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)
It always saddens me the lengths false teachers will go to in eviscerating the word of God to try and prop up their failed teachings. It is even sadder when you see so many fall for those teachings. One such area is when it comes to women serving in pastoral roles or more specifically, roles where they exert authority over men in the church. I have no need nor desire to defend myself. This is not about me. In fact, I avoided this subject for many years until too many readers kept asking me to weigh in on the matter from a biblical perspective. You see, from a personal perspective, I have no issue with women preaching. I know women who can preach the paint off the walls and conversely, men who cannot preach their way out of a paper bag. Public oratory is not what we are talking about. The Apostle Paul was not a dynamic speaker. He taught that he was more concerned about distracting from the word of the gospel. If we were honest, we would admit that we have all been to sermons where the sideshow was more memorable than the actual message. That was what Paul was speaking about. No beloved, this is about what God has said. This is not a salvation issue but do not downplay the fact that we are talking about obedience versus disobedience. In this realm, on this subject, no one teaches disobedience to women more than Eddie Hyatt. The above link is to an article entitled "Was Paul a Male Chauvinist? Five Reasons Why 1Timothy 2 Does Not Prohibit Women from Functioning in Authoritative Roles in the Church."
Let me first deal with what should be two obvious overarching points. The first is it does not matter if you believe the Apostle Paul was a chauvinist. In fact, the accusation may be absurd but from a theological standpoint it is irrelevant. Why? Because our fundamental belief of divine inspiration means that God wrote the entire bible, including the Book of First Timothy. So, when Eddie Hyatt asks if Paul was a male chauvinist he is really asking if God was. Good luck asking that question because the second overarching point is the scriptures themselves. I have made them the key verses for this discussion. We can see that these are what is known as directive scriptures. There is no ambiguity in them. They are abundantly clear. I do not permit - period! Because God knows how inherently disobedient we are, He even includes His reasoning! Because man was formed first and because Eve was the one who was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet Eddie Hyatt thinks he has cracked the code that will reveal God was just kidding around when He had Paul write these verses. Let us reason together and see how desperate Hyatt becomes because he cannot compete with the clarity and direction of the key verses.
"Reason #1 - 1 Timothy Is a Personal Letter. First of all, the letter of 1 Timothy was written to an individual, not to a church. It is a "personal" letter. We should expect, therfore, that the things written in this letter are related to the situation of the individual, i.e. Timothy, to whom it was written. Good hermeneutics demands that this be taken into consideration. Paul wrote three personal letters at this time as he was nearing the end of his life; two to Timothy who was in Ephesus and one to Titus who was on the island of Crete. These letters contain instructions and requests, some of which are obviously related to the recepient of the letter and cannot be applied to all Christians everywhere. For example, in 2 Timothy 4:9-15, Paul exhorts Timothy to come quickly to him and bring a coat he left in Troas along with the books he left there. In 1 Timothy 5:9-14 Paul exhorts Timothy that widows under sixty years of age should not receive support from the church and that younger women should marry. It is interesting to note that those who are so intent on literally applying 1 Timothy 2:9-11 do not have the same concern for 1 Timothy 5:9-14. 1 Timothy was written to encourage and instruct Timothy in his very specific assignment to the church at Ephesus. Nowhere does Paul ask Timothy to read this letter to a church. It is a personal letter." - Eddie Hyatt
So, in the twisted mind of Eddie Hyatt, the personal letters in the bible are not to be counted on as scripture. Are they not God-breathed? Are they not perfect for teaching, training, edification and rebuke? Is this really the argument Hyatt wants to make? Then he has the gall to refer to this as "good hermeneutics?" The letters written to churches were also personal. They also contained instructions such as the coat from 1Timothy. Paul exhorts believers to greet each other with a holy kiss. This is not doctrinal instruction either. These Pauline letters were all personal, but they were all considered scripture. Hyatt's point regarding 1Timothy 5 is inane. Are you honestly suggesting that because you feel most churches ignore the verses about widows that they should also ignore those regarding women pastors? Is that "good hermeneutics?" Is it wise to think that because he did not ask for this letter to be read to the church that we should ignore what it teaches us? Hermeneutics actually does not work that way. In his desire to throw out 1Timothy 2, he is forced to throw out the entire book, plus two others. Not off to a good start.
Reason #2 - 1 Timothy Addresses A Unique Local Situation in Ephesus. Verse 3 of chapter 1 reveals that 1 Timothy was written as a follow-up to encourage Timothy in his assignment to combat heretical teaching in the church in Ephesus. Paul had given this assignment to Timothy when they were together in that city. Paul now writes to encourage and instruct Timothy in carrying out of that assignment. Paul obviously was not issuing universal edicts for all churches of every time and place. He is addressing the unique issues related to Timothy and the church in Ephesus.
