When a writer chooses their words, they are looking for the word that best meets the idea they are trying to convey, they don’t do this by picking a word and changing it’s meaning, they do this by using a word because of what it means. Historians on the other hand, they look back at events and ascribe meaning in todays context. By looking at the outcome first and then describing the processes that lead to it. Where these two things collide is in interpreting scripture.

When we look back at the Bible, we do it with all of the baggage of church history and doctrine. And we have often made common phrases or words in scripture into colloquial terms. That is to say, the word once had one meaning, but now in the context of our language (a different language) it means something different.

One of the best examples of this is the word Ecclesia. In the time of the early church, the word meant a political assembly of citizens of ancient Greek states. Especially the periodic meeting of the Athenian citizens for conducting public business and for considering affairs proposed by the council. Jesus who referenced this directly, and the writers who used the word knew this context, and that is what they meant, a system of church government that keeps the fellowship of believers from straying away from the faith by adding accountability and governance.

The word now means (and literally means when dissected) A “called out group” for the purpose of a meeting. But the church uses it to mean “a group called out by God for his purpose” and calls that “The church”. This isn’t a far stretch, but is completely divorced from the meaning it had when the passage was written. As a church, looking back at history while reading the scriptures, it is very tempting to shoe-horn our doctrine back into scripture. And though one comes from the other, those are adaptive meanings of a phrase, not the intended meaning of the writer. The fear is, how often does this happen? How much of our “version” of the Bible is mistranslated to fit an understanding that wasn’t there during the writing process.

For example, one verse is commonly translated as “they will know you are christians by your love” but the greek seems to more directly say “they will know you are my followers by how you love each other” it’s not a difference that would trouble most people, but it is a difference, and what are the implications if a verse this simple is so different, what else might we be oblivious to?

Scripture is trustworthy, and divinely inspired… I’d go so far as to say it is perfect. but when we sit down to study it and discern its meaning, we can’t make the mistake of thinking we know everything. we are neither the audience that the work was directed at, nor the writer. We need to be okay with the fact that we may miss a thing or two and endeavor for greater understanding if we want to truly be the Eklessia.