Food

The account you refer to is described in two books, Matthew and Mark. Let's first read Matthew 15 the first two verses. Here the Pharisees come to Jesus and raise the question of why His disciples transgress the tradition of the elders by eating without first washing their hands. PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the discussion is NOT ABOUT CLEAN OR UNCLEAN FOODS but ABOUTRITUAL OR CEREMONIAL HAND WASHING. In response to the Pharisees statement that Jesus' disciples transgress the tradition of the elders Jesus replies with the question of why do you transgress the commandment of God?. In other words the “transgression” of the disciples in not washing their hands was a man made requirement but the Pharisees were guilty of transgressing God's requirement of “Not honoring their father and mother.” In verse 11 Jesus sets the record straight by showing where a person's priorities should lie. One should obey God rather than man. He says that what goes into the mouth doesn't defile a person but rather what comes out of the mouth. Remember the discussion is NOT ABOUT CLEAN OR UNCLEAN FOODS but ABOUT RITUAL WASHING. Jesus is in effect saying, so what if you didn't ritually wash your hands and happened to eat a little piece of dust or a speck of dirt. This foreign material is eliminated through the body. At the end of the chapter (Matt. 15:20) Jesus repeats these words so there can be no confusion. He says, “These are the things which defile a man: but TO EAT WITH UNWASHEN HANDS DOES NOT DEFILE A PERSON.” Notice He does not mention clean or unclean foods but unwashed hands. Mark 7 gives the same account. The Jews come to Jesus and accuse His disciples of violating the law of the elders by eating with unwashed hands. Jesus goes on to explain that this does not defile a man but what comes out of his mouth defiles him. Again the discussion is about ritual washing and not about clean and unclean foods. By the way, in some Bible versions such as the American standard version or the New International Version at the end of Mark 7:19 it reads as follows: New International Version 17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For 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.") Note the words “in saying this Jesus declared all foods clean." These words are italicized or in brackets meaning that they are not in the original but were added by the modern copy writers. Uninspired men thought that they would make the chapter more easy to understand if they inserted their opinion. They thought that Jesus was making all foods clean at this time. They were wrong. They should have heeded the warning in Revelation 22:18 stating that “no one shall add to the words” of Scripture. Some who read these words in the American Standard version or NIV think that Jesus spoke them and at that time “declared all foods clean.” This is not so. The King James version correctly interprets the verse. Below is the verse from the American standard version: 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him; 7:19 because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? {this he said, making all meats clean.) 7:20 Again it is in brackets which tells you that it is not in the original. If Jesus declared all foods clean then surely Peter one of Jesus' closest disciples would have known about it right? Yet notice in Acts 10 what Peter's response is when he is given a vision of unclean food lowered down to him and told to eat. He responds in Acts 10:14, No Lord, I have never eaten anything common or unclean. Incidentally, this vision is often used by some to “prove” that God is telling Peter it is now okay to eat common and unclean foods. The vision was so that Peter would receive Gentiles into his presence as he later relates in Acts 11. Notice that Peter says in Acts 10:27 “…God showed me that I should not call ANY MAN COMMON OR UNCLEAN.” and had nothing to do with food. I hope you now understand the real discussion of the verse you cited.

Perhaps, you should look at the deeper maeaning because as soon as I read this the profoundness of the statement struck me with a bang and I thought ''' ooo Scriptures' has said this ;no wonder1'' because I interpreted it as the words that come out of a person's mouth. Rude words and disrespectful, unrefined language as an expression of unrefined thought will definitely defile a person. This has been elaborately spoken of about our great sage Thiruvalluvar too. I thought of this from an out of the context perspective however. But anyhow. why do you have to bring in a muslim and pork into this discussion following the profound statement? I am a brahmin, and I am out of touch with the New Testament I read thirty years ago in my P.G. So I don't remember the context but the beauty of the statement is great and has all time relevance.