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.

Related Reading

How do you respond to Galatians 3:8?

“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.’” God has never wanted “any to perish”: he’s always desired “all to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4). God’s goal has always been to reach…

Topics:

What is the significance of Exodus 13:17?

The Lord didn’t lead Israel along the shortest route to Canaan because Israel would have had to fight the Philistines. The Lord wanted to avoid this, “Lest the people change their minds when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” [NIV: “If they face war they might change their minds and return to Egypt”].…

Topics:

Is Open Theism Incompatible With a Chalcedonian Christology?

Question: The Chalcedonian Creed says Jesus was “fully God and fully human” and that these “two natures” remained distinct in the Incarnation, even though Jesus was one united person. I’m told that part of the reasoning behind the concern to keep Jesus’ humanity distinct from his divinity was to protect the “impassibility” of the divine…

Why do you claim that everybody, whether they know it or not, believes that the future is partly open?

Whatever a person may theoretically believe, they act like the future is partly open. For, as a matter of fact, there’s no other way to act. Think about it. Every time we deliberate between options on the way toward making a decision, we assume (and we have to assume) that a) the future consists of…

Process Theology & Open Theism: What’s the Difference?

Question: When ReKnew talks about Open Theism is it a mistake for people to equate it with Process theology, and if so what are the defining differences? I guess I am starting to lean toward Dr. Boyd’s thoughts for all things theologically egg-heady, so I thought I would ask the question. Your ministry has been freeing…

We Won’t Treat Your Questions This Way

Tags: ,