Phil Johnson Monstrous Divas

Yeah, ol’ Phil would like to shut us up, wouldn’t he.
He’d also like the think that God agrees with him, doesn’t he.
Too bad ol’ Phil has such lousy discernment concerning women and is blinded by his own entitlement.

Am I going to keep drawing attention to certain errors?

You betcha.

Women have been force fed a male-biased gospel for far too long. Female discernment has been shut down for far too long. It is the responsibility of all Christians to walk in discernment and no amount of scolding and shaming from a misguided man is going to stop me.

Mara,

Good for you.
I had to go and read (as quickly as I did) at the blog post to get some kind of idea of what’s going on..

Women have been force fed a male-biased gospel for far too long. Female discernment has been shut down for far too long. It is the responsibility of all Christians to walk in discernment and no amount of scolding and shaming from a misguided man is going to stop me.

Based on Phil’s last comment on the 25th it does sound like he is stressing a male-biased gospel.

Doesn’t the male-biased gospel have to do with lust? Lust for power, prominence, exclusive rights, authority, etc.

I feel very sad for Phil. He has a copy of my DVD that was given to him back in 2006 for Phil and John MacArthur. I don’t think that he has watched it or he would not be able to make the claims about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as he does. He would know better. It appears to me that he will not be corrected by a woman no matter how much the Holy Spirit says thru her.

Thanks for blogging about this – you did a great job bringing out the salient points.
I must admit I’ve never given any deep thought to this issue, but I will now. I was utterly speechless when I read Johnson’s post. Most evangelical couples I have known over the years DO have the complementarian view, but many of the men would NOT have his attitude, and would never speak the way he did. Perhaps he thought his post with the photo was witty and amusing, gag. I’m not amused, but I do thank PH for drawing my attention to this topic!

Bridget,
Thank you for your kind thoughts. And welcome to my blog!

I too felt quite speechless when I read Phil Johnson’s post because of the attitude that was displayed. It is my hope that some day the Church will be free of the attitude against women. I hope to see it in my lifetime because I believe that the Holy Spirit can do what no person can hope to accomplish.

Actually, I think this is a good sign. The more dogmatic and oppressive they become, the more I realize we are winning the debate. They are using the only tools in their arsenal and the biggest tool is that they teach that it is a sin to take any instruction from women. Problem solved.

Not so fast.

They are becoming so dogmatic and oppressive that more and more comps are offended! And that is a good time to point to scripture interpretation. Guys like Phil sound more like Mormons in their view of women than Christians. (Be sweet, the Mormons tell their women). In fact, there are more and more parallels to Islam in their view of women than Christianity. (I often wonder what they do with Joanna…married to Chuza…who was traveling around the countryside with Jesus and supporting him financialy). The CBMW sounds more and more Mormonish every day. They are desperate.

Can they make the case that there is a prohibition to women teaching men or having authority over men in the OT? No. So why is there a more drastic rule in the NT? At this point, they start pulling extra biblical rabbits out of the hat and read into the Word what is silent. They are teaching sin as a virtue. Women are to look to Christ. Not their husbands. Women are full co heirs in Christ.

I think we are winning…little by little…as we see the slide right into blatent Patriarchy with these guys. Of course, there will always be women who do not want the responsibility that comes with being a full co heir of Christ. And they will go along with Patriarchy. We must pray for them.

As an aside: Anyone who parrots John Knox has a historical problem. Knox was a co-conspirator to the murder of Lord Darnley in the Name of Christ. He even wrote a sermon absolving the deed. He also married a teenager when he was in his 50’s which shocked many of his followers. The guy was a creep.

What a crock of crap that Phil is shoveling.

Lin,
Thanks for the info Lin. I did not know that about John Knox. Now the quote by Phil seems even worse to me. If he were in my ancestral line, I don’t think I would brag about it.

Don,
Just as Lin said, his comments can offend other males. That is so sad.

“‘Certain offices’ are closed…”

LOL!
Gotta love it. These guys all get off with their self-appointed status – as if they enjoy some sort of “apostolic succession.” Who “ordained” these guys? Just some other self-appointed “office-holders.” Where in scripture is a “teacher” or a “pastor” an “office”? It is a gift. And where does a certain gift elevate one in authority over another? These guys seem to be all mixed up and intimdated by anything that threatens to upset their ability to Lord over other sheep. Hilarious, yet sad.

Gotta love it. These guys all get off with their self-appointed status – as if they enjoy some sort of “apostolic succession.”

LOL!
Yea, can be amusing, huh! LOL
Nice post – funny

haha – still laughen

yea I know it’s sad..
laugh or cry??
lol

These guys all get off with their self-appointed status – as if they enjoy some sort of “apostolic succession.” Who “ordained” these guys? Just some other self-appointed “office-holders.”

Kicker is, these guys come out of churches that consider the historical Liturgical churches (who DO recognize Apostolic Succession) as “apostate” at best and “Satanic Counterfit” at worse.

Can i just say that I find it a little humurous that the anti-spam word i had to type to make this post was “male”….

Anyway thanks for the post and keep up the good work! Also be aware that this man’s statements likely have much more to do with his insecurities than an attempt at sound doctrine…

Ryne,
Thank you for the encouragement and welcome to my blog!

This is what happens when believers think that much studying gives them the gift of ‘discernment’. The gift of the Holy Spirit in question is a gift of discerning of spiritual things that (as in all the Holy Spirit manifestations) needs the unction and revelation of the Holy Spirit in order to function. In short, this person doesn’t even know the Bible as well as he thinks he does. 🙁

This is a classic case of two wrongs do not make a right.

While I think the above quote and position outlined by Phil is preposterous, historically suspect and very biased, as a trained minister AND a homeschooling mother I have to say WOW, did he nail that crew on the head. There is a certain level of self-righteousness amoungst Christian Homeschoolers, and having been on the receiving end of it I totally agree that their ignorance needs to be treated as such. He is absolutely correct that the internet is not the place to air one’s opinion, nor does schooling your own children (a noble calling, without a doubt) give one the right to judge others while thinking themselves somehow “gifted”.

Once you get beyond the prickles and slurs of his position against women in ministry, his comments on basic human civility aren’t that far out of line.

Deborah, He chose not to include the “discerment macho men” who use the internet and are shrill/arrogant/ignorant. He focused on women only. Evidently, it is more acceptable if you are a man.

TL above has it right.

“It amazes me that these people regularly read 1 Cor. 12:1-11 and Eph. 4:11-16, and yet cannot see”

Perhaps meditation would be a next step?

I don’t want to get into Phil’s blog post (mainly because I’m not sure I agree with it in its entirety). But I would like to ask you about 1 Timothy 2 beginning in verse 9 the word of the Lord reads, ” 9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” (NASB 95)

Would you please explain to me why this text says, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

Please be detailed in your response dealing with the immediate context.

Please understand I’m not here to antagonize anyone I’m just wondering how you exegetically deal with this text.

As far as “Discernment” goes I’m going to need you to be more specific are you saying that Women are discerning in the general sense or are you asserting that women have been given the spiritual gift of discernment?
would you explain that to me in light of 1 Tim. 2:9-15?

Thank you for your time and attention,
you are loved in Christ

Pastortnew,

Hi Pastortnew!

Would you please explain to me why this text says, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

Let’s start here:
The text prohibits “a woman” or a specific woman because Paul was addressing a specific situation that invloved one woman – “a woman” who he does not name. (There’s a reason why he does not name her) There’s no way (I gaurantee it) to draw out of the passage more than one woman or there is no way to prove that Paul was prohibiting more than one woman! Contextualy the only proof that exists from within the passage itself is that Paul was stopping ONE woman from teaching. There is not one person on the entire planet (!) that could PROVE that Paul was placing a prohibition on more than ONE woman. Is it possible though that he could have been prohibiting mre than one woman? Sure it is possible but ONLY OUTSIDE of what the passage itself provides! In other words, if the scripture and what it says is where the line is drawn then Paul only stopped one woman from teaching. Ofcourse we can draw lines all day outside of scripture, but what would be the point in that if Scripture is our bases of faith?

The immediate context – the verses prior to Paul’s prohibition speak of Godly women, opposed to the one woman who is decieved and should not teach. Paul didn’t stop the Godly women from teaching but only the one specific woman.

Hi there!

The main point is not what was prohibited, but rather that Paul states with emphasis that Timothy is to “LET a woman LEARN.” From there we deduce that this woman (or specific women) is to learn in the manner of a student — with all quietness and an attitude of submissiveness. While learning she is not to attempt to teach or to usurp (force her own) authority from the man (possibly her teacher or her husband).

Paul has decided that this woman (or women) should be allowed to learn instead of thrown to Satan as Hymenaeus and Alexander were. It is possible that the reason is that the woman in question was one of those who were desiring to be teachers but were untrained in the law. 1 Tim. 1:3

Pinklight is correct. What is part of the challenge of 1 Tim 2:12 is that the noun is anarthous, that means it is without the definite article, and Koine Greek does not have an indefinite article. So there are 3 basic choices on how to read it.
1) Definite: referring to one woman at Ephesus (even tho there is no use of the article).
2) Indefinite: referring to a generic woman
3) As referring to a previously specified group: in this case it would be the woman or women at Ephesus.

See Wallace “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” on anarthous nouns.

So the only thing that can be said with certainty is that one woman

“woman or women at Ephesus” referred to earlier in the passage.

The main point is not what was prohibited,

Right, and for me it is interesting to say the very least that the main point for gender hierarchalists is that women in general are being prohibited from having authority and teaching, in other words, it srikes me that the focus for them is a negative, not a positive. The second point for the gender hierarchalist is a positive for males – that they can have authority over females and teach without being restricted due to their gender. And these two ideas are very strange to me.
Who can deny that their focus is a prohibition for women (a negative)? And their is an obvious red flag for me.
What is it about negatives of all things that reel Christians in? I guess the flesh.

Don Johnson thank you but anarthrous definitions are not necessary I am a 3rd semester Greek student. And although I enjoy Daniel Wallace’s work (especially his refutation of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman) you would be far better served (definition wise) using A manual grammar of the Greek NT by Dana and Mantey or for an earlier perspective James Hope Moulton’s formative work on lexicography or Deissmann’s formative work on Koine Grammar.

As far as the arguments posted above I’ll deal with them in detail as soon as possible.
Kristen I regrettably cannot get into a lengthly discourse at this time I am in the middle of a major project but as the Lord provides time I’ll try my best to get to it.

again, thank you for your time and attention.
you are loved in Christ

Whoaps, half my post is in bold – accident.

Dana & Mantey is copyright 1957. Moulton is 1963. Deissmann is 1908.

Wallace is 1997 and his workbook for same is 2007.

I prefer more up to date information and I have to wonder why you do not. The area of Koine Greek is an area of increasing information, especially with archeology.

Methinks your assumptions are showing. In any case, Pinklight is correct that for all the options in understanding the subject of this verse, the minimum is 1 woman at Ephesus. If one wants to go beyond that, one needs to say why. I personally go beyond that and think that Paul was referring to a group of women at Ephesus as defined by the just previous text as I think that makes better sense of the she/they puzzle in 1 Tim 2:15, but hey, I might be wrong on that and as what Paul meant is anything but clear, due to so many translation choices and challenges. And a basic principle of prot Bible interpretation is not to use unclear passages for doctrine.

To claim that 1 Tim 2:12 is referring to all women for all time is an interpretive choice and one that tells more about one’s assumptions than what is actually in the text. But go ahead, teach what you will and let those that agree with you reduce the effectiveness of half the church. I just will not be a part of that.

Bill Mounce is also informative, although I disagree on some things here and there.

Sir I came here humbly, I asked your position on the above posted text, I never disrespected, nor did I insult any one on this thread. I made sure to ask what you believed, so that I could directly address that view.

I do not your recent reply to my earlier post reflects the mind of Christ nor do I believe it to be beneficial to the body of Christ.

Soli Deo gloria
TN

Pastor TNew,

you misinterpret Don’s comment. He is a kind hearted forthright speaker. His words are not meant as insulting. He has no ire in them. I’ve known him for many years and am pretty sure I can tell his tone now.

Some of us just speak a little more plainer and blunter than others. Frankly, 🙂 , I appreciate Don’s plain speaking.

Also, pastorTNew, I would love to hear your responses to all that has been said.

Also, I would love to hear your responses to what has been said, TNew.

As I look at the photo of the “discernment divas” that heads up your article, Cheryl, I can’t help but think that Phil is missing one thing: A true photo of godly women who are truly concerned about correct doctrine, and purity of biblical teaching, would be holding open bibles in their laps. Why is Phil focusing on women when he argues his point? He needs to realize that the key issue is that the vehicle itself is not where the Lord wants our gaze to be fixed. As Paul exhorted Titus in chapter 2, verse 8: “And let your instruction be sound and fit and wise and wholesome, vigorous and irrefutable and above censure, so that the opponent may be put to shame, finding nothing discrediting or evil to say about us.” Amplified. In other words, if someone finds something to say about our teaching that may call it’s validity into question, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, we had better run to the Word of God and check it out! It is God’s will that all of His children submit to, and seek a correct understanding of the Word of God.
It takes humility and a spirit of repentance to keep an open mind to diligently search the scriptures to discover the truth, when we may be in error. If it happens to be a woman who has kept herself well-versed in her knowledge of Holy Scripture, then any man whom she may approach to question/correct, had better heed the Holy Spirit’s warning! Being warned by a woman may be a blessing that could keep a man from a worst error! The following verses remind us of how serious God takes the sin of false teaching:
Re. Holy Scripture…
* Add nothing to it (Rev. 22:18)
* Take nothing from it (Rev. 22:19)
* Change nothing in it (Proverbs 30:6)
The Word of God itself reveals very dire consequences for those who disobey the above warnings. Whether male or female, Phil and all teachers of the Word who will “…assume the greater accountability and the more condemnation'”, (James 3:1, Amp.), need to thank God for his merciful red alert, whenever it comes, whether through male or female vessels!

Just might want to revisit this post’s idea again

The subject has come up with Brannon Howse and Chris Pinto going after Christine Pack for questioning Chris Pinto’s scholarship and sources:

Marie said “Phil is missing one thing: A true photo of godly women who are truly concerned about correct doctrine,”

I think you’re right. He must think women aren’t capable of understanding what that is, or something. A woman who writes with a little bite, like himself, or particularly like Frank, is automatically labeled harsh. Well what does that make them? Frank in particular lacks the reasoning skills of Phil, and does best just lobbing grenades and sarcasm at people. It’s shameful, ‘frankly’ and I start to think that the reason Phil put up with him for so long is that Frank makes Phil look reasonable and gentle in comparison.