In this post, I want to dive into some examples that challenge how certain fundamentalists and literalists interpret verses in the Bible. These interpretations often come across as selective or inconsistent, particularly when the broader context or cultural influence is ignored. By highlighting these inconsistencies, my aim is to encourage Christians to think much more critically about their approach to scripture and question whether they are applying the same standard to all verses.
Slavery in the New Testament
There are several places in the New Testament where Paul addresses slavery, not to condemn it, but rather to provide guidelines on how slave owners should treat their slaves humanely (see Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1). Paul never explicitly calls slavery immoral or commands it to be abolished; instead he supports the institution with instruction. Most modern Christians, especially those in the West, would likely agree that slavery is deeply immoral and incompatible with Christian values. So here lies the inconsistency: If Christians today rightly reject slavery as evil, then how do we reconcile Paul’s acceptance of it in the cultural context of his day?
To read these passages without considering the cultural backdrop would raise serious moral questions. In Paul’s time, slavery was a societal norm, and if we were to apply those verses without acknowledging their historical and cultural context, we would be condoning something that modern society rightfully deems an abomination. Thus, it is obviously necessary to understand that Paul’s instructions were influenced by the realities of his time and the specific topics his culture and broader community faced.
Paul’s Instructions on Women’s Appearance
Another example comes from 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, where Paul says that every woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces herself and God. In the same passage, he states that if a woman refuses to veil her head, she should cut off her hair, which is a cultural symbol of shame in that context. Paul also states that long hair is dishonorable for men.
Now, fast forward to today: Women don’t typically veil themselves when they pray, and many Christian men wear long hair. This raises the question—if many Christians today are comfortable discarding these specific guidelines because they recognize them as culturally bound (or just dont agree with them), why do they hold certain parts of Paul’s teachings as timeless truths yet fail to consider the possibility that the teachings they view as eternal might also be influenced by the same cultural factors that shaped the instructions they dismiss?
The Perfection Command in Matthew
In Matthew 5:48, Jesus commands, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Later, in Matthew 19:21, He tells the rich man that if he wants to be perfect, he must sell all his possessions, give the money to the poor, and then follow Him. Here, we have another instance where many Christians might make exceptions or excuses. Very few interpret this command literally, likely viewing it as hyperbole or a rhetorical device meant to emphasize the importance of generosity and detachment from wealth.
However, this highlights a broader issue of moral and logical consistency. If Christians are comfortable explaining away this command due to its moral complexity or context, why do they not apply the same flexibility to other, similarly challenging verses? If everything must be taken within context, why pick and choose which verses to take literally?
Paul’s Views on Women’s Roles and Appearance in 1 Timothy
In 1 Timothy 2:9-15, Paul instructs women not to braid their hair, wear gold or pearls, or don expensive clothes. He follows this by stating that women should learn in silence and submission and that he does not permit women to teach or hold authority over men, citing Eve’s deception in the Garden of Eden as his reasoning.
Here’s the challenge: Most Christian women today have no issue braiding their hair, wearing gold, or dressing in fine clothes or accessories. Yet, some fundamentalists or literalists insist that the prohibition against women teaching remains valid and timeless. This begs the question—why is the instruction about women’s appearance considered cultural and outdated, while the prohibition on teaching is seen as a universal, eternal command?
These sentences are part of the same passage, presented back-to-back, making it inconsistent to apply different standards to each. Again, at the very least, one should consider the possibility that the teachings they view as eternal may also be influenced by the same cultural factors shaping the instructions they choose to disregard. Insisting on enforcing one part of the passage while ignoring or explaining away the other is not only selective but also morally and logically inconsistent.
The Call for Consistency
The core issue here isn’t whether certain verses are culturally influenced or timeless—it’s the inconsistent application of scripture. If we dismiss one set of verses due to their cultural context, we must also consider the possibility that other verses, which literalists and fundamentalists often hold as authoritative, could similarly be shaped by their cultural surroundings. To be morally and logically consistent, we should strive to apply the same interpretive standard across the board.
This doesn’t mean we have to abandon our convictions or beliefs. Rather, it calls for approaching scripture—and those beliefs—with intellectual honesty, recognizing that our understanding is inevitably shaped by context, culture, and interpretation. If we’re willing to question, explain away, or even dismiss certain teachings, we must be equally open to reexamining others, ensuring we don’t selectively follow verses based on convenience or personal preference.
