Truth Magazine

By Dudley Ross Spears

Facts About Revelation 20

The twentieth chapter of Revelation is the passage millennialists and dispensationalists run to as a basis for their imaginary millennial kingdom. Since the expression “live and reign with Christ a thousand years” is found in that passage, they take it to be a literal thousand year reign here on earth. They make several miscalculations about the passage.

There is nothing in the passage to indicate an earthly reign of a thousand years. It simply refers to a reign without designating whether it is heaven or earth. There is nothing in the passage to indicate that all saints will reign with Christ. The passage specifies those “beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God.” There is nothing to indicate that the number 1,000 is to be regarded as a literal time period.

Here are pertinent facts about Revelation 20:

1.There is nothing in this chapter that is not taught elsewhere in the Bible. If so, what is it?

2.The context shows that the main idea is the conquest of Satan – not the thousand year reign with Christ.

3.If the number 1,000 is considered here as a literal time period, – it is the only place in Revelation where a number denoting a period of time is used literally. There is no exception to this. Let the millennialists show otherwise.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, p. 133
March 3, 1983

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Does the Greek grammatical subjunctive in Galatians 6:10 and the context of the chapter authorize collective, general benevolence from a local church treasury?

Reply: Paul wrote in Galatians 6:10, “So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of faith.”

Those who believe and teach that the local church is to engage in general benevolence (extend relief to both saints and non-saints) rely upon this verse as a proof text. They assume that because the exhortation “let us” is in the plural, it must therefore mean the church. This is a wrong assumption, as the plural does not always involve collective action, as we shall see. An exhortation or a command may be addressed to a group, but the doing of it may be enjoined upon individuals rather than a collectivity. For a clear example of this, consider the familiar passage, Acts 2:38, “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you. . .!” In the command to repent, pronoun “ye” is second person plural; whereas, in the command to be baptized “every one” is third person singular. The group is addressed but the command is to be obeyed by individuals. The same is true in Galatians 6:1, where Paul wrote, “Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” The exhortation is given to a group; “brethren” is plural and “ye” (Gr. humeis) is a plural nominative. But the obligation enjoined is not upon the local churches but upon individuals. We notice that Paul adds, “looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” “Thyself” (Greek: seauton) is masculine accusative singular and “thou” (Greek: su) is understood to be second person singular. It would be senseless to apply the latter part of the exhortation to collectivities, local churches.

The Galatian letter is addressed to churches, yet there are individual responsibilities in the epistle that are not to be performed by the churches. Already we have observed that verse 1 is a case in point. Then throughout the passage, beginning with that verse, it is obvious that the obligations are those of the individual. We observe that through verse 8 are the expressions “thyself,” “one another ,” “a man,” “himself,” “he,” “his ,” “himself ” “each man,” and “him.” In verse 9, Paul wrote, “And let us not grow weary in well-doing.” This admonition, as well as that which follows, is the conclusion of what he has written in the preceding verses. “Let us” in both verses is a hortatory subjunctive in the plural but involves individual, not collective, action.

A hortatory subjunctive is not always confined to collective action. Commenting upon this part of speech (the hortatory subjunctive), Dana and Mantey state: “When one exhorts others to participate with him in any act or condition, the subjunctive is used in the first person plural” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek N. T., p. 171).

The hortatory subjunctive is not always in the plural. There is an exception. I recently read a statement from the pen of a brother who was trying to prove that “let us” in Galatians 6:10 necessitates general benevolence upon the part of the church. He asserted that the hortatory subjunctive is always in the plural, but that is not true according to Dana and Mantey. They state: “The first singular of the subjunctive is sometimes used in a request for permission to do a thing (cf. Matt. 7:4; Lk. 6:42)” (Ibid., p. 171). So in the former instance as stated above, the hortatory subjunctive is always in the first person plural; however, in the latter instance just quoted, it is in the first person singular. Certainly, this has no bearing on Galatians 6:10 because we all agree that the hortatory subjunctive “let us” is in the first person plural, but the correction of an inaccurate statement is in order. In an exceptional case, this subjunctive can be used in the singular.

There are several examples of the hortatory subjunctive in the Hebrew letter, some of which we shall note. “Let us fear. . .” (4:1), “Let us therefore give diligence” (v. 11), “Let us hold fast our confession” (v. 14), “Let us therefore draw near” (v. 16), “Let us draw near” (10:22), “Let us lay aside every weight” (12:1), “Let us run with patience” (12:1). These hortatory subjunctives are used in the plural and they are examples of what is taught in Galatians 6:10. The author in each of these examples is exhorting others to participate with him. It is not the church, but individuals, who are to comply.

It is absurd to assume that because an exhortation is in the first person plural that it by necessity means the church or collective action. Those who insist that it does, should consider verse 13 of Galatians 6. Referring to Judaizers, Paul wrote, “but they have a desire to have you circumcised.” The pronoun “you” (Gr. humas) is second personal accusative plural. Paul was addressing churches, but was he saying that the Judaizers would have the churches circumcised? This would be nonsense. But if the plural “let us” in verse means the church, then why would not the plural “you” in verse 13 also mean the church? In a forum discussion several years ago in which I was engaged, I heard a brother declare that he was one of the very few who does believe that the church is to be circumcised. His statement that he was one of the very few who believes this is an understatement if ever I heard one, because I do not know of anyone who shares that view. He could not have meant spiritual circumcision because Paul adds in verse 13, “that they may glory in your flesh.” It was fleshly circumcision referred to by Paul.

The same writer who asserted that “according to the laws of Greek Grammar, a hortatory subjunctive is always in the first person plural. . .” is not only inaccurate on that point but also displays some poor logic. Referring to Paul he asks, “If he wished to imply a command to each individual in Gal. 6:10, why then did he not employ a third person singular imperative instead of changing to a hortatory subjunctive?” We simply ask in reply, if Paul wished to imply a reference to individuals in Galatians 6:13, why then did he not employ a third person singular instead of the plural “you”? What proves too much proves nothing; because, if the use of “let us” in verse 10 necessitates churches, then the plural “you” in verse 13 would do the same.

We have seen that the hortatory subjunctive, when used in the plural, may apply to individuals rather than churches. This is the case in Gal. 6:10 because the context of the entire passage (vv. 1-10) is individual. It is important that we properly distinguish between the scripturally authorized work of the church and that of the individual. This distinction is germane to the issues confronting the Lord’s people.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 132-133
March 3, 1983

By Mike Willis

Despite the fact that so much has been written by so many Christians regarding salvation, every generation must be taught these basic facts again. In the recent controversies regarding the grace-unity movement, evidences of misunderstanding regarding salvation manifested themselves as many began to discuss justification by works versus justification by faith. The denominational understanding of these two ideas has penetrated the thinking of some preaching brethren. Consequently, it should be helpful to each of us to be reminded of the distinction between justification by works and justification by faith in the books of Romans and Galatians.

The Denominational Error

In the eyes of denominationalism, “justification by works” refers to a system of justification in which man is required to do anything in order to receive this salvation. The exact expression of this concept of justification differs on the basis of which group is making the argument. The most consistent group has been the strict Calvinists who make salvation wholly dependent upon God, stating that man is completely passive in conversion. These Calvinists apply the opprobrium “salvation by works” to those who make salvation conditional upon anything which man does himself. Salvation is based upon unconditional election, they say. Before the beginning of the world, God chose certain men to be saved without any consideration being given to what those men might or might not do. According to the traditional Calvinist theory, a man is saved because God chose to save him, not because of anything else. Hence, if God chose to save a man, that man will be saved even if he is an atheist, blasphemer of Jesus Christ, immoral, and otherwise living contrary to God’s will. When a man states that a person must believe in Jesus in order to be saved, the strict Calvinist will respond that this is teaching “salvation by works.”

Some who have come under the influence of Calvinism have not been as consistent in the application of the principles of Calvinism as others. The Baptists have generally fallen into this category. Many of them teach inherited depravity and perseverance of the saints, but also teach a conditional salvation. Nevertheless, their concept regarding “salvation by works” is tainted by the Calvinist philosophy. The Baptists want to make salvation conditional only upon faith. If one teaches that water baptism is a condition for salvation from past sins, he is charged with believing in “salvation by works.” Acts of obedience to the gospel are not rendered as conditions for salvation, but only as expressions of faith on the part of people already saved for time and eternity. One is saved on the condition of faith alone, not because he rendered obedience from the heart to any of the commandments of the gospel. Remember that both pardon from past sins and continuing security with God are based on “faith only.” So goes the Calvinist dogma as popularly preached by Baptists and a host of other denominational folks.

Lately, some of our brethren have begun to teach Baptist doctrine with reference to salvation. The only difference in these brethren and the Baptists is that the brethren have arbitrarily included repentance and water baptism in the conditions for salvation. Sometimes, the semantic device of including repentance and baptism under the umbrella of “faith only” is used. Hence, these brethren state that man is saved on the conditions of faith, repentance, and water baptism, or else the condition of “faith only” explained so as to include repentance and baptism. Either way, it is said that man’s further and continued obedience to the gospel has nothing whatsoever to do with his continuing in a justified state. Hence, observance of the Lord’s supper, righteous living, and other acts of obedience by faith and love to the commands of the gospel have nothing whatsoever to do with a conditional relationship with God which includes our continuing justification. To teach that one must do these things in order to stay saved is to teach “salvation by works,” according to these brethren. These things are done as expressions of faith on the part of people already in a secure relation with God, but not as conditions to stay saved, according to the Neo-Calvinist theory. Their argumentation regarding “salvation by works” is identical with that of the Baptists and Calvinists, with the modification that they draw their lines in different places.

Paul’s Definition Of Salvation By Works

In both Romans and Galatians Paul argued that man could not be justified by works. He wrote, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. . .” (Rom. 3:20). “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28). “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16).

What did Paul mean by “deeds of the law” and “works of the law”? Every author has the right to define his own terms and use these terms in a peculiar way. I must understand the usage of these terms by the Holy Spirit in order to understand in what sense man is not saved by the “deeds of the law” and the “works of the law.” To understand this, it is necessary for one to understand the error which Paul was fighting and the context in which these terms were used.

Paul was dealing with a specific kind of error in the first century when he wrote these two books. We refer to that error as the teaching of the Judaizers. The Judaizers were a group of Jewish Christians who had reached the conclusion that one had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses in order to be saved. In essence, this doctrine asserts that Jesus is not an allsufficient Savior because obedience to Christ must be supplemented by keeping the law of Moses. It is a rejection of the atonement as the allsufficient grounds of one’s salvation.

If one states that Jesus Christ is not all-sufficient to save, he has rejected the only grounds of salvation. With what is he left? The law of Moses could not wash away sins with the blood of bulls and goats (Heb. 10:4). The Judaizers had already rejected the blood of Jesus as being sufficient to save. So, what was left? The only means left for men to be saved was through perfect obedience to law or, “salvation by works” in the truest sense! The one and only all-sufficient sacrifice for sin was rejected as inadequate by the Judaizers so all that they were left with for salvation was perfect obedience to the law under which they lived.

The kind of works under consideration in these two books is not conditions which must be met by man to receive the grace of God. The kind of works discussed in these books is meritorious works by which one earns his salvation. “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt” (Rom. 4:4). It is a salvation which results in man boasting in his own attainments. “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27). “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God” (Rom. 4:2). If one could be saved by perfect obedience to law, he would be able to glory and boast in his own attainments. His salvation would be something which he had earned, not a free gift from God. Salvation by works, as used by Paul, is salvation without grace. “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. 11:6). “Salvation by works” does not involve the grace of God which forgives our sins and remembers our iniquities against us no more, because “salvation by works” is perfect obedience to law, a salvation in which no sin has been committed and there is no need of grace.

Man Has Never Been Saved By Works

Sometimes men act as if man under the Old Law was justified by works (as used by Paul in the books of Romans and Galatians) but that men under the New Law are justified by grace. Brethren, no man has ever been justified by works as used by Paul in Romans and Galatians. No man can stand before God and say, “God, I deserve to be saved because I perfectly obeyed every commandment which you gave to me. I have never sinned. God, you owe me salvation!” The reason that this is true is because man is guilty of sin.

Paul developed this theme in both books. In Romans 1, Paul showed that the Gentiles were separated from God by sin. In Romans 2-3, he demonstrated that the Jews were also separated from God by sin. He wrote, “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as haved sinned in the law shall be judged by the law” (Rom. 2:12). “Now we know that what things so ever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom. 3:19). Every man is separated from God and under the curse of God’s law because he has sinned. “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is, every one that continued not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal. 3:10).

Because every accountable person has chosen to defy the will of God, thus becoming guilty of sin, no man can be justified by works. No man can stand acceptable before God, (1) boasting in his own perfect obedience (Rom. 3:27; 4:2), (2) without the grace of God (Rom. 11:6), and (3) having received his salvation as a debt that is owed to him (Rom. 11:6). This is as much true of David, Isaiah, Daniel, and every other Old Testament saint as it is of Mike Willis. None of these men were justified by works, by perfect conformity to law.

This is the reason that Paul cited the example of Abraham in Romans 4, to demonstrate that man’s salvation has never been on the condition of “works” (perfect obedience to a law), but always upon the condition of faith. Paul argued from the Scripture that “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Rom. 4:3), before and without circumcision and years before the Mosaical law was given. His second evidence that man has always been justified by grace through faith and not through perfect obedience to the law is the case of David. In Romans 4, Paul cited Psalm 32 with reference to David. Paul wrote, “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin” (Rom. 4:6-8). The blessings of God are given to the man who has received God’s gracious forgiveness, not to him who has perfectly obeyed divine law. Hence, man receives righteousness on the grounds of God’s grace, not upon the grounds of perfect obedience to law.

The men in the Old Testament obviously did not understand or perceive exactly how God’s grace would be extended thru the Messiah. However, these men knew that they had to look beyond themselves to the grace of God. These men fixed their eyes upon the promise of God, promises centered in the future coming of the Messiah, and were justified because of their faith in God’s promise, not because of their perfect obedience to the law. David, the one who committed adultery with Bathsheba and subsequently murdered Uriah her husband, could never come before God in arrogance stating, “God, you owe me salvation because of my perfect obedience.” He could only come before God pleading for grace and looking to the coming Messiah for his justification. The Messiah promised by God was all that these men had to hope in.

By way of contrast, the Judaizers, who lived after the Messiah or Christ had come, rejected Christ as being an all-sufficient Savior and were necessarily and logically compelled to look to their own perfect obedience as the grounds of their salvation. Their system of salvation grounded upon perfect conformity to the law of God could not justify anyone.

Application To Today

There are several points which we can learn from this which should have application to some of the issues which we are facing today. Please consider each of the following:

1. Some among us have an improper understanding of “salvation by works. ” Those who teach that making salvation conditional upon faithful obedience from the heart to the law of Jesus Christ is salvation by works misunderstand “salvation by works.” I know of no man among us who is teaching (a) that salvation is based on perfect conformity to law, (b) that one is saved without grace, (c) that one has reason to boast in his own accomplishments. But I do know that some men are trying to find a theological basis for believing that those who disobey one or more of the Lord’s commandments can be saved while continuing to practice their sin and without repentance. This is presently being applied to such sins as usage of instrumental music in worship, church support of human institutions (hospitals, orphan homes, colleges, missionary societies), church sponsored recreation, and other doctrinal apostasies. I would like to request two things from these people: (a) Bible passages which authorize us to have fellowship with those who introduce unscriptural activities in the worship and work of the church and (b) documented evidence that anyone among us is teaching salvation conditioned upon perfect conformity to God’s word.

2. To teach that one must adhere faithfully to God’s word to maintain fellowship with God is not teaching salvation by works. John wrote, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:3-4). For a man to teach what John wrote does not conflict with what the apostle Paul wrote regarding salvation by works. When one ends up in a doctrinal position which makes it impossible to teach what John wrote, he needs to reconsider his understanding of God’s word. Those who are stating that one can maintain the fellowship of God while practicing the sins of introducing and using mechanical instruments of music in worship, church support of human institutions, and the sponsoring church arrangements stand in opposition to the plain statements made by the Holy Spirit through John in 1 John 1:6 and 2:3-4. Certainly John was not teaching that man earns his salvation by perfectly obeying God’s word; rather, he made the maintaining of a relationship with God conditional upon faithfulness to His word.

3. To teach that a Christian’s sins are forgiven upon the condition of repentance and confession is not “salvation ‘condition works. ” When a person teaches that a Christian who sins cannot obtain forgiveness of that sin without repentance and confession, he is sometimes accused of teaching “salvation by works.” Any system of forgiveness is not salvation by works, as used by Paul in Romans and Galatians. Too, there is much resemblance between the charge made by the Baptists that to teach water baptism as a condition for salvation is to teach salvation by works and that made by some brethren to the effect that to teach repentance and confession as conditions for forgiveness is to teach salvation by works.

Those among our brethren who teach forgiveness without repentance and confession (i.e., constant cleansing, before and without prayer for pardon) are careful to state that this only applies to sins of ignorance or inadvertence, not to high-handed sins of rebellion. Hence, they hold out the hope of eternal salvation to those in liberal churches of Christ who are practicing church support of human institutions, the sponsoring church pattern of organization, and church supported recreation – in ignorance – and those in Christian Churches who use instrumental music in worship – in ignorance. Of course the same argument will justify those who are ignorant of what the Lord said about divorce and remarriage but who are living in adulterous marriages and other immoralities (e.g. those homosexuals who think that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality). This teaching leads to doctrinal and moral compromise; it takes a loose view of the consequences of sin.

Conclusion

Brethren, there are some among us who are not content to limit themselves to fellowship with those who are walking in the light. They are wanting to pussy foot with those who sinfully divided the Lord’s church regarding church support of missionary societies and the use of instruments music in worship. They want to hob nob with those why divided the church over church support of human institutions (orphan homes, colleges, missionary societies, old folks home, etc.), church supported recreational activities and the sponsoring church arrangement. They have become so uncertain in the gospel which they preach that they cannot “judge” one guilty of these things to be under condemnation of God and separated from Him by their sin, in spite of Romans 6:23 and 2 John 9-11. Consequently they argue, “If God will accept me in all of my sins of ignorance and imperfection, he will surely accept those brethren who differ from me on these matters in their ignorances and imperfections. Salvation does not depend upon me being right upon every brotherhood issue concocted by brethren, but upon my faith in God.” Such statements (1) equate “sin” with every imperfection in the growth process of a Christian (2 Pet. 1:5-11), (2) blur the Bible distinction between matters of “the faith” bound upon us all and matters of personal “faith” or individual determination (cf. 2 Jn. 9-11 and Rom. 14:1-23), and (3) minimize the seriousness of sinful violations of the Bible pattern for the local church’s work, worship, and organization.

These loose brethren will soon be fellowshipping liberal brethren and Christian Church men. Some already are They will soon quit preaching sermons which condemn the practices of those who have departed from us. Some already have. They will soon establish “detente” with these false teachers and begin to participate with them it those areas in which there is agreement and agree to disagree in other areas. Some already are. As these thing; occur, compromise with false teachers will result. It is already happening.

Let us beware of the devices of Satan!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 130-132, 147-148
March 3, 1983

By James E. Cooper

The words of Proverbs 23:26 may be properly interpreted as those of a concerned father to his son, but there is a real sense in which God speaks to every person in every age and says, “My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways.” We are all His offspring (cf. Acts 17:28-29), and He desires and calls for the hearts of each and everyone of us.

Satan also appeals to every person saying, “Give me throe heart.” He doesn’t come up in a red suit, with horns on his head and a pitchfork in his hand, and announce, “I am Satan, and I want to subvert your soul. If you will give me your heart, we will both spend eternity in Hell.” He really appears as an “angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14), and tells us that we can live as we please and still be acceptable in the sight of God. The Devil doesn’t mind if you take tune to spend an hour or two in the assembly of the saints each week, if he can actually win your heart.

We must determine which of these two masters will have our hearts. We cannot divide our loyalties; we cannot serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). There are too many who want to “honor God with their lips” while their “hearts are far from him” (Matt. 15:8). But, God will have all of us, or nothing at all. Jesus said, “Thou shaft love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37). He does not want part of your heart; He asks for all of your heart.

What Is The Heart?

When God says, “Give me thine heart,” He is not asking for the physical heart, that lobe within our breast which pumps blood to the various parts of our bodies. It is a vital organ for physical life, but has no real relationship to the spiritual, or inner, man. The heart for which God asks is composed of one’s intellect, will, emotions and conscience. We deduce this from statements in the Scriptures in which the word “heart” appears.

1. The Intellect.

With the heart we reason. On one occasion a man who was sick of the palsy was brought to Jesus and, because of a throng about the door, the four men carrying him broke open the roof of the house and let him down through the roof. Jesus, seeing their faith, told the palsied man, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.” Certain scribes were sitting and “reasoning in their hearts” that Jesus had blasphemed; “Who can forgive sins but God only?” In His spirit Jesus perceived their thoughts and asked, “Why reason ye these things in your hearts?” (Mark 2:1-8). The scribes’ reasoning was faulty, and Jesus exposed it as such by healing the palsied man. If He had the power to heal, He had the power to forgive sin (Mark 2:9-12).

With the heart we understand. Isaiah (6:9-10) and Jesus (Matt. 13:15) spoke of those with hearts “waxed gross,” lest they should “understand with their hearts.” Only those with “honest and good hearts” understand the word, hold it fast and produce fruit (cf. Lk. 8:15; Matt. 13:23). Some do not understand the word and “the evil one comes and snatches away that which has been sown in his heart” (Matt. 13:19).

With the heart we believe. Paul said, “. . . with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. . .” (Rom. 10:9-10). One may believe “in his heart” something that is utterly false (cf. 2 Thess. 2:11-12), but that will not save him. In order for the believing heart to be acceptable with God, it must believe the truth (John 8:32).

Both God and Satan desire your intellect. God in His word has presented evidence to be reasoned upon, understood and believed (cf. John 20:30-31). Satan would corrupt your thinking and cause you to disbelieve and reject the truth. Before the Great Flood, he had been so successful that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5).

2. The Will.

Our intentions are exercises of the will, and the word of God is able to “discern the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). God is able to distinguish between a passing idea, a fleeting temptation, and the settled intention of the heart. David Lipscomb once illustrated the difference like this: “One cannot keep a bird from landing on his head, but he can prevent him from building a nest in his hair.” We may not always prevent an unwholesome thought from entering our minds, but we can exercise our wills to keep it from taking up a permanent abode in our hearts.

We purpose in our hearts. After news came to Jerusalem about the conversion of the Gentiles in Antioch, Barnabas was sent forth, “and when he was come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave to the Lord” (Acts 11:23). In teaching us to give, Paul said, “Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart. . .” (2 Cor. 9:7). Again, Paul said the man who had “determined in his heart” to- keep his own virgin daughter unmarried under the temporary circumstances at Corinth “shall do well” (1 Cor. 7:37).

We exercise our wills when we “become obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered” (Rom. 6:17). Obedience is an exercise of the will. When we obey the commands of the gospel “from the heart,” we are made free from sin and become the servants of righteousness (Rom. 6:17-18).

Both God and Satan desire your will. God wants you to purpose to obey him sincerely from the heart. Satan wants to undermine that purpose and secure your will for his own devilish ends. He doesn’t even mind if one “goes through the motions” of obeying God, just so it is not done “from the heart.”

3. The Emotions.

We desire in our hearts. Paul said, “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is. . .” (Rom. 10:1).

We despise in our hearts. When Michal, Saul’s daughter and David’s wife, saw David leaping and dancing before the Lord while they brought the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem, “she despised him in her heart” (2 Sam. 6:16).

We trust in our hearts. Solomon said, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding” (Prov. 3:5).

We love with our hearts. Jesus said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. . .” (Matt. 22:37). Peter said, “Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently” (1 Pet. 1:22).

Both God and Satan want your emotions. Satan wants you to love the world (cf. 1 Jn. 2:15-17), to desire the pleasures of sin (cf. Heb. 11:23-26), to trust in your feelings (cf. Prov. 14:25; Jer. 10:23), and in effect, to despise God. But God wants your heart’s emotions. He wants you to love Him and trust Him with all your heart.

4. The Conscience.

John speaks of it like this: “And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then we have confidence toward God” (1 John 3:19-21). That which approves us when we do right and condemns us when we do wrong is the conscience. What the conscience approves or condemns depends on what one has been taught. A properly functioning conscience is one that has learned the word of God and approves and disapproves in harmony with its teachings. In the above context, the heart approves us when we do what we understand God wants of us. If we feel guilty because we don’t serve Him perfectly, “God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things.” Among the things God knows is whether or not we have really tried to serve Him aright. God knows whether we are “putting our hearts into it,” or whether we are “double-minded and unstable in all our ways” (cf. Jas. 1:8).

Christ tells sinners how to obtain a good (or approving) conscience. There are three passages in the book of Hebrews that should be considered here. In Hebrews 9:9, we learn that the gifts and sacrifices made under the first covenant “cannot, as touching the conscience, make the worshiper perfect.” The reason is very simple: “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). But animal sacrifices did suffice to “sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh” (Heb. 9:13).

The second passage we wish to emphasize says, “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. 9:14). How is that accomplished? How is the conscience cleansed from dead works? It is cleansed from guilt when one realizes that, having met the terms of pardon announced by Jesus (cf. Mk. 16:15-16) from the heart (Rom. 6:17-18), he has received the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). God has forgiven him, and will never remember those sins against him again (cf. Heb. 8:12; 10:18). Realizing that God has forgiven him, the now forgiven sinner realizes he doesn’t need to feel guilty about his sins any longer. He has been “made free from sin” and has become a servant of righteousness (Rom. 6:17-18).

Hebrews 10:22-23 exhorts Christians: “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water, let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering.” Our hearts are sprinkled (an allusion to the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice) and our bodies are washed (the allusion to baptism is “unquestionable,” B.F. Westcott, Hebrews, pg. 323). When one is baptized in water, “obeying from the heart,” the blood of Christ is applied to remove the guilt of sin from the heart. In this way one is baptized as “an appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21, NASV).

Who Has Your Heart?

The children of the devil and the children of God are distinguished by their deeds. The children of the devil act like the devil (cf. John 8:44), while the children of God “doeth righteousness” (1 John 3:29).

The character of one’s heart is manifested by his conduct. Jesus said, “The tree is known by its fruit” (Matt. 12:33). “The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things: and, the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things” (Matt. 12:35). Further, the character of one’s heart is manifested by his speech: “. . . for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34; Lk. 6:45).

When the disciples of Jesus were criticized for eating with unwashed hands, Jesus taught it was not that which entered the mouth that defiled a man, but that which came from within. “For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within and defile a man” (Mark 7:21-22; cf. Matt. 15:19).

The Heart Is Changed At Conversion

In remorse over his sin with Bathsheba, David prayed, “. . . Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me” (Psa. 51:10). God commanded sinful Israel to “cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel” (Ezek. 18:31). The “new heart” for which David prayed came as a result of his “turning” from sin unto the Lord. Through Ezekiel, God said, “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye” (Ezek. 18:32).

The gospel, “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16), is the power of God to change every part of the heart. The intellect is changed from unbelief by testimony, or evidence (cf. John 20:30-31; Acts 15:7-9). The emotions are changed in response to the motivations of the gospel. God first loved us, and gave His only begotten Son; we love Him in return (cf. John 3:16; 1 John 4:19; 2 Cor. 5:14). By learning and appreciating the commandments of God, we hate every false way (cf. Psa. 119:1-4, 128). The will is changed by a proper appreciation of the holy attributes of God. “Godly fear leads to repentance” (2 Cor. 7:10), and repentance leads to a change of conduct (cf. Matt. 3:8; Matt. 21:28-30). The conscience is changed from an “evil” conscience to a “good” conscience when one realizes he has met God’s conditions of pardon, and the saving blood of Christ has cleansed him of every sin. God has forgiven him. Therefore he doesn’t need to feel guilty about the sins he has committed in the past.

Conversion involves the heart all the way. It involves understanding with the heart (cf. Acts 16:14; Matt. 13:19), believing with all the heart (cf. Acts 8:37), and obeying from the heart (cf. Rom. 6:17-18). Before a person is baptized, he is “out of Christ,” but at baptism his relationship is changed. He becomes a “child of God by faith” when he is “baptized into Christ” (cf. Gal. 3:26-27). In Christ, he is a “new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17). As a Christian he loves God “with all his heart” (Matt. 22:37), and “loves the brethren from the heart fervently” (1 Pet. 1:21).

Conclusion

Both God and Satan are standing before you right now. Both have outstretched arms. Both are saying “Give me your heart. ” You must decide right now to whom you will give your heart. Any hesitation in giving your heart to God means you have yielded to Satan. All Satan has to do is to persuade you not to give your heart to God “just now.” But “today is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2); you may never have another opportunity. Procrastination is the thief of souls. Don’t take a chance with your soul.

Even if you obey the gospel today, you must “keep your heart with all diligence” (Prov. 23:7). Satan won’t give up easily. But an “honest and good heart” will resist the devil and cause him to flee (cf. Jas. 4:7).

Give God your heart – immediately, completely and eternally.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, 129, 150-151
March 3, 1983