“Teachers of Good Things”: Origen on Women as Teachers

1 Introduction

The aim of this article is to describe Origen’s opinion and discussion on women as Christian teachers. Origen was a remarkable exegete whose works at times possess a very creative and innovative quality, but he was, of course, also a child of his time, i.e. the third-century Roman world, and its social norms. On the one hand, in his works, he wrote as if the physical world and its sexual differences were but a stage to be overcome,^[1] and on the other hand, as we shall see below, he did adhere to a set of social expectations repressing women from being active and vocal in the public sphere.^[2] Additionally, in some texts, he emphasizes the restrictions on women’s teaching activities much more than in other texts. Therefore, when we study Origen’s works today, we can perceive his statements on women as social agents as inconsistent. Here, I shall not go much into Origen’s explicit thoughts on the creation of man and woman or into his sophisticated understanding of how each human possesses a female soul and a male spirit.^[3] As such, this article does not study Origen’s explicit theoretical or theological conception of the feminine, but investigates rather how he perceived women as agents in the social world around him. We can get a glimpse of his attitudes by studying his various exegetical writings. Of course, one must be cautious when dealing with men’s elaborations on women’s activities and possibilities. One must question what such normative statements really express, is it a male vision or the actual world? Even if Origen, as we shall see, did not find it proper for women to teach in public, women possibly did so anyway. Otherwise, it would hardly have been necessary for him to address its impropriety. I do to some degree agree with Elizabeth Clark that what we read in ancient sources is mostly reflective of the Christian male imagination and not necessarily of the activities of actual women.^[4]

As is often the case in Origen’s rich and varied works, one can find different and ambiguous statements about multiple topics, including the topic of women and their opportunities. Emanuela Prinzivalli is right in concluding that Origen’s anthropology and allegoric Bible interpretation occasionally lead to readings of the Bible that are much kinder to the female sex than one could expect in the third century.^[5] In a case study on the Sarah-Hagar-Motive, Miyako Demura even recognizes what she calls a feministic parallel in Origen’s interpretation.^[6] I would not go quite that far, since he, in other contexts, obviously cannot really put these egalitarian intentions into practice.

In the following, I present some examples where Origen reflects on and acknowledges women as teachers and prophets. Subsequently, I highlight instances where Origen denies women these possibilities, and finally, I consider why Origen argues with a certain level of inconsistency on the matter.

2 How Women Can Teach

We begin with Origen’s Commentary on Romans, which was translated and edited by Rufinus and is today known to us in full only in Rufinus’ shortened, Latin version. In this commentary, Origen dedicated a paragraph to Romans 16:6, which reads: “Greet Mary, who has labored much among you.” Origen elaborates:

‘Greet Mary, who has labored much among you.’ He [Paul] is teaching even in this that women likewise ought to labor for the churches of God. For they labor both when they teach young women to be modest, to love their husbands, to raise children, to be pure and chaste, to govern their homes well, to be kind, to be submissive to their husbands, to receive in hospitality, to wash the feet of the saints, and all the other things written that are recorded concerning the services of women to do with all purity.^[7]

Origen here uses one biblical text to interpret another, because his explanation of the greeting in Romans 16:6 is really a paraphrase of Paul’s Letter to Titus 2:3-5, where the role of widows in the church is described. Modern scholarship categorizes the Letter to Titus as deutero-Pauline.^[8] Titus 2:3-5 expresses the expectation that older women are “reverent in the way they live” and “teachers of good things (καλοδιδασκάλους)” who “urge 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.”

This morally and practically oriented “teaching office” which the Letter to Titus and Origen grant women was obviously unproblematic in “mainstream” Christianity, as it found its way into the biblical canon with Paul’s Letter to Titus. Older women should teach younger women how to act and behave. The curriculum comprised a set of virtues that were widely in accord with the Greco-Roman context: women should learn to be modest, pure, and chaste (sobrias, pudicas, and castas ^[9]), and to be kind and submissive to their husbands/men (subditas uiris suis). Origen added also another task for widows mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:10, i.e. to wash the feet of the saints. These lessons are passed on from older women to teenagers (docent adulescentulas). Here, in the Commentary on Romans, Origen does not elaborate further or mention any kind of theological or intellectual wisdom that should also be taught by older women.

However, when cross-referencing within Origen’s commentaries, we find that Origen did, in fact, understand this list of virtues and behaviors to have more than one meaning. Indeed, in other writings, Origen infers that the obligation of older women to wash the feet of the saints (1 Timothy 5:10; sanctorum pedes lauare) is not only to be understood practically, but also spiritually. In his Commentary on John 32.12, Origen writes about the widows, who are enrolled into ecclesiastical honor, and their obligation to wash the feet of the holy. He adds:

[…] I think it would be ridiculous to stop at the literal meaning …. And do not be surprised if you have to interpret the statement anagogically (ἀνάγειν (i.e. a meaning that is lifted up)), ‘If she has washed the feet of saints,’ since older women, analogous to older men, are commanded also to be teachers of what is good (καλοδιδάσκαλοι).^[10]

Suddenly, here in the Commentary on John the older women and older men are asked the same: to teach what is good. Likewise, in Origen’s Homily 6 on Isaiah – which was translated into Latin by Jerome – Origen interprets the washing of feet allegorically, he writes:

And, oh, that I might now take the water that can wash the feet of your soul, so that each one of you may say, when he has been washed, ‘I have washed my feet, how will I stain them?’ For the bride says this in the Song of Songs, not indicating bodily feet washed, but non-stumbling feet …. But indeed even some widows are appointed in the churches; it says, ‘if she has washed the feet of the saints.’ Yet, if you want to hear more clearly how the widow washes the feet of the saints, listen to Paul in another passage appointing widows and saying, ‘They teach well so that they may form chaste young maidens,’ washing away the dirt from the feet of the young girls. And those widows are worthy of ecclesiastical honor, whosoever wash the feet of the saints with the word of spiritual doctrine, but indeed not the feet of male saints, but rather the feet of women saints, for [Paul states], ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or rule over a man.’ He [Paul] wants women to teach well so that they may exhort not young men to chastity, but young maidens – indeed, it is improper that a woman be made the teacher of a man – so that they may exhort young maidens to chastity and to love their husbands and children. Therefore, let us learn to wash the feet of the disciples. For this reason, these things have been said: ‘Seeing, you will see and not understand.’ … for truly each thing that was done in the body was a likeness and type of future things.^[11]

Consequently, in two texts by Origen, we see how he goes out of his way (and away from the biblical text’s literal meaning) to underline that the biblical obligation to “wash the feet of the saints” does not (only) refer to a concrete act of cleaning a part of the body, but refers also to the act of communicating “spiritual doctrine” that keeps the soul clean: “wash the feet of the saints with the word of spiritual doctrine” (sanctorum pedes lavant sermone spiritalis doctrinae). Since Origen in two instances is very certain about his allegorical interpretation of this, it could be Rufinus who omitted this interpretation in the Commentary on Romans, but that is speculation.

Origen (in Jerome’s translation) stresses that, of course, women can only teach women (because he believes in the authority of First Timothy 2:12 which forbids women to teach in the assembly and to teach men). However, he does assume that women in principle can teach doctrinal content, but only to other women, since women teaching men would be improper (indecens). Origen also acknowledges that some might have a hard time following his allegorical interpretation when he jumps from a literal instruction to wash someone’s feet to the allegorical meaning that women should teach heavenly wisdom for the sake of creating pure souls. However, he ensures his readers and listeners that he knows what he is doing, because he is one of those who both sees and understands. Origen thus seems intentionally to read also intellectual abilities and doctrinal teaching into the expectations toward elderly women in a congregation and does so by way of the sentence about washing the feet of the saints. However, although he makes use of an allegorical reading, he remains bound by his presupposition that it is improper for women to teach men, caught as he is between an understanding that women can be entrusted to teach “spiritual doctrine,” on the one hand, and on the other hand, he is bound by the biblical restrictions and the sentiment of his time that denied women the right to speak in public or teach men.

In a similar manner, Origen is ambiguous when it comes to women’s right to prophesize. Although teaching and prophesizing are two different speech acts, they are often related in the early church, and it is worth also lingering on the topic of prophecy in this investigation. In his Homily on Judges, translated into Latin by Rufinus, Origen underlines that out of many judges of Israel, only one was also a prophet, and that was a woman: Deborah. Origen writes that: “[…] although a very great number of judges in Israel are reported to have been men, about none of them is it said that he was a “prophet” except ‘Deborah, a woman.’”^[12] From this observation, Origen goes on to interpret Deborah in both a historical/literal sense and an allegorical sense. Firstly, he underlines that Deborah is a historical example that testifies to the fact that also women can receive heavenly teachings as prophets and can overcome their frail constitution:

[Deborah as a prophet] renders to the female sex not a small consolation, for it invites women to avoid despairing in any way on account of the weakness of their sex, for even they themselves can become capable of prophetic grace, and indeed they may understand and believe that the purity of mind, not the difference of their gender, merits this grace.^[13]

Here, notably, Origen highlights a human’s “purity of mind” as a more important characteristic than his or her sex.^[14] With mens pura, Rufinus could be referring to the pure mind or intellect, which, according to Origen, allows a human being to draw near to the Word of God and thereby come close to the fulfillment of life and perfect contemplation.^[15] It would seem that Origen, with this phrase – purity of mind – is emphasizing that women are also capable of receiving and comprehending the Word of God. Secondly, Origen interprets Deborah as a symbol or a figure for prophecy as such:

But let us also see what aspect of the interior sense breathes forth a mystery. ‘Deborah’ means ‘bee’ or ‘speech.’ But indeed also in the passages above we said that Deborah is to be received in the form of a prophecy, which is a bee. For it is certain that every prophecy produces the sweet honeycombs of heavenly teaching and the sweet honey of the Divine Word.^[16]

This means that Deborah is understood both as an actual woman who could speak prophetic words, and she is understood as prophecy personified, the mediator of “heavenly teaching and the sweet honey of the Divine Word.” Origen goes on to say that the Church is led by the grace and wisdom of prophecy,^[17] and not only does she/Deborah/prophecy “raise” herself “up,” but she also “arouses” the people toward believing. Furthermore, in Homily on Judges, Origen does not hide women’s ability to act and speak among people. He also dwells on the topic that God by His powers can enable even the frailest human to act with strength. This is a trope often used about women in particular.^[18]

For that reason the prophet [Deborah] says: ‘Lord, humble for me those stronger than I am.’ For how may this so very great power of the spirits not be far more powerful than human fragility? But in him, Christ, God ‘aids us in our weakness,’ in relation to whom the Apostle says: ‘I can do all things in him who strengthens me greatly,’ Christ. Therefore, those powers are truly stronger than we are, but, again, Christ, who is in us and strengthens us greatly, is stronger than all things, ‘to whom are glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.’^[19]

Whether Origen means that all human beings must rely on the strength that God can give them, or he deliberately mentions this in relation to Deborah, who as a woman needs to be strengthened from outside, is unclear. But it is clear that in Origen’s Homilies on Judges, women are presented as very capable, because they can be pure of mind and be strengthened by Christ in their endeavors.

3 But Women Should Not Teach – Why?

In Origen’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (transmitted in a catena), Origen takes a very clear stance against female prophets and teachers acting in public or in front of men. In an argument that takes Paul’s remarks at face value, Origen states that: women should not teach, not because women cannot receive or understand the word of God, but simply because they should not speak in public. Since this comment is found as a fragment in a later compilation of exegetical commentaries, a so-called catena, we cannot know if Origen’s original wording is changed or paraphrased. Nonetheless, the fact that Origen in this transmitted commentary expresses a frank opinion against women teachers can be explained by a dual focus in the text: not only is he commenting on the biblical text (which often leads him to creative and open-ended interpretations), but he is also addressing a specific historical context. Origen’s concern stems from the rise of the Montanist movement, where female prophets such as Priscilla and Maximilla assumed leadership roles, prompting Origen to critique their influence:

Although all speak and are allowed to speak when they are granted a revelation, ‘the women,’ he says, ‘should keep silent in the churches.’ They in no way fulfill this command, those disciples of women, who chose as their master Priscilla and Maximilla, not Christ, the Spouse of the Bride.^[20]

Origen goes on to present arguments both for and against the activities of women prophets depending on whether these actions are performed in public or not:

But, let us be good-natured players, and cope with the arguments which they judge convincing. The Evangelist Philip, they say, had four daughters, and all prophesied. If they prophesied, what is strange, they ask, if our own prophetesses — as they are called — also prophesy? Let us then resolve this difficulty. First, since you say: ‘Our women prophesied,’ show in them the signs of prophesy. Second, if the daughters of Philip prophesied, at least they did not speak in the assemblies; for we do not find this fact in the Acts of the Apostles. Much less in the Old Testament. It is said that Deborah was a prophetess. Mary, the sister of Aaron, tambourine in hand, led the choir of women. There is no evidence that Deborah delivered speeches to the people, as did Jeremiah and Isaiah. Hulda, who was a prophetess, did not speak to the people, but only to a man, who consulted her at home. The Gospel itself mentions a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser; but she did not speak publicly. Even if it is granted to a woman to prophesy and show the sign of prophecy, she is nevertheless not permitted to speak in an assembly. When Mary, the prophetess, spoke, she was leading a choir of women. For: ‘It is improper for a woman to raise her voice at meetings,’ and: ‘I am not giving permission for a woman to teach’ and even less ‘to tell a man what to do.’ (1 Timothy 2:12).^[21]

From this paragraph, it becomes clear that Origen’s main problem with women speaking in public is not what they say, but simply what he perceives as a mistake: that women are speaking in public or in an assembly, which, according to Origen, no real woman prophet ever did.^[22] One can reflect on the fact that Origen did not make this point in his mentioning of Deborah in Homily on Judges. In Commentary on 1 Corinthians, Origen goes on to underline what women are supposed to do (in accordance with Titus 2, 3–5), but also what they are not authorized to do, i.e. teaching men:

Although those given above say more categorically that a woman does not have the right by her word to guide a man, I shall further prove this position from another text. ‘Bid the old women to behave themselves as befits holy women, teaching what is good, in order to form young women in wisdom,’ and not simply ‘Let them teach.’ Certainly, women should also ‘teach what is good,’ but men should not sit and listen to a woman, as if there were no men capable of communicating the word of God.^[23]

In the following, Origen continues to emphasize the restriction on women in relation to teaching and even speaking in an assembly:

‘If they [women] have any question to ask, they should ask their husbands at home: it does not seem right for a woman to raise her voice at meetings.’ It seems to me that the expression ‘their husbands’ does not refer only to husbands; for if that were the case, either virgins would speak in the assembly, or they would have nobody to teach them, and the same is true for widows. But could ‘their husbands’ not also mean a brother, a relative, or a son? In short, let a woman learn from the man who is her own, taking “man” in its generic sense, as the counterpart of ‘woman.’ ‘For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly,’ no matter what she says, even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman. ‘A woman in an assembly’: clearly this abuse is denounced as improper — an abuse for which the entire assembly is responsible.^[24]

In this instance, Origen does not expand the meaning of the biblical commandment by mentioning a parallel text or an allegorical reading. On the contrary, he considers how to understand the prohibition on women speaking in the church in an even more comprehensive way. Since not all women have a husband, it is not only teaching a husband that poses a problem, but teaching any man to whom the woman in effect “belongs.” As Origen here realizes that the biblical text is vague, he goes on to narrow its meaning further. This is in sharp contrast to the above-mentioned instances of exegesis by Origen, where he broadens the meaning of concrete biblical words.

Why is women speaking in the church improper (κατὰ τὸ αἰσχρὸν)? Origen does not explain it, but he takes it for granted that people would agree on this, based on the Pauline prohibition. In this particular commentary, all egalitarian anthropology that we could expect to find in Origen’s works is disregarded, in order to make sure that Christians do not disturb current norms, according to which women should not speak in public or begin to teach men in private.

Also in his Homilies on Joshua, translated by Rufinus, Origen underlines that women should not teach. He writes:

Consequently, women are appointed to be taught by their husbands at home and are assigned the part more of learners than of teachers (magis in discipulorum quam docentium). No one comes to my aid who is not able to teach me, and from whom I do not find something that I ought to imitate or hold fast.^[25]

From this conclusion, however, Origen goes on to elaborate that not only women act in a “womanly way,” but occasionally men do too, and, on the other hand, some women act manly.

But you also who under the name ‘women’ are weak, slack, and sluggish, may you be warned so that ‘you may raise up the slack hands and loose knees,’ that is, that you may stir up neglectful and idle spirits and assume a bold firmness in accomplishing legal and gospel precepts and hasten swiftly to the perfection of strong men. For divine Scripture does not know how to make a separation of men and women according to sex. For indeed sex is no distinction in the presence of God, but a person is designated either a man or woman according to the diversity of spirit. How many out of the sex of women are counted among the strong men before God, and how many of the men are reckoned among slack and sluggish women? Or does it not seem to you that that man must be judged among ‘women’ who says, ‘I am not able to observe those things that are written, I am not able ‘to sell what I have and give to the poor,’ I am not able ‘to present the other cheek to the one who strikes,’ I am not able ‘to bless the person cursing,’ I am not able ‘to pray for the blasphemer,’ I am not able ‘to suffer and endure persecution’; and other similar things that are commanded? The one who says, ‘I am not able to accomplish,’ what else does it seem to you than that he must be counted among women, who can do nothing manly?^[26]

“Women” here are thus a synonym for “weak,” but that does not mean that Origen finds all women weak. On the contrary, both men and women can progress spiritually on a scale from “female” toward “male.” Obviously, Origen does not want to say that Christian perfection is limited to the male sex, but that Christian accomplishment can be achieved by males and females alike. However, this Christian equality among men and women is related to practice and fulfilment of Christian instructions, not to their dissemination. According to Origen, women should not (even when they could) teach these instructions in any assembly or to any man. In my understanding, Origen thus remains ambiguous in his comments on women as teachers. Origen is clear in his rejection of women as teachers in public or for men, “even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things.” In other words, Origen does not explicitly question women’s ability to teach Christian content, but the impropriety of the action. This rationale may seem illogical to a modern mindset, but it would have appeared as a normal and decent attitude in Origen’s original context. It seems that Origen did not systematically consider women’s active engagement in the church; thus, one can infer that the topic was not high on his agenda. When studying Origen’s approach to the actual agency of women, we must suffice with sporadic comments on the topic in his writings, where he occasionally gives advice that seems dependent on his immediate – and for us rather elusive – context. However, it would be incorrect to think that the question of which authoritative roles to allow for women did not exist in early Christianity, as the Montanist movement, for example, allowed women active roles within their congregations.

4 Argumentation Depending on the Context

Although Origen never explicitly encourages women to teach in general, it is obvious that his remarks on the topic are varied and slightly inconsistent. Only in some texts does he emphasize the restrictions on women’s role as “teachers of good things” and as prophets. One might ask if there is, nonetheless, some internal logic or systematicity in Origen’s remarks on women as teachers. We can observe that Origen is most dismissive of women's teachings and, at the same time, most literal in his exegesis in his Commentary on Romans, Commentary on 1 Corinthians (in catena) and in Homilies on Joshua. On the other hand, he is most encouraging of elderly women teaching (women), even “in spiritual doctrines,” in Homilies on Isaiah, Homilies on Judges and Commentary on John, Book 32. It is in two of the latter texts that he goes into creative allegorical interpretations, most notably in Homily 6 on Isaiah where he interprets the phrase “if she has washed the feet of the saints” to mean that elderly women ought to teach young women “with the word of spiritual doctrine” and thereby keep the souls of young women clean. Interestingly, he introduces this arguably far-fetched interpretation with the confident opening: “I think it would be ridiculous to stop at the literal meaning.”

Pierre Nautin has suggested that Homilies on Judges (maybe written 239-42) and the Commentary on John, Book 32 (maybe written 248) are some of Origen’s mature works.^[27] Could this indicate a change in Origen’s opinion on the matter of women’s activity over time, or perhaps rather a general inclination in his writings toward more pragmatic, pastoral approaches later in his life? Such arguments, based on the insecure chronology of Origen’s works, are speculative. Furthermore, there seems to be no systematicity in relation to the genres in which certain positions occur, although there might be a slight tendency for Origen to encourage women in homilies more than in commentaries which probably had a different audience. Anders-Christian Jacobsen has convincingly shown that Origen’s, at first glance, slightly diffuse conceptions of Christology and soteriology are, in fact, consistent. The hermeneutical key, which Jacobsen suggests, is to focus on the audience of Origen’s texts and see how Origen adjusts his expressions to various audiences: “To weak and uneducated Christians he presents basic teaching, mainly in the homilies, while to the more spiritually advanced Christians he presents the deeper levels, mainly in the biblical commentaries.”^[28] With this perspective, Jacobsen maintains that “behind the diversity, there is unity.”^[29] However, when this method is applied to Origen’s remarks on women’s teaching legitimacy, there is no real tendency for him to adjust his opinion to a particular general genre with a certain audience. He relativizes gender characteristics in his Homilies on Joshua, and excludes women most vehemently from public speaking in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians (in Catena). In Homily on Judges 5, he comments on women’s ability to receive merit due to their “purity of mind,” but does not combine this mental ability with a general justification for women to be included in public conversations.

Most probably, Origen chose his words carefully to match concrete contexts and acute situations, which could explain why he suddenly preached against the Montanists and their prophesising women leaders in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (in Catena), while in another situation he praised Deborah for having prophesied according to the Book of Judges. In other words, the slight variations in Origen’s argumentation could indicate different occurrences in the social world surrounding him. He seems to have sanctioned elderly women to be teaching authorities for women, but he could not tolerate women dominating public spaces. As such, in terms of social conduct, he was a child of his time, and he did not use his thoughts on creation and salvation to raise awareness of women’s teaching authority. On the other hand, he also did not argue theologically to diminish women’s authority as intelligent agents.

5 Conclusion

In his writings, Origen revisits the topic of women’s roles in Christian congregations several times. It seems that Origen addressed this topic because women were active both in the congregations which he frequented and in movements he deemed heretical, such as the Montanists. Origen appears to have accepted that women could hold certain offices, such as women deacons and widows, and should be allowed to teach other women in the congregation. However, when describing female agents, he predominantly referred to biblical examples like Mary, Phoebe, and Deborah. Consequently, the discussion of women’s agency in the church remains largely theoretical in Origen’s writings. An inconsistency noticeable to a modern reader arises in Origen’s normative statements that women can possess “purity of mind” and speak “saintly things,” yet he considered it “indecent” for women to teach in assemblies.

The role of a teacher and that of a prophet are different, but occasionally these forms of agency overlap in Origen’s work and therefore in the current discussion. In Origen’s view, women could both prophesize and teach, but it was dangerous for women to speak in public and take authority over men. At times, Origen emphatically underlined that women were not allowed to speak and teach in public or in front of men, while in other writings he emphasized women’s ability and right to work in the church, teach younger women, and hold service positions. Origen highlighted women’s service to the church as deserving both reward and honor, as seen in his Commentary on Romans when he discussed Paul’s commendation of sister Phoebe^[30] – but that is another topic.