Truth Magazine

By Carl McMurray

It seems that there are always destined to be among us certain practices and “issues” which refuse to be completely conquered. Perhaps it’s because of a continued inflow of converts needing to be taught. Perhaps it’s because we must continue to live in a world dominated by darkness. More sobering, however, is the thought that these things continue to stand as stumbling blocks because those responsible for teaching people how to be lights in the world are not giving out a clear sound. One of the practices we have in mind is “drinking” (Not necessarily drunkenness mind you, but what used to be referred to as “social drinking”). When the strongest teaching that a gospel preacher does on the matter is to explain, “I’d never drink, but I don’t see that the Bible condemns it,” then we need to be doing more studying and less listening to the lovers of the world around us.

There are at least two main areas in which the Bible condemns this practice. First, there are what I refer to as the moral arguments based upon the application of valid Bible principles. Then, there are the plain scriptural arguments that address drinking directly.

Moral Arguments

Notice Paul’s admonition in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 to “abstain from all appearance of evil.” The legalists among us generally will not accept any warning unless it is absolutely nailed into the context of a specific sin. Here, however, is a direct command to “abstain,” yet the object is a general idea. Not only specific sin is to be avoided, but even the appearance of such. If this does not apply with regard to the practice of drinking, then it does not apply anywhere, because everything associated with drinking is evil. This can be shown by the following.

It Is A Drug

It makes little sense to recoil with horror from the idea of using “just a little” grass, coke, or dust, while we sit in a Bible class and calmly give our assent to “just a cold one on a hot day.” A $2 million tax-funded study during the Johnson administration identified alcohol as the most dangerous drug in the country.(1) Alcohol addicts outnumber drug addicts 10 to 1, and alcohol deaths outnumber drug related deaths 33 to 1.(2) Consider also, that doctors report 1 out of every 3 people are put together in such a way as to make them potential alcoholics.(3) One cannot know until he begins to drink whether he will be drawn into alcoholism. In 1975 (10 years ago, no less!) the number of those addicted to alcohol was estimated at 8 million(4) while those who were working with alcoholics thought the figure was closer to 15-20 million.(5) Like the reckless teen-age driver who is sentenced to spend time in a hospital emergency room so that he might see the end results of his “fun,” perhaps it would do our Pepsi drinking brethren who see nothing wrong with social drinking good to spend time with a few members of Alcoholics Anonymous so they could actually see the burns from the fire they play with. This drug has a proven detrimental effect on one’s brain, lungs, heart, liver, pancreas, small intestine, endocrine glands, sex glands, blood, and bone tissue, as well as lowering one’s resistence to infection.(6) Nothing wrong with “just a little” you say? Then you surely won’t mind if your child pops “just a few pills,” or smokes marijuana “just a little?” It reminds me of those inconsistent brethren who argue that there is no proof that smoking is harmful (as if this was the only problem), thus no reason to abstain from doing it on the porch at the church building. But they won’t let their children smoke! To play with that which has enslaved so many and has the power to master us is to ignore every warning from God on the deceitfulness of sin and the power of Satan.

It Weakens Inhibitions

Like most harmful drugs, alcohol causes one to lose his ability to reason and think clearly, though the one drinking is usually the last one to know. It is not a stimulant as so many believe, but instead simply takes away inhibitions, removes the brakes so to speak. Thus, when one would normally resist or avoid certain temptations, he instead weakens his conscience, if not silencing it altogether. This is accomplished because that portion of our brain, the frontal lobe, which controls our inhibitions is quickly affected by alcohol.(7) And we might point out that this happens long before state laws would ever recognize one as being intoxicated. The degree of reasoning power that is lost may be much or little, but it is lost nonetheless. Should a Christian sacrifice any of his ability to think clearly and deal with every situation as “wise men”? This would hardly agree with Timothy’s directions to discipline himself (1 Tim. 4:7), or with the Spirit’s admonition to be “alert and sober” as “sons of light” (1 Thess. 5:5-6). It is wrong, brethren.

The World Sees What We Deny

Alcohol has been the direct and indirect cause of the destruction of uncountable numbers of innocent lives. Every dollar gained by the government is lost multiplied times over by being poured out in policing drunks, higher insurance fees, destruction of property, rehabilitation, drying out programs, medical care, lost time from work, and the kindred costs of other crimes committed while “under the influence.” Over fifty per cent of all traffic fatalities and seventy-five per cent of single vehicle fatalities are directly related to alcohol. Keep in mind that not all of these are even classified as “drunk.” They’re just “comfortable.” Seventy percent of all divorce cases result at least partially from alcohol.(8) Twenty percent of alcoholic mothers give birth to children with serious birth defects.(9) Up to 75% of all crimes are committed by persons under the influence of this drug.(10) There is no way to put a dollar value on the immorality committed while “on” this drug, nor of the tragic results of such activity in broken homes, abused children, and birth defects caused by unthinking parents who were pumping alcohol through their veins during conception and/or pregnancy. And most of us would prefer not to consider the long range cost of scarred and broken lives (of the innocent as well as the guilty). But just a little is ok, right? Wrong! Nothing with this type of track record ought to have any place among those committed to putting “His righteousness” first (Matt. 6:33). This practice in any degree can be nothing but harmful to our influence and example as salt and lights in the world. There is some salt in serious danger of losing its flavor because of its great desire to be like the world. The foolishness of trying to justify the practice is seen in the picture of one asking another to come over and spend the evening in Bible study. The gracious host, desiring to make his visitor comfortable so that one might truly see his soul’s need in the study, meets him at the door with, “This Bud’s for you!” Is this truly the “Miller time” we hear so much about? It is wrong, brethren.

Even If You Can Control It

Because of the first reason we listed, there is a very real danger of leading others to commit outright sin in becoming an alcoholic (drunkard, Bible). Now, to some who care nothing for others, this means little, but for a Christian to engage in that which may destroy another’s life, let alone his soul, is unthinkable (1 Cor. 8:12-13).

If there were no other reasons, these would be enough. Drinking alcoholic beverages in any quantity in our society and circumstances today is sinful. But these are not the only reasons. We will look at some Scriptures plainly condemning such action next time.

Endnotes

1. Article from Detroit Free Press, via Richard DeHaan, Bible Truth.

2. Ibid

3. Beverage Alcohol Destroys , p.3, Delton Hann Tract Co.

4. A Jigger Of Murder, Journal of Insurance, Sept./Oct. 1975, Frank G. Harrington.

5. Enlist In The War Against Alcohol, p.5, 1974, Southern Pub. Co.

6. Ibid, p. 9.

7. Drunkenness, T. Mark Lloyd Sr., M.D., Searching the Scriptures, Aug. 1977.

8. Enlist In The War Against Alcohol, p. 17, 1974, Southern Pub. Co.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid., p. 18; also Alcohol’s Contribution To Mankind, William Sexton.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 21, pp. 658-659
November 1, 1984

By Raymond Harris

As we compare the attitudes and activities of the student body of high schools and colleges with the attitudes and activities of the larger communities of our nation, it gets a little scary.

If you have the notion that unruliness, rebellion, and acts of violence have mushroomed, you are right.

Recently a study was made comparing the most often reported offenses in public schools in 1940 with those of 1982. Here we have the results.

In 1940 the top offences in public schools were as follows: (1) Talking without permission; (2) chewing gum; (3) making unnecessary and disturbing noise; (4) running in the halls; (5) getting out of turn in lines; and (6) not putting waste paper in the wastebaskets.

In 1982 things were quite different. The top offenses of 1982 were: (1) Robbery; (2) assault; (3) rape; (4) burglary; (5) bombings; (6) arson; (7) vandalism; (8) extortions; (9) absenteeism; (10) drug abuse; (11) alcohol abuse; (12) pregnancies; (13) abortions; (14) venereal disease; (15) suicide; (16) murder and (17) gang warfare.

Obviously, unless there is a radical change in the home, in the schools, and ultimately in the thinking and lives of our young, our future will be to become a barbaric society and finally extinction.

Through the years, I too have been concerned that “Johnny can’t read” and “Jane doesn’t know the multiplication tables.” However, it is rather obvious that this nation has a problem far worse than a 4007o functional illiteracy rate!

I would suggest that the problem has two tap roots: (1) A breakdown of the home which no longer practices and teaches high moral values and standards. (2) The complete “take over” of our nation’s educational system by humanists. Hence, we have a situation wherein absolute standards of right and wrong that are taught in the home are soon eroded by teachers who promote evolution, sex education and situation ethics (wherein nothing is to be considered absolutely right or wrong). Some teachers even unknowingly fall into the trap of becoming the instruments of the humanist as they lead sessions in “Behavioral Modification” and “Values Clarification” and dilute any good things that have been taught at home.

If evolution is true, these conclusions follow: (1) there is no God; (2) man is a superior animal; (3) animals are not bound by laws; (4) life becomes a matter of the survival of the fittest; and (5) the civilized world reverts to a jungle!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 21, p. 650
November 1, 1984

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: I am making a study of Ezekiel 11:19,20,- 18:31 and 36.-26 concerning the giving of a new heart and a new spirit. Is this future prophecy? When was the giving of a new heart and new spirit accomplished; was it under the old or new covenant?

Reply: The above verses are worded about the same, so we shall notice the reading of the first reference, Ezekiel 11:19,20. Jehovah is addressing Israel through the prophet Ezekiel. Concerning Israel He says: “And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and will give them a heart of flesh; that they may walk in my statutes, and keep my ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.”

At the time this promise was given, the Jews were captives in Babylon; they had been carried away from their own land because of idolatry. During his second invasion (c. 597 B.C.), Nebuchadnezzar carried away several thousand captives, among whom was the prophet Ezekiel. They were settled at the river Chebar, which empties into the Euphrates three hundred miles north of Babylon. It was here that Ezekiel wrote the visions that make up the body of the book of Ezekiel. It was during this period that the 137th Psalm was written.

Ezekiel 36:25 prefaces verse 26, a parallel to Ezekiel 11: 19,20; 18:32. Ezekiel told Israel, “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.” He alludes to the sprinklings for purification of sin under the law, as in Numbers 19:9,19,20. The idea in Ezekiel 36:25 is that God would cleanse Israel of guilt. The passage does not refer to sprinkling as a mode of baptism, although some contend that it does. The verse certainly does not refer to the conditions of salvation that are found in the New Testament. In the New Testament we are plainly taught to be baptized (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38, etc.) and that means “to be dipped, submerged or immersed.” The meaning of the Greek words bapto and baptizo in the New Testament mean “to dip in or under,” “to immerse,” as garments are dipped in dye (see Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the N. T., Vol. 1, pp. 529, 30 et al). So, Ezekiel 36:25 has no reference to baptism in the New Testament whatsoever. As water of purification under the law was to cleanse unclean persons and vessels, so God would cleanse Israel of her sins if she would repent. This is the context of the new heart and new spirit which would be put in Israel, as mentioned in the verses considered in the inquiry.

It is said in Ezekiel 11:19 that God would give them one heart. Israel was scattered throughout Babylon. She would become unified as God would gather her together and bring her back to her own land. Verse 21 makes it evident that all would not put away the detestable things required to be put away in verse 18. But Ezekiel 18:31 is clear, that having a new heart and a new spirit, was conditional. Israel had to first cast away all her transgressions. They were dead spiritually until

they repented of their sins. Jehovah assured them that He had no pleasure in their spiritual death and then appealed to them, “wherefore turn yourselves and live” (v. 32).

In the Ezekiel 36:26 passage, God said that He would take away their stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh. Their stony heart was their stubborn heart, their heart of rebellion to God’s will. The heart of flesh was their new heart, a different one from the one they had. Heart transplants are nothing new to the Bible.

Any consideration of the above verses should include a reference to Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones (ch. 37). He saw a valley of dry bones, but there was a noise and an earthquake and the bones came together (v. 7). Then he saw sinews upon them and flesh came up, and skin covered them; but no breath was in them (v. 8). Ezekiel prophesied “and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceeding great army” (v. 10). Jehovah then promised to open up their graves and bring them into the land of Israel (v. 12). Now notice v. 14, “And I will put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I will place you in your own land: and ye shall know that 1, Jehovah, have spoken it and performed it, saith Jehovah.”

Figuratively, the nation of Israel was in a state of death while captive in Babylon and would be raised up to a new life. Israel was promised the land of Canaan (Gen. 15:7,18,19; 26:4; 28:13,14; etc.); Israel received the land (Josh. 21:44,45; 23:15) and now Israel, having been carried away to Babylon, is to return to the land. The bones in Ezekiel 37 represent Israel (v. 11) and the vision is that of a resurrected nation as represented by the dry bones being covered with flesh and receiving breath (v. 6). The context of these passages is Israel and her revival or renewed state. Israel was restored to her own land as Jehovah had promised. She returned from exile in Babylon (1) under Zerubbabel (536 B.C.), (2) under Ezra (458 B.C.), and (3) under Nehemiah (445 B.C.). The giving of a new heart or spirit was then accomplished. Some commentators do suggest that the opening of the graves and the coming of Israel out of them alludes to the future general resurrection (Jn. 5:28,29). If so, it would be only in a secondary sense. The immediate context is the return of Israel to her land from captivity in Babylon.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 21, pp. 646, 664
November 1, 1984

By Richard W. Terry

Someone once wrote, “All weddings are happy; it’s living together afterwards that causes all the trouble.” While said in jest, there is far too much truth in such a statement. While we are told that the national average for divorces has dropped over the past few years, we are still alarmed by the number of divorces that we hear of each year. Even more alarming are the number of reports of elders and preachers whose marriages are ending in divorce. The sad reality of it all is that while these men may know what God’s word says regarding the sanctity of marriage and God’s distaste of divorce, such knowledge is not always sufficient to prevent the break up of their marriages.

Our papers team with articles on the subject of divorce, warning of the consequences and dealing with the scriptural provisions for divorce. All this is good and well, but should we not devote more time in writing about the sanctity of marriage? Should we not be devoting our time to encouraging couples to seek out solutions to their marital problems? Should we not emphasize that divorce is not a solution, but a cop-out?

Perhaps, one of our problems with divorce is that many of the present generation do not find in their fathers and mothers an adequate role model.

Surprisingly, Christ provides mankind with a perfect role model for both the husband and the wife.

Christ The Role Model For The Husband

Paul, in writing to the Christians in Ephesus, stated, “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He himself being the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23, NASB). Paul’s statement was calculated to arouse in our minds a vivid comparison between Christ as the head of the church and the husband’s responsibilities in the home as “head.” As we survey God’s Word, we quickly realize that “headship” means many things. Christ as “head” of the church was responsible to His father for providing the church with direction, leadership, stability, sacrificial love, compassion, understanding and, last but not least, accountability for His actions to His heavenly Father.

If we carry the comparison to its logical conclusion, we quickly realize that the husband sustains those selfsame responsibilities toward his wife and family.

As Jesus walked among men, he was quick to let them know that he was not here to do “my own will, but the will of Him that sent me” (Jn. 6:38). So too must the husband be lost in doing the will of the Father. All self centeredness, all personal desires must be relinquished in favor of the Father and accomplishing God’s will for him as a husband. When a husband learns to submit himself to God, he is setting the best example possible for his wife in submitting herself to the will of her husband.

As “head,” the husband sustains two salient responsibilities. First, he stands as God’s representative in the family unit. In the church, the elders sustain a similar responsibility. In the family, God has placed the husband over the house as His representative. The husband is not a “lawgiver,” but rather, as head, he provides leadership and direction as he follows God’s divine plan for marital happiness. Second, the husband is to distinguish himself as a sacrificial lover. 1 John 3:16 tells us, “We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” If we keep in mind our original thesis that man is the “head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church,” then it quickly becomes apparent what God expects of the husband in the marriage relationship. Our present text suggests a total commitment that exemplifies itself in its sacrificial qualities.

Another quality that a husband must possess is that of profound understanding. One day while Jesus was teaching in the temple, a woman was brought to him caught in the “very act” of adultery. In this encounter, Jesus exhibited a profound understanding. What this woman needed was not condemnation or criticism, she had been caught in the “very act”; there was no denying her sin. Jesus looked beyond her sinfulness and saw a woman who needed understanding and compassion. As a husband exercises his headship, he must do so with the same compassion and understanding. Peter wrote, “You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way. . .” (1 Pet. 3:7, NASB). The thrust of this text is that of understanding your wife’s physical needs, becoming a student of your wife. The husband should learn what makes his wife tick and what ticks her off and know the difference. One of the major flaws that plague so many of our present marriages is that the husband and wife act as if they’re competitors rather than teammates.

If a marriage is to survive husbands and wives must stop keeping score. I remember one man saying that when his wife got mad she became “historical.” Someone said, “Don’t you mean hysterical?” He answered, “No, I mean historical; whenever she gets mad she keeps bringing up the past.” Marriages cannot survive long if such attitudes as this continue to exist.

In writing to the saints at Ephesus, Paul clearly outlined the responsibilities of the husband and wife in the marriage relationship. First, he tells us that the husband is to love his wife with the same sacrificial love that Jesus demonstrated toward His bride, the church. To further solidify in our minds the importance of “sacrificial love,” he then tells the husband that he is to love his wife as he does his own body, to nourish or build it up (as opposed to tearing it town), and to cherish it, that is to show tender loving care for it. When the husband nourishes and cherishes his wife as he does his own body, then he is going to treat her with the love and respect due as “heirs of the grace of life.” Interestingly enough, Peter singles out the importance of husbands treating their wives with equality by saying to do otherwise was to “hinder your prayers.” Perhaps we have never thought of it in quite that light, but when we as husbands neglect our wives or treat them with less than the respect they are due, then we impede our prayers (1 Pet. 3:7).

Christ The Role Model For The Helpmeet

Paul in giving his mandate on the responsibilities of a wife in the marriage relationship, stated, “Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” Through the years some interesting hypotheses have been advanced with regard to the role of the wife in the home. It seems that in many instances, before one can fully appreciate the wife’s role, we must “de-program” some inbred misconceptions. When a man takes a wife, he does not take a “slave”; a wife is not meant to be treated as a possession. Some husbands, laboring under a misconception as to what it means to be “the head,” have wrongly charged their wives with being nothing more than “slaves” created to wait on him hand and foot. Nor is a wife to be treated as if she were “inferior. ” When a woman marries, she should not be expected to put her “brains on a shelf” and never think for herself or be able to disagree with her husband. Speaking from personal experience, my wife is my best critic and, at the same time, she is my greatest fan.

The attitude of “submission or subjection” is not an invitation to be stepped on, but rather it is the voluntarily lifting of another (in this case the husband) above oneself to serve that individual. Being in subjection should not be interpreted as a status of inferiority. Jesus subjected Himself to the Father and yet Paul tells us that He “counted not being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped” (held on to, rwt). Submission does not mean inequality but rather voluntary subordination.

Again, Christ is the best example we have. In all that Jesus did, He showed Himself to be in complete and total submission to the Father. Notice the comparison, “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their own husbands in everything” (NASB, Eph. 5:24). Only when a woman dies to her own desires and is lost in seeking the desires of her husband will she learn the true meaning of submission.

Solomon wrote of the “perfect” wife in Proverbs 31:12. “She does him good and not evil all the days of her life.” Even in the face of less than desirable treatment, the “virtuous woman” will be found doing good and not evil. In the context of our study Paul tells the wife, “Be in total submission to your husband without involving yourself in your husband’s sins.” When that is not possible, then you must “submit yourself unto the Lord.”

Communication In A Marriage

Paramount to a successful marriage is the implementation of proper communication. I once saw a little plaque on the desk of a vice-president of a bank which read, “May I never criticize my brother until I have walked a mile in his moccasins.” A truer adage could not have been written. Before we criticize our mate’s performance, put ourselves in her shoes. You might find the fit a little uncomfortable and learn a valuable lesson that might prevent a great deal of unhappiness.

We need to understand that love is more than physical contact. Someone once defined love as “Two consonants an L and a V, and two vowels an 0 and an E, and two fools You and Me.” At times, I must pause to consider the profundity of such a statement. I once heard Yater Tant say that love was not only “blind, but deaf and dumb as well. ” As I have had to counsel young couples experiencing marital problems, I think of the wisdom in that statement. A successful marriage is based upon verbalization of our needs, whether it be physical or emotional. There must be a mind set, not on the physical, but on the person; not on performance, but on mutual pleasure. Sometimes the demonstration of our affection in ways other than the physical are of significant value in the demonstration of mutual love. Paul tells us in I Corinthians 7:3-5 that marriage involves body ownership: “Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”

Marriage involves our readiness to please our mate to mutually fulfill each other’s needs physically, mentally and emotionally. In Paul’s first letter to the Christians in Corinth he outlined the qualities of love; yet somehow, it seems that when we begin to talk about marriage we tend to think that these qualities do not apply to that relationship. In 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, Paul tells us that love is patient, kind, not jealous, does not brag, is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly, does not seek its own, is not easily provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, bears all things, believes all things, endures all things and concludes that love never fails. I cannot think of any qualities that are more desirable in a marriage than those I have just stated. If those qualities are evident in a marriage, then God’s blessings will rest upon it and it cannot help but succeed.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 21, pp. 652-654
November 1, 1984