She stretches out her hands to the distaff,
And her hands grasp the spindle.
She extends her hand to the poor,
And she stretches out her hands to the needy.~Prov. 31:19-20
American fundamentalist interpretation: Truly godly women are workaholics. They do 48 hours’ worth of manual labour and good Christian deeds in a given day. They are obviously too busy to “interfere” or become “busybodies” in matters decreed to be beyond the limits of their concerns.
Contextual interpretation: These are proverbs. They’re poeticisms. This particular one carries straight through the translation: a repetitive pattern of gestures creates the beautiful imagery: She stretches out her hands, she reaches out.
She is not just weaving cloth, she is weaving lives together. At this point, I pause to ask myself: does it matter whether this woman literally owns a loom at all? This is no Victorian maid with her requisite embroidery hoop, no Renaissance lady with her de rigeur loom. We are not drawing from European historical concepts at all here, and Eurocentrism only obscures this passage.
The virtuous woman weaves the fabric of life. Isn’t that what the king’s mother spoke of from the start? How to uphold justice and advocate for the needy. How to create peace.
She is not afraid of the snow for her household,
For all her household are clothed with scarlet.
She makes coverings for herself;
Her clothing is fine linen and purple.~Prov. 31:21-22
American fundamentalist interpretation: Be paranoid and prepared for even the most unlikely eventualities, like for instance Y2K. A good woman should always carry an extra safety pin, preserve and store spare food, and have her household monitored and kept within the declared circle of security at all times. Winter will come.
And while she’s at it, she’s sewing a wardrobe that will elevate her above and beyond her humble status in the perceptions of others. Fine linen and purple are royal-quality! She must make her husband look good before the elders. He should be the focus of all she does, including clothing herself in such quality fashion.
Contextual interpretation: Again, Eurocentrist and misogynist assumptions fail to consider the full implications.
Snow.
In Jerusalem.
This woman’s cup has overflowed. She has cared for her neighbours, for the afflicted and needy. What became of the vineyard in that year of snow? What was the flavour of its vintage? Or were the buds frozen off?
Either way, God made His presence known. Snow does not just happen in Jerusalem. It’s a rare event, an auspicious sign. Not something that can be predicted and planned for.
What could have been a disaster for people wracked by poverty and injustice is simply the sign of His nearness, because peace reigns. But what of the woman herself and her clothing?
In those days as King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne which was at the citadel in Susa, in the third year of his reign he gave a banquet for all his princes and attendants, the army officers of Persia and Media, the nobles and the princes of his provinces being in his presence.
And he displayed the riches of his royal glory and the splendor of his great majesty for many days, 180 days. When these days were completed, the king gave a banquet lasting seven days for all the people who were present at the citadel in Susa, from the greatest to the least, in the court of the garden of the king’s palace.
There were hangings of fine white and violet linen held by cords of fine purple linen on silver rings and marble columns, and couches of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl and precious stones.
~Esther 1:2-6
Fine linen and purple are the decor of pagan palaces. They are the trappings of a godless king’s furniture, adorning his accessories. This woman is no accessory, and before we ever spoke of her, the king was warned against treating women that way. For fundamentalism to treat a woman as a trapping of her husband is not a Christian mentality, but a purely pagan one.
What were fine linen and purple associated with in Israeli thinking?
Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twisted linen and blue and purple and scarlet material; you shall make them with cherubim, the work of a skillful workman. (Ex. 26:1, see also Ex. 25:3-5, Ex. 26:30-32)
What could be understood proverbially in Judaic thinking, through the direct presence of the cultural artifacts, Paul had to teach to the Gentile believers:
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? (1 Cor. 6:19)
For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. (2 Cor. 5:1)
Eternal treasure is veiled in the earthen vessel of this woman’s form. Remember what was within the heart of the tabernacle and the Temple? The atonement seat. The place of looking forward to the Cross of Jesus Christ.
She belongs to God. Her hope is in Him, and she exists for the praise of the glory of His grace alone.
I’m coming a bit late to finally comment on this series, so I apologize for taking so long to put my finger on a few things that are bothering me about your take on this.
At first I wasn’t sure if I truly disagreed with you, or if I was just experiencing a bit of cultural whiplash, having been taught differently all my life. As I continued reading, and as I discussed this with others, I realized that although I may be suffering from some whiplash, I’m also reacting to
1) at least one instance of a loaded word that should, perhaps, at the least be defined and at the most changed. In America at this time in a large proportion of the population, fundamentalist=terrorist. I don’t agree with that equation, as I would consider myself a fundamentalist (i.e., concerned with getting the fundamental things right), yet I’m no terrorist, nor do I endorse such. But the things you are saying concerning American Fundamentalists seem to actually be more applicable to a group of people coming to be known as “patriarchalists”. The Pearls are part of this movement, as are those over at Vision Forum and some others. It is important that this incorrect teaching be exposed, so that’s two reasons to use patriarchalism rather than fundamentalism in your characterization.
2) not really being sure exactly what point you’re trying to make about Proverbs 31…why, exactly, do you think God included Proverbs 31:10ff in canon? It almost seems your take on it is feminist in a negative way, a way with which I as a complementarian cannot agree…but then you say other things (like the question concerning husbands knowing what their wives are learning from other women in the first post) that make me realize that is not where you are coming from.
3) seeing you take some things in this proverb as practical social justice, but some of them as symbolic (like this post concerning her clothing? Did you mean that these words are really about her salvation and the salvation of her household?)
Perhaps, when you finish the series, all this will be clarified for me?
Esther
Cat, I still see this woman as a form…
But, perhaps, this is the month of Elul (tradition says that name is an acronym for the Hebrew phrase “Ani L’dodi V’dodi Li.” It means, “I am to my Beloved and my Beloved is to me.” It reminds us of another bride — the bride in the Song of Solomon.
And, I wonder… how much is this proverb not merely admonitions to a wife, but to a bride. The Old Testament identifies Israel as an unfaithful wife. The New Testament calls the church the Bride of Christ. So, more than just a word to the “King of the Castle” or the Proverbs 31 woman… this is a word to the church. This is how we are to live out our faith.
You are way smart!