“Women should remain silent in church. They must not be allowed to speak.”
Did you know the Bible says that? It’s in Paul’s first century letter to the Christians in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:34).
Did you know that because of this verse (and one other), many churches prohibit women from serving as pastors (only 11% of Protestant churches have a female pastor even though more than 50% of the members are female), yet, almost NO (that’s zero, none) churches actually fully obey what this verse seems to say rather clearly. So, what’s going on here?
I’d love for you to join me on my 5-year journey to discover what this Bible verse and other relevant verses actually mean. It’s very different than many assume. My book is titled, “Should Women Be Pastors and Leaders In Church? My Journey to Discover What the Bible Says About Gender Roles.”
In a very important part of chapter 8, each of the following points about this challenging verse are developed in detail:
- The traditional understanding of the prohibition passages (women cannot be pastors) does not adequately consider the historical, cultural, and local context of those passages.
- The traditional understanding of the prohibition passages proves too much (nobody does what it says).
- The traditional understanding of the prohibition passages contradicts 1 Corinthians 11 and other Bible passages.
- The traditional understanding of the prohibition passages is based on inadequate and/or misleading translations of key Greek words and completely misses the theme and structure of the paragraph. This is the most important point. A careful examination of the correct meaning of the words Paul used absolutely undermines the traditional view.
- The traditional understanding of the prohibition passages overlooks the strong possibility that 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 was added to the text later by a Scribe and isn’t part of the inspired Scriptures. This point is debatable, but looking at the evidence is quite startling.
My book is available (paper cover, hard cover, or ebook) from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Westbow Press (see the Home Page above), and personalized copies from me.
Dan Crothers
December 7, 2018 at 1:30 pmI believe you are wrong about this. It could be considered devisive in the church. I also think that continued posting it publicly is not proper for a person in your position. You should rethink this.
Dr. Bill Rudd
December 7, 2018 at 1:38 pmThanks for your feedback, Dan. I agree that the topic could be divisive. We should never be motivated by a desire to divide. But the important question is, “What does the Bible actually teach?” As Jesus said, sometimes the truth is divisive (Matthew 10:34). It is certainly not my desire to be divisive, but I must be faithful to share what I believe the Bible actually says . . . especially on a topic which has such huge implications for the church. Isn’t that the calling of a pastor — to teach what the Bible says even if some don’t agree? I welcome your insights as to why you think I have understood the Scriptures incorrectly. If I am wrong, I need to know and change. Please show me where you believe I have not interpreted the Bible accurately. If I am correct about what the Bible teaches, God’s children need to know. Thanks again for responding.
Dr. Bill Rudd
December 7, 2018 at 1:52 pmWhen many Southern pastors and churches wrongfully used the Bible to defend the institution of slavery, it was very divisive when others challenged them. But ultimately, the teachings of the New Testament helped to overthrow that horrific practice in England and America. What if many churches are similarly wrong about what the Bible teaches regarding the role of women in the church?
Caroline van der Haer
February 3, 2019 at 12:08 pm“The traditional understanding of the prohibition passages overlooks the strong possibility that 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 was added to the text later by a Scribe and isn’t part of the inspired Scriptures. This point is debatable, but looking at the evidence is quite startling”.
I think to insinuate that there are scriptural verses that may not be inspired scriptures (and there is nothing in the context to suggest such, exegetically), is a very dangerous and slippery slope to planting doubts in the mind, especially of the young and weak believer in Christ, regarding the INSPIRED word of God. Leading to all scripture being questioned as it suits this group and that group, regarding its Divine Inspiration. God looks over His word, and I’m sure He’s more than able to ensure His Word as we have it in the bible, is not adulterated etc. We can be thankful that the uninspired Apocrypha was taken out of our bible (except the RC bible), a book which was never considered to be canon in the first instance. The Apocrypha may contain historical truth however, it is mixed with unbiblical teachings and other such things. The scope of this email prohibits me from expounding on the Apocrypha but it is very easily ‘Googled’, for those who have no information or knowledge regarding it.
We can always rely on mankind to interfere with the Word of God, with his assumptions and vain imaginations of his own heart, twisting and bending verses to make them fix his own pre-conceived ideas and presuppositions, and thus totally corrupting the true meaning of scripture. Scripture, not man, must interpret scripture using proper hermeneutics: text, context and co-text. “A text taken out of context, isolated from its co-text equals a pretext”, an excellent rule of thumb to keep in mind when studying God’s Word.
Dr. Bill Rudd
February 5, 2019 at 3:01 pmThank you for your thoughtful comment and important thoughts. I hope you will do additional research on the manuscript and contextual evidence for these verses. I can give you some sources if you wish. However, hopefully you noticed that I did NOT build my argument on these verses on gender roles on the possibility that they are a scribal addition. Rather my position is based on a careful exegesis of the verses and a comparison to related Scriptures in the immediate and larger context. Virtually ALL biblical scholars (except perhaps those very few who claim that the King James English version is inspired and inerrant) agree that the verses in 1 John 5 about the Trinity (which the KJV included and virtually NO other English version does) were added by Jerome long after the canon of Scripture was closed. To add to the Scriptures is just as serious an error as to take away from them. I hope you have/will read my book in its entirety and specifically the chapter in which you found the objectional portion. Your comment is important but suggests that you either did not read the whole chapter or somehow didn’t perceive what I was saying. Thanks for participating in this important discussion.
Caroline van der Haer
February 16, 2019 at 4:59 pmThank you for your reply. I am going studiously through your book, making notes on questions I have. Hopefully, at the end of the book, you will have some time to address those questions, as I am sure you have much to do. Just one last note about Jerome. The addition which scholars believe he made with regards to the Trinity, is, I suppose, not contrary to scripture as there are many scriptures which clearly teach a Trinity (though I do find that a little disturbing nonetheless). For example: Matthew 28:18 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit”; John 7:38-39 “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'” ‘But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.’ And of course as you know, there are many more such references including in the OT. I’ve quoted the scriptures from the NASB, which is the main version I use, though I do have several other versions to hand, including a copy of the Hebrew scriptures. Thank you for your time.