This post is in part a warning about a Book and in part giving insights into Jesus, and in part demonstrating the importance of accuracy in Bible translation, and lastly, the importance of the Bible student to dig beneath the English translation. The Article title is based on a book by James F. McGrath. He is the Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University. His Ph.D. is from the University of Durham in England. His interests include not only early Christianity but also the Mandaeans, science fiction, and the intersection of religion and science. He blogs at Religion Prof on the Patheos website.

A book like What Jesus Learned from Women by James F. McGrath might sound appealing to modern sensibilities, especially within a culture saturated with notions of reimagining biblical history through contemporary lenses. However, such a premise is flawed from the outset. It is not just speculative—it’s theologically and biblically irresponsible. The title alone implies a role reversal: that Jesus, the divine Son of God, perfect and sinless, needed instruction or insight from fallen, imperfect human beings. While women in the Bible certainly had meaningful interactions with Jesus and were recipients of his compassion, forgiveness, and teaching, to suggest that they taught him—or that he learned from them in the developmental sense—is to turn the biblical narrative upside down. This article serves as a warning against that book and its assumptions, while underscoring the necessity of accurate Bible translation and the diligent work of exegesis through the original languages.

James F. McGrath, a professor with a background in New Testament studies and an interest in the Mandaeans and even science fiction, argues that Jesus—like any human—learned and grew, and that women played a pivotal role in that development. McGrath draws attention to Luke 2:52, which says that Jesus “grew in wisdom,” and points to verse 46, where the young Jesus is described as “listening to [the teachers] and asking them questions.” He then makes the claim that Christians wrongly resist the idea of Jesus learning anything from women, implying that we have over-deified him at the expense of appreciating his humanity. But this is a textbook example of misreading both the Bible and the language in which it was originally written.

Let’s focus on the supposed foundation of this argument—Luke 2:46. McGrath, along with the ESV, CSB, and NASB translators, interprets the scene as Jesus sitting as a pupil, asking questions, learning from the temple teachers. In all three translations, the English reads, “asking them questions.” This phrase sounds passive, inquisitive, and subordinate. However, the Greek tells a different story.

The verb used is eperōtaō (ἐπερωτάω)—a form far stronger and more intense than simply asking. While erōtaō (ἐρωτάω) might be used to describe someone seeking knowledge (as a student might), eperōtaō often carries judicial weight—such as interrogation or challenging inquiry. It denotes the kind of probing examination used in legal trials or theological debate. This wasn’t the language of a child learning; it was the language of debate, challenge, and authority.

This fits perfectly with the very next verse: “All who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers” (Luke 2:47). Jesus wasn’t merely absorbing knowledge—he was demonstrating it. He was astounding seasoned teachers of the Law at age twelve. It wasn’t mere precocity—it was divine understanding manifesting early in life. Rotherham renders the verse vividly: “Now all who heard him were beside themselves, because of his understanding and his answers.” Robertson’s Word Pictures confirms this was not casual astonishment but jaw-dropping amazement.

This is not a twelve-year-old boy politely inquiring about theological curiosities. This is the Son of God engaging the religious elite and leaving them stunned. McGrath’s reimagining of the passage lacks both grammatical accuracy and theological grounding.

McGrath also uses the phrase “the idea of Jesus learning” as a theological hook. Indeed, Luke 2:52 says that Jesus “increased in wisdom.” Does that mean he was ignorant and had to learn from women (or anyone) in the way sinful humans must? Not at all. Jesus, though born a perfect human, voluntarily took on the limitations of human development (Philippians 2:6–8). But his growth in wisdom was not due to ignorance being filled by superior teachers—it was the unfolding of his perfect human capacity, guided by his heavenly Father. As Isaiah 50:4 says prophetically of the Messiah: “He awakens Me morning by morning, He awakens My ear to listen as a disciple.” In other words, Jesus was taught by Jehovah directly, and by the Spirit-inspired Scriptures, not by flawed human teachers—male or female.

Consider the Cana incident in John 2:1–11. Mary, Jesus’ mother, informs him that the wedding hosts have no wine. Jesus responds, “What have I to do with you, woman?” This was not disrespect but a declaration of independence—he was now operating solely under his Father’s direction. Mary had no teaching authority over him. She, like everyone else, had to accept that her son was now revealing his role as the Messiah. His “hour” had come, and it was not Mary’s place to dictate his actions (John 2:4).

Even if one concedes that Jesus, as a child, was taught basic knowledge by his mother and father (as would be expected in any normal Jewish household), there is no biblical evidence—nor even a biblical hint—that he learned spiritual wisdom or theological insight from them. On the contrary, Scripture teaches that Jesus quickly outpaced all human teachers. By the age of twelve, he was already teaching the teachers. After Joseph’s death, he likely assumed responsibility for the family, respectfully honoring his mother, but never subordinating divine knowledge to her maternal insight.

Further, the Gospels consistently portray Jesus as the teacher, never the learner. Mary sat at his feet (Luke 10:39), not the other way around. The Samaritan woman was amazed by what he knew, not by what he asked (John 4:29). Martha was corrected by him (Luke 10:41). The woman with the flow of blood was healed by her faith, not by something she imparted to Jesus (Mark 5:34). The Syrophoenician woman’s persistence did not teach him compassion; it was a test of her faith (Mark 7:27–30).

This is why it is dangerous to blend “historical fiction” and “biblical scholarship.” McGrath claims to blend the two for the sake of “fresh light.” In reality, he dims the light of Scripture with a narrative foreign to the inspired text. Fiction is not exegesis. Historical creativity is not biblical truth.

The implications of this book go beyond one author’s speculation. It reflects a broader trend in liberal biblical scholarship to humanize Jesus by diminishing his divine authority and sinless perfection. It’s the same trend that promotes inclusive narratives, recasts traditional roles, and places modern ideology above the inspired Word of God.

If Jesus needed to be taught by anyone on earth, he could not be the Son of God. If he had to learn spiritual truth from imperfect, fallen women (or men), he would not be divine, nor could he serve as the perfect ransom for mankind’s sin (1 Peter 1:19). He could not say, as he did in John 8:28, “I speak just as the Father taught me.” He could not declare in John 14:10, “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.” He was not echoing Mary’s instruction. He was reflecting the direct will of Jehovah.

This is why accuracy in translation matters. Words like eperōtaō must not be softened to accommodate a modern reader’s emotional bias. This is why we need to dig beneath the English and get to the inspired Greek and Hebrew. The Bible is not just a story—it is the divinely inspired record of salvation history. We do not stand over it and interpret it through our experience; we sit under it and allow it to correct us.

No woman ever taught Jesus. He was not the learner; he was the Light of the world. He created woman, shaped her in the womb, knew her thoughts before she spoke (John 2:25), and called her to follow him. The proper question is not what Jesus learned from women, but what we all—men and women—must learn from him.

You May Also Enjoy

What Practical Counsel Does the Bible Offer on Sexual Relationships?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS