Can Christians Trust AI to Interpret the Bible?

Practicing Christians are embracing AI even as many worry it could misinterpret Scripture. A closer look at one AI-generated interpretation of Deuteronomy reveals a subtler danger: answers can sound correct while leaving out context that...

James Spencer

Published Sep 25, 2026

: Follow topic Follow this topic Follow author Follow this author

Can Christians Trust AI to Interpret the Bible?

Brought to you by

Key Points

Barna research found that 83% of practicing Christians are concerned about AI misinterpreting Scripture.
AI-generated answers can be misleading even when they are not technically wrong because important context may be omitted or minimized.
Christians need enough biblical and theological discernment to recognize when an AI-generated interpretation has flattened or oversimplified a passage.
Bible study is not merely about gathering information; Christians are formed through Scripture, teachers, the church, and accountable relationships with others.
AI can assist biblical study, but it should not replace careful reading, trusted resources, theological reflection, or the embodied body of Christ.

While writing an essay on the 2026 Barna research indicating that practicing Christians are adopting AI more readily than the general population, I noticed that many Christians (83%) were concerned that AI might misinterpret Scripture. As I’ve used AI in various ways over the past several years, I’ve noticed that it often provides answers that appear correct but lack nuance and depth. While I’m not sure I would always call the answers “wrong,” I would say they are often misleading, even when they are “right.”

Why Can AI Sound Right and Still Mislead Us?

As such, I’ve begun to exercise caution in using AI to research topics about which I don’t have some level of expertise. I use it occasionally to consider biblical and theological topics and to develop weight-training programs, but if I am working in sociology, cognitive psychology, or even history, I always begin with articles and books that I’ve curated through a literature review. The rationale is simple: If I’m finding problems in areas where I have domain expertise, I have to assume that I’m missing problems in areas where I don’t. If I find myself not really knowing what question to ask or how to probe the responses from platforms like Claude, Gemini, or ChatGPT, I probably shouldn’t accept the summaries those platforms offer.

In what follows, I offer an extended example of the sort of difficulties that can arise when using AI for Bible study. The goal is not to demonize AI, but to offer Christians a keener sense of the ways that AI can misread and, thus, misrepresent. Because AI abbreviates, it is subject to the same problems human abbreviators face.

The goal is not to demonize AI, but to offer Christians a keener sense of the ways that AI can misread and, thus, misrepresent.

Why Does Abbreviation Matter When AI Interprets Scripture?

As Aldous Huxley comments,

“Abbreviation is a necessary evil and the abbreviator’s business is to make the best of a job which, though intrinsically bad, is still better than nothing. He must learn to simplify, but not to the point of falsification. He must learn to concentrate upon the essentials of a situation, but without ignoring too many of reality’s qualifying side issues. In this way he may be able to tell, not indeed the whole truth (for the whole truth about almost any important subject is incompatible with brevity), but considerably more than the dangerous quarter-truths and half-truths which have always been the current coin of thought.”

Huxley rightly assumes the necessity of abbreviation. Someone is deciding what is essential and what is not. When a commentator flattens a passage, his or her name is on the page. The author will bear the responsibility for what has been written. AI, however, abbreviates without an abbreviator, even though decisions about what to keep and what to omit are still being made. AI abbreviates; we still have to consider the value of that abbreviation, but there is no one to answer for the simplification that crosses over into falsehood. My thinking is that AI doesn’t always abbreviate well. It creates oversimplifications that mislead those who use it. We need the savvy and understanding to notice when that is happening.

Why Do Christians Still Need Teachers and the Body of Christ?

Before moving to the worked example, I want to recognize that some Christians have no trained teacher within reach and no access to commentaries or other such resources. For these believers, AI may be the only resource on hand.

If AI were genuinely all that was available, using it to understand Scripture seems appropriate. Those who use AI when it is the only option would not somehow be immune from the challenges that come with using AI more generally. The broader body of Christ should not be satisfied with the status quo but should recognize its obligation to build the body of Christ by finding ways to resource its parts through embodied training and resourcing.

Christians need to attend to embodiment. We cannot be satisfied with a situation in which God’s people are being trained to follow Christ through AI alone. Though it may appear efficient, humans are built to be dependent on God, others, and creation. Being human means being in relation, and being Christian means being connected to other members of the body of Christ within one’s local context.

Technologies of various sorts can certainly be helpful in building the body of Christ. I began my career in online education and still believe that studying online can be an effective, formative experience. The difference is not distance, but answerability. An online course has teachers who can be questioned and are responsible for what they teach. Similarly, a commentary has an author whose work is published, reviewed, distributed, and critiqued by peers. The wisdom held by those who have been shaped by formal training, informal study, and lived experience is meant to be passed on to others and tested by them.

What Does Deuteronomy Teach Us about Accountable Interpretation?

This general dynamic is illustrated in Deuteronomy 17:18-20:

“And when he [the king] sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.”

The king does not set his own standard, but his copy of the law is approved by the Levitical priests. As he studies, he is not simply gaining information, but a disposition—a fear of the Lord—that issues forth in a disposition toward those he rules. AI alone disrupts this process because our own account on Claude or ChatGPT is not subject to the approval of those who know God’s word unless we take steps to ensure that is the case. These AI platforms do not bear any real responsibility for the content they produce, nor does correcting them in one instance guarantee they will not make the same error in another.

What Happened When AI Interpreted Deuteronomy 20:19?

I asked Claude.ai to discuss Deuteronomy 20:19, which states that the Israelites are not to destroy trees bearing fruit during a siege. Initially, Claude responded, “I’d resist the move I see fairly often, which is to run this straight into a creation-care theology. The passage is war legislation. Its horizon is what a besieging army may and may not destroy.” Sounds good, right? Maybe not. Given the broader context of Deuteronomy and the Pentateuch as a whole, it is difficult to ignore this passage’s association with creation. Having studied this topic and verse, I knew to probe the answer further.

As such, I prompted Claude with the following: “In eliminating creation-care, are you also eliminating the matrix of appropriate human dominion and the requisite necessity to serve creation? Would you not connect Genesis 1-2 to the conquest instructions here?" Claude then changed course, noting, “The matrix you’re naming is there…I invoked it myself on Gen 2 and then declined to let it travel, which is inconsistent.” It went on to clarify, “Where I’d still hold a line, and I think it’s narrower than what I said before: the caution is about the modern category, not the canonical connection.” It ended saying, “You’re also right about the habit. I atomize first—establish what each text says on its own terms before letting anything travel. I’d defend that as a first move, since it’s what keeps the synthesis from becoming circular. But stopping there isn’t neutrality; it’s a truncation, and it produces exactly the evacuated reading you caught.”

Notice a few things. First, the AI was relatively unequivocal about bracketing out creation care without any qualification. If I hadn’t asked the second question, I could have walked away without understanding the context that helps make Deuteronomy 20:19 make sense. Second, when I asked the second question, the AI conceded the point, providing additional responses (not included above) before offering further caution about distinguishing between the “modern category” and “canonical connection” (a distinction that required further clarification in a subsequent prompt and response). Finally, the AI defended its approach while acknowledging that the answer it provided was overly simplistic and required my evaluation and a second prompt to catch.

What Does This Example Teach Christians about AI Bible Study?

The interaction illustrates the sort of difficulties that can arise when using AI to answer biblical questions. It is making decisions for you. Having studied Deuteronomy 20:19, I was able to see some of the holes in the answer it provided. I would have done the same by picking up a commentary or reading a journal article. In this case, the additional prompts resulted in a more nuanced response and a deeper understanding that shifts the prohibition on cutting down fruit-bearing trees from the realm of sheer utility to one of theological depth.

Conclusion

While I am heartened to see that a high percentage of practicing Christians remain concerned about obtaining the right interpretation of the Scriptures, I hope that the example above will alert God’s people to additional problems that can arise when AI interprets the biblical text. It isn’t simply about misinterpretation. It is also about the more basic choices made in offering an interpretation. The AI is deciding what is and is not relevant to understanding a given text. It is withholding some information while highlighting other information. Those aren’t misinterpretations per se, but rather abbreviations that end up misrepresenting the biblical text.

Frequently Asked Questions about AI, Bible Study, and Christian Discernment

Can Christians use AI for Bible study?
AI can be a useful supplemental tool for Bible study, but Christians should verify its answers against Scripture, trusted teachers, commentaries, and other reliable resources rather than treating AI as a spiritual authority.
Can AI misinterpret Scripture?
Yes. AI can misunderstand a passage, but it can also produce an answer that is technically plausible yet omits important biblical, historical, or theological context that changes how the passage should be understood.
Why can an AI answer be misleading even when it is correct?
Every summary involves decisions about what information to include and what to leave out. An AI-generated answer may emphasize one part of a biblical passage while overlooking context or connections necessary for a fuller interpretation.
Should AI replace Bible teachers or commentaries?
No. Teachers and commentary authors can explain their reasoning, be questioned, and be held accountable for what they teach. Christians also benefit from studying Scripture within the embodied community of the church.
How can Christians use AI with greater discernment?
Christians can treat AI as one tool rather than a final authority, ask follow-up questions, compare answers with Scripture and reliable resources, and seek wisdom from knowledgeable believers who can help evaluate difficult interpretations.

For Further Reading

James Spencer, PhD, is a biblical scholar and author whose work concerns Christian formation, political theology, and technology. He earned his PhD in Theological Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and an MA in Biblical Exegesis from Wheaton College. He serves as president of the D. L. Moody Center in Northfield, Massachusetts, as an Associate Research Fellow at the Kirby Laing Centre for Public Theology, and as adjunct faculty in Wheaton College's MA in Leadership program. James has published multiple works, including Serpents and Doves: Christians, Politics, and the Art of Bearing Witness, Christian Resistance: Learning to Defy the World and Follow Christ, and Useful to God: Eight Lessons from the Life of D. L. Moody. His forthcoming book, Digital Discernment (InterVarsity Press, 2026), offers a theological account of information and formation in a digital age. His work challenges Christians to remember that God sets the agenda for his people. James is an elder at Skyline Church in O'Fallon, Illinois, where he lives with his wife, Kim, and their four children. Listen to the Thinking Christian podcast and read more of his work at thinkingchristian.org/james.