Does God Prefer Men?

James Tabor's latest post Are Women Considered 'Property' in the Bible? references an earlier post by Dr. Christopher Rollston entitled The Marginalization of Women (A Biblical Value We Don't Like to Talk About). Both of these Biblical scholars make a compelling case that the majority of the writings in the Judeo-Christian canon are not kind to the female gender. In short, most of the scriptures dealing with women leave us with the distinct impression that God prefers men - that "He" doesn't like women very much!

"That's ridiculous!" my Fundamentalist friends will shout. "It isn't that God doesn't like women," they will insist. "It's just that God has assigned different roles to males and females," they will explain.

The evidence, however, is not on the side of my Fundamentalist friends. If we are willing to take an objective look at Scripture, there are some very problematic verses in this regard.

It is, for instance, hard to say that women were not regarded as the property of men when we consider the wording of one of the Ten Commandments. We read: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Exodus 20:17 The context makes plain that men aren't supposed to covet each other's possessions (which clearly includes "thy neighbor's wife").

Moreover, the second chapter of Genesis informs us that God created Adam, the man, first. In this account, Eve is an afterthought! We read: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Genesis 2:18-23 In this account, the woman is clearly created FOR the man - as "an help meet for him."

The very next chapter of Genesis also makes plain that Eve was the source of human sin. We read: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:6 In fact, for her role in the matter, we are informed that God told her "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16

And, just in case someone might read something else into this story, the New Testament makes plain just how bad the woman was. In Paul's first epistle to Timothy, we read: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." I Timothy 2:13-15

We also must not forget what preceded these remarks about women. After instructing men to "pray every where," Paul wrote: "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." I Timothy 2:9-12

In reviewing this evidence, Rollston concluded: "People today often wish to turn to sacred literature for timeless trues about social norms. This impulse is certainly understandable. But that impulse can be fraught with certain difficulties. After all, to embrace the dominant biblical view of women would be to embrace the marginalization of women. And sacralizing patriarchy is just wrong. Gender equality may not have been the norm two or three millennia ago, but it is essential.  So, the next time someone refers to 'biblical values,' it’s worth mentioning to them that the Bible often marginalized women and that’s not something anyone should value." Yeah, I can't think of many women today who would willingly embrace the role that a Fundamentalist/Literalist view of Scripture would demand.