Mark 1:1
The book of Mark has the distinction not only of being the shortest of the Gospel accounts but also is believed to be the earliest Gospel written. The Bible is not arranged by
chronology but by subject matter. And although Matthew is placed in our modern Bibles first, the book of Mark is actually believed to have been written first. This book was penned by none other than John Mark the nephew of Barnabas, the one who abandoned Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey and was the subject of the falling out of Paul and Barnabas at the
beginning of the second. (Acts 15) Mark although not an apostle appears to have been a companion of the apostles and of Christ and as such was a first hand witness life, teachings and work of Christ. We are going to just barely take a step into this book and examine just this first verse this morning. This verse although considered by many to be no more than just a title,
is nonetheless filled with meaning and significance.
I. WHAT THIS BEGINNINGIS NOT
This is not the origin of the good news of Christ, for according to Rev. 13:8 Christ is “…the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Before there was a sinner there was already a Savior, and before there was ever a sin there was already a sacrifice, that is to say that in the counsel of the will of the Father before man ever fell He had already provided the remedy. From the moment humanity fell a promise went forth (Gen. 3:15), and from that time He was spoken of in the Law, and in the Psalms and in the Prophets. 1 Peter 1:18-20 "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold,from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," He was foreordained to be this Lamb, Whose blood would be the currency of our redemption, but He was manifest, was brought to light, revealed to this generation who gave us these Gospel accounts. Some say all this verse is is the title of the book and thus means nothing more than the beginning of Mark’s account of the life of Jesus. If that is the case why did Mark not begin with a genealogy as in Matthew? Or why did he not begin with the events surrounding the birth of Jesus as in Luke? Or why did Mark not follow John’s footsteps and begin in the expanse of eternity past?
II. WHAT THIS BEGINNING IS
The N.T. begins with a beginning in the same way the O.T. begins with a beginning, and how appropriate Mark would begin where he did. If you’ll read down you’ll discover where Mark begins is the ministry of John the Baptist who was the forerunner of Christ. His ministry simply put was to prepare the Jewish nation for the arrival of the kingdom of God and the King of
the kingdom, Christ. Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.”
The O.T. although filled with greatest of God, is also filled with the failure of Adam and his posterity. Although it does chronicle the goodness of God and the hope of a bright future we have by placing our trust in Him, it also chronicles the absolute depravity of mankind, failure after failure to obey God, even in post exilic times decay ensues. Then comes 400 long years of silence from heaven, where God does not address Israel as a nation. And then all of a sudden we hear
a voice coming out of the wilderness and he is saying prepare ye the way of the Lord. The O.T. ends with the promise “He is coming”…the N.T. begins with “He is here.” This is the chronicle of the second Adam Who has come to restore all things and to usher in the kingdom of God on
earth. This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Sunday, August 29, 2010
The Organized Church
There is a dual definition to the term church. One is the corporate body of Christ and the other is the local assembly. Those local assemblies were organized. There is a move away from what some call the "organized church" in our day, they say that the local church in the scriptures was only a loose fellowship of believers meeting in houses with no leadership and no organization. Is that what N.T. churches looked like in the Bible?
1.)They had officers that had to meet specific qualifications. (Eph. 4:11;Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-13)
2.)They had a prescribed mission. (Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 1:8)
3.)They had ordinances given to them to observe with instructions on how they were to be observed. (Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23-34)
4.) There was a prescribed procedure for judging matters and disciplining errant believers. (Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-15; 1 Cor. 6:1-8)
Were there churches meeting in houses? Certainly (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 1:2) But that was not to the exclusion of larger assemblies. 120 believers were meeting in the upper room in Acts 1. A number of believers were meeting in an upper room in Troas in Acts 20. My point is that there seems to be the idea of believers meeting in homes throughout the week, then on Sunday they would meet corporately.
The argument against the organized church is not tenable.
1.)They had officers that had to meet specific qualifications. (Eph. 4:11;Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-13)
2.)They had a prescribed mission. (Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 1:8)
3.)They had ordinances given to them to observe with instructions on how they were to be observed. (Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23-34)
4.) There was a prescribed procedure for judging matters and disciplining errant believers. (Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-15; 1 Cor. 6:1-8)
Were there churches meeting in houses? Certainly (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 1:2) But that was not to the exclusion of larger assemblies. 120 believers were meeting in the upper room in Acts 1. A number of believers were meeting in an upper room in Troas in Acts 20. My point is that there seems to be the idea of believers meeting in homes throughout the week, then on Sunday they would meet corporately.
The argument against the organized church is not tenable.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Contradictions of Egalitarianism
There is a very militant faction today that rebels against all authority. In particular this group says that nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to submit to her husband. They generally will proceed with a three phase argument that is self contradictory. The argument goes as follows:
1.) The scriptures that clearly tell women to submit to their husbands are really products of centuries of bad translation. If this fails to convince then they proceed to the next argument:
2.) The scriptures in question should only be construed to apply to the culture of the 1st century only and not to today. If that fails they proceed to the next argument:
3.) Some in this camp that are at least more consistent about their argument simply say that the Bible is wrong on this citing the human component of scriptures as being in error.
The problem with this progression of argumentation is that each point contradicts the previous one. Point one says the scriptures were mistranslated, but point two says they were translated properly but are misapplied culturally. Point three says that neither point one nor two are correct because the original scriptures were always errant in as much as the human component is concerned.
My point? That this demonstrates that the egalitarian group is not interested in the truth or they wouldn't resort to obviously contradictory and dishonest argumentation. What's tragic is that submission is at the very heart of what it means to be Christ-like. "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:5-11) ESV
More on these points later.
1.) The scriptures that clearly tell women to submit to their husbands are really products of centuries of bad translation. If this fails to convince then they proceed to the next argument:
2.) The scriptures in question should only be construed to apply to the culture of the 1st century only and not to today. If that fails they proceed to the next argument:
3.) Some in this camp that are at least more consistent about their argument simply say that the Bible is wrong on this citing the human component of scriptures as being in error.
The problem with this progression of argumentation is that each point contradicts the previous one. Point one says the scriptures were mistranslated, but point two says they were translated properly but are misapplied culturally. Point three says that neither point one nor two are correct because the original scriptures were always errant in as much as the human component is concerned.
My point? That this demonstrates that the egalitarian group is not interested in the truth or they wouldn't resort to obviously contradictory and dishonest argumentation. What's tragic is that submission is at the very heart of what it means to be Christ-like. "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:5-11) ESV
More on these points later.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Damnation of Infants
There are those of the more hyper side of calvinism who actually hold to the idea that infants who die are sent to hell. This is a classic example of a paradigm driven interpretation of the scriptures. They suppose that since all are born sinners and since an infant cannot believe they are cast into hell as one of God's nonelect. It's sort of strange how that Calvinists taut the sovereignty of God and then at the same time try to confine him to a box of their own design. The idea of God damning infants is a repugnant doctrine, and anyone who teaches such nonsense does not understand the love of God whatsoever, and they certainly do not understand God's feeling toward children.
What God Says About Children
"And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." (Luke 18:15-17)
"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matthew 18:1-14)
In these two passages we see Jesus teachings about children. He said of children "...of such is the kingdom of God." indicating that the kingdom is made up of children. He said that we must humble ourselves as these children in order to "...enter the kingdom of heaven..." He said that it was not the will of the Father "...that one of these little ones should perish."
Further, if infants who die are damned it would make some of the teachings in the Bible make no sense.
"Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth out of the womb? Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been; I should have been carried from the womb to the grave." (Job 10:18-19)
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with life's good things, and he also has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he." (ESV) (Ecclesiastes 6:3)
If infants who die are damned then Job's and Solomon's assertion would be ridiculous. How would dying at birth be something that Job longed for? How would a still born baby be superior to a man who lives a long time and does not enjoy the good of this life?
The hyper Calvinist wishes to maintain the paradigm at all costs, even the cost of the damnation of babies. They say that God is holy, just, righteous and sovereign, and then present a God Who is none of these things, but rather the author of sin and corruption. The God of the Bible is holy, just, righteous and sovereign because He is not the Author of sin and corruption.
What Others Have Said About Infant Damnation
“I have never, at any time in my life, said, believed, or imagined that any infant, under any circumstances, would be cast into hell. I have always believed in the salvation of all infants, and I intensely detest the opinions which your opponent dared attribute to me. I do not believe that on this earth, there is a single professing Christian holding the damnation of infants; or if there be, he must be insane, or utterly ignorant of Christianity.” Ian H. Murray, Letters of Charles Haddon Spurgeon: Selected with Notes by Iain H. Murray (London: Banner of Truth, 1992), 150.
"Among the gross falsehoods that have been uttered against the Calvinist proper is the wicked calumny that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere in some corner of the earth a miscreant...a criminal...who would dare to say that there were infants in hell but I have never met with him nor have I met with a man who ever saw such a person. We say with regard to infants, Scripture saith but little and therefore where Scripture is confessedly scant it is for no man to determine dogmatically but I think I speak for the entire body, or certainly with exceedingly few exceptions and those are known to me when I say we hold that all infants who die are elect of God and are therefore saved. And we look to this as being the means by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul to a great degree and we do sometimes hope that thus the multitude of the saved shall be made to exceed the multitude of the lost. Whatever views our friends may hold upon the point, they are not necessarily connected with Calvinistic doctrine. I believe that the Lord Jesus who said 'of such is the Kingdom of Heaven' doth daily and constantly receive into His loving arms those tender ones who are only shown and then snatched away to heaven." – C.H. Spurgeon
The damnation of infants is a repugnant, despicable doctrine put forth by those who neither understand nor possess the love of God.
What God Says About Children
"And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." (Luke 18:15-17)
"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matthew 18:1-14)
In these two passages we see Jesus teachings about children. He said of children "...of such is the kingdom of God." indicating that the kingdom is made up of children. He said that we must humble ourselves as these children in order to "...enter the kingdom of heaven..." He said that it was not the will of the Father "...that one of these little ones should perish."
Further, if infants who die are damned it would make some of the teachings in the Bible make no sense.
"Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth out of the womb? Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been; I should have been carried from the womb to the grave." (Job 10:18-19)
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with life's good things, and he also has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he." (ESV) (Ecclesiastes 6:3)
If infants who die are damned then Job's and Solomon's assertion would be ridiculous. How would dying at birth be something that Job longed for? How would a still born baby be superior to a man who lives a long time and does not enjoy the good of this life?
The hyper Calvinist wishes to maintain the paradigm at all costs, even the cost of the damnation of babies. They say that God is holy, just, righteous and sovereign, and then present a God Who is none of these things, but rather the author of sin and corruption. The God of the Bible is holy, just, righteous and sovereign because He is not the Author of sin and corruption.
What Others Have Said About Infant Damnation
“I have never, at any time in my life, said, believed, or imagined that any infant, under any circumstances, would be cast into hell. I have always believed in the salvation of all infants, and I intensely detest the opinions which your opponent dared attribute to me. I do not believe that on this earth, there is a single professing Christian holding the damnation of infants; or if there be, he must be insane, or utterly ignorant of Christianity.” Ian H. Murray, Letters of Charles Haddon Spurgeon: Selected with Notes by Iain H. Murray (London: Banner of Truth, 1992), 150.
"Among the gross falsehoods that have been uttered against the Calvinist proper is the wicked calumny that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere in some corner of the earth a miscreant...a criminal...who would dare to say that there were infants in hell but I have never met with him nor have I met with a man who ever saw such a person. We say with regard to infants, Scripture saith but little and therefore where Scripture is confessedly scant it is for no man to determine dogmatically but I think I speak for the entire body, or certainly with exceedingly few exceptions and those are known to me when I say we hold that all infants who die are elect of God and are therefore saved. And we look to this as being the means by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul to a great degree and we do sometimes hope that thus the multitude of the saved shall be made to exceed the multitude of the lost. Whatever views our friends may hold upon the point, they are not necessarily connected with Calvinistic doctrine. I believe that the Lord Jesus who said 'of such is the Kingdom of Heaven' doth daily and constantly receive into His loving arms those tender ones who are only shown and then snatched away to heaven." – C.H. Spurgeon
The damnation of infants is a repugnant, despicable doctrine put forth by those who neither understand nor possess the love of God.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
My Blog List
I just wanted to let everyone know that just because I read a particular blog and place them on "My Blog List" dose not necessarily mean that I endorse everything that is posted on it. I believe that if we can deal with specific issues that are expressed on these blogs by shining the light of scripture on them perhaps we can learn to at least treat one another in a Christian manner.
I must admit that I am disturbed at the apparent animosity against full time pastors on some of these blogs. The fact is that the scripture clearly teaches that people that have dedicated themselves to full time service are to be supported by the body of believers. This is what God says in His scriptures.
I invite your comments on this, but please bring the Bible to bear on the subject and don't make arbitrary statements like:"Paul preached for free", back it up with the scripture.
I must admit that I am disturbed at the apparent animosity against full time pastors on some of these blogs. The fact is that the scripture clearly teaches that people that have dedicated themselves to full time service are to be supported by the body of believers. This is what God says in His scriptures.
I invite your comments on this, but please bring the Bible to bear on the subject and don't make arbitrary statements like:"Paul preached for free", back it up with the scripture.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
DEALING WITH IMMORALITY IN THE CHURCH
1 Corinthians 5:1-5
Introduction: In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul was dealing with a church that had a lot of problems. One such problem was that there was open immorality in the church and no one was addressing it. What is the church supposed to do with its members who are living in blatant immorality? We will see what the scriptures say and the reasons for it in a two blog series on DEALING WITH IMMORALITY IN THE CHURCH.
I. THE PROBLEM ADDRESSED – vs. 1, 2a
Paul immediately cites two glaring problems in the church.
A. Open Immorality In The Church – vs. 1
A man was having an illicit affair with his father’s wife (stepmother). Not only was this happening, but it was public knowledge (reported commonly). This is obvious because Paul had heard about it all the way over in Ephesus. This sin was especially heinous in light of the fact that this was not something that even the pagan unbelievers would do. In the O.T. for a man to have an affair with his stepmother was just as incestuous as with his mother. Leviticus 18:7, 8
B. The Church’s Pride Kept Them From Mourning Over This – vs. 2a
Paul had already addressed the pride of the Corinthians which caused them not to be able to have a proper view of themselves. Their pride in this case had caused them not to recognize nor be grieved over the immorality in the church. Pride is deceitful and blinds people to the truth; Satan himself was deceived by his own pride. Ezek. 28:13-18 Some also have suggested that because of the Church’s concern over being accepted by the Corinthian society, they were actually proud of the immoral actions of this man.
II. THE ACTION DEMANDED – vs. 2b-5
Paul explains to them the steps that must be taken to remedy this situation.
A. They Must Exclude The Man From Fellowship – vs. 2b-4
Nothing is said about the woman, it is assumed that she was not a believer, and therefore, the church had no authority over her. The church was to assemble with the purpose of taking care of this matter. The church is authorized and empowered to transact this kind of business. Matthew 18:15-17 And the result was to be that the man was removed from their fellowship. A number of scriptures deal with a believer avoiding other believers who live immorally. 2 Thess. 3:6 We will talk about the reason for this in our next lesson.
B. They Must Deliver Him Unto Satan For The Destruction Of The Flesh – vs. 5
The word “deliver” in our text is a judicial term and means to hand one over to the custody of another, in this case, Satan. Satan cannot harm the spirit of a believer, but if permitted, he can harm the body (flesh). Job 2:1-6 According to the construct of this text it appears that when a church must withdraw fellowship from an unruly believer it opens the way for God to permit Satan to begin to destroy the flesh of that person. Matthew 18:18 This has for its goal the correction of the unruly believer. 1 Timothy 1:20
Conclusion: This may run counter to our culture and even sometimes our own sensitivities, but there are several reasons why this must be done. We will discuss those reasons in our next blog.
Introduction: In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul was dealing with a church that had a lot of problems. One such problem was that there was open immorality in the church and no one was addressing it. What is the church supposed to do with its members who are living in blatant immorality? We will see what the scriptures say and the reasons for it in a two blog series on DEALING WITH IMMORALITY IN THE CHURCH.
I. THE PROBLEM ADDRESSED – vs. 1, 2a
Paul immediately cites two glaring problems in the church.
A. Open Immorality In The Church – vs. 1
A man was having an illicit affair with his father’s wife (stepmother). Not only was this happening, but it was public knowledge (reported commonly). This is obvious because Paul had heard about it all the way over in Ephesus. This sin was especially heinous in light of the fact that this was not something that even the pagan unbelievers would do. In the O.T. for a man to have an affair with his stepmother was just as incestuous as with his mother. Leviticus 18:7, 8
B. The Church’s Pride Kept Them From Mourning Over This – vs. 2a
Paul had already addressed the pride of the Corinthians which caused them not to be able to have a proper view of themselves. Their pride in this case had caused them not to recognize nor be grieved over the immorality in the church. Pride is deceitful and blinds people to the truth; Satan himself was deceived by his own pride. Ezek. 28:13-18 Some also have suggested that because of the Church’s concern over being accepted by the Corinthian society, they were actually proud of the immoral actions of this man.
II. THE ACTION DEMANDED – vs. 2b-5
Paul explains to them the steps that must be taken to remedy this situation.
A. They Must Exclude The Man From Fellowship – vs. 2b-4
Nothing is said about the woman, it is assumed that she was not a believer, and therefore, the church had no authority over her. The church was to assemble with the purpose of taking care of this matter. The church is authorized and empowered to transact this kind of business. Matthew 18:15-17 And the result was to be that the man was removed from their fellowship. A number of scriptures deal with a believer avoiding other believers who live immorally. 2 Thess. 3:6 We will talk about the reason for this in our next lesson.
B. They Must Deliver Him Unto Satan For The Destruction Of The Flesh – vs. 5
The word “deliver” in our text is a judicial term and means to hand one over to the custody of another, in this case, Satan. Satan cannot harm the spirit of a believer, but if permitted, he can harm the body (flesh). Job 2:1-6 According to the construct of this text it appears that when a church must withdraw fellowship from an unruly believer it opens the way for God to permit Satan to begin to destroy the flesh of that person. Matthew 18:18 This has for its goal the correction of the unruly believer. 1 Timothy 1:20
Conclusion: This may run counter to our culture and even sometimes our own sensitivities, but there are several reasons why this must be done. We will discuss those reasons in our next blog.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Is Marijuana Really A Bad Thing?
One of the most popular arguments for the use of marijuana is that it's natural, God created it , so it must be okay to use it. It is true that God created the Indian hemp plant where man gets the marijuana leaves and the cannabis, for that matter He created the coca plant where man produces cocaine and even chewing the coca leaves produces stimulation, God created the poppy where man gets opium, and from that morphine and heroin. Genesis 1:11, 12 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
The first answer is that in and of itself no plant is evil, and as a matter of fact the scripture says like in every other aspect of God's creation, God pronounced that the plantlife was "good". In other words, in its original creation everything was exactly as God designed and so the plantlife was "good". But, just because something is not in and of itself evil does not mean that man cannot use it for evil purposes. God created food, yet man can become a glutton and thereby use something that in itself is not evil for evil purposes. God created sex, and in the context of marriage it is an honorable and holy thing. Hebs. 13:4 "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." But, as the text says, sex can be perverted into a unholy thing like in the case of adultery. So, quite frankly, the argument that marijuana is a naturally occuring plant that God created, so it must be okay to dry its leaves and smoke them doesn't wash. The reason for this is the purpose for which people use it. People use marijuana for the purpose of getting "high" or intoxicated, which is clearly condemned in scripture.
In Galatians 5:19-21 there are two terms used that are related to this subject, the text is describing the works of the flesh, and names both drunkeness and witchcraft as works of the flesh. Drunkeness of course means intoxication, witchcraft is the Greek word "pharmakeia" and it is where we get the English word pharmacy. According to Thayer's Greek Definitions this word means "the use or the administering of drugs", of course this is used in connection with the dark arts, nontheless it is listed as a work of the flesh.
When this subject is brought up the question is always asked about the medicinal use of marijuana. Simply put medical science has taken all the beneficial elements of marijuana and put them into pill form, therefore a person now has access to the benefits without the high. It's amazing how when this alternative is mentioned suddenly the proponents of medicinal marijuana become less than enthusiastic indicating their motivation for supporting this movement.
In conclusion, as believers in Christ who seek to honor God with our bodies, we should never seek to be intoxicated. Yes, we may have illnesses or surgeries that require us to have to take mood or mind altering drugs (i.e. morphine), but we should never be people who seek or desire to get intoxicated. And just because something was created by God does not mean that God intended for us to use it for evil purposes.
The first answer is that in and of itself no plant is evil, and as a matter of fact the scripture says like in every other aspect of God's creation, God pronounced that the plantlife was "good". In other words, in its original creation everything was exactly as God designed and so the plantlife was "good". But, just because something is not in and of itself evil does not mean that man cannot use it for evil purposes. God created food, yet man can become a glutton and thereby use something that in itself is not evil for evil purposes. God created sex, and in the context of marriage it is an honorable and holy thing. Hebs. 13:4 "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." But, as the text says, sex can be perverted into a unholy thing like in the case of adultery. So, quite frankly, the argument that marijuana is a naturally occuring plant that God created, so it must be okay to dry its leaves and smoke them doesn't wash. The reason for this is the purpose for which people use it. People use marijuana for the purpose of getting "high" or intoxicated, which is clearly condemned in scripture.
In Galatians 5:19-21 there are two terms used that are related to this subject, the text is describing the works of the flesh, and names both drunkeness and witchcraft as works of the flesh. Drunkeness of course means intoxication, witchcraft is the Greek word "pharmakeia" and it is where we get the English word pharmacy. According to Thayer's Greek Definitions this word means "the use or the administering of drugs", of course this is used in connection with the dark arts, nontheless it is listed as a work of the flesh.
When this subject is brought up the question is always asked about the medicinal use of marijuana. Simply put medical science has taken all the beneficial elements of marijuana and put them into pill form, therefore a person now has access to the benefits without the high. It's amazing how when this alternative is mentioned suddenly the proponents of medicinal marijuana become less than enthusiastic indicating their motivation for supporting this movement.
In conclusion, as believers in Christ who seek to honor God with our bodies, we should never seek to be intoxicated. Yes, we may have illnesses or surgeries that require us to have to take mood or mind altering drugs (i.e. morphine), but we should never be people who seek or desire to get intoxicated. And just because something was created by God does not mean that God intended for us to use it for evil purposes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)