There’s a distinction made about what scripture meant originally and what it means today. This is important from both sides of an issue, to get to the heart of what a text is really saying. Here, what was the real meaning and intent of the prohibition? Since it doesn’t say, we can only speculate. (From my reading of Jewish commentaries, there was an impression that people were not responsible for biblical commands that could not be understood.)
Above, someone has addressed that as reflecting some cultural aspect of Paul’s time. But, the text is considered inspired for our edification, and we should explore all possible consequences of a text.
we should be open to the prompting of the Holy Spirit.
One thing that strikes me is that the prohibition of women speaking implies that men were doing all of the speaking, but it doesn’t say that exactly. So, what could that possibly mean? I doubt that ALL men were speaking when the church came together for worship. So, a lot of men were probably not speaking, not just women.
Another thought is that the upside of the prohibition might have been intended to force women to discuss the scriptures at home with their husbands for two reasons: 1) to clarify for themselves what the scripture was saying, and 2) to test the husbands to see if they were paying attention during the gathering.
We’re advised to look for and choose the most harmonius interpretation of scripture and basically to trust in it.
I have no direct experience with the Jewish Talmud, but it supposedly compiles the lists of various interpretations over centuries to attempt to arrive at the best understanding of the Biblical text.
I researched this a couple years ago, and I think there is a test in another book attributed to Paul that contradicts this prohibition or is otherwise describing a situation where women were, kn fact, having an active role in the liturgy. I do not recall right now where that is, but it is worth lookiing into.
