The " Big Gun"
Recently I heard a religious person exalt in the fact that he did not receive much of a response from a person whom he confronted with a challenge who had come to console the challenger's wife as she lay in a hospital bed. This person saw this good will gesture as an opportunity to " spiritually ambush" and entrap the visitor with an impromptu debate about the Bible and brought out one of his " big gun " questions for this unsuspecting victim. Can you think of another group of people who practiced this tactic of spiritual embarrassment and insult? The Pharisees of Jesus' day employed this scheme frequently as Jesus " went about doing good" ( Acts 10:38). Examples are found in Mt.12:10, 16:1, 19:3, 22:15, and Luke 11:53-54. The "big gun "that this well-intentioned visitor was hit with was James 5:19-20, the challenge being to explain these "losing Salvation" verses, as the ambusher knew the visitors theology was eternal security. The visitor politely declined a heated debate with respect to his purpose for the visit. The challengers " big gun" in James 5: 19-20 DEMANDS that the word " brethren" in verse 19 mean " a member of the New Testament church" and thus if this " brethren " is " converted" he surely lost the Salvation that he once had. This is a false premise for precisely two reasons. First, the letter written from James was NOT written to a church congregation but to the " twelve tribes scattered abroad" ( James 1:1). This is of utmost importance and brings us to our next point. Overwhelmingly in the New Testament when you find one Jew speaking ( or writing ) to other Jews they refer to them as " brethren ". The first Gospel message that was preached after Jesus' resurrection was preached to LOST JEWISH people, yet Peter called them " brethren " ( Acts 2: 29). These unsaved Jews THEN referred to Peter and the other preachers as " brethren" ( Acts 2:37 ). In Acts 13:26 Salvation was offered to " brethren " and in Acts 13:38 forgiveness of sins was offered to " brethren". In Acts 22:5 " brethren" were involved in the punishment of Christians and later on in verse 22 these same " brethren" wanted to kill Paul. In Acts 28:24 all were " brethren "( verse 17) even though some believed and some did not. Based upon these two points that are clearly manifested in the Word of God rightly divided, there is no way that " brethren" in James 5:19-20 can demand the definition " a member of the New Testament Church". It must be taken out of context to teach this. This is the sort of response that the religious person could have expected had he not been so eager to " show someone up" in front of others. It seems that he is the one who has been " shown up " by the clear teaching of Scripture rightly divided. The word " brethren" NEVER demands the definition " a member of the New Testament Church" when one Jew is speaking to other Jews and the book of James is NO exception.
Recently I heard a religious person exalt in the fact that he did not receive much of a response from a person whom he confronted with a challenge who had come to console the challenger's wife as she lay in a hospital bed. This person saw this good will gesture as an opportunity to " spiritually ambush" and entrap the visitor with an impromptu debate about the Bible and brought out one of his " big gun " questions for this unsuspecting victim. Can you think of another group of people who practiced this tactic of spiritual embarrassment and insult? The Pharisees of Jesus' day employed this scheme frequently as Jesus " went about doing good" ( Acts 10:38). Examples are found in Mt.12:10, 16:1, 19:3, 22:15, and Luke 11:53-54. The "big gun "that this well-intentioned visitor was hit with was James 5:19-20, the challenge being to explain these "losing Salvation" verses, as the ambusher knew the visitors theology was eternal security. The visitor politely declined a heated debate with respect to his purpose for the visit. The challengers " big gun" in James 5: 19-20 DEMANDS that the word " brethren" in verse 19 mean " a member of the New Testament church" and thus if this " brethren " is " converted" he surely lost the Salvation that he once had. This is a false premise for precisely two reasons. First, the letter written from James was NOT written to a church congregation but to the " twelve tribes scattered abroad" ( James 1:1). This is of utmost importance and brings us to our next point. Overwhelmingly in the New Testament when you find one Jew speaking ( or writing ) to other Jews they refer to them as " brethren ". The first Gospel message that was preached after Jesus' resurrection was preached to LOST JEWISH people, yet Peter called them " brethren " ( Acts 2: 29). These unsaved Jews THEN referred to Peter and the other preachers as " brethren" ( Acts 2:37 ). In Acts 13:26 Salvation was offered to " brethren " and in Acts 13:38 forgiveness of sins was offered to " brethren". In Acts 22:5 " brethren" were involved in the punishment of Christians and later on in verse 22 these same " brethren" wanted to kill Paul. In Acts 28:24 all were " brethren "( verse 17) even though some believed and some did not. Based upon these two points that are clearly manifested in the Word of God rightly divided, there is no way that " brethren" in James 5:19-20 can demand the definition " a member of the New Testament Church". It must be taken out of context to teach this. This is the sort of response that the religious person could have expected had he not been so eager to " show someone up" in front of others. It seems that he is the one who has been " shown up " by the clear teaching of Scripture rightly divided. The word " brethren" NEVER demands the definition " a member of the New Testament Church" when one Jew is speaking to other Jews and the book of James is NO exception.
