Why ‘Proverbs Aren’t Promises’ is Still Misleading

A few weeks ago, I republished, with some editing, a 2016 post about why the conventional Bible study advice that “proverbs aren’t promises” is misleading. Then Pastor Paul Carter interacted with my piece on The Gospel Coalition Canada site, concluding that “proverbs aren’t promises” is true after all.

I would encourage you to check out Carter’s article, as he defends the conventional wisdom and illuminates a few places where my argument is not as clear as it ought to be. Below, I will seek to rectify that. But first let me point out what I appreciate about Carter’s piece, along with how important our definitions are.

Substantial Agreement

First, while Carter makes use of scholarship to assist his arguments, he primarily looks to the Scripture itself for guidance. For this I am grateful. He takes pains to highlight the wisdom literature’s own view of the world, especially life in a fallen world.

Second, while holding to the maxim that proverbs aren’t promises, Carter makes sure to also state that “Proverbs are true and can be trusted entirely.” And that “They are truths you can build your life upon.” I affirm these conclusions wholeheartedly. I believe that these truths are in tension with the claim that “proverbs aren’t promises” on account of definitions, but more on that below. I’m just grateful up front that Carter recognizes the need to be explicit about the trustworthiness of the Proverbs.

Third, Carter’s argument is almost entirely based on the nature of life in a fallen world. And I would agree with him on his analysis of the wisdom literature’s description of our fallen existence: “Sometimes the righteous get what the wicked deserve and the wicked get what the righteous deserve. I’m not sure how anyone living on planet earth could deny that.” Agreed. In no way am I denying that reality.

Finally, Carter affirms the long-term view taken by the Proverbs: “Proverbs are true and can be trusted, but because the world is fallen, a person may have to wait until the Final Judgment and the resurrection for the full enjoyment of that truth and the full possession of the rewards associated therewith.” I fully agree with the fact that the truth of proverbs is often not fulfilled in the present age. Now strikingly, Carter believes that “promise” is the wrong label for this “full enjoyment of that truth and the full possession of the rewards associated therewith” that comes in the Final Judgment.

It is on that point of labels and definitions that my disagreement chiefly lies. So let me turn to that.

What is a Bible Promise, Really?

If by “promise,” we mean a deistic, impersonal mechanism, by which certain inputs infallibly result in guaranteed outputs, then I would agree that proverbs aren’t promises. And all over Carter’s article, it is clear that this is what he means by “promise.”

• “Is the Bible promising that all who work hard will be rich? Is the Bible promising that all who are wise will receive honour? Or is it stating general principles?”
• “Sometimes things happen that our view of the world would not lead us to expect, which is why, many would argue, it is best not to refer to proverbs as promises.”
• “it is best not to think of Proverbs as ‘promises’ lest that phraseology lead one to expect immediate and inevitable fulfillment in this life.”

So for Carter, a “promise” is:

1. A universal and perhaps impersonal mechanism for rewarding certain inputs (such that, for example, all who work hard will get rich and all who are wise will receive honor).
2. Something that always delivers the very thing our view of the world would lead us to expect.
3. Something that creates an expectation of immediate and inevitable fulfillment in this life.

It’s as though God embedded into the source code of the universe a touch screen kiosk for ordering fast food. Just input your diligent labor, and pre-programmed robotic servers will bring riches and wealth right to your table.

Again, if that is what is meant by “promise,” then I agree that proverbs aren’t promises.

However, the biggest problem here is that this is not what a promise is in the Bible. And that is the basis for my entire argument that “proverbs aren’t promises” is misleading.

In the Bible, a promise is:

• Contextual: Promises are made to particular people at particular times and for particular reasons, and will therefore have differing (or no) application to people other than the intended recipient(s). It takes a lot of work for us to establish whether, how much, and how a Bible promise applies to us today. For example, “When your feet enter the city, the child shall die” (1 Kings 14:12) is a clear promise from God, but not for anyone reading this post.
• Covenantal: Promises are made within the context of a person’s or group’s contractual relationship with God and cannot be treated as impersonal deistic mechanisms for securing a desired reward. For example, Deuteronomy 28 promises to Israel, in extravagant detail, many blessings for obeying the law and many curses for disobeying the law. These promises are alluded to frequently in the rest of the OT history as reasons why Israel stands or falls before God in her covenantal relationship with him.
• Conditional: Not all, but many of the Bible’s promises are contingent on belief, obedience, or both, and therefore cannot be treated as universal guarantees. For example, “If you will walk before me, as David your father walked … then I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised…” (1 Kings 9:4-5).

The promises of the book of Proverbs fit squarely within these characteristics. The assurances and predicted rewards or curses (I’m not sure what else to call them besides “promises”) are offered to the young nobility of Israel in the kingdom period [contextual], on the basis of their fear of the Lord (Prov 1:7, 9:10) and their standing in his steadfast love and faithfulness (Prov 3:3) [covenantal], and on condition of walking faithfully on a straight path away from self-reliance and toward Yahweh their God (see Proverbs 1-9, which is the foundation for the practicals in the rest of the book, and especially Prov 3:5-6) [conditional].

No, the assurances of Proverbs are not mathematical functions within a universal, deistic machine. Yes, the assurances of Proverbs function just like the rest of the Bible’s promises. We can come up with exceptions to the assurances of Deuteronomy 28 on account of the world’s fallenness. But nobody thereby concludes that “covenant blessings and curses aren’t promises.” So why do we make that claim about the Proverbs? Yes, they are promises. We just need to define “promise” the way the Bible does.

I’m grateful to Carter for his article, which illuminated the need for me to clarify this presupposition of my argument. My concern with the maxim “proverbs aren’t promises” lies not with what it says about proverbs but with what it says about promises.

Solving One Pastoral Problem Only to Create More Worse Ones

The conventional wisdom that “proverbs aren’t promises” always appears to arise from one of two observations:

1. People use Prov 22:6 to guilt-trip hurting parents with wayward children.
2. People are confused by how Prov 26:4-5 appear to provide contradictory guidance.

Both of those concerns are real pastoral problems. Yet when we address them with a sweeping hermeneutical solution (that proverbs aren’t promises), the collateral damage is even greater than the presenting problem.

First, if it is true that proverbs aren’t promises, then it must follow that none of the following particular proverbs are promises:

• “The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous runs into it and is safe” (Prov 18:10).
• “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him” (Prov 30:5).
• “Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues with injustice” (Prov 16:8).

Many more examples could be given. And if none of those are promises (the way the Bible defines “promise”), where does that leave us? Under the guidance offered by the conventional principle, as Bruce Waltke recognized decades ago, a psychologically well person could scarcely trust God.

Second, if it is true that proverbs aren’t promises, how can we even say we expect their fulfillment in the Final Judgment or the new heavens and new earth? Isn’t it the case that many of the Bible’s promises are not fully true—i.e. we will experience apparent exceptions to them—until the age to come? “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat … They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain” (Isaiah 11:6-9). Carter claims that “promise” is the wrong label for truths that “will be resisted and delayed until the Final Judgment.” So what, then, should we call those assurances in other parts of the Bible that will be resisted and delayed until That Day?

Third, if the assurances of Proverbs can be refuted by appealing to self-evident exceptions to them in a fallen world, what is to prevent us from approaching any of the Bible’s promises the same way? For example, God promised to David that his son would sit on his throne forever (2 Sam 7:13). It is self-evident that Solomon did not reign forever, providing an exception to the larger promise of David’s dynasty. Does that mean that 2 Sam 7:13 is not a promise, just like “proverbs aren’t promises”? (Psalm 89 wrestles with a very similar question.) Of course not; we now know God was talking most fully about the Messiah. But this takes us back to the previous point: If the fulfillment of the promise delays until a future age, does that make it no longer a promise?

Fourth, if the assurances of Proverbs can be refuted by appealing to exceptions that violate our expectations of how the world ought to work (something to which Carter appeals numerous times in his article), what is to prevent us from approaching any of the Bible’s promises the same way? For example, “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:14). But my experience has shown numerous times when Jesus did not do what I asked in his name; this violates my expectation about how Jesus said the world ought to work. Does that mean this can’t be a promise, just like “proverbs aren’t promises”? Of course not; there must something contextual, covenantal, and/or conditional that I must grasp from John’s gospel to help me overcome the pastoral problem of this verse. After all, promises are not universal, deistic mechanisms for attaining what I want.

Fifth, when the guidance that “proverbs aren’t promises” sinks in, people lose interest in the book of Proverbs. If all I find here are “general principles” and “probabilities” which may or may not be true in my life — and there’s no way of predicting whether they will be true in my life or not — then why would I pay any attention to this book at all? The book of Proverbs used to be core to Christian discipleship, as evidenced in part by its inclusion with the Psalms in the Gideons’ “New Testaments.” These days, I find it rare to come across Christians who have any real familiarity with the book of Proverbs at all. There’s just not much motivation to soak in this book when you’ve been told you can’t bank on what you find there. And in our generation, we sure would benefit from soaking in this book to guide us through the mess we’re facing.

To be fair, Carter explicitly denies the idea that the truths of Proverbs can’t be trusted. But he is not clear about how “proverbs aren’t promises” and “they are truths you can build your life upon” can both be true, when denying the latter conclusion follows directly downstream from affirming the former.

My point is simply that we create far more serious pastoral problems when we apply a sweeping hermeneutical solution to the presenting set of pastoral problems. This, I believe, is the very concern of which Dr. Waltke tries to warn us in his commentary.

A Word About Dr. Waltke

Carter is not the first critic to claim that I have misread Bruce Waltke’s commentary, which I quoted in my original article. But the criticism goes like this:

• You invoke Waltke in support of your claim that ‘proverbs aren’t promises’ is misleading.
• But look at all these other places where Waltke clearly denies that proverbs are universal, deistic mechanisms for attaining reward.
• Therefore, you have misread him (or not allowed for his nuance).

This is to miss the point of my citation of Dr. Waltke. I do not claim that Dr. Waltke supports a deistic, mechanistic view of the promises of Proverbs. Nor do I argue myself in favor of a deistic, mechanistic view of the promises of Proverbs.

All that Dr. Waltke is saying, to which I am appealing, is that to solve the pastoral problems of Proverbs with a sweeping hermeneutical maxim that “proverbs aren’t promises but probabilities” is “stating the matter badly.” By the way we have chosen to frame the hermeneutical principle, we have created a host of “theological, practical, and psychological problems” that are even worse than the original matter we set out to address.

So again, I deny that proverbs are universal, deistic, mechanisms for attaining reward in this present life. But I strenuously urge us all not to frame our correction with the language of “proverbs aren’t promises.” By doing that, we create even worse problems for the people we’re trying to help.

What’s at Stake

I am not arguing, as Pastor Carter claims at the start of his article, against the overstatement of a valid hermeneutical principle. I am arguing against even the bare statement of such a faulty principle, even though the principle is well-intended to address a real problem.

To continue repeating the oft-repeated maxim that “proverbs aren’t promises” is to throw into question all of the Bible’s promises, because the same arguments against proverbs being promises can be directly applied to promises from other genres of the Bible. That is why the statement “proverbs aren’t promises” is misleading.

But that which truly concerns Pastor Carter, along with the myriad other proponents of the conventional guidance, is something with which I fully agree. Proverbs are not mechanistic guarantees for life in this fallen world. Can we not simply frame the matter that way, and do away with the label of “not promises”?