What was Paul saying in these verses? How could it be harmonized with other texts from the Bible (including Paul’s own writings)?
First, I think we should observe the principles behind certain commandments; what the Christian should do is absolute, but how to do it might be relative (to different cultures, at least). Second, even if what Paul wrote is to be taken literally—that women cannot teach or should not teach men—that would be God’s prerogative, and He could determine things as He wants, and we should obey.
I will highlight at least two options for reading these verses. One with a bit more historical weight, with several possible contextual possibilities for the sayings of Paul; and the other with a higher view of the Bible, one in which the entire Bible, including Paul’s words are inspired and inerrant—even if we cannot understand it completely. I will jump back and forth between the two biblical texts.
A) The first try into understanding Paul would be to interpret Paul’s sayings in the context of first-century Jewish practices, or costumes. A bit of historical research shows us that Jewish women were always veiled in public in the first century. Women’s hair was a prime object of male lust in the ancient Mediterranean world; societies which employed head coverings thus viewed uncovered married women as unfaithful to their husbands. It is not part of the life of the Christian needlessly to disobey or to break accepted conventions.
Referring to the text in I Cor. 14:34–35 – Paul is restricting only one kind of speech directly addressed in these verses: asking questions. It was common in the ancient world for hearers to interrupt teachers with questions, but it was considered rude if the questions reflected ignorance of the topic (see Plutarch On Lectures). Since women were normally considerably less educated than man, Paul proposes a short-range solution and a long-range solution to the problem. His short-range solution is that the women should stop asking the disruptive questions; the long-range solution is that they should be educated, receiving private tutoring from their husbands. Paul’s long-range solution affirms women’s ability to learn and places them on equal footing with men.
Also, the context is a description of an early home church worship service where Christians were coming together to worship the Lord. And Paul says in this context that he wants this type of service to be led by men and that the women should remain silent in the worship service. But that isn’t to say that outside the worship service the women would not be allowed to speak. On the contrary, Paul talks about prophetesses – there were prophetesses in the early church. Philip’s daughters were prophetesses. The gift of prophesy was given to women, and they did exercise it in the early church. But apparently, at least in Paul’s churches, they did not do so in the context of the worship service.
With regard to women teaching, I don’t see anything in Scripture that says that women can’t teach children or other women or even men on certain subjects. But in 1 Timothy 2 Paul says that women should not teach Christian doctrine to men. In the area of teaching Christian theology in the church, you should have men teach other men, and you shouldn’t have a woman hold a position of authority as a doctrinal teacher over men. Whether we like that or not, whether it is counter-cultural or not, it seems to me that if this is God’s standard and order that he sets down, then we should obey it and abide by it. It seems to me that God, being God, has the perfect prerogative to prescribe whomever he wants as teachers. If God were to prescribe that none of us should eat beans, for example, as the early Pythagoreans believed that we should all forswear eating beans, that would be perfectly within God’s prerogative, and in that case we should obey him and do what he says. It seems to me that however counter-cultural it might be, given the type of service that is described here, Paul would not have women prophesy in the service. They would do it outside of the service. And women wouldn’t teach doctrine to adult males but could teach to females and children or they could teach men on other subjects or share their experiences.
Still, Priscilla was apparently a very gifted teacher. She is mentioned before her husband many times, not “Aquila and Priscilla” but “Priscilla and Aquila.” They took him aside and instructed Appolos more carefully in Christian doctrine. And again that seems to me to be perfectly all right because it is not done in the context of the church. It is in the context of the church that Paul is speaking here. This doesn’t mean that a woman can’t be the head of a business or a professor. I don’t think that Paul would want a woman teaching a class on Christian doctrine that would include adult males in the class. He would say that you should have a man teach Christian doctrine to other men.
And more, on defense of women, some Corinthian women prayed or prophesied in public worship. That Paul does not criticize the practice, but on the contrary lays down the way women should be dressed when engaging in it, shows that he accepted it. As seen above, there are several passages in which Paul approves women’s ministry. Romans 16:1–2, Phoebe, commended by Paul as a “servant” of the church; in Paul’s following greetings (Rom. 16:3–16), he lists about twice as many men as women, but commends more than twice as many women than men. Among the most significant ministers he lists is Prisca (a diminutive form of Priscilla); Andronicus and Junia; Phil. 4:2–3.
Finally, at least two points are clear regarding the passage in 1 Corinthians. Fist, Paul plainly does not command total silence of women, since earlier in the same letter he expects them to pray and prophesy publicly along with the men (1 Cor. 11:4–5). Second, there is nothing in the context to support the view that Paul refers here to women teaching the Bible. So, if any of the historical or interpretative solutions given are at least possible, we should not condemn Paul, but, at best, hold his claims in tension, until we can understand it clearer. And this leads to the second strategy for interpreting these verses (much shorter!)
B) The Bible’s ‘innocence’ should be considered first, before condemning it without enough hard thinking (innocent until proven guilty). Disregarding the Apostle Paul’s letters (or specific texts) because of its apparent counter-cultural suggestions might not be the right first step. Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God; therefore, the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God. After all, “we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ” (after Martin Kahler). Again, when we can’t resolve the difficulty, then we simply hold the truth in tension. We just hold two beliefs without knowing how they are to be reconciled, but with the confidence that if we did have the full amount of information, we could reconcile them. We just don’t have the information, and so we hold the truth in tension. “If you cannot find a solution to the problem, then either hold the truth in tension, awaiting an eventual solution to the problem, or else give up the minimal amount that you would have to in order to retain a consistent Christian worldview. But don’t allow them to stand between you and a personal relationship with God.” And a Christian worldview, I think, would not willfully disregard Paul’s writings as plainly wrong, since they are the inspired Word of God.
Comments, feedback, reactions... always welcome!
Sources: Geisler/Howe, “When Critics Ask;” Leon Morris, “1 Corinthians” commentary; C. S. Keener, “Dictionary of Paul and His Letters;”William Lane Craig, “How to Deal With Disagreeable Aspects of Christianity,” and his podcast on the “Doctrine of Revelation (part 3).”