Christians have been reading the same Bible for centuries, yet they disagree on some remarkably important teachings. So why do Christians interpret the Bible differently when they are often reading exactly the same words? These differences are not limited to minor details. Christians disagree over salvation, baptism, predestination, spiritual gifts, the Sabbath, church leadership, women in ministry, law and grace, the end times, and many other teachings. In many cases, Christians on opposing sides can quote Scripture to support what they believe.

The easy explanation is that some Christians simply misunderstand Scripture. But that answer becomes uncomfortable when we recognise that we could be among them. Every Christian approaches Scripture with existing beliefs, experiences, traditions and assumptions. We may sincerely believe that we simply accept what the Bible says, yet our understanding of what it says can already be influenced by what we expect it to mean.

That leads to an important distinction. There is a difference between what Scripture says and what we believe Scripture means. When we interpret the Bible, we are trying to understand the meaning of the text. Hopefully, our interpretation accurately represents what Scripture teaches. But believing strongly that our interpretation is correct does not make it correct. Sincerity, confidence and even years of studying the Bible do not make any of us incapable of misunderstanding it.

This becomes especially important when our beliefs are firmly established. A Christian may have believed a particular doctrine for decades, heard it preached repeatedly, studied books that support it and belonged to churches where it was accepted as unquestionable truth. Eventually, it can become difficult to separate what the Bible actually teaches from what we have always been taught that the Bible teaches.

The problem becomes even greater when we begin to confuse confidence in our interpretation with faithfulness to God. Once we are convinced that our understanding is what God says, questioning that understanding can feel like questioning Scripture itself. Changing our minds may even feel like compromising biblical truth. At that point, we may no longer be defending Scripture. We may be defending our interpretation of Scripture.

When Our Interpretation Becomes Our Truth

And this is where conviction can gradually become stubbornness. Christians are rightly taught to stand firm in the truth and not be carried away by every new teaching. But standing firm in biblical truth is not the same as refusing to reconsider our understanding of it. If no amount of Scripture or careful examination could ever cause us to question one of our beliefs, we need to ask whether we are still allowing Scripture to correct us.

Why Sincere Christians Reach Different Conclusions

Christians who disagree over doctrine are not necessarily dishonest, rebellious or unwilling to accept Scripture. Two people can sincerely believe that the Bible is the Word of God, study the same passages carefully, pray for understanding and still reach different conclusions. The problem is that none of us reads Scripture without bringing something to the text. Our previous teaching, church tradition, culture, experiences and existing beliefs can influence how we understand what we read, often without us even realising it.

This helps explain why disagreements can continue even when both sides can quote Scripture. We naturally notice passages that support what we already believe, but passages that challenge our beliefs often receive a different treatment. We may explain them through another verse, restrict their application to a particular audience or interpret them according to an established doctrine. Sometimes there are sound biblical reasons for doing this. The danger arises when we consistently allow our existing beliefs to determine how every challenging passage must be understood.

When We Read Into Scripture What We Want to Believe

There is another problem. Sometimes we read into Scripture what we want to believe. This does not necessarily mean that we deliberately twist the Bible. We may genuinely believe our interpretation is correct. But our desires can influence which interpretations seem reasonable to us. A promise of blessing is naturally easier to embrace than a warning of judgment. A message of reward is easier to receive than a command requiring obedience, sacrifice or restraint.

This can become particularly noticeable in the way Christians use the Old Testament. A promise of prosperity, protection, success or restoration given to a particular person or to Israel under particular circumstances may quickly become “God’s promise for my life.” Yet laws, commands and warnings found in the same Old Testament can just as quickly be dismissed with “That was the Old Covenant” or “We are under grace.”

Of course, not every Old Testament command or promise applies directly to Christians. Understanding who was being addressed, under which covenant, and in what circumstances is essential when we interpret the Bible. The problem is inconsistency. We cannot ignore the original audience when a passage contains a warning we do not like, but forget the original audience when the passage contains a blessing we want.

Maybe part of the reason is simply that we prefer good news. We like promises of blessing, protection and reward. We are less comfortable with warnings about sin, obedience, judgment and consequences. Yet if we allow what we want Scripture to say to determine how we understand it, we are no longer asking only, “What does this passage mean?” We are also allowing another question to influence us: “What do I want this passage to mean?”

When Our Theology Decides What Can Apply to Us

Sometimes the way we interpret the Bible is shaped by what we have repeatedly been taught in church. If Christians are taught for years that Old Testament warnings and commands have little relevance because they were given to Israel, they may eventually approach those passages already convinced that the warnings cannot apply to them. Yet some of the same passages may be quoted when they support a moral position or principle the Christian already accepts.

The New Covenant does not make the Old Testament irrelevant or simply replace everything that came before it. It builds upon and fulfils what God had already revealed. The sacrificial system finds its fulfilment in Christ, and the way some laws are administered changes, but the spiritual principles behind God’s commands do not disappear. Those principles were already present in the Old Testament.

Leviticus 19:17–18, for example, commanded God’s people not to hate another person in their heart, not to take vengeance or hold a grudge, and to “love your neighbor as yourself.” The law was therefore never concerned only with outward behaviour. It also addressed what was happening in the heart.

Jesus later referred directly to Leviticus 19:18 when He identified “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” as the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:39). Yet Jesus took this command even further. When He said, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another” (John 13:34), He was not introducing the command to love for the first time. What was new was the increased standard by which that love was to be measured. Leviticus said to love your neighbour as yourself. Jesus said, “just as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” Christ’s own sacrificial love became the standard.

This continuity is also evident in 1 John 2:7–8, where John describes the command as both old and new. The old command had not simply been discarded and replaced. Its demands were revealed more fully in Christ.

We see the same principle in Jesus’ teaching concerning murder and adultery. He did not reduce God’s requirements. He showed that obedience reaches beyond the outward act and into the heart. Murder concerns more than physically killing someone. Jesus addressed anger as well. Adultery concerns more than the physical act. Jesus addressed lust in the heart (Matthew 5:21–30).

The New Covenant cannot simply be used as a reason to dismiss Old Testament commands, principles and warnings. In some cases, Jesus places an even greater demand upon His followers. The question should not simply be, “Was this given to Israel?” but “What does this reveal about God’s will, and how does it apply to us under the New Covenant?”

When Doctrine Determines the Answer Before We Read the Text

The same problem can occur with doctrines developed from the New Testament. Once we become firmly convinced that a particular doctrine must be true, we can begin approaching every passage with the conclusion already decided.

For example, a Christian may firmly believe that salvation can never be lost. Due to this, they may read every warning to believers already convinced that it cannot be warning them about losing their salvation. So, they conclude that the warning must mean something else.

In the same way, someone who regards a particular spiritual experience or gift as confirmation of their standing with God may assume that the experience itself proves that their relationship with God is secure.

The issue here is not simply whether either doctrine is right or wrong. The problem occurs when the conclusion begins controlling the interpretation before the passage has been allowed to speak for itself.

This can quietly remove personal accountability. Instead of asking, “What is Scripture warning me against?” we begin asking why the warning cannot apply to us.

Instead of allowing a difficult passage to challenge our theology, we explain it in a way that protects what we already believe. We may then look for another passage that appears to support our belief, even if that passage has to be taken out of context to do so. In this way, we are no longer allowing Scripture to determine our belief. We are using selected parts of Scripture to defend a conclusion we have already reached.

That does not, by itself, prove that the doctrine of eternal security is wrong, nor does it settle debates concerning spiritual gifts. Those questions must themselves be examined from Scripture. The point is more fundamental: no doctrine should be allowed to make us immune to biblical correction before we have even examined what the passage actually says.

The New Testament itself prevents us from simply dismissing Israel’s warnings. After recounting Israel’s sin and judgment, Paul tells Christians:

“Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction…”
1 Corinthians 10:11

He immediately follows this with:

“Therefore let the one who thinks he stands watch out that he does not fall.”
1 Corinthians 10:12

Paul was writing to Christians and deliberately used what happened to Israel as a warning to them. Whatever conclusions we eventually reach concerning individual doctrines, this should at least make us cautious about dismissing an uncomfortable Old Testament warning with the words, “That was for them, not for me.”

When Our Beliefs Become Part of Our Identity

Our beliefs do more than influence how we interpret the Bible. Over time, they can become part of how we identify ourselves as Christians. We may identify with a particular denomination, church tradition or theological position. We may also have personal experiences that we understand through those beliefs. Eventually, questioning the belief can feel like questioning much more than our interpretation of a passage.

When someone then tells us that they believe our interpretation is wrong, we may not hear only, “I think you have misunderstood this Scripture.” It can feel like an attack on our faith, our church, people we respect, experiences that have been important to us, and even part of who we are.

That makes changing our minds much more difficult. We are no longer being asked only to reconsider an interpretation. We may feel that we are being asked to give up something that has helped define our Christian identity.

We can see this in the labels Christians use for themselves. Someone may identify as a Baptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Calvinist, Arminian, Adventist, Reformed Christian or by another theological or denominational label. There is nothing necessarily wrong with using a label to describe what we believe. The danger begins when the label becomes something we feel we must defend.

At that point, evidence against one of our beliefs can feel like evidence against us. Reconsidering a doctrine may mean reconsidering a label we have used for years, teachings we have defended, experiences we have interpreted through that belief, or even the church community to which we belong.

This can make a theological discussion surprisingly emotional. The person questioning our interpretation may only be asking us to reconsider what a passage means, but we can experience the question as something much bigger. If my belief has become part of how I identify myself, challenging my belief can feel like challenging who I am.

And that creates another danger when we interpret the Bible. Instead of asking, “Could I be wrong?”, we may instinctively begin defending the belief because, without realising it, we are also defending ourselves.

When Spiritual Experiences Become Part of Our Identity

For some Christians, this identity is also connected to claimed spiritual gifts and experiences. A person may identify themselves as someone who speaks in tongues, receives prophecy, experiences healing, receives words from God, or operates in other spiritual gifts. These experiences can become more than something they believe has happened. They can become part of how they understand who they are as a Christian and their relationship with God.

This can make biblical examination especially difficult. Questioning the interpretation of an experience may be heard as questioning whether the experience happened at all, whether the person genuinely has the Holy Spirit, or even whether their faith is real. The discussion therefore becomes deeply personal.

Yet an experience, no matter how sincere or powerful it may seem, cannot be what determines how we interpret the Bible. The experience itself must also be tested by Scripture. Otherwise, we risk reversing the proper order. Instead of using Scripture to determine how we should understand our experiences, we begin interpreting Scripture in a way that protects what we have already experienced and believe to be true.

This distinction is important. We are not necessarily saying that someone invented or imagined an experience. They may genuinely have experienced something. The question is whether their interpretation of that experience is biblically correct.

Are We Willing to Be Wrong?

Maybe one of the most important questions we can ask ourselves when we interpret the Bible is this:

What evidence from Scripture would cause me to admit that one of my beliefs is wrong?

If the truthful answer is “nothing,” then we have a problem. Our belief has become something that Scripture is no longer permitted to challenge.

This does not mean that we should constantly doubt everything we believe. Christians should have convictions, and we should stand firmly on what Scripture teaches. But there is an important difference between saying, “I will not abandon what Scripture teaches” and saying, “I will not reconsider what I believe Scripture teaches.”

The first is conviction. The second can become stubbornness.

Being willing to reconsider an interpretation does not mean that our faith is weak. It means that our loyalty to Scripture must be greater than our loyalty to a denomination, a theological system, a preacher, a spiritual experience, or even a belief we have defended for many years.

And that willingness must apply to all of us.

We should be willing to test the teachings of others against Scripture, but we must also be willing to allow Scripture to test us.

Why Do Christians Interpret the Bible Differently?

So, why do Christians interpret the Bible differently?

• Sometimes it is because we have been taught differently.
• Sometimes our church tradition influences how we understand a passage.
• Sometimes we approach Scripture with an established theology that already tells us what a passage can or cannot mean.
• Our experiences can influence us.
• Our desires can influence us.
• And sometimes a belief has become so closely connected to our identity that questioning the belief feels like questioning who we are.

None of this means that truth is impossible to know, or that every interpretation is equally valid. Two contradictory teachings cannot both be true simply because sincere Christians believe them. Scripture still has meaning, and our responsibility is to seek that meaning rather than the meaning we would prefer it to have.

And that requires more humility than we sometimes realise. We can study Scripture for decades and still misunderstand something. We can have qualifications, preach sermons, teach others, defend a doctrine passionately and still discover that we were wrong.

We Can Hear Wrong Too

There may be no person more stubborn than a Christian who is convinced that their interpretation of Scripture is what God Himself has said. Once we reach that point, changing our minds can feel like compromising God’s Word.

The same danger exists when we believe that we have heard directly from God. A Christian may sincerely say, “God told me”, “God showed me“, or “The Holy Spirit revealed this to me”. Once we attach God’s authority to what we believe we have heard or understood, questioning it can become even more difficult.

But we can hear wrong. We can misunderstand. We can mistake our own thoughts, desires, emotions or expectations for God’s direction. Sincerity does not make us incapable of error.

That is one reason Scripture tells believers to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) and “examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Even something we believe has come from God must not be placed beyond biblical examination.

No new revelation, prophecy or message claimed to be from God or the Holy Spirit will contradict what God has already revealed in Scripture. God does not contradict Himself. If what we believe we have heard contradicts Scripture, then what we heard did not come from God, regardless of how strongly we believe that it did.

Scripture must remain the final authority. We should never reinterpret the Bible to protect something we believe God personally told us.

But sometimes changing our minds is exactly what submission to God’s Word requires.

The goal should never be to make Scripture agree with us.

The goal is to allow Scripture to correct us.

This Article Answers the Following Questions:

This article addresses several questions Christians commonly ask about understanding Scripture, including:

• Why do Christians interpret the Bible differently?
• Why are there so many different Christian beliefs?
• Why do Christians disagree about what the Bible says?
• How do I know if I am interpreting the Bible correctly?
• Can Christians misunderstand the Bible?
• Does the Old Testament still apply to Christians today?
• How should Christians interpret Old Testament laws and warnings?
• Can church tradition influence how we interpret the Bible?
• Can our personal beliefs affect how we interpret Scripture?
• How do we know if a message or prophecy is really from God?
• Can Christians mistake their own thoughts for God’s voice?
• How should Christians test what they believe against Scripture?

Written by Francois Meyer (PhD, DDiv, DTh)

Visit the online store for courses and books