I’ve written elsewhere on “toxic masculinity” in Proverbs. I’ve also suggested that Proverbs concludes with a warning against Solomon’s foolishness in multiplying wives. I didn’t apply the term “toxic masculinity” to the folly that Solomon committed, but it might be appropriate. Male rulers prove themselves super-powerful (they think) by a large collection of wives.
To see how this is revealed in Scripture, let’s start with David.
First Samuel 25 is a story of David set between his two refusals to take Saul’s life in chapters 24 and 26. These were admirable actions. But the story of Nabal, Abigail, and David is more ambiguous.
In the story, David is tempted to sin by killing Nabal and all his males “any that pisseth against the wall” (vv. 24, 32 KJV). Abigail wisely intercedes, David repents, and God vindicates David by bringing Nabal to an early death. At first glance, it is a simple story.
But certain details don’t fit so simply. David’s behavior toward Nabal is the opposite of how he treated Saul. He showed restraint though Saul has trying to kill him. Nabal merely despised David and refused to honor a non-verbal “contract,” that really amounted to dishonor, not a violation of a contract. Nabal is described dismissively: “he was holding a feast in his house, like the feast of a king.” But that only heightens the inconsistency. David was going to commit mass murder. He intended to do to Nabal’s household what Saul had done to the household of Ahimelech (1 Samuel 22:6ff). He planned to act like a demonic king.
Abigail was frank that what he planned to do was wrong, and David acknowledged it.
Now then, my lord, as the LORD lives, and as your soul lives, because the LORD has restrained you from bloodguilt and from saving with your own hand, now then let your enemies and those who seek to do evil to my lord be as Nabal. And now let this present that your servant has brought to my lord be given to the young men who follow my lord. Please forgive the trespass of your servant. For the LORD will certainly make my lord a sure house, because my lord is fighting the battles of the LORD, and evil shall not be found in you so long as you live. If men rise up to pursue you and to seek your life, the life of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of the living in the care of the LORD your God. And the lives of your enemies he shall sling out as from the hollow of a sling. And when the LORD has done to my lord according to all the good that he has spoken concerning you and has appointed you prince over Israel, my lord shall have no cause of grief or pangs of conscience for having shed blood without cause or for my lord working salvation himself.
1 Samuel 25:26-31a ESV
Shedding blood without cause is murder. Nabal’s “trespass” did not justly deserve what David was intending to do. David acknowledges the truth of her evaluation of his intended actions: “Blessed be your discretion, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodguilt and from working salvation with my own hand” (1 Samuel 25:33). But he is quick to reiterate that, if she had not intervened (giving him what he originally “asked” for) he would have slaughtered “any that pisseth against the wall” (v. 34, KJV).
Is this a redundant expression a gratitude for her wise counsel? Or is it a public statement, in front of his troops who expect him to get them loot, to make it clear that giving to David’s operation was the only way to stay safe.
David was God’s chosen king. But his outlaw existence put him under strain. His men would turn on him if they thought he was not providing for them (1 Samuel 30:6). Essentially, chapter 25 indicates that David survived as an outlaw by operating a protection racket. Solomon’s warning against the temptation to join a robber gang was something that he could have learned simply by talking to his father about his life.
Of course, Abigail reminded David that someday God would provide for him as a legitimate king who would not have to ask for “gifts” from those he protected. Nabal is portrayed as attempting to live like a king, but it ends with David explicitly trying to gain power by following the precedent set by Gideon for establishing a dynasty.
When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Blessed be the LORD who has avenged the insult I received at the hand of Nabal, and has kept back his servant from wrongdoing. The LORD has returned the evil of Nabal on his own head.” Then David sent and spoke to Abigail, to take her as his wife. When the servants of David came to Abigail at Carmel, they said to her, “David has sent us to you to take you to him as his wife.” And she rose and bowed with her face to the ground and said, “Behold, your handmaid is a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.” And Abigail hurried and rose and mounted a donkey, and her five young women attended her. She followed the messengers of David and became his wife. David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel, and both of them became his wives.
1 Samuel 25:39–43 ESV
So David, like Gideon and other judges with dynastic ambitions decided that polygamy was a wise plan. Eventually, when he attained the throne, he was able to demand his first wife, Michal, back from her second husband. David collected more wives and concubines beside these three. His great sin of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah her husband is explicitly linked to his proclivity to collect wives and concubines (2 Samuel 12:8). And it all starts, as far as the reader can discern with the story of Abigail and David’s decision to kill “any that pisseth against the wall.”
I quote the KJV because it brings out the crudeness. David is referring to males by how they use their genitals.
When Absolom tries to take the throne of his father David, he cements his rebellion by publicly bedding ten of David’s concubines (2 Samuel 16:21, 22). He does this so no one will think that he might reconcile with his father. But obviously, his sexual power as the new dominant male is also being asserted by erecting a visible tent and dealing with all ten concubines in a row.
Solomon, despite his wisdom, followed in his father’s practice and far surpassed it. This led to his fall into idolatry and God’s judgment on his dynasty. That judgment was brought about through Rehoboam’s refusal to lighten his father’s load on the tribes of Israel. Interestingly, his answer seems to be a boast that he is more of a man than his father: “My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins” (1 Kings 12:10). Yet his stubbornness and pride left him with a much less powerful kingdom.
My point in briefly surveying this information is simply that the Bible warns us that the blessing of masculinity can also be twisted by pride into a self-destructive trap. I am sure David and Solomon would have felt humiliated to only have a single wife. They probably were sure it also helped establish their power (since it was a way to ally themselves to other powerful houses) and preserve their dynasty (since it provided more children).
What we see in the Bible doesn’t indicate that this plan works. Gideon’s concubine in Shechem led to a son who uses his stature to lead Shechem in a rebellion and exterminate all but one of Gideon’s other sons. David’s sons war against each other (Amnon, Absalom) and against him (Absalom) and cause a crisis in the kingdom with powerful forces aligned against Solomon (Adonijah). This “hyper” masculine ideal seems to cause problems rather than prevent them.
And we need to be careful to let Scripture inform and correct our ideal of masculinity. Anything else will turn toxic sooner or later.