1. The Challenge to Men and Women in the Q Saying about Birds and Lilies

Some interpreters have recognized that the passage about the birds and lilies (or ravens and lilies in Luke) refers in sequence to the male activity of sowing and harvesting and to the female activity of spinning, forming a male/female pair.Footnote ¹ Male/female pairing is a repeated feature of sayings in the early Jesus tradition. This literary feature has been studied at length by Denis Fricker against the background of Palestinian realities, Semitic parallelism, and Greek rhetoric.Footnote ² He lists seven instances of such pairing: Mark 2.21–22 par.; Q 13.18–21; Q 12.24, 27–28; Q 17.34–35; Luke 15.3–10; Q 11.31–32; Luke 4.25–27.Footnote ³ This list includes the passage on the ravens and lilies, to which Fricker devotes a chapter. Fricker believes that the ‘mixed pair’ is an ‘original and remarkable’ feature of the discourse of the historical Jesus.Footnote ⁴

Men should do outside work and women the work of the home according to the instructions of Xenophon and Philo.Footnote ⁵ It is doubtful that this division could be strictly observed in families engaged in subsistence agriculture. If extra hands were needed at harvest time, it is likely that women and children joined the workforce. Nevertheless, harvesting would be regarded as men's work with which women were assisting.Footnote ⁶

The effect of this male/female pairing is debatable. Including material related to both men and women suggests a desire to address both, which would give women more importance than in traditional male-dominated society. However, this pairing may seem to perpetuate a division of work that tends to confine women to the home by accepting this division without question.Footnote ⁷ The passage about the birds and lilies, however, questions the importance of ordinary work for both men and women. Their priority must be seeking God's kingdom (Matt 6.33; Luke 12.31). The powerful words about the birds and the lilies can encourage men to neglect farming and women to neglect spinning, a break with prudent and honorable behavior, according to normal social standards.

Recent discussion of this text has sometimes recognized this social impact and sometimes not. Some scholars, in an effort to establish the earliest version, remove the command to seek the kingdom (Matt 6.33 par. Luke 12.31) as a later addition.Footnote ⁸ The effect of this critical procedure is to remove the sharp contrast between normal human anxiety about basic needs and the new demands of the kingdom. This version would simply support passive acceptance of normal life, with the encouragement to endure it with less anxiety. If such a version ever existed, it would have a distinctly different function than the text in Matthew, Luke, and, evidently, in Q. This deletion is rightly rejected by Ulrich Luz.Footnote ⁹ It presupposes that the early text reflected normal wisdom rather than using wisdom forms to preach an inversion of normal wisdom.

A counsel to be less anxious in doing one's daily work would not require, or explain, the strongly argumentative text that we find in the Gospels, which adopts forceful and imaginative language to make its case. The unit is argumentative because it must resist the strong tendency of normal, insecure humans to focus on securing food and clothing, regarded as the essentials of life.

The hearer is confronted with direct commands, both negative and positive. The initial negative command not to be anxious is supported by a pattern of duality, established by referring first to food and then to clothing, followed by a rationale that questions the tendency to make these dominant concerns (Matt 6.25; Luke 12.22–23).Footnote ¹⁰ This duality is developed in the following references to the feeding of birds and the clothing of lilies.Footnote ¹¹ These references function as rhetorical ‘proofs’ in the argument.Footnote ¹² The argument proceeds by contrast. Hearers are asked to consider what the ‘birds of the sky’ or the ‘ravens’ do not do. They do not sow nor reap nor store away grain as men do in order to provide food. Yet God feeds them. Birds are common creatures, and most farmers pay little attention to them, unless they are destructive pests. But here farmers are asked to observe birds more carefully. There is something about their way of life that makes them remarkable—and also makes a man's hard labor remarkable. Birds do not engage in any elaborate process of food production, yet they survive. It is easy to object, of course, that some birds die of starvation. One can still reply that birds get by about as well as humans do, despite their much simpler way of obtaining food. To the observation about the birds is attached an argument from the lesser to the greater: God's care manifest in the survival of the birds applies much more to those people being addressed. This counters the reasonable objection that humans cannot live like birds.

The section on the lilies follows the same pattern as the section on the birds, with elaboration. Repetition is a means of emphasis (here the same pattern of language makes the same point, while varying the imagery). The desire to be emphatic is manifest in the repetition, in the elaboration through comparison with Solomon, and in the use of strong diction. The lilies, like the birds, are contrasted with laboring humans, especially women, who must work to provide clothing for themselves and their families.Footnote ¹³ Spinning is selected to represent this process.Footnote ¹⁴ Then the contrast is developed with regard to the quality of the clothing. The lilies, which, after all, are only part of the short-lived meadow grass, are dressed more grandly than ‘Solomon in all his glory’. Emphatic phrases underscore the contrast: ‘Not even Solomon’, ‘in all his glory’, ‘grass of the field that exists today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven’. Then the point is scored by proclaiming ‘how much more’ God cares for the people being addressed. This claim allows a return to the initial command not to be anxious or seek after food, now supported by the intervening argument. Matthew 6.31 par. Luke 12.29 is the Q. E. D. of the argument, even though this negative command leads on to the contrasting positive command in Matt 6.33 and Luke 12.31. Thus the sections about the birds and the lilies follow a repetitive pattern that emphasizes and builds to a climax through elaboration, adding force to the utterance. These forceful and imaginative words are shaped to present a powerful challenge to conventional thinking and thereby offer men and women the freedom to seek God's kingdom, in spite of human insecurity.

The birds and the lilies may serve as exempla of a broader and deeper reality—a world of abundance and beauty that exists prior to human striving and testifies to a benevolent power that supports life. The birds and lilies are not unique, for other examples could be substituted or added to the list. Here, however, the birds and lilies take on unusual importance for humans because they are chosen to represent this deeper reality. The artful form and forceful language of this rhetorical argument give them this importance.Footnote ¹⁵

In these words the speaker does not specify what seeking the kingdom requires. Only the tension with ordinary domestic life stands out. This is not regulatory language, which is concerned with clear regulations for behavior.Footnote ¹⁶ Serious responses could vary, ranging from complete abandonment of food and clothing production to reducing time and effort spent on these tasks. Restricting ourselves to evidence from Q material, there are at least three situations (not mutually exclusive) that might be addressed by these challenging words:Footnote ¹⁷

1. 1. hearing the call to leave home and continue the wandering mission of Jesus, as reflected in Q 9.57–60; 10.2–12.

2. 2. experiencing a threat to one's livelihood due to rejection and ostracism, which might make it hard to market crops in exchange for other necessities. Many Q texts reflect this threat: 6.22–23, 28; 10.10–15; 12.4–9, 11–12, 51, 53; 14.26–27; 17.33.

3. 3. hearing the call to radical charity, which would quickly deplete family resources and threaten the family's ability to obtain products necessary for farming and domestic crafts. See Q 6.30; 6.34Footnote ¹⁸ 11.4. This call is supported by warnings against attachment to wealth in Q 12.33–34; 16.13.Footnote ¹⁹

This evidence indicates that the sharp challenge in the birds and lilies passage was relevant to real situations in the lives of the early followers of Jesus. While the references to farming and spinning may, by synecdoche, imply other sorts of labor, most of the villagers of Galilee would, in fact, be involved in farming and (for women) cloth production.

Food and clothing are basic human needs. It is not surprising that humans through the centuries have spent much of their time and effort seeking them. Yet the birds and lilies text challenges people to direct their concern and effort away from these needsFootnote ²⁰ and, relying on God's care, to adopt a risky lifestyle for the sake of God's kingdom. In so doing, these sharp words conflict with and challenge the conventional wisdom of the time. According to Xenophon, Socrates praised those who did their work well.

Interrupting or neglecting the time-sensitive work of farming would make one a poor farmer in the eyes of peers. Furthermore, it would open the farmer to criticism that he is a neglectful and improvident supporter of his family and even lazy. The book of Proverbs has a number of comments about such people.

The farmer judged to have ‘a slack hand’ because he ‘follows worthless pursuits’ would be subject to such criticism. The famous passage about the ant provides further criticism of farmers who neglect their work. The ant is a corrective model for the lazy because the ant ‘prepares its food in summer, and gathers its sustenance in harvest’ (Prov 6.6–11).Footnote ²² The ant is also a model in the fables of Babrius and Phaedrus, showing that the counsel to prudent foresight and disciplined labor is not just the counsel of the Jewish upperclassFootnote ²³ but is the common wisdom of the ancient Mediterranean world. Among the fables we find three versions of the story contrasting the prudent and industrious ant with its opposite.Footnote ²⁴

Poverty due to a lack of focused effort is not only an economic problem. It affects one's honor. Poverty brings disgrace, according to the wisdom tradition.

Then, as now, being able to care for oneself and one's family was a point of honor. This affects the honor of women also. Wives and mothers who are able to provide clothing for their families are successfully performing their proper role in society, and this earns them respect. Indeed, spinning and weaving were at that time so important in views of the proper wife and mother that they became iconic activities of the honorable woman. Their importance is shown by this remarkable observation: While women in poor families spin and weave out of necessity, women in elite families with domestic servants who could do the work are also expected to spin and weave,Footnote ²⁶ for this is part of the ideal of an honorable woman.Footnote ²⁷ An exhortation that demotes spinning and places priority on God's kingdom is a potential challenge to this ideal. Thus, in opening the possibility of neglecting domestic work for a greater commitment, both economic security and honor status are at stake.

2. Spinning and Weaving as Women's Work in Ancient Society

Literary and archaeological evidence shows that girls and women, regardless of class, were expected to know how to spin and weave, and employing these skills was a sign of an honorable woman.Footnote ²⁸ Suzanne Dixon describes cloth-making as the ‘quintessentially female task’, based in part upon recovered loom weights from every excavated garden in Pompeii and Herculaneum.Footnote ²⁹

An annual event in Athens—the Panathenaia—celebrated the origin of the city, order from disorder, and civic unity. Part of the ceremony was the weaving of a new πέπλος (decorative tunic) by selected girls and women for Athena. This garment was dedicated to her in the Acropolis temple.Footnote ³⁰ The connection between weaving and civic unity was borrowed from a long-standing tradition of a girl's preparation for marriage, marked by spinning and weaving cloth into a πέπλος in honor of her pending union. The act of weaving a garment was symbolic of the union of a man and woman, whereby opposing fibers—the warp running vertically, and the woof running horizontally—combine to create a unified and beautiful garment from once-distinct strands.Footnote ³¹ The process of weaving marked the transition of the girl into womanhood; as she displays her skill as a weaver, she reveals her mastery of the quintessential task of a wife and mother.Footnote ³²

As the epitome of female perfection, Mary also is depicted at the loom in the second-century ce apocryphal gospel, the Protevangelium of James. Mary is chosen as one of seven undefiled virgins who will spin a veil for the temple of the Lord. Mary, by lot, is selected to spin the true purple and scarlet cloth (the most precious colors). As she is spinning, she is visited by the angel of the Lord who informs her that she will bear the son of God (10.1–12.1).Footnote ³³

In addition to the symbolic and pragmatic function of spinning and weaving in marking the transition from childhood to adulthood, from girl to woman, and from virgin to wife, the work of spinning was synonymous with virtue for women in the Greco-Roman world. Within the ranks of the wealthy, literary evidence for spinning as a sign of women's virtue is well attested. Livy records a debate in the ‘Rape of Lucretia’ between Collatinus and some other princes, away from home, as to whose wife was superior in chastity. When the discussion became heated, Collatinus proposes that they ride home and check on their wives' behavior unbeknownst to the women. The wives of the royal princes were discovered among friends at a luxurious dinner party, while Lucretia, the wife of Collatinus, was ‘hard at work by lamplight upon her spinning. Which wife had won the contest in womanly virtue was no longer in doubt’ (1.59).Footnote ³⁴ One of the women lauded in Plutarch's Bravery of Women is Aretaphila, whose bold actions rescued the city of Cyrene from the destructive rule of Nicocrates. In response to her bravery, the citizens entreated her to share in the governance of the city, but her reaction matched the portrait of the ideal woman in the Greco-Roman world: ‘when she saw the city free, [she] withdrew at once to her own quarters among the women, and, rejecting any sort of meddling in affairs, spent the rest of her life quietly at the loom in the company of her friends and family’ (257E).Footnote ³⁵

Musonius Rufus also confirms the image of the woman who spins and weaves. In his controversial essay, That Women Too Should Study Philosophy, he argues that philosophical study would only serve to enhance the virtuous hard-working nature of women. When an interlocutor argues that study might make women arrogant, ‘in that abandoning their own households . . . they practice speeches, talk like sophists, and analyze syllogisms, when they ought to be sitting home spinning’, Musonius Rufus responds that ‘the teachings of philosophy exhort the woman to be content with her lot and to work with her own hands’.Footnote ³⁶ In other words, study should lead women back to their spinning, since it will confirm that this is their proper place in the cosmos.

Hierocles also confirms the conventional through unconventional means. He suggests that it is a useful exercise for married couples to dabble in the duties of the other, as a means to further solidify their partnership. But this task swap is not recommended for all; for certain men, there is a risk:

These literary references allude to women of status and means, as these women would be the ones who had the luxury of time to dabble in their husbands' occupations, and to study philosophy. The primary value connected with spinning in these texts is that this action confirms the woman's place within the home and within society. It is notable that even Aretephilia, who assumed a typically masculine, public role for a time, returned to her loom when the crisis had passed.

A secondary and related virtue of the spinning wife—and one that would be especially valued among elite males—is that of busyness, in contrast to the stereotypical complaint that idle women are gossipers or, worse, distracted into some untoward activity. Although there is abundant evidence that women of elevated social status had a good deal of interaction with society outside the household domain, the ideal woman was persistently portrayed by a variety of ancient male writers as one who did not circulate in the public sphere; and even more ideally, her name would never be mentioned in public.Footnote ³⁸ R. Meir shares this view. He describes the ‘wicked man’ as one ‘who sees his wife go outside with her head uncovered . . . and she spins in public and bathes with men’ (t. Sot. 5.9; y. Sot. 1.7, 17a; b. Gitt. 90a).Footnote ³⁹ Plutarch warns the bride against speaking in public because one can suffer ‘exposure’ by revealing feeling and character.Footnote ⁴⁰

Cicero was a vocal advocate for the ‘proper’ matron in Greco-Roman society. In defense of Marcus Caelius, he excoriates Caelius' estranged lover Clodia, whose public actions (attending dinner parties, walking amid crowds, inviting men into her home) and dress (bright colors or togas) mark her as a courtesan, according to Cicero.Footnote ⁴¹ In contrast, a woman such as Claudia, whose focus was domestic, is lauded in a now-famous epitaph:

With notable emphasis upon her familial role and productivity at the loom, the inscription of a wife of an imperial slave from Lower Moesia survives:

Wool-working was thus lauded as an antidote to common temptations for the wealthy Roman matron. Those women busy at their looms would escape idleness, which should only be enjoyed by morally superior males.Footnote ⁴⁴ Even within the unconventional Cynic society, Hipparchia (wife of the philosopher Crates) was subject to severe criticism when she adopted her husband's lifestyle. She responds to her critic Theodorus: ‘[D]o you suppose that I have been ill advised . . . if instead of wasting further time upon the loom I spent it in education?’Footnote ⁴⁵

Propaganda promoting Roman elite women's adherence to a private life at the loom came from Caesar Augustus himself, who boasted that his clothing came exclusively from the looms of women in his family, whose education, he proudly touted, included the ‘habit of working wool’ (Div. Augustus 64.3; 73.1).Footnote ⁴⁶ In fact, women's virtue became so intertwined with spinning that the Latin word lanifica (‘wool-worker’) came to be applied to honorable women who did not make a living producing cloth.Footnote ⁴⁷ In a show of traditional propriety, in 43 bce the wife of the triumvir Lepidus displayed a loom in the household atrium.Footnote ⁴⁸ A well-preserved stele from Ostia, dated mid-first century ce, displays a family scene, with Blussus, Menimani, and their son. The father, a sailor, holds a bag of money, and Menimani holds a distaff and a ball of wool.Footnote ⁴⁹ The adjectives that appear most often on funerary inscriptions for women in this era confirm the impact that the idealized portrait of the domestically inclined wife had on society—lanifica, pia, pudica, casta, domiseda (wool-worker, faithful, modest, chaste, stay-at-home).Footnote ⁵⁰ But it is the highly symbolic display of spinning implements that some brides carried in the marriage ceremony that best captures the symbolic significance of spinning and weaving in the Roman imperial era.Footnote ⁵¹ The honor associated with spinning for women whose advanced social class did not require manual labor is related to chastity and virtue. High-status women who spin are lauded for their adherence to traditional moral values.

References to and symbols of the significance of spinning for non-elite women do exist, but, as one would expect, are less frequent than for elite women. These non-elite women are similarly lauded for their habits of spinning and weaving, but their situation was different. The archaeological evidence supports the view that women in the non-elite classes did not have the luxury to avoid the realm of business and trade in the Greco-Roman world. In contrast to wealthy women who may assume a public persona as a patron, non-elite women are depicted in steles working as shoemakers, barmaids, in butcher shops, and selling vegetables.Footnote ⁵² Occasionally ancient authors took note of destitute women who supported themselves with spinning or weaving. As an occupation, cloth-working was viewed as a humble existence, yet Terence (Andria 74–9) commends the woman who supports herself with weaving in contrast to the unattached woman who prostitutes herself for a living.Footnote ⁵³ Juvenal similarly viewed cloth-making as a humble, yet respectable, livelihood for a woman.Footnote ⁵⁴ Tobit 2.11–12 refers to a Jewish woman earning wages by weaving.

Even though rabbinic writings speak of the ideal wife as one who avoids the marketplace, a few of the rabbis' judgments assume active public engagement by women. One example from the Niddah determines that the origin of blood spots on a woman's garment might have been from a butcher's market (t. Nidd. 6.17); and in another example, a rabbi and his wife share a covering that she made. He wore it when he left the house to pray, and she when she went out to the market (b. Ned. 49b).Footnote ⁵⁵ These examples describe women from humble situations—the first must visit the butcher's market herself, and the second must share her cloak with her husband.

Eric Meyers's archaeological work in Palestine confirms that the general size of homes during the Roman period—‘from 20–200 square meters, though most were on the smaller side’—did not allow a sequestered lifestyle for most women in the region.Footnote ⁵⁶ In light of Meyers' work, the rabbis' warnings against a woman who ‘spins in public’ (t. Sot. 5.9; y. Sot. 1.7; b. Gitt. 90a), ‘eats in public, drinks in public, nurses in public’ (b. Gitt. 89a) are likely challenges to common behavior among non-elite women.Footnote ⁵⁷ As Tal Ilan summarizes the evidence from the archaeological research on dwellings in Palestine, ‘it is evident that in Palestinian houses women's quarters would have been a luxury which only rich families could afford . . . [T]he moral requirement that men and women be separated was formulated by and for the well-established classes, who could in fact obey such a requirement’.Footnote ⁵⁸

Whether she could work in private or not, wool-working was one of the duties of a wife, according to the Mishnah (Ket. 5.5). She may be excused from certain duties if she brings slave girls with her to the marriage. If she brings as many as three slave girls with her, she is excused from working in wool. But R. Eliezer objects: Even if the wife ‘brought him a hundred slave girls, he [the husband] forces her to work in wool, for idleness leads to unchastity’.Footnote ⁵⁹Ket. 5.9 specifies a particular amount of warp or woof that the wife must spin.

Non-elite wives spin out of necessity; their work is honorable because it supplies something needed by their families. The fact that these women assume the ideal domestic role is secondary to their care for their families. The portrait of the ideal woman in Prov 31.10–31 emphasizes her efforts on behalf of her family,Footnote ⁶⁰ including tireless work at the loom to clothe them. She ‘rises while it is still night and provides food for her household’ (v. 15), ‘Her lamp does not go out at night’ (v. 18), and she ‘does not eat the bread of idleness’ (v. 27). Her prolific spinning talent is especially highlighted. ‘She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands’ (v. 13), ‘She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle’ (v. 19), ‘She is not afraid for her household when it snows, for all her household are clothed in crimson. She makes herself coverings; her clothing is fine linen and purple’ (vv. 21–22).

However, the work of the ideal wife of Proverbs 31 is not restricted to the household. The prominent public role that she occupies, along with her management role over her ‘servant girls’ (v. 15), seemingly align her with elite matrons. She ‘seeks wool and flax’ (v. 13), ‘brings her food from far away’ (v. 14), ‘considers a field and buys it’ (v. 16), and ‘makes linen garments and sells them; she supplies the merchant with sashes’ (v. 24).Footnote ⁶¹ Although her contacts extend well beyond the household, this woman is not publicly lauded like the wealthy matrons who served as benefactors in the Roman empire. Rather, the woman's business savvy is exercised on behalf of her family and the poor (v. 20), and her economic success serves to advance her husband's position: he ‘will have no lack of gain’ (v. 11) and ‘is known in the city gates’, where he sits among the elders (v. 23).Footnote ⁶²

The tireless efforts of the woman of Proverbs 31 have advanced the family's economic position. The male voice that praises the woman focuses upon her industry, her devotion to her family, and her economic success. Her skill and productivity in producing fabric and clothing are emphasized as proof of these qualities. Through her commercial acumen, her range of influence is extended, with the approval of her husband, the larger community, and the author(s) of the praise poem. The ideal woman of Proverbs fits the Greco-Roman philosophical ideal in that while spinning she avoids idleness and her focus is the domestic realm, but her honor also arises from her ability to provide clothing for market (v. 24), which adds to the family's well-being.Footnote ⁶³ The woman of Proverbs 31 spins pragmatically, not just to conform to social expectations.Footnote ⁶⁴ Yet this poem is early evidence that productive spinning was a source of honor for Jewish women, including wives of elders and wives with servant girls (v. 15).