Definition of False Teacher: One who presumes to teach in the Name of the Lord when God has not sent him.

Print Friendly

False Teacher – Susan Hyatt

The Lawless Lady Libber

“Dr.” Susan Hyatt presents herself a champion in this world, not for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake or the Lord’s, but for female flesh’s sake.

There are many prominent libbers in the world, but the problem, in this case, is that Hyatt misrepresents the Lord Jesus Christ and the Biblical teachings on the issue of God’s unique will for men and women in His Church and Kingdom. We will prove “Dr.” Susan Hyatt altogether in error.

One of her many publications is a booklet titled, Ten Things Jesus Taught Women, and a Few Things He Didn’t Teach.

A theme she promotes on the cover of the booklet is, “Jesus, Friend of Women.” Indeed, He is The True Friend of Women, but not as Hyatt surmises and presumptuously teaches. In the first chapter of the book, “Men and Women are Equal,” she lays out her doctrine:

When Jesus turned on the light it showed God’s point of view women are created, regarded, respected, and commissioned as equals with men.

Throughout the rest of the booklet, Susan explains what she means by these words while providing Scriptural “proof” for her argument.

In the second chapter, “Women are not Property,” Susan voices her problem with the way conventional religious society (Jewish and Christian in name) has treated women, contending against it using the Bible. She writes that “the notion…wives are the property of husbands, and therefore they are expected to serve in ‘their proper place’ as the domestic and maternal overseers of the man’s household,” is error that should “jump off the page.”

Against what she perceives as an outrage, Susan assuredly asserts, “Do you know Jesus actually confronted this thinking?

Really? Here’s what Jesus’ servant Paul said about the domestic station of a wife:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give no occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Timothy 5:14 Webster).

And Peter, sent by Jesus to feed His sheep, says:

“Likewise, wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, so that if any do not obey the Word, they may also be won without the Word by the conduct of the wives” (1 Peter 3:1 MKJV).

Paul stated this about who rules the household overall:

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22 MKJV).

Isn’t submitting to the Lord another way of saying we’re His property?

The apostles of the Lord called themselves His bondservants, which in their frame of reference meant being God’s property and having no right to live however they pleased independent of Him and His will. Are not wives joined to their husbands for life, to whom they are called by the Word of God to submit as unto the Lord? So do they not belong to their husbands? And is that a bad thing to belong to another? The Word of God says otherwise:

Ephesians 5:23-29 MKJV
(23)  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
(24)  Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
(25)  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it,
(26)  that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word,
(27)  that He might present it to Himself as the glorious church, without spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that it should be holy and without blemish.
(28)  So men ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
(29)  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord loves the church.

Susan doesn’t think this is right. She rejects what she doesn’t understand because blinded by what she wants for herself. She has her own interpretation of the Scriptures that allows her to be her own boss and proceeds to use John 8:3-11 to prove what she interprets as women’s “equality”:

John 8:3-11 MKJV
(3)  And the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman taken in adultery. And standing her in the midst,
(4)  they said to Him, Teacher, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
(5)  Now Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned. You, then, what do you say?
(6)  They said this, tempting Him so that they might have reason to accuse Him. But bending down, Jesus wrote on the ground with His finger, not appearing to hear.
(7)  But as they continued to ask Him, He lifted Himself up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.
(8)  And again bending down, He wrote on the ground.
(9)  And hearing, and being convicted by conscience, they went out one by one, beginning at the oldest, until the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
(10)  And bending back up, and seeing no one but the woman, Jesus said to her, Woman, where are the ones who accused you? Did not one give judgment against you?
(11)  And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I give judgment. Go, and sin no more.

Susan asks the following leading question and answers according to her declaration of independence from God and man:

Why did the religious leaders bring only the woman to Jesus? The answer can only be attributed to the prejudice toward women and perhaps also to the anger of the religious leaders towards Jesus’ compassionate and equal treatment of women.

Yes, the scribes and Pharisees brought only the woman to Jesus and not the man, but the reason for this isn’t given or even implied. To conclude that it was because of prejudice against women and anger with Jesus’ stance on women is to raise speculation to the status of fact, making women the issue. But they’re not the issue – Susan is wrong in her audacious presumption.

She goes on:

According to the religious law, the woman was the property of one man and the sin in this case was that his property had been damaged. The sin was not her behavior per se, the problem was that she, as property, had been misused. The sin was that man, her owner, had been violated. Accordingly, this woman was now considered a disgrace to her owner and should be killed. Also, according to the law, the man was to be stoned to death, not for adultery per se, but not because he violated another man’s property.”

The issue isn’t what men think or what they call “sin,” but what God thinks and says.

“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10 ESV).

The sin of adultery applies to the behavior of both the man and the woman because they have violated the covenant of marriage given by God.

But Susan is focused on man, not God. She uses God to promote her agenda of being free from having to answer to anyone, including Him. He is not her Lord, and she, therefore, doesn’t call her husband “lord,” as Sarah did:

“For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” (1 Peter 3:5-6 ESV).

Susan ascribes fictitious motives and acts to the Lord:

Jesus did not treat the woman as man’s property. He treated her as a person of equal human worth.

How can she say that Jesus didn’t treat the woman as man’s property? How was that even an issue here? We don’t know if the woman was married. She could have been a single woman who slept with a married man. Susan assumes things that aren’t said and ascribes motives that don’t apply.

A person’s worth in God’s sight has nothing to do with whether they are servant or master, ruler or ruled, man or woman. Jesus’ motive had nothing to do with showing women should be treated as equals. That’s Susan’s motive according to her terms.

Also a fact overlooked, He spoke directly and personally to her in public… In this case Jesus made this woman a subject of His respect instead of an object of social disgrace. How many times have we simply, because we are women, been treated as though we were invisible or with disrespect?

The woman was brought to Jesus, so why wouldn’t He speak to her directly and personally? If some religious have a hang up with that, they didn’t get it from God. And the woman was already in disgrace, not because she was a woman, but because she committed a deadly sin. The Lord was dealing with her sin and the motives of those who brought her to Him. This, from another writing on our site:

“Was He exonerating the woman? Not apparently. He was teaching that all are guilty. He knew that her accusers needed judgment (correction) as much as she did. He also said what He did to spring the trap they had set for Him, without falling into another.”

“He was teaching that none of us has the right to condemn another and that the Law was not intended for condemnation.”

http://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/woman-caught-in-adultery.htm

Whereas the Lord was dealing with all of men, Susan can’t see anything but women:

He put the focus where it needed to be; He proactively changed the focus to what really mattered was what God thought of all of this, of the error of the religious leaders and of the welfare of this abused woman. And He showed that this woman was not a piece of human property, not a tool of the religious system, not as a worthless item to be used as men pleased. She really was worth something to God. Today, whose values do we embrace?

This abused woman”? How was she abused? That is a disgusting display of fleshly favoritism – truly, the very thing Susan complains about – sexual discrimination.

In Chapter 3, “Women are More Important than Religion,” Susan examines another Scripture through her woman-centric lens of bias:

Matthew 9:20-22 MKJV
(20)  And behold, a woman, who had a flow of blood for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the hem of His garment.
(21)  For she said within herself, If only I shall touch His robe, I will be whole.
(22)  But turning and seeing her, Jesus said, Daughter, be comforted; your faith has saved you. And the woman was saved from that hour.

Susan writes: “It is important to recognize that this story is not just about Jesus healing someone; it is about Jesus healing a woman. It is about the circumstances in which He healed her. It is about Jesus’ confrontation with the religious leaders, and how He offended them personally by breaking their sacred laws – to help a woman! In all of this, He showed that one woman is more valuable than sacred rules and religious rituals.

Did Jesus go out of His way to help this woman? Did He seek to heal her, or did she go out of her way to touch Him without His permission? It was her faith that made her whole, not an act by Jesus to show that a woman was more valuable than “sacred rules.” That is fantasy.

By allowing this ‘unclean’ woman to touch Him, Jesus was allowing something that made Him ritually unclean, according to Leviticus 15:19-25,27.

Again, Jesus didn’t allow, He acknowledged what happened because of this woman’s faith. Faith is never against the “sacred rules,” the Law of God.

“And He said to them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill? But they were silent. And looking around on them with anger, being grieved because of the hardness of their hearts, He said to the man, Stretch out your hand! And he stretched it out. And his hand was restored whole, like the other” (Mark 3:4-5 MKJV).

Mark 2:23-28 MKJV
(23)  And it happened that He went through the grain fields on the Sabbath day. And as they walked His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain.
(24)  And the Pharisees said to Him, Behold, why do they do that which is not lawful on the Sabbath day?
(25)  And He said to them, Have you never read what David did, when he had need and was hungry, he, and those with him?
(26)  How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat, except for the priests, and also gave to those with him?
(27)  And He said to them, The Sabbath came into being for man’s sake, and not man for the Sabbath’s sake.
(28)  Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.

The Lord was not polluted by this woman – she was cleansed by Him through her faith instead. The healing had nothing to do with her being a woman.

Susan says, “…in God’s heart, a woman is far more important than religion,” but religion is never the issue for God. His Law reflects His Nature, which isn’t attained through a set of rules. His Nature can only be inherited through Christ, by faith in Him, and then all the Law will be fulfilled.

“Therefore do we nullify the Law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the Law” (Romans 3:31 EMTV).

Susan has once again missed the mark, making gender the issue rather than faith in Christ. In her next chapter, “Women are Equal Partners in Marriage,” she turns the Scriptures about gender on their head. She begins:

The Jews of Jesus’ day live by a double standard that can be summed up by the fact that a husband could divorce his wife for any reason, but a wife couldn’t divorce her husband for any reason… Jesus rejected this double standard. Marriage, he showed, was not a relationship designed to the benefit of man.

Again, Susan is mixing the laws of men with the Law of God, not distinguishing between them and creating an abominable mixture. The result is that in her dismissal of man’s laws, she dismisses God’s as well.

God’s Law doesn’t allow for divorce “for any reason”:

“When a man has taken a wife and married her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorce and put it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:1 MKJV).

Jesus explained why this was so:

Mark 10:2-9 MKJV
(2)  And tempting Him, the Pharisees came to Him and asked Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?
(3)  And He answered and said to them, What did Moses command you?
(4)  And they said, Moses allowed a bill of divorce to be written, and to put her away.
(5)  And Jesus answered and said to them, He wrote you this precept because of the hardness of your hearts.
(6)  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
(7)  For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife.
(8)  And the two of them shall be one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
(9)  Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put apart.

Men were granted to divorce under certain circumstances that warranted separation, which came about because of sin. If men and women weren’t so hard of heart and obeyed God, there would be no divorce. But Susan isn’t focused on the issue of sin and righteousness – she’s focused on women – herself – and her rights as she perceives them. She says to herself, “I’m a queen on a throne, not a widow [I have a husband and he obeys me]. I’ll never be miserable.” (Revelation 18:7 GW).

She declares: “Marriage, [Jesus] showed, was not to be a relationship designed for the benefit of man. It was to be a relationship of equals in which both the man and the woman had equal privileges and rights, equal responsibility and authority.

Wasn’t marriage instituted for the benefit of man?

“Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’” (Genesis 2:18 ESV).

Is marriage a relationship of equals?

“Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Corinthians 11:9 ESV).

Has a wife equal authority with her husband?

“But I do not allow a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man… For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:12-13 MKJV).

“To the woman He said, I will greatly increase your sorrow and your conception. In pain you shall bear sons, and your desire shall be toward your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16 MKJV).

From equal authority in marriage, it’s an easy step to equal authority in ministry. That’s the subject of Chapter 5, where Susan quotes the famous Scripture used to justify women usurping the authority over a man:

“For as many as were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28 MKJV).

In Christ, there isn’t bond or free, but in this world, there are both. One who is in the service of a master doesn’t have equal authority. The notion is absurd. The same applies to man and woman. In this world, there are both, and whether in Christ or not, they are not the same and don’t have the same authority, as we have already seen in the Word of God.

In arguing for her version of women’s equality, Susan twists the Galatians Scriptures to say: “In Christ, there is no gender, which means I’m the same as a man in this world and therefore have the same authority as he does.” That’s satanic reasoning, making nonsense of reality and mocking the Word of God.

When Paul talks about gender and racial equality, in Ephesians 2:14 and Galatians 3:27-29, values expressed by Jesus, he says that Jesus broke down the wall of separation. When we follow Jesus, we too will proclaim what Jesus has done. We will tell everyone that Jesus has broken down the wall of prejudice and separation that have debased women.

To call the Word of God that distinguishes between the authority and positions of men and women “debasing” is a diabolical lie. The results of believing and acting on this lie have been death and hell on earth. Only God’s ways and order bring life and peace. To use Him and His Scriptures to dispute and refuse what He says is evil of the first order. It is witchcraft.

Susan gives the Samaritan woman to whom the Lord revealed He was the Messiah as an example of a woman having equal authority in ministry as men. Susan bases this on what happened when the Samaritan woman left the Lord and went into the nearby city “…and said to the men, Come see a man who told me all things that I ever did. Is this One not the Christ” (John 4:28-29 MKJV).

Of this event, Susan says, “despite the fact that a woman’s testimony was not considered valid or acceptable, He [Jesus] entrusted this most of important testimonies to her.

He did no such thing. This woman wasn’t sent out by the Lord to minister. She wasn’t sent out at all. In her exuberance at hearing the truth from the Messiah, she shared this most important development with the men of her city, the authorities there. Listening to her, they came out to see Jesus and could hear the truth for themselves, confirming what the woman told them.

Using this woman as an example of equality in ministry is dishonest and pathetic. The Samaritan woman sharing what happened to her wasn’t a calling from God, such as the apostles whom the Lord sent out to preach the Gospel. Not even close. The apostles were given oversight and responsibility for the souls of men, a huge difference.

How can anyone except a person with an agenda suggest the things Susan does?

Everyone – man, woman, and child, is free to speak of what the Lord has done for them. Why shouldn’t they be? You won’t find any restriction in the Scriptures for people giving their testimonies. In the several instances where the Lord told those He healed not to go telling anyone, it was only during the time He was in the flesh, fulfilling His mission to preach to the people, which He sought to do without hindrance.

So can women represent God, the subject of Chapter 6? Of course, they can.

“So God created man in His Own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27 ESV) .

And yes, God does use female illustrations in the Scriptures, though not for the reason Susan ultimately thinks. It’s not to prove women are equal to men in every aspect, but to show God’s True Nature, which encompasses aspects of male and female. One such example:

“As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you, and you will be comforted in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 66:13 MKJV).

The Jerusalem from above is God’s bride. He and His bride are one:

“And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God” (Revelation 21:2-3 ESV).

What a wonderful truth and reality! But all Susan can see and think about is her female flesh. How shortsighted and tragic! That is the essential man of sin, who lives for this world and puts himself in the place of God as he seeks his own. This is the one whom the Lord comes to slay with the breath of His mouth. His words are being given here.

Susan brings up two examples where Jesus “used feminine metaphors to help us understand the nature of God.” The first is Matthew 23:37:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not” (MKJV).

Susan asks: “Is it possible that the protective instinct is, in fact, a characteristic of God that resides within people – both men and women? Is it possible that it is not a trait attributable only to men?

The answer is a resounding “Yes!” Did the Lord not just liken His desire to that of a protective mother?

The second example Susan gives is Luke 15:8-10:

“Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I lost!’ Just so, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents’” (EMTV).

Of which she says: “In the parable, [Jesus] uses the image of a woman to portray God. It has been suggested by scholars that Jesus did this on purpose to counter the sexist attitudes of the scribes and Pharisees.

By this reasoning, Jesus used a chicken to portray God in the previous example. The truth is, Jesus used various illustrations from God’s creation to depict His Kingdom and ways because everything He made reflects Him and His glory. Everything is not God, but God is everything. Of God our Savior it is written:

“Who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation. For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and by Him, all things consist” (Colossians 1:15-17 MKJV).

As for getting her ideas or backing from religious scholars, those are the ones to whom Jesus said:

“I’ve had it with you! You’re hopeless, you religion scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God’s Kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won’t let anyone else in either… You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned” (Matthew 23:13,15 MSG).

Susan comes under the Lord’s rebuke. She argues that “God as Father” is metaphor only, but the Scriptures clearly refute her again. God came in the flesh as a man, and John saw Him in Heaven as a man:

Revelation 1:10-18 MKJV
(10)  I came to be in the Spirit in the Lord’s day and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
(11)  saying, I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. Also, What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to
Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.
(12)  And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me.
(13)  And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands. And in the midst of the seven lampstands, I saw One like the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and tied around the breast with a golden band.
(14)  His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow. And His eyes were like a flame of fire.
(15)  And His feet were like burnished brass having been fired in a furnace. And His voice was like the sound of many waters.
(16)  And He had seven stars in His right hand, and out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword. And His face was like the sun shining in its strength.
(17)  And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying to me, Do not fear, I am the First and the Last,
(18)  and the Living One, and I became dead, and behold, I am alive for ever and ever, Amen. And I have the keys of hell and of death.

“The LORD is a man of war; the LORD is His Name” (Exodus 15:3 ESV).

We are to make no images of God, but we’re also warned about denying His Words:

“And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book” (Revelation 22:19 MKJV).

In chapter 7, Susan talks about women being equal in “God’s family values,” which in her hands is a slippery subject. She uses the following Scriptures to build her case:

Luke 8:19-21 EMTV
(19)  Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd.
(20)  And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
(21)  But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

Susan massively misinterprets the message of this incident and Jesus’ words to suit her single-minded argument for women’s equality. She begins the derailment here, with her version of what Jesus is saying (her emphasis included):

You understand the close relationship my mother and brothers have with me. You can have that, too, because intimacy with me is not based on flesh and blood. It is based on hearing God’s word and putting it into practice.

What close relationship? His mother and brothers were standing outside, not just physically, but spiritually as well. They didn’t believe:

“And when His family heard it, they went out to seize Him, for they were saying, ‘He is out of his mind’” (Mark 3:21 ESV).

The Lord was speaking of having a heavenly, not earthly relationship, with God the Father through Him. His mother was going through her trials as prophesied:

“And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, Behold, this One is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign spoken against (yea, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also)…” (Luke 2:34-35 MKJV).

Susan doesn’t know these things because she doesn’t have a relationship with the Son of God in Heaven. She misconstrues what the Lord says about those who are His mother and brothers, interpreting it to mean “it blurs the social expectations and restrictions imposed by the roles defined by words like ‘mother’ and ‘brother.’ He says that real motherhood and real brotherhood – the highest quality ‘family’ relationships – come from Him and are not defined by social expectations of roles found in human culture.

In other words, Susan is free not to serve her husband or obey the Law of God that says a woman shouldn’t teach or exercise authority over a man. She can do whatever is right in her own sight and to hell with God. This is lawlessness disguised by the notion of women’s equality. And that’s a disingenuous notion because it’s not even equality Susan is after; she is presuming top position, a law unto herself.

As ever with her predilection to see a woman’s issue every time a female comes up in the Scriptures, our author examines Jesus’ visit at Martha and Mary’s house in Chapter 8, “Women are not Confined to the Kitchen.”

Luke 10:38-42 MKJV
(38)  And as they went, it happened that He entered into a certain village. And a certain woman named Martha received Him into her house.
(39)  And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word.
(40)  But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she came to Him and said, Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.
(41)  And Jesus answered and said to her, Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things.
(42)  But one thing is needful, and Mary has chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Susan comments:

[Jesus] really upsets things. He praises Mary for being His disciple and sitting at His feet while He teaches her the Scriptures, a thing prohibited by the oral law [Note: The oral law is illegitimate.] at the same time, He seems to withhold praise from Martha who is busy doing what needs to be done, and in this case, we could say she was busy doing ‘women’s work.’

This encounter had nothing to do with gender, as Susan perceives in her bias. Jesus was simply pointing out that the person who chose to hear Him while He was speaking, rather than attend to the mundane matters of the world, wouldn’t be denied. He wouldn’t always be available in that manner, as He made clear in an incident with another woman:

Matthew 26:10-12 MKJV
(10)  When Jesus understood it, He said to them, Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work on Me.
(11)  For you have the poor with you always, but you do not always have Me.
(12)  For in putting ointment on My body, she did it for My burial.

Here’s an example of another woman who chose the better thing, attending to Jesus speaking through His brother and servant, Paul. This woman also wasn’t denied:

“And a certain woman named Lydia heard us, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God; whose heart the Lord opened, so that she attended to the things which were spoken by Paul. And when she was baptized, she and her household, she begged us, saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay. And she constrained us” (Acts 16:14-15 MKJV).

The Lord comes for women as well as men, a wonderful and liberating truth. There’s no reason at all for women to feel slighted or left out. Each person and gender has their own place in Him, which place alone brings life and true satisfaction. To set the heart on what isn’t one’s place is sheer foolishness born of unbelief, leading to disaster. That’s where Susan has gone and teaches others to follow her into the ditch. In her darkness, she fancies faithful Mary a theologian like herself:

Her choice was to ‘sit at Jesus’ feet,’ an expression meaning that she was a student or a disciple. This expression is used by Paul to say he had been a disciple of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). This discipleship status was a privilege that only men were allowed, yet here was Mary, sitting and learning ‘theology’ And Jesus encouraged her in this! He even commanded her, saying, she had chosen the better part.

What a horrid word, “theology”! The Lord hates it. He didn’t come to teach men and women a “rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth.” There’s no life in that – see for yourself in your churches and seminaries. The Lord came to give us life in Him, life abundant! He doesn’t deny any who come to Him – man, woman or child because His life is meant for all:

“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will in no way cast out” (John 6:37 MKJV).

“The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price” (Revelation 22:17 ESV).

We are here in His Name to give you that water.

Chapter 9, “Women are not Measured by Child-bearing,” begins:

Jesus’ radical teaching about womanhood continues! [No, it is Susan’s perverse interpretation that continues.] It makes a person wonder what many religious folks would do if Jesus showed up today! (Perhaps He does and we crucify Him all over again, so to speak.) His attitude in Luke 11:27-28 might be one of the most difficult for religious people to grasp.

Here’s the Scripture:

“And it happened as He spoke these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice and said to Him, Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which You have sucked. But He said, No; rather, blessed are they who hear the Word of God and keep it” (Luke 11:27-28 MKJV).

And here’s what Susan makes of it in her imaginations:

[The] woman complimented Jesus by referring to how happy His mother must have been to have given birth to such a wonderful son….This woman meant no harm, but Jesus rebuked her, and His rebuke was not gentle.

Jesus seemed to have been deeply troubled by the woman’s reference to woman in purely reproductive terms.

This prompts one male scholar to remark: ‘Jesus clearly felt it necessary to reject the baby machine image of women.’

Jesus was teaching that child-bearing is not to be worshipped. It is not to be the standard by which a woman’s life is to be measured. He seemed to be concerned that women did not see themselves as God sees them.

Jesus was normally proactive in His teaching. He used events and situations to teach truth, so we seldom see Him reacting. But when He did teach by reaction, we something of how angry God is at sin! This is one of those times!

What utter nonsense! The Lord wasn’t angry at the woman or rebuking her for sin. That’s Susan’s disposition speaking there – the uncalled for anger is hers. The Lord was correcting the woman’s notion that a physical connection confers blessing when it’s the spiritual connection with God through faith and obedience that truly blesses.

No, women aren’t measured by child bearing, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Women are given to have children and have this natural desire from God, so let it be as He dictates and not as Susan Hyatt does.

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Timothy 2:13-15 ESV).

Susan is right in one thing – when the Lord shows up today people do “crucify Him all over again, so to speak.” And she rightly includes herself in that crowd, because that’s what she did in essence when we first spoke to her on this matter six years ago.

All this talk about women being denied by religion and society their rightful place, with Scripture-twisting to prove it so, ultimately leads us to the premise of Chapter 10, “Women can be Apostles.”

Susan writes:

According to Jesus…the Spirit comes to change us and to guide us into all truth (Jn. 16:13). One of these changes involves elevating women to equality with men to the extent the culture will allow.

Susan truly confesses that her kingdom is of this world. What the culture of this world allows has nothing whatsoever to do with the Truth the Spirit of God leads us into. This world has no say over His Kingdom whatsoever. Her thinking is the same one that justifies Calvin murdering Servetus because Calvin was under the influence and strictures of the culture of his day.

Susan then makes these two distinctions:

First:The New Testament meaning for the Greek word translated apostle is simply ‘a sent one.’ It carrries no sense of authority over people (1 Cor. 4:6-13).

Refuted: Paul isn’t saying in those verses that his position in Christ had no authority. He’s saying that Christ’s authority isn’t respected by the world; even His people, the believers in Corinth, were found to be judging men of God carnally.

Reading the rest of the chapter, verses 14-21, proves the exact opposite of what Susan proposes – the one sent by Christ to do His bidding has His authority.

1 Corinthians 4:6-21 MKJV
(6)  And these things, brothers, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that you might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, so that no one of you may be puffed up against one another.
(7)  For who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?
(8)  Already you are full! Already you are rich! You have reigned as kings without us! And oh that indeed you did reign, that we also might reign with you.
(9)  For I think that God has set forth us last, the apostles, as it were appointed to death; for we have become a spectacle to the world and to angels and to men.
(10)  We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are honorable, but we are despised.
(11)  Even until this present hour we both hunger and thirst and are naked and are buffeted and have no certain dwelling place.
(12)  And we labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it;
(13)  being defamed, we entreat. We are made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things until now.
(14)  I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you.
(15)  For though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for I have begotten you in Christ Jesus through the Gospel.
(16)  Therefore I beseech you, be imitators of me.
(17)  For this cause I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved son and faithful in the Lord, who shall remind you of my ways which are in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.
(18)  As to my not coming to you now, some are puffed up.
(19)  But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills. And I will not know the speech of those who are puffed up, but the power.
(20)  For the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
(21)  What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and the spirit of meekness?

Second distinction: Nowhere in the original language of the New Testament is the word ‘office’ or the idea of ‘ministry office’ found… Words such as apostle, pastor, prophet, bishop, and so on, refer to function and responsibility, rather than to an office or a position of power.

Refuted: How can there be a function and the responsibility to fulfill it without authority from the One Who sends? Setting aside semantics and the use of words, all Susan is doing here is saying she will not submit to the authority of God and the one sent by Him to represent His will. She is her own authority obviating all others, including the Most High.

Paul the apostle addressing those under his charge from God:

“Therefore I write these things while absent, lest being present I may not deal sharply with you according to the authority which the Lord gave me for building up, and not for pulling down” (2 Corinthians 13:10 MKJV).

Susan speaks of a new apostolic movement, where “women are permitted and encouraged to minister.” “On the other hand,” she continues, “women are not allowed to function in the highest ‘office’ advocated in this sort of church structure… that is hierarchical, a form that neither Jesus nor Paul advocated. It indicates, as well, that it is patriarchal; that is, men rule, women serve – as teachers, preachers, and so on, but not in the ruling ‘office of apostle.’ It is all terribly off course, biblically speaking.

Susan is speaking of the false church, not the true, where women aren’t given to be teachers at large, ruling over men. She makes the Bible say what she wants to hear, as is already well documented. Now for the grand finale.

With that said, we do need to look at an apostle, in the true, New Testament sense. And this apostle was a woman – Mary Magdalene – who happened to be the first apostle commissioned by the Risen Christ (Jn. 20:10-18; Mt 28:1-10).

After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to Mary and said:

“Do not be afraid; go tell My brothers that they should go into Galilee, and there they will see Me” (Matthew 28:10 MKJV).

Since “apostle” means “one who is sent,” and Mary was sent to Jesus’ brothers, Susan makes the gigantic leap of calling Mary an apostle. And she doesn’t stop there: she further notes that Mary, because she was sent with a message for the apostles, “is called by some ‘the apostle to the apostles.’

So the errand boy who ran a message to General Grant during the Civil War was obviously not only a general himself, but a general of generals? Do you really reckon that young fellow, as important as his commission was, could have run the Union armies?

Well, that’s how absurd Susan’s thinking is. All of this is so obvious, but it’s important for us to show how the rationale for women as ministers, when called upon for proof from the Scriptures, is utterly ridiculous and substanceless.

God made man and woman. He bestowed unique characteristics to each, which precludes a woman from doing everything a man can do and man from doing what women were made to do. Refusing one’s God-given place, presuming to be wiser than Him, has only led to tragic results.

Romans 1:20-32 MKJV
(20)  For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
(21)  Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(22)  Professing to be wise, they became fools
(23)  and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
(24)  Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.
(25)  For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen.
(26)  For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
(27)  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
(28)  And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right,
(29)  being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers,
(30)  backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(31)  undiscerning, perfidious, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful;
(32)  who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them.

Here are some other related writings:

Diabolical Doctrine: Women Are Ministers of God in Spiritual Authority over Men
The Vashti-Esther Transmutation
Iniquity
The Cross – Only the Death Sentence Will Avail
The Church

Victor Hafichuk
August 12, 2017

Facebook Comments
Print Friendly