A Response to Daniel Botkin’s Criticism of Guardian Angel

Recently several readers informed me that Daniel Botkin (whom I have never had any conversation with) wrote a very critical, perhaps caustic, review of my book Guardian Angel.  They asked if I would respond.  At first I was quite hesitant to do so.  After all, in the “Four Disclaimers” of his review he clearly states that he endorses the patriarchal, male hierarchy of husband and male authority over women.[1]  In this regard, he represents precisely the position that I argue is not biblically sound and is gender degrading.  Of course, he is not alone in this view.  Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Piper and the Catholic priests that I reference in my book follow the same point of view, marshalling texts in order to prove that men have been given the divine right to be in charge of women, especially in the Church.  It goes without saying that there are a large number of scholars who have challenged this traditional view, so Botkin’s criticism of my work is essentially a criticism of a significant number of recognized scholars.

When I read his review, I was reminded of the opening conversation in the book of Job.  It has always seemed a bit strange to me that God Himself initiates the suffering of Job by pointing out Job’s righteousness to ha-satan.  I thought, “If I actually respond to this typical and expected rebuttal, it will only serve to highlight Botkin’s view.  Why would I want to do that?”  You can read the same arguments in any number of traditionalists.  Why should I give Botkin any more publicity?  But then several women wrote to me asking for my assistance because they have experienced new hope and freedom after reading Guardian Angel but they felt they lacked the ammunition to counter Botkin’s diatribe.  So I will reluctantly spend some time countering Botkin’s points.

First I would note that while it is nice for Botkin to suggest he is not attacking me but rather the conclusions of my book, it’s really too bad that he doesn’t seem to stick with that claim.  I suppose that just demonstrates how passionately he holds his position.  I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt here and ignore the personal tone.

Secondly, it is critically important to realize that Botkin has already made up his mind on this topic before he examines the arguments.  He declares himself a firm supporter of the usual restrictions on women supposedly supported by Paul’s statements in 1 Timothy and Ephesians.  Despite all the conditions he suggests, the bottom line is that he sees women as limited in their roles in the Church and in marital relationships and functions by divine decree.  But, of course, that is the reason I dealt with each and every one of these controversial verses in the book.  That Botkin remains unconvinced does not imply that my exegesis is wrong.  It merely demonstrates that his position is intractable.  In spite of the careful examination of the controversial texts and citation of recognized Greek scholars on these issues, Botkin simply affirms his presupposed beliefs.  Of course, Botkin claims that his view is “based on the plain truths plainly stated in the Bible.”  But that is the whole issue, isn’t it?  If I were the only person in the history of the faith to challenge these “plain truths” of the Bible, then perhaps my readers should have some concern, but I am not the only one to do so.  The alternative of a fully egalitarian view of the Bible position on women has wide support (see the references in Guardian Angel).  Botkin simply represents a traditional, and I would argue, culturally uninformed and self-serving view.  If the truth were so plainly obvious, everyone with any biblical integrity would agree.  But obviously they do not and have not done so for at least the last 100 years.

Now let’s deal with Botkin’s specific objections.

1.  Botkin takes offense that I suggest that those who hold the traditional view of male authority are essentially misogynists.  He doesn’t like that appellation.  But I ask, “What other word can you use to describe a position that believes the God put men in charge of women, husbands are supposed to take authority over their wives and even in the Kingdom, women are divinely relegated to a position where they are never to usurp the divine right of the male?  Botkin’s objection demands that he demonstrate how one can hold the traditional male-dominant position and avoid the implied diminishing of God’s design.  Actually, Katherine Bushnell’s point seems relevant here.  If there is no distinction between male and female in the Kingdom, why does Botkin continue to hold that God ordained such a distinction?

2.  The core of the argument is found in the meaning of ‘ezer kenegdo.  According to Botkin, “All of Moen’s descriptions of the woman’s role as the husband’s priest and spiritual guide, provider, protector, etc., etc. are derived from his misunderstanding of the ‘ezer kenegdo.”  What does Botkin offer in place of my analysis?  First he attempts to defeat my conclusions by noting that I use the words ‘ezer kenegdo at least 225 times and that this implies I simply repeat the words so often in order to convince the reader of my position by “overdoing it.”  Let me see.  If mere repetition of a word means that the author is employing manipulation tactics rather than argument content, then I suppose we would have to object that Moses uses torah too much, or that God uses hesed too much or that John was being manipulative when he used the verb pisteuo (to believe) 92 times in his gospel.  Really?  Is this any grounds for rejecting the argument?

Botkin misreads my suggestion that the ‘ezer kenegdo plays the role of God in analogy.  That argument comes from the use of batach in Proverbs 31:11, not simply from the words ‘ezer kenegdo.  But let’s leave that aside.  Botkin’s real objection is that I claim the ‘ezer kenegdo is the “stronger of the two parties” in the functional role God assigns.  Botkin tries to overturn this analysis by noting that, “There are at least seven Bible passages where the helper/’ezer was weaker and/or subordinate to the one(s) being helped.  In Joshua 1:14, the two and a half tribes east of the Jordan were commanded to ‘help’ the other nine and a half tribes.  In Judges 5:23, a curse was pronounced on the inhabitants of Meroz because they ‘came not to the help of Yahweh.’  Several verses in 1 Chronicles 12 tell about individuals who were David’s ‘helpers.’  In 2 Chronicles 22:17, David commanded the princes of Israel to ‘help’ Solomon.  In 2 Chronicles 32:3, the princes and mighty men ‘helped’ King Hezekiah stop the waters.  In 1 Kings 1:7, Joab and Abiathar ‘helped’ Adonijah in his failed attempt to be king.  In Ezra 5:2, the leaders Zerubbabel and Jeshua had ‘the prophets of God helping them.’

But Botkin confuses rank with function.  Let me offer a rabbinic example.  To what may the role of the ‘ezer kenegdo be compared? One day a king prepared to go into battle.  He donned his armor, his helmet, his shield and sword.  He went to the stable to mount his horse, but he discovered that all of this weight made it impossible for him to get into the saddle.  There happened to be a stable boy in the horse’s stall.  What did the king do?  He asked the stable boy for help.  Stepping on the boy’s back, he mounted the horse and rode to battle.  At the moment that the king stood of the back of the boy, which one was in the superior position?  The rank of king made no difference to the necessity of calling on someone of lesser rank but of superior functional ability.  If you review all the counterexamples Botkin offers above, you will see that he thinks rank is the reason the ‘ezer cannot be in a superior position, but each of the examples simply demonstrates that the lesser-ranked ‘ezer is functionally superior in that situation.  I ask Botkin, “If we remove the consideration of rank, who is the stronger:  the one needing help or the one helping?”  Botkin’s objection is without merit unless he believes that God gave men rank over women.  But that’s the point.  To simply assert that God did so is to continue to ignore the framework of the ‘ezer kenegdo, the Hebraic culture and rabbinic background, and an alternative (and reasonable) exegesis of the text.  A man does not win an argument by simply saying that he is right.

Botkin’s conclusion, “The ones helping them were their subordinate assistants, not their equals nor their superiors.  And anyone who could ‘come to the help of Yahweh’ (Jdg. 5:23) would certainly not be coming as an equal or as a superior.  They would be coming as the weaker, subordinate assistants.  These seven passages prove that Moen’s claims about the word ‘ezer are absolutely false,” simply misses the point.  My argument is not about rank.  It is about function.

At least Botkin is right about the implications when he says, “Virtually everything Moen teaches about God’s Design for Women is based on his ideas about the ‘ezer kenegdo and his utterly false claim that ‘ezer ‘absolutely does not mean assistant.’  Remove this faulty foundation from Moen’s book and his arguments all collapse, because all his arguments against male headship are built on this foundation.”  It is true that my view of the ‘ezer kenegdo is central to my view of the role of women, but that does not mean that what I claim about ‘ezer kenegdo is “utterly false.”  It is “utterly false” to Botkin because his paradigm will not allow functional superiority.  His paradigm is all about hierarchy (rank) and therefore he refuses to see any other explanation.

Botkin attempts to overturn my exegesis of the descriptive character of Genesis 3:16 (“and he shall rule over you”) by claiming that I think of male leadership as a curse (“But who says male leadership is a curse?  I see it as a blessing for the woman, something that gives her a provider, a protector, a spiritual guide, etc. – all those things Moen thinks the wife is supposed to be to the man”).  But apparently he didn’t read the text carefully.  What I said is that neither Adam or Havvah are cursed.  Only the land and the serpent are cursed.  What I argued is that given this clear use of the Hebrew word for curse, we should understand Genesis 3:16 as descriptive – and I cited several recognized scholars who hold the same position.  Furthermore, I noted that Bushnell argued some time ago that a change in the pointing of the verse significantly alters the meaning.  I accept her argument because I believe it is closer to the character of a compassionate and forgiving God.  Botkin rejects the argument because he believes God put him in charge of his wife.  He can disagree with my analysis, but he cannot claim that my analysis is “wild speculating” unless he shows me that Bushnell, Hamilton and others mentioned have no grounds to stand on.  Oh, and by the way, they are Christian Hebrew scholars.

Botkin ignores the Hebraic naming construction in Genesis 2 when he rejects my argument that Adam naming Havvah has enforced gender hierarchy implications.  He also misses the point that havvah occurs in another Semitic language with the meaning “serpent.”  He claims that I make this connection to the similar Aramaic word hivya, but I cite Nahum Sarna’s observation about the term in Syraic, not Aramaic.  Perhaps he missed the footnote.  Botkin claims that I have missed what the Bible “plainly says.  Adam’s reason for calling her Eve was ‘because she was the mother of all living”.  But apparently Botkin did not understand the point that if this is what the Hebrew word havvah meant, the narrator would not have to tell us what it means.  Perhaps that argument was too subtle for Botkin to understand.

Let’s summarize here because at this point Botkin skips over all the rest of the material in the Tanakh and jumps right to the traditional readings of Peter and Paul.  I will address his category “Stretching and Distorting the Hebrew Text” after we have reviewed his arguments concerning the New Testament verses.

It appears to me that Botkin’s real objection to the formation of another reading of the text of the Tanakh is based on his confusion of rank (hierarchy) with function.  He constantly insists that the ‘ezer kenegdo cannot be seen as the stronger of the parties, and therefore cannot be assigned roles that come from that fact, because there are examples of the ‘ezer being hierarchically lower than the one being helped.  But this is confused and irrelevant.  At no point do I claim that women have an ontological superiority to men.  In fact, I am decidedly egalitarian on this issue.  Men and women and equally created as human beings, both assigned the prime directive and both equipped to fulfill God’s purposes.  In fact, Botkin is the one who uses a form of ontological priority after the Fall to elevate men and lower women.  What I believe is that the text teaches us functional difference and that functional difference recognizes the paramount role of the ‘ezer kenegdo, a role also acknowledged by the rabbis including Paul.  Botkin simply ignores the rabbinic material, the differentiation between ancient pagan mythologies and the Hebrew account in Genesis, and the cultural and linguistic evidence.  In fact, I might argue that Botkin reads the Tanakh through the eyes of the traditionalist’s view of the New Testament rather than the other way around.

Botkin argues that I claim the biblical model is not patriarchal.  If he means (and I take it that he does) that I think the biblical model does not support the idea of a male hierarchy of authority, then he is absolutely correct.  But then he counters by pointing out that the civilization of Israel was patriarchal.  He concludes that I must be mistaken.  Unfortunately, once again he does not distinguish between the biblical model (that is, the model of Genesis 2) and the history of Israel.  The fact that Israel practiced patriarchal authority says nothing about God’s design.  Israel practiced idolatry.  Are we to conclude that God designed Israel to be idolatrous?  I would simply argue that no culture, including Israel, actually put into place the design that God intended in the Garden.  That’s why we have the story of Genesis 3.  Botkin’s claim is irrelevant to the biblical model because the biblical model is not the same as the practice of biblical characters.

The only significant counterpoint that Botkin raises about the text (not his presuppositions) is the discussion of the release of a vow in Numbers 30.  Since I have written about this difficult passage in other places, I will not reiterate that argument here.  Suffice it to say that the “plain meaning” of the text is not so plain at all until we account for the cultural sitz im leben of Israel after Egypt.  Botkin’s conclusion that this issue about vows clearly demonstrates men are superior is simplistic and culturally uninformed.

What has Botkin really demonstrated about my understanding of the Hebrew account and the implications for Hebraic worldview?  He has shown that he doesn’t like what I have to say about the etymology, culture and implications of the Genesis account.  But as far as I can tell, other than reiterating the conventional traditionalist’s view, he has offered no telling explanations that conclusively overturn my analysis.  Frankly, I am not surprised.

Now, what about those New Testament passages?  This material in Botkin’s review leaves me nonplussed.  Nearly every verse he uses to justify his claim that the traditionalist’s view is the divinely-inspired, God-given commandmentfor women (his emphasis) is really a reiteration of the typical and historical claims.  Since I treated these verses from the perspective of rabbinic, Hebraic thought, I find his criticisms vacuous. Repeating what the Church has taught for centuries does not make the claim true.  The American church taught that Black people were under the curse of Ham for decades.  Does that mean they were right?  Botkin shows me no reason to change any of my exegesis based on the text.  He simply asserts that his view is the correct one and goes about reading the texts according to that view.  This is singularly unhelpful.  If I really made a mistake in the exegesis, show me, but don’t simply tell me that you have the “plain biblical meaning” and therefore I am wrong.  The whole point of 200 pages of trying to understand the role of women in the Tanakh is so that we can read the New Testament in the context of the Tanakh, not the other way around.  Botkin’s diatribe claims that I call “Paul’s Divinely-inspired commandments ‘those bothersome comments about women in church and wives at home.’”  Botkin concludes that I am one of the feminist-embracing proponents who ignores the divine commandments God gave Paul about women.  Unfortunately, Botkin didn’t read the text.  What I said is that these statements of Paul clearly cause cultural dissonance.  That should be obvious.  What I went on to say is that this dissonance is eradicated once we see what Paul (and others) are saying from a rabbinic, Hebraic point of view.  I do not dismiss what Paul says.  Quite the contrary.  I work my way through these texts to try to show that what Paul says makes sense in his culture and time – and has application for us.  The question is not about the “Divinely-inspired commandments” of Paul.  The question is, “What did Paul mean?”  And that question is not answered by simply asserting that Paul’s words must be understood in the same way as our words.  Botkin just picks and chooses phrases from my arguments to criticize my approach, but I find nothing in his review that helps us explain Paul’s use of Greek terms, Paul’s reliance on the LXX and Paul’s rabbinic formulations.  Botkin’s argument seems to reside in his view of “the plain meaning of Peter’s and Paul’s God-given commandments to women.”  But the scholarly academic concern is that the text doesn’t have a “plain meaning.”  Botkin’s approach simply dismisses any other view because it doesn’t line up with his view.  But he offers nothing about the intricacies and difficulties of the actual Greek text.  Apparently it is sufficient to rely on the translations which he claims provide us with the “plain meaning” of the text.

For example, when Botkin provides critique of my work on Ephesians 5, he reveals his true agenda.  He claims that my analysis of the “commandment” for women is really driven by “Moen’s feminist views.”  Strange.  If my analysis of the text through the lens of rabbinic and ancient Hebraic thought suggests that women have a equal ontological but functionally different role means that I am a feminist, then so be it.  But according to my textual analysis, that makes Paul a feminist too.  Good company as far as I am concerned.  Botkin makes no mention of the verbal ellipsis (that is, the absence of a verb in the Ephesians passage), no mention of the contextual circumstances in Ephesus, no mention of the allusion of the Garden story, etc.  Botkin’s approach is simply to assert that the plain meaning of the text in translation is that women are to submit to men.  But that ignores everything in my book about Paul’s rabbinic approach and the cultural/historical circumstances in Ephesus.  His critique provides no new considerations.  It simply restates the very position that I attempt to show is inadequate.  Perhaps he thinks that if he says it over and over long enough people will come to believe it.

Botkin’s summary is this: “Everything Moen says to deny the plain meaning of Peter’s and Paul’s commandments to women is, as with just about everything else he says, based on his distorted view of the ‘ezer kenegdo.”  The problem is that Botkin offers no analysis of ‘ezer kenegdo of his own.  He doesn’t tell us why my view is wrong other than to assert that it doesn’t agree with “the plain meaning of the text.”  He doesn’t account for the Jewish perspective, the rabbinic struggles to understand this phrase, the context or even the fact that Paul was a rabbi.

Botkin offers a proof that Paul’s opening statement about mutual submission does not control the ellipsis of Ephesians 5:22.  But notice his framework. “Paul is about to write regarding submission and authority.”  Botkin thinks this passage is about authority.  That’s the real “plain meaning.”  Wives must submit to a man’s authority.  The proof he offers is the rest of Paul’s remarks to children and slaves.  But instead of seeing these as exhortations of obedience, Botkin says, “These commandments to people in these positions of authority are not to be ignored nor minimized, but neither are the commandments to those who are in positions under authority.”  Did you notice the assumption that Paul’s statements are to “people in authority”?  For Botkin, authority is the real issue and in his view authority is a matter of designated rank.  We are back to the same problem we had with his analysis of ‘ezer kenegdoBotkin is concerned with who is in control, not why one should voluntarily obey.  At least he recognized my claim that biblical authority is granted by another, not resident in the title or office.  It is absolutely true that I said, “It is her voluntary submission that bestows authority upon him [the husband].”  But Botkin objects because, as he rightly notes, this means a wife could withdraw that authority.  Botkin’s view is that the authority of the husband is not granted by the wife.  It is divinely given to the husband.  His rank determines his authority whether she likes it or not.  He claims that this “castrates” the biblical commandment.  Really?  Are wives to obey their husbands no matter what they ask simply because they hold the title of “husband”?  Think about the license for abuse that this view provides.  Think about the degradation it endorses.  Marriage is supposed to be a model of God’s relationship with Israel.  Does God make Israel obey Him?  Is that the essence of love—to be told what to do?  I wonder if Botkin himself thinks of his relationship with the Father as one of compulsion rather than voluntary love?  Does he want a wife who desires to bless him or a wife who serves him because she has to?

Botkin’s objection to my analysis of Peter’s statements about submission is that I don’t say anything about the passage where Sarah calls Abraham “lord.”  Does that really matter?  I discuss Peter’s view with the passages about wives and disobedient husbands.  Sarah calling Abraham “lord” is Peter’s midrash.  Taken out of Hebraic context, it can mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.  But in Hebraic context, there is no reason to assume that Abraham has a view of authority like Botkin’s.  In fact, in the story of Abraham and Sarah, Sarah’s actions often appear as though she is telling Abraham what to do—and he does it.  As I point out in my book, the story of Abraham and Sarah has clear references to the story of Adam and Havvah.  Once again we find that the heart of Botkin’s objection is “who is in charge.”  Botkin says that mutual submission is good in theory but just doesn’t work in practice.  Someone has to make the decision, and in Botkin’s view, God has given that power to the man.  But Paul’s “commandment” for mutual submission is just as valid as Paul’s instruction to wives and Peter’s exhortation to wives.  Mutual submission means mutual, not “the husband is in charge.”

Botkin takes up my exegesis of Paul’s letters to Timothy.  I point out that these are personal letters written to Timothy to resolve local issues.  Botkin claims, “But it was inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Even though it was addressed to Timothy, the main theme of the epistle is church government and order in the local church – not just Timothy’s church, but all churches.”  He further remarks, “Virtually all Bible believers agree that the words of encouragement, instruction, and warning in 1 Timothy chapter 1 apply to believers in all churches.”  I suppose what he means is that all believers who think like he does agree, but certainly he cannot mean all believers since there are plenty of “believers” who would not agree that Paul’s letters apply to all churches.  Perhaps he means to imply that if they do not think Paul was writing to churches today as well as Timothy’s ekklesia, then those people are not believers.  My book gives multiple citations to scholars who believe Paul was writing to Timothy, not Botkin, but perhaps we are all deluded and really not believers because we do not agree with him.  I have attempted to understand the text in its own context, not as a “Holy Spirit inspired” document for all time and places.  I assume that the place to start with exegesis is with the people and place of the original audience.  If Botkin’s view is correct, then women should not wear jewelry or braid their hair and must certainly wear a head covering while it is a sin for men to have long hair.  I suppose that means that every representation we have of Moses or Yeshua shows them in sin.  Clearly Paul’s letter to the Corinthians has a context.  That’s what we must understand before we can determine what it means for us.  If we don’t understand what the author meant, we don’t understand what the text means.  It seems that Botkin has determined the meaning of the text based on his traditional paradigm.  I have tried to examine these texts in light of Paul’s and Peter’s rabbinic education and first century Jewish thought, but I suppose Botkin must think this is irrelevant since he offers no further insight into the culture or the history in his criticism.

Let’s look at Botkin’s criticism of my analysis of the very difficult text of I Timothy 2:10-14.  Botkin claims that treating the Greek word for “woman” in this passage as a singular (which it is in Greek) rather than a class noun (woman = all women) is “without any proof.”  But that is the entire point of my exegesis, that is, to offer a reasonable reading of the text in the singular (one woman) not in the class (all women).  Botkin may not find the argument convincing but he certainly cannot claim there is no evidence for it.  My book clearly footnotes Cunningham’s book where the argument for the singular is carefully delineated.  Perhaps Botkin didn’t bother with the footnotes.

Botkin claims that the biblical text proves that a woman (in his view the class of all women) should never be in authority over men because of Adam’s priority in creation and the fact that the woman was deceived.  This suggests that whatever comes first must always be in authority over whatever comes second.  So Esau has authority over Jacob, right?  John the Baptist has authority over Yeshua. Right?  God the Father has authority over the Son, right?  Yeshua must have been wrong when he said, “The last will be first.”  Or Ruben, the first born, should have been the leader of all the tribes, right?  Authority in the Bible is a function of reflecting the glory of God, not of temporal order.

Botkin’s second “proof” is that Havvah was deceived.  On this basis we should not trust any women.  Because of Havvah, all women are untrustworthy, right?  Apparently women pass this unreliability to their daughters but not their sons.  It is hard to imagine how this squares with Paul’s further statement that Havvah was deceived but Adam sinned deliberately.  Botkin simply ignores the difficulty of the passage, offering no further analysis, in his reiteration of the traditional male chauvinist view.

Finally, Botkin includes a sub category called “Stretching and Distorting the Hebrew Text.”  In this section he makes the claim that I rely heavily on Hebrew word pictures.  I’m not sure what “relies heavily” means and I do include Hebrew word pictures but these are used to supplement the exegetical and logical analysis of the text.  The most important approach to the text is culture, history and etymology.  Word pictures are an addition, not the core.  Perhaps Botkin does not like what I find in them, but that is no reason to suggest they have no value.

Botkin has a criticism of my Hebrew as well.  He says, “The main problem I have with this is not just Moen’s use of pictograph-based definitions, but in the fact that I cannot find a doubled Shin in the Hebrew word for ‘woman.’  I looked at the text in five Hebrew Bibles, three Hebrew lexicons, and two Hebrew dictionaries, and I cannot find the word spelled with a doubled Shin anywhere.”  But this is ridiculous.  The Hebrew word is spelled with one Shin as it is written in the text but it is pointed to indicate that the Shin is doubled when read or spoken.  The Shin contains a dagesh, a small point that tells the reader to double the consonant.  I guess Botkin read the text without pointing.  No lexicon or dictionary will show the Hebrew spelled with two Shins in Hebrew, but every dictionary and lexicon will show the Shin with a dagesh forte, telling the reader that the consonant should be doubled.  Transliterated, the Hebrew word will always have the doubled Shin because that is what the Hebrew text reveals.  What does this make of Botkin’s objection?  Nonsense.  My books attempt to display the Hebrew phonetically, not pictorially because most of my readers are not fluent in Hebrew.  Therefore, I would spell ish-sha with the doubled consonant so that readers know how it is used in spite of the fact they do not know the purpose of the dagesh forte.

Botkin claims that when I point to the use of a Hebrew word meaning in my arguments, I ignore all the other possible meanings of the same Hebrew word.  But my argument is not about the exhaustive meaning of any particular Hebrew word.  It is about the connections between contexts with the same words.  One connection is the fact that the same Hebrew words found for Aaron’s priestly robes are also used for Adam and Havvah’s God-given covering.  I find that connection particularly interesting.  Do I therefore claim that all the uses of the Hebrew word come to play in the story of Adam and Havvah?  No.  I just point to the ones that make connections we might not ordinarily see.

I will forego responses the Botkin’s objections to Junia, possible insertions into the text by redactors, the meaning of diakonon, and my view of Priscilla.  Botkin’s responses add nothing to the debate.  They simply reiterate the standard male-dominant view.  If you are interested, you can read all the literature surrounding these passages.  You will find that the standard male-dominant view has a great number of writers who find it untenable.

Now some comments on Botkin’s concluding remarks.  First, he compares me to Jezebel because I “despise male authority.”  Hopefully, a careful reader of my book will see how distorted Botkin’s view really is.  I do not despise male authority.  I just don’t believe that the Bible grants authority to anyone based solely on genderAuthority comes from fulfilling God’s purpose. God is the only one with inherent authority.  The authority loaned to human beings is a function of fulfilling God’s purposes and when it comes to the ‘ezer kenegdo the same application stands.  When a woman does what God designed her to do, she is empowered by God to fulfill that purpose.  When she doesn’t, she isn’t empowered.  The same is true for men.  No man has inherent authority.  If he is not doing what God wants him to do, he has no authority from God.  My argument is that the woman was designed to provide certain functions in the relationship with the man that he cannot do on his own.  It is not a matter of authority.  It is a matter of becoming a unity for God.

Botkin argues that “male headship is the Biblical norm in the family and in the assembly.”  I do not disagree.  But simply because something is the “norm” does not make it the biblical model.  For a thousand years idolatry was the norm in Israel.  Would we suggest that idolatry is the biblical ideal?  The Genesis 2 account tells us what God designed, not what men did.  Botkin apparently thinks that if the culture decides abortion is the norm, then it must be the biblical directive.  But of course he doesn’t think that!  So why would he use the “norm” argument when he clearly doesn’t adhere to it in other areas?  The answer is that this norm argument fits his pre-supposed paradigm.

Finally, I must object personally to Botkin’s accusation that my argument for the role of the woman means that I am marching down the path of endorsing homosexuality.  Botkin sees feminism and homosexuality as “two prongs” of Satan’s attempt to blur the foundational truth of male and female distinction.  If I am a feminist (by Botkin’s analysis) then I must also be in favor of homosexuality.  Please!!!  Can anything more ridiculous be written?  I am not a feminist.  I am an exegete struggling to understand a text written thousands of years ago according to its culture and history.  I think the exegesis of the text demonstrates that the traditionalist’s view of women is grossly mistaken and heretical.  For Botkin to say that my arguments about women lend credibility for arguments over homosexuality is fairly close to slander.

What is the bottom line?  Botkin does not want to investigate any of the evidence that his view might be wrong.  He wants male authority because it serves his purposes and he is willing to forego all the contextual, historical and cultural issues surrounding these texts.  My view is wrong because he doesn’t agree.

I wonder how his wife feels about that.



[1] Botkin states, “…I believe it is contrary to Scripture for a woman to stand before an assembly in the role of a Bible teacher and give Bible instruction to men,” and “In the marriage, I see the wife’s role stated in simple, easy-to-understand terms in the Divinely-inspired Apostolic Scriptures.  The wife is commanded to submit to her own husband and to be subject to her own husband (Eph. 5:22-24), to be a keeper at home and obedient to her own husband (Tit. 2:5), and to be in subjection to her own husband even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord (1 Pet. 3:5f).”

 

Subscribe
Notify of
75 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Priscilla Reid

Thank you, Skip, this effort is so appreciated. It behooves us to keep digging for what is true, and we must wrest that out into view for all our sakes, so that our Creator, His nature and His ways are esteemed.

Leo

Thank you Skip for thaking the time to explain what you really meant to share in you master piece “The Guardian Angel”. The tremendous mistake is, especially in Europe and more specifically in our “ice cold evangelical” churches, the Paul’s letters are to be understood as letters, dealing with local issues in specific churches. e.g. Galatians…
To treat Paul’s letters as “catholic letter” is nothing less than a fatal error, especially where he write in Eph 5 on the role of men and women in marriage. Unfortunately this very text was read an ill explained during our wedding service. Most people who attended the service were not believers. That got “in shock” of what the heard. And cannot blame them. We live here in Europe amongst an increasing population of muslims. The more we look at their life style and how women are being treated, the closer the theories of Botkin seem more Islam than Christian. God made of the woman the most beautifull creation possible, both physically but far more re. hear unique character and spiritual sensitiveness. Isn’t is normal, that this creation comes first under attack by ha-satan? We better understand quickly before we, men, go on to be “useful idiots” (quote of Lenin) to assist ha-satan to continue to harm the women in there undescribable inner richess, created to God’s image and likeness!

Chaya

I think a lot of Christians should just become Muslims, especially those in the Patriarchy camp, as the doctrine fits much better.

Roderick Logan

Imagine this. The sun has the design to shine; but authority says no. The clouds form to bring rain; but authority says no. The grape is picked; but authority disregards its juice and there is no wine. Yes, the fields have produced grain; but authority refuses the harvest. The direction is to place your money in the bank; but authority denies the interest the money has earned. When challenged, authority simply says, “I’m authority; that makes me right and that makes others wrong.”

This is principally the picture of a man denying a woman to be a woman. Why would the Creator of the universe invest into such a complex design, only to command that design and his investments be refused, marginalized, ignored, or abused? Further, is it rational for the Creator to supply man’s need and then direct man to trample that supply under foot? Only man would justify such a contrivance.

The problem with the “I’m right, you’re wrong” argument is that in the end “right” is alone. He is alone in a dark, dry place without a source to refresh or sustain him. He may have his gold; but he has no interests to perpetuate his wealth. All that he has will soon – too soon – be exhausted. He is blind to his shelf life. He’s become a street corner bible thumper in a deserted city. Seeger’s question is most relevant, “Where have all the flowers gone…?”

Lori Johnson

As I read the opening paragraphs of “Today’s Word” this morning, I was reminded of a conversation I had with a gentleman who knows Botkin personally and whose daughter has spent time in Botkin’s assembly serving as a nanny to a large family.

This gentleman was attending our assembly at the time (they have since moved) and he came to me with great concern over something he had heard with his own ears. At the time, apparently Botkin had decided to “go on the road” as a Hebrew Roots teacher, and needed to leave a man “in charge” of the local assembly. The man who was chosen was the speaker on the particular Shabbat my friend attended. The teaching that day had, in part, to do with head coverings. His message? If women failed to cover their heads with a piece of cloth, then they showed they “were not saved.” Since my friend’s daughter did not cover her head with a piece of cloth, he was concerned about his daughter’s salvation. I pointed out to him the current understanding in our assembly, that the “covering” Rav Shaul speaks of never had to do with a piece of cloth on a woman’s head, and why. But traditions die hard.

I know people who ingest Botkin’s teachings as if they were life-giving. I’ve seen too many young women who sit under that kind of teaching ignore their calling as midwives, nurses, educators, etc. because of Botkin’s views on the patriarchal family. What a great way to hamstring half the “believing” community, to convince them they’re sinning if they walk out their calling! The patriarchy movement (aka, “Dominion Theology”) in certain sects of the church is truly representative of the antichrist spirit at work. Anyone who believes Abba’s intention is for one class of people to oppress another simply because of race or gender or any other “category” is utterly deceived.

What is particularly painful is to see women in agreement with this kind of thinking. In fact, I’ve seen with my own eyes women who would fight to the death to be under a man’s authority. Unfortunately, all too often these same women do not study scripture, but instead leave that to the men, saying “If he doesn’t have it figured out right, I’m off the hook, because I’m just following orders.” It is so incredibly sad to see the waste of human potential that this kind of thinking causes.

Good on you, Skip, for responding. You do all of us a great service by untangling the message that has been twisted by hierarchy. Many of us knew the text had been battered, because we tried to do it according to “patriarchy” and it nearly killed us, spiritually speaking. Such life has come into our marriage as a result of reading and applying the word as it was intended. This is our testimony, and this is how we know you are on point. Life, and not death. That’s what has happened. All you have to do is look at the faces of the women in Botkin’s assembly (or in any other assembly where this flavor of theology is at work) to see whether they have life, or not. Anyone read “Quivering Daughters”? The legacy is monstrous.

Rein de Wit

“It is so incredibly sad to see the waste of human potential that this kind of thinking causes.”

Amen.

Cindy

Thank you for that, Lori. I used to attend Daniel’s congregation and left BECAUSE of the new pastor who took over after him. It’s falling apart at the seams because of silly, non-Biblical argruments like these. Wearing a head covering is NOT a salvation issue! This pastor also tells husbands what their wives can and cannot wear, do, read, etc. He’s come in between more marriages than I have fingers on my hands! It’s really sad because I know his heart is in the right place and he’s a nice man, but his ideas and male dominant attitude are way off and his messages are elementary because he himself can’t even read the Hebrew and he has no desire to learn Hebrew according to his daughter. So, I’m sure Mr. Botkin backs him up merely for support, but then took it to the next level and turned around to write an article like this — it really broke my heart. Women in that congregation are forbidden to read articles and books written by Skip. Um, where’s the male headship? If men are to be superior to their wives, then why don’t they have a say what their wives can and cannot read? Double standard maybe? From what I’ve read thus far of Skip’s articles, Skip has given me inspiration on how I can be the best wife to my fiance! I further understand my role and I’m excited to run into the arms of my future husband as his help meet! Thank you Yeshua for people like Skip who write from guidance of the Ruach! 🙂

bo peep

This last bit about the pastor telling ALL the women, other men`s wives what they can and cannot read, sounds an awful lot like the shepherding movement that came out in the eighties. I had a friend who got involved in that, and it was a very controlling congregation called Community Chapel. They only listened to music they produced, only married others whom the leadership approved, etc. Then they started getting off into crazy stuff about supposedly God ordained spiritual connections with others. Finally at the end of it, the pastor ran off with another woman and the church collapsed.

Tom Robbins

Ah Skip, this poor fellow, Daniel Botkin, has a wife and six (6) daughters. He is the only male in his household, outnumbered 7-to-1. Is it possible that his bluster is the result of some sort of inferiority complex, that he is trying to overcome with “scholarly” debate? I feel sorry for him, but do not agree with him or his tactics. Keep up the truly scholarly good work, Skip!

bp

I’m only half way through and all i can think is “botkin who?”

Derek

I’ve seen him a few times. He’s been on PFT and the Hebrew Network so I’ve seen a few of his teachings. I think he’s been part of Hebrew Roots for a while.

carl roberts

Who’s in Charge?

~ a threefold cord is not quickly broken ~ (Ecclesiastes 4.14)

“Who’s the leader of this band of fools?” (Jimmy Stewart in the movie Shenandoah)

I do believe (absolutely) in authority, and I do believe in the principal (or pattern) of “headship.” I do believe that “male and female”- exist. I do believe that “both” male and female are made in the image of Elohim. I do believe in the “maleness” and the “femaleness” of YHWH. Yeshua (who is very male btw) did say, “when you pray say “our Father.” How “sexist?” No, not at all. God, as our Father does have a “role” to play. (p.s.- “God don’t play!) He is our Provider and Protector. However, there is (also) the “female” side of God as well! God is not “all male” and no female and neither is He(?) all female and no male!

Are we then attempting (ha!) to emasculate the ‘maleness’ of God? Friends, regardless of this potentially endless debate – the fact remains.. (just the facts m’am) Christ Jesus (The Messiah) was (and does remain) a Man. He was born a male child, and lived here on this green planet, in the male gender as human as human can possibly be!

Very interesting though, for this Man, the Man Christ Jesus- is not only as “male” as “male” can possibly be, but He also is the most “tender-hearted”, compassionate, “sensitive”- “motherly” (if I may use the word) Man ever to have lived! The command (and it is a command) for us to “look unto Jesus” is not only for us “male types” for also for the females as well! Who is my “role model” for all things that pertain unto life and godliness? Friend,- it is the LORD. And who is the “role model” for my wife as well? Again, – it is the LORD.

What does it mean to be a man? Friends, (both male and female- Jew and Gentile)- “look unto Jesus” -Friend of sinners. And as for us ‘adams/adamahs’- when will we realize that we (also) are the Bride of the Lamb? What does that do for your “male ego?” EGO- Edge God Out.
As I recall (thank you Holy Spirit) we (both male and female) are to “serve one another in love.” The role of the Man? Servant. Any questions? The role of the Ezer? Helper. Any questions? Who then, is to “rule?”

Since when does any servant rule? If only we would (are we blind in one eye and do we refuse to see out of the other?) love our wives “AS CHRIST LOVED HIS BRIDE”- for “this” IS love in all its loveliness. There is no greater love.

Let us (then) love one another with a pure heart fervently for love never fails. And serve (that’s what servants do) one another in love. Who’s “in charge” of this marriage? Friends, – it is the LORD. And as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD! Amen.

Thomas Elsinger

Thank you, Carl. Surely no one can find fault with what you’ve written here. It’s a perfect complement to Skip’s position.

Kees Brakshoofden

Shabbat shalom to you and all.

Skip, your book helped me very much on this subject and helped healing me from exactly this (Botkin) way of thinking. I am truely grateful for that!

K. Gallagher

Skip,
Thank you, thank you, thank you for taking the time to respond to Botkin’s review. But even greater thanks for standing up for the daughters of the Most High. There are too many women that still live in oppression. I was sickened when I read Botkin’s comparison of the equality of women with homosexuality. What could be further from the truth? In reality, I believe it was a “scare tactic” on his part. He fears that those that read Guardian Angel will reject the traditional paradigm (or at least question it). He can’t have that. After reading his review, I had two primary thoughts. One, if I had never read your book (or knew who you were), I wouldn’t touch Guardian Angel with a ten-foot pole. Because Daniel’s twisted remarks would make me think the book (and you) were some evil force to be avoided. Of course this is far from the truth, but serves Botkin’s purpose, I think.

Second, I kept thinking about all the arguments the traditional church has against keeping the Torah. The same process that retractors follow to keep people away from the Torah is the very tactics Botkin uses to keep people away from gender equality. Hmmm. Daniel knows and combats this type of narrow minded thinking when it comes to the restoration of Torah, but forgets this new process (paradigm) when it comes to his view of women. I find this highly ironic.

Anyway, I am grateful for you, Skip. May YHWH bless you immensely as you continue dig into the text, culture, and language of the Scriptures.

Rein de Wit

“Mutual submission, centered around God.” This is what I got out of your book. I cannot see where you ever argued for a matriarchal society.

I am appalled by the accusation that you have a Jezebel spirit. “Perhaps the best way to define the Jezebel spirit is to say it characterizes anyone who acts in the same manner as Jezebel did, engaging in immorality, idolatry, false teaching and unrepentant sin. To go beyond that is to engage in conjecture and can possibly lead to false accusations and divisiveness within the body of Christ.” http://www.gotquestions.org/Jezebel-spirit.html

Not personal? It couldn’t get any more personal. It pains me to see that people use their God-given talents in such a way.

I am ever grateful for finding your website. Thanks for making us think critically. And most of all, thank you for showing your love for God and your willingness to go where ever He leads you.

M.

Excellent definition of the “Jezebel spirit” Thanks for the link. These days, the term has been used to call others names in an immature way, like Botkin has done, instead of arguing their own case. Chauvenistic men (who don’t want a woman to have a voice or an opinion of her own- that would be contentious), are primarily the ones who utilize this common fallacy:

Arguing by Association — an argument used to promote guilt by association

The Messianic movement needs to grow up. Thanks Skip for doing an excellent job defending the truth and shedding so much light into the darkness of the “men rule, women submit; and isn’t it a blessing” false teaching.

Cheryl Durham

I agree Rein! So many of us are trying to promote dialogue to understand how HaShem wants us to live TOGETHER. Unfortunately, people like Botkin, who try to BE HaShem, instead of honoring Him, shut the whole thing down. It is best to leave Botkin to his own miserable self…he ignores the benefit of his own ezer kenegdo. She is obviously either not talking or not being heard. Botkin plays his hand…shut down the woman, so I can shut down God…isn’t that what Adam said? The woman YOU gave me….same thing different day.

HEY Skip,

Maybe we should encourage people to create GROUPS around Guardian Angel…and the workbook…so that there are more people who do not follow this thinking.

Cheryl Durham

YEAH….ok call me when you get up

Rich Pease

When man leans on his own understanding, and stubbornly so
as Mr. Botkin professes to do, he crawls out on a limb with other
mis-directed souls, and they forget or can’t see that we’re all
actually branches of the same Vine!

Pray that when his eyes are enlightened and he sees that he’s
really a branch, he’ll be delighted to come in off that lonely limb
and “see” his wife and his daughters for who they really are!

Thanks, Skip, as always, for sharing with us your diligent and
passionate pursuit for knowing God and His Word.

Suzanne

“It is her voluntary submission that bestows authority upon him [the husband].” But Botkin objects because, as he rightly notes, this means a wife could withdraw that authority.

Wasn’t this the same argument (that is “voluntary submission”) that was used by American colonists to refute the “divine right of kings”? The American Declaration of Independence is based upon the idea that the governed have the God-given right to withdrawn their consent to be governed when warranted by the circumstances. Does Botkin also then object to America since it was founded on the same “erroneous” idea? The logical extension of his argument is that we should never resist unrighteous leadership of any kind because the authority is God-given and supported by the present circumstance of being in authority. What a convenient circular argument that is!

bo peep

I guess then, Mr. Botkin might say that when David refused to obey Saul by placing himself in the mad disobedient kings hands, David was allegedly wrong because he should have submitted to Saul, despite God having withdrawn his Spirit because of Sauls repeated disobedience?

December

Skip – you show patience and forbearance and a good understanding of the issue. What always stands out to me in instances where there is an intractable view point where no amount of honest delving and open revelation can touch is that there is some fear keeping it firmly in place. Only love overcomes fear. Those who firmly embrace subjugation of women are themselves in bondage and sadly they have no idea that they are, nor that they themselves actually limit their own full potential in this misguided attitude! God is opening such a fabulous revelation of unity and mutual dignity and honor in the Body – it’s a true revelation of Himself! I love seeing how He is rightly represented where His design is rightly lived out – it’s astonishing what happens there! Thank you for your continued work in revealing God’s true heart for his people and always being willing to continue to ask questions, stretch, search and press in.

Al Wallace

Can you clarify your quote & discssion of Gen 3:16?

DK Clausman

I really appreciate being a Today’s Word subscriber as I noted today’s entry A Response to Daniel Botkin’s Criticism of Guardian Angel. I visited the Restored Covenant Community website and read Dan Botkin’s Book Review/Response which prompted a rebuttal.
I started reading Guardian Angel nearly two years ago and wanted to comment then, but didn’t. I hadn’t pinpointed the issue that I see more clearly now. The last paragraph of the introduction: The Three Stage of Human History describes clearly where the author is headed. He states that the biblical point of view there are three stages of human history:

“There is before, after and during in that order. There is before the Fall (the common world Christianity uses to refer to the first human sin). There is after the this first sin. Ad then there is during this redemption and restoration of the world.”

….excuse me?

Let me state what has become readily apparent to me:

Darwin’s theory of Evolution certainly has had it’s impact, and has given those who desire to worship the Father in Spirit and Truth an environment in which to contend. The mid-nineteenth century tome, Origin of Species, spawned the function of dispensational theology. Over 150 years later we have the destruction of the foundational elements of godly culture…gender confusion, destruction of the traditional family, civil society, etc. For instance, do many men or women have the slightest conprehension of biblical order and coverture?

No, these concepts are much too antiquated for the modern-day sophisticated and enlightened mind.

Psa 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

The evil genius of Evolution is that the adversary knows if the genesis of Yehovah’s word can be discounted than the entirety of the what remains crumbles. Guardian Angel epitomizes the substance and function of Evolution.

This is New Age philosophy plain and simple. However, it is not new, but repackaged Babylon Mystery religion…all about manipulation and dominance. Certainly it may seem well interpreted, however, I can’t help but agree with Mr. Botkins conclusion. It is classic eisegesis.

[Isa 46:8-11 KJV] 8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring [it] again to mind, O ye transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Ought we “drink further upstream“ to accomplish effective exegesis, especially that from the Apostolic scriptures? That is to say, we have to understand the text from which the text is taken. The Apostle was a master in the understanding of the Tanach. His pedigree and credentials are stipulated in Acts 22. To sit at the feet of Gamaliel, one would have to know the Hebrew scriptures well. I believe that Paul certainly did. The various letters he wrote reflect this understanding. The key mention in his argument is the Numbers 30 chapter, and the discourse given in Genesis 3.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

I agree that our function needs to match our form; certainly a challenge for us all. It begins however, acknowledging the source of truth.

Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

There is that which is true, and that which is false, and believing something to be true or false, doesn’t change the same.

I’m sorry Skip, but you really blew this one.

Thomas Elsinger

I must say, what with Skip being called a Jezebel, a feminist, a homosexuality sympathizer, and now, of all things, an evolutionist, does Skip almost feel like jumping up and saying, “Hallelujah! I’m being persecuted! Lucky me!”?

I, for one, am grateful for my copy of “Guardian Angel” and the benefits of its pages. And I am grateful for his presentation here, his argumentation.

As for Daniel Botkin and his supporters, all I can say is, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

Marty

Great rebutal Skip. Why is it that so may who profess to be Hebrew scholars approach a thoroughly Hebrew book with a completely entrenched Greek mindset? Talk about an oxymoronic paradigm.

Ester

Marty, thumbs UP!!
Most have one foot in, and the other out, though seemingly in “Hebrew Roots”,
but the paradigm has not changed, really!!

Pam Staley

Thank you Skip for so eloquently answering Botkin’s concerns, his accusations and his conclusions. Having read the book (both my husband and I) almost 3 years ago now….and actually using the basis of the book to help others in 2 break out sessions at conferences understand the magnificent roles and functions of both man and woman according to what HE says and not the culture, history and doctrine of man… I must say – Botkin and those like him that cling to their ‘authority’ and their own ‘righteousness’, refusing to open the book a little wider and go a little deeper … only put the Creator in their own little box. Understanding who we are from HIS perspective … can only give each a deeper understanding of how to walk out this journey called life. Thank you Skip for challenging us to go a little bit further than what we have been taught by churchianity.

Gayle Johnson

Very well said, Pam.

Gaynor

Skip, a good rebuttal to what seems like a ridiculous criticism. The last part about his concern for the slippery slope you are on by you endorsing “feminism” that will then lead to your endorsement of “homosexuality” made me laugh. That’s ludicrous! I especially love this quote: “Repeating what the Church has taught for centuries does not make the claim true.” Bravo, Skip.

Chaya

Yes, and the next step will be bestiality and women thinking they can order pizza instead of cooking dinner.

Michael C

When one is stuck in a box, his/her world demands what the inside of the box presents him/her.
Living so long inside a box myself, I know how restricted a box can be.

“Thus says the Lord” means whatever the inside of my box says it means. And when so many are
in the same box as you, you must either tow the line or live a very miserable life in that box for fear
of reprisal.

I’ve had several ‘pastors’ tell me that if I attend his particular church, then I must abide by his
spiritual leadership, period. If I had any questions, just ask him and he will provide his spiritual
and correct explanation.

That sounds very similar to the tyranny, Lordship, Rule and Absolute Sovereignty of King Henry VIII
back in jolly ol’ England. His tiny box informed the forgone conclusion that Scriptures said and
meant whatever HE said they said and meant, period!

Mr. Botkin’s answer to Skip’s book is that Scripture says whatever Mr. Botkin says it says, it seems to me.
Mr. Botkin has elevated the ‘conservative’ view as THE view. He chooses to defend it at all costs. Never
doubt the clear and plain meaning of the ENGLISH text. Never mind any further and deeper understandings
of the original Hebrew contexts. WE, the conservative and authorized and sanctioned ones in authority have
told YOU what all this means. Don’t think, don’t study, don’t learn another language, just swallow what
WE tell you.

Yes, King Henry.

If we must abide only men in authority, we are in trouble already. I agree with Skip. Mutual submission cannot
tolerate one superior to the other. With that said, both husband and wife certainly are bound lovingly to one another
through the willful obedience to his word. Obedience requires deep study it seems to me. By both participants, each
holding each other up and each encouraging one another closer to Yeshua. Each has a particular function, both
complementing and giving life to the other. One without the other is just lacking and incomplete.

Thanks Skip. You’ve challenged me once again in critical thinking.

bp

I’m sorry? King Henry?

Michael C

Yes, Mr. Botkin’s response is likened to the mindset of Henry VIII, the King of England, 16th cent. “I’m right because I’m right.”

Ester

How grossly mistaken and totally culturally ignorant and misinformed, by his own understanding, is Botkin, a ‘Biblical ‘scholar’ with one foot in Greek midset, and yet proclaiming to be in ‘Hebrew Roots’. It is no wonder many out there are being stumbled and stumbling.
He has no knowledge of Hebraic worldview, nor the beautiful, amazing Hebrew language, that it is ALL about FUNCTION and functionality.

I have a much clearer perspective of the “norm does not make it the Biblical model”, recently, and personally, in a series of events that led to me being addressed as Jezebel!
You are not alone, Skip!
Skip, know that you are a great blessing in your unigue specific challenging TWs that lead us to deeper truths and understanding from the Hebraic perspective!
You are truly a wonderful teacher, and the community here appreciates you very much. Please accept our applause and thankfulness!!!!
Shalom and TODAH!

Chaya

“A man does not win an argument just by saying he is right.” Well, it seems to have worked so far. I would also be interested to hear what his wife and 6 daughters think, that is, if he allows them to speak since he holds divinely invested authority over them. That someone resorts to straw-manning and ad hominem attacks is proof they have no argument.

My understanding is that Botkin’s education consists of a B.S. in Art and he has some background in linguistics and taught ESL. His doctorate is honorary, so hopefully he isn’t using it. Although Botkin doesn’t claim to be Jewish, as far as I know, he seems to attempt to give the impression that he is, and is one of many non-scholars and non-rabbis who have set themselves up in this position. Not too long ago, he pronounced that anyone who criticized Jim Staley would be unfriended and blocked, as I understand he has connections with him. While I don’t know all the backstory, the videos I have seen are very disturbing, and seem to be moving in a cultish direction.

Chaya

I would add that I believe this anger and need to control is rooted in fear. Many men have memories of mommy disapproving of them and thwarting their desires and will. To escape this dread they must control women so that this doesn’t happen again and make them feel small and weak. You can add John Macarthur to the misogynists.

I wish Skip Moen or someone would also write a book about biblically Hebraic parenting, as none exist at this time. I have seen people who claim to be messianic following dominionist/patriarchal and abusive teachings such as the Pearls, Bill Gothard, Ezzos, etc., because the alternative seems to be permissive humanistic theory.

Lori

Oh amen!

Renee

Skip you offer a great scholarly rebuttal in contrast to Botkin’s prejudicial point if view. My husband and I have met him and heard him teach. If you met him, you would recognize the costume of head covering, long beard,tzit tzit embellished outer garment and sour, stern expression worn by so many Hebrew roots “teachers”. He like so many others in this “messyantic” movement are easily recognizable by the baggage that they are dragging along from their background Christian denominations. Folks should check out which “church” he came out of before listening to a word from his mouth. Just sayin. Sadly, there are far too many false teachers such as Botkin. More sadly all too many folks who are kindled by the Holy Spirit to return to the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Yakov, seek such false teaching and identity with Hebrew Roots or Messianic movements organizationally. As a people we seek form and structure rather than surrendering to the Holy Spirit Who has no form. And we forget the the only structure we should dwell in is not erected by human hands. A new dawning is near for anyone who is willing to lay down their Jewish, Christian, Messianic, Hebrew Roots, or Islamic idols in order to repent and simply worship YHVH as one in Truth and Spirit! Thank you for being a true teacher of the Good News who is willing to offer and explore sound doctrine. Your heart is so near to the breath of Life! I pray that your readers and commenters will repent and step back from all of the afore mentioned heresies. I pray that we all learn to seek first His Kingdom as we are being pressed out in these days of harvest. Thank you for being one of the few harvesters. Folks like Botkin just sit and wait to be the wine critics!!

Michael C

Good words, Renee.
I chuckled at the “messyantic” movement spelling! 🙂

keith

When someone believes Paul is issuing new commandments which were presumably omitted from Hashem’s Torah… it shouldn’t surprise anyone what sort of self-serving nonsense would come from such people. Let’s be careful not to do the same and move on.

thammer

Dear Mr. Moen,
I have read Mr. Botkin’s response to your book Guardian Angel. Not once in his response did he attack your character, your wife, your lifestyle, or your children; only your means of theorizing what the written word of Yahweh means, by the way it has been interpreted by “scholars”, and by what has become culturally acceptable. So many in the beginning phases of returning to our Hebraic roots have enough to struggle with, without men such as yourself slinging mud and slandering others who are attempting to walk out the Torah. I realize you have no control over comments on this site, or mine would most likely not be on here either, but I pray that you would caution your readers to refrain from slandering any and all who are attempting to observe the commands of Yahweh.

Respectfully,
thammer

Michael C

Hello, thammer,

Actually, I believe Mr. Moen does have control over what is posted on this site. However, he is certainly
not one to wield authority over others simply because they disagree or even have an opinion contrary
to his own. He has iterated clearly that he learns the most, as do most of us, when he comes upon someone that
can tell him something that he doesn’t know, as in an honest disagreement, an honest critique, of which the very large part of
Mr. Botkin’s was not.

In my case, Mr. Moen knows considerably more than I do at this point,
and probably always will. However, that is not the point. The point is that in my several years of following his blog,
Mr. Moen has presented himself as a gentleman, a scholar, a friend, an encourager and a brother to many of us.

His is somewhat of a personal journey that he so happens to choose to share with any who care to ride along. Actually,
he is one of the very, very, very few who afford me the opportunity to chat with him (a scholar, among many other things)
as if I could walk next door and say, “Hey, what’s happening.” And then to share about life and all that’s related.

I can see no slander or mud originating from Mr. Moen in the instance you profess in your response. On the contrary,
Mr. Moen has demonstrated a consistent, viable and character shaping body of offerings that have proved invaluable to
me personally. It’s valuable to me, for one thing, because he offers it. He doesn’t dictate it. He has no throne, that I know
of, from which to dispense irrefutable dogma that must be adhered to and obeyed as does this doctrine of Mr. Botkin’s that
demands women to do such in regard to men, in a lesser and lower place. So much of Mr. Moen’s thoughts in his Guardian
Angel books was certainly not dealt with legitimately in Mr. Botkin’s response that it approaches the laughable. That is
the “plain understanding” I get reading Mr. Botkin’s response (or more accurately, predetermined opinion.)

I, along with others, it seems, senses a fear in Mr. Botkin to relate to woman being on his same ‘level’ how ever low that might be.
Frankly, that is the direction I see women must go in order to accommodate his positions, down and low. Would that he simply
open his eyes just a little, and maybe go to Home Depot and buy a box cutter and begin cutting his way out of the tiny, tiny box
he has placed himself within regarding this subject, he might, indeed, find his spirit and position raised considerably UP to the level
of his female relationships, be they his wife, his daughters, or acquaintances.

Usurping someone else’s role, position and function is a frightful endeavor in my eyes. As well, putting Hebrew looking, Hebrew shaped
pretties on top of christianity doesn’t make it Hebrew, merely, a covering, if you will, mimicking in a poor way another way.
It might be compared to a wolf in sheep clothing. Please don’t be fooled or distracted with all things appearing Hebraic.

In one sense I do have some empathetic regards for Mr. Botkin. I, too, was once trapped in a tiny and restricted belief system, although,
willingly, I must admit. I was there because, unlike Mr. Moen, who challenges me to think, to consider, to learn, to stretch my understanding
of truth through his daily offerings enriched from the original Greek and Hebrew inspired words and thoughts rather than the often shallow and lean English
translations, I allowed myself to be subject to the limited teachings of MEN that did none of the above. If they
did offer encouragement in that direction, it was always within a restricted body of learning well within their own dogmatic stances. Lest
I stray and wonder off with my pew filling body and money, they largely did all they could to keep me in the pen of their accepted and vetted
creeds and beliefs.

Therefore, it is with an encouraging heart and attitude that I commend Mr. Botkin to serious thought and study of Scriptures rather than
a small, man-conceived doctrine that finds support only from like minded individuals rather than those words originating from the Tanakh and
B’rit Hadasha. Reading Mr. Moen’s works reveal a flavor of original, personal and scholarly endeavors and efforts. Reading Mr. Botkin’s
work (his response to Mr. Moen’s book in this case) reveals a stamp of words that I’ve heard repeated over and over again ad naseum.
Mr. Botkin’s appears as a vetted response. One that is approved by the choir of like-minded peers as opposed to an individual
search for truth.

With sincere regards,
Michael C

thammer

2Ti 4:3 KJV – For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 KJV – And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Need I say more? I wonder; Why have you heard this “stamp of words” repeated over and over again, “ad naseum”? Yeshua is the same yesterday, today and forever. HE is not changed by what has become “culturally acceptable”. I believe I will line things up with the WORD not the WORLD.
My request to Mr. Moen was to encourage his readers not to slander. I never once accused him of such.
Sincerely,
thammer

Michael C

Hello again, thammer,

Thank you for your time to respond. Dialogue must take place over time, I believe, if there is any hope to the possibility to reconciling people with two opposing viewpoints. That is one of the elements of this blog in some degree, a platform to express the volume of study that our Elohim has obligated us to do for ourselves as we are responsible for ourselves. For that, I am greatly appreciative to Skip Moen. He has chosen to open it up for voluntary discussion. An option that Mr. Botkin’s theology apparently would not allow if you are of the female agenda. It seems she would first need permission.

The two verses you quoted appears to ASSUME that whatever they mean in this English translation, is THE definitive understanding that you have attached to it and there is no other meaning than that you assume it to mean. Your comment “Need I say more?” would indicate that there is absolutely no need to consider anything other than this English KJV translation and your stamp of approval on it. If that is so, then I have no need of personal study as all I would need to do is read this verse via the KJV English translation. I can simply ignore the Greek behind it and the Hebrew worldview underneath that. I can trash the historic, cultural, grammatical, and idiomatic possibilities that are a part of these verses in context of those before and after them. After all, according to your sense, if I understand you, there is nothing else to say. You have proof texted this issue, and that’s that.

To answer your wonderings, the ad naseum comments of Mr. Botkin are exactly that. They are such I’ve heard many times over the years, yet with no opportunity to examine, question for truth and understanding, or dig in to possible deeper and clearer meaning and understanding. If your view lines up with Mr. Botkins’, then all I am left to do is either bow to his ‘authoritative’ final and irrefutable opinion attached to the descriptive ‘plain meaning’ or leave the faith as a heretic.

My disagreement is not with Yeshua and his character, it is with Mr. Botkin’s interpretation. From his response to Skip Moen’s work, his polemic fairs flimsy at best. Basically, his argument is that his interpretation of Scripture is the right one and there is absolutely no room for any other understandings of this topic. Is Mr. Botkin privy to some special revelation other than that which we all have in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures?

Quite simply, as I’ve said before, his argument is simple proof texting his predetermined view with the final conclusion of “I (Mr. Botkin) am right because I say so,” and Mr. Moen is like Jezebel because he doesn’t agree with me (Mr. Botkin.) Kind of slanderous sounding to me.

And what particular statements of this blog were slanderous to Mr. Botkin?

Regards,
Michael C

Anca

Mr. Hammer, the context of the verse you quote is about forbidding marriage and certain types of foods. Please keep it in context. Also, the Church abandoned sound doctrine along ago as early as the letter of Ignitus when he put the Bishop in the place of God in the believer’s life. Slavery is also mentioned in the New Testament, have we sinned for abolishing it? It is foolish to believe that the culture of the time did not influence the authors to write as they did.

Mark Randall

To thammer

I just seen your comment and would like to add, so that you and everyone else is fully aware.
I’m the Web Mater for Skip’s website I make custom WordPress themes, which this is, and I can assure you and everyone else that Skip totally has the ability to remove or not even allow to be posted, any and all comments. So, it would not be a fair assumption to anything otherwise.

The very fact that your comment is being read, testify’s to Skip honest approach to this ministry, and his desire to have open and forthright interaction with everyone.

Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Blessings to you and your home.

Lori Langfang

Skip,

Thank you for taking the time for a rebuttal. As painful as it is – it is certainly necessary to break the cycle of attitudes regarding women that have been viewed “less than human” by many Christian Church “fathers” and as where their ideas were considered infallible.
It has been my observation that Messianic teachers, who have come from Christian doctrine, still have certain biases or presuppositions in their teachings when it comes to the roles of women.
It certainly doesn’t require much study on Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Knox, Aquinas, and a host of other theologians or notable leaders that influenced our Christian understanding of Scripture- to see their misogyny, and/or error on this subject.
Dismantling these biases is at no less, highly complex. In the end, we still need to maintain the continuity and the structural integrity of the foundation of our faith.

Blessings to you and Roseanne

M.

Thanks Skip for doing an excellent job defending the truth and shedding so much light into the darkness of the “men rule, women submit; and isn’t it a blessing” false teaching. Someone posted an appropriate definition of the “Jezebel spirit” because Botkin called you this. These days, the term has been used to call others names in an immature way, like Botkin has done, instead of arguing their own case. Chauvinistic men (who don’t want a woman to have a voice or an opinion of her own- that would be contentious), are primarily the ones who utilize this common fallacy:

Arguing by Association — an argument used to promote guilt by association. Botkin accomplishes this fallacious argument by bringing up homosexuality in addition to the Jezebel remark.

Kay Harvey

Skip, I just wanted to say I recognized the Lord revealing to you what you wrote in that book. Thanks for writing what the Lord wanted to say on the subject of His own creation, to those who really wanted to understand what He meant.

Kay

TJ

My husband is naturally very loving and generous. We started out being best friends. Then he was taught in the churches that he was supposed to be the leader of the home, and the wife was supposed to submit. He started “policing” me and became very critical. I tried to submit, but my husband would do things like ask for my opinion. If I didn’t give my opinion, I was unsubmissive, but if I gave an opinion he didn’t like, I was also unsubmissive. This confused and frustrated me and made me resentful because I couldn’t get it right no matter how hard I tried to please him. Our marriage suffered.

Then we attended a very small church (with an attendance of about 20) for awhile in which, we eventually discovered, the submission teaching was very strong. Women couldn’t teach a class with men in it or say anything from the pulpit. Women could teach a class of women, but they had to submit their lessons to the Pastor for preapproval. Then the pastor insisted on writing the lessons for women to teach in women’s classes/groups. He would read a book written by a woman, and then write lessons from the book for a woman to teach. I wondered: If a man learns from a woman author, isn’t he still being taught by a woman? If he really believes woman can’t teach men, why read books written by women? The many logical gymnastics I saw was crazy.

The church caused me to really question this whole teaching. Most of the men in the church were “new” believers. Many were profane, some were addicted to drugs or alcohol, at least one beat his wife, The most godly ones in the church were a couple of women. So I asked, did God really set gender above faithfulness? Did God really see women as inferior? Where we really supposed to submit to every man. What if the man told us to do something wrong? Did we have a right to say no? Why is it that when people teach Gal 3:28, “neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor freeman” means just that, but when it comes to “neither male nor female,” the teaching suddenly gets all complicated and it doesn’t really mean we are equal? I began to research this issue because it didn’t make sense.

My husband and I had a deep love for God and each other, we were discovering Hebraic teachings, and we fought for our marriage. Mr. Botkin’s belief that mutual submission “doesn’t work” is not true. While we tried to live under the “Husband is the leader and wife must submit” teaching, our relationship suffered, and our giving to each other was resentful and forced. When we learned to stop focusing on who is “in control” and focused instead on serving each other with love, we became, again, best friends who cherish and give to each other. We see each other as equal partners with different strengths that benefit us both. Our VOLUNTARY service to each other has made us more generously giving to each other than the forced submission ever did.

I found your book, “Guardian Angel,” as I was questioning and researching my Biblical role as a women. It helped me on my journey. Thank you, Skip.