Women as Teachers of Scripture

by Steve Atkerson
What does Scripture reveal about God's design for female teachers within the body of Christ? Based on Titus 2:3b-5 it is clear that older women are called upon to "teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." Thus, older Christian women are to be teaching and training younger Christian women, and the curriculum described could be categorized as home economics or domestic engineering. The objective of this "course" taught by mature sisters is to produce a future harvest of women who embody the qualifications for a widow in 1 Tim 5:9-10 ("the wife of one man, having a reputation for good works, having raised children, having shown hospitality, having assisted those in distress, being devoted to good works").

Interestingly, nothing is stated in Titus 2 about the older women teaching as their curriculum either theology proper or Scripture, nor about men being among their pupils. In fact, there is not a single example in the entire NT of women teaching men. Neither is there an example of a woman recognized as a teacher of Scripture. Some have pointed to Acts 18:24-26 (Priscilla teaching Apollos) as such an example, but is it really? Luke informs us that Apollos was already "mighty in the Scriptures" (18:24), "instructed in the way of the Lord" (19:25), and himself "teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus" (18:25). Apollos did, however, have a gap in his knowledge of baptism. Accordingly, both Aquila and his wife Priscilla took him "aside" and "explained" to him the way of God more adequately. It was a private discussion ("aside") and nowhere does Luke state that Priscilla did most of the explaining.

In any event, "explained" (18:26) is from ektithemi, which is different from "teaching" (18:25, didasko); notice how ektithemi is used in 11:4 and 28:23. While this does serve to illustrate that there is nothing wrong with men learning from women, it is not an example of a woman who has been recognized by the church as a teacher of the church. I know of only one other example of a woman teacher in the NT, and that is of Jezebel in Rv 2:20-25. Not many would hold her up in justification of women teachers!

Why is it then that there are no examples of women Bible teachers in the NT? The answer is that such a ministry was specifically denied to them in 1 Tim 2:11-15: "Let a woman learn in quietness, in all submission. Now I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being completely deceived fell into transgression. But she will be saved through the bearing of children, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with sobriety."

First, notice the parallel between 2:11 and 2:12. "Learn in quietness" corresponds with "I do not permit a woman . . . to have authority over a man." The same Greek word (hesuchia) is behind both "quietness" (2:11) and "silence" (2:12), and means "stillness" (the root means "tranquil"). Hesuchia does not mean mute; notice its usage in 2:2 ("quiet lives") and 2 Ths 3:12 ("settle down"). Thus, instead of teaching, women are to be learning; instead of exercising authority over men, they are to be in a settled down state of tranquil submission.

When Paul wrote, "I do not permit" (2:12), he used the present tense, which, in this case, carries the weight of a "gnomic" present, that is, a customary action or general truth ("I never permit") That this is so is obvious from 2:13-14, where Paul appealed to the order of creation ("Adam was created first, then Eve"), as well as to the particulars of the fall ("Adam was not deceived, but Eve was") to support the prohibition.

Hence, though men and women are equal in Christ, they have differing spheres of ministry. Submission does not mean inferiority, as Christ himself exemplified both in his earthly existence (he submitted himself to his mother and father [Lk 2:51]) and in his eternal existence (though equal to God the Father in substance Christ subjected himself to him).

That Adam was created first indicates headship, priority, and order in the relationship between men and women. God easily could have created Adam and Eve simultaneously, but He did not. Also, it was Eve who was "deceived" about the transgression, not Adam. Paul simply recited the facts as they occurred. Woman took the leadership, man submitted, and disaster resulted. God created the sexes with differing spheres of ministry, and confusing the two invites trouble.

It is popular today to dismiss 2:11-12 as something relevant only to Paul's day, but the fact that 2:13-14 goes all the way back to Adam and Eve shows that this is a timeless truth, cutting across all cultures. Similarly, others believe 2:11-12 was intended only for the Ephesian church. Yet Paul clearly cited Adam and Eve as the basis for the injunction of 2:11-12. If it was true in Ephesus because of Adam and Eve, then it is true universally.

Strangely, some have thought 2:11-12 relevant only to Ephesus because of the large number of women priests who served the female Roman deity worshipped there. Also, there was evidently much false teaching being carried on by the pagan women. So, to avoid all appearance of evil, Paul prohibited the Christian women of Ephesus (only) from teaching the church. This excuse for disregarding 2:11-12 is odd because others who ignore it do so on the presumption that the women in Ephesus were ignorant, unlearned, and not accepted in society as religious leaders or teachers! Whatever the case, Paul's reasoning for it is 2:13-14 makes 2:11-12 transcend all cultures.

Yet another way to understand 1 Tim 2:11-12 is that a woman may indeed teach the Bible (to men?), as long as she does so under the authority of her pastors or does so in a non-authoritative manner. The passage would then be interpreted something like, "I do not allow a woman to teach a man while under the auspices of her own authority." Is this a valid interpretation? An examination of the actual Greek wording in 2:12 yields some interesting observations. It reads, "But to be teaching, a woman, I am not permitting, neither to be having authority over a man, but to be in quietness." There are two distinct and separate things a woman cannot do. First, she cannot teach. Second, she cannot have authority over a man. It is a neither/nor situation. Notice how the verbs "teaching" and "having authority" are at opposite ends of the sentence. A woman who teaches the Bible (especially to men) is violating the very Scriptures that she seeks to teach.

One final argument used to dilute 1 Tim 2:11-12 stems from the reference to women who prophesied in I Co 11:3-10 (evidently in a church meeting). Treating teaching and prophesying as synonymous gifts, I Co 11 (along with Lk 2:36 and Acts 21:9) is used to overturn the seeming absoluteness of 1 Tim 2:12. The problem with this view is that teaching and prophecy are listed as two distinct, separate gifts in Ro 12:6-7. Notice, further, how in 1 Co 12:28-30 Paul states that "in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers . . . . Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?" Though there is some similarity between the two gifts (I Co 14:3), they clearly are not identical.

Paul's whole purpose in writing to Timothy was so that he would "know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" (3:15). Thus, Paul's statement to the effect that women are not to teach or have authority over men is, in a sense, cultural; but it is Christian culture!

I hope this article will be taken as truth written in love. While we respect the views of those who differ and accept them as brothers and sisters in Christ, it is disturbing to see Scripture so quickly dismissed as irrelevant for today. In our zeal to jettison the institutional trappings of modern Christendom, we must be cautious not also to toss out practices that are firmly rooted in God's Word.