Top Five Hermeneutical Stumbling Blocks

The Top Five Hermeneutical Stumbling Blocks

Proper biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) is essential for accurately understanding and applying scriptural teachings. However, several common errors regularly impede clear interpretation and lead readers astray.

 

1.    Corrupted Canon

A corrupted canon introduces uncertainty into scriptural authority. Textual interpolations, deletions, and disputed writings obscure the authenticity of the biblical texts. As a result of the canonical corruption that occurred (See more at https://ntcanon.com),  readers base their interpretations on unreliable or distorted material, causing theological misunderstandings. John, Matthew, and Mark are later revisions, expansions, and embellishments of the primitive gospel narrative (as exemplified in Luke). Some of the harms causing a departure from Apostolic Christianity, including these derivative gospel accounts, are as follows:

John: Arianism, Trinitarianism, Modalism (Oneness teaching), conflating Jesus with God, undermining the humanity of Jesus, Judaizing, misguided belief about the Eucharist, Calvinism, Gnosticism, False testimony about the life and teachings of Christ

Matthew: Judaizing, Anti-charismatic, Over formalization of the faith (liturgical churches), Jewish exclusivity to Jesus ministry, Ascetism, Castration, Self-mutilation, Trinitarian (tri-partite) baptism, basis for Trinitarian speculation, Misguided eschatological beliefs, over-appropriation of OT passages as prophecy, false testimony about the life and teachings of Christ, The doctrine of “the church” (ekklesia) headed by Peter (as abused by the Catholic Church)

Mark: Prosperity teaching (name it and claim it), misguided eschatological beliefs, self-mutilation, redaction of Jesus' ethical teachings, false embellished testimony about the life and teachings of Christ, ambiguity and mystery in Mark resonate with Gnostics, Docetism, Snake handling, and poison drinking.

2.    Taking Verses Out of Context (Bible Conflations)

Proper interpretation demands adherence to context; failing to do so results in significant misinterpretation. Contextual awareness is crucial to avoid erroneous doctrinal conclusions.

Ignoring Immediate Context: The error of taking verses out of context is often attempting to interpret a particular book by using another book by another author.  It is best to put more weight on the immediate context (using John to interpret John) rather than a more remote context (for example, using Isaiah to interpret John).

Ignoring Literary Structure and Type: Misinterpretation often comes from ignoring literary structure and literary text-type. Overlooking the literary structures, rhetorical devices, and the author's intended purpose causes misinterpretation of narrative flow and emphasis. Each biblical text has a particular literary form—narrative, poetry, prophecy, epistle, apocalypse, or historical account—that requires specific interpretive strategies. For instance, interpreting poetry as literal history, or prophecy as straightforward predictions without considering symbolic or metaphorical language, frequently leads to erroneous conclusions. Recognizing and respecting the distinct literary types helps maintain interpretive accuracy and prevents misreading the text.

Literalism vs. Symbolism Confusion often arises due to neglecting context. This occurs when readers take metaphorical, symbolic, or allegorical language literally without appreciating the author’s intended use of figurative language. For example, interpreting poetic expressions of God's actions or character literally can distort the intended message. Parables, symbolic visions (such as those in prophetic and apocalyptic literature), and metaphorical language require careful recognition of their figurative nature to avoid doctrinal and interpretive errors. Failure to differentiate literal historical narrative from symbolic representation often results in misapplication of texts and theological confusion.

Proof-Texting is a hermeneutical error in biblical interpretation, wherein a verse or short passage is isolated and used to support a specific doctrine, belief, or argument without proper regard for its context. In practice, proof texting involves selectively quoting scripture to substantiate a predetermined viewpoint, often ignoring surrounding verses, the author's original intent, or the broader biblical narrative.

Dogmatic Presuppositions: Interpreting scripture through preconceived doctrinal beliefs or systematic theological assumptions, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself, also falls into this category. Those with dogmatic presuppositions read their own theology into a text (eisegesis).

Bible Conflations: are the merging of distinct scriptural passages to support the doctrine of Jesus' ontological divinity. This practice often involves combining Old Testament references to God with New Testament references to Jesus, forming syllogisms that suggest equivalence in identity or nature. Such conflations frequently overlook the context and the Jewish law of agency, which allows an agent to represent the principal fully without being identical in essence. See many examples of this at BibleConflations.com.

3.    Inability to Cross-Reference the Original Text In the Original Language

An accurate understanding of biblical texts requires examining the earliest manuscripts in the original languages. However, inadequate ability or access to cross-reference original language texts introduces significant interpretive problems.

Textual Variants: Early manuscripts exhibit thousands of textual variants, some of them theologically significant. The orthodox Corruption of the text of the New Testament itself is the cause of significant error in Bible interpretation, since many English translations don’t provide transparency regarding different readings of the earliest manuscripts.

Theological Bias: Popular English translations have a Trinitarian bias. Theologically significant variants with syntactical ambiguity are translated in a manner that supports a trinitarian interpretation (verses that conflate Jesus with God).

Archaic Translations: Many Bible misinterpretations stem from using specific translations, like KJV, which uses an outdated form of English and may cause doctrinal errors. Some cults have been particularly associated with the KJV, as they claim it substantiates their unique doctrines. (For example, Mormonism and 1 Cor 15:29, baptism for the dead)

Lack of Greek Study Tools: Fundamentalist Bible teachers often lack a thorough understanding of the underlying Greek text (vocabulary and grammar), which can lead to errors. 

For an unbiased English translation with transparency into the textual variants of the earliest manuscripts, see https://gpt.bible 

4.    Lack of Ancient Cultural Context

Ancient texts must be interpreted within their historical and cultural contexts. Failure to grasp the original cultural framework of biblical writings frequently results in flawed interpretations and doctrinal confusion.

Anachronistic Assumptions: Readers often project modern theological constructs (like the Trinity or the idea of Jesus as "God the Son") back onto texts written in a Jewish monotheistic context. Ancient Jews understood God to be a singular person—Yahweh, the Father—not a Trinity. Jesus and the apostles spoke within that framework. When modern interpreters assume a Greco-Roman philosophical backdrop (e.g., dual nature of Christ), they distort the original meaning.

Misreading Words and Idioms: Ancient Hebrew and Greek languages used idioms and expressions that don’t translate directly into modern English. For instance, calling someone “Son of God” did not mean they were God in essence—it indicated a special relationship or appointment by God. When modern readers apply their own cultural definitions, like interpreting "Son of God" as implying deity, they impose meanings foreign to the biblical authors.

Ignoring Ancient Jewish Expectations: The Jews in Jesus’ time were expecting a human Messiah—descended from David, anointed by God, ruling under God’s authority. When readers overlook this and interpret prophecies or Jesus’ titles through later creeds or theology, they misconstrue Jesus' identity. For example, misunderstanding “Son of Man” as a divine title ignores its biblical use as a human term rooted in Daniel and Ezekiel.

Failure to Grasp Biblical Agency: Ancient cultures heavily utilized the concept of agency, where an agent acted on behalf of another with their authority. Jesus, as God's agent, speaks and acts for God, but is not God Himself. Misunderstanding this framework causes people to interpret Jesus’ authority and miracles as evidence of ontological divinity, rather than divinely bestowed power and mission.

Literal interpretation of personification: The error of interpreting personification as literal persons is caused largely by lack of ancient cultural context. Ancient literary techniques frequently used vivid personifications as a rhetorical or poetic device. Modern readers unfamiliar with these literary conventions and cultural norms may fail to recognize the figurative nature of these personifications, mistakenly interpreting symbolic or abstract descriptions literally.

For example, Proverbs personifies wisdom as a woman—a common literary device in ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. Without awareness of this cultural-literary practice, readers might incorrectly assume wisdom to be an actual divine person or being.

5.    Lacking an Adequate Conceptual Framework 

Misunderstandings of biblical texts frequently arise from overly simplistic interpretive approaches that lack the necessary conceptual depth, nuance, and contextual discernment. An appropriate conceptual (philosophical) framework is essential when interpreting passages involving abstract spiritual and theological ideas. Without clearly defined contextual distinctions, readers inevitably misconstrue the intended meaning and implications of Scripture.

Confusing Nature and Role: Saying Jesus “must be God” because he has divine authority ignores the distinction between nature and function. A proper metaphysical framework sees that agency and role do not imply essence. Jesus being exalted by God (Phil. 2:9–11) shows role, not divine ontology.

Not Understanding the Difference Between Essential vs. Accidental Predication: The few instances of Jesus being called "God" (e.g. Heb. 1:8) can be explained as accidental predication—referring to God's presence or authority in him, not essential predication of Jesus' being.

Failure to Grasp Biblical Agency: In ancient Semitic thought, as well as in other ancient and modern systems, an agent acts fully on behalf of their sender and can bear their name and authority. Without this conceptual framework, readers conclude that Jesus being given the power and authority of God must mean he is God ontologically, rather than God’s authorized representative.

Lacking the Essence–Energy Distinction: We can partake in the Holy Spirit but not in God's essence. The essence-inergy distinction differentiates between God's essence (ousia), which remains transcendent and cannot be transferred to another being, and God's transferable energies (energeiai), by which God is actively present, known, and experienced in creation. Without this conceptual (metaphysical) framework, interpreters often conflate God's transcendent essence with his actions or manifestations, resulting in conceptual confusion (for example, equating the Holy Spirit (the energeia of God) with God’s essence (non-transferable attributes).

Lacking the Concept of Notional Preexistence: Notional (or ideal) preexistence is the concept that something can exist conceptually or purposefully in the mind or plan of God before its actual historical realization. When readers fail to recognize this distinction, they may erroneously interpret texts describing preexistence strictly in literal, personal terms, even when such texts refer symbolically or metaphorically to God's eternal plan or purpose.

Illegitimate Totality Transfer: Often called the "fallacy of lexical rigidity," it occurs when interpreters fail to appreciate that certain terms (like "Spirit," "soul," or "heaven") represent complex metaphysical concepts with nuanced and varied meanings, depending on the context. The lack of a proper conceptual framework (metaphysics) prevents readers from distinguishing subtle differences and variations in usage.

For example, the Greek word πνεῦμα (pneuma) ("spirit") in biblical texts can refer to:

1.   The Holy Spirit (the energeia of God)
2.   God who is spirit (the essence of God)
3.  A person's inner being or consciousness
4.  A supernatural being (angelic or demonic entities)
5.  Wind or breath as natural phenomena
6.  A person's emotional disposition or attitude

Without the ability to discern these conceptual subtleties, interpreters may mistakenly impose a singular meaning upon the term, leading to incorrect theology and doctrinal confusion. Similar interpretative confusion arises from words like God (theos), Soul (psyche), Lord (kyrios), and Word (logos), all of which exhibit a broad semantic range and can mean different things in different contexts. This kind of confusion clearly exemplifies a lack of adequate metaphysical and linguistic frameworks.

Lacking an Understanding of the Meaning of “is”: Answering the question of what is meant by the word "is" represents one of the most fundamental metaphysical inquiries precisely because "is" encompasses multiple, distinctly different meanings and usages. Clarifying these different senses is critical to developing a coherent metaphysical framework.

•        Existence ("is" as existence): Indicates that something exists or has being.
•          Identity ("is" as identity): Indicates equivalence or sameness between two things.
•          Predication ("is" as attribution): Indicates that a subject possesses a particular attribute, property, or characteristic.
•          Accidental Predication (“is” as possessing non-essential characteristics): Accidental predication involves attributing characteristics to a subject that are not essential to its very nature or existence.
•          Definition ("is" as definition or essence): Indicates the essential nature or definition of something.
•          Metaphorical or symbolic meaning ("is" as metaphor): Expresses figurative or symbolic equivalence.

Conclusion

These five hermeneutical stumbling blocks—corrupted canon, taking verses out of context, inability to consult original languages, lack of ancient cultural context, and absence of an adequate conceptual framework—represent the most common and consequential errors in biblical interpretation. Addressing these issues is essential to restoring the clarity, coherence, and original intent of apostolic teaching. Rather than relying on late interpolations, doctrinal overlays, and creedal traditions, faithful interpretation must be grounded in careful textual analysis, cultural literacy, and philosophical precision.

The path to understanding Scripture rightly is not through doctrinal conformity, but through critical engagement and the pursuit of truth guided by integrity. By recognizing how these stumbling blocks distort the biblical message, readers are equipped to recover a more authentic and apostolic understanding of the faith. This involves reevaluating the reliability of traditional canonical sources, resisting superficial or proof-texted theology, learning from the earliest linguistic and cultural contexts, and thinking clearly about what the text actually says about God, Christ, and humanity. In removing these interpretive obstacles, we open the way for Scripture to speak anew with the force and clarity it was meant to convey.