# Exodus 22:18: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2014)

How do we apply Exodus 22:18 today?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 23, 2014)

Matthew Henry on this passage agrees with the continuity of the penal sanction.



> A law which makes witchcraft a capital crime, v. 18. Witchcraft not only gives that honour to the devil which is due to God alone, but bids defiance to the divine Providence, wages war with God's government, and puts his work into the devil's hand, expecting him to do good and evil, and so making him indeed the god of this world; justly therefore was it punished with death, especially among a people that were blessed with a divine revelation, and cared for by divine Providence above any people under the sun. *By our law*, consulting, covenanting with, invocating, or employing, any evil spirit, to any intent whatsoever, and exercising any enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to any person whatsoever, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is an iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death. *The justice of our law herein is supported by the law of God recorded here.*


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 23, 2014)

Assuming that you mean how should we in the church deal with someone in our membership who is found to be a practioner of the magical arts: we should censure them and ultimately excommunicate them if they remain impenitent.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Wayne (Feb 23, 2014)

> also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is an iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death.



This was Joseph Smith's offense, and on more than one occasion, pretending to locate gold or other precious items. And he was found guilty and fined in civil court in New York state in the early 1800's.


----------



## Leslie (Feb 23, 2014)

In the local evangelical church there is a woman who practices witchcraft. Her neighbors are afraid of her, accuse her of putting curses on them. On one occasion the church elders, after a late-night meeting, found her and her husband crawling on the footpath on all 4's, doing incantations. She repeatedly has been censured and excommunicated. She repeatedly says, "Sorry." She is repeatedly readmitted to the church. The local Bible translation uses a term for "forgive" which implies no consequences, which may be at the root of the problem. I'm in no position to advise, let alone dictate to the church, so it's a non-problem for me. But I can't help but wonder what some of you pastor- and elder-sorts would do in a situaiton like this.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 23, 2014)

If you are asking what a government should do Josh has some great posts here. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f33/silent-war-religious-liberty-82376/


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 23, 2014)

Corollary: is it just for the state to force Christian taxpayers to finance a Baphomet Pentagram on federal property, or is that part of the "neutral" sphere? Theocracy applies today. the question is, "Which _theos_?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2014)

What proof and what kinds of witchcraft demand what sorts of penalties?

During the European witch-craze my guess would be that the majority of the "witches" did not deserve death, and that most were not even true witches. How do you prevent abuses of this verse?

I minister in a place where witchcraft is feared and "witches" are killed.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 23, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> What proof and what kinds of witchcraft demand what sorts of penalties?
> 
> During the European witch-craze my guess would be that the majority of the "witches" did not deserve death, and that most were not even true witches. How do you prevent abuses of this verse?
> 
> I minister in a place where witchcraft is feared and "witches" are killed.



Do you see any difference between the witches during the OT and the ones you encounter now? If not is the place you minister where they are killed the providentially provided government The Lord has appointed? If so are they executing witches to preserve what is pleasing to The Lord or are they simply a superstitious people who see a demon behind every bush?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2014)

Witch-killings are done in places where the government has not entered in strength here. The tribal people (or the clans) do it themselves. They are a superstitious people. 

Can you give me examples of righteous witch-killings in the New Testament or later?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 23, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> What proof and what kinds of witchcraft demand what sorts of penalties?
> 
> During the European witch-craze my guess would be that the majority of the "witches" did not deserve death, and that most were not even true witches. How do you prevent abuses of this verse?
> 
> I minister in a place where witchcraft is feared and "witches" are killed.



As to preventing abuses, that's impossible in a fallen world. More specifically, I don't know your day-to-day situation (beyond that witchcraft is presumably a reality) so I really can't comment on specifics. Outlawing witchcraft is on the same level as outlawing p0rnography, homosexuality, etc. It opens a window of darkness on society.

As good Reformers we need to ask, "granted the civil sanctions to this law "expired," what is the general equity of this law and how is it applied?"


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2014)

Would "general equity" demand then that witches be excommunicated? And then, if they are actually causing real damages (how do you determine if spoken curses are the causes of real sickness) then a civil penalty can also be exacted?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 23, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Would "general equity" demand then that witches be excommunicated? And then, if they are actually causing real damages (how do you determine if spoken curses are the causes of real sickness) then a civil penalty can also be exacted?



Excommunication is a given, but it is an ecclesial, not a civil act. The state does not have any power to excommunicate anybody.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 23, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Witch-killings are done in places where the government has not entered in strength here. The tribal people (or the clans) do it themselves. They are a superstitious people.
> 
> Can you give me examples of righteous witch-killings in the New Testament or later?



Well if you lived in a country that was ruled by a Christian king it would be totally OK to execute those who practiced blatantly horrible behavior to be for the benefit of the society if deemed by the king. Of course the situation you are in appears to be nothing but a superstitious environment "witch" is different. One should look into the motive of the proper governing agencies to met out the proper punishment of such in your situation. Of course your situation may be like ours in the USA, in that the motive would be purely pragmatic, which in of it self may not be a bad thing, in a temporal or eternal way. Our Lord is able to use any situation He deems to pass to work out for good to those He loves.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 23, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Would "general equity" demand then that witches be excommunicated? And then, if they are actually causing real damages (how do you determine if spoken curses are the causes of real sickness) then a civil penalty can also be exacted?



"Causing real curses" is superstitious.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 23, 2014)

*Pergamum*


> Would "general equity" demand then that witches be excommunicated?



Of course. See Alan's post above The death penalty was a form of excommunication in the more rigorous administration of the OT, and we (the Church) are the Israel of God. The crimes of the OT Church, are crimes in the NT Church still.

If someone guilty of witchcraft refused to repent, and kept going back to their witchcraft, they would eventually be excluded from the Lord's Table _sine die_, though in this life there is always the possibility of return eventually, if signs of genuine repentance are forthcoming.

There are also different levels of breach of this command and different levels of censure (Matthew 18)

Modern civil governments aren't thirled to the details of the OT administration, which were redemptive-historically bound. But it's worth remembering - among other things - that since forensic science was in its infancy, if someone was being tried for a capital crime, the two or three witnesses had to discover the perpetrator of the crime _in flagrante delicto_. Under the Mosaic law, it was better that the guilty go unpunished rather than the innocent suffer the extreme penalty.

A well-ordered Christian administration would have laws against witchcraft, remembering the _de minimis non regat lex_ rule. e.g. wearing a witchcraft tee-shirt would be treated differently to meeting as a coven, or meeting as a coven on a regular basis, etc.


----------



## Leslie (Feb 24, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Would "general equity" demand then that witches be excommunicated? And then, if they are actually causing real damages (how do you determine if spoken curses are the causes of real sickness) then a civil penalty can also be exacted?



The general picture of illness caused by curses is that they are by and large neurological. Routine physical exam and imaging, EEG's and so forth come up with no physical abnormalities. They almost never make sense medically (but then that is true of MS also). They do not respond to medications, but they do respond to deliverance. I had a patient some years back, a consult in Addis Ababa, a little girl about 7 years old, daughter of a pastor in a Sudanese refugee camp. She had many seizures every day, unresponsive to medication. An observant Western missionary lady watched the seizures, wrote her findings in a little book, and informed me there were 3 distinct types. I asked the father if someone might have put a curse on his family, to which he replied in the affirmative. So we had a session of deliverance. The result was that 2 of the 3 types of seizures stopped after the deliverance; the third type was responsive to medication, so the girl became seizure-free. 

It happens often that missionaries, especially those involved in M and animist evangelism, come down with serious illnesses and are sent home for tests. When the intial tests all give normal results, then people go to high-tech testing. In my humble opinion it would be a lot more appropriate to pursue deliverance at that point, once the common diagnostic explanations for the symptoms at hand have been ruled out. Headaches, chronic fatigue, unintentional weight loss, weakness, incoordination, nightmares, panic attacks are some common manifestations. But those steeped in Western culture would rather suffer endlessly than sacrifice their antisupernatural worldviews.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 24, 2014)

It might also be that they would rather suffer in the will of God, addressing their prayers in faith only to Him and waiting for His time of deliverance -- pinning all their belief in the supernatural world on His perfect control over everything that relates to them. Being in good physical health/free of suffering is not the primary issue of the life of faith.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 24, 2014)

With all this talk about witches and what to do with them, I couldn't resist posting this:

[video=youtube;X2xlQaimsGg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2xlQaimsGg[/video]


----------



## Leslie (Feb 24, 2014)

a mere housewife said:


> It might also be that they would rather suffer in the will of God, addressing their prayers in faith only to Him and waiting for His time of deliverance -- pinning all their belief in the supernatural world on His perfect control over everything that relates to them. Being in good physical health/free of suffering is not the primary issue of the life of faith.



Deliverance consists in exactly this, pleading the power of God over the person, to deliver him/her from the power of the demonic.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 24, 2014)

I don’t suppose anyone here cares to define the terms we are using in this thread. What exactly is a witch, and what exactly is entailed in witchcraft? Are there Biblical definitions or indications we might avail ourselves of?

In the Old Testament almost invariably the word for witch or sorcerer is _kesheph_ [SIZE=+1]%yIp;êv'K[/SIZE], and when the Jews translated the Hebrew into Greek they used the word _pharmakeia_ [SIZE=+1]farmakeia[/SIZE]. The word _pharmakeia_ refers to drugs used to bring a spiritual awareness and ability to contact demonic beings and manifest their influence in various ways. It was a death penalty to do this in the spiritually holy community of ancient Israel. In the New Testament church it was excommunication, and eternal death on those who continued in this unrepentant. Pertinent OT verses are Ex 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18; 9:11; 22:18; Deut 18:10; 2 Kings 9:22; 2 Chr 33:6; Dan 2:2; Isa 47:9, 12; Jer 27:9 [LXX Jer 34:9]; Mic 5:12; Nah 3:4; Mal 3:5). NT verses are Gal 5:20; Rev 9:21; 18:23; 21:8; 22:15. The sorcerers in Acts 8:9, 11 and 13:6, 8 are referred to in the Greek as magicians and likely engaged in _pharmakeia_ as well, as drugs and potions were key tools of this trade.

Because of centuries of superstition and hoaxes modern man – particularly Reformed Christians – do not like to even entertain the idea of actual sorcery being real, despite the Biblical testimony. Nonetheless witchcraft and sorcery are Biblical words which almost invariably involve a particular type of drug, what we in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century term psychedelic drugs (which are in a different class entirely than opiates, and medicinal analgesics).

Getting back to Reformed believers – with the exception of seasoned missionaries and workers in foreign fields – they seem to be allergic to the idea that the demonic can manifest among humans, and that demonic practitioners devoted to this evil, channeling or using these powers, can work actual harm. These believers seem to be of the mind that they are automatically protected from the demonic by the indwelling Holy Spirit, which belief is itself a form of spiritual deception.

At any rate, while witches and sorcerers are rightly to be excommunicated from the holy people’s community, there remains a problem with regard to the actual harm they may do to nonchristian (or immature Christian) spiritually unprotected people. Different civil authorities will have different approaches.

Perhaps I should not even open this can of worms – due to aforementioned Reformed “allergy” – but the emergence of psychedelic drug use, *and this includes marijuana*, in so many advanced cultures of the world has made witchcraft / sorcery a common thing. It is for introducing and spreading this Babylon is to be drastically judged (Rev 18:23), along with other egregious sins of hers.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 24, 2014)

Peairtach said:


> thirled



"To bore or drill; to enslave."

"Legal servitude, service due to a superior, or an instance of this."

Even after more than 50 years of reading, it's a thrill to learn a new word. .


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 24, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Perhaps I should not even open this can of worms – .



Very well, but I must invoke moderatorial discretion: Everyone, please keep responses to the topic of the original question: 



Pergamum said:


> How do we apply Exodus 22:18 today?


----------



## earl40 (Feb 24, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Getting back to Reformed believers – with the exception of seasoned missionaries and workers in foreign fields – they seem to be allergic to the idea that the demonic can manifest among humans, and that demonic practitioners devoted to this evil, channeling or using these powers, can work actual harm. These believers seem to be of the mind that they are automatically protected from the demonic by the indwelling Holy Spirit, which belief is itself a form of spiritual deception.
> 
> At any rate, while witches and sorcerers are rightly to be excommunicated from the holy people’s community, there remains a problem with regard to the actual harm they may do to nonchristian (or immature Christian) spiritually unprotected people. Different civil authorities will have different approaches.
> 
> Perhaps I should not even open this can of worms – due to aforementioned Reformed “allergy” – but the emergence of psychedelic drug use, *and this includes marijuana*, in so many advanced cultures of the world has made witchcraft / sorcery a common thing. It is for introducing and spreading this Babylon is to be drastically judged (Rev 18:23), along with other egregious sins of hers.



How does one "channel" the powers of satan and if one does is by some type of him whispering in ones ear? I wish not to be to be contrary but this thread In my most humble opinion appears to be full of superstition. I strongly suspect many assign actual creative power to the devil such as turning staffs into snakes.


----------



## Leslie (Feb 24, 2014)

Sticking to the original question, I'd propose that since curses can do actual damage, that both the church and the civil authorities should stand against those who engage in placing such curses.

It is not becoming to label supernatural phenomena from Satan as superstition, invoking a secular, naturalistic worldview contrary to the view of the scripture. Did the boy with seizures that Jesus heal really have nothing wrong with him? Was Luke just superstitious in labelling him as having a demon? How can you label curses as superstitions and then tell unbelievers that the miracles recorded in the gospel are not just OUR superstitions?


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Feb 25, 2014)

Leslie said:


> It is not becoming to label supernatural phenomena from Satan as superstition, invoking a secular, naturalistic worldview contrary to the view of the scripture. Did the boy with seizures that Jesus heal really have nothing wrong with him? Was Luke just superstitious in labelling him as having a demon? How can you label curses as superstitions and then tell unbelievers that the miracles recorded in the gospel are not just OUR superstitions?


Because many of us see no evidence of this post 96 A.D.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 25, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I don’t suppose anyone here cares to define the terms we are using in this thread. What exactly is a witch, and what exactly is entailed in witchcraft? Are there Biblical definitions or indications we might avail ourselves of?
> 
> In the Old Testament almost invariably the word for witch or sorcerer is _kesheph_ [SIZE=+1]%yIp;êv'K[/SIZE], and when the Jews translated the Hebrew into Greek they used the word _pharmakeia_ [SIZE=+1]farmakeia[/SIZE]. The word _pharmakeia_ refers to drugs used to bring a spiritual awareness and ability to contact demonic beings and manifest their influence in various ways. It was a death penalty to do this in the spiritually holy community of ancient Israel. In the New Testament church it was excommunication, and eternal death on those who continued in this unrepentant. Pertinent OT verses are Ex 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18; 9:11; 22:18; Deut 18:10; 2 Kings 9:22; 2 Chr 33:6; Dan 2:2; Isa 47:9, 12; Jer 27:9 [LXX Jer 34:9]; Mic 5:12; Nah 3:4; Mal 3:5). NT verses are Gal 5:20; Rev 9:21; 18:23; 21:8; 22:15. The sorcerers in Acts 8:9, 11 and 13:6, 8 are referred to in the Greek as magicians and likely engaged in _pharmakeia_ as well, as drugs and potions were key tools of this trade.
> 
> ...



Thanks Steve. Good thoughts and thanks for the verses.


----------



## Leslie (Feb 25, 2014)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > It is not becoming to label supernatural phenomena from Satan as superstition, invoking a secular, naturalistic worldview contrary to the view of the scripture. Did the boy with seizures that Jesus heal really have nothing wrong with him? Was Luke just superstitious in labelling him as having a demon? How can you label curses as superstitions and then tell unbelievers that the miracles recorded in the gospel are not just OUR superstitions?
> ...



None are so blind as those who refuse to see. Also, you are living in the wrong place for seeing this, though that is changing rapidly.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 25, 2014)

Power Encounters: Reclaiming Spiritual Warfare (Hourglass Books): David A. Powlison: 9780801071386: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 25, 2014)

Powlison’s is a good book, Perg, along with Satan Cast Out: A Study in Biblical Demonology, by Frederick S. Leahy, good antidotes to the errors and excesses of the “Spiritual Warfare Movement”, which, in part, is the seeing a demon behind every tree, as it were. It is the so-called “sanctification by exorcism” craziness, which bypasses moral responsibility with supposed “power deliverances” which falsities Powlison (of CCEF) well refutes in his, _Power Encounters_. 

I agree that superstition is a thing which ought have no place in the people of God.

To enter into the record at this point a definition:
Superstition: 1 a. A belief, conception, act, or practice resulting from ignorance, unreasoning fear of the unknown or mysterious, morbid scrupulosity, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. . . <_superstitions_ such as child-sacrifice, divination, soothsaying, enchantments, sorceries, charms, (by magic knots, spells, incantations), ghosts, spiritualistic mediums, necromancy> . . . b. an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from such beliefs, conceptions, or fears. 2 a. Idolatrous religion. . . 3: a fixed irrational idea : a notion maintained in spite of evidence to the contrary. (_Webster’s Third New International Dictionary_, 1971, p. 2296)​ 
Earl, if one is an instrument of foul spirits – and there are such practitioners – this is a “channeling” of sorts. Strangely, it is far removed from the awareness of many Western Christians who have no experience on various mission fields. There is indeed superstition, and then there is actuality. 

Vic, it’s really not diverging from the topic of the OP, for how do we apply what we do not even have knowledge concerning? And what if “witchcraft” is far more prevalent than activities on foreign mission fields – what if it really is connected with sorcerous drug use? Then we would indeed have to adjust our application of Exodus 22:18 to our present times, which our marijuana-loving culture would be loath to do, and would fight against, even some – oddly enough – within the church!


----------



## SRoper (Feb 25, 2014)

While I don't agree with Steve's interpretation of _pharmakeia_ (I think it is just as likely referring to poisons and abortifacients as it is to shamanistic practices), if he is correct it would have some bearing on how we apply Exodus 22:18 today; activities we might not associate with witchcraft ought to be classified as such.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 25, 2014)

Hello Scott, I appreciate your remarks, but how could "poisons and abortifacients" factor into the saying "for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived" in Revelation 18:23? If the translators thought _pharmakeia_ referred to those they would likely have written "poisons" and not "sorceries".


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 25, 2014)

Leslie said:


> Sticking to the original question, I'd propose that since curses can do actual damage, that both the church and the civil authorities should stand against those who engage in placing such curses.
> 
> It is not becoming to label supernatural phenomena from Satan as superstition, invoking a secular, naturalistic worldview contrary to the view of the scripture. Did the boy with seizures that Jesus heal really have nothing wrong with him? Was Luke just superstitious in labelling him as having a demon? How can you label curses as superstitions and then tell unbelievers that the miracles recorded in the gospel are not just OUR superstitions?



I am having trouble figuring out which curses are effective or not. Sometimes people report a curse working and other times they report a curse not working. The act of cursing, whether effective or not, seems to be grounds for church discipline. But civil penalties would seem to need proof of the curse having an effect before civil punishment could be enacted.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 25, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> I am having trouble figuring out which curses are effective or not. Sometimes people report a curse working and other times they report a curse not working. The act of cursing, whether effective or not, seems to be grounds for church discipline. But civil penalties would seem to need proof of the curse having an effect before civil punishment could be enacted.



I think the civil court would be a more dependable judge than many churches now a days. The reason I believe such is because the civil court would rule out the supernatural direct activity prima facie and make a judgment based on what the person did vs. the person saying the devil told him to do it. I think it is someone who said earlier that when one is predisposed to believe superstition they will put a supernatural cause to everything that goes bump in the night and I have no problem being called a "Western Christian". 

Just curious do you really witness supernatural activity where you work or do you just hear the stories?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 25, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > Sticking to the original question, I'd propose that since curses can do actual damage, that both the church and the civil authorities should stand against those who engage in placing such curses.
> ...



In OT Israel the elders would consult with the priests on such matters. By the first century the chief court, the Sanhedrin, consisted of both elders and priests.

There seemed to be various supernatural helps to the priests, e.g. the urim and thummim, the water of ordeal regarding adultery, etc. Although forensic science was basic, there may have been certain things that the theocracy had that we could never have.

The priests had to be sometimes involved, among other things, because if someone had to die for their crime(s) it was because there was no sacrifice available for their presumptuous sin under the _relatively_ inferior Mosaic administration. 

The blood of bulls and goats could be a type of Christ's atonement for lesser sins, but for the most presumptuous sins it couldn't be; although the death of the High Priest was sometimes a suitable atonement for bloodshed.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 25, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Witch-killings are done in places where the government has not entered in strength here. The tribal people (or the clans) do it themselves. They are a superstitious people.
> 
> Can you give me examples of righteous witch-killings in the New Testament or later?



Can you five an example in the NT or OT of a witch that did something only God could do? Of course I think this is the crux of the topic in that many believe witches practice supernatural powers over people or things.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 25, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Scott, I appreciate your remarks, but how could "poisons and abortifacients" factor into the saying "for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived" in Revelation 18:23? If the translators thought _pharmakeia_ referred to those they would likely have written "poisons" and not "sorceries".



I suppose it is similar imagery as intoxication. A drink tainted with poison may look appealing, but it is deadly. Poisoning requires deception.

In any case, I didn't mean to exhaust the meaning of _pharmakeia_ in my short reply. I understand there was also an ancient practice of writing a spell on paper and submersing it in a potion. That may be in view. Certainly, Scripture forbids occult practices that have no efficacy such as various methods of divination. The deception could just be being led astray after false practices.


----------



## M21195 (Feb 25, 2014)

Wayne said:


> > also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is an iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death.
> 
> 
> 
> This was Joseph Smith's offense, and on more than one occasion, pretending to locate gold or other precious items. And he was found guilty and fined in civil court in New York state in the early 1800's.



Where can I find out more about this offense of Joseph Smith?


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 25, 2014)

M21195 said:


> Wayne said:
> 
> 
> > > also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is an iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death.
> ...


Google "Joseph Smith" and "glass-looking'' and you'll find plenty...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 26, 2014)

Hello Scott, pardon me, please, if I wish to pursue this further for the sake of linguistic precision. It does not have to do with “similar imagery” or various ancient occultic practices (which may or may not have efficacy), but semantic range and use. The *Biblical* definition – as distinguished from the vast repository of occultic lore – pertains to capital-punishment-class offenses for the specific sin involving _pharmakeia_-category substances, used to induce trance or psychic states of consciousness to effect demonic activity (which may include intensifying mere sensuous pleasure). A brief lexical study follows:

With regard to *pharmakeia* – _BAGD _2nd Edition says that in Rev 18:23 the meaning is “sorcery, magic”, and in Rev 9:21, “magic arts”. It also gives usages in many other classical and LXX readings, but for brevity I’ll limit it to the NT usage, and will in the following citations also.

Concerning *pharmakon* – drug – in classical use (it’s not used in the AV NT) there are 3 meanings: 1) “poison”, 2) “magic potion, charm”, and 3) “medicine, remedy”. These are on page 854a of Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker’s, _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature_, 2nd Edition.

In both Biblical (as well classical) and modern Greek, the semantic range of these words with “similar lexemes” is clear. There are three primary uses of the basic word, _pharmakon_, drug: 1) medicinal / curative, 2) poison, and 3) magic potion. That’s the extent of the semantic range.

John was not talking of poisoners (murderers!) in Rev 21:8 and 22:15 as he had already listed “murderers” separately; neither was he talking of murders in Rev 9:21, as there also he had listed “murders” separately. Nor was he talking of legitimate medicines; these are used for curing illnesses and not for the deception of magic spells.

In the Liddell and Scott New Edition (Oxford 1940) of their, _A Greek-English Lexicon_, they note:
*Pharmakeia* – “the use of any kind of drugs, potions, or spells”, “use enchantments, practice sorcery”.

*Pharmakon* – “enchanted potion, philter: hence, charm, spell”

*Pharmakos* – “poisoner, sorcerer, magician”. These entries were all found on page 1917 of Liddell and Scott.​ 
And this is from Thayer’s _Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament_, 4th Edition:
*Pharmakeia*, “the use or administering of drugs . . . poisoning . . . sorcery, magical arts . . . [metaphorically] the deceptions and seductions of idolatry”

*Pharmakeus*, “one who prepares or uses magical remedies”

*Pharmakos*, “pertaining to magical arts”.​ 
I think this is sufficient for the moment to demonstrate that the underlying Greek for the word in Revelation translated “sorceries” – _pharmakeia_ – is directly and exclusively used to refer to drug use and drug-related activities of a certain kind, with the exception of Thayer who gives a metaphorical use as well, which shall be discussed just below.

To show why the use of “sorceries” in the Rev 18:23 passage refers to activities involving certain kinds of drugs rather than figuratively for mere deceptive practices, consider the classes of transgressors in Rev 21:8 who are consigned to the lake of fire: “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers [discussed above], and whoremongers, and *sorcerers*, and idolaters, and all liars”. Sorcerers (from _pharmakeus_) here specifically means one who administers or uses a certain class of drugs to “enchant”, to cast a psychic spell upon by use of these drugs and accompanying demonic power. It doesn’t mean a deceiver – a liar – generally or even figuratively, but specifically one who uses sorcerous potions. Liars / deceivers are already classed separately in this listing. Likewise in Rev 22:15 where a similar Greek word, _pharmakos_, is used for sorcerer, with the same meaning as _pharmakeus_ in 21:8, again with liars / deceivers named separately. In these verses the usage clearly refers to drug-using-and-promoting people, so at the very _least_ it is quite possible _pharmakeia_ / sorceries in Revelation 18:23 – “by thy sorceries were all nations deceived” – refers to drug-related activity and not deceptive practices. On the other hand there is no doubt at all that Thayer’s, “the deceptions and seductions of idolatry” *are a result of and part of* Babylon’s sorceries, but the sorceries themselves are distinctly _pharmakeia_ / *sorcery* activity.

--------

Scott, it would be strange if both the OT and the New _mandated_, respectively, the death penalty, and eternal damnation – for a vague and variously understood or defined practice. The uniform use of the language, along with their legally/culturally understood definitions, indicate specific sins involving a particular drug use.

If you will oppose this understanding you really should do better than vague suppositions, ignoring the historical-grammatical exegesis. Isaiah 47 has further background on the matter – for which the ancient Chaldean Babylon was judged – but the above should suffice.

I do think your observation above is quite to the point: “if [this understanding] is correct it would have some bearing on how we apply Exodus 22:18 today; activities we might not associate with witchcraft ought to be classified as such.” This really is the gist of what I am saying.


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 26, 2014)

I am but a babe in Christ with little formal education and, perhaps somewhat naive. I don't understand people who believe that God sent his only begotten Son to this world of time, to be the propitiation for our sins, raised Him from the dead, and that He sits at the right hand of the Father, the intercessor between us and our Holy Father, and who say they don't believe in the possibility of witches.

Our belief in the Holy Trinity is a belief in the supernatural as I define it. Does the devil 'as a roaring lion, walk the earth seeking whom he may devour', or doesn't he ? Paul say," For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

While we don't see witches in pointy hats flying around on broomsticks, or the devil with a pitchfork, horns and a barbed tail, is there any doubt that the devil is "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." ?

Would it be far fetched to attribute someone such as Theodore Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer as being demon possessed, or at the very least, under the influence of the devil ? I've never knowingly seen a witch, but I've been 'around' in my younger days and I've seen evil people. Where does our belief in the supernatural begin and end ? I also don't understand the purpose of the OP. The Church no longer has the power to execute a death sentence and civil authorities would never believe in witchcraft so it is a non starter and that seems to me to be obvious.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 27, 2014)

We live in domesticated spiritual times in the West, that is for sure. Our worldly comforts and incipient "naturalism" keep us from really grappling with the spiritual world.


----------



## Leslie (Feb 27, 2014)

From the time of the NT well through the time of the Puritans, and for at least 100 years thereafter, people believed in the reality of witches and curses. During the 18th and 19th centuries, with the enlightenment, our (Western, European) culture turned antisupernatural. The higher criticism took that to its logical conclusion as regards the Bible, spawning theological liberalism. Now the cultural pressures of the enlightenment are entering Reformed churches, causing the same drift. It seems a bit strange to me to maintain that the entire Christian church, including the Puritans, had an entirely erroneous wowrldview for 19 centuries, but now, with our superior wisdom, we know that demons ceased to function in AD 96, and that without a shred of scriptural evidence.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 27, 2014)

Much agreed Mary.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 27, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> Our belief in the Holy Trinity is a belief in the supernatural as I define it. Does the devil 'as a roaring lion, walk the earth seeking whom he may devour', or doesn't he ? Paul say," For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."



Rev. Winzer shed some light on the verse you cite as saying it is not comparative but parallel. In other words, the jist means we are wrestling against flesh and blood that is controlled by the spiritual.




JimmyH said:


> While we don't see witches in pointy hats flying around on broomsticks, or the devil with a pitchfork, horns and a barbed tail, is there any doubt that the devil is "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." ?.



I understand that the devil is a supernatural creature that still is unable to work on people like Our Lord can. In other words, when I see people say curses are real or that people are influenced by satan I throw out any possibility that people physically hear him as if he whispers in their ear audably. I suspect his influnence is limited to what happened to us in the fall of Adam and all people who are not regenerated by The Holy Spirit are activaly being influnenced by satan because of that.



JimmyH said:


> Would it be far fetched to attribute someone such as Theodore Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer as being demon possessed, or at the very least, under the influence of the devil ? I've never knowingly seen a witch, but I've been 'around' in my younger days and I've seen evil people. Where does our belief in the supernatural begin and end ? I also don't understand the purpose of the OP. The Church no longer has the power to execute a death sentence and civil authorities would never believe in witchcraft so it is a non starter and that seems to me to be obvious.



The state would be able to (if it was a proper Christian state) to punish evil doings like Geneva did. Alas here in the USA we have laws to protect false religion and In my most humble opinion we are not in God's favor as a country.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 27, 2014)

It seems part of the Enlightenment's anti-supernatural bent was a reaction against the madness and superstition exhibited during the European Witch Crazes.


----------



## Leslie (Feb 27, 2014)

The devil uses extremes within Christianity to discredit the whole movement; this is not a new tactic. Also,, sinful humans snatch at any excuse to malign people they don't like--like the blasphemy laws in South Asia.


----------



## KMK (Feb 28, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> If you don't have a copy of Carson's Exegetical Fallacies, I suggest you pick it up



Cool. I just bought mine for 9.99 on kindle.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 28, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> It seems part of the Enlightenment's anti-supernatural bent was a reaction against the madness and superstition exhibited during the European Witch Crazes.



Christians should have lead the way against such "madness and superstition".


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 28, 2014)

The "witch craze" is one of these things wildly overwrought in history books and popular culture. Much like the Inquisition there is far more fantasy and fiction than truth in most presentations of what actually took place in the "Medieval" period.


----------



## Leslie (Feb 28, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > Sticking to the original question, I'd propose that since curses can do actual damage, that both the church and the civil authorities should stand against those who engage in placing such curses.
> ...



I think the fact that God prescribed the death penalty for witches is evidence enough that curses do damage. How could God be just, putting people to death for something that is harmless. Over many years I've been collecting lore from around the world on curses and the like. There are many differences between various areas of the world, but some basic teachings are constant over cultures. Now I'm not claiming to believe this, but simply reporting commonly held beliefs among people who are into this.
1. In order to curse someone, an ordinary person must have the help of a shaman-sort; he must make a sacrifice, usually a blood sacrifice.
2. The more powerful the curse, the more expensive. Bubonic plague costs more than a sprained ankle. 
3. It depends on the receptivity of the one who is cursed, whether the curse will take or not. Western people who don't believe in the demonic are particularly vulnerable.
4. The person who is cursed can sometimes ward it off by consulting another shaman and also making a sacrifice, more expensive than his adversary.
5. If the curse doesn't take (as in the case of a believer who prays against it), then the curse boomerangs back onto the person who originally sent it. So people consider carefully whom they dare curse, and to what extent. 
In some areas shamans have cursing wars, back and forth, until one of them dies. 

In my humble opinion the word "superstition" should be struck from our vocabulary. As it is used, it simply means something the other guy believes that the speaker doesn't like, and he tries to heap scorn on the guy, rather than dealing rationally with evidence or lack thereof.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 28, 2014)

Leslie said:


> I think the fact that God prescribed the death penalty for witches is evidence enough that curses do damage. How could God be just, putting people to death for something that is harmless.



Perhaps, Mary, but God's prescribed punishment against the practice of witchcraft is consistent with his demand that his sovereignty be recognized. Witchcraft is a presumptuous sin, similar to the building of the tower of Babel. One who purports to have supernatural influence or control over God's creation invades God's domain and directly insults his sovereignty over all things.

It is not necessarily true that harm to people is the only reason God would prescribe a punishment, but I'd acknowledge that any time one presumes to operate outside of God's dictates, it will lead to ultimate harm to people.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 28, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > I think the fact that God prescribed the death penalty for witches is evidence enough that curses do damage. How could God be just, putting people to death for something that is harmless.
> ...


Blasphemy is a crime punished capitally. How is witchcraft or 'curses' not blasphemy? It is not 'harmless', and God would be just in putting to death every human for that crime alone, of which we are all guilty, leaving aside all the other crimes we commit daily against Him and our neighbor.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 1, 2014)

Blessings and curses seem pretty important in the OT (eg. Balaam).


----------



## Leslie (Mar 1, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Blessings and curses seem pretty important in the OT (eg. Balaam).



It's curious that Isaac was unable to undo the blessing he gave to Jacob. Also, the belief in curses (both the power of them and the boomerang) does enlighten the reading of Judges 17. These concepts are foreign to our culture. It's a challenge to figure out what simply reflects the beliefs at the time, and what is part of the Biblical worldview which we are obliged to embrace as our own.


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 1, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> What proof and what kinds of witchcraft demand what sorts of penalties?
> 
> During the European witch-craze my guess would be that the majority of the "witches" did not deserve death, and that most were not even true witches. How do you prevent abuses of this verse?
> 
> I minister in a place where witchcraft is feared and "witches" are killed.



You attempt to prevent abuses of one Biblical verse the same way you attempt to prevent abuses of any biblical verse -by teaching the truly biblical understanding instead of the error.


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 1, 2014)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The "witch craze" is one of these things wildly overwrought in history books and popular culture. Much like the Inquisition there is far more fantasy and fiction than truth in most presentations of what actually took place in the "Medieval" period.



True: For example, for the truth about the relatively mild abuses of the Spanish Inquisition see excepts from their actual records in Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Christianity.


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 1, 2014)

Leslie said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Leslie said:
> ...


Perhaps you should make clear that Christian Westerners who know the reality of the true spiritual realm may be attacked by curses, but in Christ they have full authority and power to resist, although in God's providence the full deliverance in particular cases may involve the prayer help of others.


----------

