AI INTERPRETS THE BIBLE

One of the recent hot topics is the limits of Artificial Intelligence technology, and the controversy has even reached into the realm of Bible interpretation. Thus, John Boyles of Abilene Christian University in writing for Christianity Today was part of a recent interesting “conversation” with ChatGPT regarding the meaning of several Bible passages. I will briefly summarize his impressions.

In asking ChatGPT about the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, it made a non-committal reply as to what many people believe. So Boyle asked it, “What do you believe?”

The answer was: “As a large language model trained by OpenAI, I do not have personal beliefs or values, so I cannot offer my own interpretation of the sermon on the mount. I am designed to provide general information and answer questions to the best of my ability, based on the information and knowledge that I have been trained on. I am not capable of personal opinions or interpretations.”

So far, so good.

However, when questioned on a specific passage such as Matthew 5:29-30 (“pluck out your eye, etc.”), it came back with the very definite opinion: ChatGPT responded, “It is important to note that this passage should not be taken literally. Jesus is using figurative language to make a point about the seriousness of sin and the importance of avoiding it. He is not literally instructing his followers to mutilate their bodies in order to avoid sin.” Boyle notes, “It’s not that I necessarily disagree with this claim, but I was struck by the firmness and certainty it expressed, when only two questions earlier it told me it was incapable of interpreting the sermon.”

But in questioning ChatGPT on other sayings within the sermon which may or may not be intended in a literal manner, it became obvious that ChatGPT always favored the metaphorical interpretation over the literal one. For example, the computer program similarly discounted a literal understanding of Matthew 5:39 regarding the turning of the other cheek. But when Boyle confronted it, ChatGPT actually backed down and proceeded to cite examples in the Bible and church history which might support an alternative view.

“I apologize for any confusion that my earlier response may have caused. While it is true that some Christians have practiced self-denial or self-mortification as a means of resisting temptation or sin, the statement that 'the Bible consistently teaches that harming oneself is not an acceptable or moral response to temptation or sin' is not accurate or complete. The issue of self-harm or self-mortification is complex and has been subject to different interpretations throughout Christian history, and the Bible itself contains passages that could be interpreted as supporting or condemning such practices.”

It is important to note at this point it only responded in this manner when directly questioned, something which I doubt most future users of this program would be likely to do.

And even after this back-pedaling by ChatGPT, it went on “to reassert its interpretation that Jesus was speaking figuratively in Matthew 5:29–30 and then summoned Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 for backup, making the striking claim that 'our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and should be honored and kept holy' (striking because of its pronoun choice).”

“After some discussion of the pronoun in the Greek text, where ChatGPT asserted the second-person pronoun was singular but eventually admitted it is actually plural in the Greek text, ChatGPT actually reversed its individualistic interpretation and affirmed a collective meaning of 1 Corinthians 6:19–20.”

Additionally, ChatGPT admitted its total inability to cite any of the sources behind its various “opinions.” Thus, Boyle says, “Jesus asserts several times in Matthew that his true disciples may be known by the fruits evident in their lives (5:15–20; 12:33–37; 21:33–46). If one cannot access the life of the interpreter and thus the fruits it has produced, how might the Christian know whether the interpretation comes from a true disciple of Jesus?”

Boyle concludes his comments with a warning to us all:

“In the end, ChatGPT offers us a mirror and a caution. ChatGPT’s interpretations of the biblical texts are a distillation of the spirit of our age. Like ChatGPT, we tend toward metaphorical interpretations of Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount. Like ChatGPT, we tend toward individualizing interpretations of Paul. And like ChatGPT, we tend to forget or be ignorant of whose interpretations have formed our own interpretations of the text. These tendencies are interconnected.”

As just one example of the last of these tendencies, I once got into a heated discussion with a friend at church who had begun spouting some very strange, and borderline heretical, theological notions. When I asked him where he got those ideas, he pointed me to a self-published book by an author who claimed to have three doctorates in Bible-related fields. After looking up his biography on-line, I pressed my friend as to the validity of the author's credentials. At that point, my friend admitted that he had had the same doubts and actually contacted the man personally only to learn that the three doctorates were purchased on-line.

But even after exposing his source as a charlatan, my friend still quoted the author's words as authoritative. I guess it should be no surprise that the foibles of us fallible human beings are duplicated in the computer programs we create. (By the way, my friend happens to be a computer programmer.)