Nation’s Notebook

Nation’s Notes on the Bible
Is It a Virtue to Be an Underdog?
Adapted from the book Fool by Garry D. Nation
For a lot of reasons, Americans like to root for the underdog. It just seems right to us when someone who is expected to fail succeeds, when someone who has always lost wins.
Therefore when we read in the Bible a passage like the following, we’re not quite sure what to do with it.
For three things the earth is disturbed,
and for four it cannot bear up:
For a slave when he reigns [as king],
and a [shameless] fool when he is filled with food;
For an odious woman when she is married,
and a handmaid who takes the place of her mistress.
Proverbs 30:21-23
“The earth” (or "the land") here is a poetic figure of speech for society; the word could even be translated “world.” It trembles and feels oppressed by an overwhelming burden when any one of these characters comes forth able to fulfill his or her personal desires. Four kinds of people are assembled as examples of the influences that society should dread. The proverb identifies a slave who takes over the throne, a shameless fool (Heb., nabal) who has eaten and drunk to satisfaction, an unloved or rejected woman who gets married, and a servant girl who displaces her mistress.
What a quizzical poem! At first glance one would wonder why putting these people in any of these situations should be regarded as a bad thing. It would seem that at least some of these ascents might even call for applause. Do these situations not depict the overthrow of injustice? This is a most politically incorrect proverb! It almost seems unchristian—didn’t Jesus teach that the meek would inherit the earth, and that the last would be first?
In truth, however, none of these situations has anything to do either with the reward of grace (“Many who are first will be last, and the last first,” Matthew 19:30), or the blessedness of those who humble themselves before God (“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,” Matthew 5:5). Let’s look at them one by one.
First consider the prospect of a lowly slave becoming a king. Leaving aside the question of how a slave could ever be qualified to rule a nation, history has provided several examples of lowly or oppressed people who overthrew their established authorities. Some, like Napoleon, Lenin, Mao, and Castro, were able leaders. Others are little more than historical footnotes. Are there any examples of such people who did not become tyrants as great as or greater than the rulers they displaced? Perhaps, but as I write this, I can think of none.
Someone may suggest Moses or David may in some ways fits this scenario, for were they not basically slaves who rose to power? No. Though Moses was a fugitive and his people had been put to forced labor, Moses himself was not a slave, and was in fact reared and educated in the Egyptian system to govern. As for David, though he rose from lowly circumstances and eventually took the place of his master, he did not displace his master. If anything, what one sees in David in this context is the triumph of merit.
Digression: Let no one suggest that the founding fathers of the United States can fit into this category either. None of them were poor or powerless. Certainly none were slaves (although some, to contemporary embarrassment, owned slaves themselves). All were recognized, respected leaders, well established in American colonial society before the days of revolution and independence. And the American Revolution itself was hardly a revolution … but I digress.
Notice now what the proverb does not say. It does not say that it is a bad thing when the oppressed are liberated. The Bible (alone among the religious documents of mankind) repeatedly states that that the liberation of the oppressed is a divine objective, and this verse does not contradict that. It says rather that it is a troubling thing when the oppressed take over and begin to rule, when a slave steps into the role of monarch.
The connecting link between these four issues is that they are all an overturning, not of injustice, but of righteous order. They represent the overthrow and displacement of equity by envy. In these situations the newly elevated persons are likely to indulge in “paybacks.” It occurs with enough frequency that it must be a rule: When people who feel that they have been put down finally get to the top, their first and sometimes only order of business is to get revenge upon the people they envied.
The line about the “odious woman” is sure to strike someone as being sexist. Psychologically, however, it rings true. In that Middle Eastern culture, marriages were (and continue to be) arranged. The “odious woman” is one who has been repeatedly rejected, particularly because of her prickly and unsociable personality. The word “odious” does not refer to her physical attributes but to her social relationships. She is hated by her peers, and no one wants to be around her. Rejection is a kind of reproof that rarely produces reform. It is more likely to generate resentment and a desire for revenge. Woe to the poor husband who himself is such a poor catch that he must contract for marriage to such a woman. He is in for a hard life.
There is an explicit biblical example of the handmaid who displaces her mistress: Hagar, the Egyptian servant girl who bore the firstborn son of Abraham as a surrogate mother for Sarah. Her only qualifications for such a promotion were her fertility and proximity. It was an arrangement that quickly soured into a domestic disaster, and ultimately into an everlasting enmity between peoples. A large part of the blame can be traced to the inopportune elevation of a person to a position that she had neither earned nor deserved in terms of character.
Note: To give Hagar her due, she surely was a resourceful and resilient individual who, when put into the most desperate situation imaginable, did not reject God but cried out to Him and was heard by Him. This actually upholds the central point, for it was not her elevation that brought forth admirable character qualities, but her catastrophic demotion and suffering.
Having said all this, why should we begrudge the nabal his full stomach?
It’s important to know that this word is used throughout the Old Testament to describe a person who is an extreme detriment to society. The nabal is the shameless fool, a person who is not only committed to moral rebellion, but egregiously so. He is the person whose character is so repugnant, even other fools reject him.
So, what then? When the shameless fool has enough to eat, it means he is living without care, without hardship. He has been successful (and that in itself is a scary thought, considering what he may have done in order to become a success). He feels no reproof for his deeds, and therefore he feels no restraint. Why should he change? Why should he even hold back? Thus he becomes more arrogant, more obnoxious, and more dangerous than he was when he was hungry. Therefore, “the earth shakes” when this unworthy person is elevated and happy.
Before you root for the underdog, first consider his or her character. The dog you root for, if he comes out on top, may turn on you.