We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

How do you respond to Proverbs 21:1?
“The king’s heart is a stream of water in the
hand of the Lord;
he turns it wherever he wills.”
Calvinists sometimes argue that this passage teaches that everything every government official ever does is the result of the Lord turning their heart. In light of the hideous things many government officials have done (e.g. Hitler’s program of ethnic cleansing), and in light of the fact that Scripture frequently depicts God as being outraged by government officials, we should seriously question this conclusion. Fortunately, this conclusion is not required by this passage. Two things may be said.
First, we must consider the genre of this passage. This passage is a proverb. Hebraic proverbs often state general principles in unequivocal terms for emphasis. It was their way of putting an exclamation mark at the end of a teaching. We misinterpret them if understand them as universal laws.
For example, Proverbs 12:21 states:
No harm happens to the righteous,
but the wicked are filled with trouble.
(cf. 13:21, 25)
If read as an absolute universal law this passage is nonsense. History and our own experience demonstrate that righteous people frequently suffer great harm while wicked people often live in peace. Jesus, the supremely righteous one, suffered harm! Scripture repeatedly notes the suffering of the righteous. As a general principle, however, righteous living helps one avoid harm while wicked living tends to lead to trouble. The author states the principle in absolute terms to emphasize its importance.
Another typical example of how Hebraic proverbs state things in absolute terms for emphasis is Proverbs 22:6:
Train children in the right way,
and when old, they will not stray.
Many godly parents who have had children “stray” from the path they taught them have been needlessly indicted by a misreading of this passage. As we all know, when children grow up they become free moral agents who determine their own destinies. There are no absolute guarantees when raising children. Still, as a general rule it is true that consistently training children in the right way will increase the likelihood that they will not stray when they grow up. Again, the author states the principle in unequivocal terms for emphasis.
It is thus not advisable to interpret Proverbs 21:1 as an absolute law. The author is not suggesting that every decision made by every king throughout history was orchestrated by God. He is simply emphasizing God’s general sovereignty over kings. We see this sovereignty dramatically depicted elsewhere in Scripture.
For example, as an act of judgment (viz. not an eternally predestined plan) God stirred up the wicked hearts of pagan kings against Israel (e.g. 1 Chron. 5:26; Isa. 10:5–6). Conversely, when he wanted his people to return to their homeland, he influenced Cyrus’ heart to let them go (Isa. 44:28; 2 Chron. 36:22–23). He is sovereign over earthly kings, but we read too much into this passage if we conclude that he meticulously controls everything they do.
Even when God “turns” the hearts of kings in the direction he desires, he doesn’t determine the nature of the heart he turns, and this is my second point. People resolve their own hearts and make their plans either in accordance with God’s will or against God’s will. This is their domain of irrevocable freedom. But even when they set themselves against God, God still “directs their steps.” God steers the way they live out their choices so that they further God’s good purposes for the world as much as possible. God is always at work to bring good out of evil (Rom 8:28). But God does not himself work the evil he brings good out of.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Q&A, Responding to Calvinism
Topics: Providence, Predestination and Free Will, Responding to Objections
Verse: Proverbs 21
Related Reading

How do you respond to Joshua 11:19–20?
“There was not a town that made peace with the Israelites, except the Hivites…all were taken to battle. For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed…” (cf. Exod. 7:3; 10:1; 14:4; Deut. 2:30) Some compatibilists argue…

What is the “classical view of God” and what about it do you find objectionable?
The “classical view of God” refers to the view of God that has dominated Christian theology since the earliest Church fathers. According to this theology, God is completely “immutable.” This means that God’s being and experience never change in any respect. God is therefore pure actuality (actus purus), having no potentiality whatsoever, for potentiality is…

Is speaking in tongues the initial evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Pentecostals have traditionally taught that speaking in tongues is evidence that a person is filled with the Holy Spirit. Those who defend this position do so primarily on the basis of a pattern they discern in Acts. They note that when the disciples were first baptized in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, “all…

What is the significance of Jeremiah 26:19?
“Did [Hezekiah] not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against [Israel]?” As in 2 Kings 20:1–6 and Isaiah 38:1–5, if the future is exhaustive settled, it seems God could not have been forthright when he told…

What did Jesus mean when he said he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Mt 10:34)?
Given Jesus’ uniform teaching about loving enemies and abstaining from violence, and given that his followers were known for their refusal to engage in violence for the first three hundred years of church history, it’s obvious that Jesus wasn’t saying he came so that his disciples would use swords. The context of Jesus’ comment makes…

What is the significance of 1 Samuel 13:13–14?
Because of Saul’s rebellion, Samuel tells him, “The Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever but now your kingdom will not continue.” The biblical narrative depicting God’s dealings with Saul up to this point is predicated on the assumption that God intended to establish Saul’s descendants as the permanent heir to the throne…