This article is part of a series: Top 6 Misquoted Bible Verses. Click here to visit the introduction article.
Although not an official definition by any means, a Liberal Christian can be defined as a Christian who just doesn't take their faith very seriously. Whereas Biblically, friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4), Liberal Christians try everything in their power to make Christianity, or rather their toxic version of it, tolerable to the world, in which they tend to live quite comfortably, glorifying sin rather than repenting of it. A key distinctive of Liberal theology is the belief that Scripture, rather than being the infallible word of the Living God (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21), is actually the fallible word of men who were products of their time. If God spoke to them at all, it is claimed He did so in terms they would understand, even if that lead to embarrassing errors. The one and only time Liberals rely on the Bible is when they are twisting it in an attempt to support their abysmal theology. In this penultimate article of the top 6 misquoted Bible verses series, we will examine 6 examples.
Matthew 7:1
In a world in which "hate speech" is considered an actual crime, defined as "any form of disagreement with culturally celebrated sins", it makes sense that the most famous verse in the Bible, rather than John 3:16, would instead be "“Judge not, that you be not judged." These are the words of Matthew 7:1, which, on their own, are a joy to every judgmental Liberal who hates those who speak against sin.
But the key proof of Liberal misinterpretation is the simple fact that this is only verse 1. Jesus continues to say "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." (v2-6).
So now we understand what Jesus meant by "judge not". He didn't mean "don't judge, period". He didn't mean "don't report car thieves to your neighborhood watch, they're a bunch of nosy parkers". He didn't mean "if you hear your neighbor battering his wife, don't get involved." He didn't mean "if you catch your neighbor burying a body in his back yard, don't report him". And conveniently, unless your Liberal friend is beating his wife to death with stolen car parts, they will all agree with you when it comes to that. To the Liberal, "judge not" only applies when it comes to sins they agree with.
And that's called hypocrisy! This is the kind of judgement Jesus speaks of when He says judge not! He follows it up with "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." Now, 9 times out of 10, those who tell you "judge not" are judging you. They have heard something you've said, no matter how truthful, no matter how sincere, and no matter how gently, and they have decided "that's wrong, and I'm going to tell you". Yet, what they're saying is "it's wrong to tell people they're wrong". Would they be happy with this standard being applied to them?
Yet, Jesus says take the plank out of your own eye. In other words, yes, you can judge, but you better not be guilty of the same. If your vision is skewed, you're in no fit state to guide. Injustice leads to injustice, and so your bias will lead you and your friend astray. This, Jesus follows up with "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine..."! Yikes!
Given that I was once accused of being anti-Semitic for merely quoting this verse to a Liberal, it's safe to say this is not the most polite way to refer to a person. But how are we to determine who are the dogs and swine we should not share our holy things with, unless we make a judgement call about them?
By contrast, when a Christian preaches the Gospel, "warts and all", we continue to judge in a way that is consistent with Matthew 7:1-6. We still sin, but our message is "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:8-10). This means our message is one of repentance and reconciliation, rather than hatred and punishment.
Now, which is more consistent with Matthew 7:1? "You're guilty of sin, but there is grace in Jesus", or "how dare you say I'm guilty of sin? Keep your Jesus out of my life until He affirms my poor life choices"? It's obviously the former. Therefore, to use Matthew 7:1 as a proof text for Liberalism is just plain hypocrisy.
2 Peter 3:8
Liberals and atheists have many things in common, starting with the origins myth that started it all: Evolution. Evolution is a broad way of referring to a number of Naturalistic, science-fiction narratives about how the heavens and the Earth really came to be, all of which were specifically designed, in the words of Charles Lyell, to "...free the science from Moses...". Or, to quote Michael Ruse, "Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality."
No matter how many times Evolutionists insist their narrative destroys the Christian faith, and admit this is exactly why they made it up to begin with, many have been lead astray by he faith, and even some genuine Christians have learned to compromise with it. One verse that is used to "prove", if nothing else, the longer time scale required for Evolution to have even been possible, Liberals often remind us that 2 Peter 3:8 says "...with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
So, could the days in Genesis 1 have been "God days", as they are often called? Well, yes, the days in Genesis 1 are, in fact, God days. But the definition for "God days" is not found in 2 Peter 3:8, but Genesis 1:5, 8, 13-19, 23, 31, and Exodus 20:8-11.
In the verses listed above, first of all, we find it repeated that each "day" in Genesis is marked by an evening and a morning, which can only mean it is the literal period of roughly 24 hours between evening and morning. Furthermore, the sun and moon were created specifically so we could discern this (cutting off any objections about days before the sun, or Neptune days etc.), as we find in Genesis 1:14-19. Thus, the Jews were commanded to observe the Sabbath day, mirroring the time it took God to create the heavens, the Earth, and everything therein. Thus, if you want to argue for any other view of origins than a literal 6 day creation, you are arguing against the Bible.
But then what does 2 Peter 3:8 mean by "...with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day"? Well, it means "...with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." This verse is absolutely not saying "this is how you shall change an interpretation you have held for over 1,400 years, in order to accommodate the real history of the Earth which shall be discovered, by people who hate me, in a few centuries". It is specifically talking about how time, to God, is irrelevant. We, as finite beings, experience time in a linear fashion. Minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day etc. But God, being both eternal and omniscient, does not have to perceive time unless He wants to.
And this is the very context of 2 Peter 3:1-9! Peter is addressing the apparent slowness of Christ to return, even responding directly to scoffers who say "...Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." (v3-4). What's particularly ironic is that these same scoffers, according to Peter, "...willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water." (v5-6). In other words, creation and the flood will be questioned! But it will be deliberate, on the part of scoffers, and in particular scoffers who deny the impending return of Christ (which just happens to be another thing Liberals often do). Thus, Peter is effectively saying wrong view of the beginning = wrong view of the end, and wrong view of the end = wrong view of the beginning.
But then why the thousand years thing? Peter continues, effectively saying that God can afford to wait, and does so for our sake. "The Lord is not slack", he says, "concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (v9). So, why does Peter remind us that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day? Simply to tell us that God is not confined to our schedule. What we might want now, He might want later. What we might want later, He might want now. And that, of course, is why Peter continues in the second half of this chapter to warn us "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night..." Thus, Liberals should be very aware: God is patient, wanting even them to come to repentance, including repenting over misusing this verse as a proof text against His actual creative process. But He won't wait forever.
Genesis 2:7
By far one of the most disgusting sins of Liberalism, and indeed of any human era ever, is abortion. Humanity has often had cultures which enjoy child sacrifice, but while we often look back on them with disgust, and rightly so, it is championed as a "human right" in our own.
Aside from it being blatantly evil, given that the Lord has written the law on our hearts, the Bible is abundantly clear that it is unacceptable to shed the blood of human beings, and in particular the blood of innocent children. Therefore, the question as to whether or not abortion is evil depends on whether or not a life is being taken. If no life is taken, then abortion merely falls under discussions on contraception. If a life is taken, it is, at best, manslaughter, and at worst, cold-blooded murder.
"It's just contraception", say Liberals, citing Genesis 2:7 as proof. Here, we read "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Thus, Liberals argue, a life is not a life until it takes its first breath.
One of the most obvious flaws in this interpretation is that it would imply a 9 month old fetus, biologically identical the day before its birth as the day after, is not a life. Yet, time and time again, we see the Bible describe babies far younger as being alive. In Luke 1:39-45, for example, John the Baptist, conceived a mere 6 months prior, leapt for joy in Elizabeth's womb. Clearly, if a child is alive at 6 months, having never drawn breath (and, at that point in time, incapable of survival outside of the womb), then it is alive at 9 months. Not that we even need the Bible to tell us as much. If you're such a savage that you can look at a 9 month old fetus a day before it is born and deny that it is a living, valuable human being, you're a special kind of psychopath, and this article will be of little value to you.
Of course, we needn't go as far as showing that babies are clearly alive in the womb to show that the Liberal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 is the most embarrassing example of eisegesis to ever be uploaded to TikTok. Simply put, you cannot use the creation of the first man to set a precedent for the creation of subsequent human beings. When he was first formed, Adam needed no womb, and likely did not even go through an embryonic stage. In fact, both Adam and Eve were "born" (Adam from the dirt, Eve from one of Adam's ribs), they were of marriageable maturity, being so immediately placed together as husband and wife that Genesis 2:24 even sets it forward as the pattern for marriage. Jesus would later go on to cite this pattern as a foundation for His own, notably "Conservative" teaching on marriage: "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”" (Matthew 19:5-6).
Aside from obliterating any definition of marriage that could account for homosexuality, this shows that as soon as Adam and Eve were created, they were quite capable of producing children themselves. It is illogical to use the creation of the first adults, who gained their lives without infant stages, as any kind of precedent for how infants, following an entirely different creation process, will gain their lives afterwards. Thus, simple logic, as well as the fact Scripture is replete with examples of babies in the womb being so alive that to kill one is equivalent to murder (e.g. Exodus 21:22-24), dictates that Genesis 2:7 is not a valid proof text in defence of the Liberal sin of abortion.
Mark 12:31
The greatest irony of Liberalism is the fact that its proponents claim its driving force is love. "Love is love", they chant, as they bash another Christian business over the head with a frivolous lawsuit for refusing to cater to a gay "wedding". "No h8", they cry as they explain why they think it should be totally normal to discriminate against white people. Beyond all imagination, in 2022, Gavin Newsom, governor of California, launched a billboard campaign in support of abortion following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. "Need an abortion?", one billboard asks. "California is ready to help."
After directing women to a website where they can find details on how to get an abortion in California, the billboard cites Mark 12:31: "...love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”"
Now, while racist eugenicists like Margaret Sanger felt no shame in saying things like "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it" (a view she would reject on September 7th 1966), there is actually nothing less loving than an abortion. If you think about this for even a second, you see why.
Of course, there are many reasons a woman might want an abortion, and in particular if she has been impregnated by rape. However, other than the ludicrous argument that we should abort disabled children because they would have a low quality of life, no arguments for abortion exist that consider the child whose life is being unjustly stolen. It's always "I don't want a baby", "I am not ready to be a mother", "my body, my choice", "what about my career" etc. You can have as much compassion for frightened mothers as you like, the fact is abortion is almost always selfish. There are exceptions, which should be discussed only once the rule is agreed upon, but in the vast majority of cases, the natural order is subverted. A loving parent gives their life for their offspring. Abortion steals the life of a child for their parents.
It doesn't even need to be explained, therefore, that this is a terrible proof text for abortion. Abortion, by definition, is the most antithetical thing to love. But there is some comfort in the words of Paul: "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice." (Philippians 1:18). Gavin Newsom is undoubtedly a scoundrel. A Hellbound sinner, reprobate to his core. He definitely preaches Christ in false pretenses. But through his folly, Christ is preached. Indeed, while he cut the Scriptures, he was not so corrupt as to edit them, leaving intact one key word: "There is no other commandment greater than these."
These is not a singular word. It is plural. Yet Newsom only cites one command. The other? The one he desperately wants California to ignore? "The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment." (Mark 12:29-30). It takes a devil to twist the Scriptures, as Newsom has, but any child can see that love for both God and man compels us to condemn abortion as the sin it is.
Matthew 9:11
We've all heard it said that Christ ate with sinners. And indeed He did. This is undeniable. In Matthew 9:11, He even caught flak for it: "And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”" "You see!", says the Liberal. "Jesus doesn't want you religious folk running around shouting about sin. Jesus loves us all just the way we are."
There can be no doubt, Jesus ate with sinners. Jesus ate with humans. The particular sin of the Pharisees was pride; they never saw their own sin. Not once did Jesus tell the Pharisees "you're too religious, stop sticking to the Scriptures". Instead, His message to them was "“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!" (Matthew 23:23-24).
The entire Mosaic law, which would see the vast majority of modern Liberals executed, was vitally important to Jesus. Thus, He never chastised the Pharisees for being too zealous for their religion. And when He ate with sinners, He did not do so as a sign of approval. His motive was reform. This is why He said things like "...go and sin no more." (John 8:11).
In fact, one of the scariest things Jesus ever said was "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20). Your righteousness has to not only meet, but exceed that of the Pharisees in order to get into Heaven. Jesus ate with sinners, but His message wasn't "I'm ok with your sin". It was "I'm here to take your sin." Therefore, allusions to Jesus eating with sinners are not valid proof texts for Liberal theology.
Matthew 5:17-18
One of the most common and effective strategies Liberals use against the Bible is painting its adherents as followers. Why, they ask, do we neglect the "less weighty" matters of the law? We oppose homosexuality, but we wear mixed fabrics, and have no issue eating shellfish. By attempting to paint Christians as hypocrites, they believe they can escape the gravity of the law.
One indicator that these people don't understand the Bible is the simple fact that they all use the same examples. They only know enough about the Bible to "know" that you don't follow it. This, only because they know between 3 to 5 Old Testament laws (with most of them not even being able to list the famous 10 commandments). But if they would study just a little more, they would know that Christians are not actually under the law.
Of course, if we were, and we happened to be hypocrites, all that would mean is we're all in trouble. Much like human laws, criminals cannot avoid conviction by pointing to other criminals. A tax evader still goes to jail if he exposes a petty thief. In the same way, you can point to as many hypocrites as you like, sin is sin, and God will judge you. Nevertheless, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the much anticipated New Covenant is here, and therefore the Old Covenant has passed away.
Because of this, Christians are able to justify eating things like shellfish, simply because the New Testament repeatedly affirms that this part of the law did not survive the crucifixion. Romans 14 is an obvious example, as it tells us the strong in the faith believe they can eat all things, as long as they do so in good faith. By contrast, homosexuality is affirmed as an abomination in both the Old and New Testaments, thus meaning it isn't an issue of covenant, but of morality.
But Liberals have a few "proof texts" in an attempt to discard this very simple and irrefutable New Testament concept. In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says "“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
So here we have Jesus Himself telling us the law has not passed away. Right? But what we see, first of all, is that Jesus is not even addressing the idea that His followers would no longer be under the law. There is a huge difference between "the Law and the Prophets have been destroyed" and "we are no longer under the law". If Christians believed the Law and the Prophets had been destroyed, there would be no more Old Testament. Yet the Old Testament is the larger part of the Bible! Why do we spend so long reading this book if we believe it has been destroyed? Simply because we do not believe it has been destroyed. It is, as Paul calls it, a tutor. A guardian. A schoolmaster. We are no longer under it, but if you get rid of it completely, you don't even know what you're free from. If, as Paul says, the law leads us to Christ, you cannot get rid of them without getting rid of Christ.
But Jesus does say He has come to fulfill them, as not one jot or tittle will pass until all is fulfilled. Now, if Jesus came to fulfill the law, the only way to say Christians are still under the law is to say Jesus failed. But the whole point of the Christian faith is that He didn't! Our position is not, as some Liberals believe, that Jesus destroyed the law, but that He fulfilled it, ensuring we are now under the New Covenant.
This, by the way, is how our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, we read "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." As Christians, we take on the righteousness of God Himself, precisely because Christ fulfilled the law.
With all of this in mind, it's clear that Matthew 5:17-18 is a terrible proof text that we are still under the law. But as I pointed out, what it would mean if we are is that it's actually Liberals who are hypocrites. Christians must acknowledge that we are sinners. Aside from the fact it's true, it is a total denial of God to say otherwise (1 John 1:8-10). But we should treat our sin as the enemy it is. But if a Liberal looks at Matthew 5:17-18, claims Jesus is saying we are still under the law, and proceeds to use that as an excuse to bash the law, how do they even dare pretend to be Christians? Atheist Liberals, I understand. Liberal "Christians" are the ultimate definition of hypocrites.
Conclusion
We see, then, that the only real difference between atheists and Liberals is the occasional Godly footnote in their lives. If a Liberal sits down and studies their Bible, they will soon find it is nothing like what they have been told. Liberals will either lie to you, or be lied to by other Liberals. But the truth is, while the Bible is not a "Conservative" book, the very thing Conservatives try to conserve is the values portrayed in the Bible. To be a Liberal requires atheism, and to be a Christian requires a complete and utter rejection of Liberalism.