Birth control and Christian colleges.

[Paul33]

Liddell-Scott Lexicon:
pharmakos, a poisoner, sorcerer, magician

Colin Brown, Dictionary of NT Theology, II, 558:
pharmakeus, mixer of potions, magician (Rev. 21:8)
The basic word pharmakon does not occur in the NT, but its meaning of medicine, magic potion, poison gives the underlying idea of the words.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich, p. 854

pharmakon, 1. poison, 2. magic potion, charm, 3. medicine, remedy, drug

pharmakeo, mix poison, make potions, practice magic

pharmakeus, mixer of poisons, magician Rev. 21:8

Larry,

The underlying word means drugs. We get the word pharmacy and pharmaceuticals from pharmakon!

The lexicons are clear. Pharmakon has three meanings: poison, potion (magic), or drug/medicine/remedy.

In Revelation 9:21, The rest of mankind that still were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands. They did not repent of their murders, pharmakon, their sexual immorality or their thefts.

What do you think pharmakon means in this context! These folks in the tribulation period are determined not to repent of their murders, drugs (pill?), sexual immorality, or their thefts (wife swaping, adulteries, fornications, the stealing of sexual activity from persons who don't belong to them?).

Is this a reach? Maybe. Is it blasphemy? Hardly.

The world today is heavily involved in murder through birth control pills and abortion, abortifacient drugs, sexual immorality, and thefts of spouses (lifestylers, swingers, etc.).

If you were John and you wanted to describe this type of condition on the earth, what Greek words would you use to paint this picture?

I think I've shown that pharmakon can mean poison or drugs/remedy.

I think I've shown that there could be a linkage of these words that means something for modern readers of the Scripture. Something that describes our society and world to a T.

 

[Paul33]

If a person were involved in sexual immorality and became pregnant, what kind of pharmakon (remedy/drug/medicine) would a person need to use to remedy the situation?

And if that person used the pharmakon, what would be the result of the pregnancy? A death of the baby (murder).

But I'm not supposed to see any linkage between these words: murder, pharmakos, sexual immorality, thefts as used in Rev. 9:21, 21:8, 22:15.

 

[dianetavegia]

Paul33, If a person is involved in sexual immorality and becomes pregnant, they should either accept responsibility and raise the child or put the child up for adoption. There is NO other Christian option! We adopted the baby our daughter had at 19. She had relations once with a college boy using a male barrier.

I used an IUD for a few years in between child 1 and 2 because in 1970 my doctor told me it prevented the sperm from reaching the egg and that I could NOT become pregnant. I found out that was untrue a few years ago and have repented of that use.

Diane

 

[Paul33]

In Zechariah 14:12, how many of you see a reference to a potential nuclear explosion?

In Revelation 11:8-10, how many of you see a reference to possible global satelite communications?

In Revelation 13:16-17, how many of you see a reference to possible computer chips able to limit who can buy and sell?

In Revelation 9:16, how many of you see a reference to a possible army from China numbering 200 million?

Then why is it so hard to see a reference in Rev. 9:21 to a possible world condition where mankind won't repent of their use of abortions (murder), abortifacient drugs (pharmakon), sexual immorality, and disregard for marriage (thefts)?

 

[Paul33]

Larry has said that Rev. 22:15 is a list of separate sins that have nothing in common with each other.

In Greek, when a series of nouns are used in the same case and number, the following nouns are often used as adjectives. Support for this hermeutic is found in: Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, Bullinger, p. 673.

"Though the Greeks did not name such a figure, it is clear that it is employed in Scripture. For we sometimes find three nouns instead of two, and in these cases there are two nouns exalted to the place of emphatic adjectives, which are thus raised to equal importance with the subject itself."

For example, John 14:6.

Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. Are we to understand these three nouns as a list of separate qualities that have nothing to do with each other? Or do nouns two and three (the truth and the life) modify the first noun, way?

Greek allows for the rest of the nouns in a series to modify the first noun. So what was Jesus saying?

Namely this, that he is the true, living way!

In Revelation 22:15, we have another series of nouns beginning with dogs! The series of nouns are: dogs, pharmakoi, sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters, those loving and practicing falsehood. This is why the NIV translates it, "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts (pharmakoi), etc.

What is this passage saying? The dogs are those who practice pharmakoi (drug use/abortifacient drugs?), sexual immorality, murder (abortion), idolatry (self-love, it's my body, self-esteem, etc.), falsehood (I can do anything I want to with my body sexually! Sex is a gift to be used whereever, whenever, with whomever.)

The dogs are the sexually immoral who do whatever they want in regards to sexuality, use abortifacient drugs, Ru-486, abortion, practice their false view of sexuality, and idolize themselves above any standard of marriage or morality. What I'm getting at is that it is not blasphemy to see the following nouns as descriptive modifiers for the first noun in a series of nouns. In this case, dogs!

Yes, I know that some of you will accuse me of reading into the text. But each of these nouns can appropriately be used to describe the dogs.

Revelation 9:21 is another series of nouns all in the same case and number. Nor did they repent of their murders. What kind of murders? Their pharmakon murders brought about by the sexual immorality and disregard for marriage (thefts). Their stealing of sexual acts with whomever, wherever.

Yes, I know that I will be accused of reading into the text. The text says thefts! How can you apply that to "the stealing of sexual acts." It is a modifier for murders. It draws meaning from the other modifiers in the text. Indiscriminate unlawful sexual acts stolen from outside the proper arena of human sexuality resulting in sexual immorality which is fostered by the use of pharmakon to rid oneself of the consequences of this immoral activity. This is the murder that they won't repent of!

Revelation 21:8 is also a series of nouns modifying cowardly.

[ October 29, 2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

[Paul33]

Also, both Rev. 21:8 and 22:15 are polysyndetons. A series of nouns connected by "and" to heighten and draw attention to each noun as it modifies "dogs" and "cowardly."

"Instead of hurrying us on, breathlessly, to reach the important conclusion; we are asked to stop at each point, to weigh each matter that is presented to us, and to consider each particular that is thus added and emphasized" (Bullinger, p. 208).

Added and emphasized! The dogs, for example, consist of a certain kind of person involved in certain kinds of activities. Polysyndeton adds and emphasizes additional characteristics that give us a fuller understanding of who and what the dogs are!

This is not a random, purposeless list of sins. This is a grouping of words put together under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to paint a picture for us to see!

I look forward to hearing your response to my six most recent posts, Larry.

 

[foxrev]

Diane:

With the greatest of respect to you

, my Christian Lady "sister" in the Lord, you state: 'Not every mother loves her children." True and I fully agree and unfortunately have seen this lack of "Natural affection" through the years in the ministry. Admonish is not a commmand (in the Greek), which was what I had in mind in my first post saying that God does not tell(Command) Mothers to love their children, that is, in the sense of "Children, Obey your parents." Not making a point, just want to be clear on what I was thinking.

Trust all is well with you! Wow, another week has passed!

 

[dianetavegia]

And I misread your post thinking you said God doesn't have to command mother's to love their children.....

Foxrev, it is almost impossible for me to even imagine a mother without natural affection. I felt it for Nick even before he was born and yet our daughter is the one who 'carried' him. He was handed to me first........ and I actually will forget that I didn't nurse him or give birth to him.

Hubby and I have just fallen in love with the 3 year old I keep. He's been away all week and I've really missed him.

Elnora, the 'fear' of my mother is of her outbursts and harsh, hatefilled words. I know a lot of families yell and it's just their 'way of life' but it horrified me as a child and Jim and I have never allowed our house to be like that. My step father died in March of 2003 and mother now has no one to terrorize. I'm an easy target because I won't fight back. Every phone call from her is a potential explosive situation and I'm so very tired of it!

Diane

 

[foxrev]

Diane:

As I set here and read your post, I cannot help but think how honorable you folks have been in taking in your grandchild. A cousin of mine did the same thing. Strangely enough, her daughter does not bother with the dear little child.

God's Grace. How amazing! He is so good to us to spare us a "repeat" in our homes of what ill we may have grown up with. I have no idea personally of this kind of treatment - thank the Lord!

Perhaps, yet, your Mother will know the joy of being set free from the anger that seems to be so deeply rooted in her life. "Feelings lie buried, that grace can restore."

 

[Pastor Larry]

I am deeply offended by your comments. I'm sorry you are so provoked that you would make them.

I am truly sorry that you are offended. I do get provoked when I see such a misuse of SCripture, and then the perpetuation of that misuse even after being corrected. The misuse of Scriptue cannot be tolerated because it undermines its truth.

I looked up pharmakia in the lexicons. Some definitions are poison; potions. And yes, there is a general use of the word to mean sorcery and magic arts. You know enough about Greek to know that a word doesn't carry with it every meaning attibuted to it in every usage.

But the fact remains that the idea of the potion involved has to do with their use in magic arts. The word is used twice in the NT, both in the context of soul damning sins. Generic drugs are certainly not a part of that. It is drugs used in false worship of the magic arts.

The word is used often in the LXX "each time in conection with a religion that worship other than the true God (omit references). Sorcery is in the same category with idolatry in Gal 5:20 also. Sorcery will play a large part in the future delusion created by the beast" (RL Thomas, Revelation 8-22, p. 452). Virtually all are agreed on this meaning. The word does not have to do with the use of drugs per se, but rather sorcery, magic arts particularly in false worship. This is seen clearly in Rev 18:23 where people are deceived by it. There, it is clearly false worship, not birth control.

irth control pills most certainly are a poison to the human body. They cause abortions.

Uh, No. Most do not agree with that.

My pointing out what pharmakia means and connecting it to the context from which it is used in Scripture is not a blatant use of Scripture.

It certainly is not blasphemy!

It is blasphemy because you used God's name to argue against something God did not argue against. You used his word to say that he believes birth contro is wrong. What God said was that magical arts and sorcery of false worship is wrong. You cannot use God's name for something he did not use it for.

What would cause you to react the way you did?

The misuse of Scripture. I think one of the biggest challenges of ministry is having to combat false teachesr who have used Scripture for their own ends. In the process, they have destroyed the meaning of the text. That is why so many think they can make SCripture mean anything they want it to. Scripture is the holy revelation of God. It is not your tool to prove or disprove your own personal ideas. If you have a problem with birth control, that is fine. It doesn't bother me. But you need to be straight up and admit it is your conclusion from what God teaches. IT is not what God himself teaches. I have no problem with people who don't use birth control. I do have a problem when people misuse God's word to try to tell others they can't. God didn't say that.

If a person were involved in sexual immorality and became pregnant, what kind of pharmakon (remedy/drug/medicine) would a person need to use to remedy the situation?

And if that person used the pharmakon, what would be the result of the pregnancy? A death of the baby (murder).

But I'm not supposed to see any linkage between these words: murder, pharmakos, sexual immorality, thefts as used in Rev. 9:21, 21:8, 22:15.

This is exactly the kind of argumentation that is bad. You have made huge jumps. IF someone is sexually immoral and gets pregnant, and then uses drugs to abort it (something rarely until recently), they have committed two sins. But that doesn't link those three together in the way you have. Notice that you have skipped the rest of the list. You have singled out three and connectd them together.

Revelation 22:15 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
Revelation 21:8 8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

John does not show any sort of causal or connective relationship at all between those three. There is a list and the list is a list of separate things. By contrast, notice Col 3 where "greed which is idolatry" shows a connective relationship. You have omitted certain things from your list in order to make your point. THat is bad exegesis.

YOur attempt to explain this as a series of modifiers is weak to say the least. The problem is that virtually the same list appears in 21:8 and there is not "dogs" for it to modify. That attempt breaks down in comparing the lists. It is far better to simply understand it to be a list of sins whose commonality is that those who commit them are not saved.

This is not a random, purposeless list of sins. This is a grouping of words put together under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to paint a picture for us to see!

I agree ... but that picture doesn't have anything to do with birth control. It has to do with sinners who are not saved. I think you have taken a very straightforward passage and made it hard.

If you want to condemn the use of drugs that cause abortion, I will gladly join you. I will not apply that however to the simple issue of birth control that is not abortive.

 

[Paul33]

Your last sentence is the key. I'm not applying these verses to "the simple issue of birth control that is not abortive." I'm applying these verses to abortifacient drugs that cause murder.

Pastor Larry, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree.

I've provided definitions from lexicons which prove that pharmakon means "drugs" without having to be within the context of magic arts or sorcery.

I've provided hermeneutics from Bullinger which shows that a series of nouns may act as modifiers.

You deny both!

So we disagree on exegesis.

The picture I think the texts are painting is one in which people in the last days will use abortifacient drugs (pharmakon) to absolve themselves (murder) of the consequences (pregnancy) of their own immorality.

These three words (murder, pharmakon, sexual immorality) are used three times in Revelation, always together, to represent activity in the last days! But you can't see that!

The day after pill, by the way, is a modern replacement for "herbs" (potions) used throughout the centuries to induce abortion.

You apologize, and then say I am blaspheming again. I think our misunderstanding, partly my fault, is not making it clear that I don't think these verses apply to birth control in general, but only to abortifacient drugs. But now that you have dug in your heels, I doubt that you will be able to admit that these verse "might" have something to do with abortifacient drugs.

Blasphemy is attributing to Satan the work of the Spirit. You accuse me of blatantly misusing Scripture. Well, what do you think you have just done? You blatantly misuse Scripture to call me a blasphemer! And what we are struggling with is how to interpret a text of Scripture.

You ought to be embarrassed.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You deny both!

Not really. The lexica do show that these drugs are connected with sorcery and magic arts. Bullinger is right in his exegetical principle to some degree. He has wrongly applied it.

The picture I think the texts are painting is one in which people in the last days will use abortifacient drugs (pharmakon) to absolve themselves (murder) of the consequences (pregnancy) of their own immorality.

Which again illustrate my point. You have singled out three of six as being connected. Why not the others? Why did you selectively connect these three? Why not connect the others? Or connect the dogs to the idolators, or the liars, or the sexually immoral with the liars, or some other arrangment? My point is that you chose three of six and connected them without reason for omitting the others. The text does not do that. Even if you accept Bullinger's hypothesis that the nouns are modifiers, it still omits certain ones without reason. That is creative at the very best. It is simply not founded on solid exegesis.

These three words (murder, pharmakon, sexual immorality) are used three times in Revelation, always together, to represent activity in the last days! But you can't see that!

Actually, the root of pharmokos is used a fourth time (Rev 18:23) and denies your usage of it. There, it is clearly connected with worship. But think again about your exegesis. It depends on a particular order: immorality, drugs, murder. (The immorality makes one pregnant, the drugs abort it, with the result of murder). In none of those three uses (9:21; 21:8; 22:15) is that the order. If you case is to stand, then the order should be different. It is not.

I do agree that these three word represent activity in the last day. What I disagree about is the activity they represent.

The day after pill, by the way, is a modern replacement for "herbs" (potions) used throughout the centuries to induce abortion.

And as I said, I will gladly stand with you against those kinds of drugs.

You apologize, and then say I am blaspheming again. I think our misunderstanding, partly my fault, is not making it clear that I don't think these verses apply to birth control in general, but only to abortifacient drugs. But now that you have dug in your heels, I doubt that you will be able to admit that these verse "might" have something to do with abortifacient drugs.

I apologized for offending you. I still think you have used God's name in vain, by attaching his name to your idea. If you want to limit this discussion only to abortive drugs, then I will agree with your position on the drugs, but not on the text. These verses still have nothing to do with abortive drugs.

Blasphemy is attributing to Satan the work of the Spirit.

No, not really. That is one aspect of blasphemy. That is not the sum total of blasphemy.

You ought to be embarrassed.

For what? All I did was point out that you misused a text. If you remember, the first time I pointed it out, I did not accuse you of blasphemy. IN fact, looking back now, I did not even accuse your interpretation of being blasphemous. I said you violated the third commandment. Here is what I said about blasphemy: This is either utter blasphemy or a mistake in your writing. Your interpretation is not the words of Jesus. Your interpretation is of the words of Jesus. You need to straighten that out in your own mind to avoid these kinds of statements that are blasphemy. You should not equate your words with the words of Jesus. If you remember, you constructed a sentence in which you appeared to equate your interpretation with teh words of Jesus. You said My interpretation of the words that you called nonsense are the words of JESUS. If you look at the sentence structure (taking out the modifying clause), you said My intepretation of the words ... are the words of Jesus.[/b] To equate your words with Jesus' words is blasphemous.

We can agree to disagree for sure. But I think we need a much more rigorous exegetical process than what has been shown here. We must not misuse the text to support our pet opinions.

I repeat: If you want to be against birth control, that is fine. Just don't misuse Scripture to do it. If you want to argue against abortive drugs, I will join you.

 

[foxrev]

Paul:

This is a most fascinating and applicable view of this passage! And we all know that it can most easily be the correct view, in light of differing views as well. We can surely see today, what those in years gone by, would never thought possible for someone to do to themselves - now being accepted by a wicked and corrupt society.

 

[foxrev]

Larry:

You are obviously exercised and have crossed the line with "Contending for the faith once delivered to the saints." Rather, a striving, contentious, critical spirit is manifesting itself in your treatment of others here on the board.

 

[Paul33]

In the LXX, many occurences of pharmakon are rightly translated sorcerer, because it is used in the context of wise men, diviners, enchanters, etc.

But here are three occurences where the context dictates that "a mixer of potions" would be a better translation because the context is sexuality.

Remember, there are three meanings given for pharmakon, 1. poison, 2. magic potion, 3. drugs/remedy/medicine.

Exodus: 22:16-18. Within the context of sexuality, verse 18 warns, "Do not allow a sorceress to live." A woman who seduces a man through the use of potions is not allowed to live. How might a woman seduce a man to have sex with her? She could say, "I have used my potions so that I can't get pregnant. Come on, sleep with me." Or, "Come on, sleep with me, I have potions that can resolve you of any responsibility."

The larger context of this passage deals with not mistreating others or disrespecting God.

Using potions to avoid pregnancy or get rid of a pregnancy is just the kind of meaning pharmakon has in this passage and it requires the death penalty. Here is a woman using potions to mistreat human life.

Nahum 3:1-19 is a poem in regards to Nineveh. In verse 4 the word pharmakon is used in the LXX. "All because of the wanton lust of a harlot, alluring, the mistress of sorceries, who enslaved nations by her prostitution and peoples by her witchcraft."

I would submit the following translation for the word pharmakon:

All because of the wanton lust of a harlot, alluring, the mixer of potions, who enslaved nations by her prostitution and peoples by her remedies.

It fits the context better and is true to the meanings given to pharmakon. This is a city of blood, full of lies and plunder, never without victims (v. 1). This is a city full of casulties, piles of dead, bodies without number, people stumbling over corpses (v. 3). Why? Because of the lust of a prostitute, alluring, seductive. She has her potions and remedies available by which she enslaves the nations! Same meaning as found in Exodus 22.

When God comes against her, he is going to expose her nakedness, lift her skirt above her face, treat her with contempt. In referring to her, God reveals that her infants were dashed to pieces at the head of every street (v. 10).

This is a poem using figurative language, but clearly "potions" is a better translation than "witchcraft."

Malachi 3:5 carries the same idea as Exodus 22. In fact, it appears to be a condensed version of Exodus 22. Instead of translating pharmakon as sorcerers in this verse, it would be better understood to mean "mixer of potions."

"So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against mixers of potions, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty.

 

[Paul33]

Pastor Larry,

I connected all of the words.

In Rev. 21:8, the emphasis is on the "cowardly."

In Rev. 22:15, the emphasis is on "dogs."

In Rev. 9:21, the emphasis is on "murders."

Please go back and read my posts. You will see that I connected all of the nouns in each of the three texts. I did highlight that pharmakon, murders, and sexual immorality are in all three lists!

The word order changes depending on what is being emphasized. But in each list, I connected all of the words.

In Revelation 18:23, there is nothing in the context that would prohibit translating pharmakon as potions. This is Babylon, the great harlot who committed adultery with the kings of the earth (18:3,6,9). I would translate ver 23 as:

"By your potions all the nations were led astray."

Revelation 18:6 even says, "Give back to her as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup." In other words, give her some of her own medicine (pharmakon)!

It appears to me that when pharmakon is used within the context of sexuality, adultery, immorality, it has the meaning of "potions" or "mixer of potions."

Every appearance of the root form "pharmakon" in the book of Revelation is better rendered "potions" or "mixer of potions."

[ October 30, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

[Paul33]

Larry,

Assuming my interpretation is wrong and that I'm reading into the text instead of seeking to understand the meaning of words, grammar, context, and figures of speech, so that I can relate it to the last days, how does that equate to blasphemy?

When you preach your "interpretation" of Scripture, and a member of your church disagrees with your interpretation, and you say, "No, the Word of God clearly says this," does your church member have the right to say to you, "You are blaspheming God because you are attributing your interpretation to be the correct interpretation, and you are wrong!"

Is this what we have come down to?

 

[Paul33]

Rigorous exegetical process.

I've given all kinds of evidence. Where's yours?

You didn't just point out that you disagreed with my interpretation. You said that I raped the text. You said that I blasphemed. You said that I wouldn't change my view after being corrected.

Again. Where is your exegetical proof that pharmakon must always carry with it the idea of sorcery or magic arts or witchcraft?

Where is your exegetical proof that Bullinger is wrong? How is he wrong?

 

[Pastor Larry]

You are obviously exercised and have crossed the line with "Contending for the faith once delivered to the saints." Rather, a striving, contentious, critical spirit is manifesting itself in your treatment of others here on the board.

Not at all.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by Paul33:

You apologize, and then say I am blaspheming again. I think our misunderstanding, partly my fault, is not making it clear that I don't think these verses apply to birth control in general, but only to abortifacient drugs. But now that you have dug in your heels, I doubt that you will be able to admit that these verse "might" have something to do with abortifacient drugs.

I'm not trying to be obnoxious here. But I went back and looked at my previous posts. When I first mentioned the word "pharmakoi" I made it clear that I thought this was a reference to abortifacient drugs, not birth control in general.

Let's at least agree about what we are talking about. I am saying that "pharmakoi" in the context of sexual behavior is best understood to be abortifacient drugs (potions/remedies).