# Proverbs 31 - a career woman?



## steadfast7 (Apr 20, 2011)

So, I've begun praying for marriage (apparently it's a good thing, so I heard!). Proverbs 31 sounds like a woman who's active both in homemaking AND a money-making career. In fact, the text goes on and on about it. However, many conservative evangelicals have generally spoken out against career-drivenness in women. It's one of the factors (among others) in the delay of marriage that we're seeing.

Kevin DeYoung, in his book "Just do something..." writes,


> There are too many fine Christian women sliding into careers they aren't sure they want to pursue, while they not so secretly wish they be married and raise a family.



What's your take on this passage?


----------



## Fly Caster (Apr 20, 2011)

The woman in Proverbs 31 is an industrious woman, but her industry is centered in and about her home. She is the prototype of the Titus 2:5 keeper at home.

Only by viewing the passage through the distorted lens of modern feminist thought can this passage be made to picture a "career" woman. The same can be said for the NT passages that define a mother's role. Just as the phrase "zoo-keeper" (keeper of the zoo) defines the role of the person designated by the title, so does the phrase "home-keeper" (keeper of the home) define the woman's. While a zoo-keeper may, and does, leave the premises to conduct business and aquire needed suppiles, he does not fulfill his duties by working 8-12 hour shifts somewhere off-premises, while farming the animals out for someone else to take care off. Neither does he need to ask his "other" boss for time off to tend to the prize panda when it gets sick, nor is he off working at a career if the tiger gets out and starts eating the monkeys or a few random visitors. His keeping the zoo IS his full time job-- same as the wife and mother's role in the home.

That's not a popualr view, I know. It's the only one, however, that doesn't do violence to scripture.

---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 AM ----------




> Piety is like light which cannot be hidden. The more it seeks concealment, and retires from public notice, the more brightly it shines. Female influence only ceases, or operates unfavorably, when women depart from their own proper sphere; or when they endeavor to obtrude themselves upon the notice and admiration of the public. As we are shocked with infidelity in a female, so female ambition is odious. Let the devoted mother exert herself in her own proper sphere, which is in the retirement of the domestic circle, and in constant and devout attendance on the worship of God. Let her look well to the affairs of her household. Let her manifest her graciousness and forbearance in the steady government of her children. Let her set an example of order, neatness, industry, and hospitality, and she will have enough to do. Every hour, and almost every minute, will furnish opportunity for the exercise of some virtue; and that Eye which goes everywhere will graciously notice, and bring to light too, those acts which are cheerfully and conscientiously performed. A mother cannot be placed in a more interesting field of labor than in the midst of a large circle of children. Here is her appropriate sphere of action. Here she has work enough to occupy her heart and hands.



COUNSELS TO CHRISTIAN MOTHERS- Archibald Alexander


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 20, 2011)

Very interesting analogy. But in terms of her industriousness centered _in the home_, I'm not sure.

16 She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She dresses herselfe with strength
and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
for all her household are clothed in scarlet.f
22 She makes bed coverings for herself;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates
when he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
she delivers sashes to the merchant.

It doesn't take a feminist to point out that she's involved in some serious entrepreneurship. This doesn't discount the fine work she does to support her husband and family, but it's hard to deny that she seems to be earning her own income - unless there are ancient near eastern backgrounds to enlighten the topic...


----------



## Tripel (Apr 20, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> What's your take on this passage?



My take is pretty simple--that the passage says exactly what it says. The Proverbs 31 woman has a career, and that is admirable. There is value in a woman having a career, but by no means should a career trump the responsibilities in the home. If a woman uses Proverbs 31 as an excuse to farm out her children and hire a housekeeper so that she can maintain a job, she is clearly misunderstanding Proverbs 31.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 20, 2011)

Tripel said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > What's your take on this passage?
> ...


 Wow, this changes a lot! I've always thought the Reformed taught that the ideal woman was the type who viewed wife and motherhood as the ultimate (and only?) calling to pursue, but I've rarely ever found that kind of girl in my circles.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 20, 2011)

What is a career, exactly? My wife does pretty much everything that the Proverbs 31 women does and yet, by modern standards, does not have a career (namely a job outside of/apart from the home). She likes to purchase things, work in the garden and will even sell some of what she knits but even in these things her business is the home and the home is her business. 

In addition, many godly men I know grant the responsibilities of finance over to their wives because they are much more shrewd than they. This is not an abdicating of responsibilities (on the part of a husband) nor a failure to submit (on the part of the wife) but wisdom as to who can manage one aspect of home life better than another.


----------



## Tripel (Apr 20, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> I've always thought the Reformed taught that the ideal woman was the type who viewed wife and motherhood as the ultimate (and only?) calling to pursue



You can certainly find many who would say and teach such things. But the fact is that not all women are called to be wives nor are they all called to be mothers. If the Lord blesses a woman with a husband and children, then they become her primary responsibility. But women should not live their lives under the assumption that the Lord will bless them with such. If single, a woman needs to be able to support herself, so a career would be her calling at that point. If a career woman marries, she is not necessarily obligated to give up her career, but she does need to keep things prioritized properly.


----------



## Tim (Apr 20, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> > steadfast7 said:
> ...



Whoa! Not so fast! There is a big difference between these two scenarios: 

1) a woman has a 9-5 career at a business that operates out of an office building in the city, where she answers to a man who is not her husband and she ultimately works for the financial well-being of the company (i.e., a surplus doesn't go to her but the owner of the company)

2) a woman engages in various business operated out of her own home, where she remains under the loving leadership of her husband, and ultimately works for the financial well-being of her family (extra profits go directly to the woman and her family)

As said above, Titus 2:5 tells us that the first scenario is not appropriate. The fact that the Prov. 31 woman is doing _some_ sort of profitable work doesn't mean that _any_ sort of work is okay. The sorts of work that are appropriate must be consistent with other bible passages that describe the _home-centeredness_ of a godly Christian woman.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 20, 2011)

Career .. good question. Of course it's a modern word, and the main idea I think is a _money-making_ venture that one considers their long term employment. The Prov 31 woman is buying land of her own consideration, planting a vineyard, selling clothing, on top of home making. Perhaps the nobleness of the woman is not that she is centred in any one location, or does any particular work over others, but that she is an extremely capable person who accomplishes so much (?). last verse, v 31 "Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates."


----------



## Tripel (Apr 20, 2011)

Tim said:


> Whoa! Not so fast! There is a big difference between these two scenarios:
> 
> 1) a woman has a 9-5 career at a business that operates out of an office building in the city, where she answers to a man who is not her husband and she ultimately works for the financial well-being of the company (i.e., a surplus doesn't go to her but the owner of the company)
> 
> ...



Dennis,
Tim's post shows that there is disagreement on this issue even on the PB. Some here will say it's wrong for a woman to work for a man who is not her husband. Others (like myself) strongly disagree.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 20, 2011)

I would think the ANE background of this passage is more conservative than our own culture on the woman staying home and looking after the kids. That's why it really surprises me the large amount of description of her out-of-house activities. Living in rural India, I totally understand this. A woman taking care of 5 little ones can't be doing so much else. Even planting a vineyard in the field you purchased behind the house is almost neglectful parenting! I'm beginning to really wonder if the author is being hyperbolic about this woman's capabilities.

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 PM ----------




Tripel said:


> Dennis,
> Tim's post shows that there is disagreement on this issue even on the PB. Some here will say it's wrong for a woman to work for a man who is not her husband. Others (like myself) strongly disagree.


Daniel, I think I'm more in your camp for the simple reason of reality and the sheer hope of marrying _anyone_!


----------



## satz (Apr 20, 2011)

Proverbs 31 does not show a career woman - as in a woman who makes her career her achieve objective in life or what defines her.

But it does show that a good wife takes time and energy away from being purely domestically focused in order to help bring income into the family, not just to help her husband survive, but to help him prosper, for the family in Proverbs 31 is not a poor one. 

It also shows that it not completely true that the ideal situation for each and every family is to have a stay at home wife who is completely focused on homemaking. According to Proverbs 31, is it completely legitimate for a wife to want more than that, to want to have outside pursuits in order to contribute financially to her family. 

If the husband approves and if priorities are kept in order, this is not something that takes her time away from being a good wife - it is part of being a good wife.

Off course, some husbands will want their wives to be completely domestically focused. And there are times in life when that is for the best of the family. But there is no bible principle that makes it a rule for every family at everytime.


----------



## torstar (Apr 20, 2011)

Suitable to adapt to whatever she is called to do in consideration of the circumstances around her at the time.


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 20, 2011)

A couple of points to feed into the discussion.
1) The Proverbs 31 woman is not necessarily typical of every OT woman of character; she clearly belongs to the upper class (her husband is a man of standing in the community, she can afford to buy property and so on). She is a wife suitable for a king (see Prov. 31:1). It is not coincidental that in the Hebrew order of the Old Testament Proverbs is followed by the Book of Ruth, which shows us a similar "woman of character" from the other end of the social spectrum, whose life in some ways is very different. Neither one is a 1960's "housewife". Both work diligently, as opposed to lying on a couch all day (which would have been an option for a Prov. 31 woman, though not for a poor woman like Ruth). But they operate at the opposite ends of the working spectrum, from virtually a small business CEO to the equivalent of digging through the trash heap to find food for the day. There's room for this God-centered busyness to find a variety of different expressions in our modern culture, I think.

2) notice that in Proverbs 31, her husband praises her and her children call her blessed (v.28). In other words, she is not so frantically busy that her family is neglected. This can sometimes be a problem for career women (something has to get the best of your time and something else the rest), but it can also be a problem for stay at home women running their own business, or even those who become overcommitted to volunteer activities in the church.

3) the gospel is good news for all of us who can never live up to what the law demands. If you are looking for a woman who perfectly fulfills Proverbs 31, you will either never find her or you will crush her with unrealistic expectations when you think that you have. My wife has many wonderful things in common with the woman in Proverbs 31, but she is a deeply broken sinner as well, just as I am. So leave your wife room to fail, and when she does bring her graciously back to the gospel. And if you find someone able to do the same for you, you have much for which to be grateful.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 20, 2011)

> she clearly belongs to the upper class (her husband is a man of standing in the community, she can afford to buy property and so on). She is a wife suitable for a king


If she really is that rich, it's all the more striking that she works as hard as she does, so I agree, her diligence is accented. Wouldn't it cast doubt on the assertion that she's working to supplement income to provide for the family? In fact, speaking strictly textually, I don't find a verse that explicitly says her income is being spent on her family. It is assumed it is, but what it does say is that from her income ("fruit of her hands") is being used to purchase the field (v. 16); she gives to the poor (v. 20); her weaving skills are for herself as much as anyone else (v. 22). It seems that her busyness is a big part of her "surpassing them all" (v.29).


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 20, 2011)

I don't think that she is working to support her family (unlike Ruth, who clearly is). For an analogy, think of 18th-19th century English novels: many of these rich ladies didn't have to work; some wasted their lives on empty nothings, while others (for Christian reasons) were diligently busy in good works for the sake of their tenants and the poor around them. The point is that godly Christian "busyness" will have different forms for a woman who can afford to live off her husband's income, a woman who has no income except her own, a woman who has children, a woman who has none, and so on. Proverbs 31 is after all _proverbial_ wisdom: it requires wisdom to apply it to the appropriate situation.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 20, 2011)

It seems that the Proverbs 31 wife is a real hard worker, but that her work is home-centered and not for any other boss except her own family/husband. That seems to be the reason why I wouldn't call her a 
"career woman." She builds up her husband so that he can do well in his calling.


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 20, 2011)

When we speak of dietary laws in the OT, we are quick to point out that they were abrogated in Peter's vision, and thus rendered obsolete in the NT. But when we look at Prov 31 and then Timothy and Titus and other passages, we still put them in the context of this OT passage. Why is that? Why not consider it abrogated? Jut askin'.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 20, 2011)

Because God put man and woman together before the Fall. Gender roles are thus creational and serve no purpose to foretell Christ.


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 20, 2011)

Nice.


----------



## MW (Apr 20, 2011)

Some attempt should be made to understand the context in order to ascertain what the passage intends to teach and how it may or may not be applicable to the modern situation. It is noteworthy that some of these characteristics of the virtuous woman are to be found as descriptions of "wisdom" throughout the book. That suggests the first point of reference might be the attaining of wisdom. If that is accepted, any application to today's Christian woman would be a secondary application of these virtues of "wisdom" to her calling.


----------



## satz (Apr 20, 2011)

Tim said:


> Whoa! Not so fast! There is a big difference between these two scenarios:
> 
> 1) a woman has a 9-5 career at a business that operates out of an office building in the city, where she answers to a man who is not her husband and she ultimately works for the financial well-being of the company (i.e., a surplus doesn't go to her but the owner of the company)
> 
> ...


 
I don't think it's such a simple distinction.

Proverbs 31:16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
Proverbs 31:24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

How are these verses "home centered"? She may be working from home, but her focus is outside, to earn money and bring it into the family. 

The fact that she is working outside of her physical home is not conclusive of whether that work is appropriate, unless you think a godly woman should be so bound to her home that she cannot go to church, go grocery shopping or visit her family. Once you admit that is commendable for a woman to earn income - which is what the woman in scenario 2 is doing with her home businesses - then it is allowable for her to leave her home to do such a commendable work, just as it is allowable for her to leave her home to do the three things I mentioned above (and more).

The fact that she works for a man or boss not her husband is likewise not conclusive. God in the OT ordained a society were many women were maidservants to other men. He even assumed this state of affairs in the Ten Commandments because the Fourth and Tenth commandments tell men how to treat their maidservants or other men's maidservants. He even directly addresses a situation where a woman has both a master and a husband (Ex 21:2-11). In any case, it is up to the individual husband of each woman to decide to what extent she can make commitments that take her away from the home (Num 30:7).

A woman who works outside works for the financial well being of her family too. She brings home her pay and her husband decides how it should be used for the benefit of the family. If you reasoning in the post is correct, every man who works for someone else is serving his boss and not the well being of the family. There's also another interesting point that a woman (or man) running her or his own business gets to keep the extra profits - but he or she also takes the loss of investment/capital if the business is a failure. So I don't feel this is a decisive point saying that a home business is better than a job.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 21, 2011)

I think Rev. Winzer makes a very good point. The Prov 31 woman is exemplifying the virtues of wisdom taught throughout the book. Also, noting that wisdom is personified as feminine, and ought to be sought after with one's whole heart, perhaps the author may be wrapping up the book's teaching through the _metaphor_ of wife-finding. That would make New Testament texts more appropriate than this for listing "job descriptions" of Christian women.


----------



## Tim (Apr 21, 2011)

satz said:


> How are these verses "home centered"? She may be working from home, but her focus is outside, to earn money and bring it into the family.
> 
> The fact that she is working outside of her physical home is not conclusive of whether that work is appropriate, unless you think a godly woman should be so bound to her home that she cannot go to church, go grocery shopping or visit her family. Once you admit that is commendable for a woman to earn income - which is what the woman in scenario 2 is doing with her home businesses - then it is allowable for her to leave her home to do such a commendable work, just as it is allowable for her to leave her home to do the three things I mentioned above (and more).



My point was not the physical location of the woman, but rather whether she was working to realize the vision of her household, or some other external entity (i.e., a company owned by someone else). Again, Titus.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 21, 2011)

Another thought to toss in for consideration--

The woman described in Proverbs has children calling her blessed. This indicates in my mind that she has at least completed her child-bearing years, and perhaps the children are older. Married women go through "seasons" of life at home, early marriage, child-bearing years, married life with grown children and grandchildren and finally the last stages of her life. 

What I glean from this is that the Proverbs 31 woman is reflective of woman's entire married life and the writer is looking back on her life at what she has accomplished. When my children were very small, I simply had no time to focus on anything but taking care of them and the household. I'm sure other mothers will say the same. But as my children have grown, I have more time on my hands, and I find I'm spending time gardening, making things to sell, and now even working together with my husband to get a business started. 

It is not even logical to assume that you could look into even week of a woman's life and assume that she would be accomplishing all things at once.


----------



## satz (Apr 21, 2011)

Tim said:


> My point was not the physical location of the woman, but rather whether she was working to realize the vision of her household, or some other external entity (i.e., a company owned by someone else). Again, Titus.


 
Tim,

She is working to advance the vision of her family by earning money which can then be utilized as her husband deems fit - the same as every man who works for a company is really working for the good of his family, even if the only way he can get paid is to simultaneously help his boss achieve his goals. 

What's the difference?


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 21, 2011)

> The woman described in Proverbs has children calling her blessed. This indicates in my mind that she has at least completed her child-bearing years, and perhaps the children are older. Married women go through "seasons" of life at home, early marriage, child-bearing years, married life with grown children and grandchildren and finally the last stages of her life.



I think this is at least a reasonable interpretation - not the 'a woman CAN have it all and be Biblical about it, too!' attitude that so many twist this to mean. If your husband is an elder at the gates, your children are calling you blessed (I know from this one phrase alone that the children are past their teenage years), and you are out and about without children, you are more advanced in years. Simple.



> She is working to advance the vision of her family by earning money which can then be utilized as her husband deems fit - the same as every man who works for a company is really working for the good of his family, even if the only way he can get paid is to simultaneously help his boss achieve his goals.
> 
> What's the difference?



The difference is (if she has children to raise) that the cost is so much greater to earn said money.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 21, 2011)

v.15 She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls. 

Her children are old enough to speak and call her blessed, but apparently not old enough to prepare their own breakfast.


----------



## satz (Apr 22, 2011)

kvanlaan said:


> I think this is at least a reasonable interpretation - not the 'a woman CAN have it all and be Biblical about it, too!' attitude that so many twist this to mean. If your husband is an elder at the gates, your children are calling you blessed (I know from this one phrase alone that the children are past their teenage years), and you are out and about without children, you are more advanced in years. Simple.



Who and where has said anything about having it all?

I can't speak for anyone else but my position has been that these verses teach it is part of the role of a wife to contribute financially to the family. How much (if any) time she spends on this will depend on the circumstances of her family and her husband's wishes. However, bibilcally there is no basis for saying that the dedicated stay at home wife is the only acceptable model of christian family life.



> The difference is (if she has children to raise) that the cost is so much
> greater to earn said money.



If the cost is too great she should not earn the money.

But whether we are talking about a paid job or a home business there is always some potential cost in that it is taking time and energy away from her being directly focused on her home. And this applies even if the children are grown up and married. 

Again, the issue is whether the wife is fulfilling her duties. And whether a job or business will prevent that is a matter of individual circumstances, not of making blanket rules.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Apr 22, 2011)

Fly Caster,

"Keeper at home" is actually a textual variant. The two readings are:

οικουργους-working at home
οικουρους-keeper at home

They are very similar. Most text critics that I have talked to here at Trinity have noted a couple of things. First, the reading οικουργους [working at home] is the more primative and widest attested reading. It is in the original hand of Codex Siniaticus, Codex Alexandrinus, the original hand of Codex Bezae [a western manuscript] as well as later manuscripts such as 33 and 81. Also, the word οικουρους was far more common in the ancient world. We only know of one or two more occurances of οικουργους, while οικουρους is well attested. The tendency is to go from the least common to the more common. If οικουρους were original, there would be no reason to change it to the far less common οικουργους.

Also, I think the context of Titus 2 is important. Paul is speaking in an ethical context, not a context of gender roles. Women are also called to love their children [v.4]. Does that mean that it is okay for the husband to hate his children because it is the woman's gender role to love the children? Women are also called to be pure and kind [the two words surrounding "working at home" in verse 5]. Does that mean that husbands can be sinful, defiled, and mean because it is the woman's gender role to be pure and kind? No, Paul's context here is of an ethical nature, not of a nature of gender roles.

In other words, what if Paul were talking about women working at home, but at the same time, not excluding men from that task, in the same way he does not exclude them from purity and kindness? One can easily see how ethical issues such as slothfulness in the home on the part of both the husband and the wife can put stress on a marriage, and lead to major problems. One can also see how this could be the case in the context of the problem of women as gossips and busybodies, which is something Paul has to address elsewhere [1 Timothy 5:13]. Thus, Paul's concern would be for women to give appropriate help to their husband and children in the home so that their idleness is does not give an occasion for the word of God to be blasphemed.

I would even think most people who are homemakers would get upset if their husband always came home from work, propped up his feet, and did nothing the rest of the day!

Now, as far as Proverbs 31, I don't think the point of Proverbs 31 is to speak of a woman who actually exists. Not only are their connections to wisdom, but there also seems to be a connection to the sections dealing with the kind of woman a man is to be seeking. Thus, these are the kinds of traits that show that a woman is wise. Also, I don't think it will do to speak about a "carrier woman" or a "homemaker." Such is entirely anachronistic, and totally a product of the industrial revolution. Now, if you demand the family-centered agrarian society of the ANE, you also have to reckon with the fact that the family structure was different. Not only did one generation live in a home and work together, but there could be up to _three_ generations living and working together. Worse than that, families in the ANE also included slaves and resident aliens [does that mean that you could invite someone to live with you, and look after your children while you go to work?]. Also, it would not usually be the husband who would have authority over the members of the family, but the oldest living patriarch. Thus, the husband and the wife may not have the authority in the home; it might end up being with the great-grandfather. Also, if you were a resident alien, the authority in your home might not even belong to someone in your own family!

Indeed, I think both the agrarianism of the southern confederacy [common in modern patriarchy] as well as the feminism of the 1970's are both inappropriate paradigms for understanding the context of the Bible. To read either of these ideas back into the text is totally anachronistic. Suffice it to say that the Bible allows for work and profit, but not at the expense of leaving everyone in your family with all the work at home, and certainly not at the expense of taking care of your children. The Bible makes very clear that *all* of these areas are important, and for any household to neglect any one of these is wrong. 

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## satz (Apr 22, 2011)

Just to clarify, if I were to give a one word answer to the OP, no, I do not believe proverbs 31 teaches a Christian wife to be a career woman, certainly not as we would define the term today.


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 23, 2011)

Hebrew Student said:


> Now, as far as Proverbs 31, I don't think the point of Proverbs 31 is to speak of a woman who actually exists. Not only are their connections to wisdom, but there also seems to be a connection to the sections dealing with the kind of woman a man is to be seeking. Thus, these are the kinds of traits that show that a woman is wise.



So a man is to seek someone who doesn't exist? Or, the text is actually about wisdom? As posted earlier, I would concur that this woman's capabilities are unrealistic, but does this text have nothing to say about what it actually means to be a noble, godly woman - traits that can and should be emulated?



> Also, I don't think it will do to speak about a "carrier woman" or a "homemaker." Such is entirely anachronistic, and totally a product of the industrial revolution. Now, if you demand the family-centered agrarian society of the ANE, you also have to reckon with the fact that the family structure was different. Not only did one generation live in a home and work together, but there could be up to _three_ generations living and working together. Worse than that, families in the ANE also included slaves and resident aliens [does that mean that you could invite someone to live with you, and look after your children while you go to work?].


 
The ANE context is not so unheard of in today's world either. We should avoid anachronism but modern terms are helpful because we're trying to live in a modern world in the light of scripture. "Career" is simply a long term solution for earning income. The text suggest that this woman is a serious work-horse, both in the home and out of the home. The thrust of the text certainly suggests this to the point that it parallels the modern career woman that conservatives are wary of. So it's not a huge leap across time to read the text in this way. If we took the text strictly in its ANE context, it raises even more problems: why, if there are so many servants and other families in the house, is this woman doing everything herself? Why if there so many potentially shared resources, is this woman striving so hard to earn money?


----------



## lynnie (Apr 23, 2011)

Her husband sits with the elders. Now possibly she was married to a much older man, but I agree with JBaldwin above that the implication is that she is older, not pregnant and nursing babies.

Many things women used to do have been removed from the home- nursing, schooling, economic contributions (think Ma in Little House on the Prairie making clothes, bread, soap, candles). When kids start school and are out of the house 8-3, maybe Mom can look into income producing activity. But when you have babies and toddlers, and kids home all summer, Titus 2 seems clear.

Anyway, the NT interprets the old, the old does not interpret the new, whether eschatology or the role of women.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 23, 2011)

Adam,




> I don't think the point of Proverbs 31 is to speak of a woman who actually exists.



Without bragging, I can honestly say that my wife hits the mark a lot of the time. If she ever died, I would look for another Caroline Ingalls type of gal just like her (and would have a very, very hard time finding one from the US in these days).

One key aspect of this discussion is this question, "Who does the wife answer to? Who is she working for?" And I believe that a wife must be industrious, but it is clear that the wife of Proverbs 31 is home-based and only calls her husband her boss. She is his "helpmeet' not some wage-slave to another man.


----------



## he beholds (Apr 23, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Career .. good question. Of course it's a modern word, and the main idea I think is a _money-making_ venture that one considers their long term employment. The Prov 31 woman is buying land of her own consideration, planting a vineyard, selling clothing, on top of home making. Perhaps the nobleness of the woman is not that she is centred in any one location, or does any particular work over others, but that she is an extremely capable person who accomplishes so much (?). last verse, v 31 "Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates."


 
She is not real!! I was thrilled when I finally understood that this is a mother giving her son advice on what kind of wife to find! She is not a real person! I'll give my sons quite a list, too, when they're ready to marry. They won't find a woman with all of the characteristics that I'd advise, but it will tell them what kind of woman to find. This was a word for men, not women. Sorry fellas : )
I've finally stopped comparing myself to this fictitious woman. Not that reality is easier--we've got Christ to compare ourselves to! But at least he has the power to be what we need, despite our complete inability to do so ourselves.


----------



## TimV (Apr 23, 2011)

Jessica you're one of the women I think of when I read Proverbs 31, and your back handed humility just reinforces that. Chin up, girl, you rock.


----------



## he beholds (Apr 23, 2011)

TimV said:


> Jessica you're one of the women I think of when I read Proverbs 31, and your back handed humility just reinforces that. Chin up, girl, you rock.



haha! oh the irony! we were out of town for the past week and just got in a few hours ago. for me, unpacking is akin to torture, so if you could only see our house right now!! too funny! 
(but thanks for the encouragement, nonetheless! hopefully we'll have no unexpected guests drop in till after monday. perhaps _days_ after!)


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 23, 2011)

> > I think this is at least a reasonable interpretation - not the 'a woman CAN have it all and be Biblical about it, too!' attitude that so many twist this to mean. If your husband is an elder at the gates, your children are calling you blessed (I know from this one phrase alone that the children are past their teenage years), and you are out and about without children, you are more advanced in years. Simple.
> 
> 
> Who and where has said anything about having it all?



Well, it is the clarion call of the secular world, and many modern day women are buying into it - Christians included. I know I have seen this on many a thread, though it hasn't popped up on this one. I know that we can exception this to death (well, what if her husband is a quadriplegic who requires an extensive list of meds in order to survive - then what???) but the usual norm is that people want a certain lifestyle, they can't have it on one income, and so Prov 31 is brought into the mix in order to justify the wife working outside the home. I know there are exceptions to that, but lets talk general norms here and not give way to the cavalcade of exceptions.



> I can't speak for anyone else but my position has been that these verses teach it is part of the role of a wife to contribute financially to the family. How much (if any) time she spends on this will depend on the circumstances of her family and her husband's wishes. However, bibilcally there is no basis for saying that the dedicated stay at home wife is the only acceptable model of christian family life.



Maybe not the only acceptable model, but the preferred one. Just as having one wife is not the only acceptable model of godly family life, but the preferred one? We see examples of both, but in the OT it is acceptable (or at least a norm) to have multiple wives, while in the NT, it is not (assuming you wish to serve in church office). Is this not similar?



> > The difference is (if she has children to raise) that the cost is so much
> > greater to earn said money.
> 
> 
> If the cost is too great she should not earn the money.



And where is that line? I would venture to say that too often today, we buy into much of what the world is selling, and put our 'needs' well ahead of what models we are given in scripture.



> Again, the issue is whether the wife is fulfilling her duties. And whether a job or business will prevent that is a matter of individual circumstances, not of making blanket rules.



Fine, then let's call it 'best practises' before the P-word starts being slung about - it is not a blanket rule, but it *is* a scriptural admonition. We like the OT practise better than the NT (it fits modern day practises better), so we drag it out whenever it suits our circumstances, when perhaps we should look to the church body before it gets to that point. Actually, most frequently, we need to look to our own lifestyle choices long before we need to look to the body or the benevolent fund or to a working spouse.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Apr 23, 2011)

satz said:


> He even assumed this state of affairs in the Ten Commandments because the Fourth and Tenth commandments tell men how to treat their maidservants or other men's maidservants. He even directly addresses a situation where a woman has both a master and a husband (Ex 21:2-11).




There are rules about divorce, too--doesn't mean God approves of it. I'm not in a place to interpret scripture on the OP; I'm just saying that simply because God has rules for it doesn't mean it's ideal.


----------



## satz (Apr 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> One key aspect of this discussion is this question, "Who does the wife answer to? Who is she working for?" And I believe that a wife must be industrious, but it is clear that the wife of Proverbs 31 is home-based and only calls her husband her boss. She is his "helpmeet' not some wage-slave to another man.



Pergy

If this reasoning is correct, why isn't a man who works for a employer a slave to his employer instead of the head of his own household?

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------




kvanlaan said:


> I know there are exceptions to that, but lets talk general norms here and not give way to the cavalcade of exceptions.



I don't actually believe this is a matter of exceptions. I believe Proverbs 31 teaches it is the norm that a wife can contribute financially to her family. If the circumstances make it so that she should not, than she shouldn't. But a family doesn't need a "good reason" for the wife to be engaged in outside pursuits. If it can be done without compromising anything else, the bible reveals that this is a acceptable and commendable arrangement for the family.

Proverbs 31 shows a woman who wants to do her best to help her husband excel in all areas - including financially. She does not limit helping him to just when he needs help to survive.



> Maybe not the only acceptable model, but the preferred one. Just as having one wife is not the only acceptable model of godly family life, but the preferred one? We see examples of both, but in the OT it is acceptable (or at least a norm) to have multiple wives, while in the NT, it is not (assuming you wish to serve in church office). Is this not similar?



In all honesty, I am not familiar enough with polygamy and how it was treated in the OT to address the comparison. 

But I'll ask, why is it the "preferred one"? Since proverbs 31 explicitly shows a wife engaging in pursuits to earn money. And whether they are home businesses or not, they take away her time and energy from being exclusively domestically focused.



> And where is that line? I would venture to say that too often today, we buy into much of what the world is selling, and put our 'needs' well ahead of what models we are given in scripture.



The line should be drawn by each husband putting the spiritual good of his family above the financial. However, the line still varies from family to family because each set of circumstances is different. 

What is the "model" that we see in scripture? Where is it taught?



> Fine, then let's call it 'best practises' before the P-word starts being slung about - it is not a blanket rule, but it *is* a scriptural admonition. We like the OT practise better than the NT (it fits modern day practises better), so we drag it out whenever it suits our circumstances, when perhaps we should look to the church body before it gets to that point. Actually, most frequently, we need to look to our own lifestyle choices long before we need to look to the body or the benevolent fund or to a working spouse.



I am not sure the OT practice is any different from the NT. In this case, I believe the OT should interpret the NT passages because 1) there is no indication that gender roles changed between testiments, and more importantly 2) a long passage like proverbs 31 is a better indication of exactly what God was trying to say than the 3 word phrases in the NT.


----------



## Philip (Apr 24, 2011)

Might we think of the reformational example of Katharina Luther as an example of how Proverbs 31 applied in that cultural context? What kind of person would be a modern analogue to her?


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 24, 2011)

The other side of this is that we are only seeing this passage as a literal description. Look elsewhere in proverbs - is Wisdom really a woman? Is a woman really pulling down her house with her own hands? Them's some pretty strong hands. Why are we saying that this is so definitively descriptive to life's activities when a number of commentators see it in a more poetic light? First, the structure (written with each verse as a subsequent letter of the Hebrew Alphabet) is not terribly prosaic or descriptive, but artistic and poetic. Secondly, if we look to most early commentators, we will see that most of them regard it not to be a woman, but the church body.



> Second, we must not suppose that this allegorical interpretation was taken to be merely one of the traditional four senses of this scriptural passage, existing alongside an equally legitimate literal interpretation. The remarkable thing is that even those medieval exegetes who stressed the literal sense (such as Rashi, Albertus Magnus, and Nicholas of Lyra) nevertheless interpreted the Valiant Woman as Scripture or the church. As Nicholas of Lyra explains and approves, they held that the figurative meaning here constitutes the literal sense:
> 
> In the last part of this book is placed the praise of the valiant woman. It is commonly interpreted by our teachers to refer to the church which is metaphorically called the valiant woman, and her husband
> Christ, whereas her sons and daughters are called the Christian people of both sexes, the way it says in Judges 9: The trees went to the bramble bush, etc. The literal sense does not refer to the physical
> trees, but to Abimelech and the Shechemites who anointed him king over them.



With regards to books like Titus in the NT, it is plainly describing doctrine regarding actual behaviour and practises, there is no poetic side to it. And to think that such a notion of being a keeper at home is confined to a few words in Titus is not giving these two books their due. There is a flavour in both Titus and Timothy that is unmistakable - and does either one quote the OT to back up what they are saying? No. Why not, if this particular interpretation was so very clear and relevant?


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 24, 2011)

satz said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > One key aspect of this discussion is this question, "Who does the wife answer to? Who is she working for?" And I believe that a wife must be industrious, but it is clear that the wife of Proverbs 31 is home-based and only calls her husband her boss. She is his "helpmeet' not some wage-slave to another man.
> ...


 

Mark:

You are from Singapore. Could it be that your cultural upbringing and work ethic you were raised with impacts your view of Proverbs 31? There is quite a drive to push and get ahead in Singapore it seems, and it would be quite the cultural sacrifice to take one wage-earning member out of the workforce, would it not?


Imagine that you were married and your wife's boss wanted her to work overtime? Who has the final say? Does the husband then merely give in to the authority of the boss and become, in effect, a Mr. Mom while she puts in extra hours and the husband is forced to take on the domestic care of the home (lest the children go neglected)? I think that in many cases this happens. 

I realize that Christian slave-women in the past tried both to please their masters and their husbands also. But, why any husband would desire to voluntarily submit their wife to wage-slavery under two authorities for the sake of a little luxury is beyond me. 

Many, if not most, women who work do not work part-time. Nor do they have wide flexibility in determining their own work schedules. 

Thus, it is hard to say that the working wife is much of a helpmeet to her husband in any way except financially, and most of the things that Americans and Singaporeans spend their money on is not out of necessity but are mere luxuries. Thus, our cultures are sacrificing their families on the altar of comfort.


----------



## Philip (Apr 25, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Thus, it is hard to say that the working wife is much of a helpmeet to her husband in any way except financially



Can I get a precise definition of this term "helpmeet"? I hear it thrown around a lot even though it appears only in one verse, and even then only in the Authorized Version (if I'm not mistaken). We have established that the wife is to help her husband to raise his family in Godliness---but what else does the term entail?


----------



## py3ak (Apr 25, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> why, if there are so many servants and other families in the house, is this woman doing everything herself?



In Scripture, it can be said that the supervisor did something when it is hard to imagine that everything was done with his own hands: consider the narration of Moses setting up the tabernacle.



lynnie said:


> Many things women used to do have been removed from the home- nursing, schooling, economic contributions (think Ma in Little House on the Prairie making clothes, bread, soap, candles).



Dorothy Sayers makes this point in _Are Women Human?_ It's a worthwhile thing to think about: has industrialization made staying home less interesting than it used to be?


----------



## satz (Apr 25, 2011)

kvanlaan said:


> The other side of this is that we are only seeing this passage as a literal description. Look elsewhere in proverbs - is Wisdom really a woman? Is a woman really pulling down her house with her own hands? Them's some pretty strong hands. Why are we saying that this is so definitively descriptive to life's activities when a number of commentators see it in a more poetic light? First, the structure (written with each verse as a subsequent letter of the Hebrew Alphabet) is not terribly prosaic or descriptive, but artistic and poetic. Secondly, if we look to most early commentators, we will see that most of them regard it not to be a woman, but the church body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Kevin,

Are you really saying that Proverbs 31 isn't applicable in determining what a wife should do for NT Christians?

The NT itself shows that whatever gender roles there are in the NT are connected with, and linked to what was found in the OT (1 Tim 2:13-15, 1 Cor 11:8-9).

Proverbs 31 is the longest and most detailed description of a "good wife" God has written down in the bible. Why wouldn't we go to this passage to further explain what is God's view on womanhood?

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:48 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> Mark:
> 
> You are from Singapore. Could it be that your cultural upbringing and work ethic you were raised with impacts your view of Proverbs 31? There is quite a drive to push and get ahead in Singapore it seems, and it would be quite the cultural sacrifice to take one wage-earning member out of the workforce, would it not?



Pergy,

I guess it's possible. We all see the bible through the lenses of our upbringing. So that's (in part) why I would like to test my understanding in discussions like this. 

As I said before, it seems to me Proverbs 31 shows that a good wife helps her husband financially - and this is a family that is quite successful, so she helps him excel financially, not just survive. That's the principle I see, how it may apply to each family is going to be completely different. How is this understanding coloured by any culture?



> Thus, it is hard to say that the working wife is much of a helpmeet to her husband in any way except financially, and most of the things that Americans and Singaporeans spend their money on is not out of necessity but are mere luxuries. Thus, our cultures are sacrificing their families on the altar of comfort.



Surely whether a wife is a good helpmeet to her husband is for her husband, and not anyone else, to decide. 

The fact that she may not be available 24/7 does not mean she is not a good helpmeet, if her unavailability is due to commitments her husband approved off or wanted. Isn't this what Numbers 30 teaches, where a husband can annul his wife's vows... or let them stand, thus allowing another obligation on his family. 

In the end, whether a particular man wants financial help, or some other kind of help from his wife is completely up to him. Just because another man's choice is extremely strange to us does not give us the right to say it is wrong. 

Regarding necessities and luxuries, as I said, I think Proverbs 31 shows that a woman earning money is a commendable act for a wife. So it doesn't need to be a situation where the family "needs" it. As long as the husband is approves, and no other command of God is compromised, a wife can engage in outside pursuits not just to help her husband survive, but prosper financially as well.

I think also that there's quite a large range of spending that is not a necessity in the sense of "the family can't survive without it" but is not luxury in the sense of indulgence. A man may be willing to live with a household that is not perfectly run in order to build up a larger savings reserve for the family. That's his choice on how he wants to run his family and use the resources God has given him, isn't it?


----------



## steadfast7 (Apr 25, 2011)

py3ak said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > why, if there are so many servants and other families in the house, is this woman doing everything herself?
> ...


 
There's enough in the text to suggest that she's doing a great deal of work _with her own hands_: vv 13, 17-19. It seems to be a point the author wants to hit home.


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 25, 2011)

Dennis,

I'd like to add that Proverbs 31 is not a wife finding checklist. The sentence, "Who can find a capable wife?" does not mean that the following portion is advice for finding a wife. At least, it's a very strange checklist, since the woman outlined in the chapter is already married with children!

It does give an idea of what feminine virtue looks like over the course of a lifetime, and for us married men, it reminds us to empower our wives to grow in that direction and to praise them for all their successes.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 25, 2011)

Mark:

Yes, I agree that women can earn money. Yet, her domain is still the home and the center of her thoughts still the kids.

My own mother is a good example of this. She was a full-time stay-at-home mom while my dad worked in a car factory for over 2 decades. In her spare time, she made Raggedy-Ann dolls and quilts, which my father sold at work. This supplemented our income, but did not take her out of the home and my mother did this knitting or sewing in free times while I was playing beside her. If her children needed something, she was able to instantly stop and tend to us.


Also, my own wife runs a health clinic here on our porch. This is very much a "from the home" ministry. Alethea helps her hand out water for pill-taking and hands Teresa the bandages, etc. My wife is the busiest woman I know, but she prioritizes the home. 

My wife Teresa worked as a nurse prior to our children being born. After Noah was born (for 2 whole days) Teresa was a "working mother"......but two days was enough. When newborn Noah could not sleep and I called the hospital and Teresa wondered if she could get off work to go and help her newborn, then we decided then and there that her working was too much of a sacrifice. If she had to ask permission to come and care for her own children, then it was clear that she had to quit.

Now, she stays plenty busy, but only insofar as she can do so alongside the children and make her activities into educational opportunities for the children. When the children are grown she could work outside the home if she desired, but at this later stage in her life, she might be better served to become an "older woman of the church" and spend her time helping the younger women.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 25, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, it is hard to say that the working wife is much of a helpmeet to her husband in any way except financially
> ...


 
Herman Bavinck


> A third particular of this second chapter of Genesis is the gift of the woman to the man and the institution of marriage. Adam had received much. Though formed out of the dust of the earth, he was nevertheless a bearer of the image of God. He was placed in a garden which was a place of loveliness and was richly supplied with everything good to behold and to eat. He received the pleasant task of dressing the garden and subduing the earth, and in this he had to walk in accordance with the commandment of God, to eat freely of every tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But no matter how richly favored and how grateful, that first man was not satisfied, not fulfilled. The cause is indicated to him by God Himself. It lies in his solitude. It is not good for the man that he should be alone. He is not so constituted, he was not created that way. His nature inclines to the social — he wants company. He must be able to express himself, reveal himself, and give himself. He must be able to pour out his heart, to give form to his feelings. He must share his awarenesses with a being who can understand him and can feel and live along with him. Solitude is poverty, forsakenness, gradual pining and wasting away. How lonesome it is to be alone!
> 
> And He who created man thus, with this kind of need for expression and extension can in the greatness and grace of His power only choose to supply the need. He can only create for him a helpmeet who goes along with him, is related to him, and suits him as counterpart. The account tells us in verses 19 to 21 that God made all the beasts of the field and all the fowls of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see whether among all those creatures there was not a being who could serve Adam as a companion and a helper. The purpose of these verses is not to indicate the chronological order in which animals and man were made, but rather to indicate the material order, the rank, the grades of relationship in which the two sorts of creatures stand over against each other. This relationship of rank is first indicated in the fact that Adam named the animals.
> 
> ...


----------



## Philip (Apr 26, 2011)

I don't think that outside-the-home ministries or money-making is necessarily out of the question, so long as the home is in order. In many cases, as children grow older, it can even be necessary that the mother be at times absent so as to help the children to take ownership and more responsibility.

My own mother has been, for the last couple of years, a part-time educational therapist, partly to help fund educational therapy for certain family members, and I can truly say that it has helped to make the family stronger because everyone had to get on board to make it work.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I don't think that outside-the-home ministries or money-making is necessarily out of the question, so long as the home is in order. In many cases, as children grow older, it can even be necessary that the mother be at times absent so as to help the children to take ownership and more responsibility.
> 
> My own mother has been, for the last couple of years, a part-time educational therapist, partly to help fund educational therapy for certain family members, and I can truly say that it has helped to make the family stronger because everyone had to get on board to make it work.




The phrase, "everyone had to get on board to make it work." is significant to me and to my point. This may indicate in many situations that the needs or preferences of the family and what would otherwise be best for them are subordinated for the sake of a job outside the home.


----------



## satz (Apr 26, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that outside-the-home ministries or money-making is necessarily out of the question, so long as the home is in order. In many cases, as children grow older, it can even be necessary that the mother be at times absent so as to help the children to take ownership and more responsibility.
> ...


 
Pergy,

Isn't this the husband's choice to make, and not anyone else's (including, you, me or even any pastor)?

If the children are truly being neglected such that God's commands regarding them are not being kept, than things are obviously out of balance. However, short of an excess situation like that, its a husband's right and prerogative to chose how things will run in his own family.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2011)

Mark:

Yes, the husband may pick up some slack normally designated to the wife so that she can work outside the home. The family in this situation may, indeed, "make it work." The husband has the right even to make unwise decisions, I reckon.

But, on many occasions, it appears to me that the husband farms out the wife for the sake of personal financial comfort. 

I strongly believe that a family is better off to live pretty poorly and have the mother constantly around the children than to live well-off and have both parents working. But of course, if a job schedule is extremely flexible, if the husband agrees (rather than merely relents) and if the children have a parent present instead of some form of parental surrogate to make up for their own absence (which I believe is tantamount to negligence in some cases), then a part-time job could be handled by a mother without her forsaking the center of her duties, the home.

I believe that the vast majority of people in the West would have overwhelmingly agreed with me 100 years ago. Yet, today my view is perhaps a vast minority and sounds extreme. 

Of course, I have met families here in Asia that are dirt-poor and close to malnutrition and the wife and husband both work the rice paddies. In this case, the kids are right out there with mom. But barring extreme poverty, I see no reason to distract my wife from her high calling as mother, one of the highest callings on earth (_the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world_).


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 26, 2011)

Amen, amen, amen.

Thank you. I likewise find that modern secular culture has dictated too much to us what is the 'norm' in our Christian homes.


----------



## satz (Apr 26, 2011)

kvanlaan said:


> Amen, amen, amen.
> 
> Thank you. I likewise find that modern secular culture has dictated too much to us what is the 'norm' in our Christian homes.


 
Kevin,

So should every home then be dictated by "conservative" culture?

You wouldn't want anyone telling you that your wife wasn't doing a good job of helping you because she doesn't do things the way _his_ wife does things. So why do that to others?


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 26, 2011)

> So should every home then be dictated by "conservative" culture?
> 
> You wouldn't want anyone telling you that your wife wasn't doing a good job of helping you because she doesn't do things the way his wife does things. So why do that to others?



No, not by 'conservative' culture, but by biblical implications. I still don't buy the idea that Proverbs 31 is some sort of OT diktat for women (as posted previously, there are a number of respected scholars who believe it speaks nothing of actual women). 

I've heard some ardent feminists tell me that the suffragettes pried open the door to women in the workplace, and that second world war blew it open. Then women just never went back home - and the 1960's were the icing on the deconstructionist cake. This is the genesis of such an attitude and I find little value in it. It has taken a large part in inflationary measures of the last several decades and made life difficult for those who wish to live in a one-income family.

And so far as your wife not doing what my wife does, I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. What my wife does is a unique calling that many women simply can't handle. I don't look down on those who don't do what Elizabeth does, not many are called to it (I won't go heading off into the jungle like Pergy and if he looks down on me because of that, I can't help him with that personal issue). But when decisions on work and childbearing are consciously or unconsciously made on the basis of worldly 'wisdom', I get really bent out of shape. I know that in defense, we can often say that person X down the church pew from me lives like that and person Y who sits two rows back also runs their family that way. And I will still say that in too many of those cases, it is an infiltration of the world into the church that caused this paradigm shift and not some sort of improved exegesis. 

I don't take these views because I like them, I take them because I truly and wholeheartedly believe that is what scripture says - life would be much easier without these biblically-based convictions.


----------



## satz (Apr 26, 2011)

kvanlaan said:


> No, not by 'conservative' culture, but by biblical implications. I still don't buy the idea that Proverbs 31 is some sort of OT diktat for women (as posted previously, there are a number of respected scholars who believe it speaks nothing of actual women).



If you don't think Proverbs 31 is a teaching on what a christian woman should be like, what about these verses?

Pr 31:11The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. 
Pr 31:12She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. 
Pr 31:27She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. 
Pr 31:30Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

Do these have no implication on how a christian woman should behave? In fact, what about basically all the verses from 20-31, other than 16 and 24, which I have been using to support my point.

The new testament has words about the role of a christian woman - "keepers at home", "guide the house". I feel it is an obvious next step, if we wish to see everything God thinks about women, to look at a long, almost 20 verse passage he has written in his Word describing a good wife. Because as in any form of communication, when you speak or write for longer, you can more fully express what you mean. Or put another way, Proverbs 31 is one of the ways we help ourselves interpret what the words of the NT mean. This is "comparing spiritual things with spiritual", as 1 Cor 2:13 says.

On what basis do you disagree? Is it only because of the emminence of these scholars?


----------



## Philip (Apr 27, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> The phrase, "everyone had to get on board to make it work." is significant to me and to my point. This may indicate in many situations that the needs or preferences of the family and what would otherwise be best for them are subordinated for the sake of a job outside the home.



I should stress that this was at a point where two out of four children were in high school and capable of (and, if I am permitted to speak for myself in retrospect, needing to) take on these responsibilities. It brought our family together in an incredible way. I would even say that we were better taken care of because of this need/opportunity for work outside the home because it taught us valuable things about living independently---things that I am still using.


----------

