When people say “the Bible says something,” many of them mean only their own interpretation. Some are rock-solid convinced that “fortunately, God thinks exactly the way I do.” The word “Bible” thus becomes a diversionary tactic for a claim to authority. One’s own opinion, and perhaps even insecurity, gets masked by arrogance and a pretence of always being right. The idea is that the Bible is “from God,” and therefore “eternal” and “unambiguous.” Hardly anyone notices that all of is made up and coming out of assumptions brought to the Bible beforehand.

The claim to authority, which often serves to justify particular doctrines, remains strictly bound to a specific interpretive context. This might involve certain dogmas, teachings, or community rules. It can concern points of doctrine, or even an entire understanding of faith.

Here’s an example: The vehemence with which people distinguish between right and wrong—for instance, regarding doctrine, lifestyle, or sexuality—fails to recognize that such vehemence does not appear in the Bible in this form. It seems that people get carried away with certain ideas when they want to exercise authority over others. For example, when they believe that society or a community should function according to their own ideas and cite God and the Bible as authority to support this. This is not only ill-advised, but also abusive and disrespectful.

Interpretation doesn’t always work the same way. People distinguish a text based on their own point of view. To simplify, picture a slider. Between the two extremes sits a movable block that can be pushed left or right. Almost no one stands at an extreme position. But everyone stands at their own position.

You might consider, for instance, from which point of view you build your argument.

• Dogma
  At one end stands the dogmatic view. It looks at the Bible exclusively through the lens of some tradition or other. If the tradition teaches, say, a hell, and the tradition claims this is “biblical,” then one argues from tradition.
• Context
  At the other end, one might want to learn to understand the text in context — the way Jesus actually spoke and perhaps meant it at the time. One wants to understand how the first hearers, who had no knowledge whatsoever of later church-historical developments, could have understood it.

The slider can be moved. Suggesting that you are the slider, where would you place yourself? Set the slider spontaneously to where you think you stand.

Now it gets interesting. You’ve assessed yourself. Here are a few critical positions for further reflection:

• Biblical inerrancy
  Whoever assesses themselves as faithful to the bible usually stands within a particular tradition and talks about the teaching of that community or tradition. As a result, the position is frequently strongly dogmatic, even though the expressions “faithful to the bible” or “biblical inerrancy” are meant to suggest something like neutral ground. In my experience, that is never the case. Whoever thinks of themselves as a literalist stands on dogmatic ground. I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but simply to name what is actually happening.
• Absolute claim to truth
  In the time of the Bible, there was no Bible as we know it today. Neither Moses, the prophets, nor Jesus and the apostles had a Bible like the one we have today. People believed, and naturally had a certain understanding, but that had to be shaped and confirmed through proclamation of the gospel and discussing the available portions of Scripture. A claim such as “the Bible is God’s Word and therefore infallible” is a late development and interpretation, not something the biblical statements themselves address. Here one stands firmly within a particular tradition, and thus on the dogmatic side.
• Understanding context
  Although many disapprove of biblical scholarship, here one tries to understand the context. Even though many theologians work within certain dogmatic guidelines, biblical scholarship may be shaped by this, but it is not limited by it. Scholarship investigates, while dogmatic considerations dictate. The difference is considerable. Scholarship works with hypotheses, while many a Bible teacher fakes certainty through a supposed biblical authority. Reality, of course, is more multifaceted, more colourful, more sustaining. The attempt to understand context is not about reaching a final position, but about differentiation across every conceivable aspect. The basic stance: I let myself be surprised by the biblical text, without determining in advance how that has to look.

Surely more themes could be brought in as examples. My concern is not with the themes themselves, but with the effect on one’s own thinking. If my convictions of faith get confused with absolute truth, I’m standing on thin ice. It seems far more sober to me to understand faith as a hypothesis, to which one lends an advance of truth in the absence of visible proof, so that one can live by it. Here, one might think of Paul’s words in Romans:

“For whatever was written in former days (that is, before Paul!) was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have confidence.”
Rom 15:4

Confidence, then, is the goal of instruction, not a claim to authority.

If every act of reading or teaching the Bible is an interpretation, that unsettles many people. The assumption is that the Bible should be equated with absolute authority, certainty and be self-evident. If the Bible’s statements are now reduced to interpretations, people fear a diminishing of divine authority and certainty. I have often heard it put this way. It is a direct consequence of rigid belief systems and ideological assumptions. Deviations from internalized doctrine are not tolerated. Deviations create fear. Doctrines are then erected as a protective wall around one’s own thinking and feeling. Logical, if you’re afraid. But, one could ask, hasn’t Christ set us free for freedom? Shouldn’t we stand firm in that freedom? (Gal 5:1).

Here one could object that life develops, changes, adapts, and that growth is the goal in faith as well. One can try to use biblical arguments to break through such rigidity. Realizing God’s grace is perhaps even more effective because God’s grace draws attention away from itself and expects everything from God. When everything no longer revolves around one’s own fear and assumptions, freedom can be discovered.

There is yet another aspect.

Interpretation is necessary if you want to grow. Truth is not simply given; rather, the biblical encouragement wishes to be worked out and discovered. The Bible is a tool given for building up and encouragement. According to Paul, the person of God is to be equipped through Scripture. The goal: the believer is to be equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17). Interpretation and exegesis serve this purpose so that the purpose is fulfilled.

There is even a distinct discipline for interpretation, hermeneutics, which also has an area of application for the Bible. Hermeneutics inquires into the connections and backgrounds of texts, to understand them better. They are taught as a fixed part of the curriculum at both universities and other institutions of theological training.

Hermeneutics is about uncovering and using sound ways for interpretation. That, supposedly, is the precondition for learning to understand texts better. I am convinced that every biblical interpretation must lay bare its own method of exegesis. I don’t mean this as a constant requirement, but as the general orientation of a community in which members are encouraged toward maturity and differentiation. The method of interpretation is a direct consequence of hermeneutics.

On this website, for instance, there is an article on inductive Bible study. Anyone can use that straightforward approach to read the Bible profitably and draw their own conclusions.

Interpretation is part of everyday reality. Everyone who reads, speaks, or listens interprets. That also applies to the Bible, as we read and interpret it. Without interpretation, nothing happens at all. Thus, wouldn’t it be better to do this consciously, and as much as possible for the sake of building up?

This is not an idea that only thrives within a particular community. The idea does not depend on my agreement or yours. A window opens onto a broader horizon when we dare to ask questions of the text. That fosters maturity, growth in faith, and great confidence. At the same time, it teaches us to understand the foundations of our own thinking.