Lk.11:28 “blessed are those who hear the word of God, and observe it.”

Rev.1:3 “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy [...]”

1 Tim.4:13 “give attention to the public reading of Scripture [...]”

Acts 17:11 “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.”

2 Tim.2:15 “Be diligent [KJV `Study'] to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.”

Ps.119:11 “Thy word I have hid in my heart, that I may not sin against Thee.”

Ps.1:2-3 “But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night. And he will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season, And its leaf does not wither; And in whatever he does, he prospers.”

이것을 엄지 손가락이 모든 손가락에 닿게 할 수 있는 것처럼, 우리는 4개중 어떤 손가락을 건드리는 것처럼 말씀을 묵상할 수 있다고 하였다. 묵상하는 것은 계시를 받는 생활을 하는 것의 키이다. 새신자들은 말씀을 공부하고 암송하는 것보다 듣고, 읽는 것이 더 필요할 것이다. 그렇게 해서 성경의 전체 메세지의 흐름에 익숙해지게 될 것이다.

특정 주제(Topic)를 정한뒤, 겹참조와 색인을 참조하여 주제에 맞게 공부한다.

성경의 한 인물의 삶을 공부한다, 예. 창 37-50장에서의 요셉의 삶.

특정 구절, 문단, 장 혹은 책을 선택하여 공부한다.

말하고 있는바가 무엇인가? 원어에서는 어떻게 말하고 있는가? 정의에 주의하라. 그것이 말하고 있지 않은바대로 해석하지마라.

What do the verses around it say? "Context is king" is the rule -- the passage must make sense within the structure of the entire passage and book.

성경의 다른 부분에서는 이 주제에 관하여 어떻게 말하고 있는가? 하나님은 스스로 모순되지 않으신 분입니다. 그래서 우리의 해석은 다른 말씀에 비춰봐서도 바로 설 수 있어야 합니다.

Find these verses:

Let's say you wanted to do a study of the word "redemption." First you would look up that word in the concordance and look up references listed for it. Then you could look up related words and references listed for them, e.g. "redeem, redeemed, ransom," even "buy" or "bought."

What if you noticed a contradiction in the KJV between Mt.7:1 “Judge not lest you be judged” and 1 Cor.2:15 “He that is spiritual judgeth all things.” Maybe there are two different Greek words here, both being translated "judge" in English? (We're using Strong's from here out.)

헬라어나 히브리어의 이름의 의미를 찾았던 방식과 같다.

이 이름들을 확인하고 의미들을 적어넣는다.

요 20:17 "나를 만지지 말라" (KJV) sounds harsh, doesn't it? Sounds like Jesus doesn't want to be touched now that He is risen, that He is too holy or something. But that doesn't seem right, so let's look it up in Spiros Zodhiates' The Complete Word Study New Testament (AMG Publishers, 1991).

정의: Turning to 요 20:17, above the word "Touch" we see "pim680." The letters give us a code for the part of speech, and the number refers to Strong's dictionary reference. Let's look up the definition (p. 879). "680. Haptomai; from hapto (681), touch. Refers to such handling of an object as to exert a modifying influence upon it... Distinguished from pselaphao (5584), which actually only means to touch the surface of something. " Now look up "pim." The grammar codes in Zodhiates come right after Revelation; on p. 849 we see that pim stands for "present imperative active (80)". On p.857, "Present Imperative. In the active voice, it may indicate a command to do something in the future which involves continuous or repeated action or, when it is negated, a command to stop doing something. " This is a negative command, so it is to stop doing something that is already occuring. So, what have we found?

Mary is already clinging to Jesus, and he is saying to stop holding him!

야고보서 5:14에서, 병든자가 있느냐?..교회의 장로들을 청할 것이요. 그들은 주의 이름으로 기름을 바르며 위하여 기도할지니라. 이 기름바름(anointing)은 무엇인가?

aleipho (218)의 정의 - "to oil" (Strong's); but we also have another Greek word translated "anoint", chrio (5548) - "to smear or rub with oil, i.e. to consecrate to an office or religious service" (Strong's). Since it's a verb, consider the tense also, "apta" aorist participle active. "The aorist participle expresses simple action, as opposed to continuous action...When its relaitonship to the main verb is temporal, it usually signifies action prior to that of the main verb." (Zodhiates p.851)

So what's the difference between aleipho and chrio? Look back over the cross-references and the definitions, and sum up the difference: "aleipho" is a practical use of oil and "chrio" is a spiritual

As an illustration (although the word is not used) of the practical use of oil at that time, when the good Samaritan cared for the man beat up by robbers he poured oil and wine in the wound. So oil had a medicinal use in Jesus' day.

Now let's apply what we just learned by this word study to James 5:14 "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord." Is "anointing" spiritual or practical? Practical!

And the tense in Greek, the aorist participle, would be better translated "having anointed," so the order is the anointing first, then the prayer ("in the name of the Lord"refers to the prayer, not the anointing). James 5 is saying that the elders should give the sick person medicine and pray for him in the name of the Lord. Doesn't that express a beautiful balance of practical and spiritual in our God!

In a previous lesson we considered 요 3:5 "born of water and the Spirit." In context, what is the water under discussion here?

Water baptism is not under discussion here, which would be a big switch from the subject being discussed by Jesus and Nicodemus. Watch out for a sudden change of topic, it may be a clue that your interpretation has been derailed! The water is the amniotic fluid, "born of water" = natural birth.

1 Cor.14:34 “Let the women keep silent in the churches” has to be taken within the biblical context of 1 Cor.11:5 “every woman [...] while praying or prophesying [...]”

Acts 2:38 “And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins [...]"”. Is this teaching baptismal regeneration? If this was the only verse of scripture we had, we would have to conclude that. But in the light of the clear teaching elsewhere that regeneration happens by faith in Christ, we have to interpret it otherwise. Peter is urging baptism as a way for his hearers to respond to the gospel. If baptism were the pathway to being born again, how could Paul write 1 Cor.1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"?

“3 days & 3 nights” (Mt.12:40) have led some to come up with a "Wednesday crucifixion theory," esp. the cult of Armstrongism. How could Jesus die on Friday afternoon and rise Sunday morning yet "be raised on the third day" (Mt.16:21)? Exact meanings of "three" or "days" won't help explain the apparent contradiction.

We need an historical tidbit: Jews counted any part of a day as a full day, as we would count buckets of water (if there were six and one-half buckets of water, we would say there were 7 buckets of water even if one was only partly full). So to the Jewish mind, any part of a day counted as a full day, and days started at 6 p.m. and ended at 6 p.m. Friday from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. = day 1. Friday 6 p.m. to Saturday 6 p.m. = day 2. Saturday 6 p.m. to Sunday 5 or so a.m. = day 3. Interpreting within the cultural context keeps us out of trouble.

창 15:7-21. The historical context is that cutting animals in two and then walking between the pieces was the normal way of entering a contract in Abraham's day. Both parties walked between, taking the pledge that dismemberment would happen to them if they didn't live up to their part of the contract. But in this case only God goes thru, making it a unilateral covenant.

“evil eye” in Mt.6:23.

규칙 1, definition of "evil" and "eye" - no help here. 규칙 2, context: seems to confuse us even more. It doesn't seem to fit with what goes before and after! This should tip us off that we aren't understanding it rightly!!

What we have here is a Hebrew idiom, “evil eye”. Let's look up other uses of this idiom: Mt.20:15 "Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious [lit."evil"] because I am generous [lit. "good"]?" We find that having an "evil eye" is a Hebrew idiom for being stingy or envious. Now go back to Mt.6 and notice how this understanding ties in so perfectly to the context.

Is.59:1 “The Lord's hand is not short;”

Deut.33:27 “Underneath are the everlasting arms.”

References to body parts of God are used by Latter-Day Saints to prove that God was once a man just as we are. Once they convince people of that, they go on to teach that we can become God just like He is! At a lecture he was giving, a group of Mormon elders challenged Walter Martin (author of Kingdom of the Cults) with an enumeration of verses like these. Dr. Martin then asked the Mormons to read one more scripture: Ps.91:4 “He will cover you with His feathers; And under His wings shalt thou trust”. W.M. said, “By the same rules of interpretation that you just proved God to be a man, you just proved that He is a bird”. The Mormons had to laugh as they realised the ridiculousness of their position.

The parable of the widow with the unrighteous judge in Lk.18:1-8. This story illustrates one lesson: boldness in prayer. If we draw it into an allegory, what do we have?

All sorts of violence happens to the meanings: God is reluctant to protect the rights of widows, prayer "bothers" Him, etc.

The parable of the unrighteous steward in 눅 16:1-9. 우화의 요점은 무엇인가? 그것은 비유인가?

The steward is commended for only one thing, his shrewdness in using what he had to prepare for a time when he wouldn't have it. But he is not commended for his unethical behavior in cheating his master.