What Does a Catholic Think Are the 'Worst Ways' to Misinterpret the Bible?

A Catholic response to David Swindle's essay on the problems in many fundamentalist protestant Bible readings.

St. Jerome hard at work translating Hebrew texts.

Dear

David Swindle 🟦

,

This is in response to your post, The 10 Worst Ways to Misinterpret the Bible. My response here is not meant as a rebuttal, but my further thoughts as a Catholic on each of your categories, which I think have some merit, more or less. Although I do take issue with one in particular below as you will see.

For the record, I am not an expert in Biblical interpretation or exegesis. What I do know comes mainly from my decades-long survey of Catholic apologetics. My meager knowledge comes from some reading, but mainly by soaking up Catholic radio programs and podcasts, as well as taking in the “Bible in a Year” podcast by Fr. Mike Schmitz. And, I suppose, a lifetime of absorbing Catholic theology.

Several of the issues you catalog below are often discussed in my view-list of programs, so I’m glad to have the opportunity to add my own thoughts to each.

Here goes.

1. The Idol of the Plucked Verse: Pulling a single verse out of context in order to either justify a false idea or to obscure and make "mysterious" the obvious, explicit point that is clarified in the verses preceding, following, or both. So many Christians, on both the left and right, will chop out a single verse, ignoring the verses before and after, as well as ignoring historical and cultural contexts. This is sometimes referred to as the use of “clobber verses”—wherein someone pulls a verse out of the Bible and uses it as a weapon to enforce one’s ideology. But it happens in less overtly cruel contexts, too. I’ve seen so-called Christians yank out 2 Timothy 2:23 — “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.” — in order to shut down meaningful discussions. They pull out a Bible verse and chuck it at you to call you foolish and stupid. This is simply the definition of passive aggression. So many fake Christians love to do this. They won’t insult you directly. They’ll just throw an out-of-context Bible verse at you, revealing the hypocrite they truly are.

I completely agree with your analysis here—taking quotes out of context often distorts or obscures the plain meaning of the verse. In addition to “clobber verses,” another common issue are when particular Christian sects go to great pains to interpret scripture to fit their own faith tradition.

A common example is when certain Protestants attempt to defend Sola Fide, which means being saved by faith alone. In order to justify a fundamentalist position that our “works” play no part in salvation, the plain meaning of various verses are obscured and others ignored.

(Just for the record, there is no Catholic teaching that we can earn salvation by works, and as it turns out, we are generally in agreement with the idea that faith saves you. It appears that the argument is really about how we use different words to describe our stages of justification.)

Jimmy Akin in the attached video does a far better job than I could to explain the issues here.

2. The Idol of Narcissism: When you think your emotional reaction to a verse or whatever pops in your head after reading it is actually God planting an idea in your head. This is the big problem with “devotional” Bible reading as opposed to “critical” study. The former is concerned with making the reader feel good; the latter is focused on finding the truth.

This is not a particular trap I am susceptible to. I can certainly read a passage and get an emotional, or dare I say it, spiritual reaction to it, but I would never trust my own opinion without first consulting with competent authority and Church teaching. I’ll get into that more below.

But in particular to this issue, I remember hearing a Catholic influencer (whose name I cannot remember) whom I thought made a good point about “devotional” reading of the Bible. His mother, with good intentions, handed him a Bible and a highlighter and told him to use the instrument to highlight passages that appealed to him. This he did for many years but then later realized that he may as well have just highlighted the entire Bible. He reasoned that all of the contents of the Bible are inspired, not just the ones you like in particular. If it’s not important, it wouldn’t be in the Bible, was his contention. And I believe he was right.

3. The Idol of Certainty: Reaching a "conclusion" about what a particular verse means and being closed to the possibility that you may be incorrect. This is what turns a whole lot of Bible discussions more into sermons and “debates” rather than open explorations of God. People come to a firm conclusion about what a passage means and then they construct (or embrace) a theology on top of that to guide their lives. But what happens if their understanding of a particular verse is demonstrated to be wrong? They have to revise their whole theology, change their lives in concrete ways, and then open the door to this scary question: “If I was wrong about this, then what else am I wrong about, too?”

This is another area where I feel quite blessed as a Catholic. We have the Church’s Sacred Tradition and Magisterium, which guides us in matters of faith. That said, the Church does not offer a specific teaching or doctrine about every passage in the Bible. In fact, many parts of the biblical texts are left open for theologians to debate.

On the other hand, many Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit will guide them personally to understand the plain meaning of scripture. The problem is that you can never really know for sure that the Holy Spirit is guiding you in particular. After all, even among Protestants there is often disagreement on what different passages mean. They can’t all be correct.

4. The Idol of the Single Translation: There are many simplified and very commercial Bible versions, like The New Living translation, that have been demonstrated to be flawed or inaccurate. People in thrall to the idol of their favorite translation do not care when corrected. They fail to realize that proper, grown-up Bible interpretation requires considering multiple translations—and also going back to the original Greek or Hebrew, sometimes even drilling down to individual letters.

This is another good point. It’s easy to forget that the Bible was not originally written in English, and there are many translations out there, some far better than others. A good example of a poor translation that has spread a great deal of falsehood was the “Scofield Reference Bible,” published in 1909. This translation included notes that described the doctrine of the Rapture, which is the belief that believers will be taken up before a period of tribulation on Earth. The idea of the Rapture was first proposed by John Nelson Darby in the 1830s (not all that long ago in the overall 2000 year history of Christianity), but the Scofield’s Bible was the first to offer notes regarding the verses (there are several) used to develop the doctrine. This brought the doctrine into “mainstream” Protestant Christian thought, although it had never before that time been considered as the meaning of those texts.

As is often the case, people forget that the notes included in Bibles are not inspired text. This is not a problem unique to Protestant translations. There are also issues identified with notes to common Catholic bibles, such as the “New American” translation.

5. The Idol of Paul: In addition to their usual verse-plucking, many fundamentalists especially choose to yank verses of Paul's letters out of context, ignoring the principles of the Torah which should take precedence. These are Pauline Christian fundamentalists, as distinct from my approach of Jewish-Catholic Hermeticism, where these traditions come in that order. I’ve written about this distinction previously here. In its worst, most extreme forms, this turns into a hostility to Judaism or even outright antisemitism. This is known as “replacement theology” and regards Judaism as an evil religion built on lies, no better than any other non-Christian faith.

Here I have no input, not knowing the details of this particular Protestant tradition. Perhaps you will provide more detail in a future post.

6. The Idol of Blindness to Modern Biblical Scholarship: Over the last 200 years, scholars made massive leaps forward in understanding the history of the Biblical periods, putting familiar Bible narratives in brand-new contexts. One of the most important of these is accepting that both Jesus and Paul were apocalypticists who believed the world would end in their lifetimes. (See video below) This is a newer way of understanding the Bible, and most Christians—especially the fundamentalists—haven't engaged with it, or if they have, it has been to try and refute everything … pitifully.

For insight into how the Catholic Church views biblical scholarship, I offer this address of Pope Benedict XVI to the Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

A Grok summary:

In his 2009 address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Pope Benedict XVI emphasized the critical importance of the inspiration and truth of Sacred Scripture for theology and the Church’s life and mission, as the Word of God serves as the foundation of Christian faith. He highlighted the historical development of biblical exegesis, referencing Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu, which encouraged Catholic exegetes to integrate new interpretive methods while remaining faithful to Church doctrine. The Second Vatican Council’s Dei Verbum further clarified that God is the author of Scripture, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit and teaches truth without error for the sake of salvation.

Benedict outlined three key criteria for interpreting Scripture: considering its unity centered on Christ, interpreting it within the Church’s living tradition, and ensuring coherence with the analogy of faith. He stressed that Catholic exegesis must balance scientific study with faith, remaining rooted in the Church’s tradition and Magisterium to avoid reducing Scripture to a mere historical text, and he encouraged the Commission to continue their work in making Scripture’s riches accessible to believers.

7. The Idol of Sola Scriptura: Too many Protestants have embraced the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired, anyone can interpret it, and thus all the history of previous Bible interpretation can be ignored. And totally forget the possibility that other texts in religious traditions could also be divinely inspired. That’s totally heretical and terrifying to the fundamentalist who needs a closed canon or else they can’t carve in stone their own theology.

This is another area where I especially wanted to give the Catholic perspective on defining the Canon of Scripture, and the better alternative to Sola Scriptura, Sacred Tradition.

The Canon of Scripture was defined by the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed the findings of previous Church Councils, that the 73 books included were based on the constant tradition of books that were considered as scripture. The approved Old Testament books were also included in the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. This version of the Bible has the distinction of being the most quoted by the very authors of the New Testament.

An interesting thing I learned recently was that the Jewish Canon of Scripture was not something universally agreed upon by Jews in the time of Jesus. Different sects recognized a varying number of books. For example, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, the first five books, as authoritative Scripture. The Pharisees recognized not only the Torah, but also the books of the Prophets, and the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, and Daniel). The Essenes, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, reverenced the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, as well as apocryphal (questionable authorship or authenticity) and pseudepigraphal (meaning false attribution of the work’s authorship) works like 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll.

So, this tells us that the Jewish canon was not always as agreed upon and certain as many believe it to be. And, it could be said that works held to be outside the defined Cannon (i.e., Enoch) offer, if nothing else, interesting insights into the belief systems of Jews at and before the time of Christ.

As to Sola Scriptura, this has come to be the “must-have” belief of Protestants who do not accept the Catholic Church’s teaching authority.

A Grok summary of the better alternative:

Catholic Sacred Tradition refers to the living transmission of the Word of God, entrusted by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to the apostles and their successors, which complements Sacred Scripture in conveying divine revelation. According to the Second Vatican Council’s Dei Verbum (n. 9), Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are closely united, flowing from the same divine source, forming one sacred deposit of faith.

Tradition includes teachings, practices, and interpretations of Scripture preserved and developed within the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It encompasses the Church’s liturgy, teachings of the Magisterium (the Pope and bishops), writings of the Church Fathers, and the lived faith of the Christian community across centuries. Unlike Scripture, which is the inspired written Word of God, Tradition is dynamic, ensuring the faith is faithfully interpreted and applied in the Church’s life, worship, and doctrine. Both are held with equal reverence, and their interplay, guided by the Magisterium, provides the authoritative framework for Catholic belief and practice.

In short, without the authority of the Church, you are left with Sola Scriptura.

8. The Idol of Literalism: No, everything in the Bible didn’t happen as it’s literally described. The Bible is not a newspaper. As mentioned, there is a scale in Biblical interpretation ranging from "this is historical fact and happened as written" to "this is just myth and has no factual basis in reality." The middle-ground position is where most adult Bible readers who aren't fundamentalists end up, because it's really tremendously obvious.

There are two different creation narratives in there, for Christ’s sake. There are four different biographies of Jesus, and they have conflicting details which—while the fundamentalists try real hard (and some will likely attempt to do so in the comments), they can't resolve at all.

This is another interesting area for Catholics. I do not believe there are many Catholics who believe that every part of the Bible should be taken literally, but there could be. There is no teaching that Catholics must read the Bible in a certain way. For example, we are free to believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve as described in Genesis. We are even free to believe in the “young earth” hypothesis, if we so desire. We can also believe that the Genesis account is figurative, but that is sacred and inspired though not literal history. (This is where I fall.)

The Church guides us when it is important to believe that something literally happened as described in the Bible. An obvious example is that we believe that Christ actually died and rose from the dead. Another important example are words from Christ himself, who (in John 6:55) refers to his flesh as true food: "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." Catholics take Christ’s words plainly. He was not, we believe, speaking figuratively, but literally meant what he said, and was referring to the Eucharist, which would be instituted at the Last Supper. We believe this to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As a core doctrine of our faith, this is not left up to Catholics to decide individually. We believe what he said literally, as guided by Sacred Tradition, which is why it is so important.

9. The Idol of Sexual Repression: Fundamentalists are almost always sexually repressed, obsessed, or screwed up in one way or another. Their communities have indoctrinated them to believe that lustful thoughts make Jesus feel pain, with the nails on the cross actually stabbing further into his arms. (BTW, who’s up for a rewatch of Mel Gibson's antisemitic, sadomasochistic snuff film “The Passion of the Christ?”) These hang-ups mutate people’s understanding of the Bible, leading them to obsess over the passages about sex while ignoring others.

I think here we need a definition of what being “sexually repressed” actually means. Placed on a spectrum, I suspect it is the opposite of being “sexually obsessed.” If that is the case, then we want to be right in the middle, being, say, “sexually normal.” And, one of the many advantages of Christianity (at least the Catholic version of it) is about finding that proper balance.

In a broad sense, we are all about trying to do things just as God wills us to do, because we understand that his divine will knows what’s best for us. God invented sex just as he invented alcohol. There’s a right way to drink wine and a wrong way. There’s a right way to have sex and a wrong way. A husband and wife having sex is the right way. Doing it in the road is not.

Certainly, this is an uncomfortable area for believers. But is it to the point of being wrongly over-emphasized over other graves sins? It is a great source of temptation and sin for many of us, unlike, say, murder, coveting, and bearing false witness. And we know that the misuse of our sexuality can lead to great harm. It can be the cause of divorce, abortion, bodily harm, and abandonment and harm to children. Given that, we understand that it is important to keep our sexual nature under control. After all, Christ himself said that if we even look at a woman with lust we have already committed adultery.

I must also take issue here with the characterization of the Passion of Christ. David, your description of the movie would seem to come from someone who is “sexually obsessed,” as if one could actually mistake it for a depiction of sexual deviancy. (I attribute this characterization to your flare for the attention-grabbing hyperbole.)

As to the film being anti-Semitic, I understand how the history of Jews being blamed and persecuted for Christ’s death would make them uncomfortable to see this depicted. But that is not the point of the movie, nor more importantly, the events that are chronicled therein. It is about Christ, though completely innocent, taking on our sins and offering himself as a sacrifice for our salvation. It is a central aspect of our faith. I know that Mel Gibson understood this, as he filmed his own arm hammering nails into Christ because, as he said in an interview, we are all responsible for Christ’s death by our sins.

However, we are quite off the path and context of Biblical interpretation, and how our biases can impact that. With that in mind, if I may be so bold, I think this category could be broadened to being called the “Idol of Cultural Biases.” What I mean is that we often read the Bible with our own American Protestant values (even American Catholics can fall into this trap). For example, we have a worldview that is uncomfortable with kings and that kind of authority. We have a sense of freedom and liberty that was largely unknown in the ancient world. When reading the Bible, it’s thus quite easy for us to emphasize things that are of importance to our modern world.

This is indeed something to be aware of.

10. The Idol of the Monolithic Bible: A whole lot of people want to think that the faith they have and the beliefs they defend zealously in social media comments are the same ideas about God that Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, Paul and all the apostles believed. But it isn't. We know that because the ideas about God evolve through the Bible. They don't all agree, and the depiction of God in them is not the same. When people say "The Bible says this," or "Jesus's teachings say this," then they are acting like there is unity in either of these things when most of the time—not always—there are pretty meaningful disagreements.

Protestants must say that the Bible teaches X and Y because they’ve made it their only source of divine inspiration from God. Yet, what they’re really asserting is their own faith community’s interpretation of what the Bible says. Their authority, they posit, is the Holy Spirit himself, but unfortunately for them, as I alluded to above, there’s no way to know that their interpretation is truly from the Holy Spirit. Sincerity and fervent belief on their part does not make it true or correct.

On the other hand, Catholics have it easier. We say that the Church teaches X and Y and that that teaching authority comes from its founder, Christ himself. It’s certainly possible for Catholics to get the teaching wrong, and often individuals need to be corrected. I’m certain I have made incorrect statements of faith from time to time and later found out where I had erred. But what’s good for me is that I have a source to go to to determine what indeed is the correct interpretation of the Bible (or if there is in fact no direct Church teaching on it).

I think the problem, as you David say above, is that Protestants are in danger of making the Bible an idol in and of itself when they focus on the Bible as the source and foundation of their faith. It actually is not. The source of our faith is in fact a person and that person is Jesus Christ, who founded his Church. That Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, existed for many years before the books of the New Testament were written.

So, summing up the Catholic position here, the Church, founded by Christ, predates the Bible, determined its contents, and is the place to go when disagreements about it come up.

Please come join us! The Baptismal waters are fine.

---