In 1 Timothy 3, Paul gives the requirements for an elder in the church. In v 2, he says that he must be “able to teach” (NKJV). That makes sense. A church leader should be able to teach sound doctrine.
But I have always had some questions about this requirement. Could a man be an elder who was sound in doctrine but not particularly good at teaching it publicly? Maybe he could discuss theology one-on-one, but not with a group. We have all met leaders like that in the church. In 1 Tim 5:17, Paul explicitly mentions elders who “labor in the word and doctrine,” implying that some elders do not.
The phrase “able to teach” is from a single Greek word. The only other time it occurs in the NT is in 2 Tim 2:24. There, Paul says that the servant of the Lord must “not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, [and] patient…” The other requirements for a servant of the Lord concern humility. The addition of “able to teach” seems a little out of place. Teachable would better align with the other requirements in the verse.
Recently, a friend who knows Greek a whole lot better than I do suggested that “able to teach” is not the best translation of 1 Tim 3:2. The Greek word translated “able to teach” is an adjective. Clearly, it is related to the verb teach. But is the verbal aspect of this adjective passive or active? (Verbs can be active or passive.)
If it is active, then “able to teach” would be an acceptable translation. But if it is passive, a better translation would be “teachable.” If it is passive, then Paul is saying that the elder must be teachable. The wise elder understands that he does not know everything. He is willing to change his view of things if the Scriptures confront him with any mistaken idea. This would certainly fit with the other requirements of a servant of the Lord that are listed in 2 Tim 2:24. A teachable elder is humble.
Even though the word is found only in these two places in the NT, it does occur in secular writings contemporary to the NT. In at least a few places, the word does not mean “able to teach,” but “taught.” In Titus 1:9, an elder is described as one who is “taught.” Paul uses a very similar word to the one he uses in 1 Tim 3:2 and 2 Tim 2:24. The only way an elder can be taught is if he is teachable.
In 1 Tim 3:2, is Paul saying that an elder must be able to teach or is he saying that he must be teachable? (Many would say both!) If the latter, Paul is saying that the leader of a church must be a student of the Bible. He is responsible for teaching others, so he must submit to what the Word says and learn from it so he can teach the flock.
I’m not willing to fall on my sword over this. But I really like what my friend said. While a leader needs to be teachable, it is also true for all believers. In my experience, one of the biggest obstacles believers have in understanding doctrine is the tendency to be unteachable. We can fall into the trap of thinking we know it all. We have heard something from a well-respected teacher or preacher, and that settles the issue. We become unwilling to let the Scriptures change our way of thinking. It is easy to become unteachable.
Did Paul want the verbal adjective in 1 Tim 3:2 to have an active (“able to teach”) sense, or a passive one (“teachable”)? I think my friend is right. But even if you believe otherwise, I think we can all agree that a teacher of the Bible must himself be teachable.
