Corn? Words Are Powerful

As a teen, I believed what the Bible said. My parents hadn't attended church regularly until I was eleven, but when I heard biblical lessons and read my Bible, I believed it was inspired by God, was filled with examples to follow, and Jesus was very real.

Until someone outside of church told me about corn. A food cultivated only in the Americas prior to Columbus, how did it get into the Bible, where it is found in 94 verses, both in the Old and New Testaments? The carrier of this news was ready to laugh at a Christian’s silly beliefs when (almost) everyone knew there was no corn in the Middle East for Jesus to pluck and eat:

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. (Matthew 12:1 KJV)

Naturally, I’ve learned a lot since then, quite a bit of semantics – words have meaning, but the meaning of words change for a variety of reasons. We must know the history of the word in question before we can be certain what its meaning was and now is. I like Sam Dean’s corn etymology article in bon appetit, where we read:

Back in the day, English speakers could use "corn" to refer to any grain they felt like, though it usually meant the predominant crop in a given region. In England, wheat was "corn," while oats were "corn" in Scotland and Ireland, and even rice was "the only corn that grows in the island" of Batavia (a.k.a. the Indonesian island of Java), as described in a 1767 travelogue.

What we call just plain "corn" today started out as "Indian corn," but we dropped the qualifier by the early 1800s. Today Americans, Canadians, and Australians are still the only Anglophones who call the stuff on the cob "corn," and a trip down a British Tesco aisle will yield more references to "maize" than you'd ever find stateside (unless you're at a grade school Thanksgiving pageant).

So – whatever Jesus and His disciples plucked to eat, it was not the western hemisphere’s maize, which was found following colonization. And using the translation “corn” is absolutely correct based on the history of the word that can be traced centuries back. Even without the internet, back in the 1950's I was able to learn the source of "corn," and had my faith renewed. I learned a very good lesson.

The lesson? Words are powerful. As that teen, I had no information on the history of what I knew as “corn,” and I was open to belief that the Bible was wrong when it was only my lack of knowledge that allowed a touch of disbelief grow.

What I’m asking of my readers is:  When you are given a reasonable argument as to why the Bible is incorrect, learn more. Do the research to be certain the argument given is based on facts that go beyond an individual’s lack of belief. Do as I have suggested time and again – be as the Bereans from Acts 17:

And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. (Acts 17:10-12 KJV)

That happens often when someone takes time to search the scriptures deeply, seeking to know the truth. It also happens often that people who disagree will also stir up others:

But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. (Acts 17:13 KJV)

And they will no longer run around with you, thinking your changes strange:

For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: (1 Peter 4:3-4 KJV)