Browse / Scripture Commentary / Article

Does God Prefer Men

2009-11-14 commentary Cheryl Schatz

## Is God prejudiced against women while preferring men

Date: 2009-11-14
URL: https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2009/11/14/does-god-prefer-men/


Does God Prefer Men? Women in Ministry blog Cheryl Schatz

Is God prejudiced against women while preferring men?

Recently, I had a woman write me who was troubled by some Bible texts that seemed to indicate that God preferred men.  I felt that the questions she posed and the answers I provided might help other women who also have been troubled by these same questions.

Question: I have been struggling with a question for the past several weeks.  Do I as a woman, have less worth in God’s eyes than a man does?  Given that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law…I was (and still am) struggling with several scriptures where women are concerned and the seemingly “double-standard.” I could not fathom why in Leviticus there is a law that states that women who give birth to male children would only be unclean for 33 days, but if they give birth to female children, they would be unclean for 66 days.

Answer: Regarding the seemingly “double-standard” of the unclean period for a woman when she bears a girl, it is not altogether clear why God created a different unclean period. However, but because of God’s character revealed throughout the Scriptures that shows His love and justice, we can know that He will not be unjust towards women.  Romans 2:11 tells us this clearly.

Romans 2:11  For there is no partiality with God.

So why is there a difference with baby girls? Some commentaries have offered suggestions:

The reason she was unclean for a longer period for a girl is not stated, but perhaps a postnatal discharge lasted longer in the case of a girl…

The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary.

(3) the fact that the blood discharges after the birth of a female last longer or have greater toxicity than they do after the birth of a male

Vol. 3A: Leviticus The New American Commentary (183). Rooker, M. F. (2001)

Why the more extended time of uncleanness after the birth of the female child? Given the obsession with seeking male offspring, the regulation may have been to protect the wife from an overzealous husband. He might be inclined to resume marital relations too soon after the birth of a female to the physical discomfort and possible jeopardy of the wife.

The Pentateuch (2nd ed.)  Smith, J. E. (1993)

The important thing that we should note is that the child was not considered unclean, it was only the mother.  So while we do not know the biological influences on the mother’s body that resulted in her needing extra time for healing and for being considered “clean” from her discharge, we do know that God has promised us that He is not partial to people.  Because of this promise we can know He is not discriminating against female babies.

Question: Also, the issue of rape in the law.  If a woman was raped, all the man need do was pay her bride price and marry her.  What woman in what world would want to marry her rapist???

Answer: It is important to understand the culture of that day.  The culture was based on shame and honor just as the Muslim nations carry that same culture of shame and honor today. A woman was required to be a virgin at her marriage so if she had been raped no man would want her because she was no longer a virgin.  God’s law about rape protected the woman.  It required the man who raped her to take her as his wife and provide for her as well as for the child that may be a result of that rape.  The biggest stipulation was that although divorce was allowed in marriages, the man who was forced to marry the woman that he had violated was required to support her for the rest of his life because he could not divorce her.  This would have been a deterrent to rape, and it provided for the woman who would not have been able to be married as a virgin bride.  The Bible Knowledge Commentary puts it well by saying:

A man who raped an unbetrothed virgin was forced to marry her (after paying the bride-price of 50 shekels to her father) and had to forfeit the right of divorce. This protected, to a degree, the girl’s honor and assured her (and her child if she became pregnant from the rape) permanent support. This stipulation may also have served as a deterrent against rape since the man would have to live with that woman for the rest of his life. The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary

Question: Another issue that irks me: why was David silent when Tamar was raped by her brother?

Answer: Amnon was  David’s firstborn son.  David favored his sons even though they did evil things but this was not the only issue.  The law said that Amnon was to be forced to marry Tamar and provide for her the rest of her life without any possibility of divorce, but there is another law that conflicts with this one.  Tamar states that Amnon’s rejection of her after the rape is worse than the rape itself since his rejection means that she will never be able to be married.  The issue of David’s lack of forcing the issue is said to be a lack of responsibility:

David … was very angry. Fury and indignation were David’s reactions to the report of the rape (Gen. 34:7). Because he did not punish Amnon for his crime, he abdicated his responsibility both as king and as father. The lack of justice in the land would come back to haunt David in a future day (15:4).

The MacArthur Study Bible, MacArthur, J. J. (1997).

David somehow heard what had happened, and though he was furious he did not invoke the penalty prescribed by the Law. Perhaps this was because Amnon was his oldest son. But Absalom … hated Amnon.

The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary.

There is another concern that caused quite a dilemma. While the law was to be used to force the man who raped a woman to marry her, there was also a law that forbade a brother and sister to marry.

Absalom and Tamar were children of David by his wife Maacah. Polygamy was an accepted social arrangement in those days, but its evil consequences revealed it not to be the will of God for his people. Children of the same father were not supposed to marry (Lev. 18:9). This and other of God’s laws were often broken, always with serious consequences. The teacher’s Bible commentary, Paschall, F. H., & Hobbs, H. H. (1972)

So it seemed that the law conflicted here in this situation.  David would have been in a quandary because the law both required the marriage and forbade the marriage because they were siblings. As you can see from the culture, the woman’s virginity was of great value, and a rape changed a woman’s life forever.  In the middle east countries even now, if a Muslim girl is raped she may be killed by her family for the shame that this brought on the family and some girls have been jailed.

In the Old Testament law, God made sure that the woman who was raped was cared for.  God’s concern was for the welfare of the woman. How did the law treat the rapist?  The life of the rapist depended on the status and welfare of the woman.  The law was that if a man raped a woman who was a virgin but who was engaged to a man, the rapist had to die.  But if a man raped a woman who was a virgin but who not engaged (technically did not belong to another man), the man who sinned against the woman must provide for her for the rest of her life.

It is obvious to me that God is looking out for the welfare of the woman who would be left without the possibility of a husband and without the ability to provide for herself.  The law made sure that rapists understood the seriousness of raping and knowing that they would be stuck with her for life would be a deterrent.  The woman was always provided for because of God’s law.

Cheryl Schatz 2009-11-15

Hannah,

The story of Jephthat’s daughter is a very tragic story of a rash promise used as a bargaining tool to get what Jephthat needed. It is actually an example of the ultimate abuse. The righteous person in the story turns out to be Jephthat’s daughter who not wanting her father to suffer for having a failed vow to the Lord, willingly offers herself to be killed by her father.

Judges 11:35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are among those who trouble me; for I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot take it back.”

What is quite amazing is that after making a rash vow to the Lord and understanding the stupidity of having made his rash promise, he actually blames his daughter for bringing him trouble. It is an unfortunate event and one that should never have happened. However it is not a command by God for human sacrifice and there is provision in the law for the redemption of a sacrifice.

Lev 27:11 ‘If, however, it is any unclean animal of the kind which men do not present as an offering to the LORD, then he shall place the animal before the priest.
Lev 27:12 ‘The priest shall value it as either good or bad; as you, the priest, value it, so it shall be.
Lev 27:13 ‘But if he should ever wish to redeem it, then he shall add one-fifth of it to your valuation.

If a dog would have come out of Jephthah’s house first, the dog would not be considered a proper sacrifice as it was unclean.

The entire story is very unfortunate and a lesson regarding making hasty vows.

Rose 2011-12-23

Hi everyone. I’ve really enjoyed reading through your blog Cheryl, and hats off to you. I think you do a great job. I guess you can say that I’m in the middle of the road. I have very “old-fashioned” beliefs as far as being a Christian is concerned. I believe the Bible is the perfect, inspired Word of God and I do believe that Jesus is the one and *only* way to the Father in Heaven and that you can only be saved and have eternal life through Him alone. A lot of my other beliefs tend to be strongly “conservative” I guess you can say. I’m strongly anti-abortion and I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, etc. *But,* I also tend to be a real outsider in a way because even though I do have these strong beliefs, I do *not* have a lot of the traditionally comp beliefs that most others with these same beliefs tend to have. I do believe that Phoebe was very likely a deaconess in the early church and I do believe that Priscilla was a pastor of a home church, facts that a lot of comps like to try and sweep under the rug and overlook to suit their own purposes (which of course is what they accuse egals of doing, but I think the comps are a lot guiltier of it than they realize. I think that Deborah is a very strong example of God putting a woman in a position of spiritual authority over His people, and if God would do that in the stricter Old Testament days then why wouldn’t He do it in the New Testament days and the Age of Grace, right? I personally think that the thought of women being able to think and do things like earning degrees and having careers and being doctors or microbiologists or — gasp!– even ministers of churches, in *addition* to the fact that we have the ability to carry and give birth to children and bring forth new life, really intimidates the heck out of men, so they want to try to take our mental capabilities away from us and restrict them to crocheting and learning new recipes (*rolleyes*). If only more of them would remember that God made them physical protectors and gave them more physical strength than women and the fact that they have their unique gifts from God as well so there’s no reason for intimidation, but…oh well, we do live in a fallen world, *sigh.*

Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself. I’ve been a lurker here for quite some time and I really love your blog, Cheryl. It’s a great place for someone “in the middle of the road,” I guess you can say, whose opinions of theology don’t seem to fit in too many places in the Church nowadays. It seems that the churches who do hold to truer Biblical beliefs are chauvinistic as heck when it comes to women being in positions of leadership, especially within the church, and the churches who *do* treat women as equals are apostate as heck and ridiculously liberal in their beliefs! *Facepalm!* So yeah, it’s really hard for somebody like me to find a place in the Church where she feels like she belongs. So thanks so much for this blog!

Okay, now that I’ve made proper introductions, I have a couple of issues about God supposedly preferring males over females that I really want to ask you guys about and find out your opinions, if you all can help me with this. As a woman, I’ve struggled with questions about these two things for a while now and have sort of wondered if God didn’t prefer males to females. The two things I want to ask about are:

1.) Whenever angels appeared in human form on earth, they always assumed male form. A certain minister I like to listen to (even though he’s strictly comp) does like to harp on this sometimes, I think when he’s speaking out against homosexuality. I think he says that Satan has had a lot to do with how “effeminate” pictures of angels have become nowadays and that that’s because Satan is trying to take away masculinity from men or something like that. It’s always bothered me that angels have always taken male form in the Bible when they’ve appeared to human beings. If females really *are* equal to God in His sight, why are there no female angels? When God talks about the angels appearing before Him in Job, why are they “the sons of God”? If God loves women equally to men, why can there not be angelic “sons AND daughters of God”? That kind of suggests to me that women are second-class citizens in God’s eyes, but I know that cannot be the case, so somebody please help me there!
2.) Whenever there were births announced by angels, why is it always the birth of *males*??? Why didn’t God ever send angels to announce to Mary’s parents, for example, that they would have a daughter who would be that one special woman that *every* Jewish woman wanted to be, who would be the mother of the foretold Messiah? John the Baptist’s birth was foretold. Most importantly, Jesus’s birth was foretold. Why couldn’t Mary’s birth have been foretold? Why was it always male babies that got to be foretold? That, too, kind of suggests that God doesn’t consider female babies to be as important as male babies.

Many thanks for your patience with the lengthy post!

Rose (BTW, “Rose” isn’t my real name; I’m just uncomfortable sharing my real name over the Internet and I love roses so I chose the nickname “Rose” is that’s okay.)

Much love to all my brothers and sisters in Christ here! 🙂

Cheryl Schatz 2012-01-04

Rose, welcome to my blog. I am sorry that I am slow in getting back to your original post.
You said:

I have very “old-fashioned” beliefs as far as being a Christian is concerned. I believe the Bible is the perfect, inspired Word of God and I do believe that Jesus is the one and *only* way to the Father in Heaven and that you can only be saved and have eternal life through Him alone.

If that is old-fashioned, then I too am old-fashioned.

I do *not* have a lot of the traditionally comp beliefs that most others with these same beliefs tend to have. I do believe that Phoebe was very likely a deaconess in the early church and I do believe that Priscilla was a pastor of a home church, facts that a lot of comps like to try and sweep under the rug and overlook to suit their own purposes

Praise the Lord!

I think that Deborah is a very strong example of God putting a woman in a position of spiritual authority over His people, and if God would do that in the stricter Old Testament days then why wouldn’t He do it in the New Testament days and the Age of Grace, right?

It seems unthinkable that the Old Testament women of God would have more freedom than the New Testament women.

Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself. I’ve been a lurker here for quite some time and I really love your blog, Cheryl. It’s a great place for someone “in the middle of the road,” I guess you can say, whose opinions of theology don’t seem to fit in too many places in the Church nowadays.

Thank you for coming out and introducing yourself! It is SO enjoyable for me to “meet” the people that visit my blog, especially those who regularly come here. My other DVD projects do prevent me from being as fast to post and/or comment as I would like to, but I do love the community that this blog provides.

Rose, I hope you and others like you who are “middle of the road” feel warmly welcomed and feel free to contribute your own thoughts.

It seems that the churches who do hold to truer Biblical beliefs are chauvinistic as heck when it comes to women being in positions of leadership, especially within the church, and the churches who *do* treat women as equals are apostate as heck and ridiculously liberal in their beliefs!

This is the one thing that frustrates me too and one of the reasons why I want to have my voice heard as a conservative, God-loving, believer in “every Word of God as inspired” Christian. I do not want the issue of women in ministry to draw people to liberalism nor do I believe that it is necessary. I do believe that this is what sometimes happens only because there hasn’t been more churches open to the gifts of God’s women believers. I find this truly sad.
Now to your questions. I will answer right away in my next comment here.

Cheryl Schatz 2012-01-04

Rose, (and I do understand your hesitancy to use your real name), here are my thoughts on your questions:

  1. It’s always bothered me that angels have always taken male form in the Bible when they’ve appeared to human beings. If females really *are* equal to God in His sight, why are there no female angels? When God talks about the angels appearing before Him in Job, why are they “the sons of God”? If God loves women equally to men, why can there not be angelic “sons AND daughters of God”?

Spirits do not have body parts to they are not named as “male” and “female”. Yet they do appear as “male” when they come to earth. I believe that this is on purpose for a couple of reasons. The first reason would be that angels are seen as all in one category, so seeing them as “male” and “female” would divide them rather than keep them as one. Secondly those who are “of God” are ALL called “sons” so that even women are God’s “sons” and joint heirs with God. The image then is “sons” and not divisions between “sons” and “daughters”. Perhaps another reason would be that seeing angels as women might be too distracting to men.

Any thoughts about these reasons?
You also said:

That kind of suggests to me that women are second-class citizens in God’s eyes, but I know that cannot be the case, so somebody please help me there!

I do not think that this suggests that women are second-class citizens, but rather that we are all in one class. All of us as “sons” of God is a position of equality, not lifting the male as better than the female.

You asked:

2.) Whenever there were births announced by angels, why is it always the birth of *males*??? Why didn’t God ever send angels to announce to Mary’s parents, for example, that they would have a daughter who would be that one special woman that *every* Jewish woman wanted to be, who would be the mother of the foretold Messiah? John the Baptist’s birth was foretold. Most importantly, Jesus’s birth was foretold. Why couldn’t Mary’s birth have been foretold? Why was it always male babies that got to be foretold? That, too, kind of suggests that God doesn’t consider female babies to be as important as male babies.

I believe that John the Baptist’s birth was foretold because there was to be one forerunner of Christ who would be filled with the Spirit from conception. But Mary’s birth was not special. She was not filled with the Spirit from conception, nor was her birth anything of the ordinary. Her life lived out in humility was what brought her into the place of giving her consent to be the mother of the Lord Jesus.

Another thing to look at, regarding women as having equal importance with the male, is to look at Sarah. It wasn’t Abraham’s seed that was important except through her. God indicated that only the son born through Sarah would be the child of promise.

I hope this helps a bit for your questions. Please feel free to post whatever questions you have. Please excuse me whenever I am slow. I try my best to fit my time here on my blog, within all my other ministry responsibilities and sometimes I am much faster than at other times.

Cheryl Schatz 2016-08-11

I am posting two comments that came through onto my old blog post address. They are from D. Marie

1

Love this blog and glad I found you Cheryl! I have another question for you. I too have been very disturbed about the seeming favoritism for men in the Bible. I see only men chosen as apostles, when both women and men laid down their lives for Jesus. I see women being tested for unfaithfulness “while under her husbands’ authority”, but why wasn’t the man tested too? I am referring to Numbers 5:11-31 here. Verse 31 says “moreover the man shall be free from his guilt but the woman shall bear her guilt? WHY?!!!! I am also sick up to my eyeballs of hearing men/pastors say that women go second because “Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned on purpose”. HOW IS THAT BETTER, I ask you? How is it better that a man sins on purpose (look all around you) but the woman is second because she was deceived? I look around at the world past, present and future and I am NOT IMPRESSED with how men have handled their authority. I am struggling to find peace in this area, because I have authority figures over me who seem to also favor men. GAG!

2

I also have a request for another post from you on the exact meaning of Biblical submission. Far too many people (men) seem to think it is absolute authority they have over their wives, and they get to treat their wives as though they were children. More gagging here! Just exactly what does it require of a woman to submit to her husband and pastor? I am hearing far too much about the rights of authority figures to “command” something from their ‘underlings’, and that just freaks me out. Are we required to be “yes” people? Are we free to stand up to them when they do wrong? Are we free to be free even though under their authority?

Your Tags

Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.

...more

Topics

Women in Leadership
Ask Claude about this