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).
You can read about this passage in greater detail by reading I Did Not Mean That.
Then there is where Paul the Jew said that our relationship with the Father of Truth is not defined by food (1 Corinthians 8:8).
The food that he was discussing in this passage was food offered to idols - not things that the Law of Truth called filth (1 Corinthians 8:1). This is food offered to idols is also the flesh of a sacrificed animal that Paul the Jew would no longer eat if necessary to keep others from going against their conscience (1 Corinthians 8:12-13). Since Paul the Jew never taught Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth then the food that he would no longer eat if necessary was the meat of animals that the Law of Truth called clean.
Later in the same letter Paul the Jew says to ask no questions about meat that you buy in the butcher shop (1 Corinthians 10:25-26). He even says to eat what is set before you when you eat with someone else (1 Corinthians 10:27).
Now if we only look at this only on the surface, then Paul the Jew would be saying that if you went to an area where cannibals lived then you were to not ask them about the meat that they were selling and to eat whatever the cannibals set before you. In fact, he would be saying if someone sets a bowl of hemlock before you then you should go ahead and eat that. Is that what he was saying? No, once again he was talking about meat that might have been offered to an idol (1 Corinthians 10:28). His point was for us to be more concerned with bringing people into the House of Truth than demanding our own rights about what we can eat (1 Corinthians 10:31-33). Once again Paul the Jew never taught Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth so the meat that we might have to avoid eating for sake of other people is the meat of animals that the Law of Truth called clean. It is food for thought.
Next there is where Paul the Jew says that we are to let no man judge us over food that was commanded in the Law of Truth because they are only shadows of the Man of Truth (Colossians 2:16-17).
The first thing to notice is that it is eating what the Law of Truth defines as food that Paul the Jew says that we are not allow any man to judge us over. Is this passage about ignoring what the Law of Truth calls food and filth? No, this passage is about ignoring the traditions of men (Colossians 2:8). It is the commandments and doctrines created by men that we are not to be subject to (Colossians 2:20-22).
The Law of Truth was given to Moses by the Father of Truth (Exodus 24:12). It came from Him like everything else in the Book of Truth (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It was written by the Spirit of Truth (Ruach HaQodesh aka The Holy Spirit aka The Holy Ghost) like everything else in the Book of Truth (2 Peter 1:19-21). The Law of Truth is not the traditions of men, it is not the commandments of men, and it does not contain the doctrine of men.
Then what are these traditions of men? Who created the commandments and doctrines that we are to not be subject to? They are the traditions of religious professionals like the Rabbis. The Rabbis had their own traditions about eating food (Matthew 15:1-2). They had commandments that were contrary to the commandments found in the Law of Truth (Matthew 15:3-6). These were the commandments and doctrines of men concerning food (Matthew 15:7-9).
Again we see that Paul the Jew is not teaching Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth but only that the Children of Truth are not to allow themselves to be judged for eating what the Law of Truth called food when they are doing so in a manner that is not in accordance with the traditions, commandments and doctrines of religious professionals like the Rabbis. It is food for thought.
In like manner Paul the Jew warned that people will leave the House of Truth in the latter days and command people to not eat certain foods (1 Timothy 4:1-3). He even said that everything created by the Father of Truth is good and not be refused since it is sanctified by the Word of Truth and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). [The Greek word translated as "creature" is "ktisma" means "a created thing" - not just an animal.]
Again, on the surface Paul the Jew would seem to be saying that people can eat anything that the Father of Truth created including hemlock. This is still a wrong answer because plainly people should not eat anything that grows or moves. So what is he talking about?
The first thing to notice is that those that leave the House of Truth will do so because they listened to the Spirits of Lies (devils aka demons aka unclean spirits aka gods) and their doctrine (1 Timothy 4:1). The Law of Truth was given to Moses by the Father of Truth so this is not the doctrine that they will listen to. Next notice that the food that they command people to abstain from is food that the Father of Truth has created to be eaten by those that believe and know the truth (1 Timothy 4:3).
What truth is Paul the Jew referring to? The truth that is found in the Law of Truth (Psalm 119:142). This is part of the truth that is found in the Word of Truth (John 17:17). It is the very opposite of the doctrine of the Spirits of Lies for the Father of Lies (HaShatan aka Satan aka The Devil) is the source of their doctrine (John 8:44).
So no one can forbid anyone to eat are the things that are called good to eat in the Law of Truth (1 Timothy 4:4). Those things have been defined as food by the part of Word of Truth that is given in the Law of Truth (1 Timothy 4:5).
Once again we see that Paul the Jew is not teaching Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth but only that the Children of Truth are not to allow anyone to forbid them from eating what the Law of Truth called food because that is the doctrine of the Spirit of Lies. It is food for thought.
Then there is where Paul the Jew wrote to Jews (Hebrews) that it could not make the performer of the services perfect since it was only concerned with food and the like until the Man of Truth would come (Hebrews 9:9-10).
What is the "it" that he is referring to? It is the commandments in the Law of Truth concerning the service at the Temple and particularly the Day of Atonement when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies offer the blood of animals for the sins of Israel (Hebrews 9:7-8). His point was that the blood of the Man of Truth was what could actually make people perfect by removing their sin (Hebrews 9:11-14).
Once again we see that Paul the Jew is not teaching Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth because this passage has nothing to do with the definition of food. It is food for thought.
Finally there is where Paul the Jew wrote that the heart of the Children of Truth is established by the grace of the Father of Truth and not the food they have eaten (Hebrews 13:9).
What food is he referring to? The food that is served on the Alter in the Temple from the animals sacrificed there in accordance with commandments the Law of Truth concerning the Temple service (Hebrews 13:10-11).
The grace of the Father of Truth that establishes the heart is total surrender to the Man of Truth who was sacrificed for our sins (Hebrews 13:10-11).
Since the Man of Truth never changes it would a strange and diverse doctrine to use this verse that has nothing to do with the definition of food to teach that he is now calling food what he called filth while he walked the Earth (Hebrews 13:8-9).
For the final time we see that Paul the Jew is not teaching Jews anything contrary to the Law of Truth because this passage has nothing to the definition of food but rather to avoid any strange and diverse doctrine that teaches that the Man of Truth has ever changed his mind about anything. It is food for thought.
So the truth is that there is nothing in the Renewed Covenant that has changed what the Law of Truth called filth to now be food. The definition of food has not changed because the Father of Truth never changes (James 1:17).
On the other hand, there is nothing in the Renewed Covenant that says that you must stop eating filth if you are a Gentile (Acts 15:23-27). Just know that you are eating filth and not food. However there are some things that the Renewed Covenant says are so filthy that you must not eat even if you are a Gentile - food offered to idols, blood, and strangled animals (Acts 15:28-29).
Even if you decide to stop eating filth it will not justify you because the Law of Truth cannot justify you (Romans 3:20). The Law of Truth demands that you keep it perfectly to live (Romans 10:5). If you have transgressed even one commandment just one time in your life then you are guilty of breaking the Law of Truth (James 2:10). You have sinned by transgressing the Law of Truth (Romans 3:9-12).
You can only be justified by faith in the Man of Truth (Romans 3:21-24). Only the blood of the Man of Truth can make you clean from sin (Romans 3:25-26). Faith in the Man of Truth will justify you even if you continue to eat filth (Romans 3:27-28).
You are cleaned from sin when you come into the House of Truth (1 John 1:7). You come into the House of Truth when you submit your life in total surrender to the Man of Truth because you believe that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Romans 10:8-10).
Come into the House of Truth.
posted by The House Of Truth @ February 02, 2014
<< Home