Building on the backs of other Christo-Feminist writers, Hyatt tries in vain to explain something he simply does not understand. First of all the linguistics term for a word only appearing once in a given body of work is called a "Hapax Legomenon." The Greek New Testament actually has 686 such occurrences so the notion presented here as being so out of the norm is simply not supported. It certainly does not require the leap in illogic that Hyatt makes that it somehow must mean it is not addressing the normal exercise of authority within the church. Notice this is the pattern though beloved. We have clear instructions in two separate texts that are unambiguous and to try and pretend they don't really say what they do, Hyatt is forced to play linguistics games and insist that he knows what words the writer should have used if he really wanted to convey what has been obvious to everyone for thousands of years. It is not a "strange Greek word" it is a Greek word meaning authority. Here is the Strong's entry for this word, followed by more speculation from Hyatt:
http://biblehub.com/greek/831.htm
"The short answer is that it is the appropriate word for addressing the unique situation Paul and Timothy are confronting in Ephesus. It is clear from 1 Timothy 1:3 that the purpose of this letter is to encourage and instruct Timothy in his unpleasant task of confronting false teaching that is being spread in the church at Ephesus. In this passage, Paul reminds Timothy how he, Paul, had urged him to remain in Ephesus to continue confronting this false teaching. It is also clear from this passage, and others such as 1 Timothy 5:13-15, that the false teaching is having a particular effect on the women of Ephesus and causing them to act in ways unbecoming of a Christian. Paul's use of authentein is obviously the appropriate word for addressing what is happening in Ephesus at the time. In other words, Paul did not write 1 Timothy to lay out a church order for all churches of all times. He wrote 1 Timothy to encourage Timothy in his difficult assignment of confronting false teaching that had infiltrated the church in Ephesus. By not putting this text in its proper context, much of the church is today preaching a pretext." -- Eddie Hyatt
Wow. The leaps in illogic are staggering here. The contention being made is that because Paul opens the letter speaking about false teaching that it must be the context for the entire letter and beloved that is criminal hermeneutics. So when in Chapter Two Paul speaks to prayer he is somehow still talking about false teachers? In Chapter Three when he specifically outlines qualifications for church officers he is still speaking about false teachers? Of course not. The verses he reference in Chapter Five are also not about false teachers. They are about widowers and gossip. So note the absurd circular reasoning he employs to prove a point he started with. Because Paul used authentein instead of exousia, he must have been secretly trying to convey something else. That something can be gleaned by pretending the opening topic of the letter is germane to the entire epistle and that this topic of false teaching must have been a specific problem with the women in Ephesus because he spoke about gossip and widowers toward the end of the missive. Thus these are not instructions for everyone but only for these specific women in Ephesus. Again, wow.
Let me explain why this is a ludicrous conclusion. The first reason is the bizarre leaps in utter illogic that are required to reach this conclusion. Everything has some kind of secret meaning attached that has magically escaped all of Christianity for thousands of years until Eddie Hyatt came along. Secondly, these same instructions appear in a letter to a different church! Thirdly, what does Eddie do then with the key verses? If this was a local issue the reasoning given would not be that Eve was the one who sinned! Lastly and perhaps most importantly is the sovereignty of God. We believe in a God who sees all time and yet Eddie Hyatt would have us believe that He allowed such confusing passages to make it into the final canon of Scripture for an isolated problem occurring in one congregation. That does not pass the smell test.
'The fact that Paul addresses the women, plural, in 1 Timothy 2:8-9 and then changes to "a woman," singular, in verses 11-12 may indicate that he has a particular woman in mind who is responsible for propagating this false teaching. The specificity of the admonition is borne out also by the phrase in 2:12, "I do not permit," which, in the Greek, is in the present, ongoing sense and literally reads, "I am not permitting." This seems to point to a restriction specific to the current situation in Ephesus, with the meaning, "I am not permitting at this time."' -- Eddie Hyatt
What??? How in the world can you conclude that from reading these verses Eddie? Seriously. Paul uses women or woman correctly. There is ZERO indication he speaking about a specific person and as we know from his other writings; Paul was not shy about calling people by name. Then in his mind Eddie thinks that there is a vast difference between I do not permit and I am not permitting. I am not even sure he is correct and given his mangling of linguistics thus far I have doubts but even if he is right we do not get to add words on to the end of the sentence that magically prove our make believe point. The verse does not say I am not permitting at this time. It doesn't even say I am not permitting. It says I do not permit -- period. Mercifully for today he concludes:
"In summary, this one strange Greek word makes clear that Paul is not writing a manual of church order for all churches everywhere. He is addressing the unique situation that exists in Ephesus at the time. First Timothy is a personal letter written to encourage and instruct Timothy in his unpleasant task of confronting false teaching in Ephesus. Yes, one word in its proper context dispels the notion that women cannot teach men." -- Eddie Hyatt
