Some Facts on the Sins of Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide

 

EUTHANASIA:

Definitions regarding our rising Culture of Death

(Pastor Terry L. Reese; Valley GBC, Armagh, PA; 6/18/23)

 

In today’s world, in which medical ethics have been corrupted by the abortion culture, the matter of euthanasia has become an increasingly contentious and disturbing topic. Today, a variety of nations (e.g., Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Australia, Canada, Columbia, Spain, and Portugal) legally allow for active, voluntary euthanasia (defined below). In the U.S., assisted suicide is legal in 10 jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, as well as the states of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, & Washington.

 

I. Euthanasia Defined (Gk.: εὐθανασία, lit. ”good death”): the practice of deliberate intervention with the express intent of terminating a human life in order to eliminate pain and suffering.

 

II. Categories of Euthanasia.

a. Relative to a patient’s consent:

1) Voluntary: The patient freely gives their open consent, requesting death.

2) Non-voluntary: The patient is unable to give open consent due to some incapacity (e.g., a comatose state), or else due to their status as a minor (allowed in some western countries).

3) Involuntary: The patient expressly denies or consciously withholds consent—but is still euthanized (e.g., Nazi Germany)!!!

 

b. Relative to the activity involved:

1) Active: directly causing a person’s death through the active administration of some lethal means (e.g., a lethal injection); sometimes referred to as “aggressive” euthanasia.

 

2) Passive: death is deliberately brought about through the withholding of “common treatment” (e.g., the withholding of food & fluids, thereby resulting in death-by-starvation).

 

NOTE: Passive Euthanasia should be differentiated from simply “allowing nature to take its course,” in which some extraordinary treatment that is no longer of any benefit to the patient (and thus only serves to increase their agony) is suspended. Unlike Passive Euthanasia, the latter course does NOT involve a deliberate act of homicide or suicide, and is thus is not necessarily sinful.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dark Legacy of Euthanasia & the Perversion of Medicine

A Brief Chronology

(Pastor Terry L. Reese; Valley GBC, Armagh, PA; 6/23/23)

 

o   Doctors of pagan antiquity routinely practiced euthanasia and performed abortions as part of their “services.”

 

o   Hippocrates of Kos (460-370 BC), a Greek doctor, founded a new school of medicine that opposed & disapproved of both abortion and euthanasia. His ethical medical code (“FIRST, do no harm!”) ultimately came to predominate in the western Christian world.

 

o   With the rise of the Gilded Age & Progressive Eras, euthanasia seriously entered U.S. public discourse in the late 19^th & early 20^th centuries, sharply questioning the traditional sanctity-of-life ethic of historic western Christian civilization.

 

o   In 1870, Samuel Williams proposed the use of a cocktail of anesthetics & morphine to intentionally end a suffering patient's life.

 

o   The notorious atheist lecturer Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) called for euthanasia to end the suffering of terminally ill patients.

 

o   Felix Adler, a prominent educator, called in 1891 for the use of lethal drugs on terminally ill patients upon their voluntary request.

 

o   While much of the Progressive Era debate focused on voluntary euthanasia, calls for involuntary euthanasia were also vocalized. 

 

o   1900: W. Duncan McKim, a prominent NY physician (as well as Doctor of Philosophy), published “Heredity & Human Progress,” suggesting that those with severe inherited defects & mental issues, as well as epileptics, drunkards, and criminals, should be “humanely” killed with carbonic gas.

 “The surest, the simplest, the kindest, and most humane means for preventing reproduction among those whom we deem unworthy of this high privilege, is a gentle, painless death; and this should be administered not as a punishment, but as an expression of enlightened pity for the victims—too defective by nature to find true happiness in life—and as a duty toward the community and toward our own offspring.”--W. Duncan McKim

o   In 1906, the Ohio legislature seriously considered the legalization of voluntary euthanasia—but the bill failed to make it out of committee.

 

o   The 1930’s saw a strong revival of interest & support for euthanasia.

 

o   1938: The Euthanasia Society of America (ESA) was formed, which lobbied for both the voluntary and involuntary euthanasia of people with severe disabilities, as well as for forced sterilization.

 

o   1939-45: Adolf Hitler & his SS doctors euthanize some 300,000 people against their will (physically & mentally handicapped, elderly, mentally ill, terminally ill, etc.)—including many children.

 

o   The immediate postwar era saw a decline in public support for euthanasia following the criminal abuses of the Third Reich.

 

o   Interest revives in the 60’s & 70’s with the rise of the “right-to-die” movement, and with subsequent high-profile cases—e.g., Karen Ann Quinlan, Terri Schaivo, Roswell Gilbert, Dr. Kevorkian. Various nations now allow physician-assisted-suicide & other forms of euthanasia.

Daniel Speaks! (Dan. 5:17a)

 

Dan. 5:17a: “Let your gifts remain with you…”

 

o   These words should not be viewed as a crude, impudent, and injudicious expression of open contempt for the King—which would justly carry with it an expectation of regal fury and well-merited vengeance. We strongly resist the idea that Daniel was being “saucy” or “cheeky” in his manner and conduct.

 

Prov. 20:2: The terror of a king is like the roar of a lion; he who provokes him to anger sins against his own soul.

 

1Pet. 2:13:  Be subject for the sake of the Lord to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority…

 

Rom. 13:7: Pay everyone whatever you owe them—taxes to whom taxes are due, tolls to whom tolls are due, fear to whom fear is due, honor to whom honor is due.

 

1Pet. 2:17: Honor all people, love the brethren, fear God, honor the king.

 

o   There are four factors that bear our consideration, with reference to Daniel’s opening comments.

 

o   First, this statement serves as a prologue for all that follows, starkly defining Daniel’s role as a forthright and incorruptible Divine messenger.

 

Daniel is, from the very onset of his discourse, establishing the fact that he is not merely a “hired gun” whose services are for rent (in stark contrast to the Babylon’s professional caste spiritual “experts”). Rather, he is a prophet of the Living God who must speak the truth.

 

The Scripture contains various negative examples of those “professionals” and “hirelings” (John 10:12-13) who, motivated by self-interest, prophesize or serve for money, such as Balaam, the son of Beor (who was outsourced to Balak, King of Moab, in Num. 22), or the young Levite Jonathan (Judges 17-18) who sold himself out to the idolatrous Micah of Ephraim for “ten shekels and a shirt”[1] (Judges 17:10), and who subsequently hired himself out to the men of Dan (Judges 18) for similar reasons.[2]

 

In contrast to such men as these are those like Abraham (who would not accept enrichment from the hand of the King of Sodom; cf., Gen. 14:21-24), Elisha (cf., 2 Kings 5:15-16, who would accept no “fee” for the cure of Naaman), Peter (who could not be “bought” by Simon Magus in Acts 8:18-20), or Paul (who could truthfully state unto the Ephesian elders “I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes;” cf. Acts 20:33-35).

 

To be sure, the laborer is due his well-earned wages (1 Tim. 5:17-18), but we are dealing here with the question of motivation.

 

Matt. 6:24: "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”

 

o   Second, these words must be understood in a manner that is consistent with the context that is established by Daniel’s ensuing testimony as a faithful and accurate interpreter. The grim report that Daniel will subsequently convey unto the Royal House is that Babylon’s doom is immediate in its proximity—thereby rendering Belshazzar’s promised lavish rewards both imminently and utterly worthless!  

 

o   Third, Daniel’s discomfort in accepting royal favors may also stem from the fact that he has been made aware of Belshazzar’s desecration of the sacred Temple objects (v. 23).

 

o   Fourth, Daniel utters these words in faith and trust. Well aware that he was walking the “thin line” (i.e., faithfully serving the Living God in relating and interpreting a Divine message that would most assuredly be disagreeable unto the ears of the Royal Court—and thus potentially incur the King’s wrath and violent displeasure), Daniel nonetheless places his destiny in the Hands of God, boldly serving the Lord in total obedience and leaving the consequences and results with Him.

 

o   This is an important example for believers to take note of, as all of us called upon by our Divine Master to fulfil the demands of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) within “hostile territory.”

 

o   While it is true that the Royal Honors are ultimately presented by Belshazzar and accepted by Daniel (cf., 5:29), it is essential to note that this occurs only after the message is interpreted—underlining with clarity the fact that Daniel did not exercise his prophetic gifts in a mercenary fashion. He accepts the gifts only after establishing the foundational principle and condition that the King’s offer of reward would in no wise affect the outcome of the interpretation.

 

Also, we would note the thought offered by Lange’s commentary on this matter: namely, that Daniel ultimately accepted the King’s gifts in the spirit of regarding them “as a recognition of his God.” In other words, Belshazzar’s rewards represented a public acknowledgement of the veracity of Daniel’s interpretation.

 

We would further add these significant points from Barnes with reference to the discussion: 1) Belshazzar was presenting Daniel with an honor that he did not seek, and 2) Belshazzar was, à la Don Corleone, making Daniel an offer that “he couldn’t refuse!”

 

“It may seem somewhat strange that Daniel, who here disclaimed all desire of office or reward, should so soon (Dan. 5:29) have submitted to be clothed in this manner, and to receive the insignia of office. But, it may be remarked, that when the offer was proposed to him he stated his wishes, and declared that he did not desire to be honored in that way; when he had performed the duty, however, of making known the writing, he could scarcely feel at liberty to resist a command of the king to be clothed in that manner, and to be regarded as an officer in the kingdom. His intention, in the verse before us, was modestly to decline the honors proposed, and to intimate that he was not influenced by a desire of such honors in what he would do; yet to the king’s command afterward that he should be clothed in robes of office, he could not with propriety make resistance. There is no evidence that he took these honors voluntarily, or that he would not have continued to decline them if he could have done it with propriety.”

---

[1] Note the missionary Paris Reidhead’s classic 1965 sermon “Ten Shekels and a Shirt,” which can be found on Sermon Audio.com (https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10180222445).

[2] This episode is held up as a prime example of what happens to a nation that is not under authority (Judges 18:1).

BLOODY ABORTION: Some Facts & Figures

 

BLOODY ABORTION:

Some Dark Facts & Recent Figures

by Pastor Terry L. Reese, of the Valley GBC of Armagh GBC; 5/26/23)

 

As of today, about 930,160 legally induced abortions are provided annually in the U.S. This is a 7% increase from 2017—reversing a long-term decline since the high-point of 1990 (a year that saw a record 1.6 million U.S. abortions). From 1973 (the year of Roe v. Wade) until 1981(when 29.3% of U.S. pregnancies ended in abortion), the numbers of abortions sky-rocketed—and then leveled-off at a 10-year, even-plateau. From 1990 to 2017, there was a slow, steady decline in the abortion rate amongst American women, but since 2017 the abortion rates have notably increased. Total Number of U.S. abortions since Roe v. Wade (1973-Present):

65,000,000 (65 MILLION).

 

Currently, 20.6% of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. The states with the highest abortion rates are New Jersey (29.2%) and New York (28.8%). In Washington DC, the rate is 49%!

 

According to Guttmacher’s (a pro-choice NGO that conducts data-research), for the first time since Roe v. Wade, a solid majority of U.S. abortions (54%) are now performed using chemical abortifacients (i.e., an “abortion pill”—a human “pesticide”). This represents a sharp increase since 2004 (9.6%), with the current trend being expected to increase.

 

61% of Americans believe that abortion should be allowed either all, or most of the time. 62% of US abortion clientele claim to have some sort of religious affiliation. The top reason they cite for having an abortion (25%) is not being “ready” to have a child; only 0.5% claim to be rape victims.

 

According to the World Health Organization, the annual number of abortions worldwide is 73 million per year (i.e., 200,000 per day, with 29% of all pregnancies on Planet Earth currently ending in abortion).

The NEW BIRTH: What it IS, and what it is NOT

 

The NEW BIRTH: What it IS and IS NOT

(Pastor Terry L. Reese; Valley GBC of Armagh, PA; 2/24/23)

 

A. What this change is NOT: it is not the work of man!

1. The New Birth is NOT procured by church ordinances. Simon Magus was water-baptized—and unregenerate! (Acts 8:13,20-23).

 

2. A good education is not regeneration. Education may serve to restrain men's lusts—but cannot change their innermost hearts. A wolf in chains is restrained from causing harm—but it is still a wolf!

 

3. Natural progress in outward maturity is not the new birth. As men progress in age and maturity, they often turn from youthful indiscretions and outwardly embrace a more discreet and respectable lifestyle. However, such self-reformation is not redemptive change nor spiritual regeneration!

 

4. Zeal & regularity in religious observance is not the new birth. One may engage in all the outward duties of religion—and yet remain utterly lost & unregenerate (Acts 26:4-5, Matt. 23:15)! 

 

5. The New Birth isn’t simply a “flash-in-the-pan” emotional “experience” that eventually fades into oblivion (Matt 13:20-21, 1John 2:19). Many persons momentarily experience the pangs of a troubled conscience—only to return to their own “vomit” (2 Pet. 2:22): cf., Pharaoh, Esau, Simon Magus, Felix, Judas, etc.

 

B. What this change IS. This change is real & profound—a man is literally transformed by God into a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17)!

 

1. Regeneration results in a change of qualities, or dispositions (Eph. 4:22-24, Gal. 5:17-24, Rom. 6:1-14).

 

2. It is a supernatural change. He who is born again is born of the Spirit (John 3:5). Man cannot effect this change (Jer. 13:23)—but the God who raises the spiritually dead can (Ezek. 36:26, John 1:13)!

 

3. It is a change into the Likeness of Christ (2 Cor. 3:18), which is God’s eternal plan for His elect (Rom. 8:29).

 

4. It is an entire & extensive change: the whole man (mind, will, soul, etc.) is regenerated (2 Cor. 5:17: “All things become new…").

 

5. It brings a new freedom from sin (John 8:34-36; Rom. 6:16-18)!

 

6. It is irreversible—it is a permanent & lasting change (John 6:37-40, 10:27-30; Philip. 1:6, Rom. 8:29-30).

 

7. The agent of regeneration: the Word of God (1 Pet. 1:23). God appoints means that attend His Divine activity: evangelism (Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 10:13-15) and prayer (Rom. 10:1; 1Tim. 2:1).

The Terror of a King (Dan. 5:5d-7a)

 

v. 5d: “and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.”

o   Note the emphasis upon the fact that the King himself was an eyewitness—ensuring that the dreadful apparition could not be dismissed by Belshazzar as a false report born out of fancy, or perhaps an alcohol-fueled delusion arising from the bosom of the intoxicated.

 

v. 6a: “Then the king's countenance changed…”

o   The term translated “countenance” literally refers to “brightness,” or bright looks; the color drained from Belshazzar’s face as he beheld the spectral apparition.

 

o   Instantly, the King has returned to sobriety and his grand theatrical display of bravado has vanished!

 

“Behold, Reader! on what a slender thread the happiness of man hangs, when in a moment the appearance on a wall can snap it asunder!”—Robert Hawker, Poor Man’s Commentary

 

v. 6b: “and his thoughts alarmed him…”

o   Precisely WHY his mind was troubled and filled with terror by the awful apparition is not directly specified—yet we may conjecture the following…

 

·         In general, we may observe that men are terrified by an encounter with the transcendent—what Rudolf Otto (The Idea of the Holy, 1917) has described as the numinous—referring to an awe-inspiring and fear-inducing encounter with the Holy (cf., Ex. 34:30). The Holy is that which is wholly other and above, and which lies outside the normal experience of man. Biblically, the term Holy primarily refers to that which is transcendent; the popular idea of holiness as a moral purity is a secondary idea that is contained within the first. Note how sinful men reacted to an encounter with a Holy God in the Person of Christ:

Luke 5:8: And seeing [the miracle of the great catch], Simon Peter fell at the knees of Jesus, saying, Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord.

Luke 8:37: And all the multitude of the neighborhood of the Gadarenes were seized with a great fear [with reference to the healing of the demoniac]. And they asked Him to depart from them. And entering into the boat, He returned.

 

·         In this specific case, Belshazzar was doubtless aware that the dreadful apparition was connected to his acts of blasphemy against the God of Israel (vv. 2-4)—the very same God that his grandfather Nebuchadnezzar had also offended (4:28-33), resulting in catastrophic judgment—of which Belshazzar was fully aware (vv. 18-22)! The dormant conscience was at last awakened!

v. 6c: “…so that the joints of his loins were loosed…” [KJV]

o   Loins is commonly understood to refer to that area engirdled by the belt—an area serving as the seat of a man’s strength; Belshazzar’s strength thus departed.

 

o   Belshazzar loses control of his lower extremities and is apparently either unable, or barely able, to stand.

 

o   Some commentators have also apprehended within this statement the suggestion that Belshazzar may also have lost control of his bladder, or perhaps his bowels—and thus became incontinent!

 

o   Isaiah 45:1 may contain a reference to this event in speaking of the triumphs of the Persian conqueror Cyrus the Great, who would strip rival kings—including Belshazzar—of their dignity, power, and sovereignty.

 

“Thus says the LORD to Cyrus His anointed, whom I have taken by the right hand, to subdue nations before him and to loose the loins of kings…”

 

v. 6d: “…and his knees knocked against each other.”

o   A further expression of the king’s overwhelming fear. The great Assyrian city of Nineveh had experienced a similar terror in the day of its downfall:

 

Nahum 2:11: She is emptied! Yes, she is desolate and waste! Hearts are melting and knees knocking! Also anguish is in the whole body and all their faces are grown pale!

 

o   How quickly passes the mirthful delight of the wicked! Solomon compares their moment of glee to a fire fueled by thorns: pointlessly, it crackles merrily with a great noise and a grand show of flame—but only for a brief moment, rapidly burning itself out and accomplishing nothing!

 

Eccl. 7:6: For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fools; this also is vanity.

 

o   Henry Cowles, in his old commentary on Daniel (1867), paints a vivid picture of this scene, reminding us that the terror experienced by Belshazzar will ultimately be visited upon all sinners:

 

It is an appalling scene when a sinning mortal knows that the Great God has come to meet him in the very midst of his sins! Belshazzar might well stand aghast to find him- self thus confronted face to face with the dread Jehovah whom he is purposely insulting! He has a sense of a present Power, more than human, in that strange hand, writing unknown words on his palace-wall, and a guilty conscience helps him to forecast some fearful doom! The brightness of his countenance is gone (so the original imports); his mind is fearfully agitated; his knees smite against each other. How changed the scene from the glee of his blasphemous revelry to this paleness of cheek, convulsion of frame, remorse of conscience, and dread foreboding of doom! Many a sinner has had a like experience, and other thousands must have it!

 

Heb 10:31: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

o   The guilt-induced terror generated by the awful specter causes the king to lose composure before the eyes of his shocked courtiers in much the same manner as Shakespeare’s Macbeth, upon encountering Banquo’s ghost (Act 3, Scene 4).

v. 7a: “The king cried aloud…

o   A further indication of the king’s lack of composure is revealed as he disregards appearances and desperately cries for his appointed “experts” in matters pertaining to the supernatural.  

 

v. 7b: “…to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers…”

 

o   The list of enumerated classes indicates that the entire college of such “experts” were subject to the royal summons, as in 2:2 & 4:4 5:11—though reference to the “magicians” (Heb., charṭôm) is absent. Some have seen some significance in this—arguing that Belshazzar was deliberately avoiding contact with Daniel, who was referred to as their president in 4:9. As Keil & Delitzsch argue, however, this suggestion is most improbable, in that v. 8 indicates that all classes of wise men were summoned upon this grave occasion (“all the king's wise men came in”).

 

o   Furthermore, by this time, the octogenarian Daniel appears to have been placed “on the shelf” by the regime, no longer actively functioning at court as the chief administrator over the company of magi (cf., vv. 11-16). It should be remembered that there had been several regime-changes subsequent to the death of Daniel’s great royal patron, King Nebuchadnezzar.

 

o   These “experts,” with remarkable consistency, had long-proven unsuccessful at such interpretive efforts in the past (Dan. 2:10-11, 4:7)—yet the king impulsively and intuitively turns to them as a source of divine wisdom. Sadly, the ungodly have a persistent pattern of preferring the smooth counsel and worldly wisdom of spiritual humbugs and imposters over the genuine knowledge and revelation that is provided by authentic and accredited messengers of God (1 Kings 22:5-8).

 

2 Tim. 4:3-4: For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

 

As with the prior courtly narratives of chapters 2 and 4, it will once again be demonstrated through the failure of the wise men that “the world by its wisdom did not know God…” (1 Cor. 1:21).

 

o   How is it, we may ask, that the king did not initially choose to reactivate the forgotten Daniel, in light of Belshazzar’s personal knowledge of the events of chapter 4 (Dan. 5:22)? Note Calvin’s comments on this passage, underlining the doctrine of the entire (or total) depravity of natural man:

 

“When God sets before him the sign of his judgment, he calls together the magi and the Chaldeans, and passes by Daniel. And what possible excuse can he have for this? We have seen, as I have said, how very prone men are to be deluded by Satan’s impostures, and the well-known proverb becomes true—The world loves to be deceived!”

 “…We see, then, how blind King Belshazzar was, since he closed his eyes to the light offered him. So in the present day almost all the world continues in blindness; it is not allowed to wander in darkness, but when light shines upon it, it closes its eyes, rejects God’s grace, and purposely desires to cast itself headlong. This conduct is far too common.” (John Calvin, Commentary on Daniel)

The wicked, in the end, are “hostile” both to the Father (Rom. 8:7) and His Anointed One (Ps. 2:2)—who is the Truth Personified (John 14:6)—and thus despise His truth and prefer the darkness (John 3:19-20; 7:7, 8:40, 45; 2 Thess. 2:10-12).

 

John 3:19-20:  And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.  For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

 

v. 7c: “‘Any man who can read this inscription and explain its interpretation…’”

o   The fact that the court’s wise men were both unable (due to their spiritual deficiencies) and unwilling to venture an interpretation (probably sensing the ominous, as in 4:7) is no great puzzle. Less clear is their apparent inability to even be able to read the text of the mysterious message. Various suggestions have been proposed as to why the message and its interpretation were indiscernible to both the king and his college of wise men (v. 8), including the following:

 

o   …While the language was Aramaic, the particular characters employed were the older, pre-Exilic form of Hebrew script (i.e., paleo-Hebrew), as opposed to today’s familiar Aramaic (“Assyrian”) square script, or block-lettering;

 

o   …The simple words themselves—common Aramaic ones—were not undiscernible—only their meaningful interpretation. Thus, the thought here would be that the wise men could not read understandingly (but note the seemingly clear and contrary testimony of v. 8, if taken at face value);

 

o   …The absence of later Masoretic vowel points and accents served to obscure the legibility of the message, which was written purely in consonant-form (“How are you this afternoon?” = “HW R Y THS FTRNN”—or perhaps even “HWRYTHSFTRNN”);

 

o   …The script was laid-out in some sort of unusual or unconventional form, order, or pattern, which contributed to its illegibility, and consequently, to the interpretive difficulty.

 

o   Ultimately, the validity of any of the above proposed solutions resists positive confirmation and absolute certainty, and should thus not serve to obscure the central point that Daniel alone—God’s accredited messenger (Dan. 2:47; 4:9, 18)—was able to understand and interpret the message due to Sovereign Divine intervention and influence.