Was The Father Foolish To Give His Son To Ruin?

*Miseries are before the father of *that son who was foolish, *continually *leaking through the *contentions of a *woman. (MAST)

*[Miseries] literally, evil desires or perversities. Again, this must be taken theologically as Solomon has been addressing (and correcting) the problems of the kingdom through the conscience of Adam (the knowledge of God). So these perverse “things” are approaching this father (Solomon) like the miseries that were in Adam because of his sin. It is through the theology (conscience) of Adam that a foolish son is defined (Rom.2:15; 9:1; 1Cor.2:16; 8:12; 10:29; 15:45; 2Cor.4:2; 5:11). Suffering is rightly upon us because of our own foolishness. These perverse things create misery, but it takes a wise father to deal with them. But a wise father doesn’t sweep these problems under the rug; he diagnoses the cause of the sin and then renders a judgment that promotes a solution. This really should not be viewed as the destruction or ruin of a father, but rather considered to be the grief and pain of a father who is forced to act on account of a foolish son. Our heavenly Father is not ruined at all in our foolishness; so, this proverb is not “bearing the image of God” in the perversities of these foolish children, but it does bring light upon the sufferings of His person to have to give His Beloved and True Son for the ruin and destruction of these perversities.

*[that son] literally, of that son. It was this son of his (Solomon’s) who is being destroyed because of his own foolishness (Jn.8:44). In other words, foolishness was the destruction of the father’s son. But destruction cannot be in the house of this father. Now, therefore, this is how the proverb bears the image of God, for a substitute must be made for “that” son to escape destruction. If the son of destruction is to go free, then that son of the wise father must be destroyed in the place of the foolish son. “That” son is the foolishness of the message of the cross to satisfy the love of a good father who cannot bear the image of a foolish son (1Cor.1:18,21,27;15:36). The perversities that were in “this” foolish son is the sorrow (misery) that provoked the father to send the good and wise son as the substitute (Gen.6:5-8).

*[continually] literally, a drip, drip like a continuous dropping of water. The verb is participle to the noun that identifies a flow of water. So the verb and noun create the destruction of the son and the misery of the father as it describes a woman who is the foolishness of the son. As the noun, ruin, in its plural form, is feminine to the son, the participle is adverbial to the contentions of this woman. These contentions create a continuous misery before the father as he beholds the pattern (and direction) of his son’s destruction. These miseries are causing his son to spiral down a rain gutter like a water drain (Lk.8:43-48).

*[leaking through] literally, a leaky roof. But, again, this noun in conjunction with the verb is adverbial to the woman’s contentions. The woman is to be like a shelter from a storm to this son, but instead, she is a continual interruption like a leaky roof. Her contentions leak through to this father, creating these miseries in his face. But the proverbial context is in Solomon’s court. His sufferings are a result of the contentions (lawsuits) that are breaking out under his house as the tribal father head of this nation. Solomon is hiding his sorrow behind an everyday household in his kingdom. In other words, he is saying he has the same misery as the ordinary father of a house filled with foolish sons; though sitting in a higher position, he suffers from the same human condition (inability to change reality)(Jn.6:44).

*[contentions] literally, arguments. But this is only used nine times; twice it is translated, brawling. For this to be used in a proverb about a man and a woman is severe. Therefore the cases that are appearing before Solomon’s court are severe cases of foolishness that are causing his grief and misery. The noun is plural, so he is making the case that multiple disputes are dividing up the house of his nation. But Solomon is transparent in his attitude toward these spiritual problems that are plaguing the subjects of the kingdom. He wants to correct them, but he cannot correct them apart from addressing the spiritual (theological) nature of these divisions. Some appear in his court to sue for damages, but he redirects that these damages are the wages of their sinful choices as they are “the same miseries” that are before him to correct them (Rom.6:23).

*[woman] literally, a female. It can describe a female of any kind of creation, whether human or animal (Gen.2:23;7:2). It is most often used to describe a wife but can be used to describe a group of wives in the plural form (Est.2:8). It can be nobly assumed, in this context, that this is a wife, but it’s best translated, here, in the purest form due to the uncertainty of meaning. The following proverb addresses Solomon’s application of this spiritual problem as he uses the same noun to describe that a good wife is given through the LORD. But here, she could be a prostitute as the LXX (Septuagint) renders her; or as another wife or concubine which was often the spiritual and cultural exception in the days of the kings. It may even have been a case of fornication that Solomon has in mind, but what is sure is that he is using it to describe (and hide) his own misery.