Women Teachers
As Taught by a Woman Teacher

(Transcript of a message delivered at Shalom Hebraic Christian Congregation in 2020.)

In 1 Timothy 2:12 (NIV 1984) the Apostle Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” 

I have been ordained since 1984, and today will be the first time I’ve ever spoken on this verse because up until now, I’ve always felt it best to recuse myself on this particular topic. 

However, in the first part of today’s yeshiva, I plan to play an excellent video on Matthew chapter 1, and right in the middle of all those begats, as soon as this particular Messianic rabbi gets to Tamar, he feels he has to deal with the fact that there are four women—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba—who are actually mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy.  Whereupon he goes off on a very heated tangent and starts to talk about how it’s OK for a woman to share the gospel informally the way the woman at the well did, BUT as he then says, “That’s fine, but standing up formally in a time of teaching and worship, this is simply not permissible.”

Well, what to do?  Apart from that one thing, that video is really, really good, and I happen to enjoy that rabbi’s teaching. So I decided to show the video in this afternoon’s yeshiva, and address the subject of women teachers in this morning’s message.

So let’s talk about God’s attitude toward women in leadership.

Even in the Old Testament, God would from time to time use women in leadership. In Micah 6:4 (NIV 1984) God says: “I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam.”

We know from the Bible and from history that it is rare but not unheard of for God to use a woman even as head of state.  According to the Book of Judges, Deborah was not only a prophetess, she was also the fourth Judge of Israel. Similarly, in modern times Golda Meir was the fourth Prime Minister of Israel. In Israel, the Israeli president is the ceremonial head of state, but it is the prime minister who holds the executive power. 

Nobody can deny that there were women prophets in the Bible. There were Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament—and possibly also Isaiah’s wife “the prophetess.”

In the New Testament there was Anna and there were Philip’s four virgin daughters who prophesied, in addition to the unnamed men and women who prayed and prophesied publicly as long as they followed the dress code of the day. These men and women are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 (NASB) where it says “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.” 

Today this passage is generally seen as a mandate for both men and women to follow cultural norms, for men to dress like men and women to dress like women. But I’m not talking about dress codes right now, so you men don’t have to worry that I’m going to stand here and tell you that you should throw out your kippahs or give them to the women.  What I am going to say is that we see from these verses that both men and women did pray and prophesy publicly in the early church. We know they did it publicly, or their head coverings would not have mattered.

But what about the passage that says women are to keep silent in the churches? We find this in 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 (NASB):

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.  Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

First of all, even though 1 Corinthians 14:34 says “just as the Law also says,” Paul is not quoting Old Testament Law.  There is nothing in the whole Old Testament that says anything like this. And—since the Talmud didn’t exist yet when Paul was writing—it isn’t a quotation from the Talmud. So it must have come from the body of Jewish tradition referred to as the Oral Torah.

How do we explain what Paul says here? Part of what First Corinthians does is to answer some questions the Corinthians had sent to Paul. Paul starts Chapter 7 by saying, “Now, to deal with the matters you wrote about,” and then he goes on to answer a number of questions he had received from the Church of Corinth. Because of this, some people think when Paul says that women should keep silent in the churches, he is quoting a letter he’d received from the Corinthians, and that it was the Corinthians who said that women were to keep silent in the churches, whereupon Paul responded by saying what we read in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38 

Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. (NIV 1984)

I would like to say right here that this is only a theory, and I don’t see any way we can prove this theory one way or the other.

What other possibilities are there? According to Kenneth Barker, in the 1984 NIV Study Bible Notes:

Others maintain that Paul’s concern here is that the church be strengthened by believers showing respect for others and for God as they exercise their spiritual gifts. Such respect must necessarily take account of accepted social practices. If within a particular social order it is considered disgraceful for a woman to speak in church—and it was in this case—then she shows disrespect by doing so and should remain silent. There were occasions, though—even in their culture—for women to speak in church. For example, in 11:5 Paul assumes that women pray and prophesy in public worship. Thus his purpose, according to this view, was not to define the role of women but to establish a fitting and orderly way of worship.

Kenneth Barker continues by saying that still others say that in this context Paul is discussing primarily the disruption of worship by women who become involved in noisy discussions surrounding tongues-speaking and prophecy. Instead of publicly clamoring for explanations, the wives were to discuss matters with their husbands at home. Paul does not altogether forbid women to speak in church. What he is forbidding is the disorderly speaking indicated in these verses.

I know some of you are wondering how I personally interpret Paul’s admonition for women to keep silent. The Bible does in fact say, “Let your women keep silence in the churches.” There are some churches that interpret this verse so strictly that they won’t allow women to pray or sing or even make announcements about church events. I obviously don’t agree with them. Pastor Mort obviously doesn’t agree with them. Neither does Shalom’s founding pastor, Bron Barkley, who is the one who invited me to become one of Shalom’s pastors in the first place.

It is my opinion that in verse 34 Paul is discussing primarily the disruption of worship by women who become involved in disruptive discussions while church services are in progress.

Paul wanted the women to keep silent in churches. What did he mean by that?  I believe Paul meant something similar to the mother who was asking online how she could keep her son from speaking in class. I’m sure that mother was only asking about disruptive speech. I feel certain she still wanted her son to answer the teacher’s questions, to say “Here” when the teacher was calling attendance, and to get up and speak when the teacher asked him to do what we used to call a Show and Tell. My personal opinion has always been that Paul felt it was inappropriate for women to speak in church in the very same way that Johnny’s mother felt Johnny shouldn’t speak in class. Whether we’re at church or at school, we shouldn’t speak when it would be disruptive.  

Moving on, I’d like to cover the subject of women Bible teachers. I’ve already mentioned that the reason I’m giving this message today is because I plan to show a video this afternoon in which a rabbi claims it’s OK for a woman to share the gospel informally the way the woman at the well did, BUT that standing up formally in a time of teaching and worship, is simply not permissible.

Why does this rabbi think it’s not permissible?

He thinks it’s not permissible because in  1 Timothy 2:11-12, Paul says, “ A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.  But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (NASB)

Let’s look at this claim. In his book Who Said Women Can’t Teach? Charles Trombley asks: “Did women teach? The only verse that says they can’t is 1 Timothy 2:12, which directly contradicts Paul’s other teaching, other biblical evidence, and the historical evidence.” 

So what is going on here? I personally believe the best explanation—and it is a very Jewish Roots explanation—comes from a scholar named John Dickson.

In the rest of this message, I’m going to try to sum up what Dr. Dickson says in his book Hearing Her Voice, but to all the women preachers within the sound of my voice, I would say that you really owe it to yourself to read the whole book for yourself. In Hearing Her Voice Dr. Dickson makes a very strong biblical case that—and I am quoting him here— “There are different types of proclamation in the New Testament, and only one of them is not permitted to women.”

In English, when we refer to a term of art, we are referring to a word or phrase that has a precise, specialized meaning within a particular field or profession. Dr. Dickson tells us that when Paul used the word “teaching,” Paul was using a technical term for doing something similar to what the Pharisees did as they carefully preserved the traditions that were part of what they would call the Oral Torah—the traditions that would eventually be codified in what today is known as the Talmud. He says: For Paul, “teaching” (in the technical sense) involved carefully preserving and laying down for the congregation the traditions handed on by the apostles.” And he starts chapter 3 by saying: “As vital as biblical exposition is for the life of the church, when Paul refers to “teaching,” he never means explaining and applying a Bible passage; rather, he consistently means carefully preserving and laying down for a church what the apostles had said concerning Jesus and his ministry.”

The specific Greek word used in 1 Timothy 2:12—the verse in which Paul says he does not allow a woman to teach—is the Greek word didaskō. And Dr. Dickson says: “There are excellent reasons for thinking that Paul did not regard didaskō as a “catch-all” term. In fact, he seems to have thought of it as a specific activity, easily distinguishable from other types of speech mentioned in his letters, such as praying, prophesying, speaking in tongues, evangelising, reading (Scripture), exhorting, and admonishing. Obviously, all of these activities are related since they all convey God’s truth to others but the overlap does not dissolve the distinctions.” He goes on to say:

Let me unpack this a little. In 1 Corinthians 12:28 a distinction is made between prophets and teachers: And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets [prophētēs], third teachers [didaskalos], then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. The activity of teachers and the activity of prophets cannot be the same. Paul’s use of “first,” “second,” and “third” makes that clear. Whatever overlap there may be in the content and function of prophets and teachers, that overlap does not negate the distinction between them.

I want to remind you that Paul was a Pharisee. He was “circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee” Philippians 3:5 (NIV). Who were the Pharisees? In contrast to the Sadducees who rejected the Oral Torah and saw the 5 books of the Torah as the sole source of divine authority, the Pharisees believed in following legal traditions that were ascribed not to the Bible but to “the traditions of the fathers.” For Pharisees, the unwritten traditions—the Oral Torah—were just as binding as the written Word of God. The Pharisees of Paul’s day were the forefathers of today’s rabbinic Judaism.  

Today, when rabbinic Jews speak about “Learning Torah,” they are probably not talking about studying the first five books of the Bible.  Instead, most often they are talking about studying the Talmud—and studying it in some very specific ways. Rabbi Tzvi Freeman says, “Once you find that you are asking the same questions as the great commentators on Tanach and rabbis of the Talmud, then you know you are learning Torah. Today, the traditional way of learning is with a singsong voice that expresses the back and forth, rise and fall of statements and arguments, questioning and resolution. The song aids in all facets of learning—retention, cognition and especially enjoyment.”

We don’t know exactly how the Pharisees of Paul’s day taught and learned the traditions they passed on. What we do know is that what Paul called teaching referred to a very specific activity. Dr. Dickson points out that for Paul, teaching cannot refer to all types of speaking; from what Paul says it is different from exhorting, prophesying, reading, and so on. For Paul, teaching was not explaining a Bible text, nor was it applying God’s truth to congregational life. So what was teaching in Paul’s mind? For Paul, teaching was making sure that the apostolic words and rulings were well known and regularly rehearsed in church.

At the time 1 Timothy was written (early 60s AD), there was no New Testament canon. None of the Gospels had yet been written. Churches had no compendium of apostolic letters. All they had access to were the Old Testament and perhaps one or two Christian documents. So according to Dr. Dickson, when Paul refers to “teaching,” he never means explaining and applying a Bible passage; rather, he consistently means carefully preserving and laying down for a church what the apostles had said concerning Jesus and his ministry. 

In the first century, only about 15 percent of the population could read, and the most effective way of preserving and disseminating important material was by oral tradition.  Only when all of the books of the New Testament had been written (by the 90s) and made available as a “collection” (sometime in the second century) did written tradition begin. For Paul, teaching was a technical term—a term of art—that referred to the impartation of apostolic traditions. 

When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15,  “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” I’d like to point out that it seems clear to me that Paul was talking here about apostolic traditions, and not the traditions of the Pharisees. The traditions of the Pharisees were the traditions that were later recorded in the Talmud. The apostolic traditions—once they were codified—are what we refer to as the New Testament.

According to Dr. Dickson, the Anglican Archbishop Donald Robinson said that in the New Testament, teaching “is not just any imparting of information or any sort of discourse. It relates to a specific body of truth, the deposit of the faith.”

Are people still depositing the faith today? People today are certainly talking about the faith.  We are defending it. We are explaining it, we are exhorting people to do what the Bible tells us to do. But hear me on this—we are not imparting any new beliefs. According to Jude verse 3, we have a faith which has already once for all been entrusted to God’s saints. Our apostolic traditions have long ago been recorded in the Bible. 

Let me ask you this: Now that we have the written Word of God, should a woman teach? Should a man teach? Not in the sense in which Paul used the term. The New Testament canon has been closed.

For that reason, I would say that the practice of teaching, as Paul would have defined it, has been overtaken by events. We don’t do it anymore. Why don’t we do it? We don’t do it because if we did the kind of teaching Paul was referring to we would be adding a Christian Oral Torah to the written Word of God. 

I’ll close with this. The reformed evangelical Anglican theologian J.I. Packer put it this way:

Teaching, in other words, is a different exercise today from what it was in Paul’s day. I think it is an open question whether in our day Paul would have forbidden a woman to teach from the Bible . . . When you teach from the Bible, in any situation at all, what you are saying to people is, “Look, I am trying to tell you what it says. I speak as to wise men and women. You have your Bibles. You follow along. You judge what I say.” No claim to personal authority with regard to the substance of the message is being made at all. It seems to me that this significant difference between teaching then and teaching now does, in fact, mean that the prohibition on women preaching and teaching need not apply.

This concludes my 21st century teaching about what 1st century teaching really was. 

Call To Action

Now I want to do something a little bit different today. I am about to do a different kind of altar call. I believe we are on the cusp of a great revival.  I believe many teachers will be needed—teachers in the 21st-century sense of the word. Teachers who will read the Bible and explain it to new believers in many different venues: in Bible studies, in sermons, in home groups, and in many other places as the Spirit leads.

I believe a major revival is on its way. And I believe that as revival comes, we are going to need many seasoned saints (and even some who are not so seasoned) who will be able to teach the written word to others and exhort new believers to do what the Bible says to do. 

We will need many men and women who will teach in that 21st century sense. 

There may be men and women listening to this today who have ignored God’s call to teach in that sense. 

Perhaps you’re a woman who ignored God’s call because you thought God couldn’t be calling you to do what you thought the Bible was telling you not to do.

Perhaps you’re a man who ignored God’s call because you read James 3:1, which says “Not many of you should become teachers.” I believe James was also using the word teachers in the same way Paul did.

I believe there are people hearing or reading this today who for one reason or another have not responded to God’s call to teach. Bible teaching doesn’t always involve standing behind a pulpit.  Sometimes it happens in a Bible study. Sometimes it happens in a home group. Sometimes it happens at a Shabbat dinner. Sometimes it happens in the grocery store. For Philip, it happened on the road to Gaza when the Spirit told him to “Go over and join this chariot” in Acts chapter 8. So this is, as it were, an altar call for any of you—men and women, boys and girls—who know in your hearts that God has called you to teach His Word. I am asking you to say yes to the call of God you know is on your life. And if you have already said yes to the call of God to teach, but haven’t done any teaching lately, this altar call is also for you. The Bible says that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. In other words, just because you haven’t been using your gifts doesn’t mean God will take them back. You haven’t lost a single spiritual gift that God has ever given you. They may need to be stirred up—Paul told Timothy to stir up the gift that was within him—but those giftings are still there. If that describes you in any way, talk to God about it. I am agreeing in prayer with you that your teaching gift will be stirred up, that God will open doors for you to teach, and that God will use you in great and mighty ways.

Margot Armer
Associate Pastor, Shalom Hebraic Christian Congregation, Humble, Texas