Huh? Because one verse, in the opening of the letter, relates why he is writing, we should ignore the entire letter as scripture? You cannot make this up. Let me explain how the bible works for Mr. Hyatt. The entire bible are personal messages from writers that have become universal edicts when placed into the canon of scripture. None of the writers knew their words would become scripture. When Moses, Isaiah, or Paul wrote their books, none of them knew God was arranging for us the Holy Bible. So, the book of Colossians was originally just a letter to be read to the Colossian Church. It dealt with matters at that church at the time of the writing, but holy inspiration guaranteed they would apply universally to us all in the church age because of the omnipotence of God. Much of Galatians for example was to address the heresy of the Judaizers that had infiltrated THAT church. Does that mean Galatians does not count unless we are at that church of have Judaizers in ours? Or does it apply universally if anyone is trying to tie us back to the law? C'mon Eddie.
"Reason #3 - A Strange Greek Word. That Paul is addressing a unique situation in Ephesus is further borne out by the fact that the word "authority" in 2:12 is a translation of the Greek word authentein which is found only here in the entire New Testament. If Paul is here giving a universal edict for church order, why doesn't he use the normal word for authority, exousia, which he and all other New Testament writers use. The obvious answer is that Paul is here dealing with the unique situation that exists in Ephesus. If he had been giving a universal rule for church order in this passage, he would have used the normal New Testament word for authority." - Eddie Hyatt
This seems to be the latest attempt to get out of obeying the key verses - one word secretly did not mean what we thought! Uh-huh. So, for centuries and millennia, everyone who translated authentein got it wrong until ole Eddie Hyatt came along? Please. A google search revealed a plethora of pro-women preaching articles grasping onto this new attack on the scriptures. Yet do you know what they all had in common? Not one could say what it actually meant because if they shared their conclusions, they would realize the context would make their point pointless. How do these linguistic gymnastics fit with God providing the reasons why women cannot hold authority? They don't! Not to mention you would have to believe that an omniscient, omnipresent God allowed the mistranslation in scripture to stand for centuries before using Eddie Hyatt to clarify, right. On top of that, the word authentein is not used in 1Corinthians 14:34, which is a cross-reference for the key verses. Scripture confirms scripture. To try and guess why a writer from thousands of years ago used one version of a word over another and extrapolating out your assumption to override clear and directive scripture is not hermeneutics. It is an assault on scripture. Hyatt's conclusion is only obvious to him because he needs it to be. There could be a hundred other reasons why Paul used the different word, including no reason at all. Do you think Paul writing a letter to his prote'ge' was considering the versions of the words he was using? Who writes letters like that? Please.
"Reason #4 - The Structure of Chapter 2 Indicates That Paul May Have Been Referring to A Particular Woman in 2:11-12. In vss. 9-10 of chpt. 2, Paul refers to "women" in the plural. But when he comes to the restrictive admonition of vss. 11-12, he changes to the singular and refers to "a woman." Afterwards, in vs. 15, he returns again to the plural. This may indicate that, in writing this passage, Paul had a particular woman in mind who was was primarily responsible for spreading the false teaching in Ephesus. Be that as it may, Paul, in this passage, is obviously addressing a unique, local situation in the city of Ephesus." - Eddie Hyatt
Has it really come to this Eddie? Just read this insane rationale again. The verse reads, "I do not permit a woman to" instead of "I do not permit women to", so Eddie Hyatt thinks Paul is referring to a specific person? What? How is that logical or grammatically viable? You can tell he even knows this one is bovine excrement as he is couching his language with "may have been referring" and "may indicate that." Let's take out this insanity for a test drive, including the context:
"I do not permit a woman Betty, teaching heresy at the church in Ephesus, to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
What in the world would Adam and Eve have to do with this if it were only dealing with one wayward teacher? Based on the context it is beyond obvious that Paul is dealing with greater doctrinal matters.
