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 kenegdo.  Botkin 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 gender.  Authority 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.