Finny rejects the claim that Paul was mainly addressing first-century prostitution and appeals to Tamar in Genesis as a counterexample; what does that argument assume about how we should use the Old Testament to test popular “cultural background” explanations?
Another way to ask: Finny says Paul wasn’t mainly talking about first-century prostitution and points to Tamar in Genesis. What does that argument say about how we should use the Old Testament to test “it was just cultural” explanations?
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests we should test cultural-background claims against Scripture itself, using the Old Testament as a corrective when modern explanations lack evidence or contradict biblical patterns.
Support from Transcript:
He calls the prostitution explanation “a complete urban myth” and says “There’s no evidence for this whatsoever.”
He argues the Bible itself undercuts it: “In fact, the Bible specifically refutes that… Tamar, the prostitute, she actually has her head covered.”
He uses Tamar to show that “uncovered head = prostitute” is not a biblically stable rule.
He implies Scripture has priority over rumor: “yet another reason why we can’t simply dismiss this teaching on a mere cultural premise.”
Later he continues this method by using Isaiah 47 and Numbers 5 to define “nakedness/shame” and head-uncovering, rather than relying on modern instinct.
Discussion Follow-ups
How often do we accept a “background” explanation mainly because it relieves tension with the text? What would it look like to require biblical corroboration before adopting a cultural claim?
