Jesus was direct. He told the multitudes not to be like the Pharisees, and He named the precise problems that they had with giving, prayer, and fasting (Matt. 6). He also warned His disciples of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matt. 16:12). He did not hesitate to call the scribes and Pharisees “hypocrites” seven times in Matthew 23. He also generously supplied them with a few other unflattering terms, such as fools, blind, blind guides, serpents, and brood of vipers. Jesus also had a few choice words for lawyers as well (Luke 11:46-52).
Jesus was kind to the humble and the sinner but rather blunt with the proud. Peter was equally pointed and critical toward those who were leading God’s people astray. Peter did not assume that the men he wrote against were possibly mistaken; he called their teaching destructive heresies and accused them of denying the Lord who bought them (2 Peter 2:1). He also called them presumptuous, self-willed, and like brute beasts (vv. 10, 12). Much more is said of them along these lines, such as they speak great swelling words of emptiness (v. 18).
Paul identified Judaizing teachers and condemned them in no uncertain terms in the book of Galatians. He said such men only wanted to get people entangled again with a yoke of bondage (5:1). He added that anyone who attempted to be justified by the law had fallen from grace (5:4). He also mentioned some specific names, such as Hymenaeus and Alexander, who had made shipwreck of the faith (1 Tim. 1:18-20), or Hymenaeus and Philetus who said that the resurrection was already past, thus overthrowing the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17-19). Paul also wrote that some men were to be marked—those who caused divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine that they had been taught by the apostles (Rom. 16:17-18). In other words, most of the time, those who caused problems were known by their names or the error they promoted.
Today, however, “some brethren” are standing behind a wall of anonymity by using the phrase, some brethren, to refer to those with whom they disagree, and since they have chosen not to identify those concerning which they have so much negativity toward, that uninspired approach will be used for just this one article in an effort to answer a fool according to his folly.
The phrase, some brethren, does not appear in the King James Version of the Bible, although certain brethren does. In Acts 10:23 we read of “certain brethren from Joppa”; so they are identified by their location, but these were not troublemakers. The other occasion is Acts 17:6, but the “certain brethren” there were not guilty of wrongdoing in the church; these anonymous brethren were accused of turning “the world upside down” (in the NKJ both texts are rendered “some brethren”).
So how is it that today that “some,” instead of naming a brother or a location (or identifying a specific error) are using the phrase, some brethren? As with most things, there are reasons, and being vague carries with it certain advantages, which will now be explained because “some brethren” would not acknowledge it.
1. The use of the phrase, some brethren, avoids naming anyone specifically who might just want to give a reply. A person might read an article that appears in a publication or lectureship book by “some brethren” and conclude, “They are talking about me, although they did not have the guts to use my name.” But should he respond? A few years ago, “some brethren” wrote articles in which they tried to characterize “certain brethren” in an unflattering way. They denigrated these vague, “perceived” enemies and accused them of things they could not defend against since they were not specifically named. When asked for an identification, “some brother” said, “If the shoe fits…..” It did not, but “certain brethren” were left to wonder, “Am I being referred to even though the charges are false? Is “some brother” thinking of me?”
2. The second advantage of vagueness is that it allows the accuser of “some brethren” an automatic out. If someone were to protest what was written, it can always be affirmed that, “I was not speaking about you.” Of course, the mere fact that some people are obviously getting hurt by all of debris from some of these mortar attacks or hit by a bullet that ricocheted off of someone else ought to be a clue that the weapon of vagueness hits more targets than were aimed at.
3. Another advantage of harming someone’s name or reputation without specifically referring to him publicly is that, when those sympathetic to that writer ask privately who the object of his assault was, the offending party’s name can then be whispered. Yes, rather than call his name publicly—either to rebuke him or challenge him to a debate—“some brethren” will do their character assassination in private, sometimes embellishing the details.
Perhaps an example of this last point would be helpful. A gospel preacher was visiting congregations, trying to raise support for some men he was training to preach. He met with a congregation that received him very enthusiastically. Their initial response included a strong likelihood that they would be helping him, and they parted on best of terms.
But then “some brother” came to hold a gospel meeting at that congregation He was associated with a “certain school of preaching.” He whispered some negative things about the preacher seeking support for others. The elders of the congregation he had visited failed to contact him. He called both elders; they refused to call him back. What happened? If the elders now found fault with him, they should have been men enough to lay it on the table and discuss how he had offended them. They were too cowardly to take what was whispered in private and give him a chance to respond to it. “Some brethren” are like that.
These tactics, however, are wrong. When Peter came to Antioch and played the hypocrite, Paul did not get up and talk about “some brethren” refusing to eat with Gentiles. He rebuked him to his face (Gal. 2:11-13). The reason “some brethren” resort to vagueness is that they cannot defend their own actions; so they accuse “other brethren” of being the source of their problems. Whatever happened to openness and honesty? When did telling the truth regardless of the con-sequences become passé? Anyone ought to be able to answer a True – False question on a matter of Bible doctrine that is precisely stated. When “some brethren” refuse to do so, the rest of us need to ask, “Why?”
The Lord was forthright, honest, and to all
Did give an answer, though it meant His fall.
BACKSLIDING
Bruce Stulting
As surprising as it may seem, many do not think that backsliding is a Biblical term. In Old Testament times, backsliding was a continual problem of God’s people as shown in Jeremiah 8:5, which states, “Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast deceit, they refuse to return.” To backslide is to turn away from God’s truth and return to one’s former wicked life.
There are many warnings in the Bible concerning the danger of backsliding. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:12: “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Even Paul himself was not immune to the danger of backsliding. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul wrote, “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.”
In guarding against backsliding it is necessary to determine its cause. A little boy trying to explain why he fell out of bed said, “I just went to sleep too close to where I got in.” This simple illustration helps explain why some fall away from Christ after becoming a Christian. Upon entering the kingdom, it is necessary that one grow spiritually. It is sad that many refuse to grow, but remain close to where they entered the kingdom. We are exhorted in Hebrews 6:6 to “go on unto perfection.” Likewise, we are admonished in 2 Peter 1:5-7 to add to our faith: virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. By growing in these qualities, we will guarantee that we will not “go to sleep too close to where we got in.” In fact, 2 Peter 1:10 states, “if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.”
Many refuse to grow because they remain closely tied to things in the world. In the parable of the sower, Jesus spoke of some who allow the “care(s) of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, (to) choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful” (Matt 13:22). To avoid this, we must sever our ties to the world and turn our full attention to spiritual growth. By pressing on to perfection, we will not “slide back” into the ways of the world which we left when we became Christians.
Reprinted in the Beacon, November 2, 2009
[Editor’s note: Speaking of vagueness, I was asked to enlarge an article (which appears on page 3) from a church bulletin for a brother visiting out of town. The name, place, or date of the bulletin was not on the part that was enlarged, but the article makes an encouraging point. It was not retyped; the page appears as it was—only enlarged.]
Thanksgiving
The giving of thanks should be often;
Remembrance of Him our hearts soften.
God’s blessings come not once a year;
Each day let Him our praises hear.