Periodic reminder that sometimes @johnmacarthur just makes stuff up when it suits his purposes.
For instance:
For instance:
Here @johnmacarthur ‘s text is meant to be Isaiah ch. 3; and his exposition has literally nothing whatsoever to do with Isaiah ch. 3.
The only reference to women in power found in the text is in v. 12, where the prophet mentions governance by women as a consequence of Israel’s iniquity.
Note three things:
Note three things:
1) This is a *punishment* for Israel’s iniquity—not, as @johnmacarthur suggests, somehow constitutive of Israel’s iniquity and therefore a proximate cause of punishment;
2) Being governed by women is a “punishment” only insofar as the flouting of established power dynamics would be a source of shame in antiquity (cf. being ruled by boys in v. 4, babes in vv. 4, 12).
Given ancient mores, i.e., the subversion is a form of mockery, imputing underlying disorder and weakness. It’s an insult, based on ancient gender norms.
3) The iniquity for which Israel is punished is largely to do with systemic injustice (cf. vv. 14-15 and contemporary accounts in the book of Amos).
But @johnmacarthur doesn’t want to talk about injustice because he thinks that’s a distraction from what God cares about, not one of the main things that God cares about (cf. his statement on social justice).
So instead of talking about what the text actually says, @johnmacarthur makes up some nonsense about gender dynamics and says it from the pulpit as if it has some bearing on the third chapter of Isaiah.
