One of the most dangerous of human failings is found in our not being fair in our dealings with those who hold a view that differs from our own. Given the opportunity, if one isn’t careful, he is apt to completely misrepresent his opponent by placing such a construction on his words as to throw public sentiment against him. What is worse, in most cases, the view represented is not at all what was originally intended. By taking a difficult phrase here and there, one may be shown to hold views of such an extreme nature that he is made to look ridiculous.
As an example of the thoughts expressed above, the atheist may quote part of Isaiah 45:7, where God is represented as saying, “I create evil.” Now, according to Webster, one of the definitions of evil is “moral badness” or “anything impairing or depriving of good.” Thus, in his effort to discredit the Bible, he declares that God creates “moral badness,” and that His influence on people impairs or deprives them of good.
Is this an accurate and true representation of God as He speaks in Isaiah 45:7? Of course, it isn’t, as any Sunday School student can prove. God’s intention in dealing with Israel was to firmly implant them in the land promised to their fathers ; to establish them in peace and happiness. Because of their stiff-necked rebellious attitude the Lord found it necessary to punish them, which he did by bringing certain calamities upon them. This, He describes as an evil, which He created. The evil which God creates is not sin or immorality, but sorrow, wretchedness and adversity upon those he punishes.
In like manner, the apostle Paul may be represented as declaring that the only purpose of the law of Moses was to bring death upon all who came in contact with it. The apostle refers to the law delivered to Israel through the hand of Moses as a “ministration of death” (2 Cor. 3:7). Again, by placing the emphasis on the wrong place, one could show that the design and purpose of the law was to bring death and carnage upon all who fell within its scope; that its originator was bent on bringing death upon the entire human race.
That Paul did say that it was a ministration of death cannot be denied. But, on the other hand, to assume that he thought that the purpose behind its giving was to bring all to the grave, is second guessing the apostle. That this view, though technically and grammatically sound through a strict and biased pressing of the letter, is erroneous, will at once become apparent by a careful reading of the entire chapter. Paul further refers to the same covenant as “glorious.”
A law whose only design was to bring sorrow and death could never be called glorious. However, because of the “glory that excellent,” the new covenant, Paul states that it had no glory. Because the law could not give life, and the new covenant through Christ could, Paul calls it a ministration of death, strictly a comparative term.
These examples serve to show us the grave danger of taking words and phrases out of their context, and placing a wrong construction upon them in an endeavour to discredit their author. Just a change in emphasis, a different inflection or perhaps a word left off will alter completely the original meaning.
Let us be thoroughly fair in our appraisal of a brother’s words lest we be found guilty of slander, remembering always the words of our Master, “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt. 12:37).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One