Women Teachers
That the church is beset by many schisms and parties is evident to all who are the least bit perceptive, and that party which maintains that it is unscriptural and digressive to have women teaching in Bible classes of the church is by no means the least bothersome of the schisms. There are many shades and hues of belief among our anti-women teacher brethren themselves, but the general outline of their positions is the same among them, namely, that it is absolutely unscriptural for the church to use women in its teaching program, and that 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 fortify their position.
All will agree that it is right for women to teach, and Bible examples and commands can be given to that end (Priscilla and Aquila, Acts 18:26; Philip's four virgin daughters, Acts 21:9; older women, Titus 2:3f). But the "anti" brethren maintain that these examples are examples of "private" teaching, not public. They do agree that it is incumbent upon a woman to fulfill her duty of teaching, but that it must be done privately, not publicly; that, therefore, the church cannot use them in its Bible classes, for that is public teaching.
Let it be said in reply that it is merely an assumption that these are examples of "private" teaching; whereas, especially in so far as the daughters of Philip are concerned, it is much easier to assume that it was public teaching, for the term prophecy usually carries the idea of divine guidance in the teaching.
But granting that all the above cited examples are cases of "private" teaching, Bible proof can still be given that women may publicly teach. Paul said, "But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head . . ." (1 Cor. 11:5.) It is only common knowledge that the women of the Orient of early centuries (and even now, to a degree) were required to wear veils in public. In the privacy of their home, the requirement was not imposed. But, Paul spoke of veiled women prophesying. Thus, we must conclude that their prophesying (teaching) was public.
Now let us consider the two passages upon which the "anti" brethren base much of their contention. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." These verses are related back to verse 23, and the "anti's" teaching is that when "the whole church be assembled together" the women must keep silence, i.e., they cannot teach, for that would necessitate speaking, nor can they ask questions, for that would break their silence. Their position is that verses 34-35 give a hard and fast rule for all women of all ages, and their interpretation of the passage is one of an absolutely literalistic nature.
But, the "antis" do not (and cannot, without being absurd) follow their own interpretation of this passage. If they did, their women would:
(1) Not be allowed to make the good confession of faith in Christ, for they must "keep silence."
(2) Not be allowed to confess sins, for they must "keep silence."
(3) Not be allowed to sing, for they must "keep silence." Singing is both "speaking" (Eph. 519) and "teaching" (Col. 3:16), thus a singing woman would be going against their interpretation of this passage, and their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which we shall notice shortly.
(4) Have to close their eyes when they enter the assembly, for "if they would learn anything" (not just some things), they are to ask their husbands at home, and, if they have their eyes open, they might learn something from a "blackboard" sermon.
(5) Have to plug their ears, so they couldn't "learn anything" from the sermon, for they must ask their husbands at home.
Thus, an "anti" woman must enter the assembly with her eyes and mouth shut, and her ears plugged! An unmarried woman, a widow, or a woman with an unbelieving husband is doomed to hell (unless the unmarried or widow would marry a Christian man capable of teaching her, and the unbelieving husband is converted and learns enough to teach his wife before he or she dies), for the women, if they "would learn anything," must ask their husbands at home. According to the "anti" interpretation of this passage (if pressed to its logical consequences), a woman couldn't ask the preacher, or anyone else, a question before services, after services, at her own home, anytime, or anywhere, for she must ask her husband, and that is to be done at home. According to the "anti" position, unless a man is present to do all the talking, women cannot meet on the Lord's day to conduct worship services (and, to be consistent, some of the "anti" brethren have been forced to admit such a conclusion).
The truth of the matter is, this passage is not binding today, in the same sense as it was when written. It was to guide in a general way the actions of the women during the period in which the various gifts of 1 Corinthians 14 were in effect. The entire context concerns miraculous gifts, and, since "God is not a God of confusion" (v. 33), things were to be done "decently and in order" (v. 40). Prophets were to prophecy one by one, and, while one was prophesying, others were to be quiet, and not to be in confusion. So with the women. If they wished to know the significance of something they didn't understand, they were not to disrupt the meeting, and act unladylike, but were to wait until later to find out about it. The passage can apply only to such women as had husbands capable of teaching them, and then the word "silence" must be considered to mean "hold one's peace" or to be in quietude (and such translations are equally permissible, according to Mr. J. H. Thayer), for the "anti" position will lead to ridiculous absurdities.
First Timothy 2:11-12: "Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness." This passage is used extensively by the "antis," who claim it teaches that a woman is to learn in absolute quietness (silence, KZ), even forbidding them to ask questions in a class; that she cannot teach; and cannot have dominion over a man. They believe the restriction of not teaching, is in the assembly of 1 Corinthians 14:23, or anywhere in public.
Concerning the word "quietness" (silence, K.J.):
(1) This word is the feminine form of the word translated "quiet" in verse 2, in which verse we are admonished to pray for our civil rulers, "that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life." Will the "antis" contend that we are to pray to the end that we may lead a tranquil and speechless life? Absurd!
(2) This word is exactly the same one translated "quietness" in 2 Thessalonians 3:12, "Now them that are such we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work . . ." Will the "antis" contend that when we work we must absolutely refrain from speaking? Absurd!
(3) This word is the noun form of the verb translated "held their peace" in Acts 11:18. Yet, Acts 11:18 says that while they "held their peace" they "glorified God, saying ..." If the apostles and disciples could "hold their peace" and still speak, why cannot a woman be "in quietness" and still speak, for the two phrases are rooted in the same word?
Concerning the restriction of women teaching:
(1) The "antis" believe this restriction refers only to teaching "in the church." If so, the restriction concerning a woman having dominion over a man refers only to "in the church." Paul made no distinction between the two clauses as concerns where or when. This interpretation would allow a woman to have dominion (usurp authority, K. J.) over a man anywhere besides in the church. Absurd thought!! Any "where" and "when" applied to the first clause must be applied to the second.
(3) The truth of the matter is that both the teaching and the having dominion refer to "over a man." "I permit not a woman to teach (over a man), nor to have dominion (over a man)." Now we know, from Bible examples, that women may teach men, but they are not to do it in such a way as to be unladylike, taking upon themselves authority which they should not have. A Christian woman should be in quietness at all times, teaching or not.
The "antis" maintain that we open the way for a "female ministry" when we permit women teachers in Bible classes. Not so! Women are restricted in their teaching by 1 Timothy 2:12. They cannot teach in such a way as to have authority over a man. A woman cannot preach, for preachers have a great deal of authority. (Titus 2:15.) They cannot preach, for in so doing they are not teaching in quietness. But women, may, and should, teach, in a ladylike manner, at every opportunity they have.