Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?].
I don't think the point of Proverbs 31 is to speak of a woman who actually exists.
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."
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.
Who and where has said anything about having it all?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.
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.
If the cost is too great she should not earn the money.The difference is (if she has children to raise) that the cost is so much
greater to earn said money.
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.
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).
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.
I know there are exceptions to that, but lets talk general norms here and not give way to the cavalcade of exceptions.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 ----------
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.
Thus, it is hard to say that the working wife is much of a helpmeet to her husband in any way except financially
why, if there are so many servants and other families in the house, is this woman doing everything herself?
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).
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Adam therefore understood all the creatures, he penetrated their natures, he could classify and subdivide them, and assign to each of them the place in the whole of things which was their due. If, accordingly, he discovered no being among all those creatures who was related to himself, this was not the consequence of ignorance nor of foolhardy arrogance or pride; rather, it stemmed from the fact that there existed a difference in kind between him and all other creatures, a difference not of degree merely but of essence. True, there are all kinds of correspondences between animal and man: both are physical beings, both have all kinds of need and desire for food and drink, both propagate offspring, both possess the five senses of smell, taste, feeling, sight, and hearing, and both share the lower activities of cognition, awareness, and perception. Nonetheless, man is different from the animal. He has reason, and understanding, and will and in consequence of these he has religion, morality, language, law, science, and art. True, he was formed from the dust of the earth, but he received the breath of life from above. He is a physical, but also a spiritual, rational, and moral being. And that is why Adam could not find a single creature among them all that was related to him and could be his helper. He gave them all names, but not one of them deserved the exalted, royal name of man.
Then, when man could not find the thing he sought, then, quite apart from man's own witting and willing, and without contributive effort on his own part, God gave man the thing he himself could not supply. The best things come to us as gifts; they fall into our laps without labor and without price. We do not earn them nor achieve them: we get them for nothing. The richest and most precious gift which can be given to man on earth is woman. And this gift he gets in a deep sleep, when he is unconscious, and without any effort of will or fatigue of the hand. True, the seeking, the looking about, the inquiring, the sense of the need precedes it. So does the prayer. But then God grants the gift sovereignly, alone, without our help. It is as though He conducts the woman to the man by His own hand.
Thereupon the first emotion to master Adam, when he wakes up and sees the woman before him, is that of marveling and gratitude. He does not feel a stranger to her, but recognizes her immediately as sharing his own nature with him. His recognition was literally a recognition of that which he had felt he missed and needed, but which he could not himself supply. And his marveling expresses itself in the first marriage hymn or epithalamium ever to be sounded on the face of the earth: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.” Adam therefore remains the source and head of the human race. The woman is not merely created alongside of him but out of him (1 Cor. 11:8). Just as the stuff for making Adam's body was taken from the earth, so the side of Adam is the basis of the life of Eve. But just as out of the dust of the earth the first man became a living being through the breath of life which came from above, so out of Adam's side the first woman first became a human being by the creative omnipotence of God. She is out of Adam and yet is another than Adam. She is related to him and yet is different from him. She belongs to the same kind and yet in that kind she occupies her own unique position. She is dependent and yet she is free. She is after Adam and out of Adam, but owes her existence to God alone. And so she serves to help the man, to make his vocation of subduing the earth possible. She is his helper, not as mistress and much less as slave, but as an individual, independent, and free being, who received her existence not from the man hut from God, who is responsible to God, and who was added to man as a free and unearned gift.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.