Proverbs 10:1

[EyesOnZion]

In one of my favorite classes in seminary, we studied Proverbs. More specifically, we studied 1 proverb at a time, spending about an hour on each Proverb. I was amazed at the depth of study that could be gotten through this approach. Now I find that a chapter a day is too much when it comes to Proverbs. I was curious if anyone wanted to dialogue about Proverbs to get deep in the text. I'm starting with Chapter 10, because that's where the actual 'proverbs' start.

ESV Proverbs 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother.

KJV Proverbs 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.

NIV Proverbs 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon: A wise son brings joy to his father, but a foolish son grief to his mother

Questions (that I see, add your own):

1) Is the contrast between father and mother merely for symmetry, or is there something about fathers and mothers that would incline them to gladness or grief?

2) Does this proverb hold true now that we've moved away from an agrarian society where the child inherits the parents land? Do you think this is still as true? less or more true?

3) Can we reverse it and say that if our parent is glad or saddened with us, that we can generally use that as a guideline to measure our own wisdom?

Any others? Or comments on these?

 

[ittarter]

1. I'd say symmetry, but I'd be willing to hear another interpretation.
2. In general, now that sons often don't follow their fathers' footsteps in terms of vocation, it's probably more often not the case than it was before. Of course, in every age there are parents who don't care what happens to their children.
3. We could, as long as we maintain the concept of proverbial wisdom. Just because our parents aren't proud of us doesn't mean we're necessarily terrible people -- just as it is true to say that just because you're wise doesn't mean necessarily that your parents will be happy.

Of course, I'm sure you already covered all that basic stuff in seminary

 

[cubinity]

It strikes me as interesting that the author of Ecclesiastes and Lamentations would leave a reader feeling that wisdom is a blessing.

The contrast is disrupted by the realization that wisdom isn't the blessing Solomon thought it was in his youth.

To be wise was to see with clarity the darkness of this world and this life, and the futility of all we would pursue. To be foolish was to remain ignorant of that futility, and pursue it with ridiculous glee.

What is there for the wise in the end but lamentation? What is there for the fool but vanity?

Perhaps the father is pleased in his wise son because he believes in vain that his son's wisdom will help him succeed in his own vain pursuits, completely oblivious that wisdom will show his son how vain his father's pursuits really are. Perhaps the mother is burden by her foolish son because he is just like his father, being wise enough to know what the men in her life do not.

 

[nathanlandon1]

In one of my favorite classes in seminary, we studied Proverbs. More specifically, we studied 1 proverb at a time, spending about an hour on each Proverb. I was amazed at the depth of study that could be gotten through this approach. Now I find that a chapter a day is too much when it comes to Proverbs. I was curious if anyone wanted to dialogue about Proverbs to get deep in the text. I'm starting with Chapter 10, because that's where the actual 'proverbs' start.

ESV Proverbs 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother.

KJV Proverbs 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.

NIV Proverbs 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon: A wise son brings joy to his father, but a foolish son grief to his mother

Questions (that I see, add your own):

1) Is the contrast between father and mother merely for symmetry, or is there something about fathers and mothers that would incline them to gladness or grief?

2) Does this proverb hold true now that we've moved away from an agrarian society where the child inherits the parents land? Do you think this is still as true? less or more true?

3) Can we reverse it and say that if our parent is glad or saddened with us, that we can generally use that as a guideline to measure our own wisdom?

Any others? Or comments on these?

Hi,

Here are my answers to your questions:


1. My opinion is that there is a symmetry. Mothers treat their daughters as fathers treat their sons: they are extensions of themselves. A mother teaches a daughter what she feel are essential skills to survive as a woman, as a father teaches his son essential skills to survive as a man. Just as God shape us to be in the true image of Him, we shape our children to be in the best image of us (since we are not perfect.)

Since a man does not know what it is like to be a female, and likewise woman a man, there is a different relationship between mothers-sons and fathers-daughters. It isn't about more love or less love, I think it is just a different dynamic of a relationship. This is why for a father (who wants his son to be wise from his teachings in order to survive,) having a wise son makes him proud/glad. It means his son has listened to him and has considered his teachings, possibly even revealing insight of his own. The son looks up to the father essentially.

But, if a son is foolish I think the father would be mad and disappointed, but the mother would feel she is loosing her son to foolishness. It would make her feel like the chances of her son surviving are slim (ultimately,) and it would sum up to worrying, heavy prayer, depression, hurt, etc. Also, sons that are foolish tend to be mad and reckless, which is the exact opposite of what a loving mother would want for her son. A father would be highly annoyed and upset, I would think.

I think it was put that way, also, because if you are a son reading that proverb you know how important it is (to you) to make your father proud and be soft/loving for and with your mother. It convicts those close to foolishness or already there.


2. I think it is more important now that we are not an agrarian society - its applicability is what is lacking. Because families are rarely together for long periods of time, there isn't much occasion for the father and mother to interact with their children in the way that would give them a solid chance of choosing from wisdom and foolishness. One-third of a child's life is spent in school, another 1/3 more or less goes to sleep. So there is only 1/3 of an adolescent life that they can spend with their parents. But, if the parents work those hours can get funky...

In agrarian society there is (or at least should be) much more family interaction, as well as neighborly interaction. Even though agrarian children can be just as foolish as cosmopolitan children, there is more time and space available for the parent(s) to teach, instruct and discipline the child. I think that is why God has the law about stoning disobedient children because in that time there was plenty of room for a child to come to wisdom, and a lot less distractions. If they weren't going to listen to their parents after much discipline and instruction, then they have made their decision. I think that's one reason why Yahoshuah died for all past and FUTURE sins - in these times parents have a minority of their child's life to instruct, teach and discipline them enough to be able to survive in the world.

3. Absolutely. In fact, it is probably best if you do so that they wont have to tell you. Then they will probably be even more glad at the change made. Sort of like the prodigal son and how he was taken in when he changed.

 

[EyesOnZion]

1. I'd say symmetry, but I'd be willing to hear another interpretation.

1. My opinion is that there is a symmetry. Mothers treat their daughters as fathers treat their sons: they are extensions of themselves. A mother teaches a daughter what she feel are essential skills to survive as a woman, as a father teaches his son essential skills to survive as a man. Just as God shape us to be in the true image of Him, we shape our children to be in the best image of us (since we are not perfect.)

Since a man does not know what it is like to be a female, and likewise woman a man, there is a different relationship between mothers-sons and fathers-daughters. It isn't about more love or less love, I think it is just a different dynamic of a relationship. This is why for a father (who wants his son to be wise from his teachings in order to survive,) having a wise son makes him proud/glad. It means his son has listened to him and has considered his teachings, possibly even revealing insight of his own. The son looks up to the father essentially.

But, if a son is foolish I think the father would be mad and disappointed, but the mother would feel she is loosing her son to foolishness. It would make her feel like the chances of her son surviving are slim (ultimately,) and it would sum up to worrying, heavy prayer, depression, hurt, etc. Also, sons that are foolish tend to be mad and reckless, which is the exact opposite of what a loving mother would want for her son. A father would be highly annoyed and upset, I would think.

I think it was put that way, also, because if you are a son reading that proverb you know how important it is (to you) to make your father proud and be soft/loving for and with your mother. It convicts those close to foolishness or already there.

My gut reaction is symmetry as well, but I think Nathan makes a good point. Perhaps the distinction is made for the "near-foolish" son, to inspire his own natural values.

I'd also agree...anecdotally..that mother's seem to bear the burden of a foolish son more heavily. I don't know if every father would be angry, I think many would be saddened by it, but I don't know if a father would typically take it as such a blow.

It's good to remember that Proverbs was generally written to a 'young prince' figure, so maybe this arrangement woudl be different for a daughter?

BTW...i'm breaking up the questions for separate discussion, if y'all don't mind.

 

[EyesOnZion]

2. In general, now that sons often don't follow their fathers' footsteps in terms of vocation, it's probably more often not the case than it was before. Of course, in every age there are parents who don't care what happens to their children.

2. I think it is more important now that we are not an agrarian society - its applicability is what is lacking. Because families are rarely together for long periods of time, there isn't much occasion for the father and mother to interact with their children in the way that would give them a solid chance of choosing from wisdom and foolishness. One-third of a child's life is spent in school, another 1/3 more or less goes to sleep. So there is only 1/3 of an adolescent life that they can spend with their parents. But, if the parents work those hours can get funky...

In agrarian society there is (or at least should be) much more family interaction, as well as neighborly interaction. Even though agrarian children can be just as foolish as cosmopolitan children, there is more time and space available for the parent(s) to teach, instruct and discipline the child. I think that is why God has the law about stoning disobedient children because in that time there was plenty of room for a child to come to wisdom, and a lot less distractions. If they weren't going to listen to their parents after much discipline and instruction, then they have made their decision. I think that's one reason why Yahoshuah died for all past and FUTURE sins - in these times parents have a minority of their child's life to instruct, teach and discipline them enough to be able to survive in the world.

It's true, this proverb might be more important for someone in the modern world to heed. I was more thinking...is having a wise son more important in an agragarian society?

Ittarter, I agree, in every age there are parents who don't care. But I do wonder if it's easier for a parent not to care simply because their own "life's work" isn't affected by the son's wisdom. Perhaps an underlying assumption is that wise parents will care about a child's wisdom?

 

[EyesOnZion]

3. We could, as long as we maintain the concept of proverbial wisdom. Just because our parents aren't proud of us doesn't mean we're necessarily terrible people -- just as it is true to say that just because you're wise doesn't mean necessarily that your parents will be happy.

Of course, I'm sure you already covered all that basic stuff in seminary

3. Absolutely. In fact, it is probably best if you do so that they wont have to tell you. Then they will probably be even more glad at the change made. Sort of like the prodigal son and how he was taken in when he changed.

Ittarter, for the record, we didn't cover this proverb in the seminary class. Spending an hour+ on each proverb meant that in the course of a semester, we only looked at a dozen or so proverbs, selected by the prof. Part of the reason I wanted to start this conversation was to see if he only selected the 'deepest' ones, or if fruitful conversation could be had on any proverb. We're off to a good start.

Also, I agree that we'd have to make it not absolute. For example, if a foolish parent thought that money was the most important thing in life, then they would view a son's wise pursuit of God as foolish, and his foolish pursuit of money as wise.

Of course there are situations that most every parent would view rightly as foolish. One would hope that the vast majority of parents would have gained enough wisdom in life to know it's foolish to...say...deal drugs and go to jail.

But I think it's a good corollary if we try to reverse engineer it that wise parents will be glad for a wise child, and foolish parents are a lot trickier to gauge.

Nathan, I would think that being wisdom would at some point lead to parents not having to tell you, but I agree that the typical parent would be much more pleased to see their child doing right by their own volition instead of with constant reminder.

Any other insights into this text?