Widows And Impartiality

If God does not show favoritism, as Paul stresses throughout his New Testament writings (Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25) and as is required to be rational and just, why does he repeatedly emphasize the protection of widows?  Does God's nature dictate that women deserve personal and communal assistance, whereas widowers would not?  Some might assume fallacious gender stereotypes are true, on which women deserve additional support and attention, whether as victims of unjust violence, when dealing with lapses in mental health, or as beings that supposedly cannot or should not work outside the home and must be cared for by men, who slave away on their behalf.  To start with, the Bible does call attention to widows and their potential exploitation, as in Exodus:

Exodus 22:22-24—"'Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless.  If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry.  My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.'"

However, widows have the same human rights outlined in the Torah (or which logically follow from what God does reveal), grounded in the doctrine that all people, men and women, Jew and Gentile, equally bear Yahweh's image.  Widows and other women could not deserve greater care, respect, and honor than widowers or other men on the basis of gender according to what this foundational concept entails:

Genesis 5:1-2—"This is the written account of Adam's family line.  When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God.  He created them male and female and blessed them.  And he named them 'Mankind' when they were created."

Then, do prescriptions about aiding or not oppressing widows signify a Biblical contradiction, one that attributes special rights to widows, and, if so, for no reason than that they are women who have lost a male figure who cared for them?  No.  For one thing, it does not logically follow from all people having the same rights that there is never a need to emphasize the situational vulnerability of a particular group or highlight the obligations other people have to them, even if those obligations are ultimately the same as those towards everyone else.  The Biblical God does not actually say widows should be prioritized over others, despite drawing repeated attention to their plight, particularly in the era the texts were written in.  Moreover, an instrumental portion of Deuteronomy firmly describes God as showing no partiality whatsoever, right before mentioning his affinity for widows:

Deuteronomy 10:17-18—"For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.  He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing."

Notice how Deuteronomy 10 singles out widows as people Yahweh cares for, yet only one verse prior, the text says that God shows no partiality.  The immediate context is starkly clear about how God shows no favoritism, yet widows, along with the fatherless and foreigners, are highlighted as those God defends and loves.  There is no contradiction.  That widows in some cultural contexts are particularly vulnerable in a financial sense, besides potentially being very emotionally vulnerable in light of their loss, warrants God focusing on how they are not to be mistreated; at the same time, they have no exclusive rights and other people have no special obligations towards them which are not also applicable to all other men and women, save for the highly precise, situational matter of Levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

If a widower falls into depression, financial decline, or despair after losing his wife, he is no less valuable as a person than a widow on Judeo-Christianity.  Accordingly, he would deserve the same moral respect and basic obligatory assistance.  Having no partiality, either on the part of God or humans, excludes showing favoritism to widows over widowers.  What should be very obvious in light of logical necessity and the blatant doctrines of the Torah and broader Bible has been overlooked.  At the very least, it is not emphasized often, or not nearly enough to reflect its deep egalitarian significance that uplifts men as well as women, as genuine equals.

Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, while widows are listed alongside the fatherless and foreigners as specifically having the right to eat from the agricultural yields of others (Deuteronomy 24:19-21; see also 23:24-25), there are several reasons why there is no sexist pedestal for women mandated here.  The fatherless and foreigners mentioned in the same passage could be men or women, so there is nothing about this access to food which the text restricts to women, in addition to the fact that the verses simply do not say struggling widowers lack this right.  Hence, there is no female privilege prescribed in the passage one way or another.  Ahead of Deuteronomy, Leviticus 19:9-10 and 23:22 already prescribe such assistance to the poor without limitation based upon their gender or marital history.

Despite a handful of verses in Deuteronomy, such as 24:19-21, highlighting widows as deserving protection and the freedom to survive and make a living, a key extended passage in the same book emphasizes the equality of all people, male and female, Jew and Gentile, powerful and vulnerable.  Widows receive mention along with other groups of people.  The explicit description of who is to be involved in annual celebrations thoroughly reinforces egalitarianism when it comes to gender and other such factors relevant to the fact that widows could deserve no partiality.  And even if holding the actual festivals was not obligatory for all people in all times, the egalitarian principles would remain true in all cases:

Deuteronomy 16:9-11, 13-14—"Count off seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain.  Then celebrate the Festival of Weeks to the Lord your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the Lord your God has given you.  And rejoice before the Lord your God at the place he will choose as the dwelling for his Name—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, the Levites in your towns, and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows living among you . . . Celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles for seven days after you have gathered the produce of your threshing floor and your winepress.  Be joyful at your festival—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, and the Levites, the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns."

The egalitarianism of the Bible's true ethical philosophy is on full display here: male and female slaves/servants rejoice alongside their masters and mistresses, foreigners celebrate with Israelites, and no one is excluded because of class, marital status, or age.  Widows are acknowledged as a key part of the community that needs to be present in the joyful assembly.  Yes, widowers are not mentioned, but the context is utterly inclusive in the rational sense.  None of these factors impute superiority or inferiority; no person, other than a Levite priest, has any moral obligation or right that is not ultimately shared by every other person.  Widows do receive special mention throughout Mosaic Law and the Bible as a whole, just not for the reasons some might believe.