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 Romans 11:36?
“For from him [God] and through him and to him are all things.” Calvinists sometimes cite this doxology as evidence that Paul believed that every single event in world history was from, through and for God. In light of the fact that the verses leading up to this doxology address God’s genuine frustration with Israel’s…

How do you respond to 1 Timothy 4:1–3?
“…in the later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods…” New Testament authors considered themselves to be living “in the later times” (e.g. Acts 2:17;…

What is omni-resourcefulness?
Question: What do you mean when you refer to God’s omni-resourcefulness? Can you support this with Scripture? Answer: I and others use the term omni-resourcefulness to highlight a feature of God in Scripture that the classical theological tradition consistently overlooks. Part of the greatness of the God of the Bible, we argue, is that he…

What are the main principles of the warfare worldview?
In my book God At War (IVP, 1997) I flesh out what I call the “warfare worldview” of the Bible. This is the view that the world is a battle ground between God and good angels, on the one hand, and Satan and fallen angels, on the other. In my book Satan and the Problem…

What is the significance of Psalm 106:23?
“Therefore he said he would destroy them— had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them.” Moses (on several occasions, we have seen) persuaded God to change his mind regarding his plan to judge Israel. This inspired verse explicitly says that God “would destroy…

How do you respond to Bart Ehrman’s book, “Misquoting Jesus”?
Question: I just read Bart Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus and it’s sort of rocked my world. How can we believe the Bible is God’s inerrant Word when we don’t even know what the original Bible said? Answer: I actually went to graduate school with Bart Ehrman (at Princeton). We used to smoke pipes together up…