Who Said It

There is always the danger of drawing unwarranted conclusions from the Bible if proper methods of
interpretation are not employed. One can make the Bible say virtually anything when the proper approach to
handling God’s word is abandoned. It is not uncommon to find enemies of the Bible who remove select
statements from their context in an attempt to destroy the Bible’s credibility. Nor is it uncommon to find
individuals who have found statements here and there that, if handled with enough skill, can be used to defend
all kinds of sinful practices in which they are already involved. Those who go to the Bible to find justification for
what they are already practicing, and who will manipulate the Scriptures until it is found, rather that going to
the Bible in an honest search of right and wrong, are not true followers of Christ, but pretenders. Sometimes,
however, we are neither enemies of the Bible, nor do we search for divine loopholes for sinful behavior, but in
all sincerity we nonetheless mishandle or misrepresent the teaching of God’s word because we do not
approach it in the proper way.

One of the first principles of Biblical hermeneutics (interpretation), which, if neglected, can result in all of the
aforementioned problems, is to consider who is doing the speaking or writing of a given statement in the Bible.
In other words, it is absolutely necessary every time we are examining a Bible statement to ask the question,
"who said this?" By failing to take the speaker or originator of a statement into account, the skeptic can make
God appear to say all kind of ludicrous things; the insincere seeker of loopholes can find someone in the Bible
to give justification to his immoral practice; and the casual student of the Bible, though sincere, will be led to
believe that God has affirmed things that he really has not. Consider some examples.

"Take thine ease; eat, drink, and be merry." This statement is taken directly from the gospel of Luke (Lk.
12:19); you can find where Paul wrote virtually the same thing, adding, "for tomorrow we die (1 Cor. 15:32)."
So, the Epicurean philosophy finds its approval in God’s word. At least, so it seems. Remove those verses from
their contexts and ignore who said them, and you can make the Bible teach that the supreme purpose in life is
to pursue pleasure without restraint. Does the Bible actually teach hedonism? Are the above statements God’s
divine view of life? A brief look at the verses surrounding both statements will answer those questions. The
words recorded in Luke’s gospel were part of a parable told by Jesus to certain covetous individuals (12:13-16).
The parable concerned a covetous, materialistic rich man whose philosophy was to gain as much material
wealth as he could, and to live in luxury and pleasure. It was this man who stated in the parable, "Take thine
ease; eat, drink, and be merry." Jesus did not espouse this doctrine; rather, his purpose in this parable was to
denounce it. Christ called the rich man and all who share his philosophy and approach to life fools (12:20-21).
Likewise, an examination of Paul’s letter reveals that his words, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,"
were spoken from the perspective of one who did not believe in the resurrection of Christ or the final
resurrection of the dead. Paul was not advocating hedonism; he was as opposed to such teaching as he was to
the teaching that Christ was not risen. So, does the Bible say, "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die?"
Yes--but who said it? and under what circumstances? A failure to consider these questions will result in a faulty
and destructive conclusion concerning the Bible’s teaching on the purpose of life and the pursuit of pleasure.
Let’s look at another example.

The Bible says: "Who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off (Job 4:7)?" Many
Bible readers have come across questions such as these and the one recorded in John 9:2, and have concluded
that if a person is suffering, they must be vile sinners who have brought upon themselves the wrath of God.
They view all suffering and affliction as divine punishment. Some offer these verses as proof that infants are
born sinners--if little children suffer in any way, and they do, it must be because they are sinful. Is that really
what these verses teach, though? Is God in these places teaching us the basic truth that all suffering is linked to
personal sin? Actually, the book of Job affirms quite a different, almost opposite proposition--that sometimes
the righteous suffer and sometimes the innocent are afflicted when their personal sins are not the cause of it.
The questions recorded in Job 4:7 were not spoken by God, nor by an inspired person, but by an uninspired
man named Eliphaz, who on more than one occasion showed himself to be less than knowledgeable in the
ways in which God deals with man. Eliphaz tried to get Job to see that Job was suffering because he was a
sinner--that no righteous or innocent person suffers. Many read Eliphaz’s words and conclude that they are
true; to do so, however, would be to completely ignore the first two chapters of the book of Job, in which we
are told that, in fact, Job was innocent and righteous, and it was Satan, not God, who was afflicting Job. Take
Job 4:7, remove it from its context and ignore who said it, and a false view of God results.

"Let us do evil, that good may come." In these inspired words we find the basis for situation ethics. They are
part of the New Testament (Rom. 3:8), and they teach that it is okay to do things that would otherwise be
sinful if doing so will result in something good. The end justifies the means. It is okay to lie to save a person’s
life. It is acceptable to drink alcohol if it will help me reach social drinkers with the gospel. I can cheat at school
if it will help me get into a better college. Is that really the case? True, Paul wrote the words, "Let us do evil,
that good may come." But who was actually teaching that? Not Paul, but his detractors. Paul only affirmed that
he was slandered as having taught such nonsense; it was not he who actually taught "the end justifies the
means," but men "whose damnation is just." Paul wrote about some who said, "Let us do evil that good may
come," but he did not agree to their sentiments; he condemned them!

As we approach the Bible desiring to know the will of God, one of the most basic tools that can be used to
rightly divide the word is to remember to ask, "Who said it?"