Does God Control Everyone’s Heart?:
Understanding Proverbs 21:1
One of the suppositions used by Calvinists to say that God is directing every man towards a particular, unalterable end is the argument about God’s all-controlling activity in human government. In his book, An Exposition of the Book of Proverbs, author Charles Bridges advances the argument that God directs all the affairs of men. Jerry Bridges, in his book, Trusting God Even When It Hurts, endorses Charles Bridges’s commentary regarding a key biblical passage both men believe supports the doctrine of God’s absolutely sovereignty:
Perhaps the clearest biblical statement that God does sovereignly influence the discussions of people is found in Proverbs 21:1, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.” Charles Bridges, in his exposition of Proverbs, states, “The general truth [of God’s sovereignty over the hearts of all people] is taught by the strongest illustration—his uncontrollable sway upon the absolute of all wills—the king’s heart.”
In our day of limited monarchies in which kings and queens are largely figureheads, it may be difficult for us to appreciate fully the force of what Charles Bridges is saying when he speaks of the king’s heart as the most absolute of all wills. But in Solomon’s time the king was an absolute monarch. There was no separate legislative body to make laws he wouldn’t like or a Supreme Court to restrain him. The king’s word was law. His authority over his realm was unconditional and unrestrained.
Yet God controls the king’s heart. The stubborn will of the most powerful monarch on earth is directed by God as easily as the farmer directs the flow of water in his irrigation canals. The argument, then, is from the greater to the lesser—if God controls the king’s heart surely He controls everyone else’s. All must move before His sovereign influence.xxxvii
Note in the above passage how God’s sovereignty is described (directly or as metaphorical type) first, as an influence.; second, as directing ; third, as an uncontrollable sway ; fourth, as absolute ; fifth, as unconditional and unrestrained ; sixth, as controls ; seventh, as directed/directs ; eighth, as controls ; and ninth (as at the first), influence. Observe, then, how God’s sovereignty is discussed at the beginning and end of this quote as merely an influence (which leaves the reader with the opening and closing subconscious impression that the king is acting in free will), yet in the interim is described in the much more forceful terms of divine irresistibility, since God supercedes the king’s authority which is said to be absolute, uncontrollable, and unrestrained. Such language, we note, makes synonyms out of non-synonyms. For example, in the sentence: “The teacher had a positive influence over the students,” no one would suppose that the teacher’s influence was anything of the forceful and coercive kind implied in the terms uncontrollable and unrestrained, i.e., such that the word influence should be thought to have these same meanings. In other words, no English dictionary in common use has, for the word influence,a basic definition such as “absolute control,” “unrestrained authority,” or other words or phrases implying irresistibility, which is the ‘forward rock’ of meaning Charles Bridges uses to convey his doublethink. Thus Calvinism’s seesawing language of combining non-synonymous words to form such dialectical phrases like uncontrollable sway or sovereign35 influence (which, in fact, unlike simple oxymoronic phrases, are invoked to genuinely endorse the dialectic), is all part of the nonsensical language that Calvinists so habitually use that they have become unaware of how they use dishonest language when discussing theology. Thus for Charles Bridges, “all must move” (emphasis mine) when the subject is God’s sovereignty. Note also the subtle word “move,” by which is really meant “irresistibly follow.”
As the primary proof of Charles Bridges’s point, Jerry Bridges cites the example of Cyrus. Cyrus began his reign by uniting the two Iranian tribes of the Medes and Persians (in the early 6th century B.C.). King Cyrus then proceeded to become emperor and, in the course of his reign, made authoritative decrees that affected many peoples, including the Jews. Says Bridges:
We see it also in the account of Cyrus, king of Persia, when he issued a proclamation to allow the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple. Ezra 1:1 says,
“In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord, spoken by Jeremiah the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing.” (emphasis added)
The text clearly says that King Cyrus issued the proclamation because God moved his heart. The destiny of God’s people was, humanly speaking, in the hands of the most powerful monarch of the day. In reality, though, their destiny was completely in God’s hand, because He had the ability to sovereignly control the decisions of that monarch.
God, speaking through the prophet Isaiah, gives us another helpful insight into His working in Cyrus’s heart: “For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me…I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me” (Is. 45:4-5, emphasis added). It is not necessary for a person to acknowledge God’s sovereign control in his heart or to even acknowledge the existence of God. Neither the Egyptians nor Cyrus intended to obey any revealed will of God. They simply acted as their hearts directed them, but their hearts were directed by God.xxxviii
I must confess that I was not very familiar with the details of the story of King Cyrus when I first read the above passage by Jerry Bridges. Certainly the argument sounded pretty convincing for the Calvinistic side of the argument. Nevertheless, I decided I ought to read more of the story of Cyrus in Ezra 1 and Isaiah 45. To my amazement I discovered a very different history for Cyrus than the impression left by Bridges’s summation. After reading Bridges’s comments one would think that God’s will was being carried out despite any conscious or intentional cooperation from King Cyrus. In fact, Bridges never suggests that Cyrus ever acknowledged God at all. He even claims that the king did not intend to obey any revealed will of God. [Again, we see that Bridges mentions that (Calvinistic) ‘other’ kind of will (i.e., revealed will) besides God’s supposed all-encompassing/no exceptions sovereign will to account for man’s disinclination from God, e.g., in Cyrus’s alleged non-acknowledgement of God.] Thus, Bridges leaves the impression that Cyrus is nothing more than a heathen king directed unknowingly by God to do something which the king did not intend. According to Bridges, then, Cyrus does not acknowledge God, does not have relationship with Him, does not want to obey Him, and essentially wants nothing to do with God. You would certainly never guess from reading the above passage by Bridges that Cyrus ever knew God and, in fact, had a personal relationship with Him. Nor would you ever suppose that Cyrus’s relationship with God would naturally lead him to favor the return of the Jewish exiles once God raised the subject with him. Let us read the following two passages in context about Cyrus: (Is. 45:1ff)
1Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; 2I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: 3And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. 4For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me: 5I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
And from Ezra 1:1-3:
1Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 2Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3Who is there among you of all his people? His God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem.
We see, then, in the above Scriptural passages a more complete and very different history of Cyrus than what Bridges conveys in his book. Of course, we see that Bridges is right when he says that Cyrus had not known nor acknowledged God—but what of it? It is clear from Psalm 14:2-3 that this kind of statement is initially true of any man: “The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” We should hardly be surprised that a Gentile king who grew up in a heathen nation without the benefit of the Mosaic Law should especially begin by not diligently seeking God. The Bible tells us, though, that God granted Cyrus military successes so that the king would understand that it was He (God)—the God of the Hebrews—who gave him these victories.
Thus Cyrus was already predisposed toward obeying the God of the Hebrews when he commanded the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem, since Cyrus understood that God had proved Himself in prophecy.36 So when Ezra tells us in 1:1 that the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus, the word “moved” in Hebrew does not convey any sense of unilateral action on God’s part, as though Cyrus were a kind of puppet unaware of God’s plan when he issued the proclamation for the return of the Jewish exiles. Rather, the word moved means to stir up (cp. KJV), as one roused from sleepiness.37 God was stirring up Cyrus toward a specific end regarding the Jewish people, and Cyrus was already predisposed toward listening to the Hebrew God. Isaiah, in fact (speaking in the prophetic present), states that Cyrus “knew” God. It would be natural, then, for Cyrus to ‘get aboard’ with God’s plan involving the Jewish people. Hence, we see Cyrus making a bold proclamation about “The Lord, the God of heaven, (who) has given me all the kingdoms of the earth” before proceeding to personally encourage the Jews to return to Judah and Jerusalem. There is no indication, here, as Bridges claims, that Cyrus intended to go his own way irrespective of God as the Egyptians had done, i.e., in Bridges’s statement that Neither the Egyptians nor Cyrus intended to obey any revealed will of God. They simply acted as their hearts directed them, but their hearts were directed by God. That Cyrus needed to be roused to make a proclamation involving the Jews hardly proves Bridges’s point, unless we are to suppose that the rest of us as believers never need to be roused from our own spiritual sleepiness to do God’s will!
One also wonders what Bridges would do with the word move as given in the KJV in Job 1, when God says to Satan:
Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and hateth evil? And still he holds his integrity, though you move me to destroy him without cause.
Here God says that He was moved by Satan to destroy Job without cause.38 But according to Bridges, supposedly only God moves hearts. So, what is all this about God saying He was moved (and by no less a person than Satan)? This would certainly seem to lead to a quandary about exactly who is moving whom. Interestingly enough, the Hebrew meaning of the word moved in Job 1 means to prick, and the word properly translated by the NAS is incited (i.e., “though you incited me to destroy him without cause”). The verb moved (KJV) in Job 1 is arguably a more intensive verb than the word ‘moved’ (NIV) found in Ezra 1:1, the argument being that one would prefer to be roused awake than to be pricked.
Given, then, the consideration of Ezra and Isaiah in their contexts, how can Cyrus be thought prototypical of the king who rules with no intention of obeying God? Or again, why would Bridges assume that Cyrus made a proclamation involving the Jewish people with no intentional regard for their welfare? The Scriptures simply do not support Bridges’s conclusions regarding the matter.
The main reason offered by Bridges for coming to his conclusions regarding Cyrus is his interpretation of Proverbs 21:1—”The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.”Bridges agrees with author Charles Bridges that the king is meant to be understood as the representative head of his subjects; thus, if God directs the king’s heart, surely He directs everyone else’s heart. Unfortunately, this interpretation is another example of a verse being taken out of its proper biblical context to try to prove the notion of divine irresistibility. For Bridges’s argument fails when one considers both the near and far contexts of the Solomonic proverbs. First the near context:
Proverbs 21:1-4: 1The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes. 2Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the hearts. 3To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord more than sacrifice. 4Haughty eyes and a proud heart, The lamp of the wicked is sin.
Consider Bridges’s theology in light of some of the statements in these four verses. God is said to direct the king’s heart, and Bridges claims that this means that all men have hearts that are likewise directed just like water is channeled this way or that way according to whatever pleases the Lord. But if this is true, why does verse 2 tell us that every man thinks he is right in his own eyes? Moreover, a dilemma arises when verse 3 tells us that the Lord desires justice more than sacrifice. This implies that some men think sacrifice is sufficient even when they are not merciful. But how could such men with such hearts exist, since God (according to Bridges) is the One moving everyone’s heart? For if God desires justice more than sacrifice and is also moving everyone’s heart, why wouldn’t every man’s heart consequently desire justice more than sacrifice? Or again, why would some men have “a proud heart,” have haughty eyes, and love wickedness if God is the One responsible for where their hearts have been channeled? At this point I can imagine what the Calvinist would say. Proverbs 21:1-2 must be the perfect expression of the ’seeming’ contradiction in the Westminster Confessions, i.e., that God moves every person’s heart, yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, with the result that every man does that which is right in his own eyes.
Though such a reply might be clever, its assumption is not supported by the wider context of Proverbs 21, which we will look at in a moment. But notice first that both Jerry Bridges and Charles Bridges treat the king’s heart in the abstract, as though it awaits God to move it into whatever directional channel God desires. Bridges’s view is not that the heart can desire wicked things, which is what Christ stated about a man’s heart in Matthew 15:19ff. I find it interesting that although Calvinists attempt to uphold the two principles of God’s absolute sovereignty and man’s free will (the latter through betimes subtle, ambiguous phrases, like ‘man is permitted,’ instead of ‘God permits man’ (i.e., the former of these phrases presented in the same spirit as stating ‘whatsoever comes to pass‘ ), Calvinists seem more concerned that man’s freedom be an expression of God’s sovereignty rather than God’s sovereignty be an expression of man’s free will. In theory one should not have ascendancy over the other if both are as inviolate as Calvinists need them to be when discussing the origin of sin. This is a very crucial problem for the Calvinist and, in fact, causes him an unsolvable dilemma when trying to account for the problem of evil. But to return to our main discussion, the king mentioned in Proverbs 21:1 is not a king to be viewed in the abstract but rather a king who is already listening to God, as the verses in Proverbs about “king” and “kings” teach.
Before we list every one of the Solomonic verses referring to a king, consider that Solomon’s experience of kingship was in many ways a positive one. His father was David, the great and godly king of Israel, and by the time Solomon was just an infant David was past that season of his life when he had transgressed against Uriah the Hittite by committing adultery with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, and arranging Uriah’s murder. He was thus a more chastened and obedient king when Solomon was raised. Solomon also saw the attempted usurpation of his father’s throne by his stepbrother, Absalom, and understood how a man could rise to become an evil ruler. As for himself, Solomon would remain uninterrupted in his reign as long as he lived. Even at the political level he generally had successful relationships with rulers of other nations (though he sometimes did the wrong thing). He married Pharaoh’s daughter and was at peace with the Egyptian pharaoh. He had peaceful, business relations with Hiram, king of Tyre, with whom he bargained for cedar and cypress wood and for gold to build the Temple in Jerusalem. He even had a good rapport with the Queen of Sheba, who admired Solomon’s wisdom and the proceedings of his court. Many or all of these experiences are reflected in how Solomon understands the idea of kingship in Proverbs. The following is an exhaustive list39 of all the Solomonic verses in Proverbs describing the character and role of a king:
In the multitude of people is the king’s honour: but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince (14:28).
The king’s favour is toward a wise servant: but his wrath is against him that causeth shame (14:35).
A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment (16:10).
It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness (16:12).
Righteous lips are the delight of kings; and they love him that speaketh right (16:13).
The wrath of a king is as messengers of death: but a wise man will pacify it (16:14).
In the light of the king’s countenance is life; and his favour is as a cloud of the latter rain (16:15).
The king’s wrath is as the roaring of a lion; but his favour is as dew upon the grass (19:12).
The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul (20:2).
A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes (20:8).
A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them (20:26).
Mercy and truth preserve the king: and his throne is upholden by mercy (20:28).
The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will(21:1).
He that loveth pureness of heart, for the grace of his lips the king shall be his friend (22:11).
My son, fear thou the Lord and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change(24:21).
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter (25:2).
The heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of kings is unsearchable (25:3).
Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness (25:5).
Put not forth thyself in the presence of the king, and stand not in the place of great men (25:6).
The king by judgment establisheth the land: but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it (29:4).
The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever (29:14).
Again, note how Solomon generally views the king in positive terms as a ruler in God’s stead. Only one verse in more than 20 describes a negative king, and even this one begs the question why God (if Bridges is right) would turn a king’s heart towards something that was abominable to Himself. Otherwise, Solomon speaks confidently and optimistically about the king, describing him as though certain ideal traits are to be expected of him. Thus, the king favors the wise servant but is angered against shameful persons (14:35), the king executes godly sentence and does not trespass in judgment (16:10), the king scatters the wicked with his eyes (20:26), and the king’s friend will be one who loves pureness of heart (22:11). In all these instances the king is assumed to be a righteous king. The king will also allow himself to be tempered by a wise man on certain occasions when he is angry and thinks to exercise the law without mercy (16:14)40
Needless to say, though Solomon’s perspective in Proverbs assumes the king is righteous, many kings and rulers in history have been quite evil. Numerous examples come to mind from the Bible and throughout human history. A partial list would include the Egyptian pharaohs in Exodus, Og (Bashan), Ahab (Israel), Manasseh (Judah), all the other kings from Israel and various kings of Judah, the Caananite kings who fought against Joshua, Herod the Great, Nero, Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin. These kings and rulers were obviously unrighteous and consistently demonstrated none of the godly characteristics Solomon assumes for a king. So when we come to Proverbs 21:1 and read that the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord and that He directs it wherever He wants, it must be understood that this verse cannot be universally applied to all the crazed despots in human history. Rather, God influences kings who understand righteousness and have a predisposition for godly rule. King Cyrus, in fact, is the perfect example of Proverbs 21:1, though not in the way Bridges describes him. It is not true for Bridges to imply that Cyrus was going on his own way irrespective of God, and that God laid his arm upon him to unwittingly accomplish His will in returning the Jewish exiles to their homeland. Rather, Cyrus was already in relationship with God when he was spiritually roused to do God’s work. The heart of Cyrus was in the hand of the Lord, and the Lord turned it in whatever direction He wanted for a simple reason—because Cyrus was already predisposed toward doing what God wanted.
Proverbs 21:1 is a good example of why it is important that great care be used in interpreting the Bible so that wrong conclusions are not reached. Look what happens to the strength of Bridges’s argument, for example, when we apply his universalizing hermeneutic to other Solomonic proverbs regarding the king in Proverbs. In Proverbs 16:10 we are told that the king’s mouth does not transgress in judgment, and in 22:11 that the king will accept as his friend all who love pureness of heart and have grace upon their lips. Thus, if we follow Bridges’s universalizing hermeneutic about “the king” in Proverbs whose heart a good God moves, we must also say that every king who has ever lived has never transgressed in judgment, nor failed to befriend the pure in heart!41 That such a benign description does not fit every king who has ever had occasion to reign is beyond debate. These examples show the obvious error in universalizing the king of Proverbs 21:1 to mean anything more than a king who has a relationship with God and is therefore predisposed to following Him. The selection by Bridges of Proverbs 21:1, to prove that God sovereignly directs and controls every activity and decision of man, is what happens when a Christian author who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God lifts a verse out of its near and far contexts to make it say whatever he needs it to say in order to maintain his particular brand of theology.
35Obviously, by the term sovereign, the Calvinist always means all-sovereign (insofar as it can be said that he actually means anything while on the forward rock of the dialectical rocking horse).
36The Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that Cyrus became convinced that the Hebrew God was the one true God when he became aware of Isaiah’s prophecy about him. The prophecy was written generations before Cyrus was born. Says Josephus:
“This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him in a secret vision: “My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple.” This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the Divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfill what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem…” (Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, chapter I)
37See Strong’s Concordance, word #5782.
38God, in allowing Job’s trial to result in proving His and His servant’s motives, also proved His foreknowledge of the future by showing that He could predict accurately Job’s response. Satan, on the other hand, was proven false. One wonders what impact, if any, this event has had on the fallen angels, i.e., whether a foreboding exists among them regarding their future and eternal abode (which is a divinely prepared hell) as prophesied in Scripture, since God has proven to them that He knows the future accurately.
39Not included here are those of King Lemuel as taught to him by his mother (see Proverbs 31); for some believe that Lemuel is a diminutive form for the name Solomon. Interestingly enough, if that is the case, then Bathsheba was the one who taught Solomon about the ‘Proverbs 31 woman.’ At any rate, nothing in Proverbs 31 relevant to kingship, such as the statement that kings ought not to drink strong wine and forget the rights of the afflicted, affects whatsoever the above argument in the main text, unless it be said to strengthen it.
40This does not necessarily mean, however, that the king would be doing evil were he to hold people to a stricter accounting of the law on certain occasions. Even the Lord was pacified by Moses when the Lord thought to destroy the children of Israel for their disobedience.
41An additional example supporting our contention is Proverbs 16:13, “Righteous lips are the delight of kings; and they love him that speaketh right.” Are we to really to suppose, then, that Tyndale at the fire stake and Bonhoeffer on the gallows are examples of those in whom kings delighted for speaking right?
xxxvii Bridges, pp. 58-59.
xxxviiiBridges, pp. 59-60.