Introduction
This post will almost be a continuation of my last one, but it will focus more specifically on an issue within scriptural interpretation, rather than a broader opinion on consistency in biblical interpretation. In recent discussions I’ve seen and heard about women in the church and the broader context of reading the Bible, a significant issue has surfaced: the selective application of cultural context in scriptural interpretation. While many people acknowledge the influence of cultural norms on certain passages and commands, there’s often a reluctance to apply this same understanding to other areas. This leads to inconsistencies in how we comprehend and practice our faith.
Cultural Context for Appearance
To set the stage for this post, Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2:9 on braided hair, gold jewelry, and pearls serve as a great example of this issue. In ancient Rome, flaunting wealth through elaborate hairstyles and accessories was considered immodest. Today, however, cultural definitions of modesty have evolved. Most modern Christians wouldn’t view a woman wearing pearls or braids in church as immodest because our societal norms have changed.
The inconsistency arises if one accepts the cultural context or textual nuance for Paul’s teachings on appearance but refuses to extend the same context or nuance to his instructions on women teaching in the church. Both sets of instructions are found in the same passage, written to the same group of believers in the same cultural setting. Acknowledging cultural influence in one case but being adamant on a literal, timeless interpretation in the other highlights a selective and inconsistent approach to scripture.
Women Speaking in Church
Another pertinent example comes from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, where Paul writes:
“Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
The Greek verb λαλέω (laleō) used here generally means “to speak,” “to talk,” or “to utter words.” This verse is dictating an all-out ban on women speaking in church, extending beyond teaching or preaching to any form of talking, labeling such acts as shameful.
In modern church settings, women routinely speak, ask questions, and engage in discussions before, during, and after the service without any sense of impropriety. Most contemporary Christian women do not consider it shameful to participate verbally in church activities or speak inside the church. In fact, open communication is often encouraged as part of communal worship and learning, along with friendly and relational conversations with other churchgoers before or after the service.
If individuals who disregard the commands in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 accept that these directives about women remaining silent were given due to the cultural context of the time, or if they try to add cultural nuance to these commands, then consistency demands that we apply the same contextual understanding to Paul’s other personal dictates. I will say again, ignoring cultural context in some areas while acknowledging it in others leads to selective interpretation and undermines the integrity of our approach to scripture.
Understanding Slavery in Context
When discussing and understanding Paul’s teachings on slavery in the New Testament, most Christians acknowledge that he was working within the cultural “norm of the day.” His instructions reflect the societal framework of ancient Rome, where slavery was an accepted institution. Admitting that Paul’s views on slavery were bound to his cultural context begs the question: why is it so difficult to accept that his teachings on women’s roles could have been similarly influenced? If one applies the same standard to Paul’s other dictates as timeless truths, then one would also be forced to accept these passages on slavery as still applicable—implying that slavery remains acceptable today. Most Christians, however, disregard these passages, recognizing that they are no longer relevant to a culture that has rightly moved beyond the institution of slavery, viewing it as a moral blight. Regardless of one’s thoughts on this issue—whether they believe Paul was fundamentally wrong about slavery, lacked the moral courage to say, “Slave owners, release your slaves, for we are all equal, and the practice is wrong,” or was simply teaching within the cultural context and norms of his day—it should prompt a second look at all of his personal directives. If any of his teachings are potentially fundamentally incorrect, limited by cultural cowardice, or outdated, then it is possible that other personal directives could be as well.
Applying cultural context and nuance selectively undermines the integrity of our interpretative practices and can lead to the unintended consequence of accepting certain teachings as still morally and culturally relevant. We cannot explain away some teachings as cultural or contextual while insisting others are timeless without a clear, logical basis.
Conclusion
The inconsistency in applying cultural context to scriptural interpretation presents a significant challenge to how we understand and practice our faith today. If we acknowledge that certain teachings of Paul—such as those regarding appearance in 1 Timothy 2:9, his tolerance of slavery, and his prohibition of women speaking in church—were influenced by the cultural norms of his time, then consistency demands that we apply the same reasoning and nuance to his instructions on women’s roles in the church.
Paul’s directives about women remaining silent and not teaching were given within a specific historical and cultural framework where such practices were normative. In both ancient Greece and Rome, societal norms, expectations, and law significantly restricted women’s roles in teaching, learning, and public speaking. These restrictions were codified into law (Lex Oppia, Lex Voconia) and also enforced through cultural and social pressures. Understanding these historical contexts provides insight into why certain instructions, such as those from Paul regarding women’s roles in the church, were given. Just as braided hair and wearing jewelry are no longer considered immodest in today’s society, slavery is now condemned despite its past acceptance, and women are allowed to speak in church, we should recognize that many other early apostolic restrictions and doctrines were similarly culturally conditioned.
By selectively applying cultural context and nuance to some passages while ignoring it in others, we as Christians risk distorting the message of the apostles and reinforcing both our own biases and those of the authors. A consistent and honest approach requires us to consider the cultural and historical circumstances surrounding all of Paul’s teachings. This means acknowledging that some directives were specific to—or influenced by—the issues, laws (as he himself mentions), societal norms, and the particular churches or groups of believers he was writing to within the early church.
Therefore, when we sincerely seek to understand the cultural context of Paul’s time, we may conclude that the limitations on women speaking and teaching in the church were not meant to be universal prohibitions. In today’s culture, there is no scriptural basis for barring women from speaking in church settings (as most Christians would already agree), nor for barring women from preaching.
At the end of the day, my faith is in Jesus Christ—not solely in the writings of flawed human beings who were inspired by Him. Embracing this perspective allows me to hold firmly to the core message of Christianity while thoughtfully considering the cultural contexts that have shaped its transmission through history. I will always stand by that.
