THE MOTHERING HEART OF GOD

Feminine Images of God in Scripture

It was Mother’s Day and I asked the congregation to describe with one word a mother’s love. People began to shout out words like “unconditional,” “enduring,” ”strong,” “faithful” “never ending,” etc. I then commented, “What you are describing sounds like God’s love.” I went on to ask, “What is the source of this kind of love? Is it fleshly? Is it merely human? I then proceeded to show that, because woman, as well as man, was created in the image and likeness of God, that a mother’s love is every bit as much an expression of the heart of God as is a father’s love.

This is clear from Genesis 1:26-31 where God created both the man and the woman in His image and likeness. That both were created in God’s image and likeness is borne out by the fact that the word translated “man” in Gen. 1:26-27 is adam, a gender-inclusive word that means “people” or “humanity.” The Hebrew word for man as male (ish) is nowhere to be found in this account. That this is about the creation of humanity, and not the first male, is confirmed by the Septuagint (an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament), which translates adam as anthropos the Greek gender-inclusive word that includes both sexes and also means “people” or “humanity.” In addition, the pronouns used of this adam in the succeeding verses are all plural, clearly indicating that this account of creation is about “them,” and not “him.”

This is important to understand for, throughout history, it has been taught that only the man bears the full image of God. For example, the famous church father, Augustine (354-430) wrote, “The woman herself alone is not the image of God whereas the man alone is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman is joined with him.” (S. Hyatt, In the Spirit We’re Equal, 53).

This sort of misogynist thinking has continued in the church to the present day. Although often unspoken, the idea quietly prevails that only a man or a father can fully and adequately represent God. This is unfortunate for it has provided an opening for pride and arrogance in Christian men and feelings of inadequacy and defectiveness in Christian women. This erroneous and phony idea of woman’s defectiveness is really the basis behind the faulty interpretation of Paul and the exclusion of women from roles of leadership in the Church. It is an idea that needs to be purged from the thinking of every truly born again saint of God.

The point I am making here is that both male and female are created in the image and likeness of God. Although in the fall this image has been diminished and marred in both male and female, it has not been erased. A mother’s love, therefore, is as much an expression of God’s love as is a father’s love; and this is borne out by the use of feminine and “mothering” images of God in Scripture.

Mothering Images of God in the Old Testament

In Deut. 32:18 God chided His people because they had forgotten the One who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth (NKJV). This verse is obviously picturing God as giving birth and this mothering image is even more stark when we realize that the word “fathered” is a gross mistranslation of the Hebrew word chiyl, a word that carries the meaning of “writhing in labor pains.” The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, commenting on this word, says, "This verb expresses the writhing movements of labor contractions" (vol. 1 of, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 270). The use of “fathered” by the NIV and the NKJV is not just a poor translation, but a bad translation and shows the obvious bias of the translators. This entire verse is a stark mothering image of God in labor pains giving birth to His people. The NRSV has a good translation of this passage, which reads, You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. This is clearly a female/mothering image of God in His relationship with Israel.

Isaiah 66:12-13 is another Old Testament passage that pictures a mothering God. A picture is first painted of a re-born Jerusalem as like a mother providing nourishment for her infant children and bouncing them on her knees to cheer them up. This is expressed by the word dandled in vs. 12, which means to "please" or "amuse." The final summary statement of verse 12, however, shows that it is God doing all this in and through Jerusalem. And God summarizes it all by saying, As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you. This is clearly another Old Testament mothering image of God.

Then there is the name by which God revealed Himself to Israel, El-Shaddai. Some Hebrew scholars point out that Shaddai is likely derived from the Hebrew word for "breast" which is shad. Perhaps this is why, as vol. 2 of the Wordbook of the Old Testament points out, that the traditional Jewish/rabbinnic analysis of Shaddai has been that it is a compound word composed of the relative "she" and the word for "enough" or "the one (she) who is self-sufficient." If this is the case then Psalm 91:1, which uses El-Shaddai and translates it as the "Almighty" pictures God as like a nursing mother who nourishes and sustains her infant child with her own life.

Jesus Uses Mothering Images of God

Jesus used a feminine/mothering image of Himself when He compared His deep concern for His people with that of a mother hen for her chicks (a rooster would just not work here). As He wept over the city of Jerusalem, He lamented,

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

In another instance, found in Luke 15:8-10, Jesus tells a parable of a woman who searched diligently until she found a coin that had been lost. This is one of three parables all presented together to teach God’s care for that which is lost. This parable is sandwiched between the parable of the shepherd who left the ninety-nine sheep in the fold and went out searching for the one that was lost, and the parable of the lost, prodigal son who returns home to a loving father who welcomes him home with great fanfare and celebration. We all agree that the shepherd and the father in the other two parables are meant to represent God. So why are we so slow to accept that the woman who diligently searched high and low until she found the missing coin is also a representation of God diligently seeking for that which is lost?

I think it is also interesting that Paul describes his own concerns for the Thessalonians in mothering terms. In his first letter to this church he describes his concern for them as being like that of a nursing mother." He writes,

Nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, when we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her children. (I Thess. 1:6-7).

The Inadequacy of Human Language to Define God

We must remember that all human language of God is metaphorical and analogical. God is spirit and He transcends all human attempts to categorize Him in terms of gender and sexuality. Words like father, judge, king, shepherd, etc. are metaphors that tell us something of what God is like; they are not words that describe His essence or being. Images of God as father are more numerous in Scripture than those of mother, but only because in the fallen culture of the day, where the father held the authority and ability to provide, he provided a better representation of God and His authority and ability to provide for His people. Nonetheless, God warned his people to not reduce him to the image of anything in creation, whether man or woman, mother or father.

In Deuteronomy 4:15, for example, God reminded Israel that when He spoke to them from Mt. Horeb they did not see any form. Based on this fact, He then commanded them not to make a carved image to represent Him in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal, etc. (Deut. 4:15-19). Isaiah expresses this same idea of God's magnificent transcendence by saying, To whom then will you compare God? What image will you compare Him to? (Isaiah 40:18). Then, in Isaiah 40:25, God Himself says, says, To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” As the popular worship chorus written to be sung to God says, “There is none like You.”

In spite of this very clear command, Christian art throughout history has depicted God as a male. Michaelangelo’s famous painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is typical. He depicted God as a bearded male with obvious Italian features; influenced, no doubt, by the fact that he was Italian and was painting for an Italian pope. But, before we are too critical of Michaelangelo, we should pause to consider if we too have not been guilty of domesticating and reducing God to “our” image and, thereby, making ourselves a god with whom we are comfortable.

This idea of the transcendence of God is expressed in the revelation of God to Moses as the "I Am," which is the simple Hebrew verb "to be," like the English "I am." Moses, talking to the Being who was speaking to him from the burning bush, asks who He is--what is Your name? Who will I tell the children of Israel has sent me to them? God's response was "I am that I am." Tell them that "I am" has sent you. In other words, when God looked at all His creation there was nothing to which He could compare Himself that would to justice to who He is. The most profound thing He could say about Himself was simply, "I Am."

God Transcends Fatherhood & Motherhood

Interestingly, my parents never taught me to look at them to learn what God is like. For my parents, God was “other than” what they were and they pointed me to the Scriptures and prayer to get to know God. Jesus too taught that earthly parents—both father and mother—are poor, inadequate representations for who God is.

For example, Matt. 7:9 in the NKVV has Jesus saying, Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone. “Man” is not an accurate translation, for the Greek word is anthropos, which is the gender-inclusive word, best translated here as “person” or “parent,” which is how the NLT and the NRSV translate the phrase. Jesus goes on to say, If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him.

Jesus says that the love of the most caring earthly parents, when juxtaposed alongside God’s love, appears as evil. This shows that neither a human father nor a human mother can adequately represent God and His love. This means that the only thing we learn from caring parents is “how much more” does the God whom we worship and serve care for His children.

Conclusion

My point is that we have sold ourselves short in setting up a “father’s love” as the real representation of the heart of God. This is not true. Although male and father images of God are numerous in Scripture and Jesus taught to pray Our Father who art in heaven, there is more than adequate Scriptural evidence to say that women too can represent God for women too were created in His image and a mother’s love is as much an expression of the heart of God as is a father’s love.

by Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt
www.eddiehyatt.comdreddiehyatt@gmail.com

DISCOVERING TRUE BEAUTY

The Beauty and Power of a Life Devoted to God 

as Exemplified in the Life of Sarah Pierpont Edwards

She was six years old the first time he saw her and he was thirteen. She was the daughter of the pastor of the Congregational (Puritan) Church in New Haven, Connecticut. He was a newly enrolled student at Yale College, also located in New Haven, where he had come to prepare himself for God’s service. During his seven years at Yale and attending the Congregational Church in New Haven, he noticed in her a peculiar devotion to God that he found very attractive and similar to his own.

Inner Beauty Attracts a Like Character

After graduating from Yale at the age of 17 and at the top of his class, he continued his studies for the M.A. and worked as a tutor in the college. During the summer of 1723 he returned to his family home in East Windsor, Connecticut where he intended to study and give thought and prayer to his future. He could not, however, get the young woman in New Haven off his mind. It was not her physical features that captivated and enthralled him; it was the beauty of her character and devotion to God—what King David called the beauty of holiness (Psalm 29:2).

One day, while trying to study New Testament Greek, his mind kept wandering to thirteen year old Sarah Pierpont (1710-58) and twenty year old Jonathan Edwards (1703-58), who would become the famous theologian and pastor of the Great Awakening, wrote the following in the flyleaf of his Greek grammar.

They say there is a young lady in New Haven who is beloved of that Almighty Being, who made and rules the world, and that there are certain seasons in which this great Being, in some way or other invisible, comes to her and fills her mind with exceeding sweet delight, and that she hardly cares for anything, except to meditate on Him — that she expects after a while to be received up where He is, to be raised up out of the world and caught up into heaven; being assured that He loves her too well to let her remain at a distance from Him always. There she is to dwell with him, and to be ravished with his love and delight forever. Therefore, if you present all the world before her, with the richest of its treasures, she disregards it and cares not for it, and is unmindful of any pain or affliction. She has a strange sweetness in her mind, and singular purity in her affections; is most just and conscientious in all her actions; and you could not persuade her to do anything wrong or sinful, if you would give her all the world, lest she should offend this great Being. She is of a wonderful sweetness, calmness and universal benevolence of mind; especially after those seasons in which this great God has manifested Himself to her mind. She will sometimes go about from place to place, singing sweetly; and seems to be always of joy and pleasure; and no one knows for what. She loves to be alone, and to wander in the fields and on the mountains, and seems to have someone invisible always conversing with her.

Sarah was from a long line of distinguished Puritan preachers. In fact, her great great grandfather was Thomas Hooker, the well-known Puritan theologian and preacher who founded Connecticut, after finding himself at odds with the Puritans of Boston because of his Separatist views. Another great grandfather had been the first mayor of New York City. Her father, James Pierpont, was the well-known pastor of the Congregational Church in New Haven and the founder of Yale College, now Yale University. From childhood, she was convinced that her life was to be lived for the glory of God, and even then exhibited a lifestyle of unusual piety and devotion.

Four years after writing his thoughts of Sarah, Jonathan proposed to her and she accepted. She was seventeen and he was twenty-four. They moved to Northampton, Massachusetts where Jonathan had accepted the pastorate of the Congregational Church. They would live in Northampton for twenty-three years and raise eleven children before moving to Stockbridge, Massachusetts in 1750.

Although life was busy raising eight girls and three boys, Sarah maintained her intimate relationship with God and a firm, but kind and godly, discipline in the home. She and Jonathan made time for each other and would often take walks during which he would share things learned in his studies and she would share out of her heart the things she was learning from God. Their relationship impressed many of their contemporaries, who often commented on the sense of peace that pervaded the Edwards home. John Walley wrote, “I love Mr. Edwards & his wife, because I see so much of the image of God in them.” Joseph Emerson of Concord described the Edwards as “the most agreeable family I was ever acquainted with. There is much of the Presence of God there.”

Jonathan considered Sarah to be an example of true spirituality and often used her as an example in his sermons. Both mused philosophically and theologically about the real meaning of beauty and equated true beauty with spirituality and godliness.

Leaders in the Great Awakening

Both Sarah and Jonathan were concerned about the spiritual indifference that seemed to pervade their community and all New England. They, therefore, prayed earnestly for what they called a “revival of religion” Their prayers began to be answered in 1739 when an unusual and awesome sense of God’s presence seemed to invade the town of Northampton. Everywhere, in homes, in places of business, and on the streets, people seemed to be gripped with an awareness of God, of eternity, and of the danger of being outside of Christ. The Spirit of God worked so powerfully that, as Jonathan said, “there was scarcely a single person in the town, old or young, left unconcerned about the great things of the eternal world.”

Without any special church growth emphases or human attempts to increase the attendance, the church in Northampton suddenly filled with those seeking salvation and with those experiencing the fruit of already being born again. Jonathan wrote,

Our public assemblies were then beautiful: the congregation was alive in God’s service, everyone intent on the public worship, every hearer eager to drink in the words of the minister as they came from his mouth; the assembly were in general from time to time in tears while the word was preached; some weeping with sorrow and distress, others with joy and love, others with pity and concern for the souls of their neighbors.

Sarah was powerfully affected by the awakening. At times she was so overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit that she was unable to stand. At other times she was so conscious of the joyful presence of the Holy Spirit that, “I could scarcely refrain from leaping with transports of joy.” This sort of dynamic experience of the Spirit’s presence moved her to act outside her traditional roles of wife and mother and exhort others concerning the things of God. She not only discussed Biblical and theological themes with her husband and visiting ministers, but at times exhorted members of the congregation out of the overflow of her own experience. For example, she tells of hearing a visiting minister lament that God’s children should be cold and lifeless in their faith. She said,

I felt such a sense of the deep ingratitude manifested by the children of God, in such coldness and deadness, that my strength was immediately taken away, and I sunk down on the spot. Those who were near raised me, and placed me in a chair; and, from the fullness of my heart, I expressed to them, in a very earnest manner, the deep sense I had of the wonderful grace of Christ towards me, of the assurance I had of his having saved me from hell, of my happiness running parallel with eternity, of the duty of giving up all to God, and of the peace and joy inspired by an entire dependence on his mercy and grace.

George Whitefield Gives up
Thoughts of Singleness Upon Meeting Sarah

The revival brought extra responsibilities and pressures with many visitors to Northampton and numerous visiting ministers in the Edwards home. During one particular busy season she found it necessary to withdraw into solitude because of the dryness of her soul, and there she experienced God’s presence in a remarkable way and a fresh assurance of His eternal love for her. She wrote,

Melted and overcome by the sweetness of this assurance, I fell into a great flow of tears, and could not forbear weeping aloud. It appeared certain to me that God was my Father, and Christ my Lord and Savior, that he was mine and I his. Under a delightful sense of the immediate presence and love of God, these words seemed to come over and over in my mind, "My God, my all; my God, my all." The presence of God was so near, and so real, that I seemed scarcely conscious of anything else. I seemed to be lifted above earth and hell, out of the reach of everything here below, so that I could look on all the rage and enmity of men or devils, with a kind of holy indifference, and an undisturbed tranquility. At the same time, I felt compassion and love for all mankind, and a deep abasement of soul, under a sense of my own unworthiness. I also felt myself more perfectly weaned from all things here below, than ever before. The whole world, with all its enjoyments, and all its troubles, seemed to be nothing:--My God was my all, my only portion.

When the famous Methodist revivalist, George Whitefield, visited Northampton and preached in the church, it was not the revival that captured his attention, but the couple who hosted him. Being single and having entertained thoughts of remaining single all his life, his encounter with the Edwards changed all that and he began to pray that God would give him such a wife. After departing Northampton, he wrote, “A sweeter couple I have not yet seen. She [Sarah] talked feelingly and solidly of the things of God, and seemed to be such a help meet for her husband that she caused me to pray God, that he would be pleased to send me a Daughter of Abraham to be my wife.”

The Edwards Promote Equality

Living in a time and when male dominance was considered the norm for marriage and life, Jonathan and Sarah exhibited an amazing egalitarianism in their marriage. This is because where love increases, issues of power and control decrease. Think of the greatest demonstration of love the universe has ever seen, Jesus Christ--God Incarnate--hanging on a Roman cross. Love does not control and even where there is not a clear understanding of the Biblical basis for egalitarianism, if there is true love, issues of power and control tend to fade into obscurity.

In addition, moved, no doubt, by Sarah’s experiences and their life together, Jonathan (considered by many to be the greatest theologian/philosopher America has produced) developed views on gender that were obviously ahead of his time. His commentary on Eve being “the mother of all living” has been construed by some scholars as an indication that he held “proto-feminist” views, and one writer has described him as being “genuinely committed to the promotion of gender equality.” The Edwards apparently reared their eight daughters with a sense of equality for one biographer, in describing the character of their daughter, Esther, said, “She was used to being taken seriously as the spiritual and intellectual equal of men.”

Their Congregation Turns on Them

Life was not at all easy for Sarah. In 1749 the congregation and community in Northampton turned against them because they would not adhere to the “Half-Way Covenant,” a policy adopted by Puritans in 1662 that offered partial church membership to those who could not testify to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, allowing them to participate in communion and have their children baptized. Harsh words and accusations were raised against them and they were forced to leave Northampton after twenty-three years. Although obviously hurt by the rejection both remained positive and congenial toward their opponents; and in his farewell sermon Jonathan, after lamenting the broken ties, said, “Nothing remains, but that I bid you all farewell. I desire that I may never forget these people, who have been so long my special charge, and that I may never cease fervently to pray for your prosperity.” They moved to Stockbridge, Massachusetts where Jonathan became the pastor of the church in that community and a missionary to the Housatonic Indian tribe.

Jonathan's Untimely Death

Jonathan experienced an untimely death in 1758 shortly after accepting an invitation to become president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University). He traveled ahead to New Jersey to prepare a home for himself, Sarah, and the six children that were still at home. After arriving at the college he took a small pox vaccination in order to encourage others to do the same. Already in poor health, he contracted the disease and died shortly thereafter. On his deathbed, Sarah was foremost in his thoughts and his final words were, “Give my kindest love to my dear wife, and tell her that the uncommon union which has so long subsisted between us has been of such a nature as I trust is spiritual and therefore will continue forever.”

Back in Massachusetts, Sarah received the news of Jonathan’s death and was devastated, but not in despair because of her trust in the Lord. She wrote to her daughter Esther,

What shall I say: A holy and good God has covered us with a dark cloud. The Lord has done it. He has made me adore his goodness that we had him so long. But my God lives; and He has my heart. O what a legacy my husband, and your father, has left to us! We are all given to God: and there I am and love to be.
Your ever affectionate mother,
Sarah Edwards

Although I would not agree with the Calvinism reflected in her statement (attributing the sickness and death to God) I cannot but admire her resolute trust and commitment to God, and her thankfulness for the time that she had together with Jonathan. And six months later, Sarah passed away and joined Jonathan in the presence the Lord.

The legacy of Sarah and her husband is remarkable. One grandson, Aaron Burr, served as the third vice-president of the United States under Thomas Jefferson. Another grandson, Timothy Dwight, became the president of Yale in 1795 and delivered a series of chapel lectures that helped spark the Second Great Awakening, which changed the course of the nation. One biographer noted, "The Edwards family produced scores of clergymen, thirteen presidents of higher learning, sixty-five professors, and many other persons of notable achievements." I am reminded of Isaiah 54:13-14, a promise from God to all those who put their trust in Him. And all your children [descendants] shall be taught of the LORD and great shall be the peace of your children [descendants].

Concluding Thoughts About "Beauty"

We live in a society in which beauty has been defined solely in terms of sexuality and physical features by a Hollywood culture of celebrity and entertainment. This understanding of beauty is out of touch with Scripture, which does not limit beauty to that which is physical, but defines it primarily in terms of character, particularly the character of God as it is revealed and expressed through His people. This is what David refers to when he speaks of the beauty of the LORD (Psalm 27:4) and exhorts the people to worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness (Psalm 29:2). David is enthralled with the excellences and perfection of God’s person and character. As we come to know the LORD in such a way and allow the beauty of His character to be expressed through us, this will be a light piercing the darkness and we too will serve Him and worship Him in the beauty of holiness.

A LITTLE LESS OF ME

Finding Resurrection Life for Victorious Christian Living

Let me be a little kinder
Let me be a little blinder
To the faults of those around me
Let me praise a little more
Let me be when I am weary
Just a little bit more cherry
Think a little more of others
And a little less of me (Recorded by Glen Campbell in 1965)

During the first year of our marriage Sue and I had a disagreement and neither of us was willing to yield any ground. Being young and naïve and having a traditional view of marriage, I went to prayer asking God to help her understand that she must submit to my God-ordained leadership. As I prayed in this manner, Paul’s exhortation for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church suddenly stood before me with the words and gave Himself for her highlighted in bold letters (Eph. 5:25). I then heard the Holy Spirit say, “The problem is that you are not willing to let go of yourself.”

 

Finding Life by Losing Our Life

 

When I heard this message from the Lord I knew that my “I” or ego was standing in the way of resolution and peace. There had to be a little less (actually a whole lot less) of me in that situation and in the relationship in general. As I obeyed the Lord and “let go of myself” in that situation, it proved to be a life-changing experience. I began to learn the truth of what Jesus said in Mk. 8:35, Whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it (Mk. 8:35). 

I was learning that “less of me” was to be, not a one-time thing, but a way of life. This did not mean that I was to be a doormat for other people, but that I could no longer live my life—my Christian life--from self-serving motives. I was also learning that it was in letting go of "me" and dying to self, that I would know and experience His resurrection life and power. Only as I let go of "me" would I find the true success that comes from God. I was learning what true Christianity is all about. 
 

The Character of True Christianity

True Christianity is not about you or me, but about Christ, as Paul so succinctly delineates in Galatians 2:20 where he says, I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (NKJV). 

Interestingly, the Greek word for “I” is ego. What Paul is saying here is that his “I” or ego has been crucified with Christ and the “I” or ego is no longer the center of his life. Christ is now at the center of his life. Christ has replaced the “I” or ego as his reason and purpose for living, and it is no longer about Paul; it is now all about Jesus. Even the phrase, I live by faith in the Son of God, expresses this reality for Paul. It is in the genitive case and literally reads, I live by the faith of the Son of God. For Paul, even faith is no longer centered in himself but in Christ, and he lives by the faith of the Son of God. 
 

It seems obvious that the North American church has not learned to live and walk in Galatians 2:20. It is still about us—our faith, our testimony, our ministry, our miracle, our revival, our church, etc., etc. I am convinced that it is this “I” or ego centered approach to Christianity that is holding back genuine Spiritual awakening in our nation. The Spirit of God is grieved when it is about us, and only superficially about Him. This was made very real to me by an experience I had a number of years ago. 

 

We Grieve the Holy Spirit When It’s About Us

I had just preached in the Sunday evening service of a NE Texas church and was on my way home to the DFW area. As I drove along the dark two-lane highway, I noticed that I felt troubled in my spirit. My mind questioned, “Why?” “I should be happy and joyful,” I thought. “It was a good meeting.” Indeed, people seemed to be stirred by the message and a number responded to the invitation and some were weeping. “So why is my spirit so unsettled,” I asked as I drove along in the night. 

Suddenly I heard the Holy Spirit speak on the inside of me, “You talked too much about yourself tonight.” I knew immediately what He meant. My message that night had been made up of personal stories of God’s blessing in my life and of miracle answers to prayer I had seen. I had not preached the word. Although it had sounded spiritual and had stirred some people’s emotions, it was too much about me. I had grieved the Holy Spirit by talking too much about myself and not enough about Jesus and His word.
 

Less of Me • More of Jesus

This experience sensitized me to the importance of keeping the focus on Jesus and His word. It made me realize that we can talk about miracles and answers to prayer and yet grieve the Holy Spirit if the message or testimony is really centered in “me” and not in Him. I realized in a new and fresh way that there must be “less of me” and more of Jesus in every area of my life; as John the Baptist so aptly stated in John 3:30 when someone came to him and informed him that the crowds were now giving their attention to Jesus rather than to him. John replied, He must increase, but I must decrease.

We too must decrease so that He can increase in all areas of our lives. It is not easy, but it is only as we let go of our “self” for His sake that we will find our true self in Him; and we will find His resurrection life at work in us and through us lifting us to new levels of faith and accomplishiment. Marriages will be healed and we will experience His peace filling our hearts. With Paul we will say, It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.

In the 13th century, Francis of Assisi must have been struggling with “a little less of me” when he wrote: 

O Divine Master, 
Grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; 
To be understood as to understand; 
To be loved as to love. 
For it is in giving that we receive; 
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned; 
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. 

DID SARAH CALL ABRAHAM LORD, Lord, or lord?

A Close Examination of the Big Picture Shows that I Peter 3 is About Mutual Respect

Those committed to male leadership in marriage love to quote I Peter 3:6, which reads, As Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. They fail, however, to look at the whole story of Sarah and Abraham; nor do they examine the entire message of I Peter 3:1-7. If they would do so they would find a beautiful picture of mutuality and partnership emerging.

Here are 3 reasons this verse cannot be used to teach male hierarchy in marriage.

 1)     The word used by Sarah that is here translated as “lord” was a term of respect and did not necessarily denote submission to a superior.

2)      When we read the complete story of Sarah and Abraham we find that not only did Sarah show respect for Abraham, but he (and God) showed an equal respect for Sarah.

3)      Peter balances out 3:1-6 with 3:7 where he tells husband to honor their wives, with “honor” being from a Greek word that refers to the respect that is shown to someone of a higher rank.

The Meaning of “lord” in this Passage

The New Testament translators have tried to alert us of the diminished authoritarian content of this word by translating it in all lower case letters, i.e., “lord.” Indeed, the word that was used by Sarah (Genesis 18:12) was the Hebrew adonai, a word that expressed respect, but did not necessarily denote submission to a superior. For example, Aaron called Moses adonai (Numbers 12:11); Jacob called Esau adonai (Genesis 32:40); David called Saul adonai (I Samuel 24:8); and Hazael, who became king of Syria, called Elisha adonai (II Kings 8:12). In each of these verses, adonai is translated in all lower case letters as "lord."

Adonai was also used by individuals in the Old Testament when addressing God or when referring to Him, where it is translated with the first letter capitalized, as in “Lord.” Yahweh, the personal and covenant name of God, is translated with all caps, i.e., “LORD.” It is obvious that adonai is not a name for God, but was a term or designation of honor and respect

As pointed out above, adonai was also used by individuals in addressing one another when they wanted to show honor and respect; but it did not indicate an inferior status for the one using the word, or the superior status of the one being addressed. It was merely a word of respect, which is why, in such cases, it is translated in all lower case letters as "lord." 

There is a similar situation in the New Testament. The Greek word used by Peter in this passage is kurion, which is from Kurios, a word that is used of Jesus Christ in the New Testament and is translated as "Lord." But in the larger Greco-Roman world, the word was used as a word of respect similar to “sir.” For example, the Philippian jailer used this word in addressing Paul and Silas in Acts 16:30. Overwhelmed by the sequence of events, including the earthquake, he fell down before Paul and Silas and cried out, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” “Sirs” in this verse is a translation of the same root word that is translated “lord” in I Peter 3:6.

So Sarah showed respect to Abraham. Respect is, indeed, an attitude that should be present in all Christian marriages and amongst all believers. And when we look at the full story of Sarah and Abraham, we find that there was equal respect shown by Abraham toward Sarah.

God Required Abraham to Obey and Respect Sarah

In Genesis 21:9-12, Sarah confronted Abraham over his passive and tolerant attitude toward Ishmael’s destructive behavior toward Isaac. She insisted that he get rid of Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham was reluctant to do so and the Scriptures say that Sarah’s demand was very displeasing to him. Nonetheless, God took Sarah’s side and said to Abraham, Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called. It was not a matter of who had authority over whom; it was a matter of what was right in that situation. Sarah happened to be right and God ordered Abraham to carry out her desire.

In her book, In the Spirit We’re Equal, Susan Hyatt points out that in Genesis 20:3 God referred to Sarah as Abraham’s baal, which is normally translated as “lord,” “master,” or “owner.” In a few places baal is translated as “husband,” as in Proverbs 12:4, which says that a virtuous or excellent wife is the crown of her husband, or baal. But Genesis 20:3 is the only place in the Old Testament that baal is ever translated as “wife.” Perhaps the translators cannot bring themselves to translate the word literally, for that would be saying that Sarah was Abraham’s “lord.”

It is true that Sarah was Abraham’s wife, but the question is why did God not say she was a man’s ishshah, the normal Hebrew word for wife? Why did He say she was a man’s baal, a word carrying obvious connotations of authority, honor, and respect. The answer is probably to be found in the context in which the word was used.

The setting of this verse is when Abraham, in fear for his own safety, told the people of Gerar that Sarah was his sister (she was his half-sister). He let Sarah down out of fear. As a result, the king of Gerar, Abimelech, took Sarah and made her a part of his harem. However, before he could go any further, God spoke a severe warning to him in a dream, saying, Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken for she is a man’s wife (baal).

As pointed out above, this is the only place that baal is translated as “wife.” So whatever meaning we may seek to derive from its use in this passage, the bottom line is that God used it to communicate to this pagan king that he was in big trouble for the woman he had taken was a woman deserving of great honor and respect, first of all from her husband and then from him. She was a man’s (Abraham’s) baal. God Himself defended Sarah and gave her the favor and status that she needed by calling her a baal.

Ladies, even when those closest to you let you down, you don’t have to have to fight in the flesh and toot your own horn. Trust in God, walk in obedience to Him, and He will be your shield and your defense. He will honor you and raise you up.

Peter Tells Husbands to Honor and Respect their Wives

Peter balances out his instructions to the wives in I Peter 3:1-6 with instructions to the husbands in 3:7. Peter tells husbands to give honor to the wife as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.  

The word “honor” in this verse is translated from the Greek word timen, which Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon defines as “to honor, revere, venerate,” and as “the honor of one who outranks others.” This is the attitude Peter instructs husbands to show toward their wives. They are to show their wives the kind of honor and respect they would show to a boss or superior. 

Peter, in this passage, refers to the wife as the “weaker vessel.” This cannot be a reference to a moral or intellectual weakness. It is likely a reference to the weaker status of the woman in the culture of that day where she was demeaned and treated as a second-class citizen, and often as a child. Peter is instructing husbands to treat their wives the very opposite of how the pagans treated their wives in that culture.

This is probably the source for the custom in Western societies of men opening doors for women, allowing them to go first, saying “Ladies and Gentlemen” rather than Gentlemen and Ladies.” Indeed, Peter is instructing the husbands to minister an opposite spirit of what they see in the world toward their wives. He goes on to tell the husbands that their wives are “co-heirs” with them of the grace of life. If they do not treat their wives in this manner, Peter warns, their prayers will be hindered. 

So, when all the verses of this passage are considered together, Peter is obviously not concerned with setting up a male-dominated hierarchy, but is calling for mutual respect in the marriage relationship. 

Concluding Remarks

So, on one occasion, Sarah showed respect to Abraham, calling him “lord.” On another occasion God showed the respect that was due Sarah by calling her Abraham’s baal, or “lord.” Mutual respect in marriage, or any relationship, is an absolute necessity in establishing a healthy, life-long relationship. And men, it will also help you obtain answers to your prayers. 

by Eddie L. Hyatt
www.eddiehyatt.com

A HAPPY CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

Scientific Studies Now Demonstrate that Those Couples

Who Practice Equality in their Marriages are the Happiest

This article was first published in the Summer Edition of the God's Word to Women magazine and can be accessed at:  http://icwhp.org/GodsWordToWomenMagazineSummer2012.pdf


While speaking at a large conference several years ago, a young man, who picked me up each day at the hotel, told me how the traditional teaching on marriage almost destroyed his business and his marriage. He and his wife had a successful business in which they provided personalized memorabilia to churches and events throughout North America. He explained that since his wife had a university degree in accounting and was a CPA, she ran the office while he did sales and public relations. They both enjoyed their jobs and the business flourished.

Then, one day, church leadership told them they were out of Divine order in their marriage because of the role that each was performing. The pastor explained that whoever controls the money controls the relationship and because his wife managed the office and bookkeeping, she was in control of the relationship. According to the pastors, this was wrong because the man was to be the ruling “head” of the home, and he could not do this if he was not the one controlling the finances.

Wanting to comply and be in “Divine order,” they switched jobs. He took charge of the office and accounting and she began doing sales and public relations. They both hated these new jobs into which the “Divine order” had forced them, but they did their best to make it work. Nevertheless, in spite of their best efforts, their business went into serious decline and their marriage suffered. He said to me, “We almost went bankrupt. We had to go back to doing it the way we were doing it before.”

The Traditional, Hierarchical Model Does Not Work

When I heard this story, I thought, “How dumb can Christian leaders be to give this sort of counsel?” Their advice was neither Biblical nor sensible. It did not take into account their gifts, their training or personal desires, but sought to squeeze them into a “one-size-fits-all” doctrinal strait jacket. It put unnecessary pressure on their marriage relationship and almost caused them to lose their business.

Since then I have wondered how many couples have been quenched and how many marriages destroyed by this sort of traditional teaching. The evidence indicates that the situation is serious. In spite of all the time and resources that evangelicals have poured into seminars, retreats, books, manuals, DVDs, etc. on marriage, about one-third of all born-again, evangelical Christians have been through divorce. Since this is virtually the same as the national average, it raises the question of why all this teaching on marriage has not had an impact—and if the teaching itself is not a part of the problem. It also makes one wonder how many more are remaining in unhappy marriage relationships because of children, pride, or other factors. All in all, it reveals that Christian marriages are hurting, unhappy, and in need of help.

I am convinced that the traditional teaching on marriage that squeezes each marriage partner into a gender-determined role is a major cause for so many unhappy Christian marriages. The couple mentioned above knew only the traditional teaching on marriage but discovered that if they wanted to keep their business and their marriage, they would have to move from the gender-determined roles imposed upon them by the church to Spirit-led functions that facilitated their gifts, training, and personalities.

Scientific Studies Now Demonstrate that

Marriages that Practice Equality are the Happiest

This model in which two equal partners function in marriage according to their gifts and callings rather than gender-determined roles is Biblical and is confirmed by the creation account in Genesis, by Jesus, and by Paul properly interpreted. This model of marriage is now also confirmed by empirical studies showing that couples who function in a Spirit-led marriage are happier and less likely to divorce than those who are trying to live within the traditional model. These studies show what Scripture has been telling us all along—equality and partnership in marriage works.

The following scientific studies were highlighted in a paper presented by Dennis J. Preato at the 2003 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. They affirm that the best route to a happy marriage is one in which there is equality and roles are based, not on gender, but on gifts and callings (Preato, www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/Preato3.htm).

Study Shows That Partnership Is Good For Marriage

Drs. Alan Booth and Paul Amato, sociologists and demographers at Penn State University, did a twenty-year study that demonstrated that egalitarian marriages are happier than traditional, hierarchical ones. They studied two thousand couples over a twenty-year period. These couples were contacted and interviewed six times each year during that period. At the end of the twenty-year period they interviewed an entirely new group of more than two thousand couples so that they could see, not only how their study group had changed, but how the society had changed. Regarding the results of their study, Dr. Amato wrote,

Equality is good for a marriage.  It's good for both husbands and wives.  If the wife goes from a patriarchal marriage to an egalitarian one, she'll be much happier, much less likely to look for a way out.  And in the long run, the husbands are happier too (Preato, www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/Preato3.htm).

Study Shows That Partnership Produces Happiness

Dr. David Olson of the University of Minnesota compiled a national survey of marriages based on 21,501 couples that were interviewed for the study. Couples were asked to complete thirty background questions and 165 specific questions related to twenty significant marital issues. Published in the year 2000, this survey represents one of the largest and most comprehensive studies of marital strengths and stumbling blocks ever produced.

The study found that 82% of the couples who functioned in egalitarian marriages were happy. In contrast, the study found that only 18% of the couples that functioned in traditional, hierarchical marriages were happy. Happiness, in turn, determined the level of intimacy in the marriage. For example, only 27% of the unhappy couples felt close to each other while 97% of the happy couples felt close to one another. The study found that the inability to share leadership equally was the major stumbling block to a happy marriage.

Hierarchical Relationships in Marriage Are Destructive

In her book, Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide, Dr. Diana R. Garland, Director of the Center for Family and Community Ministries at Baylor University, says that research conducted in the mid-twentieth century has revealed the following:

Wives, in traditional marriages, suffered significantly more depression and other mental disorders than men, working married women and unmarried women (Bernard 1982). In traditional marriages, wives had been beaten at "a rate of more than 300 percent higher than for egalitarian marriages (Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980)." Violence is more likely to occur in homes where the husband has all the power and makes all the decisions (Preato, www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/Preato3.htm).

The Evidence Is Compelling

The above studies coincide with the surveys done by Christian sociologist, George Barna, which showed that evangelical Christian marriages are in trouble. These studies indicate that the hierarchical model of marriage taught by most evangelicals is a major part of the problem. Preato, who has done a vast amount of research in this area, sums up his investigation by saying,

These research studies accomplish the following: First, they effectively discredit any traditionalists’ notion that dismantling hierarchy destabilizes marriage and that the root problem in marriage is the unwillingness of each spouse to accept the role for which he or she was designed.  Second, they prove that hierarchy actually destabilizes and harms marriages. Third, they provide objective data that egalitarian marriages produce the healthiest, happiest, most intimate, and stable of all marriage relationships with the least amount of spousal abuse (Preato, www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/Preato3.htm).

Conclusion

I am convinced that marriage based on equal partnership is both the Biblical and common sense approach. It is the only approach that requires such Christian virtues as service and humility in both partners. It is the only approach that allows the nurturing and flowering of the gifts and abilities in both the man and the woman. It is the only approach that facilitates the synergism and multiplication of power Jesus promised in Matthew 18:19 when any two on earth will agree.

“Agree” in this passage is a translation of the Greek word sumphonesosin from which we get “symphony.” A symphony orchestra is made up of different musical instruments with different sounds. But when they all play the same melody in the same key, something beautiful comes forth. Jesus said that if any two of his followers would make a symphony about anything, it would be done.

Christian marriage is the place, more than any other, where such a symphony should be occurring. But such a symphony can only occur when there is equality and partnership in the marriage relationship. I am convinced that as couples today embrace the Biblical model of equality and teamwork in marriage, they will make such a symphony and discover a happy Christian marriage.

WHICH BIBLE VERSION SHOULD I USE

Suggestions for Studying & Understanding the English Bible

This article was first published in the Summer Edition of God's Word to Women magazine, which can be accessed and viewed at http://icwhp.org/GodsWordToWomenMagazineSummer2012.pdf

God has faithfully preserved His word down through the centuries through many different translations into many different languages. The Word of God as penned by the original writers is inerrant and infallible in in their original form. However, translations of these manuscripts are not perfect, which is why we should not be tied to a single translation.

There were several English translations before the King James Version (1611), including Tyndale’s New Testament (1526), The Coverdale Bible (1535), The Great Bible (1539), and The Geneva Bible (1560). There is no reason to believe that the King James Version holds a special and holy status over all other translations. In fact, such a reverential attitude toward one particular translation has hindered many from deeper study to get back to what the Biblical writers actually wrote, not in English but in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT).

Understanding how the King James Version came forth can help us realize that it and other translations of the original writings of Scripture are not infallible. We will then see that we must be willing to prayerfully consult various translations and the original language in order to arrive at an understanding of God’s word. By doing so we will fulfill the admonition of Paul that we show ourselves approved unto God. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (II Timothy 2:15).

               The Religious/Social Setting o

f the King James Version              

The English Reformation began in the 1530s largely for personal and political reasons. Henry VIII had requested an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon because she had failed to bear him a male heir to his throne. Henry’s plan was to obtain an annulment and marry Anne Boleyn. When the pope and the Roman Catholic Church refused his request, he severed ties with Rome and made the English monarch—in this case, himself—the Head of the English church. He was then able to proceed with his marriage to Anne Boleyn.

Because Henry had little interest in doctrinal and ecclesial reform, the Church of England differed little from the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Henry was, in fact, opposed to Protestant reform. Before his separation with Rome, he had written a sharp treatise against Luther for which he was commended by the pope, who also conferred upon him the title “Defender of the Faith.” This title has continued to be a part of the English monarchy down to the present time.

When Henry died in 1547 and was succeeded by the youthful Edward VI, the work of reform was greatly accelerated, for Edward was favorable to the Protestant cause. But when Edward died a young death in 1553 he was succeeded by his sister, Mary, who was a staunch Roman Catholic and opposed to Protestantism. As a result, those championing reform came under severe persecution, with many being imprisoned and 288 being put to death for their Protestant beliefs. Many fled to Europe and a number found refuge in Geneva, the city of John Calvin.

The Geneva Bible Emerges

In Geneva, these English reformers produced a translation of the Bible that became known as The Geneva Bible. This Bible translation also contained notes that offered commentary on the Scriptures from a Protestant perspective. Although these comments would seem quite traditional to us today, they were groundbreaking at the time for they challenged the concepts of the Divine Right of Kings and the Divine Right of Bishops, doctrines that claimed absolute authority from God for monarchs and church leaders over their subjects.

For example, in Acts 5:29 where Peter told the Jewish authorities, We ought to obey God rather than man, the commentators of the Geneva Bible explained to their readers that they were obligated to obey monarchs and church leaders only so far as such obedience was also obedience to God; otherwise they were to obey God and not man. Another example is from Exodus 1:9 where a marginal note indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders. These and similar comments were enough to raise the ire of kings, popes, and bishops who were used to having it their way, period.

The Rise of the Puritans in the Church of England

When Mary died in 1558 she was succeeded by her sister, Elizabeth I, who was more favorable to the Protestant cause and efforts were renewed to reform the Church of England. It was at this time that the Puritans emerged as the most passionate advocates of Biblical reform in the English Church. They were called “Puritans” because of their passion to see the English Church “purified” from all forms of worship and doctrine that could not be validated by Scripture.

With more freedom and tolerance because of Elizabeth’s reign, many English refugees returned from Geneva to their homeland bringing the Geneva Bible with them. They began publishing it in England around 1560 and it became the most popular Bible in England, especially among the Puritans.

King James I and the King James Version of the Bible

When Elizabeth I died in 1603 leaving no heir to the throne, she was succeeded by James VI of the Stuart Family in Scotland. He was crowned James I of England and is best known, perhaps, as the King James of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. James was not friendly toward the Puritan cause and he was a staunch advocate of the Divine Right of Kings. He, therefore, saw the Puritan challenge to doctrines and practices of the state-controlled church as an affront to his own authority. Consequently, he ordered, “Conform yourselves or I will harry you out of the land.”³

King James saw the Bible of the Puritans, the Geneva Bible, as a problem. He, in fact, considered the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible to be “a political threat to his kingdom.” He, therefore, commissioned a new English translation, completed in 1611, that we know as the King James Version. James called it the Authorized Version. Authorized by whom? By King James, of course, who did not want his subjects reading those unauthorized versions with their annotated notes that might give them a sense of individual freedom. In his excellent book, What if America Were a Christian Nation Again?, Dr. D. James Kennedy wrote,

His push for that 1611 translation was essentially an anti-Puritan measure. King James I set out to translate the Scriptures in order to replace an influential version he disdained, the Geneva Bible, which came out in 1560 and was widespread for two generations. The Pilgrims and Puritans loved this Bible. It wasn’t really the text or the translation that bothered the king it was the footnotes . . . on the sides and at the bottom. Commentaries on passages such as “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) were enough to raise any monarch’s eyebrows” (Kennedy, 23).

An area of interest to some is that King James had a problem with women being in leadership and this shows up in his translation. For example, the Greek word diakonos or its verb form is translated as “minister” 23 times in the New Testament when referring to men. In the one place where diakonos was used in reference to a woman (Rom. 16:1); the King James translators chose to translate it as “servant.”

This same gender bias is obvious in the fact that both aner, the gender-specific Greek word for “man,” and anthropos, the gender-inclusive Greek word for “person” are both translated as “man” or “men” by the King James translators. Just one example will suffice to show how this could be misleading, especially in a patriarchal culture. II Timothy 2:2 reads, And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. The word Paul used in this passage was anthropoi, the plural form of anthropos, which means that he saw the possibility of both men and women teaching and leading. By translating the word as “men” instead of the more accurate “people” or “individuals” the King James translators affirmed the views of the king and church tradition that only “men” can function in teaching roles.

The Pilgrims Who Settled New England Used the Geneva Bible

King James was particularly infuriated with the Separatist Puritans who, through reading their Bibles, found enough confidence to begin leaving the Church of England and forming their own congregations. When James gave them the option of going to prison or leaving the country, one congregation, whose members became known as the Pilgrims, migrated to America in 1620 and founded the colony at Plymouth, MA. These Pilgrims, and later Puritan immigrants, brought their Bibles with them to America, but it was not the King James Version they brought. It was the Geneva Bible.

Some Suggestions for Studying the English Bible

I am not here to demean or promote a particular translation. I personally use the New King James Version for personal reading and for preaching. For study, however, I prayerfully consult various translations and, having studied Hebrew and Greek, the original text. Here are a few suggestions for reading and studying the English Bible for all its worth.

1)      Remember that the Bible was not written in chapters and verses. These divisions were added in the Middle Ages. This division into chapters and verses is great for referencing but is bad for interpretation because it makes it too easy to lift individual verses from their context. The next time you read one of Paul’s letters, ignore the chapter and verse divisions and notice what a difference it can make. In this regard, it can also be helpful to use a Bible for study, such as the NKJV or NIV, that indicate the beginning of new paragraphs.

2)     Remember that words only have meaning within the context of the sentence in which they are used; and sentences only have meaning within the context of sentences that are before and after. Make every effort to interpret a word or passage within its historical context.

3)     Remember that the Bible was not written in a vacuum. Each book has a life setting, i.e., a social and historical context in which it was written. This is especially true of the Epistles. Understanding the historical context in which a letter/epistle was written adds tremendous understanding to our reading of the text.

4)      Some translations, such as the KJV and NKJV, italicize words that were not in the original text but were added by the translators in their attempt to add understanding to the passage (it sometimes has the opposite effect). Recognizing this can be helpful in your study.

5)      Remember that the purpose of Biblical study is not for acquiring knowledge so that we can better argue our doctrinal position. The goal of Biblical study is that we might better know God and His Son Jesus Christ and be more conformed to His will and likeness. As John said in 20:31 of his gospel, These are written that you may know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

6)      Remember that reference works are not infallible and some may be outdated. For example, although Strong’s Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words can be helpful, it is very limited and some of its entries have been made obsolete by modern archaeological discoveries.

7)      Ask the Holy Spirit to give you understanding as you apply your mind and all the tools at your disposal for understanding the text.

8)      The New Testament Study Guide produced by Drs. Eddie & Susan Hyatt and Rev. Valarie Owen is a helpful tool in reading with understanding. It is available in hard copy and in PDF the pdf format at www.eddiehyatt.com/bookstore.html.

          by Eddie L. Hyattwww.eddiehyatt.com