Humility in Biblical Interpretation: Lessons from Discarded Doctrines

Throughout Christian history, interpretations of biblical scripture have deeply influenced doctrines that shape beliefs, ethical standards, and societal norms. Despite the insistence by many conservative Christians on literal and rigid interpretations, history repeatedly reveals how theological certainties often shift or are entirely overturned by new scientific insights, cultural evolution, and moral advancements. Doctrines once fiercely defended as divine truths—such as geocentrism, the divine right of kings, or the prohibition of translating the Bible into vernacular languages—are now recognized as historical errors, highlighting a fundamental truth: biblical interpretation requires profound humility. Acknowledging the fluidity and fallibility inherent in interpreting scripture is critical, as failing to do so risks significant moral, societal, and spiritual harm.

Throughout Christian history, interpretations of biblical scripture have profoundly influenced doctrines, shaping beliefs, ethics, and societal norms. However, the historical record of biblical hermeneutics reveals many doctrines that have fallen into disuse or have been refuted entirely. Recognizing these past misinterpretations underscores the critical need for humility when approaching biblical interpretation.

Conservative Christians have argued for the necessity of a literal, originalist and rigid interpretation of scripture because the words in the Bible are the words of God and must be followed precisely. However, Biblical interpretation is far more fluid as we will see. Many doctrines that were once believed to be Biblical fell into disuse or were later refuted based on scientific, cultural or other societal changes. Those who do not recogonize this reality are more likely than not, to interpret and/or apply the scriptures incorrectly, which could have profound consequences on the congregational to societal level.

One prominent historical example is geocentrism, the belief that Earth was the universe’s center. Advocated fiercely by the church, geocentrism was considered a divine truth. However, scientific discoveries proved this doctrine erroneous, illustrating the importance of remaining open to new understandings and interpretations.

Similarly, the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings held that monarchs received authority directly from God, making their rule absolute and unchallengeable. This doctrine justified autocracy and oppression until it eventually gave way to democratic principles, emphasizing individual dignity and collective decision-making. The historical misuse of biblical authority in this case demonstrates the danger of rigidly interpreting scripture to support existing power structures.

The Doctrine of Discovery, another tragic example, asserted a divine right for Christian nations to conquer and colonize non-Christian lands. The devastating consequences—colonialism, exploitation, and genocide—highlight the ethical perils when biblical interpretation lacks humility and moral accountability.

Doctrines concerning usury, the prohibition of lending money at interest, and the prohibition of cremation due to beliefs in bodily resurrection further illustrate how changing cultural and social understandings can challenge established scriptural interpretations. Likewise, doctrines like Limbus Infantum (limbo of infants) and purgatory as literal fire were once mainstream yet have since been reconsidered, indicating the evolving nature of theological understanding.

Historical doctrines often explicitly harmed or marginalized groups. Anti-miscegenation laws, supported by a literal interpretation of passages like Ezra 9-10, justified racial discrimination and oppression. Forced conversions as a method of evangelism ignored fundamental Christian principles of love and voluntary faith. Such doctrines arose from interpretations lacking humility, asserting certainty in areas where scripture calls for compassion and grace.

Beliefs like the literal flat Earth, Adamic language, and pre-Adamism underscore how literalism can distort scriptural intent. The insistence on literal interpretation in these cases ignored broader biblical themes and scientific knowledge, ultimately discrediting the interpretative frameworks that supported them.

Even doctrines governing everyday life, such as mandatory head coverings for women or mandatory confession of sins exclusively to priests, illustrate how overly prescriptive interpretations can obscure the deeper spiritual and ethical intentions of biblical texts. Additionally, beliefs such as unconditional submission to political authorities, the veneration of literal holy relics, and animal trials further demonstrate how unyielding scriptural interpretations often reflect cultural biases rather than divine intent.

Theologically dangerous interpretations, such as the Doctrine of Ethnic Election (e.g., British Israelism) or the pseudo-scientific Polyoriginism, emphasize racial superiority and division, contradicting fundamental biblical teachings on human equality and unity in Christ. Hereticide—the execution of individuals holding differing scriptural interpretations—tragically epitomizes the peril of dogmatic certainty without interpretative humility.

This historical survey reveals the profound necessity for humility in biblical hermeneutics. Recognizing our interpretative fallibility calls for humility, openness to correction, and ongoing dialogue. Scriptural interpretation should always embrace ethical reflection, historical context, and scientific understanding, promoting interpretations that align more closely with Christ’s message of love, justice, and reconciliation. Only with such humility can biblical interpretation truly serve as a transformative and unifying force within Christian communities and broader society.

1. Cosmological and Scientific Doctrines

2. Political and Social Authority Doctrines

3. Economic Doctrines

4. Afterlife and Eschatological Doctrines

5. Cultural, Ritual, and Daily Life Doctrines

6. Racial and Ethnic Doctrines

7. Ascetic and Purity Doctrines