Are Women Responsible for all the Domestic Work at Home?

Proverbs 31:10-31

Mother’s Day is upon us again. Since Jesus’ church is divided in its understanding of the role of women and mothers in the home, in the church itself, and in the community, it seems appropriate to engage with a practical question being asked by married couples during these uncertain times: Who is responsible for all the domestic work in the home? The whole family? The wife? Do the husband and children contribute to domestic affairs of the household?  What does Scripture have to say that could guide us to a resolution?

While visiting the winter home of Henry Ford in Fort Myers, FL, recently, I was reminded of how easy it is for sincere Bible readers to misinterpret a passage of Scripture that shines light on this question: the account of the valiant[1] woman in Proverbs 31:10-31.[2]

Tradition has long held the troubling inference that the entire domestic operation of the household in the hands of the woman. The husband, then, is free from all domestic responsibilities.

Is the Husband Free from All Domestic Responsibilities?

At first glance, it appears from a cursory reading of Proverbs 31:10-31, that the husband might be free from all household duties. There is no mention of the husband being involved in domestic responsibilities (this is an argument from silence). He can sit and watch football on the telly, putz around in the garage, play video games, shoot nine holes of golf, or hang out with his buddies, while the woman is saddled with all the domestic chores. He sits and plays. She works. That’s the way it’s supposed to be, right? A mother’s work is never done.

Isn’t that what the author of Proverbs meant when he wrote:

One who watches over the affairs[3] of her household; the food of idleness she does not eat.[4] Proverbs 31:27

Technically, of course, the Hebrew text does not state that she works, but that she watches, that is, she oversees the household and is not idle.

But, back to our question, are women alone responsible for all the domestic work at home? You’ve probably heard a strong “yes” from more than a few men. Are they right? Have they interpreted Proverbs 31:10-31 as it was meant to be understood?

The Argument from Silence is Problematic

Well, before we answer the question, the exact same approach to Proverbs 31:10-31 (an argument from silence) could also be used to claim that the woman is the sole breadwinner for the household. After all, she is the only character in the passage who actually has a paying job (31:16, 24). Nothing is recorded in the Proverbs 31 passage that suggests her husband earns a paycheck. So, when we use the “argument from silence” approach in both cases, we get into trouble. Few Bible-reading folk would agree that women alone are the breadwinners in the family. It is the men who most often are viewed as the breadwinners. Yet, the exact same approach to Proverbs 31 (the argument from silence) was used to assert that women are responsible for all of the domestic chores. We can’t have it both ways.

Examples of Using the Argument from Silence

But we are not finished showing how such an approach, when applied consistently and honestly to other topics, is obviously misguided. The same approach (the argument from silence) could be used to argue that the children are also not involved in domestic responsibilities. Nothing is said in Proverbs 31:10-31 about children working in the home or doing chores. They, too, according to this “argument from silence” approach, can sit and chill while mum does all the laundry, cleaning, cooking, repair work, car washing, bill paying, roof repair, oil changing, dog management, house painting, tree trimming, and lawn mowing.

Few would agree to the wisdom or rightness of that policy. Most children do chores in the house. Yet the exact same interpretive approach to Proverbs 31 was used. We must interpret Proverbs 31:10-31 consistently. By what approach were we meant to understand the Proverbs?

One more example might be cited to show how Proverbs 31:10-31 is misinterpreted. The same approach could be used to assert that only women engage in philanthropy, opening their arms to the poor. After all, the valiant woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is the only one who actually engages in philanthropy (31:20). No evidence exists in the text that suggests that the husband was involved in serving the less fortunate and poor. So, men don’t engage in such activity, so the logic goes.

But no right-minded person would vote for that assertion or agree with its conclusion. Yet, we came to that conclusion by using the exact same approach as we did regarding the question of domestic responsibilities.

If we conclude that women have the sole responsibility to carry out domestic responsibilities, then, to be honest and consistent, we must also conclude that children are not required to do chores, husbands are free from the responsibility to bring home a paycheck and to perform philanthropic duties. The argument from silence obviously puts us in an untenable position. Is there a better way, a consistent way of approaching Proverbs 31? There is a better way.

The Epigrammatic Nature of Proverbial Literature

That better way is to grasp the epigrammatic[5] nature of Proverbs and proverbial literature in general. Bible readers must understand the nature of the poetic sections of the Bible like Proverbs.

Like all poetic literature in Scripture, Proverbs is epigrammatic in nature. Proverbs are intended to be short, pithy, and sweet. Dorothy Parker’s clever quote, "Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone,” is epigrammatic; it’s concise, pithy, and memorable, but it is not the whole truth about beauty or ugly.

Once we understand the epigrammatic nature of proverbial sayings, the lopsided view of a women’s role or husband’s role or children’s role in Proverbs 31:10ff shrinks down to its God-ordained size. Such an epigrammatic approach to interpreting Proverbs achieves balance and avoids the extremist interpretations of much today’s Bible study focusing on women and wives.

Bible students unfamiliar with the nature of poetic literature, alas, are notorious for falling into this interpretive quicksand only to find themselves sinking into the sand of contradiction. They get stuck in glaring contradictions and, often, due to stubborn pride, refuse to back down--even in the face of their own contradictions.

Refusal to Admit Error Despite Clear Evidence

Not long ago, a wife shared with me how it was her husband’s conviction and practice that, after finishing supper, he and his son got up from the table and walked away to their next activity. No offer of assistance. No help clearing the table or kitchen. No carrying out of the garbage. No “thank you.” The basis for his conviction was Proverbs 31. In his opinion, the entire domestic operation was in his wife’s hands. He did not lift a finger to help. So, I explained to her how inconsistent it was for him to insist on being the sole breadwinner while insisting that she was the sole domestic engineer. It was a breath of fresh air for her. But he refused to change, despite the clear evidence and the unmistakable contradiction of his own position.

That is the nature of religious pride: ignore the credible evidence that contradicts your sacred position, deny, dismiss or shrug off the self-evident contradictions, and stick to your guns. The Pharisees in Jesus’ day had perfected that approach. They refused to follow the evidence Jesus provided that clearly refuted their position; they remained stuck. And, alas, the wives and mothers are usually the ones who suffer under such prideful, misguided approaches to Proverbs 31:10-31.

So, let’s familiarize ourselves with the method of understanding Proverbs epigrammatically. What, exactly, does that mean? Each Proverb and each poem present truth in a concise, concentrated way, a lopsided way. But no one proverb or pithy saying represents the whole truth about an issue or topic. The proverb appears lopsided due to its concise, concentrated style. To obtain the big picture and the entire truth about the domestic responsibilities in the home, all of the proverbs, like all the pieces of a puzzle, must be collated together into one coherent, large puzzle, one large picture—the big picture.

Specific Examples of How to Approach Topics in Proverbs

Some examples. The valiant wife in Proverbs 31:10-31 is the only person in the poem that is said explicitly to extend her arms and hands to the poor (31:20). Does that mean that the children and the husband do not extend their hands? Nothing is said about them on this topic. The valiant wife is depicted as assisting the poor in a concentrated way. But if we back up to Proverbs 31:8-9, we read about others being instructed to help the poor as well. So, no, the wife alone is not responsible to help the poor. Other Proverbs contribute to the discussion and help us see the big picture.

Another example. Although the poem presents the woman alone as working in household labor, other proverbs warn sons against the lifestyle of laziness. Such proverbs depict sons as gathering the harvest (6:6-9; 10:5), working in the vineyard (24:30-34), and shepherding the flocks (27:23-27). Proverbs also shows the man working his land (12:11; 28:19), disciplining his son (29:17), being generous (22:9), training children (22:6), going to war (21:22), leaving an inheritance for his children (13:22). These responsibilities include household duties. By consulting other proverbs on the same topic, we gain a fuller picture. The sons and fathers are also involved in household labor.

The Topic of Daughters

But what about the daughters? Are they exempt? They were not mentioned in the gathering of the harvest, working in the vineyard, or shepherding the flock. Here again we must understand the nature of proverbial literature: truth is presented is a concentrated way. One person (in this case, the son) is presented as the student or the exemplar. The book of Proverbs lopsidedly addresses the sons in the family, without once mentioning the daughters. But to a Jewish family familiar with the epigrammatic nature of proverbial literature, Proverbs equally addresses daughters.

When we read particular proverbs addressed to sons, we can substitute daughters into the proverb. How did the valiant woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 attain her level of competency and strength? Where did she obtain the wisdom that flows from her mouth (1:8; 31:26)? In order for the mother to instruct her children with wisdom, she herself first (as someone’s daughter) had to be taught. In fact, the author of the book of Proverbs consciously uses a woman as bookends (1:8; 31:26), the prime example for the source of wisdom. This shows that that the oft repeated “son” in the book of Proverbs is inclusivistic, not gender specific.

Who is Responsible for the Domestic Operation?

So, let’s return to our original question: is the entire domestic operation of the household in the hands of the wife? The book of Proverbs answers with a strong “no.” Proverbs 31:10-31 presents the valiant woman in a pithy, concentrated way. But such a portrait is not the entire truth about who shares the responsibilities in the home. The entire book of Proverbs must be consulted. The household responsibilities are shared by every member of the family. I hope this is true of all of us who love God and believe His Word.

Thank you for reading.

www.redeemerbible.org

 [1] The term “valiant” is the preferred rendering of the Hebrew term Hayil. The term denotes competent strength (Prov 12:4), connotes wealth (2 Kings 15:20), and includes membership in an elite group which includes the warrior class in Israel (Gen 47:6; 2 Kings 24:14). The Septuagint (LXX, Greek version of the Hebrew Bible), renders hayil as “manly, courageous.” English translations traditionally render the term hayil as “virtuous.” This term “virtuous” is rooted in the Latin word, virtus, a variation of the word vir=man. The original rendering of the 1611 KJV as “virtuous” is an attempt to capture the idea of a “heroic woman.” She is included in the status of the warrior heroes of Israel’s culture, a woman of valor, a woman of strength, a heroic woman. But the idea of virtuous in 1611, “manly courage,” no longer applies in 2021.

[2] The purposes of this concluding poem are multiple. In terms of its ancient Near Eastern context, it acts a polemic against the literature of the day which praises women exclusively for their physical and erotic charms. Instead of celebrating her charms and statistics, the poem celebrates her valiant activities in the ordinary matters of family, community, and business life. In terms of a canonical approach to its placement at the conclusion of Proverbs and prior to the book of Ruth (in the Hebrew Bible), it presents the woman as a better Eve and introduces Ruth who is identified in the book as a valiant woman.  

[3] The Hebrew term Halikot is from the verb “to walk.” It is translated as “caravans” in Job 6:19 and “procession” in Psalm 68:24. Here in Proverbs, it is used as a metaphor and probably has the idea of “the orderly business of the household.” The valiant woman is depicted as overseeing and supervising all that goes on in her household.  

[4] The Hebrew clause can be translated: “Idleness does not eat food.” When the latter phrase in the verse is combined with the initial phrase, the idea of the verse is: As a result of her overseeing all the business of the household, laziness is not rewarded with bread. In other words, this woman oversees her household and does not tolerate laziness in members of that household. Under her supervision, the lazy members of the household do not eat. The apostle Paul was probably reading this and other verses from Proverbs when he wrote 2 Thess. 3:10. “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

[5] The term epigrammatic comes from the Greek term, epigramma, "inscription in verse."