Because We Interpret It Consistently

Egalitarian Hermeneutics and the Problem of Inconsistency

If Scripture speaks with a unified, authoritative meaning, then that meaning must be interpreted consistently. The authority of Scripture is not only tied to what it says, but to how we handle what it says across the whole of Scripture. The problem we now face is not simply reinterpretation, but inconsistency. The same text is handled differently depending on the conclusion someone wants to reach.

To see this clearly, we need to begin again with Scripture. In 1 Timothy 1:8–11, Paul outlines moral standards that include prohibitions against things like sexual immorality, lying, and violence. These commands are almost universally recognized as binding and authoritative. They are treated as timeless truths. But only a few verses later, in 1 Timothy 2:11–15, Paul gives instructions regarding teaching and authority in the church. Here is where interpretation begins to shift. The same letter, the same author, the same context—but now many argue that these commands are culturally bound and no longer applicable.

This raises an unavoidable question: what changed? The text did not change. The author did not change. The context did not change. The only thing that changed was the method of interpretation.

As I argued in my research, egalitarian interpretations often demonstrate “hermeneutical inconsistency by applying cultural contextualization to gender texts while treating moral instructions…as universally binding” (Morrison, Egalitarian Paper, p. 1) . In other words, the same interpretive principles are not applied consistently across Scripture. Some passages are read plainly, while others are reinterpreted through cultural or historical reconstructions.

We see this tension clearly in 1 Corinthians as well. In 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, Paul addresses moral behavior and clearly presents these instructions as binding. But in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, where he addresses order in the church, many argue that these verses are either cultural, misinterpreted, or even later additions to the text. Once again, the issue is not the presence of Scripture, but how it is handled.

This inconsistency becomes even more evident when we consider how Scripture itself uses Scripture. Paul often grounds his arguments not in cultural circumstances but in creation. For example, in 1 Timothy 2, he appeals to Adam and Eve, not to local conditions in Ephesus. When Scripture grounds its teaching in creation, it signals something that transcends culture. Yet many interpretations attempt to relocate those arguments back into cultural limitations.

This is what I described as selective contextualization. It is the process of applying cultural explanations to some texts while refusing to apply them to others. As I argued, this approach “risks undermining the authority and coherence of biblical teaching as a whole” (Morrison, Egalitarian Paper, p. 15) . Because once a method is allowed to shift depending on the passage, interpretation is no longer governed by Scripture. It is governed by preference.

Jesus warns against this kind of selective approach in Matthew 5:18–19, where He affirms that not even the smallest part of the law will pass away until all is accomplished. His point is not merely about preservation, but about consistency. Scripture is not to be divided into categories of importance based on human judgment. It is to be received as a unified revelation.

The deeper issue, then, is not simply disagreement over specific passages. It is the instability introduced when interpretive methods change. As I noted in my research, many scholars “adjust their methods when dealing with specific texts,” particularly when those texts create tension with modern perspectives (Morrison, Egalitarian Paper, p. 7) .

And once you allow method to shift in one place, it will eventually shift everywhere.

And this inconsistency doesn’t stop with doctrine—it shows up in how we handle the tools and theories around Scripture. In biblical studies, there are often attempts to reconstruct sources behind the text, such as the hypothetical documents referred to as Q, M, and L—proposed source documents. These are proposed to explain how the Gospels relate to one another, but they remain entirely hypothetical and have no direct manuscript attestation. 

That does not make them inherently harmful, but it does mean they must be handled with caution. If the authority of Scripture rests in the author’s intended meaning, then any tool we use must serve that goal—not replace it. The primary task is to interpret the Gospels as they have been given, not to reconstruct sources behind them. 

Luke himself acknowledges that he used sources when compiling his Gospel (Luke 1:1–4), so the use of sources is not the issue. The issue is where our focus lies. When interpretive models begin to rely more on hypothetical reconstructions than on the text itself, they shift attention away from what God has preserved. A more helpful approach is to focus on what is distinct within each Gospel and how each author communicates their message.

And this brings us right back to the issue—method. That adjustment may appear reasonable in isolation, but when applied broadly, it creates a system where any difficult text can be reinterpreted or dismissed.

This leads to a significant theological consequence. If one part of Scripture can be reinterpreted based on cultural considerations, then there is no clear boundary preventing the same method from being applied elsewhere. This is why I argued that selective hermeneutics opens the door to broader reinterpretations that extend beyond gender roles into areas like moral teaching (Morrison, Egalitarian Paper, p. 15) . Once the method is accepted, its application cannot be easily contained.

This is why Scripture must be interpreted in light of Scripture. One of the basic keys of interpretation is that the Bible must be read as a unified whole. The purpose of the Bible as a whole, the message of each individual book, the audience addressed, the context, similar teachings elsewhere in Scripture, and careful exegesis of the words all matter. Scripture does not contradict itself. If one interpretation creates contradiction with another clear teaching of Scripture, then the interpretation—not Scripture—is the problem.

That is why selective interpretation is so dangerous. It isolates texts from the whole counsel of God and allows one passage to be treated one way while another passage is treated differently. But faithful interpretation does not get to change methods when the text becomes difficult. The same Scripture that confronts our morality also confronts our theology, our traditions, our preferences, and our assumptions.

Scripture calls for a different approach. In Acts 20:27, Paul declares that he did not shrink from declaring “the whole counsel of God.” That phrase emphasizes completeness and consistency. The whole counsel of God must be interpreted with the same commitment to authorial intent, regardless of whether the text is easy or difficult, comfortable or confrontational.

In the end, the issue comes back to authority. If Scripture is interpreted consistently, then it speaks with authority across all areas of life. But if interpretation becomes selective, then authority is diminished. The Bible becomes something we consult rather than something we submit to.

So when we say, “The Bible says it, I believe it,” we must ask another question: are we interpreting it consistently? Because if our method changes depending on the passage, then our belief is no longer grounded in Scripture. It is grounded in preference.

And once that happens, we are no longer believing the Bible. We are editing it.