The Truth of Religion

Of late, more and more people have become dissatisfied with the term religion, centered in what is known as the mainstream, more or less, orthodox church. I say 'more or less', because much of the dissatisfaction has come from those associated with the evangelical denominations, which can go from one to the other extreme, when it comes to traditional orthodoxy, but usually more toward the 'left' end of the spectrum, especially of late.

My purpose, in this article, is to remind my readers that although the mainstream church, and the 'religion' that they often engender, has taught many 'doctrines' that people have begun, at the very least, to suspect, or even to view, as mere 'fear-mongering'. Some even go so far as to say that it would be a very cruel God who would create some people, just to consign them to 'hell' ( given that orthodoxy is correct ) and thus have disassociated themselves with those that have chosen to align themselves with, or even to adopt the 'false' doctrines of these mainstream churches, and teach these 'doctrines' as truth ( they answer to God alone ). To do so, just because they do teach or believe differently, ( I believe ) is to 'throw out the baby with the bathwater', in other words, the same thing that many in the mainstream 'church' have seemingly done!

James said that 'if any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless.' ( James 1:27-NRSV ) In the same 'vein', he wrote later ( 2:17 ), 'So faith, if it has no works, is dead'. Reading in context; we can see that what James was telling them, and what God has told us ( in His Word ), is that we must ACT on what we profess to believe, else it's not true religion at all, and we are only professors and not living confessors!

There are several different ways that 'religion' can be defined; it can simply be what one believes, or as James is speaking of above, it is what is called the 'Christian religion', and this is usually what is meant by the phrase 'he got religion'. Most people nowadays, especially those that speak demeaningly of 'religion', have in mind 'organized religion', or the institutional church. Talking to a brother this morning ( thanks, Greg! ), I said 'I have no problem with organization; it's just the way some things are organized that I have a problem with'! Like I said above ( in other words ); if we profess to believe a certain way, and don't live those beliefs, our religion is worthless ( I say this to myself most of all )!

No doubt, there are many 'doctrines' being taught today in the mainstream, and orthodox churches, as 'Gospel truth', that have been shown to 'leak like a sieve', and more that are being, or have been proven to be absolute falsehood! The Truth, however, 'is what it is' ( as another brother ( thanks, John! ) puts it, 'it is what it aught to be' ), and it is not our belief in a certain matter that makes it so, or not so; for instance, it is not our belief that Christ came again in the first century, that makes it so, and conversely, one's belief that He did not ( yet ), does not make it so. Religion becomes a problem when we allow our beliefs, not only in word, but in deed, to keep us from fulfilling God's command to 'love one another, as I have loved you'. It is true that many within the organized ( institutional ) church today, especially the 'orthodox' branch, seem to have forgotten this principle, but I believe that as many or more, have begun to change their system of belief concerning how we are to treat others, even those with whom we disagree, even vehemently, and even those within the more 'orthodox' denominations have 'put their best foot forward'; sharing, spreading the love of God in Christ Jesus, almost contrary, seemingly, to their purported 'doctrines!

The argument has been made that 'when Christ walked this earth; did He only ( actively ) love those that believed the way He said they should'? The answer, of course is, overwhelmingly, No!

So can we do less?

Many like to use the 'phrase 'forsake not the assembling of yourselves together' ( Hebrews 10:25-KJV ) as a 'proof-text' that we should, if at all possible, be in church every time that a meeting is called there: quickly; I'd like to remind my readers, 'we're always in 'church'!' We ARE the Church, and although most, if not all, will readily admit that; I believe that when too much emphasis is put on meeting together as a group, in a special building, on a certain ( special ) day ( or days-Sunday and Wednesday ) of the week, to pray together, sing a few songs of praise, listen to a sermon, partake of the 'Lord's Supper' ( varyingly ) and fellowship as the Body of Christ; we tend to forget that WE are the Church, we are the Body of Christ, and when we fellowship, whether it be in a special building, on a certain day of the week, or at our jobs on Monday, or a picnic, we are celebrating His Body and Blood, we are not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, even if it is not the traditional time, the traditional place, the traditional words................! All these things by themselves are not bad things to do; on the contrary, they are very right, very good things to do, but we get into a 'rut' because we begin to look at doing these things, at a certain time, and in a certain place, as 'Church' and go about our busy every-day lives, complete with all our worries, stress, and busyness the rest of the week! Sure, we keep a semblance, or a pittance of our Church-ness about us, especially when we remember that Jesus told His disciples 'where two or three are gathered in My name, I am there among them' ( Matthew 18:20-NRSV ). Here's a good question: when some Christian buddies get together, throw back a few 'tall cold ones', and watch football; is God among them? Are they gathered in His name? Must they pray before God is present?

Back to the Hebrews passage; not only do many quote this a lot; they often mis-quote it, not taking into account the covenantal and historical context of the passage. The covenantal context is brought into focus with the previous verse, where the writer adjures them, 'let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds', and both the covenant and historical context, when he says, in the latter part of verse 25, 'and so much the more as you see the Day approaching'. As above; there is nothing at all wrong with meeting together at a certain time, in a certain place, for all the purposes that I mentioned above; not only is it 'traditional', it is well-nigh a 'must' for the busyness of our everyday lives; we need that one special day to 'rest' from that busyness, to take our minds off our worries, get out from under our 'stress', but isn't this something that we should be doing every day? Don't we have our 'rest' in Christ? In fact; we have 'every spiritual blessing' ( Ephesians 1:3 ) in Christ! Aren't we told not to worry, not to stress about things, in Matthew 6:33?

To 'wrap things up'; I just want to remind us all ( myself included ) that there is nothing wrong with 'religion'; it is the way in which we practice our religion ( what we believe ) that can be wrong or right. Sure; much of 'organized religion' practices their religion badly ( poorly ) and in some cases, just plain wrongly, and this is too bad, so sad; but should this keep us from 'practicing' our religion? Too many 'Christians' out there, I'll readily agree, are quick ( and often very 'apt' ) to spout their religion out you ( often trying to 'ram' it down your throat-sadly, I must admit that this was me! ), but if you 'fight back' with your own brand of religion, 'the gloves come off', and it's 'no holds barred', until one or both end up limping away with their pet theology intact, but with no love in their hearts for the other person! Thankfully; this is not always the case, and we must gratefully and humbly applaud our brothers and sisters who can exercise the self-control ( and restraint ) to stay away from a situation like this.

Sure; it's hard! But isn't that what God promised?


The Myth of Free-will? ( Re-thinking the doctrine of 'Total Depravity' )

I was brought up in Calvinist theology, taught to be automatically wary anyone espousing the doctrine of free-will. This is still a subject of concern with me, though I would no longer be comfortable being called a Calvinist. I would probably more correctly fall under the moniker 'Sovereign Grace Preterist'. Some might not see such of a difference between Calvinism and the doctrine of Sovereign Grace, and in the most basic sense, they'd be right, but when you add 'preterism' to the mix, you have a somewhat different story! 'Preterism', or the knowledge that , not only eschatology, but redemption and salvation have been completed and fulfilled should cause us to rethink our doctrine of soteriology, or the doctrine of salvation, among other things. Calvinism teaches that man is totally depraved, something that most Christians have no problem readily acknowledging. The Bible seems to plainly teach this in places like Jeremiah 17:9, where we are told that 'the heart is deceitful above all and desperately wicked; who can know it?', and Paul plainly told his readers that 'in me ( that is, in my flesh ) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but to perform what is good, I do not find.' ( Romans 7:18 ) Solomon, or 'the preacher', as he styles himself in the book of Ecclesiastes, acknowledged that 'truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that go to the dead' ( 9:3 ). There are many other passages that we could look at for 'proof' of the doctrine of 'Total Depravity', but I daresay that, looking at all these passage from a covenantal viewpoint will help us to see that all these writers were speaking in context of those 'laboring' under the restrictions of the 'Old Covenant'. Looking at the moral depravity in the world today, it is not hard to apply passages like these to men today, although it could be argued, and one can even ascertain that men, even the most 'evil' and 'heartless' of them, are, when it comes down to it, basically 'good' at heart. We all have choices to make, and yes, we most often make wrong, selfish, and seemingly heartless choices, but I believe that all men have the propensity to do right, as all men have the built-in propensity to do wrong. God made us in such a way that we do have a choice, when facing any given situation, a choice of whether to react ( usually wrong ) or whether to act in faith, to do as we know is right, even though those around us are not acting according to our ( selfish ) wishes, or 'druthers', or even as we think they should! Man is a selfish creature ( naturally ), and will usually, when given the choice, choose what he thinks best, either for himself alone, or what he believes will best serve the interests of those that he loves and cares about, often notwithstanding what others tell him is right or wrong.

I mentioned the fact that the Scripture passages that we may read in the Bible which seem to point towards a doctrine of 'Total Depravity', were written by, and concerning, those born under the 'Old Covenant: I believe, as some of my readers may have learned, that there is really only one covenant, the eternal everlasting covenant that God made with Himself ( signified by the words 'Let there be Light' ,and 'Let Us make man' ), but for the purpose of choosing, setting apart a 'special' ( I Peter 2:9 ) people for Himself; God 'formed', through Moses, a sort of typical covenant with a certain people as a sort of test case, not so much to see if they would follow His covenant, but to show them that they could not keep His words perfectly. God's plan, from the beginning, whether because He simply knew beforehand, or because of His all-encompassing sovereignty, was that He would send His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to do for man what he could not do for himself, to keep the law perfectly, and to take upon Himself the sin and requisite penalty for that sin, destroying forever the death that the sin had engendered ( Romans 6:23 ). With the penalty for that sin paid through the death and resurrection of Christ, and His 'coming in the clouds' in judgment upon the 'ministry of the death' ( Romans 7:10, II Corinthians 3:7 ), or the purveyors of that 'Old Covenant' ( letter, rather than Spirit ( II Corinthians 3:6, Romans 2:27-29 ) of death, we are now born, once again, as the first Adam, with the capacity to make a choice, but with one comforting difference; we now have the Truth to which the Tree of Life pointed, 'Christ ( God ) in us, the ( realized ) hope of Glory' ( Colossians 1:27 ).With the 'New Covenant' fully implemented, and salvation fully realized, and redemption complete; can we truly say anymore that men are naturally born under 'Total Depravity'? With the Calvinistic ( biblical ) notion that all men are 'born in sin' ( I think that we all grew up under that assumption, to some degree ) based upon an errant eschatological position, the position, whether most will admit it or not, that, since the fall of our first 'parents', recorded in Genesis 3, we are all ( naturally ) born in sin, and that it is only when we are brought to confession and repentance of that sin ( I John 1:9 ) that we come out from under the death of Adam. With the realization, however, of the logical implications of fulfilled eschatology; it should be plain to see, that, in a sense anyway, we are no longer born in sin, subject to the death ( of Adam ), having been born under the New Covenant, which is often called the 'Covenant of Grace' ( although, when you think about it; God's grace has always been prevalent, throughout the different 'covenants' ), and now free, through the Grace of God, to make our choice ( right or wrong ) as best as we can, without the sword of Damocles hanging over or head, with 'the powers that be' telling us that if we make the wrong choice, there will be eternal, and sometimes immediate consequences ( 'in the day you eat, you will die'-Deuteronomy 28 ).

Lest some accuse me of saying that we should go ahead and 'sin more that grace may abound' ( Romans 6:1 ); I wish to remind my readers that though God has applied His grace most bountifully in every area of our lives, and given us the freedom of choice as to how we will live our lives and whom w will serve ( as Bob Dylan said, 'ya gotta serve somebody' ); He has also given us the personal responsibility, a directive, really, to love Him, and 'our neighbor as ourself', not selfishly seeking and serving our own selfish interest and desires, particularly over those of others. ( I will be the first to admit that I am not perfect when it comes to practicing what I preach, and I don't believe that any of us can truly make this claim ( although some are probably closer than others ), but this does not mean that we should not strive for it and exhort the brethren to it! )

Having established that we do, after a sort, have a 'free' will, can we conscientiously transgress Good's Law ( though we are no longer under it's curse ), selfishly following our own will, thoughts, and desires, even when it comes at the cost of others? We too often do ( at least I know that I do ), but I would wager that most of us ( all who's consciences have been cleansed by God-Hebrews 10 ), before 'paying the piper', will hear a 'still, small' voice in our mind, saying 'you shouldn't outta done that'!

With this in mind; let us consciously decide ( will ) to make choices that are in conjunction with what we know of the will of God, not because we must if we want to 'go to heaven when we die', or out of the fear of 'going to hell when we die', but out of loving, sacrificial obedience to God, not because we have to, but because we want to!

May God bless you with this,

                   Charles Shank

Cannabis-the pure herb with Christ-like healing properties?

And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

Genesis 1:29

Marijuana, as it is probably most commonly known, or cannabis, has been at the center, especially of late, of much debate. The main focus of this article is whether or not it should be considered a viable alternative to the approved ( FDA ) medicines ( drugs ) that are prescribed by doctors everyday, often to the detriment of the health of the patient. Looking at the greater picture, though, one must decide for oneself whether or not this pure herbal remedy for many of society's ills should be pursued as a God-given alternative to the man-made and genetically altered substances that make up our almost daily existence.

Consulting, first of all, the Wikipedia article on Cannabis; I found this quote regarding the use of Cannabis as a medicine:

'Cannabis used medically does have several well-documented beneficial effects. Among these are: the amelioration of nausea and vomiting, stimulation of hunger in chemotherapy and AIDS patients, lowered intraocular eye pressure (shown to be effective for treating glaucoma), as well as general analgesic effects (pain reliever).^b[›]'

The article goes on to say, 'Cannabis was manufactured and sold by U.S. pharmaceutical companies from the 1880s through the 1930s, but the lack of documented information on the frequency and effectiveness of its use makes it difficult to evaluate its medicinal value.'

I recently attended a forum on everything from the legal aspects of the medical marijuana laws, to the scientific studies, particularly of the healing properties still being discovered, of this remarkable and all-natural plant. Most, if not all of the few attendees of this event were care-givers and in most, if not all cases, growers of what is called 'the herb'. From a PhD. who bewildered most of us with his knowledge and terminology stemming from his studies of this plant, to a law professor who cautioned his listeners to beware of the legal ramifications of their activities, and in the midst of it all, an MD. who praised it's many virtues; I think we all came away from the experience a little more enlightened than when we walked through the doors. There are many articles to be found on the internet, both 'pro' and 'con', I'm sure, that can easily be found and read at one's own discretion, but one of the first sites that I found on the subject of 'medical marijuana' was a site called ProCon.org: here are a few excerpts, both 'pro' and 'con', concerning the legalization, even the medical use, of this amazing medication ( it is interesting to note that many of the comments in the 'con' column are based more on the FDA's disapproval of it's use, than on actual, independent study ):

Joycelyn Elders, MD, former US Surgeon General, wrote the following in a Mar. 26, 2004 article titled "Myths About Medical Marijuana," published in the Providence Journal:

"The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS -- or by the harsh drugs sometimes used to treat them. And it can do so with remarkable safety. Indeed, marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day."

Ron Paul, MD, Member of the US House of Representatives (R-TX), wrote the following in an Apr. 27, 2005 letter to the US Food and Drug Administration signed by 23 other members of the US House of Representatives:

"After deferring to the DEA, your release reads that, 'FDA is the sole federal agency that approves drug products as safe and effective for intended indications.' Why then has the FDA failed to respond to the 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report which concluded that marijuana's active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials?
It perplexes us that even though the FDA is responsible for protecting public health, the agency has failed to respond adequately to the IOM's findings seven years after the study's publication date. Additionally, this release failed to make note of the FDA's Investigational New Drug (IND) Compassionate Access Program, which allowed patients with certain medical conditions to apply with the FDA to receive federal marijuana. Currently, seven people still enlisted in this program continue to receive marijuana through the federal government.
The existence of this program is an example of how the FDA could allow for the legal use of a drug, such as medical marijuana, without going through the 'well-controlled' series of steps that other drugs have to go through if there is a compassionate need."

Lyn Nofziger, former Press Secretary to Ronald Reagan, wrote the following in the foreword to the 1999 book Marijuana RX: The Patients' Fight for Medicinal Pot, by Robert C. Randall and Alice M. O'Leary:

"Marijuana clearly has medicinal value. Thousands of seriously ill Americans have been able to determine that for themselves, albeit illegally. Like my own family, these individuals did not wish to break the law but they had no other choice. The numerous attempts to legitimately resolve the issue-via state legislation and federal administrative hearings-have too often been ignored or thwarted by misguided federal agencies. Several states conducted extensive, and expensive, research programs which demonstrated marijuana's medical utility-particularly in the treatment of chemotherapy side-effects. Francis L. Young, the chief administrative law judge of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, ruled marijuana has legitimate medical applications and should be available to doctors." 

Philip Denney, MD, co-founder of a medical cannabis evaluation practice, stated the following in his Nov. 17, 2005 testimony to the Arkansas legislature in support of House Bill 1303, "An Act to Permit the Medical Use of Marijuana":

"I have found in my study of these patients that cannabis is really a safe, effective and non-toxic alternative to many standard medications. There is no such thing as an overdose. We have seen very minimal problems with abuse or dependence, which at worst are equivalent to dependence on caffeine. While a substance may have some potential for misuse, in my opinion, that's a poor excuse to deny its use and benefit to everyone else."

Jay Cavanaugh, PhD, National Director of the American Alliance for Medical Cannabis (AAMC), wrote the following in a 2002 article titled "The Plight of the Chronically Ill," posted on the AAMC website:

"Many of the chronically ill have successfully sought relief with the use of medical cannabis, an age-old remedy that now shows real scientific efficacy. Hundreds of thousands of the sick have replaced disabling narcotics and other psychotropic medications with nontoxic and benign cannabis. The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Folks with spinal injuries able to give up their walkers, AIDS patients able to gain weight and keep their medications down, cancer patients finding relief from the terrible nausea of chemotherapy, chronic pain patients once again functional with their consciousness restored from narcotic lethargy, and folks once disabled from crippling psychiatric disorders and addictions, returned to sanity and society with the assistance of a nontoxic herb with remarkable healing powers." 

These are but a few of the many 'pro' ( more than ''con' ) comments that I found: here are some of the ( almost absurd ) 'con' statements;

Sanjay Gupta, MD, Chief Medical Correspondent for CNN, wrote the following in a Nov. 6, 2006 article titled "Why I Would Vote No on Pot," published in Time magazine:

"Maybe it's because I was born a couple of months after Woodstock and wasn't around when marijuana was as common as iPods are today, but I'm constantly amazed that after all these years -- and all the wars on drugs and all the public-service announcements -- nearly 15 million Americans still use marijuana at least once a month...

Marijuana isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients. Several recent studies, including a new one from the Scripps Research Institute, show that THC, the chemical in marijuana responsible for the high, can help slow the progress of Alzheimer's disease. (In fact, it seems to block the formation of disease-causing plaques better than several mainstream drugs.) Other studies have shown THC to be a very effective antinausea treatment for people -- cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, for example -- for whom conventional medications aren't working. And medical cannabis has shown promise relieving pain in patients with multiple sclerosis and reducing intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients...

Frequent marijuana use can seriously affect your short-term memory. It can impair your cognitive ability (why do you think people call it dope?) and lead to long-lasting depression or anxiety. While many people smoke marijuana to relax, it can have the opposite effect on frequent users. And smoking anything, whether it's tobacco or marijuana, can seriously damage your lung tissue...

Despite all the talk about the medical benefits of marijuana, smoking the stuff is not going to do your health any good."

Rudy Giuliani, JD, former Mayor of New York City, stated the following at an Oct. 3, 2007 town hall meeting in Windham, New Hampshire during his 2008 campaign for US President:

"I checked with the FDA [Food and Drug Administration]. The FDA says marijuana has no additive medical benefit of any kind, that the illegal trafficking of marijuana is so great that it makes much more sense to keep it illegal. I will keep it illegal."

Mark Souder, Member of the US House of Representatives (R-IN), wrote the following in the "Issues: Medical Marijuana," section of his website, souder.house.gov (accessed Sep. 5, 2007):

"The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency charged with protecting the health of Americans, has never found smoked marijuana to be a safe and effective drug. In April 2006, following my request, the FDA released an interagency advisory confirming that smoked marijuana is not medicine because: (1) marijuana has a high potential for abuse; (2) it has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and (3) it has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The advisory also stated: '...there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful.'
The FDA has approved Marinol, however, and I support the availability of this prescription drug, which is currently available to patients. Marinol pills contain synthetic THC, the active ingredient in marijuana."

Henry Miller, MD, former Director of the Office of Biotechnology at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), wrote the following in an Apr. 28, 2006 editorial published in the New York Times:

"In their 1999 report, the Institute of Medicine's panel of experts flatly rejected the idea that herbal (usually smoked) cannabis would ever be considered a safe and effective medicine for widespread use... Smoked marijuana cannot be subjected to careful, well-controlled trials, because it does not come in a standard, reproducible formula or dose, and cannot meet the accepted standards for drug purity, potency and quality. Different strains of cannabis vary radically in their cannabinoid composition and in the contaminants -- fungi, bacteria, pesticides, heavy metals and other substances -- they contain. And smoking is not a precise way of delivering any substance to the bloodstream. Other plant-derived drugs -- morphine, codeine and Taxol, to name a few -- have made it through the F.D.A.'s review process, and there is no reason drugs made from cannabis should not be required to meet the same standards." 

I believe that Miller made a valid point about 'contaminants' above, because, when you think about it; while some ( very few, I think ) are actually trying to stay as naturally pure as they can in their production of the plant, others use many other ( chemical ) means, such as Miracle-Gro, and other plant foods, to stimulate the growth of their plants and even to increase their harvests, and, you guessed it, all those ( harmful? ) chemicals have to come out in the final product! 

Mitt Romney, JD, former Governor of Massachusetts, stated the following at an Oct. 4, 2007 town hall event in Manchester, New Hampshire:

"I believe marijuana should be illegal in our country. It is the pathway to drug usage by our society, which is a great scourge -- which is one of the great causes of crime in our cities. And I believe that we are at a state where, of course, we are very concerned about people who are suffering pain, and there are various means of providing pain management. And those that have had loved ones that have gone through an end of life with cancer know the nature of real pain. I watched my wife's mom and dad, both in our home, both going through cancer treatment, suffering a great deal of pain. But they didn't have marijuana, and they didn't need marijuana because there were other sources of pain management that worked entirely effectively. I'm told there is even a synthetic marijuana as well that is available. But having legalized marijuana, in my view, is an effort by a very committed few to try and get marijuana out into the public and ultimately legalize marijuana. It's a long way to go. We need less drugs in this society, not more drugs, and I would oppose the legalization of marijuana in the country or legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes because pain management is available from other sources."

Mark L. Kraus, MD, former President of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, stated the following in his Feb. 26, 2007 testimony to the Judiciary Committee in Hartford, Connecticut:

"Proponents of the legalization of medical marijuana create the impression that it is a reasonable alternative to conventional drugs. But unlike conventional drugs, smokable marijuana has not passed the rigorous scrutiny of scientific investigation and has not been found safe and effective in treating pain, nausea and vomiting, or wasting syndrome... It has no credibility. It has not passed the rigors of scientific investigation. It has not demonstrated significant efficacy in symptom relief. And, it causes harm."

Andrea Barthwell, MD, former Deputy Director at the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, stated the following in a speech given in Belleville, Illinois on Feb. 8, 2005:

"It is not a medicine. You don't know what's in it. If there were compelling scientific and medical data supporting marijuana's medical benefits that would be one thing. But the data is not there."

Janet Lapey, MD, Executive Director of Concerned Citizens for Drug Prevention, Inc., stated the following in her Oct. 1, 1997 statement to the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives:

"Marijuana is not the safe drug portrayed by the marijuana lobby. It is addictive; it adversely affects the immune system; leads to the use of other drugs such as cocaine; is linked to cases of cancer; causes respiratory diseases, mental disorders, including psychosis, depression, panic attacks, hallucinations, paranoia, decreased cognitive performance, disconnected thought, delusions, and impaired memory."

Gabriel Nahas, MD, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Anesthesiology and Medicine at Columbia University, et al., wrote the following in a Mar. 11, 1997 article titled "Marihuana Is the Wrong Medicine," published in the Wall Street Journal:

"The debate over using marihuana as medicine has been distorted by a basic confusion: the implicit assumption that smoking marihuana is a better therapy than the ingestion of its active therapeutic agent THC or a more effective one than approved medications. This assumption is wrong. THC (also known as Marinol) is an approved remedy that may be prescribed by physicians for nausea and AIDS wasting syndrome. It is safer than marihuana smoke." 

Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas and 2008 Republican Candidate for US President, stated the following at a Sep. 29, 2007 campaign stop in Londonderry, New Hampshire:

"You've asked me the question about medical marijuana... my concern is, as much as I want to see something happen that would ease your pain, I'm not sure and I've not been convinced with medical evidence by independent research... that clearly says that it is more effective than other forms of pain medication, whether it's narcotic or analgesic. And so what I want to do is, if somebody can present to me scientifically and objectively, then I would certainly give a different consideration... I think the question is, would I favor the legalization at a federal level, and until there's some scientific evidence, I'm reluctant to do that."  

Robert DeLorenzo, MD, PhD, MPH, Professor of Neurology in the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, stated the following in a Sep. 30, 2003 university press release, titled "Marijuana and Its Receptor Protein in Brain Control Epilepsy":

"Individuals both here and abroad report that marijuana has been therapeutic for them in the treatment of a variety of ailments, including epilepsy. But the psychoactive side effects of marijuana make its use impractical in the treatment of epilepsy. If we can understand how marijuana works to end seizures, we may be able to develop novel drugs that might do a better job of treating epileptic seizures."

Peter Provet, PhD, President and Chief Executive Officer at the Odyssey House, wrote the following in an Apr. 26, 2006 Letter to the Editor, published in the New York Times:

"As a treatment provider, I support the Food and Drug Administration's dismissal of medical benefit from marijuana.
Regardless of the heated political debate that swirls around this issue, the fact remains that despite the Institute of Medicine's claim to the contrary, for people vulnerable to addictive disease, marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to the use of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin...
Not everyone who smokes marijuana will necessarily become an addict. But why open the gate to increased use for the sake of unproven medical benefits when we already know the harm that marijuana inflicts on millions of Americans?"

From the Wikipedia article that I mentioned earlier, let me briefly quote again;


'As cannabis is further legalized for medicinal use, it is possible that some of the foregoing compound medicines, whose formulas have been copied exactly as published, may be scientifically tested to determine whether they are effective medications.'


Is 'medical marijuana' a viable alternative to the man-made concoctions ( pills ) that mis-guided ( but well-meaning ) doctors push down our throats, those medicines that come from our friendly, neighborhood pharmacist with sometimes a whole ream of warnings about ( possible ) side-effects? I believe that it is, but my readers must make up their own minds in that respect, do their own research using the manifold testimony that is available to the public. My reason for  casting my vote in favor of cannabis for medicinal purposes is not only based on the small amount of research that I have done ( minuscule ), but, more importantly, and here we begin to look at the greater picture; I refer, once again to the verse of Scripture that I quoted earlier, Genesis 1:29; 'And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.' God tells us that we have been given 'every herb' for food, and He called it 'good'! Not only that, but when you think of it's God-given quality ( and here again, we must refer back to where I discussed the 'purity' as opposed to the contaminants likely found in many samples ); His providence has rested in nature itself, His good creation, all that is necessary for our sustenance and well-being. More and more aspects of this astounding but comforting truth, I believe, are being discovered and researched everyday!

From the web-site Defending the Truth, an on-line political debate forum, a participant, in a post entitled 'Cannabis and the Bible' writes;

'In 1936 Sula Benet (a.k.a. Sara Benetowa), a Polish etymologist from the Institute of Anthropological Sciences in Warsaw stated that: "In the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament there are references to hemp, both as incense, which was an integral part of religious celebration, and as an intoxicant"(Benet 1975). Through comparative etymological study, Bennett documented that in the Old Testament and in its Aramaic translation, the Targum Onculos, hemp is referred to as kaneh bosm, which is also rendered in traditional Hebrew as kannabos or kannabus. The root "kan" in this construction means "reed" or "hemp", while "bosm" means "aromatic"'

( He also quotes Psalm 104:14 & 15 and Revelation 22:1 & 2, in support of cannabis )

The site equalrights4all.org, makes this important point; 'The hemp plant (scientific name: cannabis, slang: marijuana) is one of the many useful herbs "yielding seed after its kind" created and blessed by God on the third day of creation, "and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:12) He gave hemp for people to use with our free will.'


ebeneezer.net has much the same thing to say; 'The hemp plant (scientific name: cannabis, slang name: marijuana) is but one of the many useful herbs "yielding seed after its kind" (Genesis 1:12, 29) blessed by God on the third day of creation for people to use in conjunction with our free will. The only place in the Bible where Cannabis was mentioned by name got switched into 'calamus' by the King James translators as part of a holy ointment (described in Exodus 30:23).
The Bible also predicted prohibition: "In the later times, some shall … speak lies in hypocrisy … commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (Paul: 1 Timothy 1-4) Nowhere in the Bible does it say people cannot grow, possess, use or even smoke cannabis or that hemp is bad. In fact, quite the contrary: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth.…To you it will be for meat.' … And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1:29-31)'

Looking now at the origins of cannabis; we look at the web-site Suite101, where we can read, '

The history of the plant’s use is somewhat open for debate. It is believed that the herb was used by the Scythians as early as the 5th century BC, based on hemp seeds found by archaeologists. There have also been historical implications that it was used by the Sadhus in India for religious ceremonies. Some scholars believe that cannabis may have been an ingredient in the holy anointing oil used in the ancient Judaic culture, and some more speculative individuals believe that the Bible may reference Jesus smoking the plant.

skunked.co.uk reports that 'Cannabis sativa has been used therapeutically from the earliest records, nearly 5,000 years ago, to the present day (Mikuriya, 1969: 34) and its products have been widely noted for their effects, both physiological and psychological, throughout the world. Although the Chinese and Indian cultures knew about the properties of this drug from very early times, this information did not become general in the Near and Middle East until after the fifth century A.D., when travelers, traders and adventurers began to carry knowledge of the drug westward to Persia and Arabia. Historians claim that cannabis was first employed in these countries as an antiseptic and analgesic.'

At a site called CannabisMD.net; I found more interesting information;

'Known in Chinese languages as Ma, this hardy, annual herb is arguably the “mother” of agricultural civilization. Ma provided to be a renewable food source and a durable textile fiber for the manufacture of rope and fabric, setting agro-industrial China far ahead of hunter-gatherer types in other parts of the world. Besides its many textile and medicinal uses, marijuana yields seeds rich in B vitamins, protein, and amino acids, which have served as China’s second or third most important agricultural food source for thousands of years. While evidence of marijuana in use as a medicine has been found in Egyptian ruins dated as early as the 16^th century BC, and digs at ancient Hebrew sites have unearthed evidence of medical marijuana as an aid to childbirth long before the time of Christ, the many uses of Ma have proved to be an invaluable resource in the continuous survival of Chinese culture from its distant origins to the present day. '

Quoting from a 'History of Marijuana', at the website marijuana-seeds.net, 'The earliest known documentation was in 3727 BC, in China, which is also, as far as can be traced, the country of origin. Marijuana was recognized as an intoxicating drug, but it was widely used for its medicinal properties, particularly in the treatment of malaria, rheumatism, gout, and absent-mindedness.'

From an October, 2009 article at Time.com; we read,

Should Professors Cheech and Chong ever receive university tenure teaching the medical history of their favorite subject, the course pack would be surprisingly thick. As early as 2737 B.C., the mystical Emperor Shen Neng of China was prescribing marijuana tea for the treatment of gout, rheumatism, malaria and, oddly enough, poor memory. The drug's popularity as a medicine spread throughout Asia, the Middle East and down the eastern coast of Africa, and certain Hindu sects in India used marijuana for religious purposes and stress relief. Ancient physicians prescribed marijuana for everything from pain relief to earache to childbirth. Doctors also warned against overuse of marijuana, believing that too much consumption caused impotence, blindness and "seeing devils."

From the site herbs2000.com: 'It is interesting to note that excavations in the ruins of the Nile civilization in Egypt have revealed that the people there used marijuana for its medicinal properties since as early as the 16th century. Similarly, diggings at the primeval Hebrew civilization sites also prove that they used marijuana as a therapy during childbirth since long before the birth of Jesus Christ. Therefore, there is little doubt that the multifaceted properties and uses of marijuana have demonstrated to be a priceless reserve for the continued existence of the Chinese culture since days immemorial to the present.'

There is much more information on this subject to be found ( I have barely 'touched the surface' ), and I encourage my readers to do their own research, and strive to reach their own conclusions regarding this marvelous and amazing natural creation! Personally, mostly for the main reason that I outlined above, that it is God-given, and an essential part, in it's most natural form, of God's good creation; I am all for, not only the legalization of this pure and natural product, but across-the-board legalization and free use of God's provision of this plant, in all it's many gloried aspects!

As always; I reveal this information and this compilation for the Glory of God and for the Benefit of His people, His Body!

Charles Shank

The Oneness of God, and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!
( Deuteronomy 6:4 )

I believe that anyone who calls himself a Christian will readily acknowledge this fact, but most Christians who still have any orthodoxy about them will also profess belief in the 'Trinity', or three separate persons within the one God-head. Although it may ( more or less easily ) be argued from Scripture; the doctrine of the Trinity is, by no means, a 'case closed', when it comes to Scripture!

The first undeniable 'evidence' that Scripture gives to show that there exists a God-head, composed of one or more 'persons', is found in Genesis 1:26, where God said 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'  Here, God was evidently speaking to another ( besides Himself ), although obviously not really another ( for who else was there? ). Backing up, we read in Genesis 1:2, that, 'the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.' This is the first among many mentions of the Spirit ( AKA-the Holy Spirit ( Ghost, in the KJV ) that we find in the Scriptures. John 4:24 tells us that  'God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.' To bring out this truth; John uses the Greek transliteration 'pneuma', which Thayer's ( Greek ) Lexicon defines simply as 'a movement of air (a gentle blast)', and which therefore is roughly the counterpart of the Hebrew 'ruwach', which, according to Gesenius's Lexicon, can also be translated 'wind, breath, mind', among others ( the New Jerusalem Bible translates this phrase, in Genesis 1:2, as 'a divine wind' ). One question, and it is childish, almost, in its simplicity, is 'Does a Spirit have a Spirit?' We read in the Scriptures of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of truth, and etc., but must these necessarily point to a Trinity? Here is an interesting ( and telling ) fact; according to the NKJV, the phrase 'Holy Spirit' occurs only three times in the Hebrew Scriptures, first, in Psalm 51:11, where he pleads with God, 'Do not cast me away from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.' In the very next verse, he reiterates his plea, this time referring to His 'generous' Spirit. Was David actually referring to what orthodox Christianity calls 'the third person of the Trinity', or was he simply giving God the title ( s ) which He rightly deserves, that of 'holy' and 'generous'? ( In fact, Isaiah ( 57:15 ) says that His ( God's ) name is 'Holy'! ) the second and third instances in the Hebrew Scriptures where we find the phrase 'Holy Spirit' are found in the 63rd chapter of Isaiah, verses 10 & 11. 'But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; so He turned Himself against them as an enemy, and He fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying: Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them'. Again; is Isaiah doing anything here but giving God the title, or character, of being 'holy'? Some could argue here that since verse 11 seems to say that God put His Holy Spirit within the Israelites, that this Holy Spirit must be a distinct 'person', or entity, but as we read in Luke 1:35. 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.' We know that Jesus was called 'the Son of God' ( to my knowledge, this phrase, or even this concept, does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures! ) Those who prophesied of the Christ did not ever say that He would be the Son of God, although Isaiah 53 does, to be fair, seem to indicate another personage, although not ( necessarily ) a familial bond. 

As was mentioned concerning the birth of the Christ; Matthew and Luke ( really the only two Gospel writers that record this blessed event for us ) give an account that this Holy Spirit ( of God ) was instrumental ( as in the beginning ) in bringing the Christ into the world. Matthew recorded that God revealed this to Joseph ( in a dream, interestingly enough ) saying 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.' ( Matthew 1:20 ), and previously that 'she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.' I'll get into this more, later, but when John the baptizer was asked why he came baptizing, or 'whelming ' ( washing-Exodus 29:4, Leviticus 16:4, ( Isaiah 52:15 ); he responded that 'I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire' ( Matthew 3:11 ) ( interesting to note here, that the Majority Text, upon which the KJV is largely based, omits 'and with fire' ). Prior to announcing the conception of the Christ, an 'angel' appeared to Zacharias, the husband of Mary's older cousin, recorded in Luke 1:15, telling him, among other things, that 'He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.' We find later, that when the wife of Zacharias is visited by the mother of her Lord, that 'the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit', just as the 'angel' had prophesied. Much later, after the birth of Zacharias' son, he himself 'was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied'. When the fullness of time ( 9 months ) had come for Mary, and her Child was born, and they took Him to Jerusalem to fulfill the Law ( Exodus 13:2 & 15 ), they found that 'there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.' ( Luke 2:25-35 ).

Matthew 12:32 is a more or less oft-quoted saying, but I don't believe that it's understood as well as it's quoted. Jesus Himself said, 'Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come'. There seems to be a pretty clear separation here, as we'll see also in the Gospel of John, between the Son of Man ( Jesus ) and the Holy Spirit, but is there really? Looking at the previous verse, Jesus had said, in what I believe to be an example of Eastern literary parallelism, 'Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men'. I believe that Jesus, in His temporary capacity, as the Son of Man, was saying, in other words, 'Rail against me all you want ( remember, He prayed, 'Father forgive them.......' ), but do NOT say anything against My Father!' Mark records this incident as well, using slightly different terminology, but with the same meaning, in chapter 3, verses 28 & 29, quoting Jesus as saying, in response to their accusation that He had a demon, 'Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation.' Again, in a slightly different context than the first two Gospel writers; Luke records this incident as well, and quotes Jesus saying, to His disciples this time, that 'anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven' ( Luke 12:10 ), then warns them, in the next couple verses that persecution ( tribulation ) is coming, but not to worry about what they should say ( kinda reminds you of Matthew 6:33, huh? ), because 'the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say'. John is silent, in his Gospel, about this incident, but he has other things to say concerning this Holy Spirit; we will come to those presently, but for now I just wanted to present these thoughts: in all of the above mentioned paragraphs, from the Synoptic Gospels, there seems to be, and indeed, I see no indication of a Trinity ( except as implied by the capitalization of certain words, and the fact that Jesus refers to Him as someone 'separate' from Himself-more on that later ), and even in the two accounts of the natural birth of the Christ, there is really nothing that points towards there being a Trinity, of any sort.

Now we come to the harder passages, the ones that seem to indicate, if not a Trinity, at least more of a 'separation' within the God-head. In Luke 11:13, at the end of an almost parabolic discourse, Jesus said, 'If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?' This would seem to indicate that God the Father would give, or send the Holy Spirit ( God the Holy Spirit ), but then we're seemingly back at the question that I asked before; 'does a Spirit have a Spirit?' ( maybe a better question would be, 'why would a Spirit have a Spirit?' ) Obviously God gave us of Himself, just as He gave us of Himself when He sent His Son to become a Man so that He could pay the penalty for the sins of His people.

The Gospel of John, along with other incidents that the Synoptics do not record, presents us with a unique scenario; in John 7:37 & 38, 'On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water'. Jesus seemingly was continuing the tale that He began with the woman at the well, in John 4. 'Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”' ( John 4:26 ) Jesus revealed to her, in not so many words, that He was the source of that 'living water' that He had told her about before. He revealed to her that not only was He the Christ, or Messiah that they had been waiting for, but that He was God Himself, saying, 'I............am'! Back to John 7, then, John 'brings it all home', so to speak, when he clarifies Jesus' previous statement, saying, in verse 39, 'But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.'

The next passage, from John 14, is fairly well known one, what with Jesus' famous 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me', and 'If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.' Probably equal though, in familiarity, are verses 16 & 17, 'I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.' This passage seems to project the idea of a Trinity, that is, until you read the next verse, where He says 'I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.' ( Joshua 1:5, Hebrews 13:5 ) Here, maybe, is one of those many 'time texts', that may not seem to be quite as 'plain' as some others. Either Jesus is prophesying of His soon ( within a generation-Matthew 24:34, et al. ) return, or He is promising that He Himself will return to them ( Hebrews 9:28 ), or, quite possibly ( probably ), both! After comforting them with the promise of coming to dwell with them forever, Jesus further clarifies His statement, in verses 25 & 26, revealing that 'These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you', and, lest they mis-understand His intentions ( which they often did, and still do ), He reminded them 'You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you'. After His death, burial and resurrection; Jesus appeared to them, miraculously, comforting them with these words, quite similar to those He uttered back in John 14:27, 'Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.' And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.'  ( John 20:21 & 22 ) ( This brings God's 'creation' of Adam, in Genesis 1:26-28 & 2:7, to mind! ) From my count; Luke mentions the 'Holy Spirit' a total of 42 times in his Acts of the Apostles, mostly referring to the indwelling, as promised above, in John 14:23 ( Joel 2:28-32 ) of the Holy Spirit ( God ), but also quoting, directly ( 1:20, 2:17-21, 28:26 ), and indirectly ( Acts 1:5, 2:4, 7:51, 11:15 & 16 ( Isaiah 49:1-13 ) from the Hebrew Scriptures. 

Paul first uses the phrase 'Holy Spirit' in Romans 5:5, comforting the Roman Christians, who were apparently in the midst of persecution, reminding them that 'the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.' Paul was referring to a number of Old Covenant Scriptures, like Proverbs 1:23, Ezekiel 39:29, Daniel 9:27, Amos 5:8, 9:6, and Malachi 3:10, in which the blessings of the Holy Spirit ( God ) were promised to His seed. In Paul's letter to the Romans, in chapter 9, and verses 1 & 2; Paul told those Gentile Christians that 'I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart', referring to his own people, the Jews, or Israelites after the flesh. Paul next refers to God as the 'Holy Spirit' in Romans 14:17, in reference to the Kingdom of God, saying that 'for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit'. In his benediction, near the end of his letter to the Romans, in chapter 15, verse 13; Paul again refers to God as the 'Holy Spirit', when he writes, almost in a form of 'parallelism', 'Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.' In his first letter to the Church at Corinth; Paul, speaking of the wisdom of spiritual discernment, wrote, in chapter 2, verse 13, 'These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.' ( the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society text, based, I believe, on more ancient manuscripts, omits 'Holy' here. ) In a manner of reprimand, Paul reminded the Corinthians, in 6:19, asking a rhetorical question, 'Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?' Answering a question concerning spiritual gifts, and their diversity, Paul wrote this response, in 12:3, 'Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.' In his second letter to the Corinthian Church; Paul pleaded for their holiness, revealing to them, reminding them, that his ministry, and theirs, was by 'the Holy Spirit', in other words, 'by the power of God'. Paul ends his second letter with this benediction, using a sort of three-fold form of 'parallelism', 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen' ( II Corinthians 13:14 ) Paul next uses the phrase 'Holy Spirit' in Ephesians 1:13; reminding the Ephesian Christians, who according to Jesus ( Revelation 2:4 ) had left their first love ( Christ ), 'In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise'. ( 3:5 ) Paul obviously felt the need, once again, in Ephesians 4:30, to be holy, for he pleads, 'do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.' In his first letter to the Thessalonian Church; Paul revealed to them that 'our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit' ( I Thessalonians 1:5 ). Much as with the other churches; Paul had to remind them that 'he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit.' In the first chapter of his second letter to Timothy ( verse 14 ); Paul wrote, 'That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.' Writing to Titus; Paul reminded him that it was 'not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit'. In the second chapter of the epistle ( letter ) to the Hebrews, verse 4, the writer, speaking of the salvation that God brought to man through Jesus the Christ, asks the question of those first-century Jews, 'how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation', since God was 'also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?' Quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures ( Psalm 95:7-11 ), then writer then makes a plea for faithfulness, reminding them that, 'Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says:  Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of trial in the wilderness, where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, and saw My works forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, and they have not known My ways.’ So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest.' ( Hebrews 3:7-11 ) We read in Hebrews 6:4-6 that it is 'impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame'. Describing the limitations of the earthly types and figures, the author wrote, in Hebrews 9:8, speaking of the true tabernacle 'which the Lord erected, and not man' ( Hebrews 8:2 ), that 'the Holy Spirit [was] indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing.' Quoting Jeremiah 31:33 & 34, the writers spoke these words concerning the New Covenant in Christ; 'But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, 'This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them', then He adds, 'Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.' ( Hebrews 10:15-17 ) In I Peter 1:12; Peter wrote to his people , concerning the Old Covenant prophets, that 'to them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven-things which angels desire to look into', and in his second letter, that 'prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.'

Although in many of these examples, the Gospel writers, and the authors of the epistles, could very easily, simply have been referring to God as the holy Spirit ( which He is ), it also seems to be very clear that the Holy Spirit had a special mission during the first century, or the birthing and growing pangs of the Church. The question that I wish to present here is, 'if the Spirit of God ( or the 'third person of the Trinity' ( 'sure; it's orthodox, but is it Scriptural?' ) was sent to in-dwell the Church in the first century; is He still with us, as the 'Holy Spirit', since God ( who is the holy 'Spirit') once again dwells with us?' The writers of Scripture, especially the Greek Scriptures, also make very clear that, at least during the first century AD, and maybe a few years before, that there was a 'separation' within the God-head, when God sent His only begotten Son to earth in the form of, or as a human being, and thus was called 'the Son of Man' ( Ezekiel 20:27 ( Isaiah 52:14 ), although still called the 'Son of God' ( Hosea 11:1 ( 1:10 ), Matthew 14:33, Mark 1:1, Luke 1:32-35, Luke 22:70, II Peter  1:17, I John 4:10, Revelation 2:18 ( 21:7 ).

We now will treat several of the more ( seemingly ) irrefutable passages supportive of a doctrine of the Trinity. Most famous of these, probably, is John 5:7, 'For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one'. An interesting note on this verse though, and the first part of the next, is 'NU-Text ( Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies ) and M-Text  ( Majority ) omit the words from 'in heaven' (verse 7) to 'on earth' (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.' Verse 8 reads 'And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. ' If indeed the words noted above are true, it would make more sense in the context of Jesus' words to Nicodemus, in John 3, and His words to the woman at the well, in John 4. Matthew 28:19, perhaps better known as the first part of 'The Great Commission' is another well-known passage that seems to lend support to the doctrine of the Trinity. 'Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit', but could this simply be another example of three-fold 'parallelism', three being another numeral used in Scripture to denote completeness?

The Gospel according to Mark tells us that John the Baptizer, preaching of the coming of the Christ, prophesied, 'I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit'. Soon after this, John rendered his baptism upon this Christ, and 'saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove' ( Mark 1:8-10 ).  In Luke's account, in chapter 3; John is recorded as saying much the same as Matthew records, although in a slightly different context: John said, 'I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire' ( Luke 3:16 ). Luke also later records the Jesus received this baptism from John, after which 'the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, 'You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.' Following Matthew's account; Luke chapter 4 tells us that, immediately after this saying, 'Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness'. The gospel of John ( chapter 1 ) also records that John came baptizing, but, for some reason doesn't record that Jesus received the baptism of John ( water baptism ), although the baptizer did bear witness saying 'I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him'. In the very next verse, though, he says 'I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

When the Father 'separated' ( John 17:1-5 ) Himself from His Son, and sent Him to earth in the form of a man; God became, for a while, 'divided', within the God-head. One can fairly easily ascertain that the Son of God ( known as the Second 'person' of the Trinity, among orthodox Christians of varying types ) was preexistent; Jesus Himself said 'before Abraham was, I AM.' ( John 8:58 ) This statement almost got Him killed right then and there, because the Jews perceived ( how 'funny' that they perceived this and missed so many other things! ) that Jesus was saying that He was God ( Exodus 3:14 ), or at least equating Himself with God ( John 10:24-36 ( Philippians 2:6 ), later saying ‘I am the Son of God’. So we can pretty well establish that there are, or at least were, up until the consummation of the New Covenant, at least two separate 'personages' within the Godhead, but I believe that it as clear that these two, together, make up the Holy Spirit. A question that could well be raised among believers in 'fulfilled eschatology' ( in fact, this is one of the implications of 'FE' ); 'since Jesus left His body ( the Church ) on earth, when He ascended back into 'heaven' ( the presence ( glory ) of the Father ( God ); is He still a separate ( distinct ) 'person' from God the Father, or has He ( Father and Son ) become 'all in all' ( I Corinthians 15:28 ), as Scripture said?' 'Is it really all that important to defrock the doctrine of the Trinity' is another question that might well be asked; but I will leave that up to you. Personally; I believe that there is Scriptural evidence to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is, not a multiplicity of persons, or even personalities ( 'aspects' or 'characteristics' might be better words ), but of offices, actions, within the God-head, but since Christ's return in the 'clouds' of judgment on Old Covenant Israel; He remains with us as our Head, for as the Scriptures said, 'in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' ( Colossians 2:9 ( I:15-20 ).

In the love of Christ, and for the glory of God,

Charles Haddon Shank                                          

Conversations witth a bullfrog ( 'If I were the king of the world........' ) AKA 'The Great Upheaval' ( a message from Jeremiah Bereano )

I recently had a conversation, over the internet, with a brother who lives on the other side of the globe ( 'Praise God for the internet!' ), and one of the subjects that we talked about was preterism. He asked me, in other words, when we would see this kind of covenantal thinking would begin to take hold in mainstream Christianity, in the church at large. I replied to the effect that God was moving in His Church, and that I thought that preterism ( in it's many forms and facets ) was one of these 'fingers'.

In my earlier days, as 'the wandering theologian'; I was often known to take passages like I Peter 4:17 ( 'For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?' ) out of context, and apply it to the Church today. I believe that it can and must be applied to the Body of Christ today, as it IS the eternal word of God, although it doesn't have quite the same ramifications as it did to those first-century Jews to who Peter wrote. When Peter wrote these words of warning to his fellow Israelites ( the Diaspora, or Dispersion ); he was referring to the Great Tribulation that was about to come on God's people in the first century, and although this judgment, as we know, was a final and decisive one, which had eternal consequences, ushering in the fullness of the New Covenant in Christ; the church today faces a judgment of sorts, a 'weeding out', if you will, a purification. Many people today, especially with the introduction of social networking ( most notably Facebook ) have turned to the internet for fellowship within the Body of Christ, either because of their 'paradigm shift' ( for which many have been ostracized ), or because there just isn't a body of believers anywhere near that they feel comfortable fellowshipping with. Some, for whatever reason, have even attacked the local, or institutional church, even religion ( Christianity ) itself, and in many cases; I don't really blame them!


The institutional church has, in many ( some would say most, if not all ) cases, become undeniably corrupt. I personally know of at least one church down in the next state below where I live ( and this was back in the mid-late 90s ) that paid their pastor almost a quarter of a million dollars, and this was over ten years ago! I'm sure we've all heard of churches, in the big cities especially, that are pay their pastors much better than that, and I'm sure we can all tell a personal story of ministers seeming to be more concerned with how much they're getting paid, than with actually ministering ( fully ) to God's people. We could probably use up reams of seemingly endless data, uncovering the seemingly endless corruption in the institutional church, but should we really be spending all that time doing that? The 'Middle Ages', especially towards 'the end', were a time of 'Great Upheaval', where men like John Knox John Huss, and even Martin Luther were great instigators ( of God ) of much of this 'trouble' that God's people faced. Not having read much history of that era for quite some time, and therefore not having an extensive knowledge of the whole situation; I believe that we can all agree that the institutional church, though by all accounts an integral part of the Body of Christ, has harbored a lot of corruption over the years, and quite a few shady characters, who some would argue, were not part of that Body.


As I said, and hinted at earlier; I believe that the principles of preterism, or 'realized ( fulfilled ) eschatology' is just one of the 'stepping stones' that God is using to effectually continue this 'Great Upheaval', but it cant stop with eschatology. There are so many implications of fulfilled eschatology, most that have not been fully explored, and most probably some that, for whatever reason, have not been explored at all. The grace of God is one of these subjects that are beginning, within the past ten years or so, to be more fully ( and freely ) explored. A good example of a certain doctrine that has been freshly looked at, and is still being explored, is that of 'soteriology', or the doctrine of salvation. Most churchmen ( and this is changing-thanks be to God ), because of their false assumptions concerning eschatology, have felt the need to posit that our salvation has not been fully realized yet, in order to be consistent with those assumptions. In all fairness; there are many in the church ( institutional ), both in the pulpit and the pews, that despite their 'false assumptions', are living and loving as they have been Loved, freely sharing ( though maybe ignorantly ) the fullness of the Gospel of Grace! This is very commendable, and as I hinted at; 'All praise and glory goes to God!'


Many, as I noted earlier; have seen the apparent corruption in the institutional church, and have made the ( difficult, usually, and heart-breaking ) choice to leave the institutional church altogether, leaving behind ( in many cases ) family, and those they thought were friends, while others have made the ( even more difficult ) choice to labor in the midst of oppression ( perceptively, of course ) , fellowshipping, encouraging, eve influencing, those that labor under those false assumptions. I've old several 'brothers' that I thought that Martin Luther had the right idea, not trying to leave the church, not breaking fellowship, but striving to change ( strongly and drastically ) it from within. Don't get me wrong; I'm no Martin Luther, nor am I claiming to be, but maybe, just maybe, by spreading this renewed Gospel of Grace and Love; we can help set things straight, and fulfill our destiny as 'healing leaves ( Revelation 22:2 )!

What a Beautiful Mess We're In!

I am NOT a big fan of country music, but my youngest daughter is, and for the past week, more or less, I've been subjected to listening to it from the time I go to bed at night, to the time I get up in the morning. ( Don't get me wrong; I'm not really complaining, because I'm not really losing any sleep over it! ) The phrase that has been going through my head all morning, in this case, is 'what a beautiful mess I'm in'. We can look at this statement in several ways, both gloriously true; first, we could well say, 'wow, what a messed-up situation that we've landed in!', or we could thank God ( since 'Father Knows Best' ) for the messed-up situation that He has blessed us with, and graciously sent our way. ( Sometimes we can figure out why He has 'blessed' us in this certain way, but usually we can only speculate! )

You've most likely heard the phrase often, especially lately, 'it's all in how you look at it', and that's very true, in a sense: perception has a lot to do with how we 'handle' things ( not that things are the way we perceive them to be, for more often than not, our perception is a bit 'skewed'! ) In both 'perceived' situations, for instance; we could look at our situation and 'stress about it, throwing up our hands, saying 'why me?!', even, in some cases ( many? ) getting angry with God ( or yourself ), and taking it out on everyone around us, or we could take a look a our situation, and think 'I'm to blessed to be stressed'; God is just putting me in this situation to test me ( for whatever reason ), or too keep me from a different, maybe worse, or even possibly harmful situation. We often forget, when faced with these situations, that they are, whether we perceive it or not, 'a blessing in disguise'! Anyone who knows me, has figured out by now that my favorite Bible verse ( to quote, anyway ) is Romans 8:28; it reads ( depending on the version, of course ) 'For we know that all things work together for good ( or God works all things for good ) to those who love God, to them that are the called according to His purpose'. 'It's ALL good!' ( another familiar phrase, especially among the 'freer' kind ) We surely, without doubt, are in a beautiful mess; we have been 'blessed' ( most of us ) with a unique situation ( though, in a sense, quite common ), and while we can be sure that it is for our good, it's often hard to see that good ( God ), and not stress about the 'bad' that we do see.

Death, as we know, is a necessary part of life, this human existence, but, depending on how we face it, it can cause us ( as in one case I'm sure some of us are quite familiar with ) to say 'why him, God; he was so young, in the prime of his life ( not to mention with a wife and a couple of kids to support)?', or, as in another situation that you might be familiar with; 'God knows best: it was her time to go' ( but we sure will miss her bodily presence ), and God delivered her ( physically ) from a lifetime of hardship and trials, to what we can only speculate about, except that we know she is still in the Presence of God, but now she can enjoy that Presence without the 'fetters' ( blessings too, don't get me wrong ) of her biological body! We can make the choice, and we often make the wrong one, when something like this happens to us, or one of our loved ones, however near or far, to face it with either one of the above-mentioned attitudes ( or one similar ) and decide within ourselves whether we are going to let it 'stress us out', or whether we are going to let it make us stronger, and bring us peace ( either way; God's purpose will be done in our lives, so we might as well make the best of it, right? )!

I pray that we can all ( me especially ) 'treat' life's many and varied 'situations' this way, and that this gentle reminder will be a blessing to all those who read it!

In the Love and service of our great God and Saviour,
Charles Shank

Too Blessed to be Stressed ( ?? )!

This phrase is becoming more and more common in usage, especially among Christians, but, as in so many other cases; do we really practice what we preach? In so many secular songs, even ( I can think of one country song, anyway ); we often hear that 'I am so blessed', or something to that effect. There can be no doubt that we are too blessed to be stressed ( Ephesians 1:1-3, etc. ), but this doesn't stop the best of us; at some point or another, in some way or another, we all succumb to, if not the physical out-workings of the numerous stress factors that we come face to face with every day, then at least the mental, emotional, and sometimes the spiritual effects of that wondrous creation we call 'stress'!

Why do we get 'stressed', even though we know that we've been blessed beyond our wildest imaginings? If we sat down ( calmed down ) and really thought about it; we have been blessed so far beyond what we can even speculate, I mean; what does it really mean ( entail ) that our Creator God, our Father, He who birthed us ( spiritually-John 3 & 4 ), should deem to come down off His throne, subject Himself to the indignity of becoming one of us ( lowly ( weak ) humans ), suffering a lifetime of a fairly normal human existence, and then, in the last three or so years of His physical life on this earth being persecuted by His own kin, to finally end His ( physical ) existence in one of the most cruel deaths imaginable, the suffocating death of the cross ( crucifixion ), as the song goes, 'just to save a sinful soul like mine', to redeem His people, really, from their ( our ) own weakness, and, put simply, stupidity; idiocy, if you will! So how blessed are we?

Sure, you might say ( you must say, if you're honest with yourself, and Scripture ), 'we've been spiritually blessed, but those physical blessings seem 'far and few between', most of the time!'. This is so, but, as we all know; it usually only seems that way. If we stop ( rest-this is another of the 'Purposes of Night' ) and really think about it, as the song says 'Count Your Blessings, and 'name them one by one', we come to see ( understand ) just how blessed we are, even in this physical realm of our human existence! We have everything we need, do we not? God ( Jesus ) promised ( Matthew 6:33 ) that if we seek first His Kingdom, ( spiritual blessings), then all these things ( physical blessings ) will be added to us. We know this; I believe we all understand this ( and believe me, especially lately; I'm one of those I'm about to mention ), at least to a lesser or greater extent, but we still seem to be 'brought down' by the multitude of 'stress' factors that we find in our lives. Why must this be so?

A few years ago; I wrote a series of articles entitled 'A Focus on the Physical', and found that this had been one the major 'problems' throughout the history of God's people ( real or imagined ), and still 'plagues' many within the Body of Christ today! I believe that many, if not all, of our 'stress' factors can be blamed on this ( again, I'm not better in this area than anybody else )! In this physical realm that we call 'life ( 'That's Life' ) it is hard to live among all the hardship and pain without letting it 'get to us', which it inevitably does, at some point, or in some way, to whatever extent. The key is to stay focused on what God, in Christ, has done for us, and not on what we ourselves 'must' do. We need to find a happy medium between realizing ( trusting fully ) what Christ has done, 'resting from our labors' ( ceasing trusting our own works ), and willingly, happily doing what is necessary for us to do while we exist in this physical, human plane. There are things that need to be done while on this earth, and, normally, these things require hands and feet, but, while we try to keep in mind the spiritual and physical blessings; we often tend to get 'stressed out' ( I know I do ) when thinking of all the things that we 'have' to do, and while it's easy to preach Matthew 6:33, etc., it is infinitely ( almost ) harder to practice it!

What can be done then? Is it possible to live amongst all this anguish and turmoil without letting it get us down? I say 'Yes'! I've admitted that I'm finding it more and more difficult to accomplish, and basically found that it's almost an integral part of the human condition, but I'm by no means saying that it is a lack of faith ( maybe I am ) or trust in God, that many of us do fall prey to the 'stress' in our lives, but that when we begin to feel the 'weight' of those 'stress factors' pulling us down, we should immediately stop, raise our 'eyes' to 'Heaven' and thank God for the 'stress factors' that He has placed in our path, and for the strength that He has given us to over-come those obstacles!

Humbly & Hypocritically.

Charles Shank

'He doesn't belong to anybody; he just came to me. He only shows himself to those that need him.'
IHS & 4HK, CHS

For Pete's Sake

I just started watching one of the first movies that I ever watched as a youngster, along with about the only friend I ever had as a youngster ( all to myself anyway-his name was Shawn, as I recall ); that movie was 'Pete's Dragon', and sitting and watching it with my youngest daughter just now ( were on a break right now ) not only brought back some faint child-hood memories, but it also brought some covenantal truths to mind; 'fresh' truths, if you will!

I just recently wrote an article on how we need not fear the 'night' or 'darkness' ( physical ) anymore, and watching 'Pete's Dragon' ( along with 'Aslan', in the movie version of 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe' ); I was reminded of the superstitious fear that some have garnered over the fear of, even the symbol of the dragon ( see John's 'Revelation' ) and what it has stood for, among those superstitious ones, over the years ( same with snakes ). John's 'dragon' ( from 'Revelation' ) is dead, defeated, conquered, 'crushed' ( Romans 16:20 ) under our heels; we need no longer fear that 'dragon', but Pete's 'dragon', that's another matter!

One line from the movie that I had forgotten, sounds strangely familiar; when asked to sell 'Elliott' ( the dragon, Pete replied that the dragon was not his to sell, and then, when asked who he belonged to, he replied 'he doesn't belong to anybody; he just came to me. He only shows himself to those that need him'. 'Elliott' showed up at a time in Pete's life when he needed him most; like many of us, Pete had a specific need, and this 'magical' dragon came to fill that need, in much the way that God comes to us when we need help. As with most types and allegories; this is not a perfect picture of Christ, nor of what He did and does for us, but as I re-watched this movie today, for probably only the second or third time since I first saw it as a youngster, I couldn't help but see in the story, whether it was intentional on the part of the writer or not, the beautiful picture of the grace of God in Jesus. Granted; this WAS a Disney film, and though an older one, Disney nonetheless, but even so; I have gained a new appreciation for this film and was even almost moved to tears by the beauty of the Christology, intended or not!

This article was not intended to be a synopsis of the movie, so much as a treatise on the Christian life. Whether we will admit it or not; even the strongest of us has fears: fears of the unknown, fears of what may happen if we do such and such, of losing ( in this physical existence, anyway ) a loved one, even of losing ourselves, and to some extent, our salvation. In this physical existence ( and don't get me wrong; I'm not 'downing'' this ( physical ) life ); we often face much the same fears ( and loneliness, which is a fear in itself ), and even though, as Christians, we have realized the spiritual rest that we have been granted in Christ, we still long, often with fear and trembling ( anguish, even ) for that physical rest, that comfort that we, as physical beings, can best feel in the arms of another physical being. When Pete and Elliot first showed up in this quaint little New England ( I believe ) seacoast town; the dragon is not visible, except to those he wishes to reveal himself, and can, at will, become visible or invisible. Watching the havoc, usually purposeful ( to get his beloved Pete out of trouble ), that his mere presence created upon the town, even when invisible, reminded me of Jesus' words to Nicodemus, in John 3:8, 'The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.' Again; not a perfect picture, but I think that this picture, as with many other such pictures serve, not only as entertainment, but as beautiful reminders of what has been done for us, and is done every day, whether we realize it or not!

As I said above; John's 'dragon' was defeated and banished from existence, but we have Pete's 'dragon on our side, fighting our battles, both seen or unseen, real or imagined!

In the love of Christ,  and in His service,
                           Charles Shank

Don't Fear the Sandman!

Sleep with one eye open

Gripping your pillow tight

Exit light

Enter night

Take my hand

We're off to never never-land

                                                                 ( from 'Enter Sandman' by Metallica )

This is a story that is probably almost as old as time itself, but sometimes it doesn't hurt to take a fresh look. Scripture tells us in many places, particularly in the Greek New Testament, that sin, or ungodliness is often associated with 'night', or 'darkness'. Jesus, prophesying of His crucifixion and death, told His disciples that 'I^[we] must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work' ( John 9:4 ), and later, speaking on the same subject; 'if anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him' ( John 11:9b & 10 ). The apostle Paul wrote later, in Romans 13:12, 'The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light', and to the Body of Christ ( Romans 12:5, I Corinthians 12:27 ) at Thessalonica, 'You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness' ( I Thessalonians 5:5 ). There is much more that could be written here, for Scripture has much to say  ( significantly ) about the folly of 'night' or 'darkness' but we will ( only ) look at several more New Testament Scriptures that speak figuratively of the New Jerusalem. In Revelation 22:5; John 'saw' that 'There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.' ( see also 21:25 ) A more thorough study from Scripture on this subject ( of 'night' ) shows us that it referred, in a symbolic and figurative way, to the Old Covenant, which Paul called the 'ministry of death' ( II Corinthians 3:7 ), but since the New ( Covenant ) has fully come, we no longer fear the night, and in fact, one might find it ironic that what was once a symbol of fear and wrongdoing ( godlessness ) is a time that symbolizes the rest that we have in Christ.

For the Christian especially, but for mankind in general; God has given us the night-time for our physical rest, because, as Jesus explained above, in John 11, using the analogy of walking, if one walks in darkness, in the night, having no light to show his path, that he will stumble, not being able to see any obstacles in his path. Although many have not and do not take advantage, for whatever reason, of the night-time for restful purposes; common-sense tells us that a wise person will use the hours of darkness to rest and sleep, bringing some physical restoration to our depleted bodily resources. ( I must say here, in deference to some; that there are times and places, where there arises a need to work through the night, and we must, and do, appreciate their labors ). In Psalm 127:2, Solomon wrote, as in a proverb, '[ It is ] vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows; for so He gives His beloved sleep'. This is 'The Purpose of Night', the reason for which God has set the universe in such an order that the sun's light moves from one part of the earth to another. The king also wrote, referring to the wisdom of obedience, for his son's comfort and instruction, in Proverbs 3:24, 'When you lie down, you will not be afraid; yes, you will lie down and your sleep will be sweet.' In Ecclesiastes 5:12; he wrote, 'The sleep of a laboring man is sweet, whether he eats little or much; but the abundance of the rich will not permit him to sleep'. In the covenantal context of Scripture; we can see that Solomon was referring to those who, because of worry over their 'riches' cannot find the 'rest' that those who do not have that worry find, but also to those Old Covenant Jews, as the 'rich man' in Luke 16:19-31, who, 'seeking to establish their own righteousness' ( Romans 10:3 ), could not and, did not find the 'rest' in the night-time that Jesus spoke of in John 9, and that Paul wrote of, in Romans 13.

In conclusion; I would like to re-iterate that we need not fear the night, especially those of us who have found spiritual 'rest' in Christ ( God ), not only because the spiritual 'night' ( Romans 13:12 ) has passed ( although there are those who, whether because of their own stubbornness, or 'blind' choice, still walk in the darkness of night ), but also because we can rest physically ( without stress ), knowing that He has taken care of everything ( Matthew 6:33 ).

May God bless us all with this realization.

Charles Shank