Truth Magazine

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

By Luther Bolenbarker

This “holier than thou” attitude is one that we all have to guard against from time to time. We all have a tendency (sometimes just to ourselves) to “blow our own horn” while at the same time we “put down” or belittle someone else. I guess that this may seem normal (which doesn’t make it right) because none of us likes to admit someone else may be superior to us in certain areas of endeavor. This should be incentive to make us be better and to strive even harder. But, if seeing someone else achieve more or be better than we are in certain endeavors causes us to be jealous or envious, then we need to take a closer look at ourselves. Jesus called this jealousy and envious attitude which thrives on finding fault in others “mote hunting.”

There are many ways of saying that one should get the beam out of his own eye, but Jesus said it best in Matthew 7:1-5, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured unto you. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

These verses tell us that we often can see a very small fault in others, yet at the same time we tend to overlook a much greater fault in ourselves. It also affirms that before we have a right to talk of other’s faults, we should get rid of our own. In other words: “if we live in a glass house, let us not throw rocks.” Occasionally, our biggest problem is not others; it is me! We cannot determine the attitudes and actions of others, as we know not their hearts, but we can certainly control and be responsible for our own heart and actions. If we try to ignore this principle that Jesus taught, we only hurt ourselves.

Seeing the “mote” in someone else’s eye when the “beam” is not seen in our own eye is caused by one basic concept and that is thinking too highly of ourselves and not highly enough of others. God’s word when applied properly is designed to break down one’s ego and to fill us with thoughts of good in others. It makes us want to serve and not necessarily be served. Look at the following Scriptures that teach this very thing:

Romans 15:2-“Let everyone of us please his neighbor for his good to edification.”

Romans 3:23-“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”

1 John 1:8-“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

Luke 18:13-“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying God, be merciful to me a sinner.”

Romans 12:10-“Be kindly affectionate one to another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another. “

Philippians 2:3-5-“Doing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting the other better than himself; not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others. Having this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.”

Romans 2:1-“Therefore thou art inexcusable, 0 man, whosoever thou are that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same thing.”

Psalms 19:14-“Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, 0 Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.”

With these Scriptures in mind, please answer the following questions:

(1) Am I willing to admit that others may excel me in many good qualities?

(2) Have I developed the art of looking within myself to see my weaknesses?

(3) Do I question the motives of others before I know all the facts in a matter?

(4) Am I jealous when I see someone with talents I do not possess?

(5) (Be honest now.) Do I think of myself as better than others?

(6) Am I always right, no matter what?

(7) Do I find something easy to justify in myself but would question the very same thing if someone else did it?

(8) Do I suspect wrong in someone else, then look for it and all the while hoping to find fault in others?

(9) Will you resolve now, right now, to do some soul searching, forgetting about the “motes” and start worrying about the “beams”?

Remember friend, the apostle Paul states in Romans 12:3 that we are “not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think Think on these things!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 21, p. 651
November 1, 1984

By Jeff Smelser

Halloween presents us with a splendid opportunity to discuss Christmas. Nonsense? Not at all! The perennial questions concerning the Christian’s view toward Christmas basically involve three factors: (1) What was the original meaning of the December 25th celebration? (2) What is the Christian’s intent who celebrates on December 25th? (3) What care should be taken by the Christian in order that his intent not be misconstrued by others? These same factors are involved with the observance of Halloween.

What Was The Original Meaning Of The Day?

As with Christmas, a combination of pagan ritual and perverted Christianity account for the origin of Halloween. “Pope” Boniface IV (608-615) designated May 13 as “All Saints Day” upon the rededication of the Roman Pantheon. This was to be a day of veneration for all those who had become martyrs for their faith. However, observance of the day was not widespread until the ninth century when the date was changed to November 1, perhaps to accommodate the Druidic practices of some of the Celtic tribes then being assimilated into Roman Catholicism. Whatever the reason for choosing the date of November 1, most of our Halloween traditions originated in the rites and superstitions of the Druids. According to an article by Harold L. Myra, the Druids believed that at the end of the summer, the beginning of the Celtic year:

Samhain, the lord of death, sent evil spirits abroad to attack humans, who could escape only by assuming disguises and looking like evil spirits themselves. The waning of the sun and the approach of dark winter made the evil spirits rejoice and play nasty tricks (“is Halloween A Witches’ Brew?”, Christianity Today, 10/22/82, p. 32).

The name Halloween itself reflects the Roman Catholic influence in its history. All Saints Day was also called All Hallow’s Day. October 3 1, the eve of All Hallow’s Day, was known as “All Hallow’s Fen.”

Whatever the intent of the costumed Druids or of the Roman Catholics, there is obviously nothing inherently wrong with putting on a costume, knocking on someone’s door to ask for candy, or carving a face on a vegetable. However, if the individual is costumed for the purpose of evading evil spirits, or observes Halloween as a day of preparation for worshiping saints on the following day, then of course there is something wrong. Hence, we must consider . . .

The Intent Of The Individual

That it is possible to participate in some of the activities associated with Halloween without any intention of venerating saints, or engaging in pagan ritual, hardly needs proving. A six-year-old child trick-or-treating in a Superman costume knows nothing of Samhain and certainly is not trying to evade evil spirits. And atheists who participate in Halloween activities certainly have no intention of venerating saints. Although perhaps more people are somewhat more familiar with the history of Christmas, it is equally true that an individual may participate in many of the activities associated with this holiday without any pagan or so-called “Christian” intention. I say so-called because, in fact, the concept of a special Christ-mass in observance of Jesus’ birth, and the setting aside of December 25 as a holy day are not truly Christian, but human in origin.

But even though one’s intentions are innocent, one last consideration is involved . . .

How One’s Intent Is Perceived By Others

Jesus said, ” Whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling! for it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh! ” (Mt. 18:6-7). Paul, His apostle, wrote, “Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). He expressed his willingness to forgo his rights to avoid causing another to stumble when he wrote, ” Wherefore, if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble” (1 Cor. 8:13). The Christian is not concerned only about himself, but also about others. Therefore, he will see to it that his participation in Halloween activities in no way lends credence to any pagan superstition or so-called Christian connotations. Likewise, during the Christmas season, he will be careful not to leave the impression that there is something sacred about December 25 in the eyes of God. And certainly one can imagine circumstances in which a Christian should forgo all participation in activities associated with such holidays. Had a Celtic Christian explained to his Druid neighbor the gospel of Jesus Christ while donning an evil spirit costume, he certainly would have laid a stumbling block in front of his friend. If my brother in Christ is one just converted out of Roman Catholicism, I would certainly need to be careful that I not leave the impression that there is a Christ-mass for Christians to observe, or that I think there is a Christmas for Christians to observe. And I will have the attitude of Paul, that if Christmas causeth my brother to stumble, I will observe no Christmas for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 21, p. 649
November 1, 1984