Eddie Hyatt is at it again. Mutilating scripture to try and say what God has not said...

::::::::

I do not permit a woman 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. -- 1Timothy 2:12-14 (ESV)

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. 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)

https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/75541-what-does-the-bible-really-say-about-women-in-leadership

Beloved, I know plenty of God-fearing Christian women who can preach the paint off the walls. I consider them friends. This has never been a subject that has brought me any joy. Yet I continuously get emails from Christian women who want to know what God has to say about the very controversial subject of women in the pulpit. When one approaches the Bible objectively and not trying to prove a pre-bias, one must conclude that women are not permitted to hold teaching or preaching positions of authority over men. Our two verses today come from different books and address the topic the exact same way. These are directional passages. They are instructional by nature. The Timothy verses are actually Paul instructing young Timothy as he headed off to pastor the Church at Ephesus. There is no ambiguity in these verses beloved. The language of "I do not permit" and "they are not permitted" is not open for a different interpretation. Those who defend the rise of Christo-feminism know this and do not dispute what the word says so they attack why they think it was said. They engage in what I call scriptural gymnastics.

Suddenly they are cultural experts about the inner workings of the church at Corinth. Suddenly Paul wrote this because of a specific problem with women gossiping in THAT church but not to be taken as instruction for the church. This is a hollow argument since nowhere else in the bible do we pretend that the cultural issues have any impact on what God wrote. Another tact is to turn Paul into a misogynist and ignore the fact that we believe in divine inspiration. God wrote the bible beloved, not Paul. Not only did He place this prohibition on women but He even tells us why in the Timothy passages -- because Eve was deceived in the garden. Before you start questioning the fairness of God you must realize that He decides and His ways are far above ours. He is the same God that refused to allow Moses to see the Promised Land because he struck the rock. He is the same God who struck Uzzah dead for trying to steady the Ark of the Covenant and not let it fall to the ground. Besides using culture and turning Paul into a woman hater, Christo-feminists love to exalt the roles some women have played in the bible as if that must mean we can dismiss the directional and instructive passages above. Hermeneutics do not work that way. We do not bypass clear instruction by jumping through imaginary hoops and inflating the truth about what role some women did play in the bible. Why? Because no one is suggesting women have no role to play. Women have served the Lord in compelling fashion throughout history and will continue to do so. They have been great helpers, prophets, and leaders of ministries. They just are forbidden from teaching and preaching with authority over men in God's church. Much like Eve insisted on the forbidden fruit many in the church today in the Christo-feminist movement are essentially asking -- did God really say? Yes, He did. So let us reason once more through the above linked article that seeks to elevate women in the bible far beyond reality.

"In honor of March being Women's History Month, I am here presenting a sampling of women in the Bible who functioned in all kinds of leadership roles. My motive in presenting this is twofold: First of all, I pray that it will affirm those women who sense a call of God but are hampered by doctrinal questions about the validity of such a call. Secondly, I hope to influence others to rethink their theology that puts restraints on the ministry of women in the church. I am convinced that we will not see the great spiritual awakening for which many are praying apart from the full participation of the female members of Christ's body." -- Eddie Hyatt

If you really wanted to honor women you would not lead them into disobedience with God. Catch the early switcheroo. No one is saying women cannot have prominent roles within the church. They are saying they cannot preach or teach with authority over men. There is a difference. There are also no real doctrinal questions beloved. Read the two sets of scripture above and see how plainly God is saying this. Eddie Hyatt does not have ONE scripture to counter these so he is forced to extrapolate doctrinal meaning from historical narratives while rewriting the key verses. The restraints have been put in place by God so I will not participate in removing them.

"Deborah: Prophetess and Judge. Before the institution of the monarchy beginning with Saul, Israel was ruled by a series of judges. Perhaps the most celebrated of these judges was a woman named Deborah, who is referred to as both a prophetess and a judge. In other words, she exercised both spiritual and civil authority. She had such respect from the people that even the military commander, Barak, refused to go out to battle unless she accompanied him. She accompanied him to battle, and God gave them a great victory over the Canaanites. Deborah had a husband named Lapiodoth, but he is mentioned only in passing. She was obviously the one called of God to be the out-front leader and deliverer of Israel at that time in history. There is not the slightest hint that her example was out of order or even exceptional. The Assemblies of God is, therefore, correct when, in its official position paper on women, it says, "The instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees." -- Eddie Hyatt

At least Eddie has to common sense to lead with Deborah, who is the best case for his argument. In fact, she is the only case for his argument. The fact that there was no man willing or able to lead is not a shining moment in Israel's history. Even though some point out that it was still Barak who won the day, I will give Deborah her due. Let's pause however to see the desperation in Hyatt trying to make his argument. He states that there wasn't even a slightest hint that the example of Deborah was out of order or even exceptional. Are you serious? The Book of judges covers a 400 year period of Israel's history. How many women held this title and served in this role? One -- Deborah. In the 6000 year history presented in the bible how many times do we see a woman leading God's people? One -- Deborah. Deborah deserves the credit she has earned but to pretend her leadership was not exceptional or out of order is simply duplicitous. We do not make doctrine out of such an outlier example.

"Miriam: God-Sent Leader to Israel. In Micah 6:4b, God speaks through the prophet and says, "I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam." Of the three leaders God sent to bring Israel out of Egypt, one of them was a woman. Note that in this passage God says, "I sent." The word "apostle" literally means "sent one," which means that Miriam, along with Moses and Aaron, were the "apostles" sent by God to bring deliverance to Israel. This is confirmed by the Septuagint, which uses the word ekapisteila, the verb form of apostolos with the prefix ek, meaning "out." It literally means "sent out." Miriam was "sent out" by God along with Moses and Aaron. Could it be that that God is still calling and "sending out" women today? Will the church be open to receiving these women?" -- Eddie Hyatt

Yes it is true that Micah has the Lord reminding the disobedient children of Israel that He gave them Moses, Aaron and Miriam, who was their sister and a prophetess. No one is arguing that women cannot prophesy. The Jewish Midrash notes that "just as Moses led the men out of Egypt and taught them Torah, so too Miriam led the women and taught them Torah." Hmm"sounds like God did not want women teaching men with authority no? The deceitfulness of Hyatt's argument is still staggering. The word for sent one is apostle but that does not make Miriam an apostle, which took on a whole different meaning when Christ walked the earth. Technically today's missionaries are apostles but they are not apostolic in the sense of the 12 Jesus called. But fine, Miriam was sent out in a prophetic role. Eddie Hyatt reaches all the way back to Moses, plucks Miriam from this role and asks the absurd question that because Miriam was sent out over 5000 years ago could that mean that God is sending women out today. Let me answer. Sure, as long as it is within the parameters He clearly outlines in the key verses. Could God want women to prophesy today? Absolutely. Could He want them to teach other women? Absolutely. None of that changes the imperative given in the instructional key verses.

'Mary Magdalene: Apostle to the Apostles. Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene after His resurrection. The emphasis that the Gospel writers give to this fact make it clear that this was no chance or accidental appearance, but that Jesus appeared first to Mary in order to make a statement. We must remember that in the first century, neither Roman nor Jewish courts of law would allow the testimony of a woman as evidence. Jesus confronts this cultural bias head-on by appearing first to Mary and sending her to bear testimony to the most significant event of human history. He could have just as easily appeared first to the men, but he required that they hear the news of His resurrection for the first time from the lips of a woman. His words to Mary, Go and tell . . . identify her as a "sent one" who receives the first apostolic commission from the risen Lord to go and proclaim the Good News of His resurrection. This is why, throughout history, Mary has often been referred to as "the apostle to the apostles." My father was converted as a result of a young "Mary" (her actual name) responding to the voice of the Lord to "go and tell," who began conducting revival meetings in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas. I have no doubt that there are a host of Marys in the world today who are hearing the voice the Lord instructing them to "go and tell."' -- Eddie Hyatt

The deception continues beloved. The Gospel writers made no emphasis. They were retelling a story that had the women go to the tomb first because that was their role. They went to prepare the body for burial. The bible expressly tells us this! There was no statement being made. God is not the author of confusion. If He wanted to make a statement -- He would have made it. He next compares the provision of evidence in legal proceedings of the time to the fact that Jesus told her to go tell Peter and the other disciples. She was not bearing testimony -- that is absurd. Mary has not been referred to as an apostle to the apostles beloved except within the wickedly deceitful hearts of those who have agendas contrary to the Word of God.

"Phoebe: Minister and Church Leader. In Romans 16:1b, Paul refers to Phoebe as "a servant of the church in Cenchrea." The word "servant" in this passage is translated from the Greek word diakonos, which literally means "servant," but was used as a general designation for Christian leaders. For example, in 1 Corinthians 3:5a, where Paul says, "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed?" "ministers" is a translation of diakonos. Where diakonos was used of men, the translators chose to translate it as "ministers," but where it was used of a woman, they chose to translate it as "servant." Phoebe was, therefore, a "minister" and leader in the church in Cenchrea. Paul also said that Phoebe had been a "helper of many and of myself as well" (Rom. 16:1b).It is unfortunate that some translators have translated the Greek word prostatis as "helper," for it appears to be another case of translator bias. The word is feminine and literally means "to stand before." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon defines a prostatis as "a woman set over others; a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources." In other words, a prostatis had all the characteristics that we would expect in a modern-day pastor. This word prostatis identifies Phoebe as a leader from the church in Cenchrea who has Paul's respect. Not only does her refer to her as a diakonos and a prostatis, but he instructs the church in Rome to receive her with respect and to assist her in whatever business she has with them (Hyatt, Paul, Women and Church, 28). Does the church today show respect to the Phoebes who are in her midst?" -- Eddie Hyatt

The more I read Eddie Hyatt the less likely it is that he is simply mistaken. The more it appears as if he is genuinely lying to serve this cause. Note that this entire defense comes from his own book on the subject! Hyatt is literally quoting himself! Despite these verbal gymnastics the word diakonos means helper but if Eddie insists on the word minister no problem. The word minister according to the lexicon means servant. Now onto the charge of bias in translating Romans 16. Realize that the essential argument Eddie Hyatt is making here is that when Paul used the word prostatis in Romans 1 he did not mean helper but rather a leader or even a pastor! Yet what does the context reveal?

I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also. -- Romans 16:1-2 (ESV)

A helper of many. Yet this is how desperate the Christo-feminists are becoming. What is sneaky about it is he doesn't outright say Phoebe was a pastor just like he did not outright say Miriam was an apostle. He just conflates them together to muddy the waters and make people doubt what God has said in the key verses.

"Priscilla: Pastor and Co-Worker with Paul. When Paul mentions Priscilla and Aquilla, he always mentions them together, and they were obviously a husband-wife team. Paul had lived, worked and ministered with them while in Corinth and when he departed, they departed with him (Acts 18:1-3, 18). He always uses plural pronouns--"they" and "them"--when referring to them. In Romans 16:3-5, Paul sends greetings to Priscilla and Aquilla "and the church that is in their house" (Rom. 16:5). Because Paul here goes against the normal cultural convention of always mentioning the man first, and mentions Priscilla first, many believe that Priscilla was the out-front one in the relationship--like Deborah--and the host and pastor of the church that met in their home. Paul obviously thinks very highly of them both saying that they had "risked their own necks for my life" (Rom. 16:4a)." -- Eddie Hyatt

The bible references this pair six times and four times Priscilla is listed first. The other two times she is not. What this reveals is there is probably not some coded secret in the order and more than likely just who came into Paul's head first as he was writing. These are the gymnastics Eddie must resort to because the bible does not support his position. Now even the order of names reveals the truths he desires. There is zero proof that she was the out front one and the only people who comprise the "many" Eddie refers to are those pushing Christo-feminism. By the way, Paul does think very highly of them but that does not change God's unchanging word.

"Junia: An Apostle. In Romans 16:7, Paul greets Andronicus and Junia, who, he says, "are noteworthy among the apostles." Junia is a feminine name and was recognized as a female apostle for the first several centuries of the church's existence. The famous church father of the fourth century, John Chrysostom, declared of Junia, "O how great is the devotion of this woman that she should even be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle." Some have tried to argue that the name should be "Junias," which is a male name. The problem with this claim is that, first of all, every ancient Greek manuscript, without exception, has the feminine form of "Junia." Secondly, the name Junias is unknown in the ancient world, while Junia is a common name. Junias, therefore, is a hypothetical name created by those who cannot accept that Paul would recognize a female apostle (Hyatt, Paul, Women and Church, 25). Commenting on why some translations have used "Junias," Dr. N. Clayton Croy, professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio, says, "It is hard to see any reason other than the translators' bias against the possibility that a woman could be an apostle." Faced with such overwhelming evidence, the NIV translators changed the word from "Junias" (1984 edition) to "Junia" in the 2011 edition." -- Eddie Hyatt

Perhaps this is my favorite of the deceptions Eddie uses because it is so obvious to debunk. It may not sound like it because Eddie is so misleading in how he presents his "facts" and the seeming weight loaned to them by citing books, which he himself has written, and people who agree with his position. I can cite scholars on the opposite side of the Junias argument that prove he was in fact a man but I do not even need that to debunk this nonsense. I just need scripture:

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)

The footnote next to Junia says "or Junias." Putting that aside however we see it is not even relevant. When you read this sentence you see Junia was not being called an apostle at all. She was "well known" to the apostles! Hyatt chooses a muddier translation so he can pretend that she actually was an apostle but the ESV makes it crystal clear she was no such thing. Just as a final note here on gender -- Paul refers to Junia as one of his "kinsmen." Enough said.

"Lydia and the Women Who Labored with Paul in Philippi. Paul began the church in Philippi with a group of praying women. His base of operations and the church's meeting place was in the home of one of these women whose name was Lydia (Acts 16:13-15, 40). Jewish law required a quorum of 10 Jewish men, who were heads of households, for establishing a synagogue in any community. Paul, however, had no problem beginning a Christian congregation with a group of praying women. As far as we know, this was the first church in Europe. These women obviously functioned in leadership alongside Paul. This is borne out by the fact that in 4:3b of his letter to the Philippian church, he exhorted, "help those women who labored with me in the gospel." Gerald F. Hawthorne, in the Word Biblical Commentary, says that Paul, in this passage, uses a metaphor which means "to fight together side by side with," clearly indicating that Paul sees these women, not as peons under him, but as highly esteemed members of his team who have labored at his side in the cause of Christ. This reminds me of the words of the noted, British New Testament scholar, F.F, Bruce, who said; He [Paul] delighted in the company of his fellows, both men and women. The most incredible feature in the Paul of popular mythology is his alleged misogyny. He treated women as persons. The mainstream churches of Christendom, as they inch along towards a worthier recognition of the ministry of women, have some way to go yet before they come abreast of Paul (Hyatt, Paul, Women and Church, 31)." -- Eddie Hyatt

Let's walk through this procession from truth to presumptive lies:

Lydia and the Women Who Labored with Paul in Philippi. -- This is true. Of course no one is arguing that women cannot co-labor in the kingdom.

Paul began the church in Philippi with a group of praying women. -- This is also true. Of course no one is suggesting women cannot pray or serve as intercessors.

His base of operations and the church's meeting place was in the home of one of these women -

Sensing a theme? This is also true but no one is suggesting that women cannot be gracious hosts or even display the gift of hospitality.

Paul, however, had no problem beginning a Christian congregation with a group of praying women. -- Repetitive and answered; women can pray.

As far as we know, this was the first church in Europe. -- Irrelevant

These women obviously functioned in leadership alongside Paul -- Huh? This is what is so dishonest about the arguments he tries to make. There is ZERO indication in the text that these women served in leadership. In fact, he already correctly outlined that they were prayer warriors perhaps and co-laborers with a gift of hospitality. Laboring with someone does not mean they served in authoritative positions over men in the church.

"Paul's Spiritual Mother. Paul never mentions a spiritual father, but he does mention a spiritual mother. In Romans 16:13 he sends greetings to Rufus, "and his mother and mine." This is obviously not Paul's biological mother, but a woman who has been a spiritual mother to him. We know little about this woman, but at some point in Paul's spiritual journey, she had offered encouragement and counsel to Paul and been like a mother to him. The identity of this woman can perhaps be identified by comparing Paul's words in this passage to Mark's Gospel, which also mentions an individual named Rufus. Since Paul's letter and Mark's Gospel were both written to the same Christian community in Rome, and within a few years of each other, it is likely that the Rufus mentioned by Paul and the Rufus mentioned by Mark are the same person. In his Gospel, which was originally written to the church in Rome, Mark tells of Simon of Cyrene being compelled to carry the cross of Jesus. He notes that Simon is the father of Alexander and Rufus and obviously expects his audience to make the connection when they hear the names of the two sons. The Rufus of Paul, therefore, is most likely the Rufus of Mark, the son of Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross of Jesus. So, although Paul never mentions a spiritual father in his writings, he does make a point to send greetings to his spiritual mother. His spiritual mother was likely an African woman from Cyrene (Cyrene is located on the north coast of Africa), the mother of Rufus and the wife of Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross of Jesus." -- Eddie Hyatt

You have got to be kidding me! All we know about this woman is in this one verse where he says she was like a mother to him as well. Not a spiritual mother but a mother mother. Perhaps she was very nurturing to him. Eddie Hyatt however is on a mission to re-write the clear instructive passages we see in the key verses today so he literally invents this addition to scripture where Rufus' mother offers encouragement and counsel to Paul. While the connection of Rufus from Romans to Mark is interesting it bears no weight to his argument that we should discard the key verses.

"What About 1 Timothy 2:12? Some will surely quote I Timothy 2:12 as a counter to all the above biblical passages. It reads, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man, but to be silent." First of all, the above passages about women must be given equal consideration with this passage. Many have made the error of making 1 Timothy 2:12 a canon within the canon when it comes to women and forcing every other passage to fit their interpretation of this one passage. That is not good hermeneutics. Secondly, it is obvious from 1 Timothy 1:3 that Paul wrote this letter to Timothy to address the issue of false doctrine that was being spread in the church in Ephesus. His concern is not women in leadership per se, but the propagation of false doctrine by both men and women. First Timothy was not written as a manual of church order to be observed by all churches at all times, but to address the unique situation that existed in Ephesus at the time. This is borne out by the fact that "authority" in 2:12 is a translation of the Greek word authentein, a word that is found only here in the entire New Testament. If Paul was addressing the normal exercise of authority in the church, we would expect him to use 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 used is a clear sign that he is addressing a unique and local situation in Ephesus and is not giving instructions for all churches everywhere. Those who would restrict the role of women in the church cannot claim Paul as an ally or an authority for their stance." -- Eddie Hyatt

Let's sift through the muddy waters Hyatt just presented. First of all, you do not lend equal weight to narrative scripture that does not contain direction as opposed to the key verses which are specific and directive. Secondly Hyatt has failed to produce one scripture that contradicts the key verses and has been caught in many bald faced lies. Considering the man just added to scripture to pretend Rufus's mother provided counsel to Paul, Eddie Hyatt should not be lecturing on good hermeneutics. There is no forcing of scripture with regards to the Corinthians verses which completely corroborate the Timothy scriptures. Hyatt's cultural contextual argument is asinine. The entire bible is written about a specific time or to a specific audience. Do we dismiss all of it then? Does Eddie Hyatt understand what divine inspiration means? Do we toss out all of Timothy then or just the parts Hyatt doesn't like? Remind me again of the importance of sound hermeneutics please. Not to mention that the Corinthians verses validate the Timothy verses. I do not need Paul as an ally -- God wrote the bible. Finally in conclusion:

'An Amazing Word From God. Much of the church has refused to recognize the gifts of its female members and has, thereby, violated Paul's command in 1 Thessalonians 5:19, "Do not quench the Spirit." As a result of this disobedience, many gifts have lain dormant while millions have perished without Christ, and the church has languished in defeat. In 2010, I awakened very early one morning and, not wanting to awaken Sue, went into an adjoining room where I sat on a sofa enjoying the solitude and quietly communing with the Lord. At some point, I sensed my heart become very still and quiet, and then I heard, "I want you to be more identified with Sue and what she is doing," a reference to her work for the full acceptance of the gifts and callings of women in the church. There was a moment of quietness and I then heard the words, "This message has the power to begin a mass movement from Islam to Christianity, beginning with the women."' -- Eddie Hyatt

God did not say that to you Eddie. Your wickedly deceitful heart did. How can I be sure? Because God does not contradict His Word. It is not quenching the spirit to obey the Word of God. Beloved, this topic gives me no joy but we have to follow what God says whether we like it or not. On the one hand we have clear, unambiguous directive scriptures about what God wants and why He wants it that way. On the other side just look at the scriptural gymnastics Eddie Hyatt had to employ just to try and sound quasi-biblical! Deborah, who represents the only time in recorded history of a woman in leadership over men is labeled as a common occurrence. He presents prophets and co-laborers as proof we should ignore the key verses. He turns Mary Magdalene into an apostle because Jesus told her to go tell the others. He turns Pheobe into a pastor even though the text says no such thing. He seats Priscilla above her husband because Paul mentions her name first four of the six times he refers to the couple. He turns Junias into a woman and the into an apostle when he was neither. He took the women praying in Philippi and promoted them into imaginary leadership positions. He took Rufus's mother and turned her into Paul's Consigleiri. These are the scriptural gymnastics Eddie Hyatt must engage in for his stance to have a remote chance of being taken seriously. This gymnastics routine is getting old and the bible will never let him stick the landing.

Reverend Anthony Wade -- March 20, 2019

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.