Laws, laws, and MORE laws...

So many Christians believe and teach: LAW IS BAD, GRACE IS GOOD, and yet they really do not know what they are talking about. The Bible is very clear on the point that if you consider yourself a teacher, and you are teaching "Word" to "little children" (anyone spiritually younger than yourself, new believers, or those unversed in scripture), you are held to a higher level of accountability -- in other words, if you TEACH, you better know what you are teaching, or, in "other words" again: you better not be teaching falsehood, or else it would be better that a giant rock was tied around your neck and you were thrown into the deepest part of the ocean!

Wow, that's severe. And yet teachers today teach that "law is bad," that "law means law and all laws are lumped into one and all of them were done away by Jesus" and "we are not under law but under grace so we have the freedom to do anything our imagination comes up with!" People teach that the "Old Testament" of the Bible was done away with, and now Christians only need the "New Testament," e.g., the Books from Matthew to Revelation -- that Genesis through Malachai is really no longer pertinent to the people of God.

The fact is, the Bible itself makes no distinction between the Old and New Testaments, the writing of the Bible -- not to be confused with the "Old Covenant" and the "New Covenant," agreements between God and man. The Bible itself teaches that "all scripture" is relevant, is pertinent -- and this concrete statement was written while the letters and epistles of the New Testament were being brought together -- there was no New Testament when it was written that "all scripture" is good, and stands forever. But man does not appreciate "the God of the Old Testament," Who seems frightening and angry and vengeful, compared to the "God of the New Testament," Who is called "the Father of Lights" and also "Spirit" as well as "Love." And the Old Testament "just seems so Jewish" and antiquated. The "God of the Old Testament" expected things of man, He demanded a certain kind of follower, He called men to live at a much higher level than those who did not follow Him. Expectations, that's what God had, whereas the "God of the New Testament" is a God of freedom Who allows anything under the sun.

The truth is, most people do not believe that the Old Testament is even real, let alone applicable to today. Little kids killing giants, guys getting swallowed by giant fish, giant dragons that breathe fire, a devil that kills all a man's children and gives him a severe case of acne, warriors killing ten thousands of foes, a flood that covers the whole world, two cities being destroyed by God, a boy sold into slavery to eventually become the second most powerful man in the most powerful country on Earth, the world being spoken into existence, in seven days! So not only is the text of the Old Testament unreal, but that God of the Old Testament must be the same kind of phoney.

Fact is, they must be two different gods. Two different Bibles, one decidedly "old," passed away, and one NEW.

Let's face it, people just cannot accept a God of miracles. Today it is much more popular to believe in a God moving things in the universe over a period of billions and billions of years -- a "force" that gradually shapes the stars, the galaxies, and shapes man through the millenia by evolution, that man moves up through stages from protozoa to plankton to jellyfish to seahorse to barracuda to frog to lizard to bunny rabbit to llama to giraffe to gorilla to chimpanzee to man.

Since the beginning, we have always had two routes to take:

1. God says it is so.

2. Man, in his ingenuity, interprets what God says.

So you have "the truth," and you have "man's beliefs about the truth." Truth and Tradition. You have "what God says," and coming along right behind it like chicks following a mother hen, you have the rules and commentaries man writes about what God says. This is not only true in Judaism -- it is more than equally true in Christianity, as well. Even the best of Bible teachers generally appeal to "the tradition of the Church Fathers" before they appeal to the Bible. Or the "pale of orthodoxy." Or "standing on the shoulders of giants."

Listen to Hank Hanegraaff's radio show sometime and it is a guarantee he will declare that "this group" is in no way within "the pale of orthodoxy" (of course, with Hank Hanegraaff, he very well might be referring to the "pail of orthodoxy," out there somewhere in the "coz-moss" -- with Hank, even the "Orthodox" church is not within that ole pail of orthodoxy, must be a leaky bucket) -- what we are talking about here is "tradition," pure and simple. It is tradition in the vast body of Christianity down through the years that "Sunday is the day of worship, in honor of the Resurrection." Tradition, pure and simple. It is tradition in the vast body of Christianity that Jesus nailed the civil laws and the health laws and at least one of the moral laws to the cross, and that they, the laws, pertained to only Israel, and not to the Christian Church. He wanted Israel "set apart," but not Christians.

Does God do things for a reason? Or is He completely arbitrary? For instance, He calls eating the flesh of swine an "abomination." Did God arbitrarily appoint swine flesh an abomination only to Jews? So that when Hank Hanegraaff belches on the airwaves and proudly tells the country that he just ate a delicious ham sandwich -- is he completely justified in doing so? God looks down from heaven and observes good ole boy Hank smacking his lips, licking pig oil off his fingers, and it is okay, it is fine, while next door a Jewish man contemplates eating a similar sandwich from the same caterer and God shudders, watching the possibility of an abomination? And if that Jewish man gives into his temptation, is it a sin? Is it an abomination for him to eat that swine flesh? All the while ole Hank has the freedom to eat anything he wants? Could he scrape some scum out of the gutter? Or, in a fit of hunger, could he pry the manhole cover off the sewer and scoop out a huge ladle of lunch? Would that be okay?

But people say that God changed His mind about what is and what is not "abomination." But what does the Bible teach? That God changes, or
that God does not change?

Does God make sense? Is eating ham, bacon and pig an abomination, or isn't it? The Bible says that "God does not change." Is the Bible lying? Or, as Dispensationalists (those sensationalists) proclaim, do different rules apply to Jews and Gentiles?

Of course, Hank lumps "pig-eating abomination" into the "shadow laws," those ceremonial laws such as sacrifices and ceremonial days that "shadow" the advent of Jesus -- in other words, these things teach about Jesus and His mission to save mankind, and since Jesus came, lived, and even died for us, and was resurrected on the third day, then all these things which told about him are now gone. Plunkeroo, nailed to the cross -- bye-bye abomination, bring me a hunka-hunka that honeyed ham!

By the same rule of thumb, when God calls "man lying with man" an abomination, perhaps that was nailed to the cross, as well?

The Bible says that the law is a shadow (see Hebrews), and that means the whole law is a shadow -- it is not the reality. So, if all the "shadows" have been nailed to the cross due to Christ, "the reality," then adultery is fine, because it is just a shadow (the Word teaches that the whole law is a mere shadow of the reality), beastiality is fine, because it is just a shadow, dishonoring our parents is fine, because it is just a shadow of the reality, coveting and blaspheming and working on the Sabbath is fine because all of them are mere shadows, even murder is simpatico, because, hey, it's just a shadow after all. Don't get mad at me, "Bible teachers" actually teach this nonsense.

Or is the Bible a jumble of pick and choose rules and regulations? Hank told a caller that keeps the Biblical Sabbath that he was just picking and choosing, because he honors the Fourth Commandment, and yet does not stone people to death for breaking the Sabbath. All the while Hank believes it is wrong to commit adultery, and yet he doesn't stone people to death for choosing to ignore that commandment. Pick and choose, pure and simple, that seems to be the modern-day exegesis of scripture, and, of course, tradition, too.

If Billy Graham is a holy man and keeps Sunday as a traditional sabbath, then that must be okay. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that. The same with eating pig.

People point to Jesus and claim that He broke the Sabbath. Thus, they label Him a sinner, and attempt to enforce the notion that the "sinless sacrifice" perhaps was not all that sinless.

But Jesus never did break the Sabbath -- not the spirit, nor the letter. What He did do, was trample on some of the best commentaries which argued which was and which was not the best way to keep the Sabbath.

Pharisees and teachers of the law competed with

one another in strictness. They had atomized God's

law into 613 rules -- 248 commands and 365

prohibitions -- and bolstered these rules with

1,521 emendations. To avoid breaking the third

commandment, "You shall not misuse the name of

the LORD," they refused to pronounce God's name

at all. To avoid sexual temptation they had a practice

of lowering their heads and not even looking at

women (the most scrupulous of these were known

as "bleeding Pharisees" because of frequent

collisions with walls and other obstacles). To avoid

defiling the Sabbath they outlawed thirty-nine

activities that might be construed as "work."

The Jesus I Never Knew, Philip Yancey

Zondervan Publishing House, Page 132.

(In a wonderful, wonderful irony, in the same book Philip Yancey [one of the best Christian lights shining today] suggests that God Himself is arbitrary, since He declared lobster "unclean," and rabbits too. Mr. Yancey then goes on to declare what God has declared "unclean" as "clean," and a-okay to chow down on. As justification, Yancey reinterprets Peter's vision of the descending sheet filled with abomination. Peter interpreted the vision to mean that it is lawful to go to the heathen and preach to them, since God has declared them "clean," by faith. Yancey interprets the vision in a very mundane sense, that Peter actually did chow down on the snakes and pigs in the sheet. So much for symbolism and an "arbitrary view of an arbitrary god." Philip Gulley, the quaker pastor and author of "Home to Harmony" employs the same logic, that Peter might interpret his vision one way, but we have the right to interpret it a completely different other way.

So, you have what God says, and then, following eagerly in His steps, you have what "man believes God just said." Tradition, in other words. If ten smart men get together and take a vote, we should pay attention to that vote, shouldn't we? Because they know better than us. They are smarter than us. Of course, Germans in World War II made that mistake, and the moral ones still regret it. All the inquisitions in the last 2,000 years, all the people killed in the Name of Jesus, all the Jews tortured, harassed and killed -- it was tradition, standing on the shoulders of giants. But hey, who can argue with time-honored practice, right?

It's time to get off those shoulders. It's time to start reading the Bible for ourselves. Just because someone said that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath doesn't mean it is true (it's not). Just because people claim that Jesus sinned, contrary to what the Bible teaches, does not make it true (it's not true). Jesus declared Himself the Lord of the Sabbath. He claimed the Sabbath was made for mankind. And if all things were created through Jesus, why would He want to break something that He had instituted at the creation of the world? And, if you take special note to Genesis Chapter 2, the Sabbath, right along with marriage, were instituted BEFORE sin entered the world -- isn't that amazing? So, in many ways, the Sabbath is a very different law, even in the heart of the Ten Commandments, written on stone by the finger of God Himself (hint, that's why the Bible teaches that we will continue to keep the Sabbath, even in heaven!).

I don't want to get a shoulder ride from Hank Hanegraaff, nor from Billy Graham, even though I believe both men are sincere servants of God. My eyes have been opened to the fact that the "shoulders of giants" are not any way to find our beliefs. I think C.S. Lewis had wonderful thoughts, and expressed himself incredibly well, but his walk with God cannot really do anything to help along my own personal walk with God. I can't look to C.S. Lewis to unbefuddle my eyes, my thoughts, my beliefs or my aspirations. We all have to find our own way, to "work out our own salvation in fear and trembling." (How many people since the beginning of the world, and especially in today's world, actually work out their own salvation, with fear and trembling?)

Because God Himself is much bigger than C.S. Lewis, Billy Graham and Hank Hanegraaff, Charles Swindoll and Charles Stanley. When God says He finds the act of people eating ham an abomination, I believe Him. Nothing mysterious here. No mystery interpretation. It's plain and simple to read, and to turn it into meaning something else, the tap dancing has to begin. God says it is disgusting for people to eat the flesh of an animal that He created to be a scavenger, a meat not acceptable to Him as food for His people. In fact, He never declared it a "meat created for eating."

God wasn't being arbitrary when He said that some animals can safely be consumed, while other animals cannot safely be consumed. He called the first CLEAN, and the second UNCLEAN. Simple, isn't it? Nothing shadowy about it. Does THIS sound like it is ceremonial?

For behold, the LORD will come in fire and His

chariots like the whirlwind, to render His anger

with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire. For

the LORD will execute judgment by fire and by

His sword on all flesh, and those slain by the

LORD will be many. "Those who sanctify and

purify themselves {to go} to the gardens, following

one in the center, who eat swine's flesh, detestable

things, and mice, shall come to an end altogether,"

Isaiah 66:15-17 (NAS)

God makes it pretty simple. He finds the eating of certain things DETESTABLE, that's what "abomination" means. A dog we loved very much, Mongo, had one detestable habit. He loved to go into my wife's cats' kitty litter, and munch out on the treats buried in the sand. Then he would get sick, vomit all over the house, and leave a trail of diarrhea down the length of the staircase leading to the front door. To me, that was detestable. The grosses thing was that this dog that I loved -- even when he was eating filth -- I couldn't stand it that he did that, it grossed me out -- one little act of disobedience led to a whole string of "abominations." It didn't help matters that I was the guy that cleaned up the entire mess the three or four times it happened. That didn't mean that I stopped loving Mongo, that when I caught him doing such an abomination that I strangled him to death, or dropped him off at the dog pound (my wife heartily suggested I do just this -- um, the dog pound, not the strangling!).

No, I worked with Mongo, tirelessly. I told him not to do it. I punished him for doing it. I devised all manner of inventive ways to keep him from doing it. And, eventually, he DID stop doing it. It took some work and some ingenuity, some patience and discipline, but Mongo eventually got the idea. And I was so proud of him for finally coming to his senses, in giving up his guilty disgusting pleasure.

Jesus told a parable about a similar thing to my plight with Mongo.

Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard,

Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit

on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why

cumbereth it the ground? And he answering

said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also,

till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear

fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt

cut it down.

Luke 13:7-9

Luke 13:7-9 is talking about Christians. Pure and simple. Note the absence of "once saved, always saved." God gives us "free will, free choice," He does not force us to do or be anything. We have that same free will and choice AFTER we accept Jesus. God doesn't steal it away from us, because we are now accepted as one of His. We cannot bear fruit for Him before we are His, only after accepting Him and becoming one of His can we bear fruit for Him.

I loved Mongo. He was a great dog. But he had to learn that eating out of the kitty litter was disgusting to me -- I didn't want him to do it. I told him not to do it. I punished him when he did it. We are talking bad fruit, that's what Mongo was choosing in his free will as my pet -- he was producing bad fruit. But, he loved me, his master. He had a hard time understanding what my will for him was, that he be a good and well-integrated part of my family. Mongo loved me, I think, more than eating treats out of the kitty litter. And, after much work, he stopped producing that bad fruit; however, if he NEVER would have stopped, if, willfully, he had munched down every day, certain that he was free from my law, living in the liberty of my love -- eventually, I would have had to deal with Mongo, harshly. The first time it happened my wife wanted me to take him to the vet and have Mongo put to sleep. That was an upsetting time for me, she harped on me, and I'd pet Mongo and actually weep with love for him.

If he had never given up his disgusting habit? I don't even like to think of it, but the reality was always there. As the Bible says: "...if it bear fruit, well: and if not, the after that thou shalt cut it down."

God is that way with us. Even Christians that don't bear any fruit, God does not cast away. He works with us. He digs about our roots to allow for expansion and greater strength, he puts fertilizer into the soil so that the tree absorbs more nutrients -- in the parable of the vine, he prunes to bring more fruit. But what about vines that REFUSE to EVER bear fruit? Jesus answered, "after that thou shalt cut it down."

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a

branch, and is withered; and men gather them,

and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

John 15:6

As to eating pork, the justification for porking down the pork comes from tradition, rather than Biblical evidence. But the temptation comes in the taste. Scientologist John Travolta put it best: "Pork tastes good," in the violent movie Pulp Fiction. God is disgusted with the act? Tough. Pork tastes good: "If God don't be understandin dat fact, hey, den God don't be gettin it. Yo."

I don't think so.

Of course, there are those that will clench their fists, grit their teeth, and twist as much scripture as possible in defending their abominable tastes. People use Peter's vision (as mentioned before, even Philip Yancey twisted this scripture for his own personal, um, tastes) as justification for eating snake meat, swine and rats, whereas Peter interpreted his vision VERY differently:

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it

is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to

keep company, or come unto one of another

nation; but God hath shewed me that I should

not call any man common or unclean.

Acts 10:28

Peter did not interpret the vision of the sheet filled with unclean animals as free reign to chow down on anything he darn well pleased -- no, he understood that God had accepted the Gentiles through faith, and they were not considered unclean. This vision had absolutely nothing to do with what is right or not right to eat in his daily life -- the vision was symbolic with all manner of symbolic interpretation, and Peter provides the correct interpretation, in the Bible, and it is wrong to change his interpretation into a cheap justification for the rightness in eating pepperoni pizza!

One small point that twisters of scripture most often miss is what Peter exclaimed during his vision (and think about it, this was some thirty-odd years AFTER the crucifixion!): "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." Acts 10:14. Unbelievable, isn't it, the poignancy of truth, plain and bare truth. Even thirty years after the crucifixion, Peter had never consented to eating unclean food! So much for tradition, right? Why? Was Peter stubbornly refusing God's change of mind? No, because God does not change His mind. People claim that JESUS changed His mind, that Jesus declared all "meat" clean, then why hadn't Peter been chowing down on pork? Why the need for this vision to convince Peter to eat unclean meat?

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from

above, and cometh down from the Father of

lights, with whom is no variableness, neither

shadow of turning.

James 1:17

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither

the son of man, that he should repent: hath he

said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken,

and shall he not make it good?

Numbers 23:19

But IS "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hebrews 13:8 -- or does He change? Did He eat pork during His lifetimes? Did Jesus sin? WAS He a sinless sacrifice? Did He break the Sabbath? Is Jesus, our Intercessor in heaven, eating pork right now? Do heavenly beings slaughter animals in heaven? When you get to heaven, will the first thing you eat is a bag of pork rinds? If Jesus came back today would He order up a big plate of ham? And would you eat something He considers an abomination, today, in His presence?

And the swine, because it divideth the hoof,

yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto

you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch

their dead carcase.

Deuteronomy 14:8

The pork eaters of today, smacking their lips loudly, are the first to denounce homosexuality -- it's an abomination, they cry! Yes, I'll have two strips of bacon and a slab of ham with my runny eggs. They are the first to scream about the evils of Harry Potter while they munch on their ham sandwich. Witchcraft is an abomination, they cry! It's in the Bible! And yes, let's have a fat ham for Christmas as we celebrate the birth of Christ Who would never eat the flesh of swine!

Jews resisted Hellenization (imposed Greek

culture) as fiercely as they fought the Roman

legions. Rabbis kept this aversion alive by

reminding the Jews of the attempts by a

Seleucid madman named Antiochus to

Hellenize the Jews more than a century before.

Antiochus had compelled young boys to undergo

reverse circumcision operations so they could

appear nude in Greek athletic contests. He

flogged an aged priest to death for refusing to

eat pig's flesh, and butchered a mother and

her seven children for not bowing down to an

image. In a heinous act that became known as

the "abomination of desolation," he invaded the

Most Holy Place of the temple, sacrificed an

unclean pig on the altar in honor of the Greek

god Zeus, and smeared the sanctuary with its blood.

The Jesus I Never Knew, Philip Yancey

Zondervan Publishing House, Page 57.

How do those words make you feel? An old man slain because he wouldn't eat pork? A woman and her babies killed because they wouldn't bow down to idols? Does the idea of a pig being sacrificed in the Most Holy place make you shudder? Does it fill you with thoughts of outrage, disgust, anger and shock -- even horror? If it does, then consider this:

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,

and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

If any man defile the temple of God, him

shall God destroy; for the temple of God is

holy, which temple ye are.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

If you believe that, that your body is the temple of God -- that the Holy Spirit dwells inside you like the Shekinah glory in Solomon's Temple -- then are you committing a daily "abomination of desolation" by putting unclean meat in your temple? Is your body REALLY the temple of God, or is it a temple of gods?

Are millions of Christians having their own private little "abomination of desolation" every day when they ask for sausage on their bagel? How SERIOUSLY do Christians take the Word of God? If God says something is an "abomination," does He later change His mind about it? And if you are a Christian, and you take God's Word seriously, how seriously do you LIVE God's Word? Do you take it as seriously as did the Jews 100 years before Christ was born in Bethlehem?

Eleazar, one of the foremost teachers of the Law, a man

already advanced in years and of most noble appearance,

had his mouth forced open, to make him eat a piece of

pork. But he, resolving to die with honour rather than to

live disgraced, walked of his own accord to the torture of

the wheel, having spat the stuff out, as befits those with

the courage to reject what is not lawful to taste, rather

than live. The people supervising the ritual meal,

forbidden by the Law, because of the length of time for

which they had known him, took him aside and privately

urged him to have meat brought of a kind he could

properly use, prepared by himself, and only pretend to

eat the portions of sacrificial meat as prescribed by the

king; this action would enable him to escape death, by

availing himself of an act of kindness prompted by their

long friendship. But having taken a noble decision

worthy of his years and the dignity of his great age and

the well-earned distinction of his grey hairs, worthy too

of his impeccable conduct from boyhood, and above all

of the holy legislation established by God himself, he

answered accordingly, telling them to send him at once

to Hades. "Pretence," he said, "does not befit our time

of life; many young people would suppose that Eleazar

at the age of ninety had conformed to the foreigners'

way of life and, because I had played this part for the

sake of a paltry brief spell of life, might themselves be

led astray on my account; I should only bring

defilement and disgrace on my old age. Even though

for the moment I avoid execution by man, I can never,

living or dead, elude the grasp of the Almighty.

Therefore if I am man enough to quit this life here and

now, I shall prove myself worthy of my old age, and I

shall have left the young a noble example of how to

make a good death, eagerly and generously, for the

venerable and holy laws." So saying, he walked

straight to the wheel, while those who were escorting

him, recently so well disposed towards him, turned

against him after this declaration, which they regarded

as sheer madness. He for his part, just before he died

under the blows, gave a sigh and said, "The Lord

whose knowledge is holy sees clearly that, though I

might have escaped death, from awe of him I gladly

endure these agonies of body under the lash, and

that in my soul I am glad to suffer." This was how he

died, leaving his death as an example of nobility and

a record of virtue not only for the young but for the

greater part of the nation.

2 Maccabees 6:18-31 New Jerusalem Bible

A man who took God's Word very seriously. But this was a master of the law, someone who knew to take God seriously -- we couldn't expect simple laymen to pay attention to God's Word in a similar fashion could we? Read this horrifying tale of a mother who trusts more in God than in the commandments of men:

It also happened that seven brothers were arrested with

their mother. The king tried to force them to taste some

pork, which the Law forbids, by torturing them with whips

and scourges. One of them, acting as spokesman for the

others, said, "What are you trying to find out from us? We

are prepared to die rather than break the laws of our

ancestors." The king, in a fury, ordered pans and

cauldrons to be heated over a fire. As soon as these were

red-hot, he commanded that their spokesman should have

his tongue cut out, his head scalped and his extremities

cut off, while the other brothers and his mother looked on.

When he had been rendered completely helpless, the

king gave orders for him to be brought, still breathing, to

the fire and fried alive in a pan. As the smoke from the

pan drifted about, his mother and the rest encouraged

one another to die nobly, with such words as these, "The

Lord God is watching and certainly feels sorry for us, as

Moses declared in his song, which clearly states that `he

will take pity on his servants." When the first had left the

world in this way, they brought the second forward to be

tortured. After stripping the skin from his head, hair and

all, they asked him, "Will you eat some pork, before your

body is tortured limb by limb?" Replying in his ancestral

tongue, he said, "No!" So he too was put to the torture in

his turn. With his last breath he exclaimed, "Cruel brute,

you may discharge us from this present life, but the King

of the world will raise us up, since we die for his laws, to

live again for ever." After him, they tortured the third, who

on being asked for his tongue promptly thrust it out and

boldly held out his hands, courageously saying, "Heaven

gave me these limbs; for the sake of his laws I have no

concern for them; from him I hope to receive them again."

The king and his attendants were astounded at the young

man's courage and his utter indifference to suffering.

When this one was dead they subjected the fourth to the

same torments and tortures. When he neared his end he

cried, "Ours is the better choice, to meet death at men's

hands, yet relying on God's promise that we shall be

raised up by him; whereas for you there can be no

resurrection to new life." Next they brought forward the

fifth and began torturing him. But he looked at the king

and said, "You have power over human beings, mortal

as you are, and can act as you please. But do not think

that our race has been deserted by God. Only wait, and

you will see in your turn how his mighty power will

torment you and your descendants." After him, they led

out the sixth, and his dying words were these, "Do not

delude yourself: we are suffering like this through our

own fault, having sinned against our own God; hence,

appalling things have befallen us, but do not think you

yourself will go unpunished for attempting to make war

on God." But the mother was especially admirable and

worthy of honourable remembrance, for she watched

the death of seven sons in the course of a single day,

and bravely endured it because of her hopes in the Lord.

Indeed she encouraged each of them in their ancestral

tongue; filled with noble conviction, she reinforced her

womanly argument with manly courage, saying to them,

"I do not know how you appeared in my womb; it was

not I who endowed you with breath and life, I had not

the shaping of your every part. And hence, the Creator

of the world, who made everyone and ordained the

origin of all things, will in his mercy give you back

breath and life, since for the sake of his laws you have

no concern for yourselves." Antiochus thought he was

being ridiculed, suspecting insult in the tone of her

voice; and as the youngest was still alive he appealed

to him not with mere words but with promises on oath

to make him both rich and happy if he would abandon

the traditions of his ancestors; he would make him his

Friend and entrust him with public office. The young

man took no notice at all, and so the king then

appealed to the mother, urging her to advise the youth

to save his life. After a great deal of urging on his part

she agreed to try persuasion on her son. Bending over

him, she fooled the cruel tyrant with these words,

uttered in their ancestral tongue, "My son, have pity on

me; I carried you nine months in my womb and suckled

you three years, fed you and reared you to the age you

are now, and provided for you. I implore you, my child,

look at the earth and sky and everything in them, and

consider how God made them out of what did not exist,

and that human beings come into being in the same

way. Do not fear this executioner, but prove yourself

worthy of your brothers and accept death, so that I may

receive you back with them in the day of mercy." She

had hardly finished, when the young man said, "What

are you all waiting for? I will not comply with the king's

ordinance; I obey the ordinance of the Law given to

our ancestors through Moses. As for you, who have

contrived every kind of evil against the Hebrews, you

will certainly not escape the hands of God. We are

suffering for our own sins; and if, to punish and

discipline us, our living Lord is briefly angry with us,

he will be reconciled with us in due course. But you,

unholy wretch and wickedest of villains, what cause

have you for pride, nourishing vain hopes and raising

your hand against his servants?, for you have not yet

escaped the judgement of God the almighty, the all-

seeing. Our brothers, having endured brief pain, for

the sake of ever-flowing life have died for the

covenant of God, while you, by God's judgement, will

have to pay the just penalty for your arrogance. I too,

like my brothers, surrender my body and life for the

laws of my ancestors, begging God quickly to take pity

on our nation, and by trials and afflictions to bring you

to confess that he alone is God, so that with my

brothers and myself there may be an end to the wrath

of the Almighty, rightly let loose on our whole nation."

The king fell into a rage and treated this one more

cruelly than the others, for he was himself smarting

from the young man's scorn. And so the last brother

met his end undefiled and with perfect trust in the

Lord. The mother was the last to die, after her sons.

But let this be sufficient account of the ritual meals

and monstrous tortures.

2 Maccabees 7:1-42 New Jerusalem Bible

Who was more heroic? The old man, the learned Bible teacher, who clearly understood what was at stake in his martyrdom? Or the simple mother, who had to stand trembling as her seven boys were tortured? Or, you might be asking yourself: WHICH WAS STUPIDER? Right? Because God doesn't CARE, right? You can eat pork! God says that your body is the temple of His Holy Spirit, but that old man and the mother and her seven sons should have just eaten the pork, right? Afterall, it tastes GOOD! And, you say, properly cooked, it's GOOD for you, right?

God was making these laws "way back then, and didn't know any better," correct? If God knew THEN what He knows TODAY, He would never have bothered saying all that stuff about pork, a scavenger animal, an animal that eats anything dropped by other animals, including their excrement -- how was God to know back then that if you cooked pork "properly," it was safe to eat, right?

Or, does God know everything, and is He correct in what He knows? Should we follow what He commands us to follow? Should we remember what He commands us to remember? Or, in the freedom that Christ gave you, does anything and everything GO (especially His laws, as in "get up and went")?

If you are standing on the shoulders of men that teach that it is fine and dandy to sacrifice unclean meats in God's holy temple, get off their back, Jack. Do you follow Christ, or Antiochus Epiphanes? If tradition is BAD, get rid of it. Hold onto that which is holy, just and good. God's laws are good, and they are eternal. Sure, Hank Hanegraaff tells you to eat pork, but cook it properly, while God says not to touch it. Who do you believe? If you think Jesus died painfully on a cross so that you can introduce unclean foods into your system, then you have completely missed the Gospel. The Gospel is not about food or drink, yet that's exactly what the "teachers" are teaching. Sure, Andrew Wommack teaches that obeying God is a "doctrine of demons," but the Apostle Pauls says that the laws is "holy, just and good." But let's complete the thought started above in 1 Corinthians 3:

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among

you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him

become a fool, that he may be wise. For the

wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own

craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the

thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Therefore let no man glory in men. For all

things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or

Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things

present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye

are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

1 Corinthians 3:18-23

Yes, there are traditions that it is fine and dandy doo to eat what God has called unclean. These traditions may even seem wise, but God knows that these thoughts of the so-called wise are vain, no matter how religious these men appear to be, even if they have been sanctified by Hank in the "pale of orthodoxy." Don't be fooled by their craftiness. Let no man deceive himself, even if pork does taste good. Cannibals, after tasting pork for the first time, smiled and said it tasted exactly like human! God said "don't touch it," that to Him it is an "abomination." Teachers today tell you to close your eyes to what the Bible says.

Other wise men misinterpret Romans Chapter 14 as a justification for eating honeyed ham at Thanksgiving and Christmas, even though read in context the issues described are about clean meats that have been used in a sacrifice to false gods! Someone with weak faith would fear the meat, thinking some kind of evil pall was upon it, that it was now unclean, whereas Paul openly states "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (Romans 14:14) If you feel that acceptable meat is unacceptable because it was employed in a sacrifice to false gods, then by all means do not eat it. But false teachers declare that this means you should eat pork.

The root of the discussion is clean meat (animals given the green light by God) that has been defiled (made ceremonially unclean by sacrificing it to false gods) -- would it be a sin to eat such a meal?

To interpret any of these passages as to meaning that God placed a judgment on certain animals in the days of Noah, and then changed His mind after the crucifixion -- many years after the crucifixion -- isn't that just denying the fact that God DOES show a shadow of turning? That Jesus Christ really is NOT the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?

And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and

all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen

righteous before me in this generation. Of every

clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens,

the male and his female: and of beasts that are

not clean by two, the male and his female. Of

fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the

female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all

the earth.

Genesis 7:1-3

Apparently God knew which animals were safe to eat in a post-flood world where all the plants had been destroyed. This was a truth since creation -- at least AFTER sin entered the world -- that for food purposes, not all animals are the same. For the dinner plate, not all animals are created equal. Some are good to eat, and some are not good to eat. This is generally self-apparent to most thinking individuals (most people do not eat rats, for instance, or mice, even though the supply is cheap and plentiful). Apparently God knows what He is talking about when He makes rules and there are very real reasons behind those rules.

Obviously, the "clean" and "unclean" aspects of food are not affected by the ceremonial aspects of the law, since they were apparent to Noah -- Noah knew the difference, the unclean animals came in pairs, while the clean beasts came in by sevens (either seven pairs, or by seven individuals). If this is a true statement, then TODAY some animals are clean to eat and some are not clean to eat. Peter, after the crucifixion of Jesus, agreed -- He claimed: "Never have I eaten anything unclean!" Yet, most Christians today deny this fact. They teach that God changed His mind, or at the very least His rules that govern nature are arbitrary, that truth changes. In short, that reality has changed.

As a tiny test to yourself, would you like to eat a pork chop right now? Sound scrumptious? How about RARE? You probably just felt an electric current go through you. How shocking! No way in the world is anybody going to eat pork rare, what, are they CRAZY? You get worms doing that, man! You want me to DIE? You gotta cook it, and cook it GOOD, or you gonna DIE, sucka! You want me to maybe get Trichina worms? The nerve, rare pork chops. How could you even suggest such a thing!

And yet you WILL eat the same pork chop as long as those worms are well done? That's right, there are worms in pork, ALL pork, no matter if it is bacon or ham or -- no way, you say! I don't see any worms! You can't see microbes, either, but they are there, in abundance, and no matter HOW you cook them, or for how long, the microbes that live in the pig will now live inside YOU. Fact is, you cannot see the worms in the wormiest swine, but they're there. Of course, just before slaughter, all pigs are filled with all manner of worms, including long stringy worms that are very visible to the naked eye. But the hogs are "wormed" and the worms literally come pouring out of the swine.

IS there a reason God does not want you to eat pork? Does He want your body, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, full of blood worms? Tape worms? Fauna and flora that are natural to pigs, but will live just as well in man -- does God want His holy temple in an unhealthy, disease-ridden state?

You KNOW this, and yet you squirm with indignation. Because John Travolta said it best: "Pork tastes good."

But there is another verse that people point to, in justifying "eating anything they darn well want to!" That would be Mark 7:19 (NASB):

"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.")

Did you notice something about that verse? The parentheses. Notice that in the text Jesus is talking about "washing hands," or eating food with dirty hands. His disciples had not ceremonially washed their hands, and the Pharisees took exception with their slack traditional cleanliness (ceremonial) habits. But, please read the short chapter and notice that Jesus is not talking about "food" at all, about what foods are clean, and what foods are unclean. Only in the "parenthetical" statement was there mention of clean foods, that now all foods were declared "clean" by Jesus. Let's look at Mark 7:19 in the KJV:

Because it entereth not into his heart,

but into the belly, and goeth out into the

draught, purging all meats?

Isn't that odd, the parenthetical declaration is not there! The parenthetical statement was not made by Jesus, but by a later scribe -- the "declared all foods clean" is not in all the manuscripts, and the parentheses prove it to be an after thought. Possibly, there is a slim chance it could have been a parenthetical aside made by Mark himself, but as all manuscripts show, it was never the words of Jesus. The whole context of the chapter is not even discussing food, which is the ultimate test. In short, eating with dirty hands does not make you a filthy person, because your body has a wonderful cleansing process which includes the saliva of the mouth, the digestive process in the stomach, cleansing filters provided by liver and kidneys, and finally the slow siphon of the intestines and the white cells in the blood. The "dirt" is cleansed from the system -- in short, eating with dirty hands does not affect your spiritual morality, it's an issue of the belly, and not of the "heart.".

Also, pork, or any other unclean "meat" in the Bible, was never classified as "food," so "declaring all food clean" in no way alters the classification of pork or other unclean meats, which were never foods.

But think about it. Let's speculate. Let's suppose that Jesus was really waving a magic wand and miraculously changed "unclean" to "clean." Wouldn't He then begin to eat pork, to display His new commandment? Wouldn't the Pharisees have commented on it? Didn't the Pharisees understand Him, when He "declared all foods clean?" Wouldn't THIS have been just about the biggest charge against Jesus, that He was going "unclean" like the Gentiles -- wouldn't THIS have been the Pharisees' biggest grudge against the Son of God?

Yet this is not recorded, not once in the New Testament. When they dragged Jesus in front of the court, calling Him a blasphemer, wouldn't they have at the first shouted out that Jesus had "okayed" eating pork?

It never happened. Read the Bible. It's just not there. Did Jesus change His mind?

Jesus never once declared: "I have changed my mind. Sure, pigs used to be nasty, dirty, foul scavengers that were never intended as food, but now, what the hay, have a pork chop or two, a couple of sausages, hey, it ain't gonna hurt, and why not throw some salami and pepperoni on your pizza! Hey, ship some of that bad-boy food over this way, my belly's all a-grumble for a little of that greasy trichinosis -- hey, it's kinda like caviar, don'tchya think?!"

For I am the LORD, I change not... (Malachi 3:6)

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day,

and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8)

These are things that are known. These are not mysteries. There is what God says, and following right behind we have all the "inspired commentaries" that do their best to interpret what God says. There is the Word of God, and then there is tradition. These are not complicated issues. Obviously, not all the laws in the Bible apply to today, because the world is different -- note, God is NOT different, He does not change. But morality does not change, the Ten Commandments DO NOT CHANGE, they are not ammended or substituted, and nature works the same as it did -- what is clean is clean, and what is unclean is unclean.

TRICHINA -- [trikai'ne], a parasitic roundworm, Trichinella spiralis, in the class of Nematoda of the phylum Aschelminthes (or Nemathelminthes). It is the cause of human trichinosis, a widespread disease in various parts of the world. It is estimated that about 20,000,000 persons are infected in the United States. The infection is contracted by eating raw or improperly cooked pork or pork products, which contain encysted larvae, the immature worms. The cysts are digested in the stomach, releasing the larvae, which migrate to the intestine, attaching themselves to the intestinal wall. In five to seven days they become sexually mature and mate. The viviparous female then burrows into the intestinal wall to discharge her larvae. A female may deposit about 15,000 larvae in five to seven weeks; after this she dies. The larvae migrate into the lymphatic system and small veins and are distributed to various parts of the body, eventually reaching the striated muscles in which they encyst. The greatest invasion is into the muscles of the diaphragm, tongue, chest, shoulders, and thighs. After several months, the body of the host, that is, the infected person, deposits calcium around the encysted larvae. Lesions result from the mechanical and toxic irritations produced by the larvae during the invasion, migration, and encystation. They often invade the heart muscles, causing myocarditis; in the diaphragm they interfere with respiration. There is no effective treatment and the best preventive measures are proper meat inspection and thorough cooking of pork. Collier's Encyclopedia, The Crowell-Collier Publishing Company, 1965, Ross F. Nigrelli.

That was a standardized, layman's explanation in 1965. At that time it was estimated that 20,000,000 (20 million) persons were contaminated. That is 20 million people in the United States, alone! Do God's laws sound arbitrary in light of those numbers? Does God want you "just like everyone else" -- a worm-filled statistic?

But I find it heartening, that Jesus KNEW this, 2,000 years ago. That Moses had this information 4,000 years ago! There is no way that Jesus would declare a food source THIS CONTAMINATED as clean, even with proper cooking (and what exactly IS proper cooking for blood worms, or intestinal larvae?). Trichinosis is just ONE disease from pork. There are many others, many not affected by cooking. To render this a "safe" meat you would have to burn it until crispy, and not even the most slavering hard-core pork porker would eat it. Do you think THIS was what Jesus was talking about in Mark 7 when He said that what a man ate was purged by the body?

No, He was talking about eating with dirty hands. Read the chapter, that's the most important thing. The Pharisees were offended because the disciples did not do a ritual washing of the hands (from fingertips to elbows) which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible; however, it is in the Talmud, as is much careful description on how to properly wash pots and pans -- this was not in the "Law of Moses." It was first a part of the "oral tradition," and later the annotated tradition (the Talmud).

Jesus never broke one of God's commandments. He was not so careful, however, with man-made traditions and man-made commandments. There is a distinct difference between the two.

The "Mosaic law" is a whole new ball game, otherwise known as the Law of Moses. These were edicts Moses drew up in a book to aid in giving good living principles to people who had not known freedom. Tradition has it that angels attended Moses, explaining health to him, clarifying points, perhaps even tweaking his grammar. The "Children of Israel" were recently liberated slaves who had spent their generation, and that of their parents, and grandparents, and great grandparents (for the last 400 years), living under the dominance of a "highly civilized" people who worshipped many gods, and lived lives full of superstition and false beliefs. And so these were laws built around showing the people how wrong they were in carrying on their "natural inclinations" based on their lives in a foreign land, a land filled with false gods (bug gods, snake gods, dog gods, cat gods, Pharaoh gods and sky gods, etc.) and everyday superstitions built around appeasing the river god, or satisfying the merchant gods, or pleasing the field gods, the soil gods, the child-care gods and perhaps even the toilet paper gods.

But obviously, we are not living under a theocratic government, e.g., a religion-based government, and obviously we did not just escape from living 400 years in Egypt as slaves, our minds blinded to our heritage, ignorant of God -- granted, many people in the "religious right" feel we SHOULD be living in a theocracy, but that's not where America IS today). The Catholic Church does not stipulate what it is and what it isn't how we should think and feel and talk and do in today's world in the United States. And Jesus HAS come, for all people, all over the world, the Brits and the Aussies and the Japanese and the Israelis and Arabs, Hindus, Appalachian snake-handlers and the yogis of India -- Yahshua the Messiah, Jesus Christ, so we do not sacrifice animals any longer, as the reality HAS come.

But when God tells us that it is not safe to eat pork, believe Him. True, then man comes along and makes his own rules to put on top of that decree by God. Jesus talks about these issues in the Mark Chapter 7 passage, i.e., the "washing of cups and pots," which you will find nowhere in the Bible other than mentioned here by Jesus. Hebrews 9:10 makes a slight reference. Jesus also makes it clear that tradition does not supplant the Word of God, nor the Commandment of God. The Word of God and the Commandment of God are tops.

Even today, with all our sophisticated science, we do not fully understand all of God's decrees regarding "unclean" animals and "clean" animals -- we are not certain why God declared rabbits as unclean, but that doesn't mean we should eat rabbits, just because we don't understand everything about God's thinking process. But isn't it heartening to know that over 4,000 years ago our God was smart enough to discern between what is safe for people to eat, and what is NOT safe? That is pretty strong proof for an all-knowing God. And 2,000 years ago, Jesus keeping "kosher," that's pretty strong proof of an all-knowing God, don't you think?

God is not arbitrary. He doesn't hand out rules to prove how tough He is, that you better cower and obey, that when He says jump you better reply: "How high!" No, the rules God gave us are for our own good. They are not made to make us grumpy, hold us down, bore us to tears. Do you think He said not have any other gods just so that you wouldn't have any fun? Or do you think He said you shouldn't take His name in vain because He's a party-pooper? Or that you should rest the seventh day, His Sabbath, because God is a big meanie? That you should take care of your parents?

The sad fact is, people err because they do not know the scriptures, least of all the Old Testament. Most "Christians" today sneer at the Old Testament. It's done away, they laugh. Oh, THAT God, the guy in the Old Testament, well He's much nicer now in the New Testament. Maybe He figured some things out, don't you think? Changed His mind, become a nicer, gentler God, right?

Except, God doesn't change. God is not a man. God is not wishy-washy. He's not arbitrary. What He says makes sense. And, obviously by His own word, Jesus did not come to change or destroy or lessen God's law. He came to uphold it, live it the way it should be lived, the only completely righteous man. Jesus did not sin. If He broke the Fourth Commandment, He would have been a sinner, and not a sacrifice without blemish.

Yet, He lived in such a way that infuriated the "Religious Right," the "Moral Majority" of His day. Obviously, He was breaking some kind of code, although not God's.

That is because there was an oral law that many men held dear. Another name for it is "tradition." This "oral law" is not mentioned in the Bible. These were laws and rules and regulations and "helpful hints" that accumulated around God's law, and the Mosaic law as well. The tradition of men. The commandments of men, such as "touch not" or "taste not" -- these are the best-intentions commentaries made by men, men whom many felt inspired, and perhaps many of them WERE inspired, but that does not set them on par with the Bible. The Mishna and Gemara might very well be inspired works of genius, written by holy men, however, not even the most loyal Hasidic Jew considers them on par with the
Kethuvim (the Psalms, Proverbs and historical writings) and the
Kethuvim is not equal to the Nevi'im (the prophetic writings) which in turn is not equal to the Torah (the five books of Moses, the Law) -- the Tanakh, the Holy Bible. The commentaries are lesser lights to the greater light. They are commentaries, arguments, clarifications, opinions and illuminations of the oral law, which in turn explained and supported the Mosaic Law, which in turn was based on the Ten Commandments. The Talmud is the writing down of these "inspired commentaries."

God says "unclean," and modern wise men say "NOW it's okay." Who do you believe, men or God? And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. (Mark 11:22) In short, people err, on such a huge scale because they put their trust in man, and not in God -- "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." (Psalms 118:8) So why put tradition at odds with the Word of God? "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29) -- trust in God, He doesn't change. "Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1:16-17)

Someday nature WILL change. We will return to an utopian God-ordained plan, where all, even the predators (lions, wolves), will be vegetarian. People will be vegetarian (does the thought make you queasy? fill you with disgust?). But ONLY THEN will nature be changed. Only then will death no longer reign. Only then will there be no trichinosis in pigs (but of course it will be a moot point, as no one will eat pigs in that place).

Does this sound like a horrible place to be? A place where people will not raise a race of animals as slaves for food. Human beings today have become Moorlocks, and their innocent prey/pets are the chickens, the cows, cattle, the pigs and sheep. People today, even "Christians" do not know that the original plan was that people eat vegetarian -- or Vegan, to be more precise. Read the first chapter of Genesis. It's there. But then, of course, Genesis is a storybook of children's stories, isn't it?

God says that certain things are bad for you. He even calls these things ABOMINATION. Man, however, will tell you that this is absurd, that it is nonsense. The question is, who is that you trust? God or man? Who knows more, in your book? God or man?

In your version of God, does He make sense? Or is He an arbitrary madman that declares this, declares that, changes His mind, and then declares this instead of that, and that instead of this?

It comes down to YOU. It is obvious, it is clear, more than clear, what God says in His Word; however, man will tell you different. Think about that, the next time your mouth waters over its next bite of steaming pork. God says it is disgusting to Him, a hitman in Pulp Fiction answers that it tastes good. Whose side are YOU on?

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him,

Why walk not thy disciples according to the

tradition of the elders, but eat bread with

unwashen hands? He answered and said

unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of

you hypocrites, as it is written, This people

honoureth me with their lips, but their heart

is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they

worship me, teaching for doctrines the

commandments of men. For laying aside

the commandment of God, ye hold the

tradition of men, as the washing of pots and

cups: and many other such like things ye do.

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the

commandment of God, that ye may keep

your own tradition.

Mark 7:5-9

Today, "the elders" invite you to their dinner table, to partake of their traditions, including juicy trichninosis, uh, I mean, of course, honey-baked ham -- will you set aside God's Commandments so that you can hold to their traditions? God says that they have chosen "their own ways," and that their "soul delights in their abominations." Yum.

Or will you worship Him in spirit and truth, and keep His holy temple pure? Hear the word of the Lord, and tremble. God adores people with contrite spirits.

Art et Amour Toujours

DCLWolf

Other Facts Concerning God's Laws:

The 10 Commandments & Moses' Ceremonial Law

1. Spoken by God Himself (Ex 20:1,22) - 1. Spoken by Moses (Ex 24:3)

2. Written by God Himself (Ex 31:18, 32:16) - 2. Written by Moses (Ex 24:4, Deuteronomy 31:9)

3. Written on Tables of STONE (Ex 31:18) - 3. Written in a book (Exodus 24:4, Deut 31:24)

4. Handed by God, its Writer, to Moses (Ex 31:18) - 4. Handed by Moses, writer, to Levites (Dt. 31:24)

5. Deposited by Moses into the ark (Deut 10:5) - 5. Deposited by Levites in the "side of ark" (Dt. 31:26)

6. Deals with MORAL Precepts (Ex 20:3-17) - 6. Ceremonial, Ritual Ordinances (Exodus, Lev., Deut.)

7. Reveals sin (Romans 7:7) - 7. Prescribes offerings for sins (Leviticus)

8. Breaking Law IS "Sin" (1 John 3:4) - 8. No sin, is abolished (Ephesians 2:15, Romans 4:15)

9. Should "Keep the Whole Law" (James 2:10) - 9. Apostles gave no such command (Acts 15:24)

10. Judged by this law (James 2:12) - 10. No judgment by it (Colossians 2:16)

11. Christians are blessed in his deed (James 1:25) - 11. Christian not blessed (Galatians 5:1-6)

12. Perfect Law of Liberty (James 1:25, 2:12) - 12. Loss of Liberty (Galatians 5:1,3)

13. I delight in the Law of God (Romans 7:22) - 13. Yoke of Bondage (Galatians 5:1, Acts 15:10)

14. Established by Faith in Christ (Romans 3:31) - 14. Abolished by Christ (Ephesians 2:15)

15. Christ magnified law, honorable (Isaiah 42:21) - 15. Handwriting Against Us (Colossians 2:14)

16. The Law is Spiritual (Romans 7:14) - 16. Carnal Commandment (Hebrews 7:16)