And how, exactly, do you know what God wants if the Bible is ruled out as untrustworthy?
It’s a good question. Unfortunately it often requires rather detailed exegesis. Let me give you an example.
“1 Cor 14:33b (As in all the churches of the saints, 34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.d 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)
The first thing to ask when you look at a quotation is what question it’s answering. This context was about disorder. 34-35 seem to be a typical Pauline digression sparked by the mention of disorder. The behavior it’s dealing with is pretty clearly women talking during the service, or 35 would make no sense. The Anchor Bible thinks it’s more specific: “situations in which wives publicly contradict what their husbands say or think or embarrass them by an interchange of conversation.” But that depends upon whether the translation should be women or wives, which is ambiguous in Greek. I’m going to use a more mainstream interpretation, from the NIGTC.
In addition to a context involving order, 11:5 obviously envisions women prophesying: “5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.” Hence it doesn’t appear that Paul intends to prohibit women from speaking when it’s appropriate in the service, but rather from talking when it would be disruptive.
Unfortunately our translations often hide issues. Strong’s says that the word translated “subordinate,” in nonmilitary usage, means “voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”. Hence NIGTC translates “as let them keep to their ordered place” My paraphrase: “Let them speak only when it’s appropriate.” Similarly, quiet and talk are open to differing interpretations. If one said “children should stop talking in church” one would likely be understood as saying that they should stop making noise, not that one couldn’t be asked to read a Bible passage or otherwise participate in the service. “speak in church” uses a Greek word “lalein.” TDNT says it’s used in varying ways, but typically for “scorn” or “revile” or other negative types of speaking.
Hence NIGTC says that the majority of interpreters who don’t consider this passage an interpolation think it refers to a specific kind of disruptive speech, and is not a general rule for whether women can participate in the service. Part of this comes from looking at the Greek in detail, but I think you can see it even in English translations that may be misleading, by looking at verses around it and observe that they’re talking about keeping order, not the role of women, and observing that the positive command in 35 seems to be directed against a specific kind of disruptive speech.
Unfortunately, translations have to be based on how one understands the passage, and most existing translations are based on an understanding that women in general should be subordinate to men. That understanding gets baked into the translation, by choices such as “subordinate” rather than “in proper order” and “speak” rather than “talk” or even “speak disruptively.”
———————
Let’s look at another example, 1 Peter
2:18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh
…
3:1 Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct
…
3:7 Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex,a since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life—so that nothing may hinder your prayers.
I’ve started with 2:18 because “in the same way” makes it clear that 3:1 isn’t the beginning, and that’s the previous command.
So, again let’s start with what question this is answering. It does not seem to be looking at what kind of social relationships are best, since it assumes slavery is OK. So it’s talking about how to behave within the context of their culture. Furthermore, 3:1 seems to envision a situation where many of the wives have non-Christian husbands. Their obedience is intended, by emulating Christ’s own obedience and suffering (from the end of chap 2 which I didn’t quote), to inspire their husbands.
But none of this says that the Church shouldn’t, when it has the opportunity, consider whether slavery is appropriate, and what the best relationship between husbands and wives is.
Indeed this is the major question: to what extent are the letters letters to specific recipients, written within a shared 1st Cent Jewish and almost-Jewish environment, and to what extent are they intended as rules for ever and all cultures? I think the Church is free to make that judgement. In the 1st Cent, wives be subject to your husbands and husbands love your wives is just fine. Modern egalitarianism would have been a scandal, and the wrong scandal. (Our scandal should be the scandal of the cross, not the scandal of unusual cultural arrangements.) However in the 21st Cent, imposing 1st Cent arrangements produces a scandal of a different sort, which does in fact tend to hide the scandal of the cross.
