The Tenth Commandment and Feminism

My grandchildren have memory assignments from the catechism every week, and recently I listened to them recite the Tenth Commandment.

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's. (ESV)

Every time I hear it I can’t help but having at least a passing thought on how Politically Incorrect that commandment is, and specifically, how “sexist” it sounds.

In the first place, its address is to a man, telling him not to covet his neighbor’s wife. It’s assumed, naturally, that this also applies to women, forbidding them from coveting their neighbors’ husbands, but the fact that the assumption must be made is something that generally sets off the warning sirens in the mind of a feminist. Here, it would seem (to them), is another instance of a patriarchal worldview that oppresses women.

In the second place, the commandment places a man’s wife on a list of his possessions. The list begins with his wife, then his servants, then his ox or donkey, and then “anything that belongs to your neighbor.” The clear implication here is that everything on this list is a possession, as if it said, “anything else that belongs to your neighbor.” And if anyone’s sexism meter did not go off at the first opportunity, of addressing the man specifically, I’d think it would certainly go off here. It would be banking. A man possesses his wife?

So at this point the feminist mind must make a choice. Either the passage must be judged as coming from a jaded, unfortunately patriarchal mind set, meaning that this Scripture must be called into question, and the inescapable conclusion must be reached that the Scriptures are in error, being the product of errant writers, or the feminist mind must reassess its own legitimacy, because if the Scriptures are inerrant, then this commandment comes directly from the Finger of God, and cannot be dismissed as the product of a faulty worldview.

The Tenth Commandment requires us to affirm the Order of Creation: the man came first, then the woman, from his side; and since this is so, the default setting for this and every generic instance of language is properly the male gender. And male headship of the household must also be assumed, to the point of listing every part of that household as being the man’s possession. Although it’s also true that a husband is in a way the possession of his wife (see 1 Corinthians 7:4), the wording of the commandment assumes that the man is the head of the household.

Feminists may scoff at this, but if they do, they’ll have to abandon Scripture, at least here. You can’t have it both ways. Feminists will also provide caricatures of male headship that portray men as domineering or boorish, but that kind of mischaracterization ought to be set aside as also being contrary to the ideal relationship between husband and wife, as laid out by St. Peter. The ideal marriage, moreover, is a picture of Christ and His Church, and certainly Christ is not domineering or boorish.

Better to call your feminist presuppositions into serious question, if you have any, for the Tenth Commandment drives a stake into the heart of feminism.