Eddie Hyatt is at it yet again trying to sell his book defying the Word of God...

::::::::

Image From Article
(Image by Unknown)   Details   DMCA

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. -- 1Timothy 2: 13-14 (ESV)

Sigh, it seems every week now I have to write about yet another biblical distortion by Eddie Hyatt regarding women in ministry. I realized last time that he is engaging in this media blitz because he is promoting his book on the subject. In these last days it is becoming more frequent that the church is compromising on what are clear instructions in the Bible regarding gender roles. I say this while reminding us that women are just as vital for the body of Christ as men. They can serve in nearly any role within the church except for two conditions that God has said they are not to usurp. One is preaching/teaching and the other is exercising authority over men. I say this admitting it gives me no pleasure in pointing this out. I know many powerful women of God who genuinely want to only serve Him. I know many men have abdicated their divine role in these last days. It would be easier to simply look the other way and say what's the big deal. Except God said what He said and He must have said it for a reason. Eddie Hyatt on the other hand is trying to sell books. His agenda is clear from the beginning. He believes in his own theology that is unbiblical and is trying his best to shoehorn it into Scripture. With each passing article however he seems more desperate and thus more obvious. Let us reason together once more as we review his latest butchery of the Bible in pursuit of elevating women beyond what God has ordained

"1 Timothy 2:11-12 is considered by many to be the Bible's clearest statement against women functioning in authoritative roles of leadership in the church. It reads, "Let a woman learn in silence with all obedience.I do not permit a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man, but to be silent." For many, this passage has become a canon within the canon and is used as the standard by which every other passage about women is measured. Passages that obviously recognize women functioning in authoritative roles of leadership are not given equal consideration but are subordinated to this one passage and forced to fit within the narrow parameters of the interpreter's take on this verse." -- Eddie Hyatt

We have several points here to address. First of all, canon means general rule, so yes Scripture sets up general rules sometimes so long as they are supported by the larger canon of Scripture, as is the case here. Secondly, one of the main rules of sound hermeneutics is that you defer to the clearer Scriptures. What that means is when you have a clear passage you do not make it even with one that requires hermeneutical gymnastics to discern. So 1Timothy 2:11-12 is considered clear by anyone not selling books. I do not permit is not ambiguous. We do not have to wonder what Paul could have meant when he said he does not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man. Thirdly, we see the gymnastics begin as Hyatt is forced to turn to passages that do not provide clear instruction but rather historical narratives that require the reader to make assumptions about certain women who appear in the Biblical story. We saw this in his last article when he concluded that because Priscilla is mentioned before her husband in four out of the six times they are mentioned that not only must she have been more important than her husband but that somehow she was Paul's pastor! Never mind that clear instruction in 1Timothy! I can read into a salutation to elevate Priscilla to a pastorship. How absurd. Fourth, Hyatt tries to throw shade at the clarity of the Timothy passage by pretending it is only a narrow interpretation which is ridiculous. Anyone with a third grade readeing comprehension can see what these verses are saying. In order to pretend they do not say what is obvious, one has to read something else into it, abuse other historical narratives, and peer into the mind of someone dead for centuries. Lastly here, Hyatt cleverly removes the remaining context found in verses 13 and 14, the key verses today. Beloved not only are verses 11 and 12 crystal clear but 13 and 14 actually give the reason why Paul stated what he did in 11 and 12! Oh that all Bible passages were this clear! Paul was not some misogynist or chauvinist. Remember, we believe the entire Bible was written under divine inspiration so it is actually God who wrote this. It has been popular in these end times to rewrite the Garden of Eden story so that Adam was next to Eve when she sinned but that is equally untrue. These verses corroborate that it was Eve who sinned first and was deceived. This is why God has determined that women should not teach/preach nor usurp authority over men. No matter how much Eddie Hyatt tries to twist the Bible to say otherwise.

'This, however, is not good hermeneutics. Passages showing women functioning in leadership roles must be given equal consideration and conclusions drawn after each passage has been carefully examined and compared. Even the non-academic leaders of the Azusa Street Revival understood this interpretive principle, and in the 1908 edition of the Apostolic Faith, they exhorted their readers, "We must rightly divide the Scriptures and compare Scripture with Scripture so that there is no confusion, and no deceptive spirit or wrong teaching may creep in."' -- Eddie Hyatt

Azusa should hardly be held up as a bastion of sharp doctrine but that aside Hyatt is right to state that we ought to use scripture to confirm scripture. Where he is wrong is in insisting that historical narratives that require assumptions and biased conclusions should be given equal weight to actual instructions that have been clearly given. This would be like contradicting the teaching from Christ about loving each other because we can find stories in the New Testament where it seems that level of love was not provided. The Timothy verses clearly state I do not permit. To then go find historical narratives where women are mentioned prominently does not change what that instruction is. As for Scripture confirming Scripture:

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. -- 1Corinthians 14: 33-35 (ESV)

This is from a different letter regarding a different congregation! It also says "as in all the churches of the saints!" The Eddie Hyatts of the world however will insist that there were problems with gossipy women in Corinth and apparently Ephesus where Timothy would pastor. That it was some local phenomena that Paul was addressing not a doctrinal statement. The problem with that is it is nowhere in the Bible. It is made up completely to fit a pre-determined narrative. Additionally, the deeper context in the key verses dispels such a conclusion. So Paul is referencing just these local women yet uses the fact that Eve was deceived as his reason? That makes zero sense. God is not the author of confusion beloved. We have two extremely clear passages that instruct the same thing and they trump whatever fairy tales we want to create about cultural or congregational issues that would somehow change what these clear passages say.

In my book, Paul, Women and Church, I show the numerous women whom Paul recognizes as coworkers and fellow-ministers. He specifically refers to one woman as an apostle and another woman as his spiritual mother. He refers to another woman as having "stood before" many including himself. There is no reason to believe that these women were confined to teaching only women. In the case of Priscilla, it is specifically stated that she was equally involved with her husband in instructing the learned Apollos, "the way of God more accurately" (Acts 18:24-26). -- Eddie Hyatt

Here is the first plug for the book along with an irrelevant and inaccurate point. The reason why it is irrelevant has been explained already. In the Timothy and Corinthian verses we have clear and matching instruction regarding women not being permitted to teach/preach or exercise authority over men. The inaccuracies are varied. The Bible does not refer to any female as an apostle. The person he is referring to is Junia, who most scholars say was actually a man. Even if you wish to overlook this fact and make him female, the verse reads as follows:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. -- Romans 16: 7 (ESV)

Junia is a what? KinsMAN. That aside the verse simply says that these people were well known among the apostles. That means the apostles knew these people well, not that they were actually apostles themselves. I am unsure who he is claiming was a spiritual mother but it doesn't matter because that does not mean that she taught or exercised authority over men. Neither does "standing before many." Again these are the gymnastics one is forced to perform in order to ignore plain and clear Scriptures. Now let us see if the referenced Acts verses help his cause:

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit,he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. -- Acts 18: 24-26 (ESV) -- Eddie Hyatt

As Priscilla and Aquila had spent time with Paul, they were better versed. So they explained the way of God more accurately to Apollos. Is this exercising authority over a man? No. Is it teaching/preaching to men? No. It even says that then Apollos went and spoke boldly in the synagogue. So because of this one event in a historical narrative, Eddie Hyatt wishes to toss aside the two much clearer passages that provide direct instruction. To quote him, this is not good hermeneutics. It is amazing that he can look at the Timothy and Corinthian verses and then write that there is no reason to believe that the women in historical narratives were confined to teaching only women. Yes there is Eddie! Because if they did then God is a liar.

In Paul, Women and Church, I also show how in 2 Timothy 2:2 (NIV), Paul exhorts Timothy to commit the things he has learned from Paul to "many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others." Although the King James and New King James versions translate the word anthropoi in the passage as "men," the 2011 edition of the NIV got it right for the word anthropoi is gender-inclusive, like the English word "people" or "person." If Paul had wanted to confine the teaching ministry of the church to males only, he could have easily done so by using a form of the Greek word aner, which is gender-specific and refers to males. Instead, he uses anthropoi and makes it clear that Timothy is to prepare women as well as men to teach others in the church in Ephesus. -- Eddie Hyatt

To those not versed in languages this might sound reasonable. A warning flare should have went off when you realize that his argument is that all translations of the Bible got this word wrong for millennia until 2011 when the NIV finally got it right. Uh-huh. Turns out when you refer to linguistics experts, they disagree with his conclusions regarding this word. Let's take a look at some other passages where the same word is used:

and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? -- Matthew 19: 5 (ESV)

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." -- 1Corinthians 7: 1 (ESV)

According to Eddie Hyatt Matthew and Paul should have used the word "aner" here instead of anthropoi. Yet we can see the silliness of his argument. Does "women" fit into either of these Scriptures? No and neither does it belong in 2Timothy 2:2.

"The same is true of Ephesians 4:8 (MEV) where Paul introduces the ascension of gifts of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher. He says that Christ "ascended on high" and "gave gifts to people." The King James and New King James versions got it wrong when they translated anthropoi in this passage as "men." The 2011 New International Version, New Revised Standard Version and New Living Translation got it right by translating the word as "people," for that is its literal meaning. These passages that show women functioning in leadership roles and teaching men should cause us to step back from using I Timothy 2:11-12 to marginalize women and confine them to subservient roles in the church. And when we consider the actual Greek word that Paul used for "authority" in 1 Timothy 2:12, we can be confident that Paul did not bar all women from teaching and leading men." -- Eddie Hyatt

Unfortunately for Eddie, the same is true for Ephesians 4:8. The word used here was anthropoi and it meant men. I understand that in our politically correct world we want to rewrite things so that everyone feels equally empowered to do whatever they want but God said what God said. The translations prior to 2011 had it right. Just check the Bible Hub Greek breakdown:

http://biblehub.com/text/ephesians/4-8.htm

The truly sad thing is that adhering to 1Timothy 2 does not marginalize women nor make them subservient. The person doing an injustice to them is Eddie Hyatt by suggesting they contradict God. Take a step back here beloved and look at these arguments being presented. Take a look at the gymnastics Hyatt has to go through in order to dismiss clear and lucid instructions found in two distinct passages. Now he tries one last time to muddy the issue:

The word "authority" in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is a translation of the Greek word authentein, which is found only here in the entire New Testament. The very fact that it is used only here should cause us to pause and question why that would be the case. It certainly indicates that Paul is not addressing the normal exercise of authority in the church. If Paul were addressing the normal exercise of authority in the church, he would have used the Greek word exousia, which he and other New Testament writers use over 100 times. That Paul uses this strange Greek word that neither he nor any other New Testament writer ever uses is a clear sign that he is addressing a unique and local situation in Ephesus and is not giving instructions for all churches everywhere.

Since the word authentein is used only here in the New Testament, it has been necessary to examine ancient Greek literature to see how it was used. Its use from around 600 B.C. up to the time of Paul carried the meaning of "gaining the upper hand" with connotations of control, dominance and even violence. In one case, it was used regarding a murder. The murderer was said to have committed authentein against the victim. From around the time of Paul and onward, authentein begins to take on a new meaning. Although the original meaning persists, it is now also used to refer to someone who claims to be the author or originator of someone or something. In fact, our words "author" and "authentic" are derived from authentein.

But why would Paul use such a word in this passage? -- Eddie Hyatt

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

Eddie now summarizes the preposterous conclusions he has reached. In over 2000 years no one else has been able to crack this secret code until Eddie Hyatt came along. He would have us believe God allowed this congregational instruction to make it into the Bible even though the Bible would not be formulated for four hundred more years. This is the way unbelievers parse out the Bible. He would have us believe that because the letter opens with a brief warning about false teachers that the entire letter is therefore about false teachers. No Eddie, one word does not dispel 2000 years of exegesis. No matter how many books or articles you write. This is what happens beloved when you form a belief outside of Scripture and then seek to proof text your belief. You start to ignore clear instruction in favor of vague interpretations of thousand years old historical narratives. You try and crawl into the mind of apostles long since passed to see what they really meant to write. You fancy yourself smarter than everyone who has come before you and a biblical gymnast on top of that. At the end of the day though Scripture prevails and you are exposed as just trying to sell your books and wildly unbiblical theories.

Reverend Anthony Wade -- July 13, 2017

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.