This post did not go where I expected! You are indeed correct about the Proverbs 31 woman being an extremely hard-working entrepreneur. I've wondered about how this important detail gets lost when Christian women are encouraged to be the "Proverbs 31 woman". Funnily, no mention is made of the husband working - he is said to sit with his hommies at the city gates but not much else.
I've struggled to reconcile this but I think it's helpful to remember that the Bible was written in a Middle Eastern culture. If you look at women today in the Middle East and Israel, they're not often the "shrinking violet" type many Western men think of when they read about "a quiet and gentle spirit". They are often strong and outspoken. I saw a doco about the underground church in Iran which has experienced explosive growth. Many times the women lead the churches there. I suspect we Westerners take the whole complementarian thing too literally and apply our own gender expectations onto what the Bible actually says.
Thr fact Proverbs 31 was not written FOR women should be a clue though. I mean its nice that some women are using it, but it was written for a man. The kings mother wrote it for him on what to look for in a woman. A Proverbs 31 woman should ready be all those things according to it. Again though…different culture and place and its could for women today to work at thism..but more men need to read it and see what a mother was writing her son
It is ironic that Christian men are referring to a verse that Jewish men recite to their wives every Friday night. Yet some of these men are supporting Trump and others who are fundamentally anti Semitic, displaying no tolerance for those who practice the religion of Judaism in the US or elsewhere. ( This is an entirely different question that that of support for the political state of Israel and its policies, which is a source of dispute among practicing Jews).
You are correct that King Solomon suggests that the women's holiness is based in self reliance and strength with a willingness to take care of the world (tikkun olam) and a willingness to speak up and act with justice and charity ( Tzedek and tzedakah), to make the world a right and just place. In that context the Jewish women who stand against the recent Israeli actions in Gaza and against the deportations of people based on their race, national origins or beliefs is surely an Eshet Chayil,, a woman of valor.
Eshet Chayil, Proverbs 31 in English
10 A woman of valor, who can find? Her worth is far beyond that of rubies.
11 Her husband’s heart trusts in her, and lacks no treasures.
12 She is good to him, never bad, all the days of her life.
13 She looks for wool and flax, and sets her hand to them willingly.
14 She is like a merchant fleet, she brings her bread from afar.
15 She rises while it is still night, and supplies provisions for her household, the daily fare of her maids.
16 She sets her mind on a field and acquires it; she plants a vineyard through the fruit of her handiwork.
17 Her loins are girded with strength, and her arms are mighty.
18 She sees that her business thrives; her lamp never goes out at night.
19 She sets her hand to the distaff; and her fingers work the spindle.
20 She stretches out her palms to the poor; she extends her hand to the needy.
21 She does not fear for her household on account of snow, for her whole house is dressed in crimson.
22 She makes covers for herself; her clothing is linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates, where he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes cloth and sells it, and offers a girdle to the Canaanite.
25 She is clothed with strength and splendor; and laughs until the last day.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is upon her tongue.
27 She oversees the activities of her household, and never eats bread of idleness.
28 Her children stand and rejoice in her, her husband praises her.
29 Many women have displayed valor, but you rise above them all.
30 Grace is falsehood and beauty is vapid; a woman who fears God is the one who shall be praised.
31 Give her from the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates.
I am Jewish but I am not pro Israel because I do not think that Netanyahu is acting in accordance with tzedek ( justice), nor in accordance with human rights. In accordance with justice, I believe that reasonable people can hold different opinions and I have no problem with people expressing their opinions. To my mind, student protestors are simply expressing their opinions. In the same vein, one can still be anti-Semitic and have in-laws who are Jewish. Professor Snyder makes a compelling case. https://snyder.substack.com/p/fomenting-antisemitism
Using the term “you people” is anti semetic. I do not support what the political state of Israel is doing. There are many other Jews who also disagree with Israeli policy. But we don't live there and all we can do is join the protests. Like most religions, Judaism has always had believers of various races . nationalities and some who left other religions. We may differ in political beliefs and even in some religious practices and interpretations. But we are just people.
Pro-israeli doesn't mean pro-Jewish. Unless you're arguing the guy who had Nazi salutes at his inauguration is pro-Jewish. And Omar isn't running the country, she's a senator. Do you really want to talk about Republican senators anti-Semitism? Because it wasn't Omar blaming "Jewish space lasers" for starting wildfires.
Christians have the old testament as an authoritative book as well. So, not sure of your point.
Men had to protect women and the family. Messing up a family tree was life and death then. Not just for honor, but to keep the lineage intact by having beneficiaries that are blood relatives. Today, there is a massive need for babies. It is a natural human desire. You can say you aren't feeling it, but you may have given up feeling anything normal for a while.
Also the women in Israel are certainly not opposed to their own people acting in righteousness as the Jews are. To say anything else says you know little about the history of Judaism and Islam. They are oil and water. Choose a side. Since Jesus was a Jew you may want to take a look at that.
I was going to attempt to reply to this point by point but to be honest the condescending tone of the article made me think my time might be better spent elsewhere. Suffice to say, I think there are some fundamental flaws in this interpretation. To note just one, you say at the end 'she stays with her husband because she likes him'. This is both unsupported by the text and theologically vacuous. The obvious implication of the statement being that if she didn't like him she would leave, which is not a remotely Christian philosophy. Marriage is a covenant not a convenience.
You're arguing a technical point for the sake of arguing. She married him because she liked him to begin with. And as she likes him, why wouldn't she stay with him? Do you want people today to marry for other reason? What other reason do people have to marry today? Or do you prefer women to be gold diggers marrying men for the money? Is that what men want now? Women to marry them for the money even if they don't like him?
And you hit upon a very important point- what reason do people have for marriage today? Well most people don't have any reason because they don't understand what marriage is or its purpose. The institution of marriage has been desecrated in modern society and sadly the church has not been immune to this. The proper reason for marriage is the glory of God not personal pleasure or fulfilment.
You're evading my question and changing the subject. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt you're not insulting our collective intelligence here. Marriage's purpose is for the glory of God. Ok, I'm with you there. But why does a woman today marry the specific man she marries? What's the reason she chooses to marry this man vs that man? And let's assume they're all Christians so you can't evade my actual question. The answer is she likes this one not the other one. It isn't because marrying one man would glorify God and not the other.
People online today are truly exhausting. They see an innocuous point in an article or comment which gives them an opening to bring in something else they actually want to talk about, and they throw out some kind of mind bending criticism against some that point the OP made, so that they can now derail and take over the comment thread or conversation entirely to talk about something else. For the love of all things holy, please stop. It's really unfair to the OPs in all such instances and very tiresome. You can easily start your own comment without doing this exhausting exercise where others have to explain the context and the obvious. Or better yet, write your own Substack. (And maybe get a taste of what it's like when others do this to you.)
In this case, OP saying a woman staying with her husband because she likes him, is of course predicated on her liking him enough to marry him in the first place. So her assertion that it's a woman's choice still stands. Why nitpick on this point that's obvious?
I'm certainly not attempting to evade your question- so apologies if I missed something- what specifically did i not address- did you read both of my replies? When people post articles expressing opinions on a public forum it is perfectly reasonable to respond with a contrary opinion so I make no apologies for that. Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough but I wouldn't characterise it as nit picking at all. To clarify my point, the post suggested that liking your husband was a necessary condition for being faithful to him. That is an absolute falsehood, which is not supported either by the passage being interpreted here or any other passage in scripture. My point is that this is a serious error not a minor one- it totally undermines the sanctity of marriage and directly contradicts the Word of God. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7 it is clear that if a Christian is married to non-believer and they are willing to stay in the marriage then the Christian should stay in the marriage- whether they like their spouse or not is totally irrelevant. Yes it is highly probable that the proverbs 31 woman liked her husband when they got married but this is completely beside the point. The whole interpretation of procerbs 31 presented in this post is a textbook example of eisegesis- that isn't a minor issue it's a totally flawed way of interpreting scripture. I have no problem with anyone challenging my theology, I'm not here to win arguments I am here to seek truth.
Ok I don't find anything you said disagreeable. In fact, I would guess even the author does not find anything you say to be controversial. I do think you're reading too much into an innocuous point she made in the context of what she was talking about, and then segueing what she and I are saying into your wider theological themes beyond a specific point she was making. I think she was just mentioning something basic which, while not stated in the Bible as you said, also does not take away from the Bible or anything you said. She did not say that liking one's husband is the ONLY reason to stay faithful. She mentioned it in the context of what she was saying. That is all.
I don't really see us or anyone disputing what you're saying, so what you're saying is not even an issue because no one is contending what you said is not true. I think it is assumed that we all believe marriage, and everything we do, is for the glory of God.
So all things being equal and within everything under the wider theological theme you're talking about, how is it wrong to say that a woman chooses to marry and stay with THIS man, and not THAT man, because she likes THIS man? -- See, this is what I'm talking about, and what I read as the author to be saying.
So you and I are essentially talking about two different things.
You have raised a separate question of whether one should stay in a marriage if the person no longer likes his or her spouse. I think it is a very worthy question to explore. It is the way that you brought it up that I was responding to, because I see this happening so often now in online discussions. People intentionally pretend they don't understand an obvious point the author is saying in context, then unreasonably criticizing it out of context or pretend something common sense is not something fundamentally understood by all but something that requires PhD level of analysis, so they can segue something else they want to talk about into the conversation. I apologize if I misunderstood your intent.
Thanks for your reply. It sounds like we read the post differently in this area. I agree that people can take things out of context or respond in bad faith but that wasn't my intention. Have a blessed day.
Liking someone is a poor reason to marry them and this selfish conception of marriage comes from modern philosophy, not the Bible. If we consider the proportion of marriages that end in divorce or misery today, it is very high. In what proportion of those failed marriages did the people like each other to start with- probably the vast majority- otherwise they would have never married. Yes, you should like the person you marry but that is not a sound foundation for marriage. I think it is more than a technical point- the purpose and nature of marriage are of huge importance in Christian doctrine and imposing shallow modern philosophy onto God's Word leads to misguided conclusions.
Ok, so if liking someone is a “poor” reason to marry them, what is a good reason? I know you believe that marriage is for the glory of God. So, how do you propose choosing a partner? I once worked for a foreign company where most all marriages were arranged. Our modern, Western culture does not believe in this. Even in arranged marriages, virtually 100% of the time the potential partners like each other. No parents are going to arrange for their son or daughter to marry someone they can’t stand. The Bible says a believer needs to marry a believer. How do you differentiate then, between one believer and another when it comes to the question of who to marry? Seems to me that God gives people feelings and attractions for one person or another for a reason.
Hi Lisa, it's interesting you mention arranged marriages because the factors that parents tend to consider when arranging a marriage are probably a good place to start. Marriage is the union of spirit, mind and body- you mentioned the most important qualification for a Christian spouse already that they should be born again- otherwise you will be unequally yoked spiritually. You should be like minded- have the same goals and same understanding of roles within marriage and you both need to be willing- marriage is a covenant for life. All of these criteria can be met without 'liking' each other. Rebecca agreed to marry Isaac before they had met- how could she possibly like him. If you are both saved and like minded and willing then you will grow to like each other. Commitment is the basis for intimacy not the other way round.
Quick question Philip: are you married? Because your comments about marriage do not sound like they come from direct experience, but rather a philosophical discourse on marriage as an institution. While that is a perfectly valid topic of discussion, someone who is married knows that theory and practice often diverge. That’s where ‘compromise’ comes in.
Hi Janie, you are right I am speaking from a theoretical stand point rather than experience but I live by the principles I believe in (or at least try to, not always successfully!)
Those women weren't gold diggers, but finding a man who could provide you with what it takes to raise a family were golden and scooped up first. In the new testament, there were no single guys living in their mom's basement smoking bongs.
I need to do some more research into this, but I’m starting to think that many housewives in the 50s and 60s were possibly drugged into submission… Wasn’t ‘Mother’s Little Helper’ a widely used yet highly addictive sedative?
Yes, it was used. Not that addictive if you use it as prescribed. However, the women made those doctor appointments. Do you think husbands made fake appointments for her and she thought she had to go, and then the doctor was in Kahootz and gave her some mind numbing drugs? That's just silly...or paranoid.
In that people have an extreme, 2d sense of the past and past gender relations:
The left portrays everything pre 1980s as ‘women used as cattle’. Those memes enter the culture, which is what the new right absorbs. The new right actually agrees with the lefts incorrect portrayal of the Bible and the past: the new right just ‘likes’ that stuff a portrayed
“Gentle” is not considered a very masculine way to describe a man these days. But gentleness is one of the fruits of the spirit and a true gentleman is gentle.
This is an excellent post, Sarah! As a single women, I struggled with the same issue (I had a law degree and that quickly closed the door on many dating opportunities - I literally saw their faces change and interest flee if I mentioned my education or what I did for work), but I hope this offers you hope: there are men out there who do desire a true partner and teammate, and will praise their Proverbs 31 wife, who are not intimidated by her. They're unicorns, but they exist (married one myself and it's been the biggest blessing and feels like a miracle to have found someone like this in today's culture).
I'd like to second this comment. There are men out there that appreciate and desire an accomplished and strong woman. Your frustration comes through loud and clear. That dating app doesn't look like a good fit. Hope you have a great Easter!
Why would you think that your law degree is the issue which repels a supposedly heterosexual, Christian man?
Women who work in medicine are also to the point, intelligent, clear and able to correct men's inaccuracies. Women in people-caring majors don't have a monopoly on caring for potential husbands. Occasionally, smart, good-looking men behave very foolishly. Single girls become girlfriends. And sometimes girlfriends also become wives. When guys realise that these women are smart and educated. But this smart and good-looking woman doesn't stab him with his points.
What do you think is easiest for guys? To persuade a confident, competent and capable woman to quit stabbing him, when he knows that she's a lawyer who could be right this time again. But she chooses to be irreverent and faithless once again. Or to date a sweeter, possibly a little slower woman who isn't stabbing him, because that's not what you do to a boyfriend she professes to love? Women in medicine also have a high IQ, as lawyers do.
You would not want to get hit or stabbed by a man who claims to love you, or do you? Do brothers use their fists and their knives and their guns to maim a cherished brother?
Could you imagine how ridiculous it would sound if a narcissistic guy would whine about how "She's intimidated by my size and my points. And she doesn't want to hear yet again, how I'm right and she's wrong. She should pick me, because I said so to myself in my head. And my friends all agree with me, or else. What's wrong with her?!"
I've always been intimidated by guys saying they want a "Proverbs 31" wife; but it turns out, for the wrong reasons...
I couldn't imagine ever owning property. In my 20s (due to the death of my mom and having a significantly younger sister) I had to help with expenses at home; but at some point it dawned on me that every guy who told me he wanted a "Proverbs 31" wife, also had a problem with me actually putting any kind of passion into my work OR VOLUNTEER PROJECTS. So clearly none of them have actually read the passage 🤷🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
Sarah, this read like a sermon delivered with a sword in one hand and a sewing needle in the other—divinely embroidered fury.
The way you dismantled the weaponized fantasy of the “Proverbs 31 Wife” should be required reading for every bro with a beard, a Bible app, and a superiority complex. These men don’t want a woman of valor—they want a biblical butler with a uterus.
But the real Proverbs 31 Woman? She’s out buying vineyards, flexing her arms, running businesses, giving to the poor, and rocking royal purple like the high priestess of divine competence. She’s not impressed by your “godly masculinity” if it comes wrapped in fear of strong women and a WiFi signal from Jordan Peterson’s bunker.
Also—preach it louder for the men in the back pew who think the word Torah means “don’t listen to your wife.” The teaching of kindness doesn’t mean “smile while being silenced.”
Let’s be clear: Christian dating isn’t broken. It’s functioning exactly as it was designed—for insecure men afraid of their own irrelevance in the face of female excellence.
So to the so-called “Proverbs 31-seekers” online:
She isn’t looking for a king. She’s already running an empire. You’re just a Tinder profile in her rearview mirror.
Blessed are the loud women, for they shall inherit the damn pulpit.
You must be living on a different planet. Men have become wimps. They are pilloried in the media constantly, made to feel guilty to be masculine. Feminism has caused men to give up on women. Women are fully capable. They don't need to bring men down to prove it. "Act like you've been here before," is what I would say to women who still live in their world of grievance. If you want to be equal, act equal. Quit blaming men. There are plenty of good men. The caricature you write is nonsense.
The idea that bible times women were out "buying vineyards and running businesses" is fantasy at best, and trolling at worst. Go study what life was like then. The amount of couples or women who could afford to buy a vineyard would have been 1 in 5,000.
Craig, your concern for the modern masculine ego is noted—though it seems less like a defense of men and more like a panic attack wrapped in a toga.
You say “act like you’ve been here before”? Darling, that’s exactly what women are doing: reclaiming the stage, the scroll, and the soil—because they have been here before. Long before the church traded their names for footnotes.
Proverbs 31 isn’t fantasy—it’s scripture. And yes, it says she buys a field and plants a vineyard (v.16), not just asks her husband permission to breathe. That’s not trolling, that’s Torah. If that wrecks your theology, take it up with Solomon.
You’re mad because women stopped asking for a seat at the table and started building their own temples. That’s not grievance—it’s Genesis 2.0. And if your masculinity feels “pilloried” by their power, maybe it was built on sand to begin with.
You argue like a guy who doesn’t know what he is talking about. I am the one is this conversation that is against twisting scripture. Planting a vineyard and buys a field. And that makes the whole lot of them entrepreneurs.
Women will be equal when they let go of their victim attitude. This is not their fault. Feminism is leftist propaganda. Run by Lesbians that don’t speak for women. Especially Christian women. In the world of Bible believing Christians, feminist don’t exist. Bible believing women don’t need permission from a bunch of leftists and lesbians. They are moving successfully ahead in business and complementing their husbands as husbands complement them. Many are living the Proverbs 31 wife life. Most don’t want the responsibility of being the leader of the family. That’s not her job. But men are forfeiting a crucial duty if they let the woman take that position. That is against scripture.
In Bible times women were poor. Getting a man meant having protection and money to raise a family. From their she buys the field in partnership with the husband. What woman in the bible was an Entrepreneur? There was a well know one.
But I don’t think you envision it that way. Either because you are anti-Christian or you don’t want to compete with men. So, you may be over there with the women when they’re at the feminist meeting.
Your confidence is... admirable. Almost Pauline—minus the part where Paul acknowledged women apostles, funded by women, hosted by women, and often corrected by women.
You say “feminism is leftist propaganda run by lesbians”—which is quite the sermon opener. Makes me wonder: if Mary Magdalene walked into your church today, independent, unmarried, the first witness to the resurrection, and unafraid of Roman men, would you call her a feminist or a threat?
You keep invoking "scripture" like it's a weapon rather than a well. A well many of us have drawn from long enough to know that the patriarchy didn't spring from the heart of Jesus—it was stapled on by empires who needed obedient wives and unpaid labor.
You say women don’t want the “burden” of leadership. That’s rich, considering they’ve been carrying pulpits, pews, prayer groups, potlucks, and entire communities on their backs for centuries—while being told to be quiet and smile through it.
If the only way your masculinity stands tall is by pressing down on others, it was never standing in Christ to begin with.
And if you think egalitarianism is heresy, then I suggest re-reading the Gospels without the ESV Study Notes and Tucker Carlson whispering in your ear.
We’re not here to coddle fragile authority structures—we’re here to resurrect the parts of the church buried by fear and control.
And yes, sometimes that resurrection starts with calling out the tomb of patriarchy.
Blessed are the meek, Craig—not the microphone hogs.
Ooh aren’t we self righteous. Your vision of the early church is fantasy. It is a Disney movie of the early church.
And it is certainly a Disney movie compared to the middle ages up until the settlers in the US through the 1920’s. The “patriarchy” of which you and your sisters speak was and is a natural process of the interplay between two equally important sexes. It played out according to God and nature. You can’t role reverse that and have any kind of society that can grow, be fruitful and multiply. Women are different than men. We are equal but we are not the same. We have roles. Christ brought that equality. He didn’t bring a re-defining of the roles we were given by him at Creation.
Of course women organized and helped with Paul’s meetings. He called them apostles, but it is not clear what he meant. We know Jesus picked 12 apostles and none were women. Is that because they weren’t able? No. They were women and didn’t preach and/or couldn’t travel.
You call this a “Disney version” of the early church, but honestly? Yours sounds more like a rejected episode of Leave It to Beaver: Galilee Edition.
Let’s talk facts, not fantasy:
Jesus didn’t just appear to Mary Magdalene—he sent her.
“Go to my brothers and say to them…” (John 20:17). That’s the literal definition of apostolos: one who is sent. That makes Mary the first apostle, commissioned directly by Christ to proclaim the resurrection—the foundational claim of the faith. No one else got that job. Not Peter. Not James. Not you.
You ask if women “weren’t able” to be apostles. Strange, then, that Paul greets Junia in Romans 16:7 as “outstanding among the apostles.” For centuries, male scribes even tried to change her name to the masculine “Junias,” just to erase the obvious. Didn’t work. She’s back, she’s apostolic, and she brought snacks.
And let’s bring in the tradition you forgot:
The Orthodox Church, which helped canonize the very scriptures you quote, has always honored Mary Magdalene as Isapostolos—Equal to the Apostles, and “Apostle to the Apostles.” If that bothers you, take it up with the Cappadocian Fathers. (Good luck.)
As for “patriarchy is natural”—so were slavery and polygamy. Doesn’t make them holy. Jesus didn’t come to bless social hierarchies; he came to flip tables and raise up the silenced. He didn’t need women to stay home—he needed them to carry messages when the men were hiding.
The truth is: you’re not defending scripture. You’re defending your comfort zone.
But the resurrection didn’t happen in a comfort zone. It happened in the hands of a woman bold enough to stay at the tomb, and brave enough to speak when the men wouldn’t.
Christ brought equality. You just haven’t caught up.
Stumbled upon your article and am pleasantly surprised you're not getting an onslaught of pushbacks by what fellow Christian Substack writer Kaeley Triller Harms described as Jerkface Theobros in her article yesterday. Thanks for this article! I saved it to share when next time one of those come to harp on and on about women are supposed to be Stepford wives according to the Bible.
I enjoyed this article. I married my husband a decade ago, and often thank God I will never again have to date (unless I outlive my husband, but even then it would be optional). Over the years, I met a few very fine men who lived their faith. But I also met a few whackos! Haha.
Praying for all my sisters who are still single. It’s a jungle. Truly godly men are out there but pretty tough to find. Only God!
This is so true, and fail to read their Bibles often, in spite of saying they believe in “traditional values” informed by said Bible, citing verses centred on submission forgetting about its mutualism, and their commission to sacrificial love. Perilous times..
All of Proverbs 31 is in the context of household management and rearing of children. The idea of this being the same as a woman working in a corporate environment would be totally foreign to that culture. Most men would, in the context it was written, agree with it. I've never met a man who was against his wife for earning extra money through Etsy, tutoring, etc.
That being said, our culture is fundamentally broken in that business and work should be a family affair, and our modern mega-corporations make that near impossible.
Good grief that’s rough. Feel like he’s completely misunderstood the point of that verse!
I once knew a married man who told me he could never verbally affirm his wife because that would make her proud.
I have this weird nagging feeling that some men on the right have mentally put women into the same category as children, and so they feel it is their responsibility to police women’s virtues/vices. It’s incredibly patronising.
John Wesley the great preacher and co-founder of Methodism fell in love as a young man with a beautiful young woman he met in Georgia USA. She was totally suitable as per family background,class,education etc but he was so alarmed at the ha ha ha physical bodily effect her propinquity had on him that he decided this attraction he felt must be an attack of Satan,so he ghosted her,sailed back to England - and married an ugly rich old widow he didn't like at all and hardly ever saw! His brother Charles who was much more fun,all their contemporaries agreed Charles was the one to invite to your parties,he wrote hundreds of hymns,words and music and no nonsense,he married a gorgeous young lady against her parents opposition + his brother dissaproval and they had loads of babies and a house full of music and joy.
Good stuff! To your point, very few people realize that the Proverbs 31 "housewife" spends a lot of her time outside the house, haggling with the merchant ships. 😆
Your article makes me think that most men, especially the men on Christian dating sites, feel threatened by an industrious woman, a woman who might upstage them. I wonder if a lot of men are insecure and think (correctly or not) that they don't have much to offer. For these men, at least, their job is all they have to earn respect with, and an economically savvy wife threatens that.
But in general, I think the dating sites themselves are the problem. All dating sites veer to and reward the superficial, since the primarily visual information of a dating profile can't capture a person's character or emotional intelligence. And superficial places attract superficial people.
So yeah, I liked your article, and I agree that most of these guys looking for "tradwives" are looking for a propped-up caricature of biblical femininity. Being the head of the household doesn't mean getting your own way. It often means showing deference to your wife, even in areas of strong conflict.
Where's my Proverbs 31 man chapter at? Oh wait, that's the rest of the book.
This post did not go where I expected! You are indeed correct about the Proverbs 31 woman being an extremely hard-working entrepreneur. I've wondered about how this important detail gets lost when Christian women are encouraged to be the "Proverbs 31 woman". Funnily, no mention is made of the husband working - he is said to sit with his hommies at the city gates but not much else.
I've struggled to reconcile this but I think it's helpful to remember that the Bible was written in a Middle Eastern culture. If you look at women today in the Middle East and Israel, they're not often the "shrinking violet" type many Western men think of when they read about "a quiet and gentle spirit". They are often strong and outspoken. I saw a doco about the underground church in Iran which has experienced explosive growth. Many times the women lead the churches there. I suspect we Westerners take the whole complementarian thing too literally and apply our own gender expectations onto what the Bible actually says.
I guess you have Proverbs 1-30 for instructions on how a man should conduct himself.
It basically goes as follows:
1. Seek wisdom
2. Don’t have an affair
3. Trust God
4. Don’t have an affair
5. Seek wisdom
6. Seek wisdom
7. Seek wisdom
8. Don’t have an affair
9. Don’t be lazy
10. Be reliable
11. Tell the truth
12. Don’t have an affair
13. Don’t have an affair
14. Don’t have an affair
15. Seek wisdom
16. Seek wisdom
Etc.
Totally agree about Middle Eastern women. They are absolute bad-asses! Wish I had half their strength 🙈
Thr fact Proverbs 31 was not written FOR women should be a clue though. I mean its nice that some women are using it, but it was written for a man. The kings mother wrote it for him on what to look for in a woman. A Proverbs 31 woman should ready be all those things according to it. Again though…different culture and place and its could for women today to work at thism..but more men need to read it and see what a mother was writing her son
Sitting at the city gate is not what you imagine! Would you accuse a judge today of “sitting with his homies at the city gates but not much else”?
I thought the fact that I used the word "hommies" when I am clearly a white guy would show I was being a bit flippant with that remark.
It is ironic that Christian men are referring to a verse that Jewish men recite to their wives every Friday night. Yet some of these men are supporting Trump and others who are fundamentally anti Semitic, displaying no tolerance for those who practice the religion of Judaism in the US or elsewhere. ( This is an entirely different question that that of support for the political state of Israel and its policies, which is a source of dispute among practicing Jews).
You are correct that King Solomon suggests that the women's holiness is based in self reliance and strength with a willingness to take care of the world (tikkun olam) and a willingness to speak up and act with justice and charity ( Tzedek and tzedakah), to make the world a right and just place. In that context the Jewish women who stand against the recent Israeli actions in Gaza and against the deportations of people based on their race, national origins or beliefs is surely an Eshet Chayil,, a woman of valor.
Eshet Chayil, Proverbs 31 in English
10 A woman of valor, who can find? Her worth is far beyond that of rubies.
11 Her husband’s heart trusts in her, and lacks no treasures.
12 She is good to him, never bad, all the days of her life.
13 She looks for wool and flax, and sets her hand to them willingly.
14 She is like a merchant fleet, she brings her bread from afar.
15 She rises while it is still night, and supplies provisions for her household, the daily fare of her maids.
16 She sets her mind on a field and acquires it; she plants a vineyard through the fruit of her handiwork.
17 Her loins are girded with strength, and her arms are mighty.
18 She sees that her business thrives; her lamp never goes out at night.
19 She sets her hand to the distaff; and her fingers work the spindle.
20 She stretches out her palms to the poor; she extends her hand to the needy.
21 She does not fear for her household on account of snow, for her whole house is dressed in crimson.
22 She makes covers for herself; her clothing is linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates, where he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes cloth and sells it, and offers a girdle to the Canaanite.
25 She is clothed with strength and splendor; and laughs until the last day.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is upon her tongue.
27 She oversees the activities of her household, and never eats bread of idleness.
28 Her children stand and rejoice in her, her husband praises her.
29 Many women have displayed valor, but you rise above them all.
30 Grace is falsehood and beauty is vapid; a woman who fears God is the one who shall be praised.
31 Give her from the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates.
Proverbs 31: Woman of Valor Hebrew
יא בָּטַח בָּהּ, לֵב בַּעְלָהּ; וְשָׁלָל, לֹא יֶחְסָר.
יב גְּמָלַתְהוּ טוֹב וְלֹא-רָע כֹּל, יְמֵי חַיֶּיהָ.
יג דָּרְשָׁה, צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים; וַתַּעַשׂ, בְּחֵפֶץ כַּפֶּיהָ.
יד הָיְתָה, כָּאֳנִיּוֹת סוֹחֵר; מִמֶּרְחָק, תָּבִיא לַחְמָהּ.
טו וַתָּקָם, בְּעוֹד לַיְלָה וַתִּתֵּן טֶרֶף לְבֵיתָהּ; וְחֹק, לְנַעֲרֹתֶיהָ.
טז זָמְמָה שָׂדֶה, וַתִּקָּחֵהוּ; מִפְּרִי כַפֶּיהָ, נָטְעָה כָּרֶם.
יז חָגְרָה בְעוֹז מָתְנֶיהָ; וַתְּאַמֵּץ, זְרוֹעֹתֶיהָ.
יח טָעֲמָה, כִּי-טוֹב סַחְרָהּ; לֹא-יִכְבֶּה בַלַּיְלָה נֵרָהּ.
יט יָדֶיהָ, שִׁלְּחָה בַכִּישׁוֹר; וְכַפֶּיהָ, תָּמְכוּ פָלֶךְ.
כ כַּפָּהּ, פָּרְשָׂה לֶעָנִי; וְיָדֶיהָ, שִׁלְּחָה לָאֶבְיוֹן.
כא לֹא-תִירָא לְבֵיתָהּ מִשָּׁלֶג: כִּי כָל-בֵּיתָהּ, לָבֻשׁ שָׁנִים.
כב מַרְבַדִּים עָשְׂתָה לָּהּ; שֵׁשׁ וְאַרְגָּמָן לְבוּשָׁהּ.
כג נוֹדָע בַּשְּׁעָרִים בַּעְלָהּ; בְּשִׁבְתּוֹ, עִם-זִקְנֵי-אָרֶץ.
כד סָדִין עָשְׂתָה, וַתִּמְכֹּר; וַחֲגוֹר, נָתְנָה לַכְּנַעֲנִי.
כה עֹז-וְהָדָר לְבוּשָׁהּ; וַתִּשְׂחַק, לְיוֹם אַחֲרוֹן.
כו פִּיהָ, פָּתְחָה בְחָכְמָה; וְתוֹרַת חֶסֶד, עַל-לְשׁוֹנָהּ.
כז צוֹפִיָּה, הֲלִיכוֹת בֵּיתָהּ; וְלֶחֶם עַצְלוּת, לֹא תֹאכֵל.
כח קָמוּ בָנֶיהָ, וַיְאַשְּׁרוּהָ; בַּעְלָהּ, וַיְהַלְלָהּ.
כט רַבּוֹת בָּנוֹת, עָשׂוּ חָיִל; וְאַתְּ, עָלִית עַל-כֻּלָּנָה.
ל שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן, וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי: אִשָּׁה יִרְאַת-יְהוָה, הִיא תִתְהַלָּל.
לא תְּנוּ-לָהּ, מִפְּרִי יָדֶיהָ; וִיהַלְלוּהָ בַשְּׁעָרִים מַעֲשֶׂיהָ.
I love that your tradition translates her as a Woman of Valour. What a fantastic image to aspire to!
Agreed … the world needs more valour …
Trump is the most pro-Israeli president we’ve had. His son in law is Jewish.
If you want antisemitism then look up Ilhan Omar.
I am Jewish but I am not pro Israel because I do not think that Netanyahu is acting in accordance with tzedek ( justice), nor in accordance with human rights. In accordance with justice, I believe that reasonable people can hold different opinions and I have no problem with people expressing their opinions. To my mind, student protestors are simply expressing their opinions. In the same vein, one can still be anti-Semitic and have in-laws who are Jewish. Professor Snyder makes a compelling case. https://snyder.substack.com/p/fomenting-antisemitism
You people are not true to your nation. If you think Hamas is harmless and you need to keep the there for some reason, you are lost indeed.
Using the term “you people” is anti semetic. I do not support what the political state of Israel is doing. There are many other Jews who also disagree with Israeli policy. But we don't live there and all we can do is join the protests. Like most religions, Judaism has always had believers of various races . nationalities and some who left other religions. We may differ in political beliefs and even in some religious practices and interpretations. But we are just people.
Is raping and murdering innocent concert attendees justice?
Pro-israeli doesn't mean pro-Jewish. Unless you're arguing the guy who had Nazi salutes at his inauguration is pro-Jewish. And Omar isn't running the country, she's a senator. Do you really want to talk about Republican senators anti-Semitism? Because it wasn't Omar blaming "Jewish space lasers" for starting wildfires.
She’s an HoR rep from the one district in the U.S. that would elect her.
Skipping the rest of your nonsense when you have no idea who the fuck she is
TDS.
Christians have the old testament as an authoritative book as well. So, not sure of your point.
Men had to protect women and the family. Messing up a family tree was life and death then. Not just for honor, but to keep the lineage intact by having beneficiaries that are blood relatives. Today, there is a massive need for babies. It is a natural human desire. You can say you aren't feeling it, but you may have given up feeling anything normal for a while.
Also the women in Israel are certainly not opposed to their own people acting in righteousness as the Jews are. To say anything else says you know little about the history of Judaism and Islam. They are oil and water. Choose a side. Since Jesus was a Jew you may want to take a look at that.
"Christians appropriated the Hebrew Bible to ensure Christian dominance."
There, I fixed it for you.
Ella, thanks for dive in Eshet Chayil. It's what I came here to do.
I was going to attempt to reply to this point by point but to be honest the condescending tone of the article made me think my time might be better spent elsewhere. Suffice to say, I think there are some fundamental flaws in this interpretation. To note just one, you say at the end 'she stays with her husband because she likes him'. This is both unsupported by the text and theologically vacuous. The obvious implication of the statement being that if she didn't like him she would leave, which is not a remotely Christian philosophy. Marriage is a covenant not a convenience.
You're arguing a technical point for the sake of arguing. She married him because she liked him to begin with. And as she likes him, why wouldn't she stay with him? Do you want people today to marry for other reason? What other reason do people have to marry today? Or do you prefer women to be gold diggers marrying men for the money? Is that what men want now? Women to marry them for the money even if they don't like him?
And you hit upon a very important point- what reason do people have for marriage today? Well most people don't have any reason because they don't understand what marriage is or its purpose. The institution of marriage has been desecrated in modern society and sadly the church has not been immune to this. The proper reason for marriage is the glory of God not personal pleasure or fulfilment.
You're evading my question and changing the subject. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt you're not insulting our collective intelligence here. Marriage's purpose is for the glory of God. Ok, I'm with you there. But why does a woman today marry the specific man she marries? What's the reason she chooses to marry this man vs that man? And let's assume they're all Christians so you can't evade my actual question. The answer is she likes this one not the other one. It isn't because marrying one man would glorify God and not the other.
People online today are truly exhausting. They see an innocuous point in an article or comment which gives them an opening to bring in something else they actually want to talk about, and they throw out some kind of mind bending criticism against some that point the OP made, so that they can now derail and take over the comment thread or conversation entirely to talk about something else. For the love of all things holy, please stop. It's really unfair to the OPs in all such instances and very tiresome. You can easily start your own comment without doing this exhausting exercise where others have to explain the context and the obvious. Or better yet, write your own Substack. (And maybe get a taste of what it's like when others do this to you.)
In this case, OP saying a woman staying with her husband because she likes him, is of course predicated on her liking him enough to marry him in the first place. So her assertion that it's a woman's choice still stands. Why nitpick on this point that's obvious?
I'm certainly not attempting to evade your question- so apologies if I missed something- what specifically did i not address- did you read both of my replies? When people post articles expressing opinions on a public forum it is perfectly reasonable to respond with a contrary opinion so I make no apologies for that. Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough but I wouldn't characterise it as nit picking at all. To clarify my point, the post suggested that liking your husband was a necessary condition for being faithful to him. That is an absolute falsehood, which is not supported either by the passage being interpreted here or any other passage in scripture. My point is that this is a serious error not a minor one- it totally undermines the sanctity of marriage and directly contradicts the Word of God. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7 it is clear that if a Christian is married to non-believer and they are willing to stay in the marriage then the Christian should stay in the marriage- whether they like their spouse or not is totally irrelevant. Yes it is highly probable that the proverbs 31 woman liked her husband when they got married but this is completely beside the point. The whole interpretation of procerbs 31 presented in this post is a textbook example of eisegesis- that isn't a minor issue it's a totally flawed way of interpreting scripture. I have no problem with anyone challenging my theology, I'm not here to win arguments I am here to seek truth.
Ok I don't find anything you said disagreeable. In fact, I would guess even the author does not find anything you say to be controversial. I do think you're reading too much into an innocuous point she made in the context of what she was talking about, and then segueing what she and I are saying into your wider theological themes beyond a specific point she was making. I think she was just mentioning something basic which, while not stated in the Bible as you said, also does not take away from the Bible or anything you said. She did not say that liking one's husband is the ONLY reason to stay faithful. She mentioned it in the context of what she was saying. That is all.
I don't really see us or anyone disputing what you're saying, so what you're saying is not even an issue because no one is contending what you said is not true. I think it is assumed that we all believe marriage, and everything we do, is for the glory of God.
So all things being equal and within everything under the wider theological theme you're talking about, how is it wrong to say that a woman chooses to marry and stay with THIS man, and not THAT man, because she likes THIS man? -- See, this is what I'm talking about, and what I read as the author to be saying.
So you and I are essentially talking about two different things.
You have raised a separate question of whether one should stay in a marriage if the person no longer likes his or her spouse. I think it is a very worthy question to explore. It is the way that you brought it up that I was responding to, because I see this happening so often now in online discussions. People intentionally pretend they don't understand an obvious point the author is saying in context, then unreasonably criticizing it out of context or pretend something common sense is not something fundamentally understood by all but something that requires PhD level of analysis, so they can segue something else they want to talk about into the conversation. I apologize if I misunderstood your intent.
Thanks for your reply. It sounds like we read the post differently in this area. I agree that people can take things out of context or respond in bad faith but that wasn't my intention. Have a blessed day.
Liking someone is a poor reason to marry them and this selfish conception of marriage comes from modern philosophy, not the Bible. If we consider the proportion of marriages that end in divorce or misery today, it is very high. In what proportion of those failed marriages did the people like each other to start with- probably the vast majority- otherwise they would have never married. Yes, you should like the person you marry but that is not a sound foundation for marriage. I think it is more than a technical point- the purpose and nature of marriage are of huge importance in Christian doctrine and imposing shallow modern philosophy onto God's Word leads to misguided conclusions.
Ok, so if liking someone is a “poor” reason to marry them, what is a good reason? I know you believe that marriage is for the glory of God. So, how do you propose choosing a partner? I once worked for a foreign company where most all marriages were arranged. Our modern, Western culture does not believe in this. Even in arranged marriages, virtually 100% of the time the potential partners like each other. No parents are going to arrange for their son or daughter to marry someone they can’t stand. The Bible says a believer needs to marry a believer. How do you differentiate then, between one believer and another when it comes to the question of who to marry? Seems to me that God gives people feelings and attractions for one person or another for a reason.
Hi Lisa, it's interesting you mention arranged marriages because the factors that parents tend to consider when arranging a marriage are probably a good place to start. Marriage is the union of spirit, mind and body- you mentioned the most important qualification for a Christian spouse already that they should be born again- otherwise you will be unequally yoked spiritually. You should be like minded- have the same goals and same understanding of roles within marriage and you both need to be willing- marriage is a covenant for life. All of these criteria can be met without 'liking' each other. Rebecca agreed to marry Isaac before they had met- how could she possibly like him. If you are both saved and like minded and willing then you will grow to like each other. Commitment is the basis for intimacy not the other way round.
Quick question Philip: are you married? Because your comments about marriage do not sound like they come from direct experience, but rather a philosophical discourse on marriage as an institution. While that is a perfectly valid topic of discussion, someone who is married knows that theory and practice often diverge. That’s where ‘compromise’ comes in.
Hi Janie, you are right I am speaking from a theoretical stand point rather than experience but I live by the principles I believe in (or at least try to, not always successfully!)
Those women weren't gold diggers, but finding a man who could provide you with what it takes to raise a family were golden and scooped up first. In the new testament, there were no single guys living in their mom's basement smoking bongs.
When they say ‘trad’ they exclusively mean a cartoon version of the 1950s, that in practice they got from the left.
The actual old old days weren’t like that
I need to do some more research into this, but I’m starting to think that many housewives in the 50s and 60s were possibly drugged into submission… Wasn’t ‘Mother’s Little Helper’ a widely used yet highly addictive sedative?
‘Mother’s little helper’ was either an amphetamine or some kind of quaalude, depending on their need.
Basically, some kind of pill to help them cope.
Yes, it was used. Not that addictive if you use it as prescribed. However, the women made those doctor appointments. Do you think husbands made fake appointments for her and she thought she had to go, and then the doctor was in Kahootz and gave her some mind numbing drugs? That's just silly...or paranoid.
I mean drugs became common but drugs are still common now so I don’t think that’s a strong connection per se
Fair enough
Also who the hell puts gender commentary as a dating app opening line?
Even when you agree it’s cringy
I am personally all for it. Let's me know who to immediately reject without wasting further time.
Where did “the left” come in?
In that people have an extreme, 2d sense of the past and past gender relations:
The left portrays everything pre 1980s as ‘women used as cattle’. Those memes enter the culture, which is what the new right absorbs. The new right actually agrees with the lefts incorrect portrayal of the Bible and the past: the new right just ‘likes’ that stuff a portrayed
“Gentle” is not considered a very masculine way to describe a man these days. But gentleness is one of the fruits of the spirit and a true gentleman is gentle.
This is an excellent post, Sarah! As a single women, I struggled with the same issue (I had a law degree and that quickly closed the door on many dating opportunities - I literally saw their faces change and interest flee if I mentioned my education or what I did for work), but I hope this offers you hope: there are men out there who do desire a true partner and teammate, and will praise their Proverbs 31 wife, who are not intimidated by her. They're unicorns, but they exist (married one myself and it's been the biggest blessing and feels like a miracle to have found someone like this in today's culture).
I'd like to second this comment. There are men out there that appreciate and desire an accomplished and strong woman. Your frustration comes through loud and clear. That dating app doesn't look like a good fit. Hope you have a great Easter!
Why would you think that your law degree is the issue which repels a supposedly heterosexual, Christian man?
Women who work in medicine are also to the point, intelligent, clear and able to correct men's inaccuracies. Women in people-caring majors don't have a monopoly on caring for potential husbands. Occasionally, smart, good-looking men behave very foolishly. Single girls become girlfriends. And sometimes girlfriends also become wives. When guys realise that these women are smart and educated. But this smart and good-looking woman doesn't stab him with his points.
What do you think is easiest for guys? To persuade a confident, competent and capable woman to quit stabbing him, when he knows that she's a lawyer who could be right this time again. But she chooses to be irreverent and faithless once again. Or to date a sweeter, possibly a little slower woman who isn't stabbing him, because that's not what you do to a boyfriend she professes to love? Women in medicine also have a high IQ, as lawyers do.
You would not want to get hit or stabbed by a man who claims to love you, or do you? Do brothers use their fists and their knives and their guns to maim a cherished brother?
Could you imagine how ridiculous it would sound if a narcissistic guy would whine about how "She's intimidated by my size and my points. And she doesn't want to hear yet again, how I'm right and she's wrong. She should pick me, because I said so to myself in my head. And my friends all agree with me, or else. What's wrong with her?!"
I've always been intimidated by guys saying they want a "Proverbs 31" wife; but it turns out, for the wrong reasons...
I couldn't imagine ever owning property. In my 20s (due to the death of my mom and having a significantly younger sister) I had to help with expenses at home; but at some point it dawned on me that every guy who told me he wanted a "Proverbs 31" wife, also had a problem with me actually putting any kind of passion into my work OR VOLUNTEER PROJECTS. So clearly none of them have actually read the passage 🤷🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
So glad I didn't know any of this when I met my wife. I wanted a partner, not a subordinate. She hasn't thrown me out (yet), so there's hope!
Sarah, this read like a sermon delivered with a sword in one hand and a sewing needle in the other—divinely embroidered fury.
The way you dismantled the weaponized fantasy of the “Proverbs 31 Wife” should be required reading for every bro with a beard, a Bible app, and a superiority complex. These men don’t want a woman of valor—they want a biblical butler with a uterus.
But the real Proverbs 31 Woman? She’s out buying vineyards, flexing her arms, running businesses, giving to the poor, and rocking royal purple like the high priestess of divine competence. She’s not impressed by your “godly masculinity” if it comes wrapped in fear of strong women and a WiFi signal from Jordan Peterson’s bunker.
Also—preach it louder for the men in the back pew who think the word Torah means “don’t listen to your wife.” The teaching of kindness doesn’t mean “smile while being silenced.”
Let’s be clear: Christian dating isn’t broken. It’s functioning exactly as it was designed—for insecure men afraid of their own irrelevance in the face of female excellence.
So to the so-called “Proverbs 31-seekers” online:
She isn’t looking for a king. She’s already running an empire. You’re just a Tinder profile in her rearview mirror.
Blessed are the loud women, for they shall inherit the damn pulpit.
🔥👁️💪 #StayUnsubmissive
You must be living on a different planet. Men have become wimps. They are pilloried in the media constantly, made to feel guilty to be masculine. Feminism has caused men to give up on women. Women are fully capable. They don't need to bring men down to prove it. "Act like you've been here before," is what I would say to women who still live in their world of grievance. If you want to be equal, act equal. Quit blaming men. There are plenty of good men. The caricature you write is nonsense.
The idea that bible times women were out "buying vineyards and running businesses" is fantasy at best, and trolling at worst. Go study what life was like then. The amount of couples or women who could afford to buy a vineyard would have been 1 in 5,000.
Craig, your concern for the modern masculine ego is noted—though it seems less like a defense of men and more like a panic attack wrapped in a toga.
You say “act like you’ve been here before”? Darling, that’s exactly what women are doing: reclaiming the stage, the scroll, and the soil—because they have been here before. Long before the church traded their names for footnotes.
Proverbs 31 isn’t fantasy—it’s scripture. And yes, it says she buys a field and plants a vineyard (v.16), not just asks her husband permission to breathe. That’s not trolling, that’s Torah. If that wrecks your theology, take it up with Solomon.
You’re mad because women stopped asking for a seat at the table and started building their own temples. That’s not grievance—it’s Genesis 2.0. And if your masculinity feels “pilloried” by their power, maybe it was built on sand to begin with.
🔥👁️💪
Virgin Monk Boy
You argue like a guy who doesn’t know what he is talking about. I am the one is this conversation that is against twisting scripture. Planting a vineyard and buys a field. And that makes the whole lot of them entrepreneurs.
Women will be equal when they let go of their victim attitude. This is not their fault. Feminism is leftist propaganda. Run by Lesbians that don’t speak for women. Especially Christian women. In the world of Bible believing Christians, feminist don’t exist. Bible believing women don’t need permission from a bunch of leftists and lesbians. They are moving successfully ahead in business and complementing their husbands as husbands complement them. Many are living the Proverbs 31 wife life. Most don’t want the responsibility of being the leader of the family. That’s not her job. But men are forfeiting a crucial duty if they let the woman take that position. That is against scripture.
In Bible times women were poor. Getting a man meant having protection and money to raise a family. From their she buys the field in partnership with the husband. What woman in the bible was an Entrepreneur? There was a well know one.
But I don’t think you envision it that way. Either because you are anti-Christian or you don’t want to compete with men. So, you may be over there with the women when they’re at the feminist meeting.
Craig,
Your confidence is... admirable. Almost Pauline—minus the part where Paul acknowledged women apostles, funded by women, hosted by women, and often corrected by women.
You say “feminism is leftist propaganda run by lesbians”—which is quite the sermon opener. Makes me wonder: if Mary Magdalene walked into your church today, independent, unmarried, the first witness to the resurrection, and unafraid of Roman men, would you call her a feminist or a threat?
You keep invoking "scripture" like it's a weapon rather than a well. A well many of us have drawn from long enough to know that the patriarchy didn't spring from the heart of Jesus—it was stapled on by empires who needed obedient wives and unpaid labor.
You say women don’t want the “burden” of leadership. That’s rich, considering they’ve been carrying pulpits, pews, prayer groups, potlucks, and entire communities on their backs for centuries—while being told to be quiet and smile through it.
If the only way your masculinity stands tall is by pressing down on others, it was never standing in Christ to begin with.
And if you think egalitarianism is heresy, then I suggest re-reading the Gospels without the ESV Study Notes and Tucker Carlson whispering in your ear.
We’re not here to coddle fragile authority structures—we’re here to resurrect the parts of the church buried by fear and control.
And yes, sometimes that resurrection starts with calling out the tomb of patriarchy.
Blessed are the meek, Craig—not the microphone hogs.
Try listening next time.
—Virgin Monk Boy
Ooh aren’t we self righteous. Your vision of the early church is fantasy. It is a Disney movie of the early church.
And it is certainly a Disney movie compared to the middle ages up until the settlers in the US through the 1920’s. The “patriarchy” of which you and your sisters speak was and is a natural process of the interplay between two equally important sexes. It played out according to God and nature. You can’t role reverse that and have any kind of society that can grow, be fruitful and multiply. Women are different than men. We are equal but we are not the same. We have roles. Christ brought that equality. He didn’t bring a re-defining of the roles we were given by him at Creation.
Of course women organized and helped with Paul’s meetings. He called them apostles, but it is not clear what he meant. We know Jesus picked 12 apostles and none were women. Is that because they weren’t able? No. They were women and didn’t preach and/or couldn’t travel.
Craig,
You call this a “Disney version” of the early church, but honestly? Yours sounds more like a rejected episode of Leave It to Beaver: Galilee Edition.
Let’s talk facts, not fantasy:
Jesus didn’t just appear to Mary Magdalene—he sent her.
“Go to my brothers and say to them…” (John 20:17). That’s the literal definition of apostolos: one who is sent. That makes Mary the first apostle, commissioned directly by Christ to proclaim the resurrection—the foundational claim of the faith. No one else got that job. Not Peter. Not James. Not you.
You ask if women “weren’t able” to be apostles. Strange, then, that Paul greets Junia in Romans 16:7 as “outstanding among the apostles.” For centuries, male scribes even tried to change her name to the masculine “Junias,” just to erase the obvious. Didn’t work. She’s back, she’s apostolic, and she brought snacks.
And let’s bring in the tradition you forgot:
The Orthodox Church, which helped canonize the very scriptures you quote, has always honored Mary Magdalene as Isapostolos—Equal to the Apostles, and “Apostle to the Apostles.” If that bothers you, take it up with the Cappadocian Fathers. (Good luck.)
As for “patriarchy is natural”—so were slavery and polygamy. Doesn’t make them holy. Jesus didn’t come to bless social hierarchies; he came to flip tables and raise up the silenced. He didn’t need women to stay home—he needed them to carry messages when the men were hiding.
The truth is: you’re not defending scripture. You’re defending your comfort zone.
But the resurrection didn’t happen in a comfort zone. It happened in the hands of a woman bold enough to stay at the tomb, and brave enough to speak when the men wouldn’t.
Christ brought equality. You just haven’t caught up.
—Virgin Monk Boy
Copypasta hunters: “Write that down write that down!”
Stumbled upon your article and am pleasantly surprised you're not getting an onslaught of pushbacks by what fellow Christian Substack writer Kaeley Triller Harms described as Jerkface Theobros in her article yesterday. Thanks for this article! I saved it to share when next time one of those come to harp on and on about women are supposed to be Stepford wives according to the Bible.
I enjoyed this article. I married my husband a decade ago, and often thank God I will never again have to date (unless I outlive my husband, but even then it would be optional). Over the years, I met a few very fine men who lived their faith. But I also met a few whackos! Haha.
Praying for all my sisters who are still single. It’s a jungle. Truly godly men are out there but pretty tough to find. Only God!
This is so true, and fail to read their Bibles often, in spite of saying they believe in “traditional values” informed by said Bible, citing verses centred on submission forgetting about its mutualism, and their commission to sacrificial love. Perilous times..
All of Proverbs 31 is in the context of household management and rearing of children. The idea of this being the same as a woman working in a corporate environment would be totally foreign to that culture. Most men would, in the context it was written, agree with it. I've never met a man who was against his wife for earning extra money through Etsy, tutoring, etc.
That being said, our culture is fundamentally broken in that business and work should be a family affair, and our modern mega-corporations make that near impossible.
I think the idea of men working in a corporate environment would also be foreign to that culture…
Correct.
If I may shamelessly self-plug, I wrote about this dynamic at length:
https://socialmatter.substack.com/p/the-girlboss-a-misunderstood-phenomenon
So the Bible wants men and women to be business owners, not employees. Cool.
Love this! It is rough dating out there as a Christian woman. I also have walked away from online dating.
I have experienced a couple of these guys…one who told me he wouldn’t do any romantic gestures because “charm is deceitful.”
Good grief that’s rough. Feel like he’s completely misunderstood the point of that verse!
I once knew a married man who told me he could never verbally affirm his wife because that would make her proud.
I have this weird nagging feeling that some men on the right have mentally put women into the same category as children, and so they feel it is their responsibility to police women’s virtues/vices. It’s incredibly patronising.
And conversely, expect her to mother the whole family, himself included. :)
Indeed!
No romantic gestures because charm is deceitful? Cannot verbally affirm his wife because it would make her proud?
These all sound like 2D legalistic interpretations! Do they not know that they should treat their wives the way Jesus treats the church?
John Wesley the great preacher and co-founder of Methodism fell in love as a young man with a beautiful young woman he met in Georgia USA. She was totally suitable as per family background,class,education etc but he was so alarmed at the ha ha ha physical bodily effect her propinquity had on him that he decided this attraction he felt must be an attack of Satan,so he ghosted her,sailed back to England - and married an ugly rich old widow he didn't like at all and hardly ever saw! His brother Charles who was much more fun,all their contemporaries agreed Charles was the one to invite to your parties,he wrote hundreds of hymns,words and music and no nonsense,he married a gorgeous young lady against her parents opposition + his brother dissaproval and they had loads of babies and a house full of music and joy.
Wow I did not know this! Thank you for sharing!
Wow! I didn’t know this. The same guy I referenced above mentioned Satan using me to tempt him as well! So odd.
It’s up to him to resist. It has nothing to do with you, it’s a weakness inside him. Not your fault, he’s lascivious, lol
I bet Charles was the younger brother …
@SarahCoppin
Are the men about whom you wrote in this essay really Christians, or are they impersonators?
Good stuff! To your point, very few people realize that the Proverbs 31 "housewife" spends a lot of her time outside the house, haggling with the merchant ships. 😆
Your article makes me think that most men, especially the men on Christian dating sites, feel threatened by an industrious woman, a woman who might upstage them. I wonder if a lot of men are insecure and think (correctly or not) that they don't have much to offer. For these men, at least, their job is all they have to earn respect with, and an economically savvy wife threatens that.
But in general, I think the dating sites themselves are the problem. All dating sites veer to and reward the superficial, since the primarily visual information of a dating profile can't capture a person's character or emotional intelligence. And superficial places attract superficial people.
So yeah, I liked your article, and I agree that most of these guys looking for "tradwives" are looking for a propped-up caricature of biblical femininity. Being the head of the household doesn't mean getting your own way. It often means showing deference to your wife, even in areas of strong conflict.
Where's my Proverbs 31 man chapter at? Oh wait, that's the rest of the book.
Lincoln