The theme of the wife abounds throughout Proverbs. The message seems to be that a wife can be a blessing or a curse. Both of these sentiments are held within 12:4 – “A wife of noble character is her husband’s crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones.” The blessedness theme is picked up again in 18:22 – “He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD.” – and 19:14 – “Houses and wealth are inherited from parents, but a prudent wife is from the LORD.” The other side of the coin is found in the verses below:
A foolish son is his father’s ruin,
and a quarrelsome wife is like a constant dripping. (19:13)
Better to live on a corner of the roof
than share a house with a quarrelsome wife. (21:9)
Better to live in a desert
than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife. (21:19)
Better to live on a corner of the roof
than share a house with a quarrelsome wife. (25:24)
A quarrelsome wife is like
a constant dripping on a rainy day;
restraining her is like restraining the wind
or grasping oil with the hand. (27:15-16)
I chuckled as I read the verses just given and thought to myself that the writers of Proverbs had a lot of marital issues. My laughter subsided, however, when I shared a couple of these verses with my wife (not in any way to say that she reflects them!) and she said that she believes that verses like these paint a harmful and lopsided picture of the marriage relationship. When I asked that she explain she told me that within Proverbs it often seems like the woman is the only partner in the marriage relationship who is expected to better herself and change. The man, on the other hand, is given no such admonition. Looking at the negative verses above, I can see her point. While they are not calling for a change in the wife, they are upholding a certain kind of wife as the “crown of the husband” through negative description, and Proverbs 31 serves to reinforce this idea with a positive description that seems nigh impossible to achieve. In all of this, there is nothing to be said about the husband. He is not like a dripping if he is quarrelsome. He is never described as ill-tempered. And he certainly is not given a description to which he is to attain as in Proverbs 31. It seems that he is the “right” member of the marriage, while the wife is the one open to criticism and who should live up to incredibly high standards.
Having said all of this, it should be noted that Proverbs was written in a time when gender roles were viewed very differently than they are in the US today. The woman was not an equal part of the relationship and was viewed much like property. Add to this the male centered message of Proverbs – it is a book written to a son – and the marriage verses in Proverbs start to make more sense. Moreover, the entire book might be read as an argument for male improvement. The son is to heed wisdom and leave simple ways. While not directly addressing the role of husband, the male is indeed addressed in the appeal that he embrace wisdom.
But the fact still remains that the wife is many times painted in Proverbs in very negative terms which often border on sarcasm. And she is held to a succinct standard that basically calls for her to do everything in the house including producing income while the husband is only mentioned in reference to the reputation that he enjoys because of her. While an argument can be made that the husband/male is addressed in the book at large, it pales when the strong language concerning the wife is examined. She is directly condemned if she does not meet the standard, and she lives in the shadow of Psalm 31. Is it any wonder that a woman might view these verses as oppressive? As a male I find them as such!
So what are we to do with a book that paints marriage in a lopsided manner? Teaching people to read it better and translating the social situation is a start. And preaching must be viewed as central, for in preaching these issues can be directly addressed. Shame on us if we cannot paint Proverbs in a life giving manner that challenges both genders in the marriage relationship and does not single out wives for comment.
Proverbs 5, 6, and 7 contain sections that the ESV labels as Warning(s) Against Adultery or the Adulteress. While these passages may indeed point to the avoidance of adultery, I am wondering if the ESV may have labeled them poorly. My question in this regard comes from the similarities between these passages and Proverbs 9:13-18, which speaks of the “woman Folly.” Just as wisdom has been personified as a woman, so now is folly, and they are described in very similar ways. Wisdom sends her young women to call from the highest places in the town “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” Likewise, Folly herself sits at the door of her house; she takes a seat on the highest places of the town, calling to those who pass by, “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” Both wisdom and folly invite the simple to their houses, but this is where their similarities end. Whereas Wisdom is described as industrious and having built her house and prepared it for guests, Folly is simply described as seductive (or full of simpleness) and knowing nothing. Moreover, while Wisdom offers her own bread and wine and calls people from their simplicity, Folly encourages the stealing of bread and the eating of it in secret. Her guests are also described as dead and in the depths of sheol. It seems that Wisdom calls people into insight, a better way of life, while Folly calls people to continue in their simpleness, the path to death.
Now back to the warnings against adultery. In Proverbs 5:5-6 the adultress is described thus: “her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path of Sheol.” Simlarly, in 7:27 her house is described as “the way to Sheol, going down to the chambers of death.” Is it just me, or does this sound familiar? Death and Sheol were also tied to Folly. Then listen to 6:23-24: “For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life, to preserve you from the evil woman, from the smooth tongue of the adultress.” These verses seem to point to the idea that the entirety of the Father’s and Mother’s teaching is meant to preserve the young man from the adultress, an idea that seems to put too much stock on one particular sin unless the adultress is identified with Folly. If this move is made, then the Father and Mother’s teaching is meant to keep the son from unwise action in all areas of life.
So just who is the adultress in Proverbs? Is she meant to be a picture of adultresses in general, or could she actually point to the personification of folly? If the latter, then perhaps the wife of the young man’s youth would be the wisdom imparted to him by his father and mother, and the message is that he must be faithful to that wisdom rather than dabbling in the folly of the world. This reading may be reinforced by the similar pictures of Wisdom and Folly described above. Both invite the simple into their homes but to greatly different ends. The teaching of the Father and Mother serves as a safeguard to the son that he may choose wisdom over folly.
So I was reading through Psalm 89, and the most remarkable thing happened. The Psalmist spends no less than 37 verses detailing the awe inspiring might of Yahweh and the covenant that he made with the house of David. These verses are beautifully written, and I expected them to end on the same note.
But then came the turn.
In verse 38, the Psalmist changes his tone. He moves from an inflection of adoration to one of reproach. Listen to how abruptly the change takes place:
“[David's] offspring shall endure forever,
his throne as long as the sun before me.
Like the moon it shall be established forever,
a faithful witness in the skies.” Selah
But now you have cast off and rejected;
you are full of wrath against your anointed.
You have renounced your covenant with your servant;
you have defiled his crown in the dust.” (ESV) (Italics mine)
At about this point I was looking for lightning. The Psalmist goes so far as to call God a covenant breaker, which to my understanding was an incredibly serious offense in the ancient world. But the Psalmist doesn’t bat an eyelash in making this claim. Instead, he devotes two thirds of the poem to God’s greatness and graciousness to David only to turn those verses on their heads in light of present circumstances. He then moves to ask God to pick up his former gracious activity that has been so lacking.
This is certainly not how I was taught to pray. Instead of brazen confrontation with God, I more often see a kind of fatalism that ascribes everything to God’s will. I am told that everything works together for the good and so I should trust God in the midst of hard circumstances. The Psalmist does not doubt God’s sovereignty. In this sense he fits in with the attitude above. The difference comes in his willingness to challenge God’s sovereign action. In this he departs greatly. And it was kind of exciting to see.
As I reflect on this, I can think of one time when I challenged God like the Psalmist. It proved to be one of the most meaningful prayer experiences I have ever had. God met me in my anger. He met me in my disappointment. He met me in my brutal honesty. He met me.
I wouldn’t go so far to say that the Psalmist’s tone should be a regular tone in our prayers, but I would say that it does have its time and place. And perhaps if we are willing to meet God in such a way – if we are willing to wrestle with Him – we will leave knowing that he met with us. That he touched us, and we cannot be the same. Like Israel, we may leave with a limp, but we may also leave with that for which we were hoping.
The Psalmist in Psalm 18:
“I pursued my enemies and overtook them
and did not turn back till they were consumed.
I thrust them through, so that they were not able to rise;
they fell under my feet…
You made my enemies turn their backs to me,
and those who hated me I destroyed…
I beat them fine as dust before the wind;
I cast them out like the mire of the streets.” (ESV)
The Psalmist in Psalm 137:
“O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall he be who repays you
with what you have done to us!
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against a rock.” (ESV)
Jesus in Matthew 5:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone
slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone
would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And
if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” (ESV)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your
enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes
his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous
and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will
you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only
your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans
do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (ESV)
Is anyone else picking up a conflict of thought here?
It doesn’t take long in reading Ezra and Nehemiah to pick up some pretty strong themes of election. Perhaps this is nowhere as pronounced as in Ezra 4 where the Israelite leaders reject aid from the surrounding peoples. The Israelites alone will share in the task of rebuilding the temple to the exclusion of all others. 1 and 2 Chronicles offers similar themes as they uphold and celebrate the election of the house of David to the kingship. And all of this talk of election makes some of us a tad uncomfortable. What it, after all, we were members of the surrounding peoples who were excluded from the temple project. It’s never fun to be left out.
But what is the real root of this discomfort? Is it a problem with God’s grace – that undeserving people should be chosen when they have obvious character defects? If this is the case, then we would wish to exchange election for works righteousness. We would want people to somehow earn God’s favor rather than seeing it bestowed so undeservingly. While I am not a huge fan of elect characters such as Abraham and David, I don’t think that their lack of character is my particular problem. No, I actually think that there is something beautiful about God’s grace triumphing over even the most agregious human iniquity.
My problem comes with the exclusivity that comes with election. If, after all, some people are elect, wouldn’t it seem to be implied that some people aren’t? This was exactly the line of thought invoked in Ezra 4 – We are the chosen people, and you have no part of us! And while this might be frustrating from a temporal point of view, it takes on new and grave significance when the concept of election is applied to salvation. We are no longer talking about who gets to be king. We are talking about people’s eternal destinies.
In writing this I do not wish to explain away the many election passges in the Bible, though I will admit an aversion to a Calvinistic reading to such passages. Instead, I merely wish to explore my own problems with the concept. My problem is not that people who aren’t good enough get in. It is that some people don’t get in at all. To me this seems especially problematic if we believe in a God with an inexhaustible store of grace. Why would an infinitely gracious God not elect all people? But this is not an orthodox concept. With universalism off the table, it seems to me that we are left to struggle with the concept of election. Let us celebrate a God who elects regardless and even despite human merit. But let us struggle with an election that leaves some on the outside looking in. Especially if that looking in involves a conscious process of torment for all eternity.