Just as we should know some basics about Hebrew in order to avoid making foolish errors in our reasoning, we should know at least a little about Greek, the language of the New Testament.  So let's learn a little something about it.
            First, at the time of the New Testament, Greek was written in uppercase letters only.  That's important because too many times I have heard people in Bible classes say something like, "Well, it has to be talking about the Holy Spirit because it's capitalized."  ALL the letters are capitalized.  In fact, in our culture we would be thinking that God is yelling at us, which of course He isn't, though I am sure He would like to fairly often.  When the translators see the word "SPIRIT" they must make the decision whether it means the Deity or an attitude, like school spirit or a spirit of unity.  These men are often so reverent that when they are not certain which it means, they will capitalize it to make sure they do not insult the Holy Spirit.  That was the mindset of the very early translations and translators, a wonderful mindset to be sure, but one that can and has often caused misinterpretations.  Be careful with those capital letters and don't make any arguments based upon them.
            Second, no spaces existed between words and there was no punctuation.  In the classic example, imagine you saw this sentence:  ISAWABUNDANCEONTHETABLE.  Now, is that "I saw a bun dance on the table," or "I saw abundance on the table?"  The translators go primarily by context as well as common sense.  I have never seen a bun dance on the table, neither the waltz nor the polka, but I have seen many feasts where indeed there was abundance on the table.  That's why the translators are acknowledged scholars.  They are used to handling that ancient language and all its peculiarities.
            The point about punctuation is also important.  Everyone knows that Paul had a penchant for long sentences, as in Eph 1:3-14.  That is one sentence.  The newer versions cater to our culture's desire for what I call "business writing"—short sentences that are simple to read and understand.  That's fine in business writing.  It is NOT fine when we are discussing important and profound subjects.  You should always keep an older version handy when you are studying from a new one (NIV, ESV, etc.) so you know exactly what was written and see the connections.  If your version includes a phrase or words four sentences later that were actually in the original one sentence, you may miss those connections.  Yet these are the markers for the beginning and end of a thought. Yes, it is more difficult to read and comprehend a long sentence, but this is your soul we are talking about.  You are supposed to be so deeply interested in these things that you will pore over them for hours, not give them a quick scan and move on.  The New Testament is not a collection of sound bites!
            Now about those italics.  Words written in Italics are supposed to be words "not actually in the Greek."  Many times those words are implied or even necessary to the Greek word they support, another thing those scholars know that we don't.  (If you took Latin in high school like I did, this probably makes perfect sense to you.)  When we say, "That italicized word is not there," a majority of the time (one scholar told me 99%), we are wrong.  It has to be there because of the word choice by the author. Please be careful when you start spouting off about a language you neither understand nor speak
            Having said all this about Hebrew and Greek, remember that very few points can be made from those languages that cannot be made from any language, including English. Our loving God would never have left us with something we could not understand and follow when He planned to judge us by it.
           
Dene Ward

(I received some help from a couple of friendly scholars on this and the next Study Time post.  Any errors are not theirs, but my own misunderstandings and ignorance.)
            No one expects you to be a Bible scholar, but let me ask you this.  What is your favorite pastime?  Sewing?  Cooking?  Baseball?  Golf?  And what do you do with those things?  Maybe you subscribe to a certain magazine.  Maybe you watch certain TV shows or sporting events.  Maybe you read books on the subject.  Whatever it is you enjoy, you spend time learning more about it, don't you?  Maybe not as much as a professional, but certainly more than the average Joe—or Josephine.  Not only do you enjoy being able to talk about it, you do not want to look foolish when you can't even define the basic terminology or know the rules of the game.
            So in that spirit, as Christians, disciples of the Lord, children of the Father, we should want to know the basics about certain subjects.  We certainly ought to know the Handbook inside and out.  I would hope I don't need to even mention that, but what about the original languages it was written in?  If we don't know the ABCs, so to speak, we may make some embarrassing errors or worse, lead someone astray with faulty arguments.
            I don't know Hebrew.  I don't read Hebrew.  It all looks like chicken scratch to me.  But over the years I have learned a few things about it.
            First, you read it right to left, not left to right as we do.  That means when you have a book written in Hebrew you will read it back to front.  I suppose to Hebrew readers it is front to back and we are the ones doing it back to front, but you get my point.  The first time I picked up a Hebrew book and found the title page in the back (front to them) it really threw me for a loop.  You ought to find one just so you have that experience.
            Second, there were no written vowels in Hebrew for centuries.  Some liberal scholars have tried to make hay with this.  Just imagine English without vowels.  The word "RD" would give you fits.  It could be read, red, rad, raid, road, rod, rid, ride, rude, and maybe a few others.  Some people have done their best to make it seem that knowing exactly what the Hebrew says is impossible, but they are wrong.  All those centuries ago the common people did not have access to written scrolls.  They were read aloud to the people, people who could memorize at the drop of a hat—it was their culture to do so.  The tradition of how a word was read was passed down through the years. They would have instantly known it when someone tried to put a different word in there. 
            Along came the Masoretes who developed a system of "pointing" around the consonants to indicate which vowel went where.  In addition to that, Origen, one of the so-called Church Fathers, included the transliteration of the Hebrew Bible into Greek when he compiled six Ancient versions of that Bible in the second century AD (the Hexapla).  In many places these match what later became the written vowels in the Masoretic text, further validation of the Old Testament we have today.
            Another interesting thing is word groups.  Most Hebrew words are based on a three letter root, which is easily seen even when transliterated into English letters.  For example, Shalom, Solomon, Jerusalem, and Shulamite are all SLM words, which tells you they are related somehow.  I have no idea how many roots there are, but I bet I can find quite a few now that I know that little trick.
            The last thing I want to mention is the use of repetition in the Hebrew language.  While there are a few intensifying words, they are rare.  The Hebrew language prefers to use word order and repetition to create emphasis.  The "(singular) of (plural)" repetitive construction will often be used, as in "Lord of Lords" and "King of Kings."  It doesn't actually say "Most Holy Place" in all those passages about the tabernacle and the Temple.  It says, "Holy of Holies."  If your Bible includes a "most," that is the translator's decision because that is how we would ordinarily say it in English.  The point is this:  repetition equals emphasis in the Old Testament.  "Abraham, Abraham" would have gotten that patriarch's attention much more readily than a single "Abraham," sort of like using all three of your child's names when you are angry with him.  Be careful when you try to make some point involving these phrases or the fact that words are repeated.  "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord," does not mean you are required to say "Holy" three times whenever you refer to God.  That was their way of saying, "The Lord is the Most Holy."
            I hope these little nuggets of information have interested you enough to learn a little more on your own.  You can never know too much about the Word of God.
            Next time we'll talk about Greek.
 
Dene Ward

No one really knows why this day started, National Pickle Day, but I think increasing pickle sales may well have been the root of it.  With the encouragement of the Pickle Packers Association it was first celebrated in 1949.  Today, Americans consume over five million pounds of pickles a year, so maybe it worked.
            We planted our first garden 46 years ago.  Even though Keith had been brought up with gardens, we were both tyros, especially considering the climate we were in, different from either of our childhoods.  He set me up with all the equipment I would need, and most of which I still use all these years later:  canners, mason jars, jar lifters, lids, rings, funnels, sieves, lime, vinegar, canning salt, and cookbooks, I had them all.
            One of the things I knew I wanted to make was a batch of dill pickles.  I love dill pickles.  I could eat a whole jar.  So I looked all over for recipes and found one that was fairly easy.  I did exactly as the recipe said and one afternoon in July lined my shelves with a dozen pints of dill pickles.  The recipe said to let them sit a few weeks, as I recall, so I did, and had not gotten around to trying them yet. 
            Finally we had company one evening and Keith grilled some hamburgers.  The perfect meal for my pickles, I thought, and proudly set them on the table.  I made a point to put the Mason jar on the table so our guests would know they were homemade.  Too bad for me as it turned out.  Keith’s pal took one bite of pickle and tried very hard to keep his face from screwing up, but not entirely succeeding.
            “Wow!” he finally choked out.  “These are DIIIIIIILLLLL pickles.”
            I took a bite myself and resolved not only to toss the recipe but every jar in the pantry.  The recipe had called for four tablespoons of dried dill seed per pint.  That’s one-fourth cup, people.  After all these years of experience, I would have looked at that recipe and immediately known something was off, but then I was a newbie and didn’t know any better.
            Ah, but we make the same sort of mistakes as Christians.  But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Heb 5:14.
            I learned from my mistake with the pickles and tried again, and again, and again, until I finally got it right.  But I would never have gotten it right without all that practice.  That’s what it takes with the Word.  No, it doesn’t take a college degree to understand the Bible and knowing exactly what to do to begin your relationship with Christ is pretty simple, but the Word of God is a profound book.  If all you do is read a chapter a day, you are missing 90% of its power.
            I have seen too many young people, especially those “raised in the church,” spout off simplistic definitions and explanations and think that’s all there is to it, completely missing the depths that can be plumbed with some diligent work.  I’ve seen too many older Christians who have relied on those one-dimensional catch-phrases instead of growing to the height they should have after all those decades as a Christian that they are so proud of.  And I have seen too many old chestnuts that are patently wrong passed from generation to generation. 
            If reading Hebrews 7 doesn’t send you immediately back to Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, if seeing the word “promise” doesn’t make you instantly check for a reference to the Abrahamic promise, if reading the sermons in Acts doesn’t make you realize exactly how important it is to know the Old Testament, you have not been “exercising your senses” in the Word. 
          Please be careful of anything that sounds too pat, that makes arguments based on simplistic definitions or the spelling of English words (“Godliness is just a contraction of God-like-ness”).  Do not repeat anything you did not check out with careful study yourself.  And if you are still quite young, please check out your understanding with someone who is not only older, but well-versed in the Scriptures, and be willing to listen and really consider.  Do you know who I have the worst trouble with in my classes?  People who were “raised in the church.”  They are far less likely to even consider that they might be wrong about something and to change their minds than a brand new Christian, converted from the world with a boatload of misconceptions.
         You cannot know too much scripture.  It is impossible to be “over-educated” in the Word.  The more you know, the more motivation you will have to live up to your commitment to God, the better person you will be, and the fewer embarrassing mistakes you will make when you open your mouth.  Practice, practice, practice, or making pickles will be the least of your worries.
 
…put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Col 3:10
 
Dene Ward

We don't do this in our culture.  The Native Americans did it.  Who has not heard the old country song about Running Bear and Little White Dove, or seen the movie "Dances with Wolves?"  No, generally speaking, we do not name our children based upon the English language.  In fact, there are few names in our culture that actually have a meaning in our language—names like Faith, Hope, Joy, April, or Tuesday.  But Bible names meant something in the language of the day.  If we translated Joshua, instead of just transliterating it, it would be "Jehovah saves" and that is what Mr. and Mrs. Nun were saying every time they called their little boy.
            I suppose most of us know that, but we still miss a lot when we don't stop to ponder the meaning of Bible names.  Take the story of Joseph in the book of Genesis.
            Too many people are so busy trying to make Joseph into the first coming of the Messiah that they won't let him be what he was:  a slightly spoiled, rich teenager who was probably scared to death when his brothers sold him.  Still though, I am sure he had hope.  He was, after all, a rich man's son.  And his favorite son at that.  "Surely Daddy will come get me," he must have thought, looking down the dusty road day after day as he literally slaved away.
            But even Joseph, after 13 years, gave up hope.  He had no idea his father thought he was dead.  So when Pharaoh rewards him with position, wealth, and a wife, at the birth of his first son, what does he name him?  "Manasseh."  So? You ask.  Manasseh means "to cause to forget."  "For God has made me forget…all my father's house" Gen 41:51   
           Joseph gave up on a family he thought had thrown him away.  As second in the kingdom, he could easily have made the trip east to visit his family, but he never did.  When his brothers showed up, everything he did was to bring Benjamin, his only full brother and the only brother who did not somehow hurt him, down to Egypt to live with him.  He didn't know until he overheard the brothers talking that his father thought he was dead and that they were penitent of their horrible deed.  That is when he turned away from them and wept.  This is the human Joseph and you can understand exactly how he felt.
            But you can also learn this lesson.  He may have given up on his family, but he never gave up on God.  How easy would it have been to deny God because of all the hardship he endured, to enjoy the sin so extravagantly set before him by a promiscuous Egyptian woman, and to have curried favor among the pagans?  But he never gave up on God.  He never blamed God for his troubles.  Instead he continued serving to the best of his ability in whatever state he found himself. 
           Knowing the meaning of a name and allowing it to help you recognize a mindset can give you real encouragement, far more than ignoring the names and setting Joseph up on a pedestal from which he never had a negative thought or motive can.  These are real people God gave us as examples, not super-heroes.  They had real feelings and real motivations.  If Joseph can stay faithful, so can we.
 
The name of the second he called Ephraim, “For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.” (Gen 41:52)
 
Dene Ward

            One of the things we said early on was to stay in the book you are studying!  The only time to compare the Gospels is when you are studying an event or phrase in particular.  Below is a good example.  Who were all those women who stood at the foot of the cross?
            Comparing the three verses below reveals a wealth of information about more than just who they were.  List them and then match them up and this is what you will find:
 
Matt 27:56                              Mark 15:40                             John 19:25
 
Mary Magdalene                    Mary Magdalene                    Mary Magdalene
 
Mary, mother of                     Mary, mother of                     Mary, wife of Cleopas
James and Joses                         James the Less and Joses                          
 
Mother of the sons                 Salome                                    His mother’s sister
   Of Zebedee
 
You now see that Mary the wife of Cleopas, was the mother of the apostle James the Less.  By comparing Mark 3:18, we find that Cleopas might also have been called Alphaeus.  Luke 24:18 shows us that Cleopas was also a disciple of Jesus, or she was possibly married twice, but it was not at all uncommon for men to go by two names. 
            We learn that James and John’s mother was named Salome, and that she was Jesus’ aunt, his mother’s sister.  This helps explain why John was so special to him (probably the baby cousin), and why James and John, and their business partner Peter, were so often by his side when the others were not.  (But it leaves us wondering why Andrew, Peter’s brother, was not!) 
It also shows that Aunt Salome wasn’t entirely out of line in expecting that her two sons, Jesus’ only blood relatives among the apostles, might be his first and second (lieutenants? Vice-presidents?) in the kingdom, and why Jesus gave the care of his mother to his youngest believing cousin.  And that points out that Jesus considered the spiritual connection more important than the physical because at that time he had at least four brothers who could have cared for their mother, but none of them yet believed.
            Try this one now:  Look up every list of the apostles you find, even partial lists.  Look up the meaning of names.  It is amazing that Matthew the publican and Simon the Zealot could tolerate one another, and that points to the unifying power of the gospel.  The apostles varied from blue collar fishermen to the more urbane Nathanael, who looked down on anyone from Galilee. 
            Almost all of them had two or even three names:
Simon, Peter, Cephas
Thomas, Didymus (“Twin,” which leaves you wondering where his brother was)
Matthew, Levi
Bartholomew, Nathanael (a presumption)
Simon, Zelotes (more a description = Zealot)
Thaddeus, Judas, Lebbaeus
            Some of those names were Aramaic, some Hebrew, some Greek (I’ll let you look that up yourself).  The Aramiac names were mostly translations from common Hebrew names.
James = Jacob
John = Jonah
Simon = Simeon
Judas = Judah
(Mary = Miriam, which explains why there were so many Marys.)
            It’s actually pretty amazing what you can list about those men when you gather the meager facts together, a whole lot more than you think, like where they came from, who their parents were, etc.  I'll leave that one to you.
 
Dene Ward   

After reading them for so many years, I can skim a recipe and garner all sorts of necessary information in that quick once-over.  Not just whether I have the ingredients, but how long it will take, what I can do ahead of time, what equipment I will need, the substitutions I can make if necessary, and whether I can cut it in half or freeze half of it.  Sometimes, though, a recipe needs a closer reading.
            I made a vegetable lasagna once that turned out well, but was way too big.  I took over half of the leftovers to my women’s class potluck and it got rave reviews and several requests.  So I went home and started typing the two page recipe containing at least two dozen ingredients.  The typing required a careful reading of the recipe so I wouldn’t give anyone wrong amounts or directions, and as I did so I discovered that I had completely forgotten one ingredient and had missed one of the procedures.  Just imagine how good it would have been if I had done the whole thing correctly.
            Too many times we try to read the Bible like I read that recipe, especially the passages we think we already know.  I have said many times to many classes, the biggest hindrance to learning is what you think you already know.  Today I am going to prove it to you.
            Have you ever said, or even taught, that turning the water to wine was the first miracle Jesus ever did?  I know, it’s what all the Bible class curricula say.  Well, it’s your job to check out those lessons with your own careful reading.  Most of the time that means reading far beyond the actual lesson text.  This isn’t even hard to see, but you do have to think about what you see.  Some time today when you have the time—okay, make the time—read the following verses.
 
John 1:45-51—Jesus tells Nathanael that he saw him before it was possible for him to see him.  This was enough of a miracle that it brought a confession from Nathanael: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel”, v 49.
2:11--“This is the first of his signs” (water to wine)
2:23--“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed on his name when they saw the signs that he was doing.” (Notice, this is an unknown number of signs,)
4:16-19—Jesus tells the woman at the well all about her life, a life he could not have known about except miraculously.  She would later tell her neighbors, “Come see a man who told me all that ever I did.  Can this be the Christ?” v 29.  She certainly thought she had seen a miracle.
4:46-54—Jesus heals the nobleman’s son, which John labels “the second sign that Jesus did.”  What about John 1?  What about 2:23?  What about Samaria?
 
            For years I read “first” and “second,” knowing full well about the other signs before and between them, and didn’t even think about what I was reading. I was reading it like a recipe, a quick once over because I already knew the story.  Now, having seen all the passages together, you can see that “first” and “second” in John 2:11 and 4:54 obviously do not mean the simple chronological “first” and “second” you might think at first glance.  You need the entire context of John to figure it out.
            Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name, John 20:30,31.  Right there John tells you not only why he wrote his book, but that he simply chose certain signs to discuss in detail.  If you do a careful study of the entire book, you will discover that he chose seven, each making a particular point about the power of Jesus that proves his Deity.  No, I am not going to list them for you.  You need to take up your Bibles and figure it out for yourself so you know firsthand.   
            When John says “This is the first,” and “this is the second,” he is simply referring to the list of seven he intends to discuss more fully.  Turning the water to wine was the first on his list, NOT the first miracle Jesus ever did, and all you have to do is read earlier in the book to see at least one more—Nathanael’s.  In fact, you cannot even count the number he did in between the “first” and the “second,” 2:23.
            So, be careful what you believe.  Be even more careful what you teach because that could affect many others.  Pay attention to the details and don’t pull events and verses out of context.  Do you want to know why so many false doctrines spread?  Because people read the “proof texts” like a recipe, a quick scan instead of a careful reading, if indeed they read them at all.
            Don’t skim the Word of God.  Give it the attention it deserves.   
 
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 2 Pet 1:19.
 
Dene Ward

I started taking piano lessons when I was about seven years old.  It was not “formal” training in a studio, but just a few lessons from a friend of my mother’s to see if I was interested.  I still remember the first lesson, the first book I had, and the first tune in it.  “C-D-E made a boat; round and round the pond he’d float.”
            A few months later this friend told my parents I needed a “real” teacher.  Frankly, I think she was just fine as a teacher.  I learned the keys, the notes, and how to count in a few short weeks, but she insisted so off we went. 
            My next teacher had recitals.  I still remember that first recital too, and I can still play my first recital piece:  “Arab Horsemen” by Hazel Cobb.  Those horsemen were a long way from the guy named “CDE” and his boat.  Instead of one hand playing three notes, I had both hands running over six octaves on the piano, and a whole page played with my arms crossed!
            As I sat in the student row waiting my turn to play I saw other students wringing their hands or wiping sweat off their palms onto their skirts or pants.  What was the problem, I wondered?  It never dawned on me that they were nervous about playing in front of people.  I wasn’t nervous.  I knew my piece and could play it flawlessly.  What was the big deal?
            A few years later we had moved and the new teacher entered me in a talent competition in the County Fair.  Once again I was mystified by the nervous entrants around me.  I had a great piece and knew it inside and out.  I had spent three hours one particular day analyzing every note, every nuance of phrase, and every dynamic marking.  I got up and played it, and won a blue ribbon. 
            The next year I entered another competition.  This time the piece was more difficult.  It was written only a year or two before by Aaron Copland, a contemporary American composer.  It did not make much sense to my classically oriented ear.  Going from this note to the next seemed totally at random to me and I had a difficult time memorizing it.  But the rules for that category said I had to play it.  
            For the first time in my life I was not comfortable waiting my turn.  Then when I got up to play, it happened--I went totally blank.  I could not even start the piece.  The judges were kind.  They let me look at the first line.  Then I walked back to the piano and my daily practice automatically kicked in.  I played it perfectly, and aced the Beethoven rondo that followed.  In fact, Beethoven felt like an old friend at that point.
            Ever since that day I have experienced what everyone else does—performance anxiety.  I played a solo professional recital once and was sick to my stomach about five minutes before I walked on.  That one time when I forgot what to play has never left me.  From then on I knew I was as mortal as anyone and I always wondered when it would happen again.  Actually it did happen once in the middle of my senior recital, a requirement for a degree in music education.  I was playing a sonata and made up about four bars on the second page of the first movement before Haydn’s music found its way back into my hands.  Good thing you get points for covering up a slip when you perform.  I still got my A.
            Can you imagine how those apostles felt when Jesus, the one they had always counted on to have the right answer at the right time suddenly left them?  He knew what would happen and gave them this promise:  And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, be not anxious beforehand what you are to say but say whatever is given you to say, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit, Mark 13:11.  Can you imagine a more comforting promise?  I suppose that is why I have always had difficulties with those who claim that Paul misspoke in Acts 23:3, and that he had to apologize.  Don’t they believe that God kept His promise to these brave men?  Try reading what Paul said with the same tone Elijah must surely have had when he spoke to the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18.  It wouldn’t be the first time that God used sarcasm through the voice of a man.  Either that or He broke His promise to Paul; you can’t have it both ways.
            Wouldn’t it be great to have that promise today?  But wait a minute--in a way we do.  Those men did not have the written word.  Paul himself promised that one day the gifts that allowed one to prophesy a part and another to prophesy another part would be done away because the entire revelation would be “perfect,” complete in all details (1 Cor 13:8-12.  That is what we have—the whole shebang.
            So why do we experience performance anxiety when someone asks a question, or when it comes time to speak up in the face of false teaching?  Is it because we are just a little anxious about choosing exactly the right way to say it, or is it because we didn’t prepare ourselves with daily practice, analyzing and memorizing?  One is understandable, the other is inexcusable.  We may not have all the answers on the tips of our tongues as they did, but we have the source of those answers if we will just take the time to look.  “I don’t know, but I can find out,” may be a better testimony than acting like we do know it all.  It tells our friends, if an ordinary guy like him can find it, so can I.
            Those 13 men never knew when they would be called upon to speak up for God.  We don’t either.  Start practicing what to say; start considering all the possibilities. God has given you what you need, but it’s up to you to make use of it.
 
I will hope continually and praise you yet more and more.  My mouth will tell of your righteous acts, of your deeds of salvation all the day for their number is past my knowledge.  With the mighty deeds of the Lord God I will come; I will remind them of your righteousness, yours alone.  Psalm 71:14-16.
 
Dene Ward
           
 

One day recently, just to see what would happen, I googled one of my past devotionals, the one called “Chloe and the Green Beans.”  Now if I understand what the Google search engine does, it searches the internet to find places where all those words are used in more or less the same place.  Sort of like a Bible concordance lists all the passages that contain a certain word.  I was amused by what Google came up with.
            “But Chloe doesn’t like green beans…”
            “Chloe Green bought some beans.”
            “Joan Rivers spills the beans about celebrities including Tom Green and Chloe Kardashian.”
            “Chloe Intense—a new perfume with notes of rose, amber, pink pepper, and tonka beans”
            Finally on page 8, I found my devotional, “Chloe and the Green Beans.”
            I never dreamed that those words—“Chloe,” “green,” and “beans”-- had been put together in so many different ways. Some of those are from blogs, some articles, and some ads.  Do you think the “Chloe” in all those snippets referred to the same Chloe?  Of course not.  And then I thought, that is exactly how some people try to study the Bible—they google it, in method if nothing else.  They see a word in one passage and then simply look for it in another, assuming it means the same thing, regardless of the fact that different authors are writing about different topics to different audiences many, sometimes hundreds of years, apart.
            They see the words “the coming of the Lord” and “judgment” and decide that, even though one is in Isaiah and one is in Matthew and one is in Peter, they must all be talking about the same “coming of the Lord”—which they inevitably view as the final Day of Judgment.  They see similar language in the book of Revelation and decide the same thing, regardless of John saying, “These things must shortly come to pass.”
            They also completely ignore to whom the words were originally written and what they meant in the context of the time and circumstances.  For example, when you said the phrase, “the promise” to a Jew, you would create a far different understanding than you would to a Gentile.  Jews who heard or read “the promise” would see it in their minds in all caps on a flashing neon sign.  They had been looking for “THE PROMISE” for thousands of years.  Remember that when you read passages like Acts 2:39, which was originally spoken to a Jewish audience.
            Things also become skewed when you forget that the Bible was not written in English.  Just because the same English word is used in two different places, does not mean it is the same Hebrew or Greek word.  Just as English has many words for “bread” that limit its meaning (biscuit, loaf, bagel, scone, muffin, etc), those people had different words for things that might have been translated into one English word.  Did you know that in the Bible there were several Hebrew or Greek words used for queen?  One meant “a daughter of royalty.”  Another meant “queen-mother.”  Still another simply meant “the king’s wife.”  A really strange one meant “the moon.”  Yet they are all translated “queen” in our language.  That one is not too important, but there are other words that make a much larger difference in your understanding of the scriptures, and that is why you must learn how to use a concordance, either on a computer program or a real book. 
            What started out as simple curiosity that afternoon at the computer reminded me of some important things about Bible study.  Be careful with the word of God.  It isn’t a comic book, so it takes some thought.  It isn’t a thriller, so you sometimes have to make yourself plow through it.  It isn’t a romance, so you may find things in it you didn’t really want to find, like the fact that you need to change your life.  In the end, though, it’s worth every minute of study you put into it.
 
But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God… For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, 2 Cor 4:2,5,6.
 
Dene Ward

A long time ago I accidentally learned what to do about all those New Testament quotes from the Old Testament:  LOOK UP THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT!
            Let’s look at a quote or two.
            ​You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” (Matt 15:7-9)
            I heard that passage quoted all my childhood and applied to religious denominations.  They were making laws that were not in the Bible and so they were guilty.  Then the preacher would list things like “once saved, always saved,” instrumental music, and quarterly communion.  I used it too when I talked to my friends at school because that’s the way I had always heard it used.
            Then one day after I was grown and teaching classes, I decided to look up the context of Jesus’ statement and was I in for a shock when I saw that he was addressing it to the scribes and Pharisees—conservative parties of his own people, the Jews.  He was NOT addressing it to pagans who worshipped incorrectly at all.  So then I went back to Isaiah where, Jesus tells us, this statement was originally made.
            And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men, therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.” (Isa 29:13-14)
            Like Jesus, Isaiah is talking to God’s people, a people who have given nothing but lip-service to God.  They go to the Temple on feast days and Sabbaths, anxious for it to all be over so they can get back to “real life,” cheating in their businesses, afflicting the poor, and focusing all their attentions on self-indulgence.  They have polluted the true worship with idols in the Temple, priests who no longer teach the Law, and prophets who preach for hire.  They want to be more like the nations around them than like the Father who protected and provided for them.  God says they have broken the covenant and He is about to destroy them.
            Do you think those Jewish leaders missed what Jesus was saying about them by using this passage?  Of course not.  Do you understand now why they were always so angry with him?  He did not avoid confrontation and he had no problem speaking plainly, plainly enough that they knew exactly what he meant.
            Now notice again who these people were:  the conservative parties of God’s people who were trying their best to follow the Law exactly.  Do you know anyone who fits that description today?  And do you think we don’t have any problem with the same things they did?  Then think again.  I grew up knowing people who carefully compartmentalized their religion.  What they said and did on Sunday had nothing to do with how they lived the rest of the week.  “I’ve been baptized,” became their mantra.  I was blessed to have parents who showed me that faith is about every aspect of your life, not just Sunday mornings, otherwise I might be in the same situation.
            Do you think we don’t have trouble teaching “commandments of men?”  Have you ever heard things like, “You can’t wait on the Lord’s table without a tie on?”  How about, “Women are not allowed to wear pants here,” or “You have to say amen at the end of your prayer or you will not be allowed to pray the public prayer.”  And just like those first century Pharisees we sometimes make a bigger deal out of people breaking our Man commandments than we do God’s.
All that just because I finally checked the context of two passages, the New Testament quote and the original Old Testament passage.
           Here’s one you can work on yourself.  Jesus told a vineyard parable in Mark 12:1-12.  It was not a direct quote but was a strong allusion to Isaiah’s vineyard parable in 5:1-7.  Jesus was speaking to the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders, people who certainly knew the book of Isaiah.  Make a two column chart and find the comparisons between those two parables.  Once you do, you will understand why, when Jesus finished his, those men wanted “to arrest him.”
          Did you ever wonder why the New Testament is so much shorter than the Old?  Maybe it’s because God didn’t think He needed to say things twice!  He expected us to look at these quotes and their originals and figure a few things out ourselves.  And when you do that, you will learn more than you ever knew there was to learn.
 
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)
 
Dene Ward

Everyone has heard the admonition, “Look for the context when you study.”  Certainly understanding the topic at hand goes a long way in understanding what is being said about it.  But we often overlook another type of context.  In fact, it may be the reason for the vast majority of incorrect ideas about Biblical narratives.  All those pictures we put out for the children to color to fill up the last five minutes of class time are usually so Biblically incorrect it makes me cringe. 
            The context we need to work on most is the historic, geographic, and cultural context.  For example, read a bit in one of those Customs and Manners books (Wight and Edersheim come to mind, but there are other newer ones), or find those sections in any good commentary—just about the best use for a commentary—and you will discover this:  young Jewish women at least up to and including the first century, were married off at puberty.  Even if, as some say, puberty was a bit later back then, you still have fourteen year olds getting married.  In fact, MacArthur tells us in Twelve Extraordinary Women that at least in Mary’s time, they entered into a one-year betrothal, the kiddushin, at 13 and married at 14. 
            Now go back and restudy all those old stories.  Think about Rebekah leaving home to go marry Isaac, who was at that time 40.  Think about those two sisters, Leah and Rachel, and their marriages to Jacob.  Do you realize that if you start at his death in Egypt and work your way back, that Jacob was 84 when he married them?  Both those patriarchs married very young teenagers.
            Every time I point this out, I have one or two in my classes who sit there, stunned.  “But we put people in jail for this,” one woman said.  Yes, and it is a lesson to us not to judge that culture by ours.
            It’s also a lesson not to judge our young people’s capabilities by theirs.  We do not raise our children to be able to begin adult life at 13 or 14.  We don’t expect that level of commitment from them and we don’t teach them how to make a lifetime commitment that early.  Even the young men in later times than those patriarchs married as teenagers.  They learned a trade and were able to support a family by 15 or 16.
           And now that you understand the ages, imagine a 14 year old Mary riding that donkey in full labor.  Then having her baby on a bed of straw.  (Jesus was “laid in a manger” not born in one!) 
           Think of Hagar, Sarai’s handmaiden.  If they had not given her to another servant in marriage already, it was probably because she was too young before then.  For Sarai to come up with this idea, Hagar had probably just reached that magic age of puberty.  It wasn’t exactly a secret in those days when that happened.  When she had Ishmael she may also have been as young as 14 or 15.
           You can do that with so many other things.  Just one tiny fact can change how you have always pictured something in your mind.  What about weaning?  Usually between 3 and 5, but sometimes as late as 8.  If I were Hannah, I would have kept Samuel with me as long as possible. 
              But then think about Ishmael at the feast of Isaac’s weaning—he would have been 17-19 because he was 14 when Isaac was born.  When you see that passage about Hagar “casting him” under a bush, don’t picture a little boy.  He was practically grown, probably larger than she was!
            I could go on, but that should be sufficient to illustrate the point.  Context is a whole lot more than a chapter or two, and it will enlighten your studies for years to come.
 
Dene Ward