ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Explain Exodus 22:18

What is the application of EXODUS 22:18 & DEUTERONOMY 18:10-12 Today? Or should we ignore these scriptures?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Relationships Quiz
 ---Doug on 5/13/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (6)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog

Most of you are all dancing around Ex 22:18-as it is very 'traditional' in protestant and RCC to burn witches. This is a case where literalism is dismissed when it is uncomfortable, rendering caprisious a major doctrine of fundaentalism.
---MikeM on 1/5/08

EX. 22:18 "Do not allow a sorceress to live.

Dt. 18:10-11 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.

These laws were given to the Jewish nation and not to the church. Our instruction is to obey the laws of our land (Romans 13) and if we do not like them, there are peaceful ways to change them.
---lee on 1/4/08

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
God hated witchcraft and sorcery and diviners, etc. In order for the children of Israel to stay sinless and pure, God told them not to "suffer", allow, a witch to live. This is how they got sin out of the camp, by removing the one(s) practicing it.
---Chipper on 3/11/07

We don't go around killing witches, sorcerers, tarot card readers, those who hold seances, et al today. We are to approach them with concern for their souls and show Gods mercy and grace. If God killed all sinners today, there probably only be 47 people left on the earth.(just kidding about the 47).
---Chipper on 3/11/07

Deuteronomy 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
These were traits of the Canaanite nations which God hated and ultimately wanted destroyed. It was also whoredom and adultery towards God to go after other gods.
God was to be their only source of dependancy.
---Chipper on 3/11/07

Ignoring words of life that keeps us from death would be incidious.
---StellaD on 3/9/07

MikeM--guess I did get my terms mixed up, thanks for explaining. I've heard a little about the group in S.C., but can't imagine they would ever get much support. It's a BIG job trying to change a form of government, esp. one as well-established as ours.
---Donna2277 on 5/23/06

Karan; Sometimes the truth is joyful, sometimes negative. In macro issues, like salvation, truth is of more value than feelings. I just like straight answers. I been asking the same ones for years. Oh I am having a bad day, as a kid they fed me Flinstone vitimins, now I take Prozac shaped like my parents.(grin)
---MikeM on 5/23/06

Mike, thank you for your lessons today. I find your answers very negative. Is there anything good you like to speak of today? Maybe today you can find yourself in a better mood, then yesterday's. Maybe today you can say something good about something. I see your name all over the place trying to make yourself known but nothing helpful so far. How about some Scriptures and a point. All I hear is your unhappeness for everything.
---karen on 5/23/06

Like some US slang not crossing the Atlantic well, so is the British sense of Fair Play.

Please explain it
---John_T on 5/23/06

John T ... I have not been ill recently ... what is wrong with me is high blood pressure, and it is just a question of living with the condition. There are many who have far worse illnesses and problems, not just this which an inconvenience.
At the the matter you raise, maybe you are not familiar with the British sense of Fair Play
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/23/06

In South Carolina some 'reconstructionist' Calvinist have begun a new 'succession movement.' they take themselves seriously. They have no problem claiming to want a Biblical theocracy, and all that comes with it.(I do not know if the moderators allow semi-public figures to be named here, so respectfully, I won't) The reconstructionist Calvinist are at least not ashamed to express what they really believe in.
---MikeM on 5/23/06

No Donna, I cant seem to get straight answers from the Calvinist. A point of clarity; perhaps you have Dominion theology confused with liberation theology, Liberation theology was a leftest form of Christianity in latin America decades ago, more Catholic oriented. Dominion theology is a Calvinist notion, sometimes called Kingdon theology, or reconstructionism. They have many web sites. Through they are Calvinist, they have had some influence on the religious right.
---MikeM on 5/23/06

#2 Dominion theology used to be a serious thing in Central and S. America. But I've never heard, in this country, a word of disdain toward democracy. Never known even one who seemed interested in burning witches or anybody else. If they were nearly as intense in these beliefs as you are in railing against them, I might understand.
---Donna2277 on 5/23/06

MikeM--#1 I don't know about others, but personally, even though I've been exposed to a lot of Calvinism, your response to Calvinism just leaves me bewildered. You seem literally driven by your obsession with Calvinism. I don't know if anybody can give you the "straight" answers you want.
---Donna2277 on 5/23/06

Mike: 2/2
Because "humor" on the "serious blogs" often comes off poorly (Cornell recently published a study on this)I suggest that you stick to the facts. Doing otherwise makes you seem either sarcastic or condescending.
---John_T on 5/23/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers

Lupe; "Mike, why do you say BBQ babies? In your own words you make a mockery of things" Yes I make a mockery of the theology that pre-consigns Babies to hell, I do so boldly. (partly for personal reasons yes) I ask the same questions over and over, and no straight answer can be given on the 4, 5 points about Calvinist theology. I have been asking Calvinist for years, they cannot answer. What does that say?
---MikeM on 5/23/06

No, sometimes its the out their theology that is over the top, and needs to be exposed as such, sometimes by humor. I have been asking the same questions about Calvinism over and over again, and excuse and avoidence of a straight answer seems to be the norm. reconstructionism, or antogonism to democracy, all part of Calvinist theology, but NO straight answers!
---MikeM on 5/23/06

I seriously suggest you edit your content; BBQ babies is OVER-THE-TOP.

Unless you wish to have all sorts of flames come because your point is misunderstood, I suggest retracting it. (I experienced it; it ain't fun, and I do not threat, merely tell the obvious.)

Perhaps you can start a thread about BBQ babies, or reconstructionism, or antogonism to democracy, and address them there. OK?
---John_T on 5/23/06

3. socery, inducing magical effects by drugs or some other sort of potion, conjuring spells, binding other people by magical muttering, being a medium, one who supposedly communicates with the dead, but actually communicates with demons, being a spiritist, one who has an intimate acquaintance with demonic spiritual world, and nine, calling up the dead, investigating and seeking information from the dead. These evil practices were the reason the Lord was going to drive the Canaanites out of the land.
---Lupe2618 on 5/23/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce

2. has not appointed such for you." clearly teaches it is not our practice and was not for the children of Israel. Moses gave a strict injunction not to copy, imitate, or do what the polytheistic Canaanites did. Nine detestable practices, Sacrificing children in the fire, witchcraft, seeking to determine the will of the gods by examining and interpreting omens, soothsaying, attempting to control the future through power given by evil spirits, interpreting omens, telling the future base on signs,
---Lupe2618 on 5/23/06

As far as the question above we should not ignore any Scripture but read it in its context to know how it could pertain to us in this time. Of course they are laws for the children of Israel but if we read especially Deuteronomy 18:9-12, I would say that most of those are still happening someplace in the world and are an abomination to God. Verse 14, clearly states "For these nations which you will disposses listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God
---Lupe2618 on 5/23/06

2. I never speak against SDA's because I have never studied it, I have ask questions to Pierr about worship but not into anything else. It would not be fair to try to distroy something I really don't know about. I have seen many of your answers on other blogs and see the same results from you. Just be fair to others and see what they have to say. If you love knowning about God you would want to know. If in your spirit you feel that it is not right then just let it go.
---Lupe2618 on 5/23/06

Mike, why do you say BBQ babies? In your own words you make a mockery of things. Why not just ask about certain things? If you wish to debate anyone, do it correctly, not sarcastly. You are an adult and it seems you know Scripture, get to the point and maybe someone can answer your question. A person speaking against a perticular believe has to know what that other believe is before they can comment correctly. Have you taken a study in the Sovereignty of God? If you have then ask what you wish to discus.
---Lupe2618 on 5/23/06

Send a Free Funny Valentine Ecard

No one has countered my points yet. Yes the Calvinist were not monolithic, or homogenious in their theology. They had fine points that helped pull Europe out of the maliase of medieval Christianity. My other points about reconstructionism, antogonism to democracy, and BBQ babies have not been addressed.
---MikeM on 5/22/06

Lupe is correct;you miss connections between Calvinists and Baptists. In the late 1500s, a disaffected group of (Calvinists) Puritans from Scourby, England went into the Netherlands to avoid persecution. They came under the influence of Anabaptists, andin the early 1600s, they returned to England, Half stayed, becoming Baptists. The others became our Pilgrims.

There was more than what you say with Roger Williams &Rhode Island, so you need to re read church history in colonies.
---John_T on 5/22/06

The salient points are being ignored. 1. When Baptist or ANY other Christian group entered Puritan colonial area's they were hanged.
2. Calvinist were 1# for witch burnings in Europa
3. Most Calvinist(but not all) support reconstructionism, and as such are hostile to pluralism, seeing democracy as 'heresy.'
4. All flesh is sin, fallen. The consequence of such a theology is say, sids babies burn.
If these points are untrue, I would be glad to listen, if no one responds, the points stand.
---MikeM on 5/22/06

Mike, I don't think you have any idea what Calivinism is. All you say is talk that others say about it. You will not be able to understand its teachings unless you read and study it. Its easy for someone to put something down with words but when you see God's Sovereignty with your own eyes you will be able to reconcile Scriptures that you had no answer to. why? Because its all about God, not man. Yet, maybe it is not your time, or maybe you are not suppose to learn it, only God knows.
---Lupe2618 on 5/21/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry

I do not 'defend' what God has condemned. To define my terms I mean by witchcraft I mean necromancy, and 'related' forms of occultism. I also disagree with other 'isms,' communism, socialism, liberalism, and a host of other 'isms.' The difference is what Calvinist and other who disagree with disagreeable 'isms' would do about it. Calvinist history says what they would do about disagreeable 'isms.' And that is a solid indictment.
---MikeM on 5/21/06

I am in strong disagreement with the theology of Calvinism, as its history is sometimes uplifting,as in its work ethic, but often its history sordid and vile. The burning of women and others a vile chapter, as is its bigoted intolerance and antagonism to Democracy. Its tone was medieval, seeing progress as satanic. Communism, like Calvinism on paper and in theory sound great, but in practice is an indictment.
---MikeM on 5/21/06

All kidding aside, I noticed that you take umbrage in behalf of others. This is the second time you have done this on a post I meant for another.

Surely MikeM can tell me if I am throwing sand in his face here. He has yet to directly reply on that.

I know that you have been ill lately; I wish you a speedy recovery, but I do sincerely ask if you may be taking on something that is not yours when you get unnecessarilly upset at my words to another blogger?
---John_T on 5/17/06

Only if you use Tarot cards, Alan

---John_T on 5/17/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture

Actually the thing that sparked off my comment was someone else saying that the witches were ugly because they were evil. Mike then said (as I did) that most of the "witches" were not involved in forbidden sorcery. And yet, it seemed that Mike's comment was interpreted as supporting evil sorcery, rather than as the correcting factual statement that it was.
I say now that most of the witches were not sorcerers ... does that make me a necromancer?
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/17/06

Mike & Bruce:

Here we go again with the offending unintentionally gambit. BTW I found "reek" had a meaning exactly as I intended-- in the SLANG dictionary, meaning bad.

Sadly, as noticed earlier, American slang does not cross the Atlantic well.

Obviously, rhetorical questions don't, fly well either. Therefore, I apologize AGAIN.

I was asking MikeM why he persisted in defending what God has condemned. That has not been answered
---John_T on 5/17/06

I agree with Alan that John's comments are unwarranted however, no less so than Mikes personal characterizations.
---Bruce5656 on 5/17/06

Mike should reply himself, Alan

One does not usually support the things that God condemns, and Mike seems to be doing just that.

It is logical to assume that one supporting such outlandish positions has some sort of vested interest in the conduct and outcome of the discussion. Thus the equally logical rhetorical statement.
---John_T on 5/17/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops

JohnT Just because MikeM points out quite properly that the "witches" were nothing of the sort does not make him a necromancer.
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/16/06

mikem, your history is not accurate; medicine men and women using herbals are not condemned but the witchdoctors and fortune-tellers are. And Biblical history which is accurate reveals witchcraft, sorcery, divination, etc. as sin and an abomination to God. When the early Christians propagated the gospel, the new converts convicted by the Holy Spirit gathered together all their books of spells and occultic arts into a large pile and burned them in public as a testimony to God. Please read Acts 19:18-20.
---Eloy on 5/16/06

Arthur Miller is a playwright, not a historian, nor a theologian.

Either you have deep connections to necromancers, etc, or else you presently are one.

One does not usually support the things that God condemns, unless he has an dull axe to grind.
---John_T on 5/15/06

Mike: Red Herring is another tactic to use when an argument is lost; it calls attention to something unimportant to distract from the main point, like the Santa Monica Pier and the Pacific.

If you do not like what God says, take it up with Him, but do not ridicule the past.

Everyone has skeletons in the closet, and it has no bearing on the present
---John_T on 5/15/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer

Mike are you degrading this into an AD HOMINUM attack? You say. "John T; As a calvinist your tradition led to the burning of lots of thousands of women..."

Surely know that tactic is the refuge of a person who knows the argument is lost.
---John_T on 5/15/06

One way of seeing whether a suspected woman was a witch was to throw her in the pond. If she sank and drowned that showed she was innocent. If she bobbed up and lived, she was a witch, and was then executed.
The truth is that those who were treated as witches were those who practiced medicine and midwifery ... not understood by the learned clergy and were therefore condemned.
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/15/06

What one would call 'bait'; I call exposing. If ones faith cannot stand the test of free inquiry, its finished. That includes me. f someone says I will burn if I believe inthe existance of the Pacific ocean I would have no problem quietly taking them to the end of the peir at Santa Monica, and then ask boldly? "Hey, whats all that?" thats not baiting, thats exposing truth. I value truth, in the macro issues) above all else, as the Bible says to.
---mikeM on 5/15/06

John T; As a calvinist your tradition led to the burning of lots of thousands of women, and others in Europa, and here. It is a tradition that does not grasp the idea of pluralism, calling Democracy 'heresy.' I know well the ideas of reconstructionism, kingdom theology, and dominion. Yes, the burning or 'witch's' would resume in a Calvisnist America, as well as the burning of so many others.
---MikeM on 5/15/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting

John T; Your words are almost exactly like those of the prosecuter in the Play(movie) THE CRUCIBLE. "Oh it is not us that convicts thou of vile deeds of the devil, but thine own consorts against holy writ." After that the main characters were hanged. Therefore, John T, when hanging, burning witch's you would quote scripture. You solidly place yourself in the same position as the witch burners.
---MikeM on 5/15/06

Mike: Seems as if you are trying to condecendingly bait those with whom you disagree. Your disagreement is not with Eloy, Donna, Alan, Wayne or me. Rather, it is with God Himself.

He said through Moses, " For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD" If you do not like that, ask him to tell you why he said it.

Others here could give good answers, and some have, but I doubt if you'd accept them.
---John_T on 5/15/06

Sorry Eloy, history disagree with you. In Celtic england most 'witchs' were what we would call a mixture of a docter and witch. They made potions for the sick, and were midwives, Most were young. When the 'clergy' took over this was all declared evil. Witchs were tortured until they repented, or died, that is where the picturing of medeivil witchs as twisted and crippled comes from. As for me, my education is not great in the matter, but knowledge of history is not a bad thing.
---MikeM on 5/15/06

mikem, witches were shown as ugly deformed woman because wichcraft is sin, and sin is ugly. Just as Heylel was a most beautiful angel in heaven until sin was found in him, and so he was cast down to the earth and turned into the loathsome serpent to crawl upon his belly and eating dirt. Their ugliness had nothing to do with the ignorant clergy punishing them.
---Eloy on 5/15/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing

Just out of curiosity, why is it we never hear anything about warlocks (the male equivalent of a witch)? Is it because of the gender used in the Bible? Is it because of tradition...or maybe they were smart enough to keep quiet. How do we know if the witches burned were, or were not, really "witches".(aside from knowing the human tendency to gossip and exclude people who are "different"). There are self-proclaimed witches today, but of course, they are viewed much differently now.
---Donna2277 on 5/14/06

Alan; 100% correct.

Eloy; you have 1500 years of Christian tradition pounding the point home. You know why witch's are displayed as deformed old women? This is do to clergy tortured women, the rack, burning, breaking bones, etc until the women were disfigured. The idea was to kill the pagan, save the save the soul, anyway possible, better weeks, months years of torture on earth than an eternity of torture, that was their logic. Now who, in reality were the evil ones, the clergy, or the witch's?
---MikeM on 5/14/06

MikeM Problem was of course that most of the "witches" burnt were nothing of the sort.
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/14/06

The Old Covenant Law took an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, stripe for stripe, and life for life; but the N.T. Law is forgive and love your enemies, and when hit to turn the other cheek. But as to withcraft and occult practices we still view this as sin that needs repented from, else God's wrath abides upon these offenders. Share the gospel with the one practicing the dark arts, in doing so you not only are obeying the command but you may be able to also save that soul from their bondage to sin.
---Eloy on 5/14/06

Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service

In fact, the word translated witch is a mistranslation, or rather the word has changed its meaning. The more correct translation today wouild be to medium or necromancer.
---mike8384mike6553 on 5/14/06

From the inception of Christianity in goverment/society,(roughly 375AD) it has been the firmly established Christian tradition to burn witch's (both protestant and Catholic) ever since. In northern europe thousands of women were burned and tortured, all based on the Biblical mandate. ONLY the rise of secular goverments (roughly 1725AD)caused this to stop, not a change in Biblical doctrine, OT or NT.
---MikeM on 5/14/06

Mike, I am curious what part I did not answer? Exodus 20:25 says that God gave them laws that were not good attaching penalties so they could not live, because they obeyed not His statutes. Ceartainly we must say that it is not NT Christianity for Christians to kill those who disagree with them in matters of faith and conscience. We could hardly call killing witches, and those who chose to worship other gods as turning the other cheek, can we?
---Wayne87 on 5/14/06

Jack; Yes, you are correct. In the past the celtic witch blended potions.FARMAKEIA-they, using the craft sort of functioned as docters and witches. When someone was sick, they went to someone, usually a women who practiced the craft. Midwives, etc. Chemistry comes from alchemy. Astronomy comes from astronomy, etc. In historical traditional Christianity, however there was no grey area. Witch's were on the recieving end of literalism, period. This is a long and sordid history.
---MikeM on 5/13/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements

The real question is what does "witch" mean in this context?

I suggest it means not what we think of as a witch today, but a brewer of poisons.

Remember in Greek, FARMAKEIA means both "witchcraft" and "pharmacy".
---Jack on 5/13/06

Do these verses mean that I cannot watch my Harry Potter videos?
---lee on 5/13/06

People pick and choose scriptures they want to be 'literal' about. This is one of many that is ignored on a wholesale basis, the price of literalism too high. Doug, I do not think you will get an straight answer. But it is a good question. "The Crucible" is the Miller play I was refering to.
---MikeM on 5/13/06

I dont know which burned more witch's, Catholics or protestants, both had a knack for doing it, their literal understanding of the Biblical mandate followed to its literal end. I remember Arther Miller's play. (and movie) In this specific case women should thank the spread of secularism as the rescurer of women from burning.Wayne your post is convoluted. You, like so many others dodge the subject, knowing what literalism demands. So many pick and choose, the difficult parts of the Bible ignored.
---MikeM on 5/13/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

but could never take it away--make an end of it. Jesus revealed that there was only one thing that could make an end of sin and bring in everlasting righteousness-the revelation, recognition, and application of His blood. While rulers and governments are given power and responsibility (Romans 13:1-6) to rule according to the laws He has given, this does not solve the sin problem in the hearts of man. It reacts and punishes after the sin is committed. God desires to remove sin at its source in the heart.
---Wayne87 on 5/13/06

Certainly these reveal God's hatred of anyone professing to lift the veil from that which He has hidden or not revealed, by appealing to the dead, signs, times, enchantments, spirits, etc. These were civil statutes that judges were to judge and execute judgment by, and they reveal the seriousness of the rebellion of those who would depart from God to obtain knowledge and wisdom elsewhere. Like the statutes of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, etc., these were necessary to restrain crime and sin,
---Wayne87 on 5/13/06

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.