GOD'S WORD TO WOMEN

PAUL GREETS A FEMALE APOSTLE IN ROME

2012-02-09T08:18:00.000-08:00

Not much is known about Junia of Romans 16:7, but here is what we do know.

1) Junia is a woman whom Paul recognizes as an apostle, as is borne out by every ancient Greek manuscript (see the article below).
2) Junia is mentioned together with a man, Andronicus, who is probably her husband since men and women mentioned together like this almost always meant that they were husband and wife, i.e., Priscilla and Aquila (Romans 16:3). So here we most likely have a husband-wife apostolic team.
3) Junia was a believer in Christ before Paul.
4) Junia had spent time in prison for her faith, perhaps with Paul.
5) Junia is a relative of Paul, since the Greek word for "countrymen," suggeneis, means "relative" or "kin."

Below is a very good academic argument that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Junia was a female apostle. This was the common belief of the early church and the famous church father, John Chrysostom, declared, "O how great is the faith of this woman that she should be given the appellation of apostle."

TAKE HEED THAT NO ONE DECEIVES YOU

2012-01-20T07:59:00.000-08:00

5 Warning Signs That Prophetic Ministry Has Gone Awry

When the disciples of Jesus asked what would be the sign of His coming and of the end of the age, he began His response with the words, Take heed that no one deceives you (Matthew 24:1-4). The New Testament reveals that the last days will be characterized by both a world-wide outpouring of the Holy Spirit and a widespread deception that will destroy many. Both Scripture and the lessons of history will equip us to be prepared to discern between the true and the false in this time in which we live.

The following information is drawn from a document written around 1560 by Obe Philips, a leader in the 16^th century Anabaptist movement that sought the restoration of New Testament Christianity. Philips was commissioned as an “apostle” in this movement and he commissioned others to this “office.” The document, entitled “Confessions,” describes events in Europe in the 1530s. From this document I have delineated 5 warning signs from their experience that can help us avoid the tragic mistakes that produced such great suffering and distress for them.

Warning Sign #1

When prophecy is used to
Exalt a Movement and its leaders

1517-1537 was a very exciting time for many Christians in Europe. A great spiritual reformation was under way and many believed that God was restoring the church to its original purity and power. Many believed that out of this restoration would come a great revival and harvest that would usher in the coming of the Lord and the end of the age.

In the midst of this end-time, revival atmosphere, individuals began to arise proclaiming themselves to be special end-time apostles and prophets endowed by God with miraculous power to usher in His kingdom upon the earth.

One of the most prominent of these “apostles” was Melchoir Hoffman, a powerful preacher and teacher who gained a large following. His status was further enhanced when a prophetess saw in a vision a large white swan, larger and more beautiful than all the others, swimming in a beautiful river. She said it was revealed to her that the swan was Hoffman and that he represented the fulfillment of God’s promise in Mal. 4:5 to send Elijah before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

Warning Sign #2

When Prophecy Becomes the Primary
Means for Determining the Will of God

Another individual prophesied that Hoffman would be imprisoned for six months in the city of Strasbourg and, after that, his ministry would spread over the whole world. Based on the prophecy, Hoffman moved to Strasbourg where he began to preach and teach throughout that city.

The first part of the prophecy was fulfilled when the Strasbourg authorities arrested Hoffman and had him imprisoned. Philips says that he entered the prison “willingly, cheerfully, and well comforted,” convinced that the latter part of the prophecy would now soon come to pass.

While in prison, Hoffman wrote many letters which Philips says came every day describing “how his actions, his visions and revelations affected him.” One individual prophesied that at the end of his six month imprisonment, Hoffman would depart Strasbourg with 144,000 true apostles endowed with such miraculous power that no one would be able to resist them. Elated with such prophetic predictions, Hoffman vowed that he would take no food other than bread and water until the time of his deliverance.

Six months passed, however, and he was not released. More time elapsed and he found it necessary to break his fast. Hoffman eventually died in prison, a very disillusioned man. Philips says,

Everything that he so boldly professed from the prophets and prophetesses, he, in the end, found it all falsehood and deception, in fact and in truth; and he was so deceived with all their visions, prophecies, commission, dreams, and Elijah role that my heart today feels pity for his on account of this distress of his soul.

Warning Sign #3

When Prophecy is Preoccupied
With Images, Numbers, and Symbols

Prophetic dreams and visions flourished in this movement. These dreams and visions predicted many remarkable things related to the establishing of God’s kingdom and the destruction of the wicked. Much of this information was given in symbolic form which had to be interpreted by those who were “spiritual.” Philips says,

One came dragging a wagon without wheels, another wagon had three wheels, one wagon had no shaft, some no horses, some no recognizable driver, some had but one leg, some were lepers and beggars, some wore a tunic or a cloak with a lappet of fur. All this they could interpret for the brethren in a spiritual sense.

These prophecies, dreams and visions predicted remarkable successes for the people of God, including a super-empowerment of the Spirit by which they would be enabled to overcome the wicked and establish the kingdom of God in the earth. In his very moving account of these matters, Philips says,

Now when these teachings and consolation with all the fantasies, dreams, revelations and visions daily occurred among the brethren, there was no little joy and expectation among us, hoping all would be true and fulfilled, for we were all unsuspecting, innocent, simple, without guile or cunning, and were not aware of any false visions, prophets, and revelations.

Warning Sign #4

When Those Prophesying are not
Open to Testing and/or Correction

During this time, two new apostles arrived in Philips’ home town of Leeuwarden. They declared that they had been commissioned to the apostolic office with such signs, miracles and workings of the Spirit that words failed them to describe it. They also declared that, “In a short time God would rid the earth of all shedders of blood and all tyrants and the godless” (Philips, 216).

Philips says that they frightened the people so that no one dared speak against them for fear they would be speaking against the commission and ordination of God. “For we were all guileless children and had no idea that our own brethren would betray us” (Philips, 216).

Sign #5

When Prophecy Becomes a
Replacement for the Scriptures & Common Sense

The tragic end of this prophetic movement came when, based on dreams, visions, prophecies, and supposed angelic visitations, a number of these visionaries claimed that God had designated the city of Munster as the New Jerusalem and from there the kingdom of God would spread through all the earth. Philips says, “Some had spoken with God, others with angels—until they got a new trek under way to Munster.” Based on the prophecies and supposed visions, they went to Munster and took the city by force from the Catholics who controlled it and renamed it New Jerusalem.

The Catholics, however, quickly regrouped and regained control of the city. They wasted no time in inflicting a terrible slaughter on those apostles, prophets and their followers who believed they were setting up the kingdom of God on the earth.

This whole fiasco resulted in widespread persecution of all Anabaptists who were hunted down, imprisoned, hanged, burned, and drowned. Philips later lamented his role in the extremes of this movement. He wrote,

It is this which is utter grief to my heart and which I will lament before my God as long as I live, before all my companions, as often as I think of them. At the time that I took leave of those brethren, I had warned Menno and Dietrich and declared my [apostolic] commission unlawful and that I was therein deceived. I thank the gracious and merciful God who opened my eyes, humbled my soul, transformed my heart, captured my spirit, and who gave me to know my sins. And when I still think of the resigned suffering which occurred among the brethren, my soul is troubled and terrified before it.

Conclusion

This 16th century prophetic movement highlights the need to “test the spirits” and to “judge” prophetic utterances according to the Scriptures. For the most part, these were sincere, seeking people who suffered much pain, grief and even death because they neglected this Biblical admonition. May we learn from their example and not repeat their mistakes.

By Eddie L. Hyatt

This article is derived Eddie’s book, 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity, which is available from his website, www.eddiehyatt.com, from amazon.com, and from local Christian bookstores.

GO & TELL

2012-01-09T09:26:00.000-08:00

God’s Word to Women (and Men) in the 21st Century

During the forty days between His resurrection and ascension, Jesus appeared to different disciples at various times and on one occasion appeared to over five hundred of His followers at once (I Corinthians 15:3-8). The gospel writers, however, are very explicit in noting that it was Mary Magdalene to whom He appeared first after His resurrection. The importance which the Gospel writers attach to this fact indicate that it was no accidental occurrence, but that Jesus purposely appeared first to Mary Magdalene. Jesus knew that actions speak louder than words and by appearing first to Mary Magdalene He made a statement that none of His disciples would forget or dismiss.

When Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene He gave her certain, specific instructions. Matthew 28:10 records His words to Mary: Go and tell my brethren.... In other words, He sent her on a specific mission defined by the words, Go and tell. Interestingly, the New Testament word apostle literally means "one who is sent" or "a sent one." Mary, therefore, was a "sent one" and as such received the first apostolic commission from the Lord after His resurrection.

THE 1ST ACT OF JESUS AFTER HIS RESURRECTION
WAS TO CHALLENGE GENDER BIAS AMONG HIS DISCIPLES

Mary’s commission was to go and tell the male disciples—the Twelve--that Jesus had risen. This raises the question as to why Jesus did not tell them Himself. He was in His resurrection body and could have stood in their midst at the speed of thought. Why does He require that they receive the message of His resurrection from this woman with a dubious past?

It is obvious that Jesus wanted to challenge the biased thinking of His male disciples toward His female disciples. We must remember that neither Jewish nor Roman courts of law would allow the testimony of a woman as evidence. The ingrained cultural prejudice toward women was also expressed in a prayer that Jewish men prayed that included thanks to God that he was not born a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.

By appearing first to Mary Magdalene, Jesus cut through all the disdain and prejudice of his male disciples toward his female disciples. He thereby declared His equal acceptance of women and confirmed their ministry by bestowing on Mary the first apostolic commission after His resurrection. He showed his approval and respect for all women and their testimony by sending her as the first to bear witness to the most important event of human history.

THE RESURRECTION USHERED IN A NEW ERA OF FREEDOM

By appearing first to Mary Magdalene and giving her an apostolic commission, Jesus was saying that His death and resurrection had ushered in a new era of freedom for all of humanity. He was saying that In Him the walls of separation and exclusion between the races and the sexes had been removed. Paul echoes this in his letter to the Galatians saying that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek ... there is neither male nor female (3:28).

"But," some will ask, "what about Paul's admonition in I Corinthians 14:34 and I Timothy 2:12 for women to be silent?" First of all, anything that Paul said must be interpreted and understood in the light of what Jesus said and did, not the other way around. Jesus is Lord, not Paul! Secondly, a doctrine about women should not be formulated with these two passages as the starting point. Equal consideration must be given to the many Scriptures that show women functioning in leadership roles. Finally, it is more than likely that the restrictions of these two verses are related to local, cultural situations and are not universal edicts pertaining to the whole Church. These restrictions are, rather, on the same level as Paul's instructions concerning the wearing of veils in I Corinthians chapter 11 and his admonitions for believers to greet one another with a holy kiss (a handshake or hug will do just fine in most cases).

What Can Happen When the gifts of
women are equally recognized and valued

In 1988 I spent one week in Seoul, Korea observing the ministry of the largest church in the world founded by a woman, Choi Ja-shil, and her son-in-law, David Yonggi Cho. At that time, the Yoido Full Gospel Church had over 600,000 members and was growing at the rate of 13,000 per month. Ninety per cent of those new members were entering the church through the 50,000 cell groups that met weekly in homes and offices throughout the city.

I then discovered that of the 50,000 cell groups that were bringing in 90% of the growth, 48,000 were led by women. I looked at the pastoral staff of this massive congregation and discovered that of the approximate 600 pastors, two-thirds were women. I realized that without the active participation of women, this world-renowned, largest church in the world would shrink into a much smaller and insignificant congregation. In fact, a friend of mine spent six weeks in Seoul studying the church growth methods of this church. After returning home to America, he wrote a book entitled, Cho’s Secret Weapon--Women.

Cho has said that in teaching church growth to pastors all over the world, he tells them that he could never have built the largest church in the world without the full participation of women. In spite of this, he says there is still much resistance to this part of his message.

MINISTRY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
IS BASED ON GIFTS AND CALLING--NOT GENDER

In I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12, Paul pictures the Church as a body made up of many members. Each time he shares this concept it is in the context of Spiritual gifts. This is because it is the possession of a Spiritual gift that gives each member of the body its particular function or ministry. The authority to minister is thus rooted in one's possession of a divine call or gift. Ordination is simply the Church's recognition of that gift. When John Wesley was asked why he gave recognition to women preachers, he replied, "Because God owns them in the conversion of sinners, and who am I that I should withstand God."

Much of the Church has refused to recognize the gifts of its female members and has, thereby, violated Paul's command in I Thessalonians 5:19 not to 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.

IT'S TIME FOR ACTION

It is time for action! It is time to rise up! You don’t have to be weighted down with all the bureaucratic, religious politics of the modern church to obey God. You don’t need a title, an office, or a position. You don’t need someone’s covering, alignment, or approval. Like Mary, you only need to hear the voice of the risen Lord sending you on a mission to “go and tell.”

by Eddie L. Hyatt
www.eddiehyatt.com

DON'T ALLOW YOUR PAST TO ROB YOU OF YOUR FUTURE

2012-01-01T16:30:00.000-08:00

3 Keys for Laying Hold of God’s best in 2012

Past sins, mistakes, failures, rejections, disappointments, etc. can become weights that burden the soul and rob the heart of any hope for the future. Life then becomes an endless cycle of day-to-day survival with no hope that things will ever be different.

Things can, however, be different. In Philippians 3:12-14 Paul lays out a clear statement of how he is dealing with a very difficult past and laying hold of his future in Christ. Here are three keys from this passage and Paul’s own experience for laying hold of God’s best in 2012.

Key #1
Realize that You Have a Future

In Phil. 3:12 Paul says that he has not yet been “perfected.” The Greek word is teteleiomai and refers to a goal or destination. In other words, Paul is saying that he has not yet completed his reason and purpose for being on this earth. He still has a future of which he says, I press on that I may lay hold of.

It is not personal goals and agendas that Paul is pursuing. He makes it clear that he is pursuing and laying hold of the same purpose for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. From the heavenward side, Christ Jesus has laid hold of Paul for a purpose. From the earthly side, Paul is diligently laying hold of that same purpose. Even though he has been through so many trials and now writes this letter from prison, he knows that he still has work to carry out on this earth. He still has a future.

You too must realize that the very fact that you are alive and reading this, that God is not finished with you. You have a future and you can lay hold of your destiny by following Paul’ example.

Key #2
Forget the Past

In vs. 13 Paul tells how he is dealing with his past which was filled with pain, rejection, and remorse. He says that he is forgetting those things which are behind.

If anyone had an excuse to be bound by his past it was Paul. First of all, before his encounter with Jesus he had grievously sinned against others, even involved in the murder of Christians. Such guilt could easily paralyze Paul with remorse and regret. What is his answer? Forget! And he could forget because he knew something of the great mercy and grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ. So can you!

Since becoming a Christian he had suffered wrongs at the hands of so many others—being stoned and left for dead in Lystra, being beaten and imprisoned in Philippi, being mobbed by his own people in Jerusalem who tried to kill him, and being imprisoned by the Romans in Rome where he now writes this letter. Such painful experiences could leave one with anger, bitterness, hopelessness, and a sense of rejection. What is Paul’s answer? Forget!

It is not a super-spiritual technique or methodology that Paul has discovered for dealing with his past; but a practical decision to forget it—leave it behind—and not allow it to affect his present or his future. Your future is too valuable to allow it to be robbed by past experiences of pain or regret. Forget it—let it go—and move on.

Key #3
Lay Hold of Your Future

In regards to his future Paul says in vs. 13 that he is reaching forward. Paul here uses a metaphorical picture from the sporting arena of a runner in a race waiting for the signal to begin. His body is bent forward, his hand outstretched, never giving a backward glance, and his eyes fixed on the goal. All his mental and physical energies are focused on what is ahead—the goal or finish line.

In vss. 12 and 14 he uses the expression press on in regards to his attitude toward his future. “Press on” is from the Greek word dioko, which is an intense word that means to “pursue” or “go after.” In vs. 14 he says he is pressing toward the mark (goal) of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. The mark or goal which Paul is pursuing with all his might is the fulfillment of his Divine destiny, i.e., his reason for being on earth.

God’s purpose for our lives will not just fall on us out of the sky. His plan will not just automatically unfold without any diligence or effort on our part. His plan and purpose must be diligently pursued. We should prayerfully ask ourselves this question, “What practical steps can I take in 2012 to move me toward the fulfillment of my Divine destiny?

Final Thought

Shake off the Dust of 2011

Acts 13:49-51 tells of the opposition that arose against Paul and Barnabas in Antioch of Pisidia and how the people there expelled them, i.e., ran them out of town. Vs. 51 says, But they shook off the dust from their feet against them, and came to Iconium. This act was based on the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:14 where he told the disciples that when they went to a city and they and their words were not received, they were to shake the dust off their feet and go on to the next city. In other words, they were not to take any of the dirt—the pain, the rejection, etc.—from that situation to their next place of ministry. They were to “forget” and “go on.” The outward demonstration of this was to not allow any dirt from that city to go with them to the next city.

There will be challenges in 2012, perhaps some major challenges. But in spite of what goes on in the political and economic world, it can be a great year for the people of God if we will follow Paul’s example and advice. I urge you now to shake off the dirt of 2011 and begin now to lay hold of the future God has for you in 2012. Don’t allow your past to rob you of your future!

by Eddie L. Hyatt
www.eddiehyatt.com

MARY’S MIRACLE & OURS

2011-12-19T16:15:00.000-08:00

Strategic Lessons of Faith from the First Christmas Miracle

Just over 2000 years ago a miracle, that would change world history, occurred when a young, unmarried Jewish woman—a virgin—supernaturally conceived and gave birth to a Son whom she named “Jesus” in obedience to the word delivered to her by the angel Gabriel. This first Christmas miracle set in motion all the ensuing miracles that occurred in the life and ministry of Jesus, the miracle of His resurrection, the miracle of His ascension, the miracle of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and all the miracles of God that have occurred down to the present time. In this essay I have identified 5 important lessons from Mary’s encounter with the angel (Luke 1:26-38) that are crucial for us as we believe God for miracles in our lives today.

(1) This miracle was initiated by God.

Mary was not straining in faith, prayer, and spiritual warfare trying to produce this miracle. This was a God-thing. There is no question that she had positioned herself for this miracle by a life of purity before God; but there was no initiative on her part for this specific miracle. Mary merely responded in faith to God’s initiative.

The emphasis today seems to be on human initiative, i.e., what we can do to generate miracles. One only has to look at the “how to” books that crowd the shelves of most Christian bookstores—“5 Steps to Your Financial Miracle” or “10 Keys to Your Miracle Healing,” etc., etc. Miracles have become commercialized and professionalized. Just listen to the grand offers of presumptuous preachers who offer miracles on demand, usually tied to a love offering to their ministry. In the midst of this preoccupation with ourselves and what we can do, it is all too easy to forget that God Himself has thoughts and plans and that He acts according to His own sovereign will.

The wise thing for us, therefore, is to seek with all our hearts to know and understand His thoughts, His plans, and His will. Let’s not be so quick to make our plans and then “storm heaven” asking God to bless our plans. Instead, let’s get His plan and cooperate with His plan, for His plan is already blessed. Mary cooperated with His plan in the making of that first Christmas miracle.

(2) This miracle was beyond Mary’s ability to comprehend.

How can this be, since I do not know a man, was Mary’s response to Gabriel’s announcement. Her point was that, as a single woman committed to a life of purity and godliness, there was no way this could happen. God’s promise (vision) for our lives will always exceed our understanding of how it can happen, and our ability to make it happen. God’s revealed promise and plan will cause us to also ask, “How can this be?” God’s promise and plan for our lives will only happen as we learn to walk with Him in absolute, unequivocal trust.

This reminds me of Abraham and Sarah who had received a promise from God that they would have a son; but Sarah was barren and unable to have children. It was a “how can this be” moment for them.

Instead of trusting God as Mary would later do, they took matters into their own hands. Abraham took Sarah’s handmaid, Hagar, and had a son by her whom he named Ishmael. God let them know, however, that Ishmael was their idea, not His. They had to come to the place wherein they acknowledged that they were unable and helpless in themselves to bring about the fulfillment of the promise. They put their trust completely in God—not in themselves—and when Abraham was 100 and Sarah was 90, the miracle occurred and Isaac was born.

Like with Mary (and Sarah and Abraham) God’s plan for your life and mine is bigger than we are. We do not have the abilities or the resources to make it happen. We can try and make it happen in our own strength, but all we will do is bring forth another Ishmael. We may call it by a spiritual sounding name, but it is still an Ishmael. So why not learn our lesson now, and determine that we are going to trust and cooperate with Him totally and unequivocally to fulfill the promises He has made.

(3) This miracle would come forth, not by human effort, but through the power of the Holy Spirit.

In answer to Mary’s question of “how can this be,” the angel Gabriel said, The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will over shadow you. This is also the answer for all our impossibilities--The Holy Spirit will come upon you. As to how a small, insignificant group of disciples could take the gospel to all the world, Jesus said in Acts 1:8, But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.

We must, therefore, relinquish all trust in ourselves and yield our lives totally to Him. As we cooperate with Him, He will turn all our impossibilities into possibilities. As the prophet Zechariah said concerning how Israel could overcome the impossible circumstances they faced, Not by (human) might, nor by (earthly) power, but by My Spirit says the Lord of Hosts (Zechariah 4:6).

I can’t tell you how many times, in my own life, the Holy Spirit has provided the answer and the strength for impossible situations I have faced. He did it for Mary. He will do the same for you. Acknowledge aloud now that you choose to yield yourself to the Spirit of God and invite Him to be your strength, wisdom, and very life.

(4) The promise was like a seed with the potential power of fulfillment already inherent in that promise.

To the promise he is delivering from God, Gabriel adds the words, For with God nothing shall be impossible (NKJV). The Greek text literally reads, No rhema from God is void of power. A rhema is a particular word or promise for a specific situation. When God gives a promise, the power of fulfillment is inherent in that promise.

In Scripture, God’s word is often compared with seed because a seed has within itself the potential power to produce the desired end results. For example, to have a harvest of corn you do not have to know all the science of how a seed of corn germinates and grows into a mature stalk bearing multiple ears of corn. You simply have to put the seed in the ground and look after it because the seed has the power within itself to produce the end results.

The same is true of every rhema or word from God. It has within itself the power to produce the desired end results. Our part is to allow the seed to be planted in our hearts and then guard or steward that promise until we see it mature and bring forth the promised fruit or fulfillment (Luke 8:15). Once when struggling over the “mechanics” of how to build a church, I heard the Holy Spirit say, “Preach my word and the church will emerge and come forth.”

(5) Mary’s faith response sealed the deal.

Let it be to me according to your word (Luke 1:38), was Mary’s response to Gabriel’s final explanation concerning how the miracle would happen. She is saying, in effect, “I recognize that it is naturally impossible but, nonetheless, Let it be to me according to your word.” This was the faith response for which Gabriel was looking and with it, he departed. Mary then departed to visit her cousin Elizabeth who, upon seeing her, exclaimed by the Spirit, Blessed is she who believed for there will be a fulfillment of those things that were told her from the Lord. Mary’s response is the sort of faith response we too must give to the promises of God. Let it be to me according to your word.

This reminds me of Luke 5:5 where Jesus, after using Peter’s boat from which to teach, instructed Peter to launch out in the deep and let down his nets for a catch. Peter responded that he had just fished all night without catching a single fish, Nevertheless, at Your word, I will let down the net. Peter acted on the word of Jesus and caught so many fish that his nets began to break and his boats began to sink from the weight of the fish.

Both Mary and Peter were blessed because they believed the promise, not because they had some special status with God. We too are blessed when we embrace the promise and say with Mary, Let it be to me according to your word, or with Peter, At your word I will let down the net.

Concluding Thought

In the miracle of the catch of fish, Peter was so astounded that when he came to shore he fell at the feet of Jesus and acknowledged His Lordship. Mary too was astounded at the miracle birth of Jesus the Son of God. I truly believe that understanding the principles above can help us move into a place where the miracles in our lives will be so far beyond our own faith and abilities that we too will be astounded and in awe of what God does. This happened to Mary. It happened to Peter and has happened to countless others since that time. It can happen to you and me.

THE BIG PICTURE ON BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD IS LIKE A PUZZLE OF 1000 PIECES

2011-12-18T11:19:00.000-08:00

by Dr. Susan C. Hyatt

Any doctrine is like a puzzle of 1000 pieces. The whole picture is not seen in one or two small pieces. Each piece is significant, but each piece must be a true part of the picture if our assembled picture is going to look like the original picture. So here are 4 pieces of the puzzle.

Piece #1

King James said that he would “take every opportunity to trample women into permanent invisibility.” His translation team carried out his wishes in such passages as 1 Tim. 2:11, which reads, “Let the women learn in silence.” But in II Thes. 3:16, they translated the same word as “quietness:” “with quietness they work and eat.” When referring to women, they translated HESYCHIA as “silence,” but in referring to men, they translated the same word as “quietness.”

Piece #2

Much has been made, too, of Paul’s reference to “authority” in relation to women. But when he said, “I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man,” he used a rare Greek word (AUTHENTEIN), instead of the normal word (EXOUSIA). “Authentein” refers either “to being the author of” or carrying the sense of murder, both of which would have been understood accurately by his original readers. Do you know what he was really addressing?

Piece #3

Paul uses KEPHALE (“head” as “source”) to say that woman came from the same source as the male and is therefore made of the same substance, and not of inferior substance, as the Greeks believed. He NEVER uses the term ARCHON (“head” as “ruler”) to refer to the male/female relationship. (Why do we teach this from a point of ignorance instead of from a point of truth?)

Piece #4

Paul also uses only HUPOTASSO (meaning “to identify with” and NEVER “submit”) to describe the male/female relationship. He uses HUPAKOUO when he wants to talk about “obedience,” but he NEVER uses this word in the male/female relationship.

I hope that these small pieces of the puzzle will help you to explore what the Biblical picture really is.

THE GOSPEL OF PEACE

2011-12-15T08:12:00.000-08:00

Rediscovering the Inherent Egalitarian Nature of the Gospel

And having shod your feet shod with the
preparation of the gospel of peace (Ephesians 6:15).

It was a Saturday evening and I was prayerfully preparing to speak the following morning at a church that had been founded and pastored for many years by a woman. I had ministered there before and it seemed like a very successful church that loved and respected their female pastor. So, as I prayed over what my topic should be the next morning, I said to myself, “I don’t need to address the woman issue and show the Biblical basis for women in leadership. Gloria is respected and loved by her congregation, so there is no need for me to go there.” I went to bed without a sense of direction, but having decided I would not address the Biblical right of a woman to preach, teach, lead, and pastor.

A God-Given Dream

Now, I do not look for God to lead me by dreams. He leads us primarily by His Word, His Spirit, and good common sense. There are times, however, when He may choose to get our attention through a dream. This was one of those times, and that night I had a very vivid dream.

In the dream I was at the church the next morning in the office with the pastor and 2 or 3 associates getting ready to go out on the platform. Everything in the dream was exactly as I knew it in real life. We were all in our Sunday best with the men, including myself, wearing jackets and ties. We could hear the praise and worship coming from the auditorium, and we all stood to go on the platform. In a few minutes I would be introduced and I would preach the message for that Sunday morning.

As we stood, I looked down and was shocked to see that my feet were bare. I could hardly believe my eyes. Here I was all dressed up with a suit and tie, but with no shoes. I rushed out the door to the parking lot to see if I had pulled off my shoes during the 45-minute drive to the church. I searched frantically through our van, but they were not there. Standing by my van I looked at my watch to see if I had time to rush home and get my shoes. I didn’t! The pastor would be turning the service to me in just a few minutes. I thought, “Maybe I can make some sort of joke about my bare feet,” but decided that would not go over with this congregation. I stood by my van feeling so distressed and wondering, “How could I do this? How could I get all dressed up and go out without my shoes! “At that point, I woke up.

A New Understanding of the “Gospel of Peace”

I knew God was speaking, and the first Scripture that came to mind was Eph. 6:15, which reads, having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace. I had always thought of the word “peace” in this passage as referring to that nice internal sense of tranquility and well-being. But I now came to realize that it was talking about the kind of peace that occurs when different parties that have been at odds and separated, lay down their hostilities and are reconciled in peace. It is the kind of peace that occurs when warring nations lay down their weapons and there is a signing of “peace.” I then began to see that the “gospel of peace” is the good news of what Jesus has done to remove the racial, social, and gender barriers that have divided the human race since the fall.

Walls of Separation Have Been Removed “in Christ”

The second passage that came to me was Eph. 2:14 which reads, For He Himself is our peace, who has broken down the middle wall of separation. Paul is specifically addressing, in this passage, the racial separation of Jews and Gentiles. He says that Christ is our peace—the point of reconciliation—and that He has broken down the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile. In the Jerusalem temple of Paul’s day, there was an actual wall that kept Gentiles separated from Jews. There were signs posted on this wall warning Gentiles not to proceed any further on the threat of death. During one of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem, the Jews tried to kill him because they thought he had taken a Gentile—an Ephesian—past this dividing wall (Acts.21:27-29).

There was also a wall that separated the women so that the only individuals who had free access to the sanctuary were Jewish males. Like the wall that kept Gentiles at a distant, this wall kept women from full and free access to the worship and service of God in the temple.

Paul now says to the Ephesian believers that in Christ these dividing walls have been removed. This is what he is referring to in Galatians 3:28 where he says, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Paul is saying that the old value system wherein people were judged, valued, and divided according to their race, sex, or class has been removed in Christ. Jesus broke down these walls of separation and discrimination so that all may now move freely in His presence and in obedience to Him.

The Good News of Reconciliation

I now saw clearly that the gospel of peace is the good news of what Jesus has done to reconcile fragmented humanity to Himself and then to one another. It is the good news that the walls of separation and discrimination based on gender, race, and class have been broken down. I saw as never before that exclusion from any area of ministry based on gender is not a part of the gospel. How dare anyone build walls of exclusion and separation in the one community (the Church) where they have been eliminated through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

I now saw that to have one’s feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace means that we stand ready, at a moment’s notice, to declare that in Christ those dividing walls are gone and everyone has free access to His presence and are free to obey Him.

Do You Have Your Shoes On?

As I reflected on my dream and the new understanding of Paul’s admonition to have your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, I heard the Holy Spirit say something that harkened back to my decision that Saturday night not to speak about a woman's right to preach and pastor. He said,

Don’t ever go anywhere without your shoes on. Don’t ever go anywhere without being ready to declare that “in Me” the walls of separation, discrimination, and marginalization have been broken down and removed.

What about you? Do you have your shoes on? Are you prepared to declare the Gospel of Peace?

By Eddie L. Hyatt
http://www.eddiehyatt.com/

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AND STAND YOUR GROUND

2011-12-12T11:53:00.000-08:00

By Rev. Valarie A. Owen
GWTW Executive Team Member

It is the greatest desire of this work for the Lord that women all over the world come to know the Lord as their deliverer. I came from a denomination that did not ordain women, and God forbid that a woman should teach a class which included men!

In 1975, I was ordained into the ministry by Dr. Fuchsia Pickett and Barbara Collins at Fountain Gate College. I was also learning a new meaning to the word “faith” under the strong teaching of the late Vineta (Nonnie) Copeland, Kenneth Copeland's mother. But I was struggling with the old tradition that I should not teach men. But they were coming to my classes. What was I to do!

One night as I began to teach, the Lord spoke to my spirit and told me to put my hands on my shoulders. I did. He said,

“See! Your shoulders are not broad enough to carry the load. Just let me do it through you. Trust me. Do not say I am a woman, for I will put my Words in your mouth" (Jeremiah 1:7).

Since that time, the Word of God has taken me across America and into many countries, teaching “know your rights, and stand your ground.”

WHO'S YOUR COVERING?

2011-11-27T17:32:00.000-08:00

Breaking Free of Doctrines that Bind & Oppress

I recently heard that a well-known female Christian leader, who assumed leadership of the church she and her husband founded after he succumbed to cancer, had announced that she was now under the “covering” of a certain well-known male pastor in another city. I was disappointed to hear that she felt the need to have a male “covering,” but it confirmed to me how deeply ingrained the “covering” doctrine is among Pentecostals and Charismatics. This doctrine, of course, purports that God works through delegated authority and everyone must, therefore, be submitted to a human authority, which functions as their covering” or protection. It has been especially applied to women as needing to be under the authority or “covering” of a man.

The problem with this teaching is that it places a human mediator between the believer and God and there is only One Mediator between God and humanity—the Lord Jesus Christ (I Timothy 2:5). This teaching also undermines the Biblical truth of the priesthood of all believers by putting an individual or an organization between the believer and Christ. It also diminishes the redemptive work of Christ for it implies that Christian women are not able to relate to God on their own apart from male mediation.

This Teaching is not found in Scripture

In light of its popularity and acceptance, one would think that it would be easy to document this teaching with Scripture. The truth is, however, that it is glaringly absent from Scripture. We never hear of Paul talking about his “covering,” nor do we hear him claiming to be anyone else’s “covering.” Instead, in Galatians 1:1, he speaks of his independence from the Twelve and other Christian leaders, declaring his apostolic calling to be, Not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead. To the Colossian believers who were being led astray by false teachers, Paul reminds them that they are complete, not in Paul, but in Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him (Colossians 2:9-10).

Jesus too is silent about the need for a human “covering.” After cleansing the temple he was confronted by the religious leaders who demanded to know, By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority? They knew he was not ordained or authorized by them, so they wanted Him to explain His right or authority to carry out such an act? In contemporary terminology, they were asking, “Who’s your covering?”

Jesus responded by asking them a question and when they would not answer, he told them he would not tell them the source of His authority (Matthew 21:23-27). Jesus, of course, derived His authority directly from God. The Pharisees and Sadducees, however, could not accept this for they believed, like many preachers today, that God mediated all spiritual authority through the institutions they had established. In their minds, they were the “covering” for all Israel and Jesus was functioning outside their covering.

This Teaching Unheard of Before the 1970s

In light of the Biblical silence about this issue, we must ask how this teaching has gained such a stranglehold on the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement. The answer is a historical one and can be traced back to events within the Charismatic Renewal of the 1970s-80s.

Before the 1970s the “covering” doctrine was unheard of in the Spirit-filled movement. I grew up in a Pentecostal pastor’s home and never heard the idea of a “covering” ever mentioned or even alluded to in the way it is taught today. It was not until the 1970s when I attended a Bible school that was at the forefront of the Charismatic Renewal that I heard this word “covering” used in the authoritarian sense and particularly applied to women and their need for a male covering (this school actually opposed this teaching at that time). It was through the Charismatic Renewal of the 1970s that traditional teachings from the older churches about Spiritual authority being mediated through hierarchical leadership (which is the basis of the "covering" doctrine) were introduced into the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement.

The Charismatic Renewal Became a Bridge
with Doctrinal Traffic Flowing in both Directions

The Charismatic Renewal of the 1970s was a powerful work of the Holy Spirit and was very ecumenical with Catholics, Pentecostals, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. participating together in great conferences. Pentecostals, such as David Duplessis, Gordon Lindsay, and Oral Roberts, went out of their way to reach out to those in the older churches and denominations. As a result, many in the older churches experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit and reached back across denominational and theological lines. Bridges were thus built between Pentecostals and those of the older churches.

We must remember, however, that a bridge carries traffic in both directions. And although the Pentecostals were able to carry their message of the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the present reality of Spiritual gifts to those in the older churches, they were recipients of traditional teaching coming from the other side about hierarchical leadership and the importance of being submitted to spiritual authority and under its “covering” or protection. They also received traditional teaching from the older churches about why women should be excluded from leadership roles in the church. These were new concepts to Pentecostals for, from the beginning of the revival in 1901, there had been an amazing openness to the gifts of women and a flattened sort of leadership in which leaders were called “brother” and “sister,” but never “father,” “bishop,” or other flattering, hierarchical titles.

Traditional Doctrines Intrude into the Movement

Many Pentecostals as well as the newer independent charismatics seemed awed at being in the presence and dialoguing with priests and theologians from the older denominations. And having little knowledge and training in historical theology, this made some of them (especially those desiring institutional power) susceptible to the traditional doctrines touted by those from the older, traditional churches.

An example of this came out of the Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogues, established in the early 1970s by David Duplessis and involving a number of Roman Catholic theologians and Pentecostal leaders who came together on a regular basis to seek common ground in their traditions. In 1976, after several years of involvement in these Dialogues, three Pentecostal leaders, Earl Paulk, John Meares and Robert McAlister, decided to adopt the Catholic/Episcopal form of church government for their churches. They began wearing clerical collars and made arrangements to have themselves consecrated as bishops. Another participant in the Dialogues, Dr. Jerry Sandidge, says that their decision to adopt traditional offices, titles, clothing, and doctrine was perceived by those on both sides of the Dialogues to be a direct result of the Roman Catholic influence in the Dialogues.[1] These men became very influential in the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement and helped promote a Catholic, hierarchical form of leadership that provided the theological basis for the “covering” doctrine. Yes, the traffic runs in both directions on a bridge and this certainly occurred in the Charismatic Renewal of the 1970s.

Out of this emphasis on spiritual authority that flowed from the older churches into the Charismatic Renewal, there emerged the Discipleship movement of the 1970s-80s that took the hierarchical “covering” doctrine to its extremes. In this movement it was commonly taught that a woman must always be under the “covering” of a man. If she needed to leave her home to do some shopping and could not get in touch with her husband to obtain his permission, then she must contact another man and get his permission so that she would always be under authority and “covered.” I remember hearing of one Christian man who decided to divorce his wife because he “could not bring her into submission.”

Although the Discipleship movement was eventually discredited, the same authoritarian spirit keeps reappearing dressed in different religious garb and called by different religious names. It is showing up today in places like the apostolic movement with its claims of governmental authority over God's people, and the convergence movement that seeks to merge traditional high church liturgy and priestly order with the freedom of the Spirit.

The Fallacious Biblical Argument Exposed

The one Scripture that is used more than any other to try and validate the “covering” doctrine is I Corinthians 11:10 which, in the NKJV, reads, For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. If you are reading the NKJV you will notice that the phrase a symbol of is in italics. This is the translators’ way of letting us know that these words have been added and are not in the original Greek text. The same is true of the NIV which has a sign of which is not in the Greek text. In other words, this passage has nothing to do with a symbol or sign of authority as so many have made it out to be.

The Greek text literally reads, For this reason the woman out to have authority on (or over) her head because of the angels. The preposition translated “on” is epi and ordinarily means “over.” This has led some New Testament scholars, such as Dr. Gordon Fee, to conclude that Paul is here saying that the Christian woman ought to have authority over her own head to decide if she wants to wear a covering or not. He, therefore, suggests that a more accurate translation would be, For this reason the woman ought to have the freedom over her head to do as she wishes.[2]

This entire passage is obviously about a cultural issue in Corinth where the wearing of some sort of head covering or veil is a customary practice. Some have speculated that this passage is related to a situation in the Corinthian culture where only the temple prostitutes of Aphrodite, whose magnificent temple was in Corinth, went about with shaved and uncovered heads. Be that as it may, Paul is addressing the question of whether Christian women must adhere to the cultural norms of the city in which they live. The best interpretation of the passage is that Paul is affirming the right of Christian women in Corinth to decide for themselves if they want to wear a head covering. The passage has nothing to do with being under someone else’s authority

What about the phrase because of the angels? New Testament scholar, Philip Payne, has suggested that the answer lies with I Corinthians 6:3 where Paul says that in the future world the saints will judge angels. Paul’s point would be that the Christian women of Corinth, who would one day judge angels, should be exercising authority now over such insignificant matters as whether to wear a head covering.[3]

God Himself Will be Your Covering

Through Jesus Christ our One Mediator, we can have a personal, intimate relationship with our Creator and know Him as our “covering,” as David spoke of in Psalm 91. Psalm 91:1 reads, He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. Under the shadow is a metaphor or word picture for “a protective covering.” The protective covering is not a pastor, church or denomination. It is, instead, a personal thing between the individual and God. God Himself—El-Shaddai—will be our covering when we live in that secret place—that place of intimacy and fellowship with Him. This passage is clearly saying that the one who dwells continually in a place of personal intimacy with God will live under His protective care and be nourished and sustained by His own life.

Concluding Thoughts

Respect Christian leaders, Christian institutions, and fellow believers, but do not allow anyone to become a mediator between you and God. Maintain the Biblical truth of the priesthood of all believers (I Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:5-6). Remember that the redemptive work of Christ applies equally to both men and women as Paul so aptly states in Galatians 3:28, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

As a Christian leader, I believe that an attitude of genuine humility and security in our calling will eliminate the need to promote oppressive “covering” doctrines that paralyze the body of Christ. I believe that as believers in general practice a mutual love and respect toward one another, the need and desire for an authoritarian “covering” will dissipate like the morning dew for we will realize that we are all under the covering of Christ and in mutual love we will hold one another accountable and be a protection for one another and for our brothers and sisters around the world.

Who’s your covering? It should be Jesus Christ! It should be God Himself!

By Eddie L. Hyatt

(For more information on this topic see In the Spirit We're Equal by Susan Hyatt available at www.icwhp.org and visit the God's Word to Women website at www.godswordtowomen.org)

[1] Jerry L. Sandidge, “Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue: A Study in Developing Ecumenism,” diss. for Ph.D., Katholicke Univ., TeLenuen, 1985, 296-98.

[2] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 520.

[3] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 522.

DID PAUL REALLY COMMAND WOMEN TO BE SILENT IN THE CHURCHES?

2011-10-12T09:00:00.000-07:00

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

First of all, this verse would seem to contradict what Paul has said in earlier parts of this letter. For example, in his discussion of head coverings in chapter 11, it is obvious that he recognizes women praying and prophesying in the church. Also in chapter 14:23, he speaks of the potential of the whole church coming together and all speaking with tongues. Then in vss. 24 & 31, he speaks of the potential for all to prophesy. In vs. 31 he says that all may prophesy that all may learn and all be encouraged.

All Can Pray and Prophesy

In no way does Paul imply that all does not mean both men and women in these verses. If he had wanted to exclude women he could have done so, but he doesn’t. Vs. 21 has Paul saying, In the Law it written, with men of other tongues and other lips will I speak to this people . . .. However, “men” is not in the Greek; it was added by the translators. In a similar way, vs. 27 in the KJV has Paul saying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue . . .. Again, the KJV translators have taken a lot of freedom, for the Greek word translated “man” is tis and actually means “anyone.” In this whole discussion about prophecy and tongues in the church, Paul is obviously careful not to exclude anyone from participating because of their gender.

Some Think This Verse is an Early Gloss

Vss. 34-35 are so out of character with the rest of the chapter and, indeed, the rest of the letter that it has led some prominent, evangelical scholars to conclude that Paul did not write these verses. This is the view of Dr. Gordon D. Fee, professor emeritus of New Testament at Regent College, who believes that an early scribe/copyist (remember they didn’t have photocopiers) added these words and they found their way into the text. Such an addition by a scribe is known as a “gloss.”

Paul is Actually Repeating a Statement of the Corinthians

The more likely option is that Paul is repeating something that the Corinthians have written to him in a previous letter. It is obvious that, in this letter, Paul is responding to answers and statements made by the Corinthians in a previous letter to him. He introduces their questions with the phrase now concerning. For example, he says in 7:1, Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is not good for a man to touch a woman. That part of the phrase, it is not good for a man to touch a woman, is most likely a statement made by the Corinthians in a previous letter to Paul. He repeats it here as a means of introducing the topic for discussion. In 12:1 he says, Now concerning Spiritual gifts as an indication that he is now addressing questions they had posed to him about Spiritual gifts. Not only in 7:1, but in other sections of the letter Paul quotes things the Corinthians themselves have said, such as in 1:12 and 3:4, and there is strong evidence that in 14:34, Paul is quoting something the Corinthians said in their previous letter.

You’ve got to Be Kidding!

That Paul is here quoting something written to him by the Corinthians is indicated by his use of a tiny Greek word at the beginning of vs. 36. It is the word h, which is often used in Greek as an “expletive of disassociation,” such as the English, “No way!,” or You’ve got to be kidding!,” or “Nonsense!,” or “Get out of here!”

In other words, Paul quotes what they have said about women being silent and then replies, “Nonsense,” “You’ve got to be kidding, “No way!” Did the word of God come originally from you?

For more information on this topic go to www.icwhp.org

I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN

2011-09-24T15:30:00.000-07:00

5 Reasons 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Does Not Prohibit Women from Functioning in Leadership Roles in the Church

I Timothy 2:11-12 is considered by many to be the Bible’s clearest statement against women functioning in authoritative roles of leadership in the Church. It reads,

¹¹Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. ¹²And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

For many, this passage has become a canon within the canon and is used as the standard by which every other passage about women is measured. Passages that obviously recognize women functioning in authoritative roles of leadership are not given equal consideration but are subordinated to this one passage and forced to fit within the narrow parameters of the interpreter’s take on this verse. This is not good hermeneutics.

Good hermeneutics (interpretation) gives equal weight to various passages that seem to conflict on a certain issue and considers the context within which the passage in question occurred. When this approach is taken, there are five reasons for concluding that Paul was not, in this passage, limiting the role of women in the Church.

REASON #1

I TIMOTHY IS A PERSONAL LETTER

Paul wrote three personal letters 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 recipient of the letter and cannot be applied to all Christians. For example, in 2 Timothy 4:9-15, Paul exhorts Timothy to come quickly to him and bring a coat he left in Troas and 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 2:11-12 do not have the same concern for 1 Timothy 5:9-14.

The point is that I Timothy was not written to a church, but to an individual. Paul wrote this letter to encourage and instruct Timothy in his very specific task of confronting false teaching in the church at Ephesus that was being spread by both men and women. Nowhere does Paul ask Timothy to read this letter to the church. Good hermeneutics demands that the personal nature of this letter be taken into consideration.

REASON #2

PAUL IS ADDRESSING A UNIQUE, LOCAL SITUATION IN EPHESUS

Verse 3 of chapter 1 reveals that Paul wrote 1 Timothy as a follow-up to their time together in Ephesus and to encourage Timothy in his assignment to confront false 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 very specific assignment.

Paul’s concern is the false teaching that is being spread in the church in Ephesus. He, therefore, instructs Timothy to charge some that they teach no other doctrine (1:3; NKJV). No other doctrine in this passage is a translation of the Greek word heterosdidaskelein, which literally means “different teaching.” The NIV thus translates it as false doctrine and the NRSV as different doctrine.

Paul, therefore, is not writing a manual of church order that he wants implemented in all churches. He is addressing the unique situation related to Timothy and the church in Ephesus. Paul’s concern in this letter is not what role women should play in the church, but the spread of false teaching by both men and women.

REASON #3

PAUL'S USE OF A STRANGE GREEK WORD

That Paul is addressing a unique situation in Ephesus is further borne out by the fact that the word “authority” in 2:12 is a translation of the Greek word authentein, which is found only here in the entire New Testament. If Paul is here giving a universal edict for church order, why doesn’t he use the normal word for authority, exousia, which he and all other New Testament writers use? Paul’s use of authentein, which meant “to dominate” or “gain the upper hand,” indicates that the false teachers (which included both men and women) were seeking to control and gain the upper hand in the church in Ephesus. Such an attitude is, of course, contrary to the spirit of the New Testament where leaders are to function as diakonoi, i.e., servants (Mark 10:35-45). Paul’s use of a word that is not found any place else in the New Testament confirms that he is addressing a unique situation in Ephesus for which authentein is the appropriate word. If he had been giving a universal rule for church order in this passage, he would have used exousia, the normal New Testament word for authority. His concern is not the role of women in the church but the false teaching that is being propagated in Ephesus and the “domineering” attitude of the false teachers, both men and women.

REASON #4

THE STRUCTURE OF CHAPTER 2 INDICATES THAT PAUL
MAY HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO A PARTICULAR WOMAN IN 2:11-12

In 2: 9-10, Paul refers to “women” in the plural; but when he comes to the restrictive admonition of vss. 11-12, he changes to the singular and refers to “a woman.” Afterwards, in vs. 15, he returns again to the plural. This may indicate that, in writing this passage, Paul had a particular woman in mind, one primarily responsible for spreading the false teaching in Ephesus. In vs. 12, the ongoing present tense of the Greek verb, epitrepo (permit), also indicates that Paul may have had a particular woman in mind. In the Greek, it literally reads, I am not permitting a woman to teach . . ..

In 1:18-20 Paul reveals that he has turned two of the false teachers who are men over to Satan. In regards to this woman he instructs Timothy to allow her to learn in silence (quietness, without turmoil) but not allowed to teach or to authentiein, i.e., dominate or gain the upper hand. This is a temporary solution to a very real problem in Ephesus. This is more evidence that Paul is addressing a particular problem that Timothy is confronting in the church in Ephesus. It also confirms that the issue about which Paul is concerned is not the role of women in the church, but the spread of false teaching.

REASON #5

WOMEN PASTORS & LEADERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

There are numerous women leaders in the New Testament, some who obviously functioned in pastoral roles of oversight. Paul mentions 2 of these female pastors in Rom. 16 as well as a female apostle. These examples of women leaders from Paul’s own hand confirm that I Timothy 2:11-12 is not about restricting the role of women in the church.

Phoebe, a Woman Pastor

In Romans 16:1 Paul commends to the church at Rome our sister Phoebe who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea. Paul refers to Phoebe as a “servant,” which is the Greek word diakonos. Diakonos, or its verb form, is translated “minister” in 23 other places in the New Testament. For example, in Eph. 3:7, Paul says that he became a minister (diakonos) according to the gift of the grace of God. Phoebe, therefore, was a minister, probably a pastor, from the church in Cenchrea. This is borne out by vs. 2 where Paul refers to her as a helper of many and of myself also. The Greek word translated “helper” in this verse is prostatis and, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, means “one who presides” or “a woman who is set over others.” When this passage is examined apart from our traditions and prejudicial assumptions, the evidence is overwhelming that Phoebe functioned in a role similar to what we would call pastoral ministry.

Priscilla, A Woman Pastor

In verses 3-5 of the same chapter, Paul refers to Priscilla and Aquila and the church that is in their house. Priscilla and Aquila are always mentioned together in Scripture, which indicates that they worked and ministered together as a husband and wife team. This is confirmed by Acts 18:26 where both Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside and both explained to him the way of God more accurately. In the Greek, Priscilla is always mentioned first. Since Paul reversed the culturally accepted manner of mentioning the husband first, he obviously wanted to make a point about her leadership role. Many commentators conclude that Priscilla is mentioned first because she was the spiritually gifted one and the leader of the church that met in their home. Again, the evidence is overwhelming that Priscilla functioned as a pastor.

Junia, A Woman Apostle

In verse 7 of the same chapter, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and Junia who are of note among the apostles. Junia is a feminine name and so we have here a woman who is recognized by Paul as an apostle. The early church father, John Chrysostom, commenting on this verse, said, "Oh how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle." Although some have tried to argue that the name should be Junias, which is male, every ancient Greek manuscript, without exception, has the feminine form of Junia.

CONCLUSION

When all the evidence is examined it is obvious that Paul is not, in this passage, excluding women from teaching and leadership roles in the Church. He is, instead, addressing a particular problematic issue in the church at Ephesus at that time. The next question to ask is, “How does this passage relate to us today?” After studying and teaching this passage for many years, I am convinced that this passage speaks to us, not about the role of women in the church, but about confronting false teaching in our midst.

3 KEYS TO A MARRIAGE REVOLUTION

2011-09-11T14:17:00.000-07:00

Christian marriages are in serious trouble. Several years ago, a national survey by the evangelical sociologist, George Barna, revealed that there were more divorces among Bible-believing, evangelical Christians than virtually any other group in American society. Born again, Bible-believing Christians were more prone to divorce than liberal church members, atheists and agnostics. A more recent survey showed a slight improvement, but evangelical Christians still have as many divorces as their liberal, non-Christian neighbors.

Why would Bible-believing, evangelical Christians be having such an epidemic of divorce in their midst? Although various factors could be noted, I am convinced that a major part of the problem lies with a faulty interpretation and legalistic application of Paul’s comments about marriage, particularly in Ephesians 5:21-33. A revolution in our thinking in this regard is needed to set in motion a cure that could save thousands of Christian marriages and empower the Church to be a witness to the saving, redemptive power of Jesus Christ.

An Example of Why We Need a Revolution in Our Thinking

The need for such a revolution in our thinking was highlighted to me a number of years ago while speaking in a conference at a large church in Canada. The young man, who shuttled me from the hotel to the church during my three days there, shared how he and his wife had founded a successful business in which they provided personalized handbags, caps, pens, etc. for conferences and special events throughout North America. His wife, who is a CPA and has a university degree in accounting, ran the office while he worked with sales and customer relations. They were both very happy in their work and their business flourished.

The pastors of their church, however, counseled them that they were out of Divine order in their marriage. The pastors explained that whoever controls the money controls the relationship. Because the wife, as the accountant, was controlling the money she was controlling the relationship. As the man and “head” of the home, it was his responsibility to control the money and the relationship.

Wanting to do what was right, they exchanged jobs. He took over the office work and she began doing sales and customer relations. They both hated their new responsibilities and things quickly began to deteriorate. He exclaimed, “It didn’t work. We almost went bankrupt. We had to go back to doing it the way we had from the beginning.”

When I heard this story, I thought, “How foolish can Christian leaders be to give this sort of counsel?” Their advice was neither Biblical nor sensible. It did not take into account their God-given 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. Their story also made me wonder how many Christian marriages are being frustrated, and even destroyed, by such a legalistic approach to marriage: And it highlighted for me the need for a revolution in the Church’s thinking about marriage

Revolution Key #1
We Must Change Our Thinking about the Word “Submit”

Somewhere along the way the evangelical Church became stuck on a model of marriage based on a faulty interpretation of Ephesians 5:22 where Paul said, Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. Recent studies have shown that the Greek word hupotasso, that is translated “submit” can mean “to join together” (Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon) and “to identify with” (Dr. Susan Hyatt, Dr. Catherine Kroeger). This is confirmed by the fact that the Jewish historian, Josephus, a contemporary of Paul, used hupotasso in reference to the joining together of two documents.[1] Polycarp of Smyrna used hupotasso in the same way when, in a letter to the church at Philippi, he informed them that he was sending letters from Ignatius of Antioch along with his letter. “They are adjoined to this letter,” says Polycarp.

Understanding the kind of cultural marriage practiced by the Ephesians adds understanding to Paul’s use of the word hupotasso in this passage. The Ephesians practiced what was known as sine manu or “Marriage without Hand.”[2] “Marriage without Hand” was marriage without commitment. In this marriage arrangement, the wife remained a part of her biological family and under the authority her father or the oldest male in the family. It was thought that this arrangement protected the wife from potential abuse by her husband. But in the end, it created more problems than it solved and led to marriages lacking in commitment and intimacy. By using the word hupotasso, Paul is telling the wives in Ephesus to leave their biological families and identify with (join themselves to) their husbands.

But even apart from the lexical and historical meaning of the word, the context of Ephesians 5:21-22, does not allow for the traditional, hierarchical interpretation. This is borne out by the fact that the word “submit” in vs. 22 is not found in the Greek text but has been added by the translators. In fact, there is no verb at all in verse 22. The passage literally reads, Wives to your own husbands. “Wives” is obviously the subject in this passage and “husbands” the direct object, but where is the verb that will complete the sentence?

The verb for verse 22 is found in verse 21which reads, Submitting to one another in the fear of God. “Submitting” in verse 21 is obviously set in an egalitarian context, not a hierarchical one. It is something all believers are to show one another. It cannot mean “to obey” or “to come under” for all believers cannot obey and come under one another. It is obviously referring to a selfless attitude that does not demand its own way but is willing to “identify with” others and defer to others out of love and reverence toward Christ.

Since “submitting” in verse 21 also serves as the verb for verse 22, it is obvious that Paul is not setting up a unilateral, one-way submission of the wife to the husband. The submission that wives are to show their husbands (in verse 22) is a particular expression of the same submission all believers (in vs. 21) are to show one another. This means that husbands are to show the same submissive attitude (identifying with, deferring to) toward their wives that wives are to show toward their husbands. Neither the husband nor the wife has a God-given right to “have it my way.”

So at the very beginning of this discourse on marriage, Paul lays out a context for equality and mutuality. Commenting on the obvious egalitarian connotations of this passage, Dr. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen write,

In what ways then are Christians to submit to each other? Surely it implies respect, self-giving, listening to others’ opinions, not insisting on one’s own way, learning from one another, building each other up. What a marvelous picture of marriage.[3]

Revolution Key #2
We Must Change Our Thinking about the Word “Head”

“But,” some will say, “what about the passage that says the husband is the ‘head’ of the wife” (Ephesians 5:21-33)? First of all, we must remember that “head” is a translation of the Greek word kephale, which referred to the physical head on one’s shoulders. The problem is that we have assumed that, like the English word “head,” kephale was used metaphorically to mean “boss” or “leader.” This has been a false and serious assumption.

The Feb. 20, 1981 edition of Christianity Today carried a landmark article by seminary professor, Dr. Berkeley Mickelsen and his wife, Alvera, a professor of Journalism, in which they clearly documented that kephale did not carry such meanings in the ancient world. They demonstrated that, instead, it carried meanings of “origin” and “source.” Since the publication of their groundbreaking article, others have come forth to confirm the findings of the Michelsens. Dr. David Scholer, late Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, says that the information now available concerning the word kephale “supports a new understanding in Christ by which men and women are viewed in a mutually supportive, submissive relationship”.[4]

Paul obviously uses kephale in his discussion of marriage (Ephesians 5:21-33) to undermine the common ancient belief that men and women had evolved from different sources; the man from a superior source and woman from an inferior source. This pagan idea of the separate origins of men and women was a major reason for hostility between the sexes and the man’s justification for the subjugation of the woman.

If Paul had wanted to clearly establish the man as the leader in the marriage, he could have used a word such as archon, which means leader, boss, or ruler. His use of kephale shows that that was not his purpose. He obviously wanted to undermine pagan thinking about the sexes and affirm the Genesis account of creation that woman was taken out of the man with both having a common source. Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, as the man says of the woman in Genesis 1:23.

In 5:23, Paul says that the husband is the “head” (kephale) of the wife in the same way that Christ is the “head” kephale of the Church. Noted New Testament scholar, F.F. Bruce, points that when Christ is spoken of as the kephale of the Church, it “suggests the vital union between Christ and the Church, sharers of a common life, which is his own risen life communicated to his people.”[5]

Kephale is, therefore, a word with connotations of intimacy and commitment. As the kephale of the Church, Christ loved (agape) the Church with a selfless love and gave Himself for her (Ephesians 5:25). Husbands are to follow His example in this regard only, for kephale is never used of Christ when His lordship or mastery over the Church is in view.

It thus becomes obvious that Paul’s point in Ephesians 5:21-33 is not about who has authority over whom. His point is about commitment and intimacy in the marriage relationship. His point is about the wife leaving all others and joining herself to her husband; and the husband giving up his own life for the sake of his wife, something unheard of in the ancient world.

Revolution Key #3
We Must Accept the Fact that Egalitarian Marriages Work

In spite of the clear teaching of Scripture, traditionalist will claim that dismantling the hierarchical model of marriage will bring chaos to homes and society (as though it were not already happening). Now, empirical studies are telling us 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.

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.[6]

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.

Studies Show that Hierarchy in Marriage is 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.[7]

Other studies done by evangelical Christians have also shown that a legalistic, hierarchical model of marriage is a contributing factor in widespread spousal abuse among Christians.[8] Men have assumed that they have the right, as the “head” of the home, to direct their household as a general would direct his army or as a CEO would direct his corporation. Christian counselors report that perpetrators of domestic violence who profess to be Christians sometimes defend their actions by quoting passages such as Ephesians 5:22.[9] The blame is placed on the wife because she refused to “submit” according to the supposed Biblical admonition.

The Evidence Is Compelling

The above studies coincide with the surveys done by Christian sociologist, George Barna, which show 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 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.[10]

Conclusion

I am convinced that marriage based on equal partnership, with both spouses functioning according to their God-given gifts and talents, 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 in the marriage relationship and both are free to respond to the Great Conductor. I am convinced that as couples today embrace the Biblical model of equality and teamwork in marriage, they will produce a symphony and harmony that will literally multiply the power and effectiveness of their individual lives and of their marriage. They will then be able to spread the Marriage Revolution to others.

By Eddie L. Hyatt

[1] William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, trans., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1957), 856.

[2] See Catherine Clark Kroeger, “The Classical Concept of Head as “Source,” Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1987), 280-81.

[3] Alvera and Berkeley Mickelsen, “Equal Authority, Equal Responsibility,” The Standard, n.d.).

[4] David Scholer, “The Evangelical Debate of Biblical “Headship,” Women, Abuse and the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 44).

[5] F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 275.

[6] See Dennis J. Preato, "Empirical Data in Support of Egalitarian Marriages: A Theological Response," A paper presented at the annual of meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society on April 23, 2004. This paper is available online at www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/Preato3.htm.

[7] Preato, www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/Preato3.htm.

[8] See Catherine Clark Kroeger and James R. Beck, Women, Abuse and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996).

[9] See Carolyn Holderread Heggen, “Religious Beliefs and Abuse,” Women, Abuse and the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 15-27; See also Catherine Clark Kroeger and James R. Beck, Healing the Hurting (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).

[10] Preato, www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/Preato3.htm.

DON'T CALL ME PASTOR!

2011-09-05T08:59:00.000-07:00

How One Couple Discovered the Freedom of Moving
from Gender-Determined Roles to Spirit-Gifted Functions.

A number of years ago I taught/preached in a Bible school and church in the northeast that had been founded by an African-American woman named Christine. Her husband, John, who picked me up at the airport, worked for FedEx and enjoyed gardening, but took no leadership role in the meetings. When he was present in a meeting, he sat quietly in the congregation. Christine was obviously the pastor and the leader of the ministry, and both seemed very happy in their roles. I then learned their amazing story of how, after much struggle and pain, they had found freedom in simply functioning according to their gifts without regard for their gender.

Pressured to Conform

When Christine first started the church, they tried to show a partnership by John sitting on the platform and being involved in announcements and formal prayers. John was uncomfortable with this arrangement, preferring to merely sit in the congregation, but he persevered hoping to assuage any criticism. He even took on the title of “Pastor John.”

In spite of his efforts, many insisted that he must take a yet more visible role of leadership. Some thought Christine was too pushy and needed to give more room for John to be out front. One visiting minister even prophesied publicly to Christine, “My daughter, you must step back so that your husband can step forward and take his rightful place.” This, of course, was putting pressure on John to do that which he did not want to do, or feel called to do. The pressure increased until they were on the edge of divorce.

They Take Control of Their Lives

One day they decided to take control of their lives. In conversation, one of them asked, “Why are we allowing other people to tell us how to live our lives. Why don’t we do things the way we feel is right for us?” They went to church the next Sunday and John stood behind the pulpit made an announcement to the congregation. He said, “DON’T CALL ME PASTOR.” He went on,

God has called Christine to pastor and lead this work and I fully support her in it, but he has not called me. So, do not come to me for counsel or for input about the church or Bible school. Leave me alone to work at my job and in my garden. From this day forward I will sit in the congregation with all of you.

At that point John stepped off the platform and took a seat in the congregation. By this act he had taken control of his life by not allowing other people to label him and push him into a role to which he was not called and for which he was not equipped. Christine then stepped to the podium and confirmed what John had done and reiterated the importance of each person obeying God’s call and functioning in the gift he/she has been given by God.

The Good Fruit of Obedience

The results were amazing. According to their own testimony, the stress went out of their relationship and their marriage was restored. Peace came into their home and both experienced a great relief and release in life. The congregation accepted the change and the ministry began to flourish. What made the difference? They moved away from gender-determined roles to Spirit-gifted functions. Just think what could happen in marriages and churches around the world if this simple truth was universally applied!

SHAKE IT OFF, MOVE ON, AND DON'T LOOK BACK

2011-08-31T12:25:00.000-07:00

It was rainy and cold as Paul gathered sticks to build a fire on an unfamiliar island in the Mediterranean. He had just suffered shipwreck while being carried as a prisoner to Rome to stand trial. As he gathered sticks and branches, a poisonous snake suddenly "fastened on his hand." Although the natives of the island expected him to fall over dead at any moment, Paul did not panic. Luke says, "But he shook the creature into the fire and suffered no harm "(Acts 28:5).

PAUL HAD TO SHAKE OFF MORE THAN JUST A SNAKE

This wasn't the first time Paul had found it necessary to shake off something unpleasant. He had been expelled from Antioch of Pisidia. He had been stoned and left for dead in Lystra. He had been beaten and imprisoned in Phillipi. His life had been threatened in Thessalonica. He had been attacked by a mob in Jerusalem. He had been arrested by the Romans and shipped to Rome to stand trial. On the way he is shipwrecked on an island and in the rain and cold the poisonous viper "fastens" on his hand. One could understand if at this point he had thrown his hands in the air, and cried, "I give up!" or "Why me Lord!" But instead he shook it off and went on about his business and afterwards saw a great move of God on that island with many experiencing God's healing power.

WE TOO MUST SHAKE OFF EVERY UNGODLY
THING THAT WOULD TRY TO "FASTEN" ITSELF ON US

We all encounter difficult and devastating situations of life that try to "fasten" on us and poison our souls and paralyze us and destroy us. We must not allow it to happen. Like Paul, we must shake it off and move on in obedience to God. Paul himself shares a secret for doing this in Philippians 3:13b-14 where he says, "But this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the mark of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." Paul was not allowing anything--snakes, hard times, people's hatred, etc.--to "fasten" on him and keep him from his future in God. You and I must do the same. After all, where we are going is more important than where we have been. So, SHAKE IT OFF, MOVE ON, AND DON'T LOOK BACK!

LUCY FARROW: FORGOTTEN APOSTLE OF PENTECOST

2011-08-24T19:44:00.000-07:00

Although William J. Seymour is acknowledged as the leader of the Azusa Street Revival, it was a black woman, Lucy Farrow, who provided the initial spark that ignited that revival. No one associated with the little prayer meeting led by Seymour had spoken in tongues until Farrow, at Seymour’s request, arrived on the scene and began laying her hands on people and seeing God fill them with the Holy Spirit as in the book of Acts. She also ministered with power across the southern United States and in Liberia in West Africa. She lived out her final years in Los Angeles where there were reported healings and remarkable answers to prayer through her ministry.

Farrow Overcomes Prejudicial Opposition

Little is known of Farrow’s early life including the exact date of her birth. What is known is that she was born into slavery in the state of Virginia. As a black woman living in the South during Reconstruction, life would not have been easy. But in spite of being continually confronted with prejudice and injustice, she became a powerful voice in the early Pentecostal revival and provided the spark in Los Angeles that ignited the revival that has spread around the world and impacted all of Christendom. She is an example of how one can become a force for God and good even in the most difficult and aggravating circumstances.

Somewhere along the way Farrow moved to Houston, TX, probably around 1900, and became the pastor of a small, black, Holiness congregation. In Houston she would have lived under southern Jim Crow laws that were passed by southern states to keep blacks “in their place.” These laws mandated racially segregated public facilities including separate public restrooms and drinking fountains, and separate seating in restaurants and on buses. Public schools were segregated and voting laws made it next to impossible for blacks to vote in elections.

These laws, however, were only outward manifestations of a deeply ingrained prejudice and hatred that Farrow faced every day of her life. But instead of becoming bitter and taking on a victim mentality, she allowed the faith of God and the love of God to so fill her heart that she was able to be used by God to minister powerfully to both blacks and whites in the fledgling Pentecostal revival.

Divine Connections

While pastoring in Houston, Farrow met Charles Parham who came there from Baxter Springs, Kansas in October of 1905 to hold a meeting in Bryan Hall. Parham was preaching a message about a baptism in the Holy Spirit that would be accompanied by speaking in tongues, which he called the “Bible evidence.” He also told about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that had occurred in his Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas in January of 1901 when virtually every student had been baptized in the Holy Spirit and spoken in tongues.

Farrow attended these meetings (probably in a segregated area) and was intrigued by what she heard. She acquainted herself with the Parham and his wife, Sarah, and they obviously were impressed with her. When the Parhams returned to Baxter Springs, they invited her to go with them and live in their home, acting as a governess, particularly in the care of their small children. She agreed and turned the pastorate of her congregation over to a younger friend by the name of William J. Seymour.

While in the Parham home Farrow experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. This proved to a turning point in her life that positioned her to be an important catalyst in what would turn out to be the most dynamic and fastest growing movement in modern Christendom—the modern Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement.

When the Parhams returned to Houston in December to begin a Bible school in the New Year, Farrow returned with them and reconnected with her congregation. She also encouraged Seymour to enroll in the Bible school. Seymour followed her advice and enrolled in the school where he learned about the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the “Bible evidence” of speaking in tongues. Although he did not receive the experience while in the school, he was convinced of its veracity and began to preach it to others. Farrow, demonstrating the true humility of her character, volunteered to be the cook for the school.

Seymour Precedes Farrow to Los Angeles

Seymour was in the school for about six weeks before departing for Los Angeles to accept the invitation to pastor a small store-front church in that city. When the elders of this church rejected Seymour and his message of a Spirit baptism accompanied by speaking in tongues, he accepted an invitation from the Edward Lee family to stay in their home. He and the Lees began attending prayer meetings being held in the Asberry home at 214 Bonnie Brae Street, and Seymour soon became the recognized leader. Although he had not received the baptism in the Holy Spirit himself, Seymour taught the people about it and encouraged them to pray for this Pentecostal experience.

The deep respect Seymour had for Farrow (who would have been about ten years his senior) is shown in his desire that she come and teach the people in Los Angeles about the baptism in the Holy Spirit and pray for them to receive this experience. When he shared with the group about Farrow and how the baptism in the Holy Spirit had impacted her life, the group was so stirred that they took up a collection to purchase a train ticket for her to come to Los Angeles. They sent off the ticket with their invitation and a prayer that the Lord would speak to her to accept their invitation.

Farrow Sparks Pentecostal Revival in Los Angeles

Probably out of her deep sense of need, Farrow had developed a radical dependence on God and a rare sensitivity to His Holy Spirit. This dependence on God characterized every part of her life and ministry. She did not have an “assembly line” approach in praying for people but only prayed as she was prompted by the Holy Spirit. This sort of radical dependence on God and sensitivity to the Spirit would characterize the revival that would break forth through her ministry in Los Angeles.

She arrived in Los Angeles probably in late March and was taken to the Lee home where she would be hosted. Shortly after her arrival, Edward Lee arrived home from work and met Farrow for the first time. Lee was so hungry for the baptism in the Holy Spirit that, after a brief introduction, he pleaded, “Sister, if you will lay your hands on me I believe I will get my baptism right now.” Farrow humbly replied, “I cannot do it unless the Lord says so.”

Shortly thereafter, while eating the evening meal, Farrow laid down her fork and pushed her chair from the table. She arose and walked around the table to Edward Lee and said, “The Lord tells me to lay my hands on you for the Holy Ghost.” She then laid her hands on Lee who immediately fell out of his chair and, while lying on the floor, began speaking in tongues.

Revival Breaks Forth

That same evening the Lees and Farrow departed for the prayer meeting at the Asberry home with their hearts overflowing with the presence and joy of the Lord. As Edward Lee walked through the door, he lifted his hands and began speaking in tongues. The power of God fell on those present and several fell to the floor and began speaking in tongues. Different gifts of the Spirit began to manifest and the meeting lasted through the night. Word spread quickly that God was pouring out a new Pentecost on Bonnie Brae Street and people began to come from every direction. The house filled with people and the crowed overflowed onto the porch and into the yard. One participant said, “By the next morning there was no way of getting near the house.”

Realizing they needed more space, they searched and found an old abandoned building in downtown Los Angeles at 312 Azusa Street. They moved the prayer meeting to that location and had their first meeting on April 14, 1906. For the next three years the meetings ran around the clock as thousands flocked to Azusa Street from across America and other nations as well.

Revival in Houston

After the move to Azusa Street, Farrow remained in Los Angeles for another four months, ministering with Seymour and providing a much needed stability in the early days of revival. In August she departed for Virginia, planning from there to go to Liberia in West Africa from whence her ancestors had been brought as slaves to America.

On her journey eastward she stopped in Houston and preached in Parham’s summer camp meeting. The large audience, mostly white, was electrified as she told about the revival that was underway in Los Angeles. She then prayed for many to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and, again and again, as in the book of Acts, they would break forth speaking in tongues as she laid her hands on them. One participant said, “She had an amazing gift for laying hands on people and them receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit.”

Revival in Virginia & Africa

Farrow lived by faith, having no settled fund from which to draw, but trusting God to meet every need as she walked in obedience to Him. From Houston she traveled on to Virginia and in Portsmouth held a series of meetings that lasted several weeks. It was reported that about 200 were saved and 150 received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Sensing an urgent call to Africa but realizing the powerful work that had begun in Portsmouth, Farrow contacted Seymour and asked that a replacement be sent so she could continue on in her mission to Africa.

After help arrived from Los Angeles, Farrow traveled to New York and then sailed for Africa. She settled in Johnsonville about 25 miles from the capital of Monrovia from where she carried on a ministry of preaching, teaching , praying for the sick, and leading people into the baptism in the Holy Spirit. It was reported that many were brought to Christ during her short stay in that country.

Final Years in Los Angeles

Farrow returned to Los Angeles and lived out her final years in a small “faith cottage” located behind the Azusa Street Mission. Many visited her there to receive of her wisdom and her prayers. Many testified of being healed, baptized in the Holy Spirit, or to having received a “greater” infilling of the Spirit through her prayers. The time and circumstances surrounding her death are unknown.

By Eddie L. Hyatt

Lucy Farrow is just one of many Christian women whose lives and accomplishments have been ignored or diminished by historians. The vision of the Int’l Christian Women’s Hall of Fame, now merged with God’s Word to Women, is to write these women back into history so that the present generation can learn and be inspired by their examples. If you would like to know more about the Hall of Fame and God’s Word to Women, go to www.icwhp.org and www.godswordtowomen.org.

PAUL & WOMEN OVERSEERS

2011-08-21T15:22:00.000-07:00

5 Reasons Why “Husband of One Wife” Does Not Exclude Women

This is a faithful saying: If a man (Gk. tis) desires the position of a bishop (Gk. episcopas), he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife . . . (I Timothy 3:1-2; NKJV).

Among the criteria that Paul’s lists for anyone serving as a bishop-overseer is that they must be the husband of one wife. This has been used by many to exclude women from functioning in this role of oversight, for only a man could be the husband of one wife.

In teaching “The Pastoral Epistles” (I and II Timothy & Titus) in various educational venues for many years, I had come to accept the view of Dr. Gordon Fee who says that just because most of the overseers in Ephesus (Timothy’s location at the time of Paul’s writing) happened to be men, should not be taken to mean that they all have to be men.

Fee’s commentary was helpful but did not completely satisfy my heart. Then one day while thinking on I Timothy 3:1-7, I had a eureka moment in which I suddenly and clearly saw why Paul’s requirement that an overseer be the husband of one wife does not exclude women from functioning in leadership roles of oversight. Here are the reasons.

Reason # 1
Throughout this discussion
Paul uses Gender Inclusive Language.

Nowhere in this passage does Paul use the Greek word for man, aner, but instead uses the gender inclusive personal pronoun tis, which means “someone” or “anyone.” For example, in 3:1 it is not, if a man . . . as the KJV and NKJV have it, but if anyone (NIV) or if someone (NRSV). This is also true of vs. 5 where Paul again uses tis, not aner, to confirm that oversight is not restricted to males. If Paul had wanted to exclude women from this function of oversight he could have easily done so by using male-specific language. Instead, he uses gender inclusive language throughout the discussion.

Reason #2
Women were known to be heads of households, which
Paul says is a proving ground for serving as an overseer
(I Timothy 3:5).

Verse 5 says, If ~~a man~~ anyone does not know how to manage their own household . . .. As mentioned above, Paul purposely uses a gender inclusive personal pronoun, tis, in this verse. As in vs. 2, it is not if a man, as the KJV and NKJV have it, but if someone (NRSV) or if anyone (NIV). Managing a household was not the province of the male in Paul’s world, for in his travels he had encountered women who were heads of households. In Philippi, he and his team were received by Lydia and she and her household were baptized (Acts 16:15) and her estate became the base for Paul’s ministry in that city. In I Corinthians 1:11, Paul mentions those of Chloe’s household who had brought him unfavorable news about the Corinthians. Chloe too is a feminine name and is further proof that women managed households in the ancient world, which qualified them to serve as overseers in the church.

Reason #3
In the pagan, patriarchal culture of the Greco-Roman world, men could divorce, remarry, keep mistresses and still be respectable, but women could not, which is the reason for this requirement being included.

This is where I had the eureka moment that highlighted and underlined for me the fact that Paul was not excluding women from oversight when he said the overseer must be the husband of one wife. Interestingly, because there is not a separate word for “husband” in Greek, this passage literally reads that the overseer must be “a man of one woman.” Again, this particular criterion would not relate to a woman for women did not have the legal right or the cultural freedom to divorce and remarry and carry on illegitimate relationships as did the men. Women would be considered sluts and whores if they carried on in this way, but for men it was acceptable in that culture. It was necessary, therefore, for this condition, that relates particularly to men, to be included in this list of criteria for tis (anyone) who would serve as an overseer.

Reason #4
This is Not an "Office" but a “Work,” i.e., a Responsibility.

The word “bishop” or “overseer” in this passage is a translation of the Greek word episcopas, which literally means to “watch over.” It is not unique to the New Testament but was used in the ancient Greco-Roman world of teachers who had the responsibility to “watch over” the academic progress of their students, of the superintendent of a building project, of watchmen stationed on a city wall, and of army scouts. Paul used it to designate the responsibility of elders to “watch over” the affairs of the congregation.

That episcopas was not a distinct church office at this time is confirmed by the fact that it is used interchageably with prebuteros (elder) and poimen (pastor) in referring to the same people by Luke in Acts 20:28. Episcopas as a distinct church office was a later development in Christian history.

Paul, in fact, does not use the word “office” or “position” at all in this passage (nor anywhere in the New Testament). Such words were added by the translators who thought they were helping clarify the passage. I am convinced, however, that they actually skew the meaning of the passage, which should be left as actually stated by Paul. What Paul is referring to is not an office, but a “work,” i.e., a function or responsibility. I Timothy 3:1 literally says, This is a faithful saying, If anyone aspires to oversight, they desire a good work.

Writing in the 5^th century, the famous African church father, Augustine, noted that a mark of the true church is that its leaders are servants. He then went on to explain that the original meaning of episcopas is related to function and responsibility, not office and authority. “Therefore,” said Augustine, “He who loves to govern rather than do good is no bishop (episcopas)” (vol. 2 of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 413).

Reason #5
Women Can Serve and Do Good.

I suggest to you that Paul had no problem with women serving and doing good, which is what New Testament leadership is about. We have been so brainwashed in an official, institutionalized, hierarchical form of Christianity, that we have a hard time grasping the open, free-flowing nature of New Testament Christianity.

But if we can catch the vision of what the Spirit is saying in this regard and move from gender-determined roles to Spirit-guided functions in all areas of church life, who knows what exploits may be wrought for God in the days ahead!

THE NEW NIV GENDER INCLUSIVE TRANSLATION

2011-08-14T17:26:00.000-07:00

A More Accurate Translation of Scripture,
or a Product of Feminism in the Church?

I once heard T.L. Osborn chide women for referring to their “spirit man.” T.L. apparently knew that Biblical passages referring to the inner man are gender inclusive in the Greek. Ephesians 3:16, for example, contains a prayer in which Paul prays that the Ephesian believers will be strengthened in the inner man. However, the word “man” in this passage is translated from the Greek word anthropos, which is a gender inclusive word meaning “person.” The same is true of I Peter 3:4 which speaks of the hidden man of the heart (KJV). Again, the Greek word is anthropos, which means this passage would more accurately read the hidden person of the heart. Ladies, T.L. was right. You are being more true to yourself and to Scripture if you refer to your inner person, not your inner man.

Paul Uses Gender Inclusive Language
to Include Women in Leadership

Our English translations are filled with male terminology that has been used to translate Greek words that are gender inclusive. Several years ago I received an email from a friend in NY asking if the Greek word translated “men” in Ephesians 4:8 is aner, the gender specific word for man as male, or anthropos, the gender inclusive word meaning “person” or “people.” I looked at my Greek Interlinear and was pleasantly surprised to see that Paul had used anthropoi, the plural form of anthropos. This was a significant discovery for Ephesians 4:8 introduces the leadership gifts of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher. Paul’s use of anthropoi meant that he saw women as well as men functioning in these leadership gifts.

The same is true of II Timothy 2:2 where Paul instructed Timothy, And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. As in Ephesians 4:8, the Greek word here is anthropoi, which means that Paul had both women and men in view when he gave these instructions to Timothy. If he had wanted to confine teaching roles to males, he could have easily used the word aner or its plural form. Paul’s use of anthropoi in this passage affirms that he expected both men and women to fulfill roles of leading and teaching in the church. Paul wanted Timothy to commit the things he had learned from him to faithful people.

Translators Have Shrouded
the Gender Inclusive Nature of Scripture

Indeed, the gender inclusive nature of the New Testament has been shrouded by translators using male language to translate words that in Greek are gender inclusive. This has subtly reinforced the idea that the New Testament is male dominated. The picture changes, however, when we see the extent of gender inclusive language in the New Testament.

Take, for example, the Greek pronoun tis, which means “anyone” or “someone.” Again and again, translators have used the word “man” to translate this gender inclusive pronoun. In I Tim. 3:1 Paul says If a man (tis) desires the position of a bishop he desires a good work. The Greek word for man, aner, is nowhere to be found in this discussion of someone functioning as a bishop (overseer). Paul, instead, uses the gender inclusive personal pronoun tis, which means “someone” or “anyone.” It is not, If a man, as the KJV and NKJV have it, but If anyone (NIV) or if someone (NRSV). This is also true of vs. 5 where Paul again uses tis, not aner, to confirm that oversight is not restricted to males.

New Gender Inclusive Translation

Zondervan recently came out with a new gender inclusive NIV translation in which changes have been made to more accurately reflect the original Greek as in examples cited above. The Southern Baptist Convention and other evangelical groups have publicly condemned the translation as a product of feminist influence on Zondervan and the NIV translation committee. Such accusations, however, are based more on a desire to defend a theological program that limits the role of women in the church than on a desire for an accurate translation of God’s Word. Zondervan is to be applauded for this new and more accurate translation of Scripture.

By Eddie L. Hyatt

WIVES, CONFRONT YOUR HUSBANDS

2011-08-01T08:22:00.000-07:00

While recently ministering in Toronto I purchased a copy of the Stone Edition of The Chumash, a Jewish commentary on the Torah that is widely used in Jewish homes and synagogues. The commentators are Jewish rabbis and teachers, both ancient and modern. While not agreeing with every interpretation, I have been pleasantly surprised to discover that their interpretation of the passages in Genesis concerning creation and the fall are egalitarian and almost precisely the same as Sue and I have taught for some time. I found their comments on Genesis 2:18b, in which they exhort wives to confront their husbands, to be particularly intriguing.

The NKJV of Genesis 2:18b says, I will make him a helper comparable to him. “Helper comparable” is a translation of the Hebrew phrase ezer neged (read Sue Hyatt, In the Spirit We’re Equal, 236-37, for a commentary on these words). Neged means “comparable to” and expresses a picture of two people standing face to face. Perhaps this is why this Jewish commentary, written by people for whom Hebrew is their native tongue, says that the word neged literally means “against.” It goes on to say,

Many have noted that the ideal marriage is not necessarily one of total agreement in all matters. Often it is the wife’s responsibility to oppose her husband and prevent him from acting rashly, or to help him achieve a common course by questioning, criticizing, and discussing. Thus the verse means literally that there are times a wife can best be a helper by being against him (The Chumash, Stone Edition, 13).

After reading this, I was reminded of two examples from Scripture. In one case, the wife confronting her husband was affirmed by God and it actually helped him fulfill God’s will for his life. In the second case, the wife did not confront her husband, and as a result, both lost their lives. She was actually rebuked for putting herself in agreement with her husband and not confronting him. The former case concerned Sarah and Abraham and the latter case concerned Ananias and Sapphira.

Sarah Confronts Abraham

In the Old Testament Sarah confronted Abraham over his passive and tolerant attitude toward Ishmael’s destructive behavior toward Isaac. She was very insistent that he get rid of Hagar and Ismael. Abraham was reluctant to do so and the Scripture says 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. (Genesis 21:12). It was not a matter of who had authority over whom; it was a matter of what was right and in this situation Sarah happened to be right.

Sapphira Should Have Confronted Ananias

In the New Testament Luke tells about a man named Ananias who sold a property and decided he was going to give a portion of it to the church but tell the church he was giving it all (Acts 5:1-11). Luke says his wife was aware of what he had concocted but instead of confronting him, she put herself in agreement with him. When Ananias brought the money to Peter, Peter discerned the lie and confronted Ananias about his hypocritical scheme. When Ananias heard Peter’s words, he fell over dead and was immediately taken out and buried.

Three hours later Sapphira came in not knowing what had just happened to her husband. Peter asked her if they had sold the property for a certain amount. When she said, “yes,’ Peter replied, How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who buried you husband are at the door, and they will carry you out. At that moment Sapphira also fell over dead and was taken out and buried next to her husband. Think about it! Here is a situation where two lives could possibly have been spared if the wife, instead of going along with her husband, had confronted him and stood against him and his evil scheme.

It’s Time to Break with Tradition

Yes, our marriages must consist primarily of mutual love, support, and encouragement. But because we are all fallible and prone to shortcomings, there are times we need to be confronted by the person closest to us, which should be our spouse. Tradition has given this right to the husband, but not to the wife. The Bible, however, is clear on this matter. The wife has the right—and responsibility--to confront her husband.

By Eddie L. Hyatt

IN THE BEGINNING

2011-07-27T20:26:00.000-07:00

An Old Model for a New Beginning
in Male/Female Relationships

Sometime ago I was looking more closely at the first chapter of Genesis and discovered that the creation of “man” in Genesis 1:26-27 is actually about the creation of the human species, not the creation of the first male. This was a significant finding for me for I had heard much teaching and preaching about human sexuality that was based on the misunderstanding that Genesis 1 is about the creation and commissioning of the first male.

For example, I heard a well-known pastor teaching on the radio and using this passage to tell the women that Genesis 1 is a key for them understanding their man. He read the passage about God giving dominion to the “man” and elaborated how that men see sex as a conquest and when they achieve victory, they often lose interest in the woman they have just vanquished (no wonder that feminists are often turned off to Christianity). But when I saw that Genesis 1:26-31 is about the creation and commissioning of the human species, both male and female, it was obvious that this sort of sexist interpretation is completely undermined.

The Evidence is Conclusive

The Hebrew word translated “man” in Genesis 1:26-27 is adam and would be better translated as “mankind” or “humanity” since it is a gender inclusive word that includes both men and women. The Hebrew word for man (as male) is ish and the word for woman is ishshah and neither is found in this account. Throughout the Old Testament adam is used in referring to generic groups of both men and women or referring to a person without reference to gender. That Genesis 1:26-27 is about the creation of the human species is affirmed in 1:27b where the writer of Genesis sums up his statement about God creating man (adam) with the words, Male and female He created them.

That Genesis 1:26-27 is about the creation of the human species is also confirmed by the fact that the Septuagint translates adam with the Greek word anthropos, the gender-inclusive word that means person or humanity. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament produced around 250 B.C. by 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria Egypt. Their use of anthropos (person or people) rather than aner (man as male) to translate adam, shows that they clearly saw Genesis 1:26-27 as describing the creation of the human species, including both male and female.

The evidence that these passages refer to the creation of both male and female is overwhelming. This is why well-known evangelical theologian, Dr. Millard Erickson, says, “The ‘man’ (adam) who was created in the divine image is both male and female. Both bear the image of the Maker.” This is why modern translations, such as the New Living Translation, have used “people” instead of “man” in these verses. Genesis 1:26 in the NLT thus reads, And God said let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves.

The Creation is About Them, Not Him

In this creation account, God gives authority and blessing to the adam He has made and He uses the plural pronoun “them” in doing so. In Genesis 1:26 God said, Let them have dominion . . .. Genesis 1:28 reads, Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it . . ..” The creation account is obviously about “them,” not about “him.” Both are given the same blessing, dominion, and authority. There is not the slightest hint that one is given priority or authority over the other. There is perfect mutuality and equality between the sexes in all these verses.

The predominant use of the plural pronoun “them” in these verses is evidence that this creation account is not about a male individual. Confusion has come in because adam later became the personal name of the first male. But even though “Adam” became the personal name of the first male, the word adam continued to be a gender-inclusive word used to refer to a mixed group of people or to an individual without regard for gender.

That adam in Genesis 1:26-27 refers to both man and woman is clearly stated in Genesis 5:1-2 which reads,
In the day that God created man (adam), He made him in the likeness of God. He crated them male and female and called them Mankind (adam) in the day they were created.

A Distinct Man and Woman Appear For the First Time

In Genesis 2:21 God puts the adam to sleep and takes a “rib” from his side. “Rib” is a poor translation for the Hebrew word which literally means “side.” God takes a “side” from the adam and does further creative work from this side and forms it into an ishshah, the Hebrew word for “woman.” The renowned commentator, Matthew Henry, noted that the woman was, “Not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him.”

In Genesis 2:22, God then brings the ishshah (woman) to the ish (man). This is the first time in Scripture that we see the Hebrew words for man and woman. For the first time we have an ish adam and an ishshah adam, i.e., a man person and a woman person. At the sight of the woman (ishshah), the man (ish) is struck with awe and breaks out in what many Bible scholars believe is poetry or song. He sings, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman (Ishshah) for she was taken out of Man (Ish).

The writer of Genesis sums up this account by saying, Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall be one flesh. It is interesting to note that in this passage it is the man who has the responsibility to leave his family and join himself to his wife. In the very beginning they were one flesh literally and in marriage they become one flesh again.

Back to the Future

In all of this account of creation there is not the slightest hint of one sex having priority or authority over the other. There is perfect mutuality and partnership. Man ruling over woman does not appear until after the Fall in Genesis 3 where God lists the man ruling over the woman as one of the ramifications of sin coming into the world. In this regard, we should listen to the words of Jesus who twice, in Matthew 19, told the Pharisees to go back to the beginning to find God’s highest and best for male/female relationships. It is there, in the beginning, before the creation was marred by sin that we find God’s original plan for men and women.

By Eddie L. Hyatt