I know many evangelical Bible teachers who have a really great knowledge of the Bible. I dare not compare myself with them. Some, however, have acquired the aura of a Bible teacher and testify to this in vast quantities of biblical quotations. However, the number of biblical quotations does not establish the truth of a doctrine.

Pro: Bible passages are usually quoted as justification. This may simply be based on the assumption that “a lot” is simply “better”. At least it can be for the unsuspecting reader who, overwhelmed by the amount of biblical passages, concludes that “therefore” it must be true. That is misguided.

Cons: Is more really better? Then you have to look. Bible passages in which what is said is literally stated make sense. This is often not the case. I regularly come across texts and videos in which something is claimed that is not mentioned at all in the quoted texts.

I recently read a text in which someone tried to justify hell with biblical passages. Over 60 biblical passages were mentioned in the New Testament. That really is a lot of Bible passages. You would think that hell is broadly measured in the New Testament just because of the amount of these biblical passages. Immediately afterwards, it was noted that there are several words for “hell”, but the word for “Gehenna” was probably the most appropriate. And here is the problem: there are no 60 biblical passages on Gehenna in the New Testament. What had happened here?

The Greek word Gehenna (Greek γέεννα) is only mentioned 12 times in the New Testament. This is manageable and the positions can be examined coherently in the respective context. What about the other 48+ Bible passages that were mentioned? The idea of hell was read into it before it was read out. In the overview, many passages from the Bible were mentioned, which could only serve to confirm an already existing image of hell. The problem, then, is not the number of passages. It is their indiscriminate application. If you are talking about hell, for example, you have to clarify which word is involved, where the word is used and then look at these biblical passages separately. If one then thinks that many other passages have something to do with it, one should be able to find a clear link between the first biblical passages of an alleged hell and the thoughts associated with it and show that these things belong together. If this is not possible from the context and basic text, there is no proof of a connection. In my experience, that would be typical of the so-called doctrine of hell.

Projections and the indiscriminate use of many biblical passages do not make anything better. A doctrine is not created through many biblical passages, but through careful and well-founded exegesis from the text, whereby individual terms are clarified and not randomly linked together.

The idea that everything in the Bible is “about the same” is pure ignorance with regard to the text. Unfortunately, this idea is one of the basic assumptions of many Christians. Here we can learn to differentiate: the Bible is a story in development and so its message evolves. It’s all for me to learn from, but not everything speaks of me nor can I apply it directly to myself or to today.

Pro: Some Bible commentators manage to see something positive and unifying in everything, something edifying. This is a wonderful and often helpful way to encourage and build up others (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Cons: Not everything in the Bible is the same. The Bible is not one-size-fits-all. There are major differences in the message, target groups and objectives. We are not even mentioned in the Bible and the relevance for today requires consideration and interpretation. The Bible originated in history and reports on a development. Those who want answers to urgent questions are not served by vague statements. Those who ask specific questions also want specific answers. It is therefore helpful to examine the text more closely for specific questions, pay attention to differences and analyze them carefully.

A general understanding of development in the Bible is useful. It is particularly helpful if you can mention key passages in the Bible that characterize these stages of development. In this way, we can learn why we should accept these rather than those biblical passages for today. Building an ark is not a task for today, even if the task for Noah is mentioned in the Bible. So not everything in the Bible speaks of my situation, although I can learn something from all the stories.

Chaotic interpretations of the Bible are often ideological. I don’t mean that they are “alien” to me and that I therefore reject them. Ideologies can be described as “solidified guiding principles”. They are ideas about God and the world and how they work. These are often ideas that offer a simplification of our complex world. The complex reality is limited to a few topics and views that are believed by as many people as possible and (must) be defended with fire and sword. There are ideologies for all areas of life. Christian ideologies are also shaped in this way. These are ossified doctrines that are often given a supporting function in traditional communities. Those who are part of it must adhere to the ideas of the ideology, otherwise they are not “orthodox”. People can become more dependent on these types of belief systems than on God. Then you suddenly believe “in hell”, “in the Bible”, “in spiritual gifts” and the like. You emphasize something that has nothing to do with trust in God, but rather with certain ideas. These are sure indications of ideological influences.

Pro: Many people long for reliability. A “correct” interpretation of the Bible appears to be a simplified path to bliss. Rigid models are attractive, primarily for people who are plagued by fear and insecurity. That’s a lot of people. Legalism and doctrines of demarcation (hell, annihilation, sectarian forms of community and the like) find their most loyal followers here. If I believe “correctly”, this can help me to avoid other questions and achieve an apparent security and freedom from fear. In my opinion, ideologies fulfill functions that speak not so much of the content of the ideology as of the effect of this “certainty” on the mind of the follower. On the surface, the desire for security appears to be a good thing. That is why sect-like communities are attractive because of their narrowness and there are many people who absolutely need hell teachings in their understanding of faith. Trust in God would be simpler and more effective from a sober point of view, but when that is not available, ideologies and sects offer something of an alternative.

Contra: Living faith has nothing to do with rigid models. Those who want safety do not find it in ideologies, but in trusting in God’s work. Ideologies promise shortcuts to bliss, while the Bible describes the complexity of the world in concrete terms. The Bible’s narrative, in which there is a way out and a solution to real problems, is based on God’s work itself, not on ideas about God’s actions. The Bible encourages us to trust God ourselves. It’s not just about doing what is supposedly right. Those who emphasize the latter are also part of an ideology that is presumably characterized by legalism.

An ideology places the emphasis on people. Those who are free of ideologies will emphasize God’s work. To put it another way: those who have learned to live by God’s grace no longer need ideologies. Those who no longer need ideologies can start to let the Bible speak for itself and become curious again to find out what new things they can learn.

No one thinks and believes in a vacuum. We shaped our thinking before we began to read the Bible seriously. Assumptions are everywhere. Being aware of this can help you gain more clarity and differentiation.

Pro: It’s good to start from something. This is the only way we can move forward. It is logical that we start with what we are familiar with. We use words because we associate them with something we know. No one can escape from it. However, what we assume does not necessarily have to be right. But he who starts from what he understands is sober. Those who do not deify their own views are even more sober.

Cons: There are many assumptions about the Bible that people have without ever giving them a moment’s thought. Assumptions about the Bible can prevent a better understanding. Those who wish to take the text seriously are often served by becoming aware of their own assumptions about the text. This allows you to put your own insights into perspective and, if necessary, replace them with better insights.

It is astonishing how often the Gospels are quoted as if these accounts spoke of the present day.

Example

It is astonishing how often the Gospels are quoted as if these accounts spoke of the present day. Among other things, the following preconceived opinions have led to this:

1. 1. Wherever it says Jesus on it, today’s church is inside
      This view disregards the task that Jesus Himself states (Mt 15:24) and is confirmed by Paul (Rom 15:8).
   2. Old and New Testament
      The distinction between the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament” is artificial. It is not about a will, because this only becomes effective when the testator dies. Jesus, however, no longer dies, but was made alive, namely immortal (1 Tim 6:16). The term “testament” (“will”) is not appropriate. This refers to the “Old Covenant” and the “New Covenant”, as if the church (“New Covenant”) has replaced the people of Israel (“Old Covenant”). This is a consequence of covenant theology. As a result, Israel has “ceased to exist” and everywhere in the New Testament we read only the church of today. This is a theological interpretation, not a statement from the text. Paul writes, for example, that we no longer know Jesus as he lived “in the flesh”, while in the time of the Gospels (2 Corinthians 5:16). We should also be wary when a New Covenant is only promised to the people who have received an Old Covenant (Jer 31:31). Today’s church from all nations never had an “old” covenant. Interpretations should take this into account, not play it down. However, anyone who does this is working from theological assumptions, not from the text. But if God does not reject Israel, where do we read about it in the New Testament? If you find that out, the border no longer runs between OT and NT, but elsewhere.
   3. God is always the same and therefore everything speaks of me
      This blind assumption is a short circuit. God is always the same, but he does not always act in the same way. The simplistic view that “everything speaks of me” cannot be reconciled with the biblical story. Although everything is “for me”, namely in a figurative sense, not everything speaks directly “of me”. This is a sober attitude that leaves room for differentiation. I can learn from everything, but God speaks once to Adam, another time to Moses, another time through the Son and later through apostles. Sobriety commands me to recognize that no person alive today is mentioned by name in the Bible. We may belong to a group mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, we can only interpret and try to understand what it is all about. Nevertheless, we can derive valuable things from the Bible.
   4. There is only one church, only one gospel
      We are talking here about interpretation and understanding the Bible. Many assume that there is only one church and only one gospel. This is the basis in most communities. However, neither is true. It is an interpretation. The assumptions shape many ideas about the church today and what it stands for. The words “church” and “gospel” are neutral. If you look at how these terms are used in the New Testament, it is easy to see that different gospels and churches are mentioned.
      1. Jesus proclaimed the “gospel of the kingdom” (Mt 4:23), for example, in which the theme was the imminent messianic kingdom specifically for Israel. That was the main burden of the Gospels. We only hear about a “gospel of grace” much later (Acts 20:24; cf. Ephesians 3:1-2).
      2. The word “church” is also mentioned in the Gospels (Mt 16:18), where Peter, in accordance with the gospel of the kingdom, was figuratively to administer the keys to this “kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19). This church therefore concerned the kingdom of heaven, a reference to the messianic kingdom, as Daniel spoke about it (Dan 2:44; Dan 7:27). Just because the word “church” is used does not mean that it refers to today’s church, in which people from all nations participate. Even Israel in the desert was referred to as “ekklesia” (church) (Acts 7:38). A healthy differentiation is required here.

All of these things are readily applied to today’s church from all nations, but there is no context for this. These are assumptions that are superimposed on the text and thus contribute significantly to a certain interpretation. These few examples may show that we usually do not read the Bible impartially. The glasses we put on determine to a large extent what we can recognize.