# commentaries

text:
<p>13:12 Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but when longing is fulfilled, it is a tree of life-</p><p>Access to the tree of life has been taken away because of human sin; only in the restored Eden of the Kingdom of God on earth will we be able to eat the fruit of the tree of life. Indeed God in His grace and wisdom barred access to the tree of life, knowing that eternity in our present state would be a curse. But Solomon likes to think that his kingdom is the Kingdom of God, and the life according to his wisdom was effectively the life eternal. Again we see a failure in Solomon to perceive that the true life and restoration of Eden was yet future. This would explain why as he got older and approached death, he became disillusioned; for clearly his life had not been the life of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>13:13 Whoever despises instruction will pay for it, but he who respects a command will be rewarded-</p><p>Again this is true, but the instruction and commands which Solomon has in immediate view is his own teaching in the anthology of Proverbs we are reading. He would tolerate no disobedience to it.</p>


text:
<p>13:14 The teaching of the wise is a spring of life, to turn others away from the snares of death-</p><p>AV "the law of the wise is a fountain of life". But the law could not bring life, only grace could; and Solomon was far from realizing this (<a href='B:550 3:21'>Gal 3:21</a>). David so often talks about God's "law", using the word torah. But Solomon so often speaks of his own torah, and that of his wife, the mother of "my son" (s:w. <a href='B:240 1:8'>Pro 1:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:1'>Pro 3:1</a>; <a href='B:240 4:2'>Pro 4:2</a>; <a href='B:240 6:20'>Pro 6:20</a>; <a href='B:240 7:2'>Pro 7:2</a>; <a href='B:240 13:14'>Pro 13:14</a>; <a href='B:240 31:26'>Pro 31:26</a>). Yet elsewhere in the Bible, the well over 200 occurrences of torah are always about God's law. Solomon applies the word to his own teachings and that of his wife, and thereby plays God. whilst it could be argued that Solomon's teachings were Divinely inspired, all the same he ought surely to have spoken of them as God's torah rather than his own torah. This kind of playing God is seen so often in the teachers of God's people.</p><p>Solomon uses&nbsp; the figure of a well of living water to describe spiritual words&nbsp; and&nbsp; thinking (<a href='B:240 10:11'>Pro 10:11</a>; <a href='B:240 13:14'>Pro 13:14</a>; <a href='B:240 14:27'>Pro 14:27</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>). Yet this is&nbsp;the&nbsp; very&nbsp; figure which he uses concerning his worldly bride (<a href='B:260 4:15'>Son 4:15</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;It could be argued that this typifies the massive&nbsp; imputation of righteousness&nbsp; which&nbsp; the&nbsp; Lord&nbsp; Jesus grants to us, His worldly Gentile bride. But I would rather see it as an example of how he chose to justify his love for worldly women by as it were clothing those women in his own mind with the imagery of spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>13:15 Good understanding wins favour; but the way of the unfaithful is hard-</p><p>Solomon teaches that material blessings (Heb:) come as a result of using wisdom. But <a href='B:250 9:11'>Ecc 9:11</a> shows his rejection of <a href='B:240 13:15'>Pro 13:15</a>: “The race is not to the swift</p><p> neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all”. He concluded life was just a random sequence of events.</p>


text:
<p>13:16 Every prudent man acts from knowledge, but a fool exposes folly-</p><p>The idea may be that the actions of the wise and foolish are openly displayed for public view. That may sound obvious, but the sense is that the way of wisdom earns approval from observers, whereas the unwise appear foolish in public. And Solomon seems all too concerned about appearances, being shamed or avoiding looking foolish, in the court of public opinion- rather than before God's final judgment.</p>


text:
<p>13:17 A wicked messenger falls into trouble, but a trustworthy envoy gains healing-</p><p>"Trouble" is the word for "evil", and Solomon uses the idea of falling into evil / trouble as the ultimate judgment for the wicked, to be avoided by all means (<a href='B:240 13:17'>Pro 13:17</a>; <a href='B:240 17:20'>Pro 17:20</a>; <a href='B:240 28:10'>Pro 28:10</a>; <a href='B:240 28:14'>Pro 28:14</a>). But by the time of <a href='B:250 9:12'>Ecc 9:12</a>, Solomon concludes that death is the ultimate falling into evil, and this shall come upon all men, and therefore being righteous or wicked is irrelevant in the face of death:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:18 Poverty and shame come to him who refuses discipline, but he who heeds correction shall be honoured-</p><p>This appears to be an out of context allusion to David's words in <a href='B:230 38:14'>Psa 38:14</a>, reflecting on his sin with Bathsheba, and how he felt unable to give reproof to others: "Yes, I am as a man who doesn’t hear, in whose mouth are no reproofs". Solomon was obsessed with David his father, speaking hundreds of times of "David my father". But he failed to have his humility; he endlessly dishes out reproofs in Proverbs, indeed he sees his Proverbs as reproofs to people (e.g. <a href='B:240 1:25'>Pro 1:25</a>; <a href='B:240 6:23'>Pro 6:23</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:18'>Pro 13:18</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:31'>Pro 15:31</a>; <a href='B:240 29:15'>Pro 29:15</a>); whereas David humbly felt unable to do so because of his awareness of his sins. And at the time David wrote the Proverbs, when he received wisdom at the start of his reign, he was sinning likewise [in essence] by marrying foreign women:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:19 Longing fulfilled is sweet to the soul, but fools detest turning from evil-</p><p>Removing / turning or departing from evil is a major theme of Proverbs (<a href='B:240 13:19'>Pro 13:19</a>; <a href='B:240 14:16'>Pro 14:16</a>; <a href='B:240 16:6'>Pro 16:6</a>; <a href='B:240 16:17'>Pro 16:17</a>). Solomon uses the same phrase in <a href='B:250 11:10'>Ecc 11:10</a>, but he gives the reason as being because youth is vanity; old age will prove that there is no point in not departing from evil, and going the way of evil, like going the way of righteousness, is all the same vanity. This nihilistic approach is because Solomon failed to discern that the end point of the path of righteousness, departing or removing our foot from the way of evil, is the redemption of the body in God's future Kingdom. But because he failed to understand that, he ends up concluding as he gets older that the choice between evil and good is all the same vain and meaningless. It is the hope of the resurrection of the body, the reality of judgment to come and the future Kingdom of God, which make morality of so much meaning today. We may also note again Solomon's overly simplistic idea that if a man removes himself from evil, all will go wonderfully for him in life. The same phrase is used of how Job removed himself from, or "eschewed", evil; but his life was traumatic and without all the blessings for wisdom which Solomon liked to imagine:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:20 One who walks with wise men grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm-</p><p>Solomon sees wisdom as being mediated through men. Whilst this may be true, and it certainly was in an illiterate society, he fails to perceive the direct, personal relationship possible and preferable between God and man. David's desire was for fools to repent: "Understand, you brutes... You fools, when will you be wise?" (<a href='B:230 94:8'>Psa 94:8</a>). But Solomon makes little appeal to the fools, but instead divides men into the righteous and the fools, and almost gloats over the foolishness of the fools, relishing in describing their position.</p>


text:
<p>13:21 Misfortune pursues sinners, but prosperity rewards the righteous-</p><p>This again is how Solomon wanted to imagine things, assuming that others would follow his pattern, and be given prosperity. But spiritual reality is different. The righteous suffer and don't get prosperity now, whereas the wicked prosper. Reality is far more complex than the simple dualism Solomon presents, and the final rewards for human behaviour are yet future, at the day of judgment. But he had no desire to perceive that, as he imagined his kingdom to be God's Kingdom, under his own Messianic rulership:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:22 A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children, but the wealth of the sinner is stored for the righteous-</p><p>This may be true, but the children of the wicked prosper, apparently (<a href='B:220 21:11'>Job 21:11</a>), and wealthy sinners leave prosperous houses to their children (<a href='B:220 21:9'>Job 21:9</a>; <a href='B:220 22:18'>Job 22:18</a>; <a href='B:230 49:11'>Psa 49:11</a>). Again, Solomon's simplistic dualism fails to perceive the nuances of spiritual reality, because Solomon seems to have never experienced the ups and downs, paradoxes and tensions which are all part of spiritual experience in practice:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:23 An abundance of food is in poor people’s fields, but injustice sweeps it away-</p><p>AV "want of judgment", as if the failure to have enough food is the fault of the poor. This would be in line with :18 and <a href='B:240 28:19'>Pro 28:19</a>. Solomon repeatedly sees poverty as being the fault of the poor, and their refusal of his teaching of wisdom (s:w. <a href='B:240 6:11'>Pro 6:11</a>; <a href='B:240 10:4'>Pro 10:4</a>; <a href='B:240 10:15'>Pro 10:15</a>; <a href='B:240 13:7-8'>Pro 13:7-8</a>; <a href='B:240 13:18'>Pro 13:18</a>; <a href='B:240 13:23'>Pro 13:23</a>; <a href='B:240 24:34'>Pro 24:34</a>; <a href='B:240 28:19'>Pro 28:19</a>; <a href='B:240 31:7'>Pro 31:7</a>). Many of these passages are effectively mocking the poor, which Solomon condemns in <a href='B:240 17:5'>Pro 17:5</a>. He fails to take his own wisdom, as we also see in his behaviour with foreign women. Again we see Solomon's works based approach to righteousness, and lack of grace; refusing to accept that we are all poor men before God, as David himself exemplified when he cried to God as a poor man (<a href='B:230 34:6'>Psa 34:6</a>). But his much beloved father David was unashamed to say he was a materially "poor man" (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>); and Uriah, whom he wronged, is described also as a "poor man" (<a href='B:100 12:1'>2Sa 12:1</a>). The poor were to be defended and given to (<a href='B:230 82:3'>Psa 82:3</a>), and the Bible is clear that poverty isn't necessarily a result of sin or unwisdom. But Solomon fails to appreciate this, so obsessed is he with works, and the idea that obedience to his anthology of Proverbs will make the poor prosperous, as if God's truth is a kind of wealth creation scheme.</p>


text:
<p>13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, but one who loves him is careful to discipline him-</p><p>Solomon has so much to say about "correction" or "instruction" coming from the possession of wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:10'>Pro 8:10</a>; <a href='B:240 8:33'>Pro 8:33</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:1'>Pro 13:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>; <a href='B:240 15:32'>Pro 15:32</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>; <a href='B:240 19:20'>Pro 19:20</a>; <a href='B:240 19:27'>Pro 19:27</a>; <a href='B:240 22:15'>Pro 22:15</a>; <a href='B:240 23:12-13'>Pro 23:12-13</a>). But in the end he chastised or corrected his people by whipping them (s:w. <a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; <a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>). Solomon initially asked for wisdom in order to guide his people, but he ended up whipping / physically chastising them into conformity with his wishes rather than allowing wisdom to correct. Again, he was playing God; for it is God through His wisdom who chastises, and not man. But Solomon thought he was effectively God to his people. This is why Solomon argues that servants cannot be corrected by words (<a href='B:240 29:19'>Pro 29:19</a> s:w:), and a child must be physically chastised (s:w. <a href='B:240 19:18'>Pro 19:18</a>; <a href='B:240 29:17'>Pro 29:17</a> cp. <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 23:13'>Pro 23:13</a>), regardless of his screams of pain. This kind of thing is a denial of his claims elsewhere that it is Divine wisdom which chastises / corrects, and such correction is from God and not man. Solomon's final description of himself as an old and foolish king who refuses to be admonished says it all (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>); he admonishes others (s:w. <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), but refuses to be admonished or corrected by his own wisdom. He failed to personalize it.</p>


text:
<p>13:25 The righteous one eats to the satisfying of his soul, but the belly of the wicked goes hungry-</p><p>But we think of the righteous Paul often going hungry, and hardly having a satisfied soul (<a href='B:540 6:5'>2Co 6:5</a>; <a href='B:540 11:27'>2Co 11:27</a>). As I have observed so often, Solomon is presenting an overly simplistic view of blessing for the righteous now, and cursing for the wicked. The book of Job, and his father David's experiences, ought to have taught him that this was not the case. Solomon later concludes that despite having every material blessing, a man can still not be satisfied (s:w. <a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>; <a href='B:250 6:3'>Ecc 6:3</a>). But in Proverbs he thinks that the righteous do satisfy their souls in this life (<a href='B:240 13:25'>Pro 13:25</a>). But he thought that this would be experienced in this life, rather than in any future Kingdom of God on earth. As he got closer to death, he realized that he had not satisfied his soul despite all his wealth. And so he concluded that righteousness was vain, and turned away from Yahweh. This is what happens when we lose the perspective of the future Kingdom of God.</p>


text:
<p>14:1 Every wise woman builds her house, but the foolish one tears it down with her own hands-</p><p>Solomon here continues the spirit of his mother's advice to him about a good wife in Proverbs 31; for the virtuous woman is pictures as building up the house / family. Solomon repeats his mother's wisdom about women, whilst disobeying it in practice, as noted throughout Proverbs 31. It is one thing to discern and teach truth; but quite another to personalize it and live by it. The very possession of that truth, and the experience of teaching it, can lead us to disobey it because we assume that mere possession of it justifies us.</p>


text:
<p>14:2 He who walks in his uprightness fears Yahweh, but he who is perverse in his ways despises Him-</p><p>The Hebrew for "perverse" is literally 'the one who turns aside', implying they were once on the right path but had left it. It would seem that Solomon has in view the house of Saul, who were potential contenders for his throne.</p>


text:
<p>14:3 The fool’s talk brings a rod to his back, but the lips of the wise protect them-</p><p>Discipline and punishment of the unwise is a big theme in Solomon's Proverbs. He took it to the extent of whipping his own people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). This abusive attitude to people arose from his obsession with the idea that he had wisdom, and people generally are fools, idiots, unwise- and therefore he could abuse them. This abusive attitude to people is another outcome of believing that mere possession of truths about God justifies us, and declares all other people foolish, unwise and able to be legitimately abused by us. In contrast, the heart of God (as of David) bleeds for such people and wants to save them rather than gloat in their unwisdom and punish them for it.</p>


text:
<p>14:4 Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, but much increase is by the strength of the ox-</p><p>This is a fair enough observation, but again Solomon falls into the mindset of believing that blessing / increase comes about by strength and hard work. Whereas the consistent Biblical message is that blessing is by grace, and the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong, as Solomon later mused (<a href='B:250 9:11'>Ecc 9:11</a>). Power and strength are of God, and from nothing else.</p>


text:
<p>14:5 A truthful witness will not lie, but a false witness pours out lies-</p><p>This may sound like a pointless statement of the obvious an axiomatic. But we likely need to read in an ellipsis; the truthful always testify honestly, and liars always lie. But this is simply not the case. Solomon utterly fails to recognize that human behaviour is a jagged graph, good people sin, and bad people do good things; we are saved not by consistent, stellar living before God, but by faith in His grace. But he fails to perceive this, when he should have learnt it from his father's experiences and his Psalms.</p>


text:
<p>14:6 A scoffer seeks wisdom, and doesn’t find it, but knowledge comes easily to a discerning person-</p><p>It is true that those who claim not to understand God's truth, or who say it's too difficult to interpret, are in fact exercising their own psychological agenda. Subconsciously they don't want to accept His truth, and so they claim not to understand, or cite difficulties in interpretation. <a href='B:500 7:17'>Joh 7:17</a> is relevant here: "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know of this teaching, whether it is of God, or I speak from myself". He who wishes above all things to live God's life, to have His Spirit, to live the life eternal with Him... they will intuitively know whether the Lord's doctrine is right or not. This intuitive element is in fact what leads to faith in the first place. There is a strong tendency to talk this down, and assume that it is by intellectual process that a person decides what is true or otherwise. But all appeal to intellectual process alone to decide 'truth' is flawed. For we are talking of spiritual things and not material. And legitimate intellectual process varies between persons. They may come to different conclusions about the same teaching which they analyze. And some are far more capable of intellectual analysis than others. There has to be something beyond intellectual process to decide truth. Here the Lord expresses this as a willing to do God's will, a heart for God, a desire for eternity. In a word, we must be open to the things of the Spirit. And then, the teachings make sense and there is an intuitive congruence between them and our own spirit.</p>


text:
<p>14:7 Stay away from a foolish man, for you won’t find knowledge on his lips-</p><p>This is true. There is no Old Testament concept of excommunication or disfellowship of those who taught wrongly or were unwise; rather the simple advice is to keep away from them and their teaching:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to think about his way, but the folly of fools is deceit-</p><p>The idea is that not examining our way is the same as foolish self deceit. Self examination is a fundamental part of the way of life. But the word for "deceit" is so often used by David in the Psalms about his opponents, and their supporters and families were Solomon's opponents too. And he writes them off as all fools who are self deceived.</p>


text:
<p>14:9 Fools mock at making atonement for sins, but among the upright there is good will-</p><p>AV "make a mock at sin", as if a lighthearted attitude to sin is the way of foolishness. But equally, as NEV, the idea may be that fools have no conscience about the seriousness of their sins, and their need for atonement. The "upright" surely ought to be commended for making atonement for their sins. But that is lacking in the parallelism. Solomon sees a simplistic division between fools who sin, and the upright who don't sin. When [as he should have learned from his father David's life], sin is to be found in all. "There is good will" is hard to interpret. The sense may be as in LXX "the houses of the just are acceptable", i:e. they need no atonement, as far as Solomon wanted to see it. Or we may interpret with GNB "Foolish people don't care if they sin, but good people want to be forgiven"; in which case we are comforted that good people sin, the difference is that they wish for atonement.</p>


text:
<p>14:10 The heart knows its own bitterness and joy; he will not share these with a stranger-</p><p>The implication is that the foolish wear their hearts on their sleeves and share their feelings. But that is not necessarily foolish, but rather a function of personality; some are wired to need to share their emotions, others aren't. But Solomon as ever seeks to justify his own personality type as the right and wise one; hence he commends industry and hard work, because that was how he was wired himself. The lesson is to be aware that spirituality is not about simply reinforcing our own native personality type and wiring:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:11 The house of the wicked will be overthrown, but the tent of the upright will flourish-</p><p>Because the salvation of others is in our hands, both in and outside of the ecclesia, we are held responsible for their eternal loss if we do not minister to them. “Rescue those being led away to death [if we don’t, then they will die]…if you say, “But we knew nothing about this”, does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life [as you keep your brother’s life] know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? [at judgment day]” (<a href='B:240 14:11-12'>Pro 14:11-12</a> NIV).</p><p>Here as in <a href='B:240 3:33'>Pro 3:33</a>, Solomon again fails to have the subtlety he ought to have learnt from the book of Job. For Job was righteous but his "house" was overthrown, and the house of the wicked apparently prospered at the time of his affliction. Spiritual reality is that things are far more nuanced than the simplistic picture Solomon presents, true as it is in outline and ultimate terms:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:12 There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death-</p><p>We all know from our own experience with temptation that we can justify anything. Every way of man can seem right in his own eyes because of this feature of our nature (<a href='B:240 14:12'>Pro 14:12</a>; <a href='B:240 16:25'>Pro 16:25</a>; <a href='B:240 21:2'>Pro 21:2</a>). The truth of this statement demonstrates the error of the humanistic approach of 'follow your heart', 'do what feels good and right to you'. There must be the influence of God's word to put us on the path to life.</p>


text:
<p>14:13 Even in laughter the heart may be sorrowful, and mirth may end in heaviness-</p><p>But in Ecclesiastes, Solomon gave his heart to mirth, to see if there was wisdom to be found through this. He ended up re-learning the truth that he had earlier presented as prepositional truth. Despite recognizing that "even in mirth there is sorrow" and knowing that&nbsp; fools love mirth (<a href='B:250 7:4'>Ecc 7:4</a>), still Solomon wanted it and indulged that desire (<a href='B:250 2:2'>Ecc 2:2</a>). He rejected this wisdom and only came to agree with it&nbsp; through doing just what <a href='B:240 14:13'>Pro 14:13</a> condemns&nbsp; (<a href='B:250 2:2'>Ecc 2:2</a>). Another example&nbsp;of this is in <a href='B:240 5:4'>Pro 5:4</a>; <a href='B:240 22:14'>Pro 22:14</a> cp. <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>.</p>


text:
<p>14:14 The unfaithful will be repaid for his own ways; likewise a good man will be rewarded for his ways-</p><p>This is only finally true in the judgment of the last day, and the eternal outcomes of our lives in God's future Kingdom on earth. But they were things which Solomon didn't seem to factor in to his reasoning, as he assumed he was the Messianic figure and his kingdom was God's. So we can conclude that he assumes that the 'reward' for living is in this life. But LXX introduces a more subtle difference between the faithful and unfaithful: "A stout-hearted man shall be filled with his own ways; and a good man with his own thoughts". This would emphasize the power of spiritual mindedness over simply tramping on in our own ways.</p>


text:
<p>14:15 A simple man believes everything, but the prudent man carefully considers his ways-</p><p>Solomon suggests here that our "ways" are influenced by what we hear in teaching from others. Believing everything is compared with self examination. But Paul seems to quote the LXX of this verse in saying that love believes everything (<a href='B:530 13:7'>1Co 13:7</a>). This is another example of where the New Testament subtly deconstructs, or adds nuance to, the otherwise simplistic dualism found in Proverbs.</p>


text:
<p>14:16 A wise man fears, and shuns evil, but the fool is hotheaded and reckless-</p><p>Removing / shunning or departing from evil is a major theme of Proverbs (<a href='B:240 13:19'>Pro 13:19</a>; <a href='B:240 14:16'>Pro 14:16</a>; <a href='B:240 16:6'>Pro 16:6</a>; <a href='B:240 16:17'>Pro 16:17</a>). Solomon uses the same phrase in <a href='B:250 11:10'>Ecc 11:10</a>, but he gives the reason as being because youth is vanity; old age will prove that there is no point in not departing from evil, and going the way of evil, like going the way of righteousness, is all the same vanity. This nihilistic approach is because Solomon failed to discern that the end point of the path of righteousness, departing or removing our foot from the way of evil, is the redemption of the body in God's future Kingdom. But because he failed to understand that, he ends up concluding as he gets older that the choice between evil and good is all the same vain and meaningless. It is the hope of the resurrection of the body, the reality of judgment to come and the future Kingdom of God, which make morality of so much meaning today. We may also note again Solomon's overly simplistic idea that if a man removes himself from evil, all will go wonderfully for him in life. The same phrase is used of how Job removed himself from, or "eschewed", evil; but his life was traumatic and without all the blessings for wisdom which Solomon liked to imagine:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:17 He who is quick to become angry will commit folly, and a crafty man is hated-</p><p>The parallel is between those who are crafty to commit sin, doing so quietly and discreetly; and those who sin openly because they have no self control.</p>


text:
<p>14:18 The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge-</p><p>He saw his wisdom and knowledge as some sort of a reward in themselves: “the prudent are crowned with knowledge”. This is of course true in a sense, as all the Proverbs are. But Solomon surely had the idea that he, who was so renowned for his knowledge, was somehow thereby rewarded by having it. This assumption by Solomon was likely behind each of the many references he makes to the value of wisdom and the blessedness of the man who has it. It is rather like feeling that ‘we have the truth’ because somehow our correct understanding of doctrines is a reward for our righteousness, and mere possession of doctrinal truth means that we are acceptable to God.</p>


text:
<p>14:19 The evil bow down before the good, and the wicked at the gates of the righteous-</p><p>The "gates of the righteous" is specifically the gates of Zion (<a href='B:230 118:20'>Psa 118:20</a>; <a href='B:290 26:2'>Isa 26:2</a> s:w:). What Solomon says will only ultimately be true in the future Kingdom, but he is implying that in his exaltation as the Davidic king, he was declared as "good" and "righteous", and all his opponents as evil and wicked. Self justification seems never far from Solomon's thought and expression:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:20 The poor person is shunned even by his own neighbour, but the rich person has many friends-</p><p>Again Solomon implies that poverty is a sign of curse, and wealth is a sign of blessing. But that is simply not how God works. Solomon was given wealth by God, and he goes on to assume that this is a sign of acceptability with Him, when it isn't. David laments how his friends turned away from him and he was shunned by his neighbours, as a result of his sin with Solomon's mother Bathsheba (<a href='B:230 38:11'>Psa 38:11</a>; <a href='B:230 88:18'>Psa 88:18</a>). The way Solomon appears ignorant of this indicates the degree to which he had whitewashed his parents, and considered the effects of that sin not to be consequence for sin, but rather the unreasonable and wrong behaviour of his own half brothers. And he believed they had been condemned for that behaviour, as his Proverbs often allude to them.</p>


text:
<p>14:21 He who despises his neighbour sins, but blessed is he who has pity on the poor-</p><p>Solomon had not known need, neither material nor spiritual, and it shows in his attitude to so obsessively forbidding the giving of collateral to guarantee a loan. It makes hollow all Solomon's exhortations to be generous to your poor neighbour and to be a brother in adversity to your neighbour (<a href='B:240 14:21'>Pro 14:21</a>; <a href='B:240 17:17'>Pro 17:17</a>). Solomon is here reasoning from the viewpoint of secular wisdom. The law of Moses didn't forbid giving or taking collateral for loans, it accepted this would happen (<a href='B:20 22:25-27'>Exo 22:25-27</a>). But Solomon in the Proverbs is quite obsessed with forbidding it in very strong terms (<a href='B:240 6:1-3'>Pro 6:1-3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:15'>Pro 11:15</a>; <a href='B:240 17:18'>Pro 17:18</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 22:26'>Pro 22:26</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a> - all quite some emphasis). Perhaps Solomon recalled some bad experience in his family because of this. There is the otherwise curious statement in <a href='B:90 17:18'>1Sa 17:18</a> that David's brothers, Solomon's uncles, were to return a collateral. Perhaps this ruined the family and Solomon's wisdom has some human element in it, reflecting his own bad experiences in his family life. But there is nothing wrong with giving or taking collateral for a loan; what is condemned in God's law is the abuse of the debtor and the abuse of the situation. Indeed David and Hezekiah ask God to be collateral for their needs and debts in various ways (<a href='B:230 119:122'>Psa 119:122</a>; <a href='B:290 38:14'>Isa 38:14</a>). And God gives the Holy Spirit in our hearts as collateral on His debt, as He sees it, to save us (<a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a>; <a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>); and in response we give our hearts as a pledge to Him (<a href='B:300 30:21'>Jer 30:21</a> Heb:). So forbidding the practice seems out of step with the spirit of grace. It would mean asking of God what we are unprepared to do for others.</p>


text:
<p>14:22 Don’t they go astray who plot evil? But love and faithfulness belong to those who plan good-</p><p>"Plot evil" is the phrase used of Saul's plots against David (<a href='B:90 23:9'>1Sa 23:9</a>). Saul likely still had his supporters even in Solomon's time, and Solomon came to the throne after&nbsp; period of continual attempts to take the throne from the Davidic line through Absalom. And he uses his Proverbs, true as they are, to do down any potential opposition, and to present support of him as the only way to national peace and unity- an old ploy.</p>


text:
<p>14:23 In all hard work there is profit, but the talk of the lips leads only to poverty-</p><p>Here again we see Solomon's works based attitude. He sees poverty as the result of laziness, and profit / plenty coming from hard work (<a href='B:240 14:23'>Pro 14:23</a>; <a href='B:240 21:5'>Pro 21:5</a>). He fails to appreciate the wider narrative in spiritual life. The good news is for the poor, which group may include the lazy. And works will not save, and God's salvation is what is ultimately required by man. But Solomon had no eternal perspective, because he thought his kingdom was God's. And so as he got older and closer to death, he reasons that the reality of death means that man has no profit or preeminence (s:w. <a href='B:250 3:19'>Ecc 3:19</a>). If he had accepted the Gospel of the future Kingdom of God, he would have focused more upon salvation by grace through faith, and less upon the supremacy of hard work and profit / preeminence in this life.</p>


text:
<p>14:24 The crown of the wise is their riches, but the folly of fools crowns them with folly-</p><p>It was Solomon who was the king and wore the ultimate crown in his society. And he implies that his fantastic riches were a result of his wisdom, and that his pattern should be followed by others. But he fails to remember that his desire for wisdom was recognized by God in that He gave Solomon riches. Those riches were a gift from God, by grace, and not acquired or generated by his own application of wisdom (<a href='B:110 3:13'>1Ki 3:13</a>). He therefore misused his possession of wisdom and experience of grace to justify himself, and present himself as a self made man; when he was not that at all.</p>


text:
<p>14:25 A truthful witness saves souls, but a false witness is deceitful-</p><p>Solomon has much to say about true and false witnesses (<a href='B:240 6:19'>Pro 6:19</a>; <a href='B:240 12:17'>Pro 12:17</a>; <a href='B:240 14:5'>Pro 14:5</a>; <a href='B:240 14:25'>Pro 14:25</a>; <a href='B:240 19:5'>Pro 19:5</a>; <a href='B:240 19:9'>Pro 19:9</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>; <a href='B:240 21:28'>Pro 21:28</a>; <a href='B:240 24:28'>Pro 24:28</a>; <a href='B:240 25:18'>Pro 25:18</a>). Whilst his warnings are true enough, he surely has an element of self justification in what he writes. Because he was aware that his parents, David and Bathsheba, had been accused of many things which had led to all the opposition against David at the end of his reign, and which opposition Solomon had to contend with in order to retain the throne for himself. David laments the false witness of the house of Saul and his own sons, Solomon's half brothers (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 35:11'>Psa 35:11</a>). The continual condemnation of false witnesses must be understood in this context. Whilst it is all true so far as it goes, Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p>


text:
<p>14:26 In the fear of Yahweh is a secure fortress, and He will be a refuge for His children-</p><p>The secure fortress was Zion (<a href='B:290 32:18'>Isa 32:18</a>; <a href='B:230 125:1'>Psa 125:1</a> s:w:), "the stronghold of Zion, the same is the city of David" (<a href='B:100 5:7'>2Sa 5:7</a>). Whilst what Solomon says is true, and repeats the multiple cases of David in the Psalms professing trust in Yahweh as his strong fortress, Solomon as ever has his agenda of self justification; he saw his possession of Zion as a sign that he feared Yahweh acceptably, and that his children would continue the Davidic line of glory. But sacred space is not so ultimately important to God. Possession of the literal stronghold of Zion was nothing compared to trust in Yahweh:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:27 The fear of Yahweh is a fountain of life, turning people from the snares of death-</p><p>Solomon uses&nbsp; the figure of a well of living water to describe spiritual words&nbsp; and&nbsp; thinking (<a href='B:240 10:11'>Pro 10:11</a>; <a href='B:240 13:14'>Pro 13:14</a>; <a href='B:240 14:27'>Pro 14:27</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>). Yet this is&nbsp;the&nbsp; very&nbsp; figure which he uses concerning his worldly bride (<a href='B:260 4:15'>Son 4:15</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;It could be argued that this typifies the massive&nbsp; imputation of righteousness&nbsp; which&nbsp; the&nbsp; Lord&nbsp; Jesus grants to us, His worldly Gentile bride. But I would rather see it as an example of how he chose to justify his love for worldly women by as it were clothing those women in his own mind with the imagery of spirituality.</p><p>Solomon claims that the righteous / wise live long lives, and therefore the unwise have shorter lives (<a href='B:240 9:11'>Pro 9:11</a>; <a href='B:240 10:27'>Pro 10:27</a>). This was the promise for obedience to the old covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 11:21'>Deu 11:21</a>). But it is not always the case, as Job learned (s:w. <a href='B:220 29:18'>Job 29:18</a>); righteous men like David and Hezekiah felt their days had been shortened (s:w. <a href='B:230 89:45'>Psa 89:45</a>; <a href='B:230 102:23'>Psa 102:23</a>). And it was so with the Lord Jesus. And faithful men often lament that the wicked seem to get long life, whilst the righteous don't. The answer to that conundrum is that final blessing of long life is at the resurrection, at the last day; and not in this life. But Solomon didn't see that; he thought that long life now was the only reward. He failed to perceive the real meaning of the Gospel of the Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p>14:28 In the multitude of people is the king’s glory, but without people the prince is nothing-</p><p>GNB "A king's greatness depends on how many people he rules; without them he is nothing". Solomon is again justifying himself, for the people at his time are described as very many at his time (<a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>). Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p>


text:
<p>14:29 He who is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a quick temper displays folly-</p><p>This is true, but there are several examples of David's quick temper. We recall his furious desire to slay Nabal's family. But all the historical weaknesses of David are passed over by Solomon. He seems to have subconsciously whitewashed his father, and presents him elsewhere as the glorious example of wisdom, and all his opponents as fools:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:30 The life of the body is a heart at peace, but envy rots the bones-</p><p>GNB "Peace of mind makes the body healthy, but jealousy is like a cancer". Solomon has much to say about the evil of envy (e.g. <a href='B:240 14:30'>Pro 14:30</a>; <a href='B:240 23:17'>Pro 23:17</a>; <a href='B:240 24:1'>Pro 24:1</a>; <a href='B:240 24:19'>Pro 24:19</a>; <a href='B:240 27:4'>Pro 27:4</a>). But true as his condemnations of envy are, he surely has in mind the way that Ephraim envied Judah, and envied his throne (s:w. <a href='B:290 11:13'>Isa 11:13</a>). This all came to full term after his death, when Ephraim departed from Judah under Jeroboam. Again, Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning. But as he faced death, he came to realize that all such envy is as nothing before the reality of death, which he understood as the end of life, as he had assumed this life was the time for reward and expresses no personal hope in a resurrection of the body (<a href='B:250 4:4'>Ecc 4:4</a>; <a href='B:250 9:6'>Ecc 9:6</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:31 He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for his Maker, but he who is kind to the needy honours Him-</p><p>Oppression seems to have been a characteristic of the reigns of Saul and Absalom. See on <a href='B:230 62:10'>Psa 62:10</a>. This was the equivalent of how Saul oppressed David (<a href='B:230 119:121-122'>Psa 119:121-122</a>; <a href='B:230 119:134'>Psa 119:134</a>). Samuel's insistence that he has not oppressed the people is in the context of his warning that Saul would do this (<a href='B:90 12:3-4'>1Sa 12:3-4</a>). When Solomon later condemns the 'oppressors' (s:w. <a href='B:240 14:31'>Pro 14:31</a>; <a href='B:240 22:16'>Pro 22:16</a>; <a href='B:240 28:3'>Pro 28:3</a>; <a href='B:240 28:24'>Pro 28:24</a>), he has in view a wishing of judgment upon the house of Saul. "The poor" whom they had oppressed would easily refer to David (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>; <a href='B:230 34:6'>Psa 34:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>14:32 The wicked is brought down in his calamity, but in death, the righteous has a refuge-</p><p>"Brought down" is 'chased away', the language of Divine judgment at the last day (<a href='B:220 18:18'>Job 18:18</a>; <a href='B:220 20:8'>Job 20:8</a>; <a href='B:290 13:14'>Isa 13:14</a>; <a href='B:290 17:13'>Isa 17:13</a>). AV "hath hope in his death". all this can be read as looking forward to the judgment of the last day; but Solomon doesn't reason as if there is such a judgment. He saw himself, armed with his Divine wisdom, as the ultimate judge of men, and his kingdom as God's Kingdom with himself as the Messiah figure. So whilst his words are recorded in such a way as to look ahead to the future, I suggest this was not the position which he himself held. Rather is he saying that the wicked are brought down in this life, and when faced with violent death, as David was at times, God will deliver them- in this life.</p>


text:
<p>14:33 Wisdom remains in the heart of one who has understanding, and is even made known in the inward part of fools-</p><p>Solomon later alludes to this in saying that although he cast off his faith in Yahweh, and his heart turned aside to idols, his Divinely given wisdom [in an intellectual sense] remained with him (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>). He seems to be saying that if one has wisdom, it will always remain in the heart, and thereby justify a man. But this isn't the case; one can know Divine truths and yet live otherwise, without at all personalizing them. And so turn away from the true God, just as Solomon did. The last half of the verse would simply be saying that fools don't get it, and never will, hence GNB "fools know nothing about wisdom":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people-</p><p>Israel were exalted under Solomon to the peak of their power and extent. And he sees this as being due to "righteousness". But he himself was far from righteousness, as were his people. Their exaltation was due to the work done by David, and God's recognition of David. Material blessing in secular terms is no guarantee of righteousness, nor is a lack of such blessings a sign of sin; as the book of Job makes clear. But Solomon sees only the immediate and the secular, and assumes that the exaltation of Israel was because of their or his righteousness. But that is simply not the case.</p>


text:
<p>14:35 The king’s favour is toward a servant who deals wisely, but his wrath is toward one who causes shame- </p><p>See on <a href='B:240 12:16'>Pro 12:16</a>. </p><p>Although what Solomon writes is true and inspired, he clearly has in view his favour and then wrath against his servant Jeroboam (<a href='B:110 11:26'>1Ki 11:26</a>). Solomon uses his own feelings against Jeroboam as a basis for a global truth about kings and their servants. His Proverbs were indeed inspired, but there was a human element behind his words, ever seeking to use God's truths in order to justify himself.</p>


text:
<p>15:1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger-</p><p>LXX "Anger slays even wise men; yet a submissive answer turns away wrath: but a grievous word stirs up anger". There are several similarities here with David's hotheaded desire to kill Nabal and all his family because of harsh words. And indeed Abigail's wise and gentle answer turned away David's wrath. Abigail remained a favourite wife with David, and so Solomon here appears to be justifying her. Although another alternative is that he had so whitewashed the failures and rashness of his father David that he writes this without any awareness that it all applies to his father, and shows him up in a bad light; whereas Solomon is everywhere glorifying "my father David".</p>


text:
<p>15:2 The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of fools gushes out folly-</p><p>Solomon speaks truly, but he seems to have a subtext of declaring himself the ultimate tongue of the wise; see on :4.</p>


text:
<p>15:3 Yahweh’s eyes are everywhere, keeping watch on the evil and the good-</p><p>Perhaps a reference to the Angels. The point is that both evil and good are watched over by them, for God is the ultimate creator of both (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>). This would have been (and still is) at radical variance with the common misconception that some cosmic forces of evil watch over the evil, whilst God watches over the good. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>15:4 A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but deceit in it crushes the spirit-</p><p>AV "a wholesome tongue". Solomon has early predicated "life" upon his own words (<a href='B:240 4:20'>Pro 4:20</a>; <a href='B:240 4:22'>Pro 4:22</a>); so it may be that he again has himself in view as the ultimately good and true tongue. For he considers that his tongue is the ultimate "tongue of the wise" of :2.</p><p>Access to the tree of life has been taken away because of human sin; only in the restored Eden of the Kingdom of God on earth will we be able to eat the fruit of the tree of life. Indeed God in His grace and wisdom barred access to the tree of life, knowing that eternity in our present state would be a curse. But Solomon likes to think that his kingdom is the Kingdom of God, and the life according to his wisdom was effectively the life eternal. Again we see a failure in Solomon to perceive that the true life and restoration of Eden was yet future. This would explain why as he got older and approached death, he became disillusioned; for clearly his life had not been the life of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>15:5 A fool despises his father’s correction, but he who heeds reproof shows prudence-</p><p>Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>); but he didn't preserve of observe them (<a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (<a href='B:240 2:8'>Pro 2:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:26'>Pro 3:26</a>), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (<a href='B:240 4:4'>Pro 4:4</a>; <a href='B:240 6:22'>Pro 6:22</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>; <a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>), preservation was through following the example of the wise (<a href='B:240 2:20'>Pro 2:20</a>); rather than stressing obedience to God's ways, and replacing David his father's simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (<a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure-</p><p>Solomon continues his mistaken attitude to wealth, alluding to the houses he built in which to store his treasures. But he was given wealth by God's grace, as a gift, in recognition of his preference for wisdom. But he abuses this grace, as we can, in assuming that the gift was given because he was righteous- when he wasn't.</p><p>But the income of the wicked brings trouble-</p><p>The initial reference would be to Achan who loved and coveted wealth and thereby troubled Israel (s:w. <a href='B:130 2:7'>1Ch 2:7</a>). But Solomon always has some self justification in his agenda in the Proverbs, and he surely has in mind how Saul troubled Israel (<a href='B:90 14:29'>1Sa 14:29</a> s:w:), and was therefore replaced by the line of David through Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>15:7 The lips of the wise spread knowledge; not so with the heart of fools-</p><p>Again the heart and the mouth are paralleled. We cannot hope to think things in our hearts, and they don't ultimately issue forth as words (<a href='B:470 12:34'>Mat 12:34</a>). Solomon considers that he is justified as personally wise, because of his spreading of knowledge in the form of the anthology we have in the book of Proverbs. But teaching others doesn't of itself justify us. He pronounces himself as the "teacher" in Ecclesiastes, at a point where he has clearly lost any personal faith he ever had.</p>


text:
<p>15:8 The sacrifice made by the wicked is an abomination to Yahweh, but the prayer of the upright is His delight-</p><p>We note here the parallel between prayer and sacrifice. This is a major Biblical theme (<a href='B:350 14:2'>Hos 14:2</a> etc:). Indeed, it is "not for ease that prayer shall be". True prayer involves giving something deeply personal of ourselves.</p>


text:
<p>15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination to Yahweh, but He loves him who follows after righteousness-</p><p>This is true. But Solomon was 'the one whom Yahweh loves' (<a href='B:100 12:24'>2Sa 12:24</a>; the same words are used), and there is a subtext here of self justification. See on <a href='B:240 3:12'>Pro 3:12</a>. Solomon's experience of God's love led him to conclude that he must therefore be following righteousness. But he failed to perceive that God's love is by grace, and not a reward for our righteousness.</p>


text:
<p>15:10 There is stern discipline for one who forsakes the way: whoever hates reproof shall die-</p><p>Solomon here quotes his father's words in <a href='B:230 50:17'>Psa 50:17</a> "since you hate instruction". Solomon thus accuses any who refuse his Proverbs of doing just this, hating instruction, which in the context of <a href='B:230 50:17'>Psa 50:17</a> means 'You are condemned' (s:w. <a href='B:240 5:12'>Pro 5:12</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>). As in <a href='B:240 2:13'>Pro 2:13</a>, Solomon sees the wicked as those who once knew the right path and have left it. He contrasts the path of uprightness and that of darkness (<a href='B:240 2:13'>Pro 2:13</a>). But life is not so clear cut. The same phrase is used of how Job felt he was walking the path of darkness (<a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a>). David, Solomon's father, likewise partially strayed from the path. This inability to recognize that spiritual life is not so black and white led to Solomon assuming he was totally on the way of righteousness. He was unable therefore to appreciate that he himself failed at some points at some times. And this is true for those who have a similarly black and white view of people and spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>15:11 Sheol and Abaddon are before Yahweh- how much more then the hearts of the children of men!-</p><p>Death and the grave are therefore not seen as presided over by some lord of the underworld, a Satan-like figure. Rather God is presented as all powerful and alone in control of good and evil; see on :3. Solomon correctly perceives that the hearts of men are what determine their destiny. But he presents this truth without personalizing it, for his own heart was turned away to idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>15:12 A scoffer doesn’t love to be reproved; he will not go to the wise-</p><p>David had spoken of the house of Saul as scoffing at him (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:51'>Psa 119:51</a>). And the line of David had been chosen to replace Saul because he had refused Samuel's reproof. David had accepted reproof and was open to it, notably from Nathan the prophet (<a href='B:230 38:1'>Psa 38:1</a>; <a href='B:230 141:5'>Psa 141:5</a>); and so again Solomon's Proverbs are true, but he harnesses them to the justification of himself and his father. But Solomon was only to remain the prophetic son of David if he accepted reproof (s:w. <a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>); and he didn't. He refused to personalize his own wisdom, as we can.</p>


text:
<p>15:13 A glad heart makes a cheerful face; but an aching heart breaks the spirit-</p><p>Solomon teaches that a broken spirit is a curse (<a href='B:240 15:13'>Pro 15:13</a>; <a href='B:240 17:22'>Pro 17:22</a>; <a href='B:240 18:14'>Pro 18:14</a>), and an indication that something is wrong with the core of a person; because an unbroken spirit will "make a cheerful face" (<a href='B:240 15:13'>Pro 15:13</a>), and external appearance and having joy in this life was of primary importance to Solomon. He fails to realize that his father David had a broken spirit (<a href='B:230 31:12'>Psa 31:12</a>; <a href='B:230 38:8'>Psa 38:8</a>; <a href='B:230 44:19'>Psa 44:19</a>; <a href='B:230 51:8'>Psa 51:8</a>; <a href='B:230 51:17'>Psa 51:17</a>; <a href='B:230 69:20'>Psa 69:20</a> - all a fair emphasis), and had thereby understood that Yahweh is especially close to those with a broken spirit (<a href='B:230 34:18'>Psa 34:18</a>; <a href='B:230 147:13'>Psa 147:13</a>), indeed the Gospel is for the broken spirited, and the broken hearted are not to be mocked (<a href='B:230 109:16'>Psa 109:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>15:14 The heart of one who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly-</p><p>Again the message is that wisdom is manifested in terms of who a person seeks as their teacher. This is indeed true, confirmed by <a href='B:620 4:3'>2Ti 4:3</a>. But as ever there is the subtext, that anyone who refuses to accept Solomon as the teacher of Israel is foolish. And yet Solomon was himself morally compromised by his fleshly lifestyle.</p>


text:
<p>15:15 All the days of the afflicted are wretched, but one who has a cheerful heart enjoys a continual feast-</p><p>Again, this is typical of the simplistic dualism of Solomon. The wise have a continual feast, whereas the unwise live wretched lives. But this is simply not true to spiritual reality, and the Bible is full of lament that the wicked have a great life now whilst the righteous suffer, with the final resolution of things only made at the last day. But Solomon assumes that he is the Messianic seed of David and his kingdom is God's Kingdom, and therefore the reward for wisdom has to be immediately in this life.</p>


text:
<p>15:16 Better is little with the fear of Yahweh, than great treasure with trouble-</p><p>This is true, but it is in tension with Solomon's idea that increased wealth comes as a blessing for wisdom. Perhaps LXX is therefore more accurate, speaking of the size of an inheritance: "Better is a small portion...". This may refer to Solomon's tribe of Judah not having the largest portion or inheritance, a source of tension between Judah and Ephraim.</p>


text:
<p>15:17 Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a fattened calf with hatred-</p><p>The&nbsp; blindness&nbsp;of&nbsp;Solomon&nbsp;is&nbsp;driven home time and again. The&nbsp;Proverbs which lament the rich man who has bitterness in&nbsp;his family life no doubt came true of Solomon in later life. He is a parade example of knowing Divine truth but living the very opposite.</p><p>Perhaps Solomon has in view the "hatred" of his brother Amnon (<a href='B:100 13:15'>2Sa 13:15</a>). The word for "hatred" is used by David in the Psalms, about both the house of Saul and also Solomon's half brothers (see on <a href='B:230 25:19'>Psa 25:19</a>; <a href='B:230 103:9'>Psa 103:9</a>; <a href='B:230 109:5'>Psa 109:5</a>). All these were contenders to Solomon's throne, and he appears to here condemn them as fools who shall therefore be condemned. This constant focus upon the judgment of others led Solomon to be quite unaware of his personal responsibility to judgment himself:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:18 A wrathful man stirs up contention, but one who is slow to anger appeases strife-</p><p>Solomon seems to overlook the fact that his father David was known as a "wrathful man" (s:w. <a href='B:100 11:20'>2Sa 11:20</a>), who was hardly "slow to anger", as witnessed by his behaviour at the time of Nabal's provocation. He refuses to see any weakness in his father, and instead presents him as the wise and righteous man:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:19 The way of the sluggard is like a thorn patch, but the path of the upright is a highway-</p><p>The Proverbs contain repeated condemnation of laziness. Lack of a zealous work ethic is a rejection of wisdom, according to Solomon. As Solomon explains in Ecclesiastes 1, he was an active person, not lazy by nature. And yet he lacked spirituality. He claimed that his service of God was due to his spirituality, but it was in reality merely a semblance of serving God when it was really just reinforcing his own personality type. His mocking of the "sluggard" or "lazy one" is so frequent (<a href='B:240 6:6'>Pro 6:6</a>; <a href='B:240 6:9'>Pro 6:9</a>; <a href='B:240 10:26'>Pro 10:26</a>; <a href='B:240 13:4'>Pro 13:4</a>; <a href='B:240 15:19'>Pro 15:19</a>; <a href='B:240 19:24'>Pro 19:24</a>; <a href='B:240 20:4'>Pro 20:4</a>; <a href='B:240 21:25'>Pro 21:25</a>; <a href='B:240 22:13'>Pro 22:13</a>; <a href='B:240 24:30'>Pro 24:30</a>; <a href='B:240 26:13-16'>Pro 26:13-16</a>). But it is a reflection of his own works-based approach to righteousness; the 'wise' "do" good things, and the wicked don't do enough good things. Personal spiritual mindedness and relationship with God are simply not emphasized.</p>


text:
<p>15:20 A wise son makes a father glad, but a foolish man despises his mother-</p><p>This is true, but Solomon saw himself as the supremely wise man, who made his father David glad. And he may also have in mind how his rival half brother Absalom had reduced David his father to tears, through his unwisdom.</p>


text:
<p>15:21 Folly is joy to one who is void of wisdom, but a man of understanding keeps his way straight-</p><p>Solomon thinks of the righteous as walking unflinchingly forward in wisdom, never turning to the right or left, refusing to be distracted by any wicked person who suggests walking another way (<a href='B:240 9:15'>Pro 9:15</a> "to call travellers who go directly on their way"). This approach fails to take account of the simple fact that righteous people sin and stray from the direct path every day, and are saved finally into God's Kingdom by grace alone. That is all something Solomon failed to have any grasp of, whereas David his father did. <a href='B:240 11:5'>Pro 11:5</a> makes the somewhat tautological statement that "the righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way", s:w. <a href='B:240 4:25'>Pro 4:25</a> "fix your gaze directly before you". This contrasts with how David uses the word in <a href='B:230 5:8'>Psa 5:8</a>: "Lead me, O Yahweh... make Your way straight [s:w. direct] before my face". The same statement of God directing in the straight way is found in <a href='B:290 45:13'>Isa 45:13</a>; <a href='B:300 18:4'>Jer 18:4</a> s:w. Solomon didn't see this need for the Spirit of God to direct his path because he assumed that mere possession of Divine truth would itself keep him in the way; hence he teaches that "understanding" makes a man walk "directly" (<a href='B:240 15:21'>Pro 15:21</a>). And he failed miserably because of that arrogant position.</p>


text:
<p>15:22 Where there is no counsel, plans fail; but in a multitude of counsellors they are established-</p><p>But Solomon disobeyed this, reflecting in <a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a> how he had become the king who wouldn’t be admonished / counselled.</p>


text:
<p>15:23 Joy comes to a man as a result of the reply of his mouth. How good is an appropriate word at the right time!-</p><p>This is true, but gives rise to a whiff of smug, self congratulatory complacency. For it is as if Solomon see himself and the wise as joyful or happy with themselves because they had used words rightly to others. Solomon fails to appreciate that spiritual reality is not so simplistic; James is nearer the mark when he writes that we cannot seem to always control our tongues (<a href='B:660 3:1-5'>Jas 3:1-5</a>). Whereas Solomon is smug at the thought that he always gave the right and appropriate reply.</p>


text:
<p>15:24 The path of life spirals upward for the wise, to keep him from going downward to Sheol-</p><p>Solomon elsewhere clearly understands sheol as the grave, and not some place of punishment for the wicked at their death. So his idea is that the wise would be kept from death, perhaps violent death, in their lifetimes. But as Solomon himself got older and approached death, he realized that death was an inevitable factor in every human life; and hence Ecclesiastes is full of reflection that death means that wisdom or unwisdom is ultimately a vain choice. This all arose because Solomon wrongly assumed that this life is the time for reward and punishment for wisdom or unwisdom. He had no perspective on a future day of judgment and eternal reward. These things were clearly understood from Abraham to David, but he chose not to accept that message. But it is indeed true that there is an upward spiral in spiritual life for the wise, empowered in our days by the activity of the Spirit in human life.</p>


text:
<p>15:25 Yahweh will uproot the house of the proud, but He will keep the widow’s borders intact-</p><p>This is true, but the house of Solomon had competed for the throne against other families / houses. And he here alludes to that, assuming all the competing houses had been punished for their pride. But that didn't mean Solomon was the humble, wise, righteous one as he assumed. The defence of the widow alludes to David being willing to do this in <a href='B:100 14:5'>2Sa 14:5</a>. There may also be an allusion to David promising not to destroy the house of Saul (<a href='B:90 24:21'>1Sa 24:21</a>); but Solomon considers that Yahweh would do this.</p>


text:
<p>15:26 Yahweh detests the thoughts of the wicked, but the thoughts of the pure are pleasing-</p><p>"Abomination" [s:w. "detests"] is the common word for idols (e.g. <a href='B:50 7:25-26'>Deu 7:25-26</a>). Idolatry is here interpreted as things like pride and telling lies (:17). These seven things are the essence of idolatry. There is a recurring nature to them, just as idols got a grip on the mind of the worshipper. Solomon often uses the word for quiet, secret sins, words and the matters of the heart, internal attitudes and judgments (<a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a>; <a href='B:240 11:20'>Pro 11:20</a>; <a href='B:240 12:22'>Pro 12:22</a>; <a href='B:240 13:19'>Pro 13:19</a>; <a href='B:240 15:26'>Pro 15:26</a>; <a href='B:240 16:5'>Pro 16:5</a>; <a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a>; <a href='B:240 20:10'>Pro 20:10</a>; <a href='B:240 20:23'>Pro 20:23</a>; <a href='B:240 24:9'>Pro 24:9</a>; <a href='B:240 26:25'>Pro 26:25</a>; <a href='B:240 28:9'>Pro 28:9</a>; <a href='B:240 29:27'>Pro 29:27</a>). And this of course is the essence of idolatry in our age; this is the practical force to us of all Biblical teaching about idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>15:27 He who is greedy for gain troubles his own house, but he who hates bribes will live-</p><p>The initial reference would be to Achan who loved and coveted wealth and thereby troubled Israel and his own house (s:w. <a href='B:130 2:7'>1Ch 2:7</a>). But Solomon always has some self justification in his agenda in the Proverbs, and he surely has in mind how Saul troubled Israel (<a href='B:90 14:29'>1Sa 14:29</a> s:w:), and was therefore replaced by the line of David through Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>15:28 The heart of the righteous weighs answers, but the mouth of the wicked gushes out evil-</p><p>Solomon repeatedly condemns "the mouth of the wicked" (<a href='B:240 10:6'>Pro 10:6</a>; <a href='B:240 10:11'>Pro 10:11</a>; <a href='B:240 10:32'>Pro 10:32</a>; <a href='B:240 11:11'>Pro 11:11</a>; <a href='B:240 12:6'>Pro 12:6</a>; <a href='B:240 15:28'>Pro 15:28</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>). All he says is true enough, but he clearly enough has in view how his father David had condemned the supporters of Saul and Absalom as having "the mouth of the wicked" (<a href='B:230 109:2'>Psa 109:2</a>). And these were the groups who were threatening his power and throne. Solomon presents himself by implication as having the mouth of the just / righteous. And yet we must note that David too had spoken multiple words of deceit in relation to the murder of Uriah. Indeed the phrase is used in <a href='B:290 53:9'>Isa 53:9</a> as if the Lord Jesus was the only man who didn't have a "mouth of deceit". Solomon like David was in denial of the fact that we all sin with our mouths, as James makes clear in <a href='B:660 3:1-3'>Jas 3:1-3</a>.</p>


text:
<p>15:29 Yahweh is far from the wicked, but He hears the prayer of the righteous-</p><p>"The Lord is far&nbsp; from&nbsp; the&nbsp; wicked:&nbsp; but&nbsp; He&nbsp; heareth&nbsp; the prayer of the righteous". This implies that God is too physically far away from the wicked to hear their prayer. <a href='B:230 10:1'>Psa 10:1</a> is one of the many references in the Psalms to God being physically far away when a prayer is not answered: "Why standest Thou afar off, O Lord? Why hidest Thou Thyself in times of trouble?". This is the language of limitation- God Himself hears every sound of our lips, including the prayers of the wicked, which He says are like smoke in His nostrils and an annoyance to Him. So if our prayers are heard when God is 'near' us, does it not follow that when our Angel is physically near us, then our prayer is more quickly heard? Hence Jesus' Angel was physically with Him in Gethsemane in order to encourage Him in prayer. Once we accept that prayer goes first to an Angel, then this suggestion looks more sensible.</p><p>LXX adds "Let the heart of a man think justly, that his steps may be rightly ordered of God". This suggests that the thinking of man is confirmed by God. This has ever been the work of the Holy Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>15:30 The light of the eyes rejoices the heart; good news gives health to the bones-</p><p>The Hebrew isn't clear, and perhaps the GNB may be closer to the sense: "Smiling faces make you happy, and good news makes you feel better". The immediate context in :31,32 is about the positive result of hearing wisdom, so the idea may be that if Solomon smiled on a person and they received his gospel or good news, then the person would be happy; whereas if his words were refused, there would be grief (:32). But again we note that the emphasis is upon blessing right now in this life, with no perspective of a future eternal Kingdom as the time of blessing.</p>


text:
<p>15:31 The ear that listens to reproof lives, and will be at home among the wise-</p><p>This appears to be an out of context allusion to David's words in <a href='B:230 38:14'>Psa 38:14</a>, reflecting on his sin with Bathsheba, and how he felt unable to give reproof to others: "Yes, I am as a man who doesn’t hear, in whose mouth are no reproofs". Solomon was obsessed with David his father, speaking hundreds of times of "David my father". But he failed to have his humility; he endlessly dishes out reproofs in Proverbs, indeed he sees his Proverbs as reproofs to people (e.g. <a href='B:240 1:25'>Pro 1:25</a>; <a href='B:240 6:23'>Pro 6:23</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:18'>Pro 13:18</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:31'>Pro 15:31</a>; <a href='B:240 29:15'>Pro 29:15</a>); whereas David humbly felt unable to do so because of his awareness of his sins. And at the time David wrote the Proverbs, when he received wisdom at the start of his reign, he was sinning likewise [in essence] by marrying foreign women:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:32 He who refuses correction despises his own soul, but he who listens to reproof gets understanding-</p><p>Solomon has so much to say about "correction" or "instruction" coming from the possession of wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:10'>Pro 8:10</a>; <a href='B:240 8:33'>Pro 8:33</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:1'>Pro 13:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>; <a href='B:240 15:32'>Pro 15:32</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>; <a href='B:240 19:20'>Pro 19:20</a>; <a href='B:240 19:27'>Pro 19:27</a>; <a href='B:240 22:15'>Pro 22:15</a>; <a href='B:240 23:12-13'>Pro 23:12-13</a>). But in the end he chastised or corrected his people by whipping them (s:w. <a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; <a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>). Solomon initially asked for wisdom in order to guide his people, but he ended up whipping / physically chastising them into conformity with his wishes rather than allowing wisdom to correct. Again, he was playing God; for it is God through His wisdom who chastises, and not man. But Solomon thought he was effectively God to his people. This is why Solomon argues that servants cannot be corrected by words (<a href='B:240 29:19'>Pro 29:19</a> s:w:), and a child must be physically chastised (s:w. <a href='B:240 19:18'>Pro 19:18</a>; <a href='B:240 29:17'>Pro 29:17</a> cp. <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 23:13'>Pro 23:13</a>), regardless of his screams of pain. This kind of thing is a denial of his claims elsewhere that it is Divine wisdom which chastises / corrects, and such correction is from God and not man. Solomon's final description of himself as an old and foolish king who refuses to be admonished says it all (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>); he admonishes others (s:w. <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), but refuses to be admonished or corrected by his own wisdom. He failed to personalize it.</p>


text:
<p>15:33 The fear of Yahweh teaches wisdom; before honour is humility-</p><p>This is true, but Solomon supposes that wisdom is received by firstly fearing Yahweh. Solomon was given wisdom as a gift, by grace. But once he possessed it, he begins to reason as if he received it because of some prior righteousness on his part. He abused the gifts of grace, just as we can.</p>


text:
<p>16:1 The plans of the heart within man, and the answer of the tongue, is from Yahweh-</p><p>This is the introduction to the section from :1-9 about the heart. Although we are responsible for our hearts, there is this 'other' factor, over and above our mental efforts. This is the work of the Spirit, that element "from Yahweh" over and above our freewill thought control. Note how the tongue and the heart are paralleled- for as the Lord stated specifically, our words reflect our thoughts. And yet the "answer of the tongue is from Yahweh" in that at times we find ourselves saying things which are beyond us or not fully of ourselves. It could be that the last verse in the section, :9, concludes by saying the same- "A man's heart plans his course, but Yahweh directs his steps".</p>


text:
<p>16:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but Yahweh weighs the motives-</p><p>The Hebrew refers to balancing weights. He doesn't make an automatic judgment, but consciously considers the positives and negatives within our spirits [ruach- "motives", NEV]. He does it this way, although He could do it without any process and instantly, in order to encourage us to do likewise, realizing that our self-examination is mirroring His.</p>


text:
<p>16:3 Commit your deeds to Yahweh, and your plans shall succeed-</p><p>"Commit" is the word used by David in <a href='B:230 37:5'>Psa 37:5</a> "Commit your way to Yahweh. Trust also in Him, and He will do this". &nbsp;What He will "do" is to grant the desire of our heart (<a href='B:230 37:4'>Psa 37:4</a>), which is defined in this Psalm as eternally inheriting the land. And this will be achieved by imputing righteousness to us (<a href='B:230 37:6'>Psa 37:6</a>). We are to commit our life's way to Yahweh, knowing that it is His desire to grant us our heart's desire- a place in His Kingdom. So David speaks of committing our life's way to Yahweh and then trusting that He will bring us to His Kingdom; but here Solomon tweaks this into "Commit [s:w:] your works unto Yahweh" (<a href='B:240 16:3'>Pro 16:3</a>). We see here Solomon's works-based approach.</p><p>Works and His thoughts are paralleled here (as in <a href='B:230 40:5'>Psa 40:5</a>; <a href='B:230 92:5'>Psa 92:5</a>). Thoughts are therefore our "way" of life in practice (<a href='B:290 55:7'>Isa 55:7</a>). This is because thought and action are understood as essentially the same; hence the sermon on the mount condemns thoughts of sin as if they are the sin itself.</p>


text:
<p>16:4 Yahweh has made everything for its own end-- yes, even the wicked for the day of evil-</p><p>Nothing is wasted in the Divine ecology. God uses wicked people, and when He brings evil / disaster, He uses them. Sin does not, therefore, achieve its intention- of rebellion against God and the attainment of radical freedom from His purpose.</p>


text:
<p>16:5 Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to Yahweh: they shall certainly not be unpunished-</p><p>AV "though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished". The idea that God somehow will forget or omit to punish sin is rooted in pride. The punishment will surely come. And even if we are hand in hand with others who are doing the same, this will not take away Divine judgment.</p><p>"Abomination" is the common word for idols (e.g. <a href='B:50 7:25-26'>Deu 7:25-26</a>). Idolatry is here interpreted as things like pride and telling lies (:17). These seven things are the essence of idolatry. There is a recurring nature to them, just as idols got a grip on the mind of the worshipper. Solomon often uses the word for quiet, secret sins, words and the matters of the heart, internal attitudes and judgments (<a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a>; <a href='B:240 11:20'>Pro 11:20</a>; <a href='B:240 12:22'>Pro 12:22</a>; <a href='B:240 13:19'>Pro 13:19</a>; <a href='B:240 15:26'>Pro 15:26</a>; <a href='B:240 16:5'>Pro 16:5</a>; <a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a>; <a href='B:240 20:10'>Pro 20:10</a>; <a href='B:240 20:23'>Pro 20:23</a>; <a href='B:240 24:9'>Pro 24:9</a>; <a href='B:240 26:25'>Pro 26:25</a>; <a href='B:240 28:9'>Pro 28:9</a>; <a href='B:240 29:27'>Pro 29:27</a>). And this of course is the essence of idolatry in our age; this is the practical force to us of all Biblical teaching about idolatry.</p><p>An example of indirect reference to Solomon's pride is found in the way the record points a similarity between Paul and Solomon. Each was given wisdom, and each was given a Satan to humble them because of the way wisdom bloats a man's ego. The fact that we have 'the truth' in basic doctrinal terms - plus a fair bit of other Divine wisdom - really will tempt us to be proud. This is the sort of thing we individually and collectively need to exhort ourselves strongly about:&nbsp;&nbsp;Like us, Solomon knew theoretically the paramount danger of pride;&nbsp; he lists it as the most fundamental of the seven things God hates (<a href='B:240 6:17'>Pro 6:17</a> cp. 16:5,18). Indeed, Solomon correctly implies in <a href='B:240 28:25'>Pro 28:25</a> that pride is an outcome of lack of faith, and this was exactly true in Solomon's case. His lack of faith in the future kingdom led him to be proud:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is atoned for; by the fear of Yahweh men depart from evil-</p><p>A radical idea at the time of the Mosaic law, which taught that atonement was through the blood of sacrifice. "Mercy and truth" is a term often associated with the promises to David; Solomon, as David's son, was surely aware of this. The salvation envisaged in those promises was not dependent upon obedience to the Law. And yet quite simply the message may be that we must show true mercy in order to obtain mercy / atonement.</p>


text:
<p>16:7 When a man’s ways please Yahweh, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him-</p><p>A reference to Esau's surprising peace with Jacob (Proverbs is packed with such historical commentary). Yet as they made peace, Jacob was saying that Esau was his Lord, and he was Esau's servant (32:18; 33:14), in designed denial of the Divine prophecy that Esau was to serve Jacob (25:23). Yet at this very time, Jacob's ways pleased Yahweh. See on :9.</p>


text:
<p>16:8 Better is a little with righteousness, than great revenues with injustice-</p><p>This is true, but it is in tension with Solomon's idea that increased wealth comes as a blessing for wisdom. Perhaps LXX is therefore more accurate, speaking of the size of an inheritance: "Better is a small portion...". This may refer to Solomon's tribe of Judah not having the largest portion or inheritance, a source of tension between Judah and Ephraim.</p>


text:
<p>16:9 A man’s heart plans his course, but Yahweh directs his steps-</p><p>It is within the power of choice within each human mind to decide which overall path we take in life; but we are led along that path, step by step, by God. He confirms us in our choice. The same Hebrew word derek, translated "course", is found translated "ways" in :7. If our choice of way or path is pleasing to God, then He will confirm us in it.</p><p>David considered his ways and turned his steps / ways towards obedience (<a href='B:230 119:59'>Psa 119:59</a>); Solomon takes this further, using the same phrase, but saying that God directs the ways / steps of the man who considers his ways (s:w. <a href='B:240 16:9'>Pro 16:9</a>). We have here an example of how the Spirit confirms a Godly person in the way they consciously wish to go.</p><p>David had earlier understood that for the humble and righteous, God can "prepare their heart" (<a href='B:230 10:17'>Psa 10:17</a>). This is evidence enough that God works directly upon the human heart and psychology, which He does today through the work of His Spirit upon the human spirit. For it is men who must prepare their heart in prayer and relationship toward God (s:w. <a href='B:140 12:14'>2Ch 12:14</a>; <a href='B:220 11:13'>Job 11:13</a>; <a href='B:230 7:9'>Psa 7:9</a>). But God can also do this for the humble. Hence David later asks God to create in him a 'prepared' heart (s:w. <a href='B:230 51:10'>Psa 51:10</a>). And God heard; for the same phrase is used of how God 'prepared' or (AV) "fixed" / NEV 'made steadfast' his heart (<a href='B:230 57:7'>Psa 57:7</a>; <a href='B:230 108:1'>Psa 108:1</a>; <a href='B:230 112:7'>Psa 112:7</a>). In allusion to this, Solomon was to later reflect that God can direct or 'prepare' (s:w:) the heart of man, even if he is thinking to direct his steps elsewhere (<a href='B:240 16:9'>Pro 16:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>16:10 Inspired judgments are on the lips of the king. He shall not betray his mouth-</p><p>Solomon writes inspired truth in Proverbs of course, but it is inevitable that much of what he writes about the need to respect the man who has wisdom, and his superiority over all others, was written with an eye to his own self-justification. He even writes as if the king must be accepted as automatically infallible: “A divine sentence is in the lips of the king; his mouth transgresseth not in judgment</p><p> the fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul” (<a href='B:240 16:10'>Pro 16:10</a>; <a href='B:240 20:2'>Pro 20:2</a> AV):&nbsp;&nbsp; It was really Solomon's self-justification:&nbsp;See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>16:11 Honest balances and scales are Yahweh’s; all the weights in the bag are His work-</p><p>The idea may be that no matter how men make false weights, Yahweh works through that ultimately and controls all the scales. Or the stress may be on the fact that Yahweh is the ultimate judge, weighing all things in perfectly accurate balances and with ultimately true weighting. This then leads on to the comment in :12 that a true king, and Solomon refers to himself, cannot judge wrongly because he is king on God's behalf. His judgment must therefore be accepted as correct, because he is king on behalf of Yahweh, the ultimately true and fair judge. Hence LXX "or the throne of rule is established by righteousness". But this is reasoning which is biased towards Solomon's self justification, and desire to cement himself as the unquestioned moral judge and teacher of Israel- although personally he was so far from it.</p>


text:
<p>16:12 It is an abomination for kings to do wrong, for the throne is established by righteousness-</p><p>This cannot be without reference to the fact that Solomon’s throne was “established”- and he assumed it was thanks to his righteousness, and his father’s good standing with God. Faith and an acceptance of God’s grace in doing this just didn’t come into it. His father’s high parental expectation of him led him to self-assurance, arrogance, an assumption he was right and could never be wrong. And one sees this in many a Christian family.</p>


text:
<p>16:13 Righteous lips are the delight of kings; they value one who speaks the truth-</p><p>As noted on :11, this may be true, but it is Solomon's self justification. He claims to have righteous lips, and therefore to be only interested in truth. But his passion for intellectual truth was related to his mistaken idea that mere possession of Divine truth or "wisdom", as he terms it, of itself justifies a man. And Solomon utterly failed to personalize all his knowledge of truth, and his own way of life was far from what God required- because of his obsession with "truth" for its own sake. And this path to failure has been seen in so many small time Protestant groups likewise obsessed with possession of "truth" for its own sake.</p>


text:
<p>16:14 The king’s wrath is as a messenger of death, but a wise man will pacify it-</p><p>"The wrath of a king is as messengers (Angels) of death" (<a href='B:240 16:14'>Pro 16:14</a> AV)- as if to say that as the Angels- of evil and death in this case- are zealous to obey the king of Heaven's command, so are the messengers who obey a human king's over-hasty command to kill someone. As God sends out angels of death, as on Passover night, it's a reflection of His decision as King in the court of Heaven. But Solomon decided that his court was as God's court, and therefore his thoughts, emotions and decisions would therefore be somehow Divinely fulfilled, with Angels sent out to fulfil them. He took 'God manifestation' to such a degree that he denied his own humanity, and this destroyed his own person. We see it happening all around us- church pastors, visual artists who think somehow God is speaking through them to the point they see themselves as "Gods in their own right" [as Dali and Picasso have been described as seeing themselves], Kings and political leaders and corporate directors and office managers and working class husbands and obsessive, domineering single mums... who all somehow come to see themselves as little gods with a 'Divine right' to infallible decision making for others. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>16:15 In the light of the king’s face is life. His favour is like a cloud of the spring rain-</p><p>He says that a wise son makes a glad father (<a href='B:240 10:1'>Pro 10:1</a>), so intent was he on living out his father’s expectations even after David’s death. Because of this he teaches that the King must always be right and be respected, whatever happens (<a href='B:240 16:10-15'>Pro 16:10-15</a>). He saw himself as the Messianic King and therefore infallible. He again and again failed to realize the conditionality of all God has promised.</p><p>Solomon was so sure that he was acceptable with God by reason of being David’s son, that he ended up playing God. He did this by assuming that his feelings were actually those of God. When he says, with reference to himself, that “the wrath of a king is as messengers [angels] of death” (<a href='B:240 16:14'>Pro 16:14</a>), he meant that his feelings of anger would, he thought, be implemented by the Angels. He assumed, with reference to himself, that “a divine sentence is in the lips of the King” (<a href='B:240 16:10'>Pro 16:10</a>). He was infallible, because of who he was, because he ‘knew the truth’, and had been raised in it, and was ‘to the manner born’. So he thought. And thus he ended up appropriating to himself language relevant to God alone: “In the light of the King’s countenance is life; and his favour is as a cloud of the latter rain” (<a href='B:240 16:15'>Pro 16:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>16:16 How much better it is to get wisdom than gold! Yes, to get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver-</p><p>This commendation of choosing wisdom over wealth could be read as Solomon's self-justification and self-commendation for his own choice of wisdom. The whole section from :10-32 can be read as Solomon's justification of his own judgments.</p><p>Often Solomon’s Proverbs bring out the tension between wealth and wisdom, and the need to choose wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:11'>Pro 8:11</a>; <a href='B:240 16:16'>Pro 16:16</a>). But whilst he was inspired to write this, and true as it all was, it is inevitable that Solomon said all this with his mind on the way that he had rejected wealth for wisdom when asked by God for his wish. He thought that his right choice in early life [cp. Christian baptism] justified him in later loving wealth rather than wisdom. He taught that wisdom filled the treasuries of the wise (<a href='B:240 8:21'>Pro 8:21</a> RV)- just as his treasuries were filled with wealth.</p>&nbsp;<p>Solomon's father David concluded that the law of God was better than gold and solver (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:72'>Psa 119:72</a>). But as so often in the book of Proverbs, Solomon speaks of the wisdom he was teaching in the same terms as the Bible elsewhere speaks of God's entire revelation. And he saw fit to flout God's law. It was as if his obsession with the wisdom material he was teaching had led him to effectively replace God's laws with his own. He saw the particular Divine truths he had been given as eclipsing the rest of God's revelation; a mistake we see commonly made.</p>


text:
<p>16:17 The highway of the upright is to depart from evil. He who keeps His way preserves his soul-</p><p>Removing / turning or departing from evil is a major theme of Proverbs (<a href='B:240 13:19'>Pro 13:19</a>; <a href='B:240 14:16'>Pro 14:16</a>; <a href='B:240 16:6'>Pro 16:6</a>; <a href='B:240 16:17'>Pro 16:17</a>). Solomon uses the same phrase in <a href='B:250 11:10'>Ecc 11:10</a>, but he gives the reason as being because youth is vanity; old age will prove that there is no point in not departing from evil, and going the way of evil, like going the way of righteousness, is all the same vanity. This nihilistic approach is because Solomon failed to discern that the end point of the path of righteousness, departing or removing our foot from the way of evil, is the redemption of the body in God's future Kingdom. But because he failed to understand that, he ends up concluding as he gets older that the choice between evil and good is all the same vain and meaningless. It is the hope of the resurrection of the body, the reality of judgment to come and the future Kingdom of God, which make morality of so much meaning today. We may also note again Solomon's overly simplistic idea that if a man removes himself from evil, all will go wonderfully for him in life. The same phrase is used of how Job removed himself from, or "eschewed", evil; but his life was traumatic and without all the blessings for wisdom which Solomon liked to imagine:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>16:18 Pride goes before destruction, and an arrogant spirit before a fall-</p><p>It must be more than ironic that it was Solomon who wrote that before a fall there is pride (<a href='B:240 16:18'>Pro 16:18</a>). Clearly Solomon never considered he could fall, so he never considered the possibility that he was proud:&nbsp;&nbsp;The words of <a href='B:50 17:16-20'>Deu 17:16-20</a> are evidently a prophecy of Solomon:&nbsp;He did multiply silver, gold, horses and wives;&nbsp;his heart was turned away (<a href='B:50 17:16-17'>Deu 17:16-17</a>= <a href='B:140 9:20'>2Ch 9:20</a>):&nbsp; Yet this passage says that if he studied the Law all his life, this would not &nbsp;happen, and also his heart would not be "lifted up above his brethren" (<a href='B:50 17:20'>Deu 17:20</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;Solomon's whipping of the people and sense of spiritual and material superiority (<a href='B:250 1:16'>Ecc 1:16</a>; <a href='B:250 2:7'>Ecc 2:7</a>; <a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>) shows how his heart was &nbsp;lifted up. Yet Solomon knew the Law, despite his explicit disobedience to the commands concerning wives, horses etc:&nbsp; But his knowledge of the word didn't bring forth the true humility which it was intended to:&nbsp;This, surely, is what we need exhortation about:&nbsp; the need to achieve a true humility in this evil, arrogant world:&nbsp;Solomon assumed he wasn't proud;&nbsp; he assumed the word was having its intended effect upon him. Such spiritual assumption is a major temptation for every child of God:&nbsp; The fact that Solomon's pride is only inferred is a reflection of the fact that his pride was not publicly apparent, either to himself or to Israel;&nbsp;we learn of it indirectly through <a href='B:50 17:16-20'>Deu 17:16-20</a>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>16:19 It is better to be of a humble spirit with the poor, than to divide the plunder with the proud-</p><p>This may appear to contradict Solomon's ideas expressed elsewhere that wealth is a blessing from God, and the poor are poor because of their unwisdom. Perhaps the LXX is therefore correct: "Better is a meek-spirited man with lowliness, than one who divides spoils with the proud". But it can be that quite simply, Solomon's statements in the book of Proverbs do contradict themselves. Some are his direct repetition of Divinely inspired wisdom, whereas others are based upon his own observations and nuanced by his own biases and obsessions; see on <a href='B:240 7:6'>Pro 7:6</a>; <a href='B:240 24:32'>Pro 24:32</a>.</p>


text:
<p>16:20 He who heeds the word finds prosperity; whoever has faith in Yahweh is blessed-</p><p>"Has faith" is s:w. "trusted" in <a href='B:240 3:5'>Pro 3:5</a>. Trust in God is indeed predicated upon some form of "understanding" or 'heeding the word', for faith comes by hearing the word of God; although not necessarily of the abstract, academic type which Solomon had in view. Trusting and heeding the word are parallel; to trust in Yahweh requires "understanding" and "heeding" of Him. For faith must have some basis, there are things which need to be believed before "faith" can be faith. Thus David predicates "trust" (s:w:) upon knowing Yahweh's Name, His character (<a href='B:230 9:10'>Psa 9:10</a>). But David's "trust" in God was connected with his trust or belief in God's mercy to him regarding his sins (<a href='B:230 13:5'>Psa 13:5</a>; <a href='B:230 21:7'>Psa 21:7</a>; <a href='B:230 32:10'>Psa 32:10</a> s:w:). But Solomon doesn't seem to have had any conscience of personal sin, and so trust in the Yahweh whose lead characteristic is grace and forgiveness was not elicited within him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>16:21 The wise in heart shall be called prudent. Pleasantness of the lips promotes instruction-</p><p>GNB "A wise, mature person is known for his understanding". The idea seems to be that wisdom is a good thing in this life, because it gets you a good reputation. Constantly, Solomon has the attitude that the blessings of righteousness are just for this life. He has no willingness to accept the perspective offered by the future Kingdom of God. See on :23,24.</p>


text:
<p>16:22 Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it, but the punishment of fools is their folly-</p><p>Solomon uses&nbsp; the figure of a well of living water to describe spiritual words&nbsp; and&nbsp; thinking (<a href='B:240 10:11'>Pro 10:11</a>; <a href='B:240 13:14'>Pro 13:14</a>; <a href='B:240 14:27'>Pro 14:27</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>). Yet this is&nbsp;the&nbsp; very&nbsp; figure which he uses concerning his worldly bride (<a href='B:260 4:15'>Son 4:15</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;It could be argued that this typifies the massive&nbsp; imputation of righteousness&nbsp; which&nbsp; the&nbsp; Lord&nbsp; Jesus grants to us, His worldly Gentile bride. But I would rather see it as an example of how he chose to justify his love for worldly women by as it were clothing those women in his own mind with the imagery of spirituality. See on <a href='B:240 7:22'>Pro 7:22</a>.</p><p>Solomon has little patience with those whom he considers 'foolish'; hence GNB "Wisdom is a fountain of life to the wise, but trying to educate stupid people is a waste of time". This contrasts with the desire of God, and David his father, to bring the simple and unwise to God's saving grace. A simple division of the world into stellar examples of wisdom on one hand, and sinful fools on the other, militates against any efforts at evangelism in order to save those in the 'other' category. And there is no lack of exemplification of this in believing communities.</p>


text:
<p>16:23 The heart of the wise instructs his mouth, and adds learning to his lips-</p><p>The argument is that if wisdom is possessed, then words will automatically be learned. But whilst this is true in a sense, it also overlooks the fact that intellectual assent to and possession of Divine truths doesn't therefore make all words spoken sweet and blessed (:24). And there is also the sense that the advantage of wisdom is that ones words appear impressive, hence LXX "and on his lips he will wear knowledge". External appearance is still the ultimate outcome for Solomon, even if he says that this appearance comes from wisdom in the heart.</p>


text:
<p>16:24 Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones-</p><p>This is true, but as explained on :21,23, Solomon's concern seems to be that the wise words of the wise will be attractive and tasty to the hearers; the advantage of wisdom is that others will think well of us. And this is not the correct perspective. By contrast, David emphasized that God's word, and not the words of men, was sweet as the honeycomb to him.</p>


text:
<p>16:25 There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death-</p><p>We all know from our own experience with temptation that we can justify anything. Every way of man can seem right in his own eyes because of this feature of our nature (<a href='B:240 14:12'>Pro 14:12</a>; <a href='B:240 16:25'>Pro 16:25</a>; <a href='B:240 21:2'>Pro 21:2</a>). The truth of this statement demonstrates the error of the humanistic approach of 'follow your heart', 'do what feels good and right to you'. There must be the influence of God's word to put us on the path to life.</p>


text:
<p>16:26 The appetite of the labouring man labours for him; for his mouth urges him on-</p><p>This presents people as automatons, their mouth or need to eat makes them labour, and they are merely slaves to their own basic desires. But this is all part of the human condition described in Genesis; in the sweat of our face man must eat bread. And yet Solomon seems to find some fault in this, as if his wisdom can somehow lift man above it. He then goes on in the next verses to condemn the tongue, the words which come out of the mouth. So perhaps Solomon is arguing that the tongue must be controlled, and we are not to merely drift through life in slavery to our natural thoughts and feelings, in the way that seems right to us (:25) in that it is what we naturally feel the need to do and be.</p>


text:
<p>16:27 A worthless man devises mischief; his speech is like a scorching fire-</p><p>True as the Proverbs are which condemn "a worthless / wicked person" (<a href='B:240 6:12'>Pro 6:12</a>; <a href='B:240 16:27'>Pro 16:27</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>), again we have a subtext of Solomon seeking to justify himself and his father David, and to criticize the various competitors to Solomon's throne. "A worthless person" is the term used for Nabal (<a href='B:90 25:17'>1Sa 25:17</a>), those in David's camp who were not fully supportive of David (<a href='B:90 30:22'>1Sa 30:22</a>), Sheba who plotted to overthrow the Davidic line as king (<a href='B:100 20:1'>2Sa 20:1</a>), and particularly of those who wanted to overthrow Solomon as king (<a href='B:140 13:7'>2Ch 13:7</a>).</p><p>Most people were illiterate, and so the book of Proverbs was designed to be memorized:&nbsp; There are many patterns in the book which depend upon the alliteration and rhyming of words and ideas to enable memorization. This was typical of wisdom literature of the time. There are similar initial syllables of words and verses, or beginning with the same letter. There's much word play, similar sounds repeat between verses if read out loud. Thus the root 'sdq' [righteousness] occurs in various words which connect various proverbs which appear unrelated to each other in English translation. These sound patterns form a chain which enables memorization. Thus <a href='B:240 16:27-29'>Pro 16:27-29</a> all begin with the word ish, 'a man'. Catchwords link adjacent verses.</p>


text:
<p>16:28 A perverse man stirs up strife, a gossiper separates close friends-</p><p>Solomon rightly condemns gossip and the stirring up of divisions. But he is writing up his Divinely given wisdom at the start of his reign, where there were various groups of opposition to him. These groupings had all arisen from the divisions which arose after his parents' sin with each other; they were a consequence for David's sin, which Nathan had prophesied. Inevitably, David's behaviour had invited all manner of gossip and strife. But Solomon seems to blame this on the gossipers, and carefully considers they alone are guilty; for he is ever glorifying and whitewashing his father David.</p>


text:
<p>16:29 A man of violence entices his neighbour, and leads him in a way that is not good-</p><p>He may specifically have Saul in view (David uses the term "violent man" about him in <a href='B:230 18:48'>Psa 18:48</a>; <a href='B:230 140:1'>Psa 140:1</a>). Solomon's idea of avoiding sin was in resisting the enticement of very sinful people. He pays no attention to the heart, whereas the Biblical message is always that sin is to be avoided in the heart. Spiritual mindedness, rather than mere disassociation from sinners, is of the essence. <a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a> warns that our heart should not be enticed (s:w:); but Solomon sees enticement as merely from very sinful individuals.</p><p>The implication is that God will lead us in the way which is good. One cannot help notice the great stress placed by Solomon on teaching his children, as David had taught him. It could be that there was too much emphasis on theory, thinking that by merely teaching the Law, the children would turn out well. But <a href='B:50 6:1-7'>Deu 6:1-7</a> taught that Israel must “do” the commandments of the Lord “so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes these words you shall teach them diligently to your sons”. It was by the parents both doing and teaching the Law that their children would “do” it too. Behaviour patterns are learnt by observation and experience of parents, not by mere theoretical inculcation. So could it not be that there is a lesson here for us- that the diligent teaching of the Law, as David did to Solomon and as Solomon so proudly did to his children, actually has no lasting effect unless that Law is lived out in a daily life. It seems to me that the Western Christian attitude and program for child-rearing is based very much on the assumption that both parents are believers, marry in their 20s, mother raises the kids and father brings in the money, with the result that the children will in due time also be baptized and repeat the cycle. This is all well and good. But the reality is that only a small percentage of the population fits the traditional nuclear family profile. Our style of Sunday School material and teaching needs to be appropriate to this reality, if we seek to win this world for Christ rather than just reproduce within the existing Western community. The brethren and sisters of our community and ecclesias must be the de facto spiritual parents of many of our children. Mere doctrinal teaching alone is not enough- it must be seen regularly and meaningfully and relevantly to be lived out in transformed lives. Solomon’s Proverbs, although inspired by God, have so many similarities with the Psalms of his father David. It seems to me that although he was of course inspired in writing Proverbs, he chose to articulate the wisdom given him in terms which his father had used in his songs, prayers and Psalms. Thus when Solomon teaches that God must be allowed to establish or direct our way (<a href='B:240 4:26'>Pro 4:26</a>; <a href='B:240 16:29'>Pro 16:29</a>), he is using the same Hebrew words as in <a href='B:230 37:23'>Psa 37:23</a> and <a href='B:230 119:5'>Psa 119:5</a>, when David says the same. It’s as if he was given God’s truth and yet he never quite made it his very own- he still articulated it in terms of the faith of his fathers. And thus he lost it in the end:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>16:30 One who winks his eyes to plot perversities, one who compresses his lips, is bent on evil-</p><p>Solomon likely has in view his half brother Absalom, and the other contenders for Solomon's thrown.</p>


text:
<p>16:31 Gray hair is a crown of glory; it is attained by a life of righteousness-</p><p>The idea may be if it is attained by a good life; for as the book of Job teaches, gray hair is far from always a sign of wisdom. We appear to have a series of allusions here in :27-33 to incidents in the life of David. The reference here would be to David's command to Solomon to bring down the gray hair of Shimei to the grave with blood (<a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>16:32 One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty; one who rules his spirit, than he who takes a city-</p><p>This may allude to the hot headed anger of Joab and the "sons of Zeruiah", who had opposed Solomon and sought the throne for themselves towards the end of David's life. It was Joab who had taken the citadel of Zion and also the city of Rabbah (<a href='B:100 12:26'>2Sa 12:26</a>), but this is dismissed by Solomon as cancelled out, as it were, by his hot headed lack of mental self control. The allusion is also to Samson.</p>


text:
<p>16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from Yahweh-</p><p>The previous verses have all alluded to incidents in the life of David, with Solomon using these statements of wisdom to thereby justify David and the line of succession through Solomon. The majority of Biblical references to "the lot" are to the usage of this system in deciding inheritance portions within the land of Israel. The "lot" of Solomon's tribe, Judah, was a cause of contention with Ephraim (<a href='B:290 11:13'>Isa 11:13</a>), especially regarding the vexed issue of into whose lot Jerusalem fell. Solomon may be urging for all contention to cease over this, and to just accept the position of Judah and Jerusalem, because he says that Yahweh had worked through the disposing of the lots (<a href='B:240 16:33'>Pro 16:33</a>; <a href='B:240 18:18'>Pro 18:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>17:1</p><p>Better is a dry morsel of bread with quietness, than a house full of feasting with strife-</p><p>Proverbs 17 is one of the best examples of where the Proverbs appear to be a muddled collection of true sayings but lacking any structure:&nbsp;Are the Proverbs really like precious stones that must be emptied out of the bag and rearranged by theme? In which case, why didn't God do so at the start when inspiring the book? My comments are as follows:</p><p>- Some of the Proverbs are basic truisms and maxims which have equivalents in any culture. Solomon wrote the book at the start of his reign when God gave him his wisdom.</p><p>But Solomon loved Egyptian and Gentile women right from the start of his reign. There are strong similarities both in content and genre between Proverbs and e.g. the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope . It could be that Solomon took various things from the literature of his father in law in Egypt... or of course it could be that Solomon's book</p><p>of Proverbs was designed to preach to the Egyptians and surrounding nations in their own terms and in a familiar genre. Much is written by Solomon about the establishment of the throne on the basis of truth and justice; and this is commonly found in Egyptian literature about the Pharaohs.</p><p>- The text hangs together far better in the original Hebrew. Most people were illiterate, and so the book was designed to be memorized:&nbsp; There are many patterns in the book which</p><p>depend upon the alliteration and rhyming of words and ideas to enable memorization. This was typical of wisdom literature of the time. There are similar initial syllables of words and verses, or beginning with the same letter. There's much word play, similar sounds repeat between verses if read out loud. Thus the root sdq [righteousness] occurs in various words which connect various proverbs which appear unrelated to each other in English translation. These sound patterns form a chain which enables memorization. Thus <a href='B:240 16:27-29'>Pro 16:27-29</a> all begin with the word 'ish', 'a man'. Catchwords link adjacent verses.</p><p>- Watch out for clusters of verses which do have the same theme; the verses which don't appear to be in a cluster are likely connected by alliteration etc. for easy memorization.</p><p>- My own hunch is that although the Proverbs are inspired by God, they were also presented by Solomon with a strong hint of self-justification. He wrote them when he had just inherited the throne from his father David, whom he idolized and was obsessed with. He sought to justify his father against all the various factions who were in Israel who were not sympathetic to David and therefore to Solomon. Almost every other verse in the book appears to have some such sideways swipe at the likes of Saul, Nabal, Absalom or Joab- whilst presenting Solomon as the wise son with whom alone David was pleased. Solomon should've sought his self-worth and value in God's opinion of him; and he should've trusted the promises to David of God establishing his throne and line, rather than seeking to as it were fulfill them for himself by using God's Truth and Wisdom to establish himself at others' expense. Chapter 17 is a parade example of this.</p>


text:
<p>17:2 A servant who deals wisely will rule over a son who causes shame, and shall have a part in the inheritance among the brothers-</p><p>The son who causes shame would be a reference to Absalom and other half brothers of Solomon who had contended with him for the throne. I have suggested that the book of Proverbs was written early in Solomon's reign, when he was first given wisdom from God with which to govern Israel. The servant who is to be exalted would then refer to Jeroboam, who was Solomon's servant whom he trusted and exalted at the start of his reign, although he later rebelled against Solomon (<a href='B:110 11:26-29'>1Ki 11:26-29</a>).</p>


text:
<p>17:3 The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but Yahweh tests the hearts-</p><p>The idea is that Yahweh seeks purified hearts, spiritual mindedness, more than anything else; and the fire of affliction is used to purify our thinking. Purified hearts or spirits is the aim of the work of the Holy Spirit as taught in the New Testament. Yet a man must use the refining pot when he receives praise (<a href='B:240 27:21'>Pro 27:21</a>). We have some election over this refining process, we are to work together with God in it; but the end result is the purification of the heart / mind / spirit.</p>


text:
<p>17:4 An evildoer heeds wicked lips; a liar gives ear to a mischievous tongue-</p><p>Saul promised to no more 'do wickedly' to David (<a href='B:90 26:21'>1Sa 26:21</a>). The wicked doer is therefore an allusion to Saul, who listened to lies against David from the likes of Doeg. Note how "false" is the same word in as in <a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a> about Saul's iniquity; "give heed" is s:w. "hearken" in <a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a>.</p>&nbsp;<p>"Destructive" or "wickedness" is the word used of the wickedness of Ahithophel and Absalom (<a href='B:230 55:11'>Psa 55:11</a>). Solomon's Proverbs seem in places a justification of himself as king over his brother Absalom. He uses the same word to speak of "transgressors are taken in their own wickedness / destructiveness" (<a href='B:240 11:6'>Pro 11:6</a>); how a liar [Absalom] listens to a 'destructive' tongue [in taking advice from Ahithophel] (<a href='B:240 17:4'>Pro 17:4</a>); and how a foolish son [Absalom] is the calamity or destruction of his father (<a href='B:240 19:13'>Pro 19:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>17:5 Whoever mocks the poor reproaches his Maker. He who is glad at calamity shall not be unpunished-</p><p>Yet Solomon's teachings about poverty do very often mock them and draw caricatures about them (e.g. <a href='B:240 20:4'>Pro 20:4</a>), for he implies at several points that poverty is due to unwisdom and laziness, and the blessing of wisdom is wealth (:6 LXX). Yet again we see Solomon failing to personalize his wisdom; he disobeyed it because he seems to have reasoned that mere possession of Divine truth was all that was required for acceptability with God. And the same mistake is seen in so many.</p>


text:
<p>17:6 Children’s children are the crown of old men; the glory of children are their parents-</p><p>This is only true if the parents and children are righteous and not the "son who causes shame" and not glory (:25). So Solomon doesn't have every child and every parent in view. Rather is he clearly alluding to his own constant glorification (and whitewashing) of his parents. LXX adds "The faithful has the whole world full of wealth; but the faithless not even a farthing". Solomon was given his wealth by God as a gift, as grace; and not because he was faithful. But he abuses that grace and assumes that gift was some kind of reward for his faithfulness. And again he argues that poverty is a result of lacking faith.</p>


text:
<p>17:7 Arrogant speech isn’t fitting for a fool, much less do lying lips fit a prince-</p><p>LXX has "faithful lips" for "arrogant speech". The contrast is between a fool and a prince; not a fool and a wise man. Solomon assumes that a prince is the wise man. And we see here his problem; he assumed that because he was David' son and was on the throne, that therefore he was wise- because he was a prince. But the wisdom given to him was a gift, by grace, just as is any Divine truth which we hold. But Solomon came to see that gift as having been deserved by him, and thinks that his position is of itself a sign that he must be wise.</p>


text:
<p>17:8 A bribe is a precious stone in the eyes of him who gives it; wherever he turns, he apparently prospers-</p><p>"Prospers" is a word commonly used about David being wise and prospering wherever he turned during his period at the court of Saul (s:w. <a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:90 18:14-15'>1Sa 18:14-15</a>; <a href='B:90 18:30'>1Sa 18:30</a>). The words are also those used by David to Solomon when he charged Solomon to follow God's word so "that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn" (<a href='B:110 2:3'>1Ki 2:3</a>). It could be argued that the "evil" and "foolish" man in Proverbs is often alluding to Saul and Nabal ['fool'- s:w:, the former husband of David's wife Abigail], and the wise and righteous to David and Solomon- confirming the impression that whilst all that is said is true and inspired, it was also spoken by Solomon to the end of justifying both himself and his father David, whose name was under a cloud in some parts of Israel. There are probably many more allusions to David's life in Proverbs which we don't pick up on because we don't know all that happened in David's life.</p>


text:
<p>17:9 He who covers an offence promotes love; but he who repeats a matter separates best friends-</p><p>The idea of 'covering sin' is surely an allusion to the words of David, Solomon's father, who wrote a song he wished all Israel to sing- the 'maschil' Psalms 32 : "Blessed is he whose transgression... is covered... I acknowledged my sin, my iniquity I did not hide [s:w. "cover"]' I said, I will confess my transgressions to the Lord" (<a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a>; <a href='B:230 32:5'>Psa 32:5</a>). Because David did not cover his sin, God covered it. This is clearly in Solomon's mind in <a href='B:240 28:13'>Pro 28:13</a>: "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy". So in&nbsp; line with Solomon's obsession with David, it's likely he also has David in view here in 17:9. In which case, the One seeking love by covering sin is God. Love is to be our response to the covering of our sins. And yet the words also apply to us- we are to cover others sins in forgiving them, and gossiping to others about them [the second half of the Proverb] is therefore rooted in our unforgiveness. This is a helpful thought in analyzing why we gossip or repeat others' sins to others- it's because we've not forgiven the sin. See on 17:13.</p>


text:
<p>17:10 A rebuke enters deeper into one who has understanding than a hundred lashes into a fool-</p><p>If 17:9 alludes to David's sin with Bathsheba, this verse would allude to Nathan's rebuke of David being accepted by him.</p><p>Solomon seems to comment upon God's arrows piercing or 'entering' (s:w:) David (<a href='B:230 38:2'>Psa 38:2</a>). True as this is, Solomon was all the same justifying his father's response to the rebuke of Nathan and the Divine arrows which 'entered deep' to David. By the end of his reign, Solomon was whipping his people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>); he came to consider that most of God's people were fools, and had refused the rebuke of his wisdom, and therefore he could lash them. Those who are lifted up with pride at their possession of "truth" often come to despise and abuse others.</p>


text:
<p>17:11 An evil man seeks only rebellion; therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him-</p><p>The "evil man" is often an allusion to Saul, and the Proverb related to it is often a justification of Solomon's father David. The Hebrew for "rebellion" is exactly that used about Saul in <a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a>. The "cruel malak / Angel" sent by God would then refer to the evil spirit / Angel from the Lord sent upon Saul (<a href='B:90 16:14'>1Sa 16:14</a>; <a href='B:90 19:9'>1Sa 19:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>17:12 Let a bear robbed of her cubs meet a man, rather than a fool in his folly-</p><p>An allusion to Nabal, 'fool', going out to meet David. "A bear robbed of her whelps" is exactly how David is described in <a href='B:100 17:8'>2Sa 17:8</a>. LXX "Care may befall a man of understanding; but fools will meditate evils".</p>


text:
<p>17:13 Whoever rewards evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house-</p><p>This is another of the many references by Solomon in the Proverbs to the life of his father David. The Hebrew words for "requite evil for good" are found in <a href='B:90 25:21'>1Sa 25:21</a> concerning how Nabal requited evil for David's good. The impression that the Proverbs are merely isolated sayings is somewhat ameliorated when we consider that many of them are a running commentary upon David's life, and they are connected by the common theme of allusion to David rather than a semantic connection between them.</p>


text:
<p>17:14 The beginning of strife is like breaching a dam, therefore stop contention before quarreling breaks out-</p><p>Blaming strife and "contention" upon sinners is a common theme in Proverbs. But the same root word is used in <a href='B:100 19:9'>2Sa 19:9</a> regarding the "strife" and division which there was amongst Israel after Absalom's rebellion. Rather than seeing this as all part of the consequence of David's sin, Solomon instead justifies his father and blames his half brothers by saying that that "strife" was the result of their unwisdom. It could be argued that Solomon is making rather a crude allusion to this period by saying it is like urination... and the problem was with the person who began it, an allusion surely to Absalom, whom Solomon would've blamed for it all, rather than seeing it as partly the promised judgment upon David for his sin with Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>17:15 He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to Yahweh-</p><p>This seems to be Solomon condemning his rival brother Absalom. <a href='B:100 15:4'>2Sa 15:4</a>&nbsp; records how "Then Absalom would say, "Oh that I were judge in the land! Then every man with a dispute or cause might come to me, and I would give him justice". The Hebrew for "justice" is the noun of the verb used here in <a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a>. The implication is that Solomon blamed the 'time of strife' in Israel upon Solomon and his followers, whom Solomon is claiming were wicked men whom Absalom wrongly justified. "The just" is how Saul described David (<a href='B:90 24:17'>1Sa 24:17</a> s:w:). Verse 16 may be an allusion to some unrecorded incident in Absalom's life where he showed himself as having no interest in wisdom and thought it could be purchased with money.</p><p>"Abomination" is the common word for idols (e.g. <a href='B:50 7:25-26'>Deu 7:25-26</a>). Idolatry is here interpreted as things like pride and telling lies (:17). These seven things are the essence of idolatry. There is a recurring nature to them, just as idols got a grip on the mind of the worshipper. Solomon often uses the word for quiet, secret sins, words and the matters of the heart, internal attitudes and judgments (<a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a>; <a href='B:240 11:20'>Pro 11:20</a>; <a href='B:240 12:22'>Pro 12:22</a>; <a href='B:240 13:19'>Pro 13:19</a>; <a href='B:240 15:26'>Pro 15:26</a>; <a href='B:240 16:5'>Pro 16:5</a>; <a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a>; <a href='B:240 20:10'>Pro 20:10</a>; <a href='B:240 20:23'>Pro 20:23</a>; <a href='B:240 24:9'>Pro 24:9</a>; <a href='B:240 26:25'>Pro 26:25</a>; <a href='B:240 28:9'>Pro 28:9</a>; <a href='B:240 29:27'>Pro 29:27</a>). And this of course is the essence of idolatry in our age; this is the practical force to us of all Biblical teaching about idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>17:16 Why is there money in the hand of a fool to buy wisdom, since he has no understanding?-</p><p>This may be Solomon's comment upon the various ambassadors who came to him from other nations with gifts and money in their hands, wanting to as it were buy wisdom. LXX "Why has the fool wealth? for a senseless man will not be able to purchase wisdom. He that exalts his own house seeks ruin; and he that turns aside from instruction shall fall into mischief". The one who exalted or 'lifted up' his own house would refer to the various attempted coups against David and Solomon (e.g. <a href='B:100 18:28'>2Sa 18:28</a>; <a href='B:100 20:21'>2Sa 20:21</a>; <a href='B:110 11:26'>1Ki 11:26</a>).</p>


text:
<p>17:17 A friend loves at all times; and a brother is born for adversity-</p><p>There could be a reference here to David's 'friends' during the wilderness years (s:w. <a href='B:90 30:26'>1Sa 30:26</a>; <a href='B:100 16:17'>2Sa 16:17</a>) who were faithful to him even in his hard times, perhaps especially Solomon is alluding to Hushai, David's "friend" who was so loyal to him (<a href='B:100 16:17'>2Sa 16:17</a>). The same Hebrew word is used about Hushai in <a href='B:130 27:33'>1Ch 27:33</a>, where it seems he was given an official title of "The King's Friend". The same Hebrew words "all times" is used in the eulogy of David in <a href='B:130 29:30'>1Ch 29:30</a> about "all the times" of David's life. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>17:18 A man without understanding strikes hands, and becomes collateral in the presence of his neighbour-</p><p>"Strikes hands" are the same two Hebrew words used about Joab 'thrusting his hand' into Absalom to kill him (<a href='B:100 18:14'>2Sa 18:14</a>). Joab later turned against David, and so again we see Solomon establishing his father's name and dynasty by using his 'wisdom' to conveniently condemn all the parties who were politically against him. Likewise 17:19 speaks of the man who is "exalted", but the same word is in <a href='B:90 10:23'>1Sa 10:23</a> about how Saul was "taller" than his brethren- it is an allusion to Saul, but rather indirectly, couched within the wisdom and truth being spoken. We can likewise so easily use God's Truth and wisdom in order to fuel our own petty self justification and family politics.</p><p>The law of Moses didn't forbid giving or taking collateral for loans, it accepted this would happen (<a href='B:20 22:25-27'>Exo 22:25-27</a>). But Solomon in the Proverbs is quite obsessed with forbidding it in very strong terms (<a href='B:240 6:1-3'>Pro 6:1-3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:15'>Pro 11:15</a>; <a href='B:240 17:18'>Pro 17:18</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 22:26'>Pro 22:26</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a> - all quite some emphasis). Perhaps Solomon recalled some bad experience in his family because of this. There is the otherwise curious statement in <a href='B:90 17:18'>1Sa 17:18</a> that David's brothers, Solomon's uncles, were to return a collateral. Perhaps this ruined the family and Solomon's wisdom has some human element in it, reflecting his own bad experiences in his family life. But there is nothing wrong with giving or taking collateral for a loan; what is condemned in God's law is the abuse of the debtor and the abuse of the situation. Indeed David and Hezekiah ask God to be collateral for their needs and debts in various ways (<a href='B:230 119:122'>Psa 119:122</a>; <a href='B:290 38:14'>Isa 38:14</a>). And God gives the Holy Spirit in our hearts as collateral on His debt, as He sees it, to save us (<a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a>; <a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>); and in response we give our hearts as a pledge to Him (<a href='B:300 30:21'>Jer 30:21</a> Heb:). So forbidding the practice seems out of step with the spirit of grace. It would mean asking of God what we are unprepared to do for others. Solomon had not known need, neither material nor spiritual, and it shows in his attitude to this matter. It makes hollow all Solomon's exhortations to be generous to your poor neighbour and to be a brother in adversity to your neighbour (<a href='B:240 14:21'>Pro 14:21</a>; <a href='B:240 17:17'>Pro 17:17</a>). Solomon is here reasoning from the viewpoint of secular wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>17:19 He who loves disobedience loves strife. One who builds a high gate seeks destruction-</p><p>Again this is true, but so often Solomon's Proverbs include his own. He is implying that all the strife about his being the one to have the throne merely came from pride (<a href='B:240 13:10'>Pro 13:10</a>) or disobedience, and the wise will accept Solomon's kingship. Those who build their own gate, i:e. set themselves up for the kingship, will be destroyed.</p>


text:
<p>17:20 One who has a perverse heart doesn’t find prosperity, and one who has a deceitful tongue falls into trouble-</p><p>Solomon rightly emphasizes that the "perverse" or "wayward" are wayward in their hearts (<a href='B:240 11:20'>Pro 11:20</a>; <a href='B:240 17:20'>Pro 17:20</a>), leading to wayward tongues and ways in practice (<a href='B:240 2:15'>Pro 2:15</a>); but he repeats his father's mistake, in saying he will have nothing to do with those who are wayward in their hearts (s:w. <a href='B:230 101:4'>Psa 101:4</a>). The mistake was in assuming that he could judge human hearts. It continues the far over simplified view of people which Solomon has; the righteous have pure hearts, always obedient; and wicked have bad hearts. But the Bible warns that all of us have hearts which are fountains of evil thoughts (<a href='B:480 7:15'>Mar 7:15</a>; <a href='B:480 7:21-23'>Mar 7:21-23</a> etc:):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>17:21 He who becomes the father of a fool grieves; the father of a fool has no joy-</p><p>Perhaps this is a commentary upon David's sorrow at the death of his foolish son Absalom (as :25).</p>


text:
<p>17:22 A cheerful heart makes good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones-</p><p>Solomon's criticism of the melancholy are likely intended allusions to Saul. Solomon teaches that a broken spirit is a curse (<a href='B:240 15:13'>Pro 15:13</a>; <a href='B:240 17:22'>Pro 17:22</a>; <a href='B:240 18:14'>Pro 18:14</a>), and an indication that something is wrong with the core of a person; because an unbroken spirit will "make a cheerful face" (<a href='B:240 15:13'>Pro 15:13</a>), and external appearance and having joy in this life was of primary importance to Solomon. He fails to realize that his father David had a broken spirit (<a href='B:230 31:12'>Psa 31:12</a>; <a href='B:230 38:8'>Psa 38:8</a>; <a href='B:230 44:19'>Psa 44:19</a>; <a href='B:230 51:8'>Psa 51:8</a>; <a href='B:230 51:17'>Psa 51:17</a>; <a href='B:230 69:20'>Psa 69:20</a> - all a fair emphasis), and had thereby understood that Yahweh is especially close to those with a broken spirit (<a href='B:230 34:18'>Psa 34:18</a>; <a href='B:230 147:13'>Psa 147:13</a>), indeed the Gospel is for the broken spirited, and the broken hearted are not to be mocked (<a href='B:230 109:16'>Psa 109:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>17:23 A wicked man receives a bribe in secret, to pervert the ways of justice-</p><p>Solomon's criticism of unjust judges surely looks back to how Absalom judged the cases of the men of Israel and by his injustice built up support for his rebellion against David and Solomon. There were few judges in Israel, and Solomon's condemnation of how others judge was therefore only really relevant to himself and a few others, it was not wisdom for the masses; and it was a kind of self-justification.</p>


text:
<p>17:24 Wisdom is before the face of one who has understanding, but the eyes of a fool wander to the ends of the earth-</p><p>The idea may be that wisdom affects the outward appearance of a person's face; hence LXX "The countenance of a wise man is sensible; but the eyes of a fool go to the ends of the earth". Again, wisdom is seen to be advantageous because of the image it gives to those who possess it. Solomon never seems to emphasize that the real intention and blessing of wisdom is to lead us to God's eternal Kingdom in the future. He sees the reward of wisdom as solely in this life, because he considered his kingdom to be God's Kingdom, and himself to be the Messiah figure.</p>


text:
<p>17:25 A foolish son brings grief to his father, and bitterness to her who bore him-</p><p>A reference to David's grief over the foolish Absalom, whose supporters were contenders for David's throne and wished to displace Solomon from it. Always Solomon seems to be harnessing these Divine truths to his own agenda and self justification, just as we can.</p>


text:
<p>17:26 Also to punish the righteous is not good, nor to flog officials for their integrity-</p><p>This was totally disobeyed by Solomon, for he became famed for flogging his people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). Likewise what he writes in Proverbs about foreign women was personally disobeyed by him. It was almost as if the more he knew Divine truth, and thought he was justified by mere possession of it, the more he disobeyed it. This perverse feature of human nature is widely observable.</p>


text:
<p>17:27 He who spares his words has knowledge. He who is even tempered is a man of understanding-</p><p>LXX "He that forbears to utter a hard word is discreet, and a patient man is wise". But possession of knowledge does not of itself mean that a person controls their words. Solomon again gives far too much power to the idea of mere possession of knowledge:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>17:28 Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is counted wise. When he shuts his lips, he is thought to be discerning-</p><p>The very same words used about Saul, whom Solomon saw as the archetypical "fool", wisely holding his peace when despised at the start of his reign (<a href='B:90 10:27'>1Sa 10:27</a>). Always Solomon seems to be 'having a go' at his father's opponents, whose children now in the next generation were his competitors for the throne.</p>


text:
<p>18:1 An unfriendly man pursues selfishness, and defies all sound judgment-</p><p>AV "a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom"; LXX "A man who wishes to separate from friends seeks excuses; but at all times he will be liable to reproach". The same word is used in <a href='B:240 19:4'>Pro 19:4</a>: "The poor is separated from his friend". Separation from others is seen as unwisdom, and therefore associated with poverty; for Solomon thinks that wisdom brings wealth and unwisdom brings poverty. Solomon presents a picture of any deviation from the society which he presided over being punished; by poverty, and being reproached as unwise.</p>


text:
<p>18:2 A fool has no delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own opinion-</p><p>This is true, but we must remember that Solomon is presenting himself as the teacher of understanding; anyone who doesn't want to accept him, or has "his own opinion", gets reproached and mocked by Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>18:3 When wickedness comes, contempt also comes, and with shame comes disgrace-</p><p>Solomon presents the disadvantage of sin as being the shame and disgrace it brings in this life. Solomon never seems to emphasize that the real intention and blessing of wisdom is to lead us to God's eternal Kingdom in the future. He sees the reward of wisdom as solely in this life, because he considered his kingdom to be God's Kingdom, and himself to be the Messiah figure.</p>


text:
<p>18:4 The words of a man’s mouth are like deep waters; the fountain of wisdom is like a flowing brook-</p><p>LXX "A word in the heart of a man is a deep water, and a river and fountain of life spring forth". The sense may be that if a word of wisdom is placed within a man's heart, it becomes a fountain of life for others. The Lord uses a similar figure in <a href='B:500 7:38-39'>Joh 7:38-39</a> for the water of life which can pour from a man's innermost being, once he truly accepts the word of the Gospel. When He says that this was "as the scripture has said", this may be one of the passages He had in mind. Our witness to others is therefore from our innermost being, from the word of the Gospel believed and firmly lodged in the deepest heart.</p>


text:
<p>18:5 To be partial to the faces of the wicked is not good, nor to deprive the innocent of justice-</p><p>The idea is that the man of wisdom will judge cases fairly. But the average Israelite was not a courtroom judge. And so Solomon, as so often, has himself in view as the parade example of what he means. And the implication is that his judgments were perfect and beyond question, apart from by fools. But he fails to appreciate that a man can hold Divine truth and correct judgments in his intellectual understanding, and yet judge and live otherwise.</p>


text:
<p>18:6 A fool’s lips come into strife, and his speech asks for beatings-</p><p>Solomon became famed for beating his people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). He came to assume that his people were fools, and he could abuse them therefore, at will. Those who are lifted up with pride at their possession of "truth" often come to despise and abuse others.</p>


text:
<p>18:7 A fool’s mouth is his destruction, and his lips are a snare to his soul-</p><p>This continues the major Biblical theme that the condemned are essentially self condemned; out of their own mouths they will be judged at the last day (<a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a>). In this we see the critical importance of our words, and the thinking which they inevitably express (<a href='B:470 12:34'>Mat 12:34</a>). But Solomon sees the outcome of folly as being in this life, for he has nothing much to say about the last judgment and the future Kingdom; for he considered himself the ultimate Messianic judge of men, and his kingdom to be God's Kingdom:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>18:8 The words of a gossip are like tasty morsels: they go down into a person’s innermost parts-</p><p>Solomon rightly condemns gossip and the stirring up of divisions. But he is writing up his Divinely given wisdom at the start of his reign, where there were various groups of opposition to him. These groupings had all arisen from the divisions which arose after his parents' sin with each other; they were a consequence for David's sin, which Nathan had prophesied. Inevitably, David's behaviour had invited all manner of gossip and strife. But Solomon seems to blame this on the gossipers, and carefully considers they alone are guilty; for he is ever glorifying and whitewashing his father David. And yet what he writes is so true; throwaway comments of gossip take deep lodgment in the hearers.</p><p>LXX "Fear casts down the slothful; and the souls of the effeminate shall hunger".</p>


text:
<p>18:9 One who is slack in his work is brother to him who is a master of destruction-</p><p>Again Solomon is exalting works and therefore condemning laziness as the worst sin. To omit to do anything is, in his book, as bad as the man who actively and zealously destroys. But Solomon was wired to be an active, hard working person; and he is glorifying his own personality type, reinforcing who he was anyway as a person; rather than exploring the wonder of salvation by grace without works. LXX implies that hard work is necessary to help ourselves; all idea of God helping us by grace is just not considered: "A man who helps not himself by his labour is brother of him that ruins himself".</p>


text:
<p>18:10 The name of Yahweh is a strong tower: the righteous run into Him, and are safe-</p><p>Solomon presents his father David's being 'set on high' (<a href='B:230 69:29'>Psa 69:29</a>) as programmatic for the exaltation of all the righteous; he sees David as the epitome of the righteous, and thereby justifies the Davidic dynasty (s:w. <a href='B:240 18:10'>Pro 18:10</a>; <a href='B:240 29:25'>Pro 29:25</a>). Ultimately these words come true in entering the Name by baptism into it.</p>


text:
<p>18:11 The rich man’s wealth is his strong city, like an unscalable wall in his own imagination-</p><p>This was precisely what Solomon did. Solomon was given his wealth by God as a gift, as grace; and not because he was faithful; see on <a href='B:240 17:6'>Pro 17:6</a>. But he abuses that grace and assumes that gift was some kind of reward for his faithfulness. And elsewhere he argues that poverty is a result of lacking faith. Solomon realized the danger of the rich man's wrong "own imagination". But he goes and makes that very mistake. He has no self-examination, no personalization of truth, because he considered that the mere possession of truth thereby justified him.</p>


text:
<p>18:12 Before destruction the heart of man is proud, but before honour is humility-</p><p>This is the very phrase used about David, when he says his heart is not lifted up (<a href='B:230 131:1'>Psa 131:1</a>). Solomon is presenting his father as the pinnacle of spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>18:13 He who gives answer before he hears, that is folly and shame to him-</p><p>LXX "Whoso answers a word before he hears a cause". This is the language of the courtroom. But the average Israelite was not a courtroom judge. And so Solomon, as so often, has himself in view as the parade example of what he means. And the implication is that his judgments were perfect and beyond question, apart from by fools. And again we note that he considers folly to be bad because it can lead to shame in this life; he has no sense of the connection between present behaviour and our eternal outcomes at the last day of judgment.</p>


text:
<p>18:14 A man’s spirit will sustain him in sickness, but a crushed spirit, who can bear?-</p><p>Solomon teaches that a crushed or broken spirit is a curse (<a href='B:240 15:13'>Pro 15:13</a>; <a href='B:240 17:22'>Pro 17:22</a>; <a href='B:240 18:14'>Pro 18:14</a>), and an indication that something is wrong with the core of a person; because an unbroken spirit will "make a cheerful face" (<a href='B:240 15:13'>Pro 15:13</a>), and external appearance and having joy in this life was of primary importance to Solomon. He fails to realize that his father David had a broken spirit (<a href='B:230 31:12'>Psa 31:12</a>; <a href='B:230 38:8'>Psa 38:8</a>; <a href='B:230 44:19'>Psa 44:19</a>; <a href='B:230 51:8'>Psa 51:8</a>; <a href='B:230 51:17'>Psa 51:17</a>; <a href='B:230 69:20'>Psa 69:20</a> - all a fair emphasis), and had thereby understood that Yahweh is especially close to those with a broken spirit (<a href='B:230 34:18'>Psa 34:18</a>; <a href='B:230 147:13'>Psa 147:13</a>), indeed the Gospel is for the broken spirited, and the broken hearted are not to be mocked (<a href='B:230 109:16'>Psa 109:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>18:15 The heart of the discerning gets knowledge; the ear of the wise seeks knowledge-</p><p>"Gets" is LXX "purchases". But elsewhere Solomon implies that wisdom cannot be bought. He may be alluding, as in :16, to the ambassadors of the nations who came to him, bearing gifts in order to hear and 'get' Solomon's Divine wisdom. But what he says is true enough; there is an upward spiral in spirituality, whereby the wise get wiser, and part of their wisdom is to desire more of it.</p>


text:
<p>18:16 A man’s gift makes room for him, and brings him before great men-</p><p>He may be alluding, as in :15, to the ambassadors of the nations who came to him, bearing gifts in order to hear and 'get' Solomon's Divine wisdom. And yet he thereby implies that he is one of the "great men", possibly an intensive plural referring to the one great man, referring to himself.</p>


text:
<p>18:17 He who pleads his cause first seems right; until another comes and questions him-</p><p>As in :13, this is the language of the courtroom, and is advice to judges. But the average Israelite was not a courtroom judge. And so Solomon, as so often, has himself in view as the parade example of what he means. And the implication is that his judgments were perfect and beyond question, apart from by fools. He is alluding to his judgment of the two prostitutes in <a href='B:110 3:17'>1Ki 3:17</a>.</p>


text:
<p>18:18 The lot settles disputes, and keeps strong ones apart-</p><p>The majority of Biblical references to "the lot" are to the usage of this system in deciding inheritance portions within the land of Israel. The "lot" of Solomon's tribe, Judah, was a cause of contention with Ephraim (<a href='B:290 11:13'>Isa 11:13</a>), especially regarding the vexed issue of into whose lot Jerusalem fell. Solomon may be urging for all contention to cease over this, and to just accept the position of Judah and Jerusalem, because he says that Yahweh had worked through the disposing of the lots (<a href='B:240 16:33'>Pro 16:33</a>; <a href='B:240 18:18'>Pro 18:18</a>).</p><p>LXX "A silent man quells strifes, and determines between great powers".</p>


text:
<p>18:19 A brother offended is more difficult to be won than a fortified city; and disputes are like the bars of a castle-</p><p>To win a fortified city is presented as a human impossibility; but David is described as taking the fortified cities of Zion and then later Rabbah. Always there is the hint of justification and glorification of "my father David", a phrase Solomon uses a few hundred times. LXX "A brother helped by a brother is as a strong and high city; and is as strong as a well-founded palace". The implication is that Solomon's half brothers, who had been against him and whose families were contenders for his throne, lacked wisdom; otherwise they would have helped their brother Solomon to the throne.</p>


text:
<p>18:20 A man’s stomach is filled with the fruit of his mouth. With the harvest of his lips he is satisfied-</p><p>This emphasis upon the critical importance of the tongue (:21) is reflected in James 3. But there is still an element of self congratulation here, as if the wise always say wise words and are smugly satisfied with themselves because of it. Whereas <a href='B:660 3:3-5'>Jas 3:3-5</a> warns that we seem unable to fully control the tongue, it refuses to be tamed, and in some words we say we offend all. This is spiritual reality, rather than the simplistic differentiation Solomon makes between the sinful fools, and the wise who always speak wise words.</p>


text:
<p>18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue; those who love it will eat its fruit-</p><p>This is true insofar as by our words we will be justified, and by our words condemned (<a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a>). Perhaps the Lord had this verse in mind when saying this. But again, it is only part of the picture. <a href='B:660 3:3-5'>Jas 3:3-5</a> warns that we seem unable to fully control the tongue, it refuses to be tamed, and in some words we say we offend all. And so consideration of the matter of the tongue drives us to throw ourselves upon God's grace for salvation; whereas Solomon seems to imply that the wise have steel self control in their souls which empowers them to always say the right thing (see on :20). But this is simply not the case in spiritual reality:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>18:22 Whoever finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains grace of Yahweh-</p><p>One wonders whether Solomon justified his many wives by reasoning that they were all gifts to him by Yahweh's grace [gift]. He claims that possessing understanding leads to finding good (<a href='B:240 19:8'>Pro 19:8</a> s:w:). He assumes therefore that the mere possession of wisdom meant that the wives he found must be "good"; but his subsequent experience with them shows how wrong he was. LXX "He that puts away a good wife, puts away a good thing, and he that keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly". This reading would then be a justification of how Solomon's father David had put away his wife Michal, Saul's daughter, who had then married Phaltiel, a relationship Solomon liked to see as adultery (<a href='B:100 3:15'>2Sa 3:15</a>). Constantly Solomon uses his knowledge of Divine truths to justify himself and his father, just as God's truth can likewise be abused today.</p>


text:
<p>18:23 The poor plead for mercy, but the rich answer harshly-</p><p>This is not simply an otherwise rather pointless description of how life often is. It must be understood within the context of Solomon's theme that the poor are poor because of their unwisdom, and riches are the reward for wisdom. And so, within that overly simplistic worldview, Solomon seems to justify the rich treating the poor harshly. He himself treated his people as fools, whipping them (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). And so often his Proverbs draw simplistic caricatures of the folly and laziness of the poor.</p>


text:
<p>18:24 A man of many companions may be ruined, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother-</p><p>AV "A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly". GNB "Some friendships do not last, but some friends are more loyal than brothers". This may again be a justification of David his father, who had many friends in the course of his career, some of whom betrayed him, but he had a hard core of exceptionally loyal supporters all the way through the various revolts against him, and who gave their support to Solomon's kingship. And they were better friends to Solomon than his own brothers, who vied with him for the throne.</p>


text:
<p>19:1 Better is the poor who walks in his integrity than he who is perverse in his lips and is a fool-</p><p>Solomon often mocks the poor as poor because they are unwise, and argues that wisdom brings wealth. In this he denies the wisdom he here states; that poor people can still have integrity. Or perhaps he has in view his father David, "the poor" in his wilderness years (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>; <a href='B:230 34:6'>Psa 34:6</a>), who 'walked in his integrity', as David often says about himself in the Psalms. The fool who has perverse lips would then refer to Nabal, meaning "fool". The fact the hotheaded David was restrained from sinning against Nabal by grace alone was overlooked by Solomon. He refuses to discern grace in his father's life, and seeks only to highlight his righteousness. Whereas David himself so often alludes to his own weaknesses and sins.</p>


text:
<p>19:2 It isn’t good to have zeal without knowledge; nor being hasty with one’s feet and missing the way-</p><p>This is quoted in <a href='B:520 10:2'>Rom 10:2</a> about those in Israel who miss the way of the Lord Jesus, who is ultimately "the way". The fact the Proverbs are so often alluded to and quoted in later scripture confirms that they are indeed inspired by God; but Solomon presents them in ways which clearly justify himself and his father. David's feet almost ran and hasted to evil (<a href='B:230 73:2'>Psa 73:2</a>), yet Solomon seems to overlook this. Solomon's proverbs seem to fail to address this complexity of situations because of his own self-righteousness; and yet all he says is inspired and true so far as it goes:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>19:3 The foolishness of man subverts his way; his heart rages against Yahweh-</p><p>LXX "The folly of a man spoils his ways: and he blames God in his heart". "Subverts" is the word for "overthrows". But God overthrows the wicked (s:w. <a href='B:240 21:12'>Pro 21:12</a>). Solomon thereby equates the foolish with the wicked. But he seems to classify as foolish anyone who doesn't accept his take on life, or is ignorant of the wisdom he teaches. Ignorance, and even intellectual failure, is not of itself wickedness. Solomon has such a dualistic view of things that he assumes anyone who is not wise and thereby wealthy to be foolish and thereby wicked. But amongst God's people, things are not so black and white. And we are not to judge, largely because we simply cannot judge:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>19:4 Wealth adds many friends, but the poor is separated from his friend-</p><p>This is the word used in <a href='B:240 18:1'>Pro 18:1</a> for how the unwise separates himself from his friends; the LXX of <a href='B:240 18:1'>Pro 18:1</a> makes it clearest: "A man who wishes to separate from friends seeks excuses; but at all times he will be liable to reproach". The same word is used in <a href='B:240 19:4'>Pro 19:4</a>: "The poor is separated from his friend". Separation from others is seen as unwisdom, and therefore associated with poverty; for Solomon thinks that wisdom brings wealth and unwisdom brings poverty. Solomon presents a picture of any deviation from the society which he presided over being punished; by poverty, and being reproached as unwise.</p>


text:
<p>19:5 A false witness shall not be unpunished; he who pours out lies shall not go free-</p><p>Solomon has much to say about true and false witnesses (<a href='B:240 6:19'>Pro 6:19</a>; <a href='B:240 12:17'>Pro 12:17</a>; <a href='B:240 14:5'>Pro 14:5</a>; <a href='B:240 14:25'>Pro 14:25</a>; <a href='B:240 19:5'>Pro 19:5</a>; <a href='B:240 19:9'>Pro 19:9</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>; <a href='B:240 21:28'>Pro 21:28</a>; <a href='B:240 24:28'>Pro 24:28</a>; <a href='B:240 25:18'>Pro 25:18</a>). Whilst his warnings are true enough, he surely has an element of self justification in what he writes. Because he was aware that his parents, David and Bathsheba, had been accused of many things which had led to all the opposition against David at the end of his reign, and which opposition Solomon had to contend with in order to retain the throne for himself. David laments the false witness of the house of Saul and his own sons, Solomon's half brothers (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 35:11'>Psa 35:11</a>). The continual condemnation of false witnesses must be understood in this context. Whilst it is all true so far as it goes, Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p>


text:
<p>19:6 Many will entreat the favour of a ruler, and everyone is a friend to a man who gives gifts-</p><p>See on :7. Solomon surely has himself in view, the ruler who was visited by representatives from many nations, wanting his favour. He contrasts this with the poor who have no friends (:7). The idea is that his wealth was a result of his wisdom; whereas God had given him wealth as a gift of grace. But he abused that grace by arguing that it was a result of his wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>19:7 All the relatives of the poor shun him: how much more do his friends avoid him! He pursues them with pleas, but they are gone-</p><p>Here we have one of many examples of where Solomon sees poverty very negatively, coming as a result of unwisdom just as wealth supposedly comes as a result of wisdom. And yet in other Proverbs he urges pity to be shown to the poor. His attitude to poverty is very conflicted; see on :17. He compares the unpopular poor man with the popular rich man (:6); as if a chief advantage if wisdom is that it makes the wise popular with people because of the wealth it gives. This is a very human and secular view, devoid of any real spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>19:8 He who gets wisdom loves his own soul; he who keeps understanding shall find good-</p><p>Whilst this is true so far as it goes, it presents a selfishness in wanting wisdom. Wisdom is to be gotten from the motive of self love, because it is profitable for this life. This reflects how Solomon misses completely the idea of living for the glory of God both now and eternally. He uses the same term for 'finding good' about how he found his wives (<a href='B:240 18:22'>Pro 18:22</a>):&nbsp; He assumes therefore that the mere possession of wisdom / correct understanding meant that the wives he found must be "good"; but his subsequent experience with them shows how wrong he was.</p>


text:
<p>19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished; he who utters lies shall perish-</p><p>See on :5. Solomon is alluding to his father David's parting commandments to Solomon to destroy all the opposition to him (<a href='B:110 2:6'>1Ki 2:6</a>; <a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). So whilst what Solomon writes is true, he is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p>


text:
<p>19:10 Delicate living is not appropriate for a fool, much less for a servant to have rule over princes-</p><p><a href='B:250 10:7'>Ecc 10:7</a> indicates Solomon finally didn't think <a href='B:240 19:10'>Pro 19:10</a> was&nbsp; true in practice: “I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth”. He thought that in reality, servants do rule over princes. Although he retained his theoretical wisdom as a teaching position, his own heart was far from it.</p>


text:
<p>19:11 The discretion of a man makes him slow to anger; it is his glory to overlook an offence-</p><p>We wonder how Solomon could write this without thinking of his hot tempered father who refused to overlook the offence of Nabal, and was about to murder him and his family. But he appears to whitewash his father, and instead has in view how David overlooked the offences of the likes of Shimei at one point; although he later asked Solomon to ensure he murdered Shimei.</p>


text:
<p>19:12 The king’s wrath is like the roaring of a lion, but his favour is like dew on the grass-</p><p>At&nbsp;the&nbsp; end&nbsp; of his days, Solomon recognized that although&nbsp; he&nbsp; had&nbsp; loved&nbsp; the&nbsp; theory&nbsp; of wisdom, the image of a spiritual&nbsp; life, the wisdom of God had never really impacted his soul: "I said, I will be wise (referring back to his request for wisdom&nbsp; in&nbsp; 1&nbsp; Kings 3); but it was far from me" (<a href='B:250 7:23'>Ecc 7:23</a>). His request&nbsp; for wisdom had only been so that he could do the job of leading&nbsp; Israel, living out the parental expectation of his father, whom he admits in Proverbs 4 had taught him to ask for wisdom:&nbsp; In <a href='B:240 19:12'>Pro 19:12</a> he speaks as if his own wisdom was like the dew coming down- as if he felt that the mere possession of wisdom made him the Messiah figure which his father had so hoped for him to be in <a href='B:230 72:6'>Psa 72:6</a>. And he says as much in <a href='B:240 29:3'>Pro 29:3</a>: “Whoso loveth wisdom [exactly what Solomon was commended for doing] rejoiceth his father”.</p>


text:
<p>19:13 A foolish son is the calamity of his father. A wife’s quarrels are a continual dripping-</p><p>"Destructive" or "wickedness" is the word used of the wickedness of Ahithophel and Absalom (<a href='B:230 55:11'>Psa 55:11</a>). Solomon's Proverbs seem in places a justification of himself as king over his brother Absalom. He uses the same word to speak of "transgressors are taken in their own wickedness / destructiveness" (<a href='B:240 11:6'>Pro 11:6</a>); how a liar [Absalom] listens to a 'destructive' tongue [in taking advice from Ahithophel] (<a href='B:240 17:4'>Pro 17:4</a>); and how a foolish son [Absalom] is the calamity or destruction of his father (<a href='B:240 19:13'>Pro 19:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>19:14 House and riches are an inheritance from fathers, but a prudent wife is from Yahweh-</p><p>David had left Solomon an inheritance of both riches (<a href='B:130 29:28'>1Ch 29:28</a>) and a "house" or family line to continue. But Solomon liked to think that his many wives were "prudent", and were "from Yahweh"- when they were idolaters who were not of Yahweh, and who turned his heart away from Yahweh to their gods. This arrogant perception and persuasion led Solomon to liken his illicit Gentile girlfriend in the Song of Solomon to a true Israelite, describing her in the language of the tabernacle and likening her to various attractive places within Israel. All Solomon writes is true, but he clearly always has himself in mind as the parade fulfilment of them; and in this he was so wrong.</p>


text:
<p>19:15 Slothfulness casts into a deep sleep; the idle person shall suffer hunger-</p><p>Again Solomon's works centred approach leads him to condemn laziness and sloth. In <a href='B:240 10:3'>Pro 10:3</a> Solomon has taught that the righteous will never "suffer hunger" (s:w:). So he considers idleness to be unrighteousness. Righteousness is thereby equated with doing many works. But this fails to appreciate that there is none truly righteous, at times God suffers men to hunger (s:w. <a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a>) that He might teach them; and blessing in the end is all of grace and not of works, lest any man [like Solomon] should boast in their works, as he does in Ecclesiastes 1.</p>


text:
<p>19:16 He who keeps the commandment keeps his soul, but he who is disrespectful in his ways shall die-</p><p>Solomon has no eternal perspective in his thinking. He assumes that he is the judge of all, and his kingdom is the promised Messianic Kingdom of God on earth. He presents untimely death in this life as the result for disrespect to the commandments. But in fact the wicked prosper, and the ultimate outcome of human life is not now, but in the judgment of the last day. In contrast, David wanted God to "keep his soul" (e.g. <a href='B:230 25:20'>Psa 25:20</a>), rather than Solomon's emphasis upon a person keeping their own soul through obedience.</p>


text:
<p>19:17 He who has pity on the poor lends to Yahweh; He will reward him-</p><p>Solomon on one hand teaches pity towards the poor (<a href='B:240 14:21'>Pro 14:21</a>; <a href='B:240 14:31'>Pro 14:31</a>; <a href='B:240 19:17'>Pro 19:17</a>; <a href='B:240 28:8'>Pro 28:8</a>). But on the other, he mocks the poor as being poor because of their unwisdom, believing that wealth is given in response to wisdom. He is very conflicted in his attitude to the poor. The Divine revelation of truth to him was clearly that he should be generous to the poor. But he fences against this in other places by saying that the poor are being punished for their unwisdom. So like us when we encounter need that requires our generosity, he hedges his position very carefully; rather than accepting the simple force of the wisdom given to him, that pity to the poor as it were transfers our wealth from earth to heaven, and we will receive it back in due time (<a href='B:240 19:17'>Pro 19:17</a>). And he is quite obsessive about not being collateral for the poor. Solomon had not known need, neither material nor spiritual, and it shows in his attitude to so obsessively forbidding the giving of collateral to guarantee a loan (<a href='B:240 6:1-3'>Pro 6:1-3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:15'>Pro 11:15</a>; <a href='B:240 17:18'>Pro 17:18</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 22:26'>Pro 22:26</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a> - all quite some emphasis). It makes hollow all Solomon's exhortations to be generous to your poor neighbour and to be a brother in adversity to your neighbour (<a href='B:240 14:21'>Pro 14:21</a>; <a href='B:240 17:17'>Pro 17:17</a>). Solomon is here reasoning from the viewpoint of secular wisdom. The law of Moses didn't forbid giving or taking collateral for loans, it accepted this would happen (<a href='B:20 22:25-27'>Exo 22:25-27</a>):&nbsp;</p><p>Another approach is to understand Solomon's positive comments about helping the poor as historical allusion to his father David. &nbsp;"The poor" would easily refer to David (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>; <a href='B:230 34:6'>Psa 34:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>19:18 Discipline your son while there is hope; don’t be a willing party to his death-</p><p>As will be explained on :20, this is true so far as it goes, and is a fair enough commentary upon the Mosaic instruction to stone to death a disobedient son. But Solomon took this idea of physical chastisement too far, to the point of not giving due weight to the power of God Himself through His wisdom to discipline or chastise a person.</p>


text:
<p>19:19 A hot-tempered man must pay the penalty, for if you rescue him, you must do it again-</p><p>Solomon had asked for wisdom in order to know how to judge Israel. And so many of his Proverbs refer to judgment. But there is no grace in what he says; he frequently insists that the judgment for sin and unwisdom must be carried out, and any 'rescue' of the man by grace is pointless and wrong. But he totally fails to appreciate that his father had been saved by grace for his hot blooded intention to murder Nabal and all his family, and forgiven by grace alone for his sin against Bathsheba and Uriah, when the just penalty was death. He had psychologically, subconsciously whitewashed his father David; he has no sense of grace and reflecting gratitude for grace in merciful judgment of others.</p>


text:
<p>19:20 Listen to counsel and receive instruction, so that you may be wise in your very end-</p><p>Solomon has so much to say about "correction" or "instruction" coming from the possession of wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:10'>Pro 8:10</a>; <a href='B:240 8:33'>Pro 8:33</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:1'>Pro 13:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>; <a href='B:240 15:32'>Pro 15:32</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>; <a href='B:240 19:20'>Pro 19:20</a>; <a href='B:240 19:27'>Pro 19:27</a>; <a href='B:240 22:15'>Pro 22:15</a>; <a href='B:240 23:12-13'>Pro 23:12-13</a>). But in the end he chastised or corrected his people by whipping them (s:w. <a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; <a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>). Solomon initially asked for wisdom in order to guide his people, but he ended up whipping / physically chastising them into conformity with his wishes rather than allowing wisdom to correct. Again, he was playing God; for it is God through His wisdom who chastises, and not man. But Solomon thought he was effectively God to his people. This is why Solomon argues that servants cannot be corrected by words (<a href='B:240 29:19'>Pro 29:19</a> s:w:), and a child must be physically chastised (s:w. <a href='B:240 19:18'>Pro 19:18</a>; <a href='B:240 29:17'>Pro 29:17</a> cp. <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 23:13'>Pro 23:13</a>), regardless of his screams of pain. This kind of thing is a denial of his claims elsewhere that it is Divine wisdom which chastises / corrects, and such correction is from God and not man. Solomon's final description of himself as an old and foolish king who refuses to be admonished says it all (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>); he admonishes others (s:w. <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), but refuses to be admonished or corrected by his own wisdom. He failed to personalize it.</p>


text:
<p>19:21 There are many plans in a man’s heart, but Yahweh’s counsel will prevail-</p><p>Yahweh's counsel is seen as the wisdom which Solomon was teaching (:20). The truth of this statement demonstrates the error of the humanistic approach of 'follow your heart', 'do what feels good and right to you'. There must be the influence of God's word to put us on the path to life.</p>


text:
<p>19:22 That which makes a man to be desired is his kindness; a poor man is better than a liar-</p><p>Spiritual ambition means that we will desire to do some things which we can’t physically fulfil- and yet they will be counted to us. Abraham is spoken of as having offered up Isaac- his intention was counted as the act. And <a href='B:240 19:22'>Pro 19:22</a> RV appropriately comments: “The desire of a man is the measure of his kindness”. It is all accepted according to what a man has, not what he has not:&nbsp;&nbsp; Faith is perfected / matured by the process of works (<a href='B:660 2:22-23'>Jas 2:22-23</a>). The works, the upward spiral of a life lived on the basis of faith, develop the initial belief in practice.</p>


text:
<p>19:23 The fear of Yahweh leads to life, and whoever has it rests satisfied; he will not be visited by harm-</p><p>But as the book of Job teaches, this is simply not the case. Solomon insists on a simplistic form of the prosperity Gospel, whereby the wise have a wonderful life with no "harm", and the unwise are always falling into sin and misery. But the wicked prosper; in this life. Solomon fails to appreciate that there is judgment to come, and only then will there be "life" indeed granted.</p>


text:
<p>19:24 The lazy buries his hand in the dish; he will not so much as bring it to his mouth again-</p><p>The Proverbs contain repeated condemnation of laziness. Lack of a zealous work ethic is a rejection of wisdom, according to Solomon. As Solomon explains in Ecclesiastes 1, he was an active person, not lazy by nature. And yet he lacked spirituality. He claimed that his service of God was due to his spirituality, but it was in reality merely a semblance of serving God when it was really just reinforcing his own personality type. His mocking of the "sluggard" or "lazy one" is so frequent (<a href='B:240 6:6'>Pro 6:6</a>; <a href='B:240 6:9'>Pro 6:9</a>; <a href='B:240 10:26'>Pro 10:26</a>; <a href='B:240 13:4'>Pro 13:4</a>; <a href='B:240 15:19'>Pro 15:19</a>; <a href='B:240 19:24'>Pro 19:24</a>; <a href='B:240 20:4'>Pro 20:4</a>; <a href='B:240 21:25'>Pro 21:25</a>; <a href='B:240 22:13'>Pro 22:13</a>; <a href='B:240 24:30'>Pro 24:30</a>; <a href='B:240 26:13-16'>Pro 26:13-16</a>). But it is a reflection of his own works-based approach to righteousness; the 'wise' "do" good things, and the wicked don't do enough good things. Personal spiritual mindedness and relationship with God are simply not emphasized.</p>


text:
<p>19:25 Flog a scoffer, and the simple will learn prudence; rebuke one who has understanding, and he will gain knowledge-</p><p>David had spoken of the house of Saul as scoffing at him (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:51'>Psa 119:51</a>). And the line of David had been chosen to replace Saul because he had refused to "learn prudence" at Samuel's rebuke. David had accepted rebuke and was open to it, notably from Nathan the prophet (<a href='B:230 38:1'>Psa 38:1</a>; <a href='B:230 141:5'>Psa 141:5</a>); and so again Solomon's Proverbs are true, but he harnesses them to the justification of himself and his father. But Solomon was only to remain the prophetic son of David if he accepted reproof (s:w. <a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>); and he didn't. He refused to personalize his own wisdom, as we can.</p>


text:
<p>19:26 He who robs his father and drives away his mother, is a son who causes shame and brings reproach-</p><p>Solomon surely has in view his half brother Absalom, who for years had garnered support from the men of Israel in return for promises that he would judge in their favour if they helped him overthrow David. And yet the problems with Absalom were all prophesied by Nathan as a Divinely raised up punishment and consequence for the sin of David with Bathsheba, Solomon's mother. But Solomon whitewashes his parents, and always puts the blame for the consequences and the trouble in the family solely upon the behaviour of his half brothers.</p>


text:
<p>19:27 If you stop listening to instruction, my son, you will stray from the words of knowledge-</p><p>This may sound axiomatic and stating the obvious. Hence LXX "A son who ceases to attend to the instruction of a father will cherish evil designs"; GNB "My child, when you stop learning, you will soon neglect what you already know", AV "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge". "Stray" is the word used for Saul straying from the words of instruction given him by Samuel (<a href='B:90 26:21'>1Sa 26:21</a>), whereas David kept listening to it. Again we see Solomon always seeking to justify his father David, and to criticize his competitors in the house of Saul.</p>


text:
<p>19:28 A corrupt witness mocks justice, and the mouth of the wicked gulps down iniquity-</p><p>Solomon repeatedly condemns "the mouth of the wicked" (<a href='B:240 10:6'>Pro 10:6</a>; <a href='B:240 10:11'>Pro 10:11</a>; <a href='B:240 10:32'>Pro 10:32</a>; <a href='B:240 11:11'>Pro 11:11</a>; <a href='B:240 12:6'>Pro 12:6</a>; <a href='B:240 15:28'>Pro 15:28</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>). All he says is true enough, but he clearly enough has in view how his father David had condemned the supporters of Saul and Absalom as having "the mouth of the wicked" (<a href='B:230 109:2'>Psa 109:2</a>). And these were the groups who were threatening his power and throne. Solomon presents himself by implication as having the mouth of the just / righteous. And yet we must note that David too had spoken multiple words of deceit in relation to the murder of Uriah. Indeed the phrase is used in <a href='B:290 53:9'>Isa 53:9</a> as if the Lord Jesus was the only man who didn't have a "mouth of deceit". Solomon like David was in denial of the fact that we all sin with our mouths, as James makes clear in <a href='B:660 3:1-3'>Jas 3:1-3</a>.</p><p>True as the Proverbs are which condemn "a worthless / wicked person" (<a href='B:240 6:12'>Pro 6:12</a>; <a href='B:240 16:27'>Pro 16:27</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>), again we have a subtext of Solomon seeking to justify himself and his father David, and to criticize the various competitors to Solomon's throne. "A worthless person" is the term used for Nabal (<a href='B:90 25:17'>1Sa 25:17</a>), those in David's camp who were not fully supportive of David (<a href='B:90 30:22'>1Sa 30:22</a>), Sheba who plotted to overthrow the Davidic line as king (<a href='B:100 20:1'>2Sa 20:1</a>), and particularly of those who wanted to overthrow Solomon as king (<a href='B:140 13:7'>2Ch 13:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>19:29 Penalties are prepared for scoffers, and beatings for the backs of fools-</p><p>Solomon seems to justify the rich treating the poor harshly (see on <a href='B:240 18:23'>Pro 18:23</a>). He himself treated his people as fools, beating them (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). And so often his Proverbs draw simplistic caricatures of the folly and laziness of the poor. He came to assume that his people were fools, and he could abuse them therefore, at will. Those who are lifted up with pride at their possession of "truth" often come to despise and abuse others.</p>


text:
<p>20:1 Wine is a mocker, and beer is a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise-</p><p>"Strong drink is a brawler" (RV). This is a metonymy- a drunk man is a brawler, not alcoholic drinks of themselves. But "strong drink" is put for 'a drunk man'. Alcohol is the alcoholic, and vice versa. This is some comfort for families of alcoholics who lament how alcohol so dominates their family member, and who marvel at the extent to which it is really so- that alcohol is the alcoholic, and the alcoholic lives for alcohol.</p><p>Solomon’s warnings&nbsp; against&nbsp; alcohol were totally&nbsp;&nbsp; disregarded&nbsp;&nbsp;by&nbsp;Solomon&nbsp;in his later search&nbsp;for fulfilment&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; flesh (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>):&nbsp;His&nbsp;alcoholism contradicted his own earlier condemnations of drink as being for the&nbsp; unwise&nbsp; (e.g.&nbsp; <a href='B:240 20:1'>Pro 20:1</a>):&nbsp;Thus by turning to drink he was throwing&nbsp; off&nbsp; his&nbsp; former&nbsp; wisdom, even though his access to it remained&nbsp; with him (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>; cp. 'But I still believe the Truth, you know').</p>


text:
<p>20:2 The terror of a king is like the roaring of a lion; whoever provokes him to anger forfeits his own life-</p><p>Solomon writes inspired truth in Proverbs of course, but it is inevitable that much of what he writes about the need to respect the man who has wisdom, and his superiority over all others, was written with an eye to his own self-justification. He even writes as if the king must be accepted as automatically infallible: “A divine sentence is in the lips of the king; his mouth transgresseth not in judgment</p><p> the fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul” (<a href='B:240 16:10'>Pro 16:10</a>; <a href='B:240 20:2'>Pro 20:2</a> AV). It was really Solomon's self-justification:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>20:3 It is an honour for a man to keep aloof from strife; but every fool will be quarrelling-</p><p>The many exhortations to keep away from strife and "meddling" (AV) are fair enough. But it seems Solomon also had another agenda in pushing this; he didn't want his reign and policies to be questioned. He and his teaching were to be accepted without question. So often an appeal for "peace" is really a guise for insisting that a particular agenda is accepted.</p>


text:
<p>20:4 The lazy will not plough by reason of the winter; therefore he shall beg in harvest, and have nothing-</p><p>The Proverbs contain repeated condemnation of laziness. Lack of a zealous work ethic is a rejection of wisdom, according to Solomon. As Solomon explains in Ecclesiastes 1, he was an active person, not lazy by nature. And yet he lacked spirituality. He claimed that his service of God was due to his spirituality, but it was in reality merely a semblance of serving God when it was really just reinforcing his own personality type. His mocking of the "sluggard" or "lazy one" is so frequent (<a href='B:240 6:6'>Pro 6:6</a>; <a href='B:240 6:9'>Pro 6:9</a>; <a href='B:240 10:26'>Pro 10:26</a>; <a href='B:240 13:4'>Pro 13:4</a>; <a href='B:240 15:19'>Pro 15:19</a>; <a href='B:240 19:24'>Pro 19:24</a>; <a href='B:240 20:4'>Pro 20:4</a>; <a href='B:240 21:25'>Pro 21:25</a>; <a href='B:240 22:13'>Pro 22:13</a>; <a href='B:240 24:30'>Pro 24:30</a>; <a href='B:240 26:13-16'>Pro 26:13-16</a>). But it is a reflection of his own works-based approach to righteousness; the 'wise' "do" good things, and the wicked don't do enough good things. Personal spiritual mindedness and relationship with God are simply not emphasized.</p><p>Solomon had elsewhere taught in <a href='B:240 17:5'>Pro 17:5</a> that "Whoever mocks the poor reproaches his Maker. He who is glad at calamity shall not be unpunished". Yet Solomon's teachings about poverty do very often mock them and draw caricatures about them (e.g. <a href='B:240 20:4'>Pro 20:4</a>), for he implies at several points that poverty is due to unwisdom and laziness, and the blessing of wisdom is wealth (:6 LXX). Yet again we see Solomon failing to personalize his wisdom; he disobeyed it because he seems to have reasoned that mere possession of Divine truth was all that was required for acceptability with God. And the same mistake is seen in so many.</p>


text:
<p>20:5 Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; but a man of understanding will draw it out-</p><p>The thought is as in <a href='B:240 18:4'>Pro 18:4</a> LXX "A word in the heart of a man is a deep water, and a river and fountain of life spring forth". The sense may be that if a word of wisdom is placed within a man's heart, it becomes a fountain of life for others. The Lord uses a similar figure in <a href='B:500 7:38-39'>Joh 7:38-39</a> for the water of life which can pour from a man's innermost being, once he truly accepts the word of the Gospel. When He says that this was "as the scripture has said", this may be one of the passages He had in mind. Our witness to others is therefore from our innermost being, from the word of the Gospel believed and firmly lodged in the deepest heart. The person of understanding who draws out this water from another sounds like the Queen of Sheba drawing wisdom from Solomon; so again, he sees himself as the man with true counsel in his heart.</p>


text:
<p>20:6 Many men claim to be men of unfailing love, but who can find a faithful man?-</p><p>LXX "a merciful man precious: but it is hard to find a faithful man". "Unfailing love" is chesed, the word for "grace". It could be that Solomon in his utilitarian, secular way is saying that a man of grace is not as much use as a man who is faithful / trustworthy to Solomon's cause.</p>


text:
<p>20:7 A righteous man walks in integrity; blessed are his children after him-</p><p>Solomon has as usual his own agenda of self justification in view here. The man who 'walked in integrity' is without doubt David (s:w. <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>; <a href='B:230 26:1'>Psa 26:1</a>; <a href='B:230 26:11'>Psa 26:11</a>; <a href='B:230 101:2'>Psa 101:2</a>). Solomon assumed that because his father had walked in integrity, then he as his child would automatically be blessed. But he was choosing to misunderstand the conditional nature of the promises to him in <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>; if he walked himself in integrity "as David your father walked", then he would be the prophetically blessed son of David.</p>


text:
<p>20:8 A king who sits on the throne of judgment scatters away all evil with his eyes-</p><p>Clearly Solomon has himself in view. He had asked for wisdom in order to be able to judge Israel rightly; but he became lifted up in pride by the mere fact of possessing the Divine truths he is collecting together in the book of Proverbs. And he assumes that therefore he has correct judgment just by reason of who he is, rather than on account of putting into operation the wisdom given him. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart pure. I am clean and without sin?-</p><p>David claimed to have cleansed his heart (<a href='B:230 26:2'>Psa 26:2</a>; <a href='B:230 26:6'>Psa 26:6</a>; <a href='B:230 73:13'>Psa 73:13</a>). Solomon uses the same word in saying that nobody can say "I have cleansed my heart" (<a href='B:240 20:9'>Pro 20:9</a>); as if disagreeing with his father David on this point. Solomon may be suggesting that all you can do is live an externally clean life, you can never cleanse your heart- and this refusal to allow the Holy Spirit to cleanse him inwardly is what led to his apostasy. For disregarding deep, core level spiritual mindedness and trusting on externalities... is a sure path to spiritual disaster. And Solomon took it.</p>


text:
<p>20:10 Differing weights and differing measures, both of them alike are an abomination to Yahweh-</p><p>"Abomination" is the common word for idols (e.g. <a href='B:50 7:25-26'>Deu 7:25-26</a>). Idolatry is here interpreted as things like pride and telling lies (:17). These seven things are the essence of idolatry. There is a recurring nature to them, just as idols got a grip on the mind of the worshipper. Solomon often uses the word for quiet, secret sins, words and the matters of the heart, internal attitudes and judgments (<a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a>; <a href='B:240 11:20'>Pro 11:20</a>; <a href='B:240 12:22'>Pro 12:22</a>; <a href='B:240 13:19'>Pro 13:19</a>; <a href='B:240 15:26'>Pro 15:26</a>; <a href='B:240 16:5'>Pro 16:5</a>; <a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a>; <a href='B:240 20:10'>Pro 20:10</a>; <a href='B:240 20:23'>Pro 20:23</a>; <a href='B:240 24:9'>Pro 24:9</a>; <a href='B:240 26:25'>Pro 26:25</a>; <a href='B:240 28:9'>Pro 28:9</a>; <a href='B:240 29:27'>Pro 29:27</a>). And this of course is the essence of idolatry in our age; this is the practical force to us of all Biblical teaching about idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>20:11 Even a child makes himself known by his doings, whether his work is pure, or whether it is right-</p><p>This may continue the idea of :8, that Solomon thinks he can intuitively judge purity and impurity in human hearts; all people, even children, can be easily discerned by their deeds; so Solomon claims. They can indeed be known by God, but no amount of possession of Divine truths gives someone the power to judge each person rightly, let alone to claim that such judgment is simple and intuitively obvious to them. And so many have followed Solomon in this; their possession of some Divine truths has led them to assume that they can accurately judge others, and their intuitive gut feeling about people they therefore assume to be perfectly correct Divine judgment:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>20:12 The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, Yahweh has made even both of them-</p><p>This is in the context of Solomon's claim that as a just judge endowed with Divine wisdom, he knows the truth about all the cases which come before him (see on :8,11). The God who has ultimate awareness, hearing and seeing all things, has given such awareness to Solomon the judge; so Solomon liked to think:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>20:13 Don’t love sleep, lest you come to poverty. Open your eyes, and you shall be satisfied with bread-</p><p>This continues Solomon's rhetoric against laziness and his insistence that poverty comes as a result of idleness. He argues that if lazy people even just opened their eyes, they would be satisfied with bread. Solomon on one hand teaches pity towards the poor (<a href='B:240 14:21'>Pro 14:21</a>; <a href='B:240 14:31'>Pro 14:31</a>; <a href='B:240 19:17'>Pro 19:17</a>; <a href='B:240 28:8'>Pro 28:8</a>). But on the other, he mocks the poor as being poor because of their unwisdom, believing that wealth is given in response to wisdom. He is very conflicted in his attitude to the poor. The Divine revelation of truth to him was clearly that he should be generous to the poor. But he fences against this in other places by saying that the poor are being punished for their unwisdom. So like us when we encounter need that requires our generosity, he hedges his position very carefully; rather than accepting the simple force of the wisdom given to him, that pity to the poor as it were transfers our wealth from earth to heaven, and we will receive it back in due time (see on <a href='B:240 19:17'>Pro 19:17</a>).</p><p>Solomon speaks often of how hard work will "satisfy with bread" (<a href='B:240 12:11'>Pro 12:11</a>; <a href='B:240 20:13'>Pro 20:13</a>; <a href='B:240 28:19'>Pro 28:19</a>). David his father uses the phrase in the context of saying that being 'satisfied with bread' is part of God's gracious blessing (<a href='B:230 132:15'>Psa 132:15</a>). We see here how Solomon became focused upon works, rather than faith in the blessings which come from Divine grace. And yet he uses the words his father had used; but he interprets them as justification of works rather than acceptance of grace.</p>


text:
<p>20:14 It’s no good, it’s no good, says the buyer; but when he is gone his way, then he boasts-</p><p>The idea is that he boasts at what a wonderful deal he has got. The verse may simply be an observation upon how things are, but I suggest it be read along with :15. The gold and rubies are bought for a very low price, but all the same, lips of knowledge are worth even more than them. Perhaps the Lord quarried His parable of the treasure hid in a field from these verses. The man gives all that he has to by all means buy the field which contains the treasure, but that treasure is the knowledge of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p>20:15 There is gold and abundance of rubies; but the lips of knowledge are a rare jewel-</p><p>See on :14. The words of <a href='B:220 28:18'>Job 28:18</a> are repeatedly quoted in Proverbs (<a href='B:240 3:15'>Pro 3:15</a>; <a href='B:240 8:11'>Pro 8:11</a>; <a href='B:240 20:15'>Pro 20:15</a>). "Wisdom" in Proverbs refers not so much to nuggets of truth, but to a way of life in relationship with God; for that is the context in the source passage in <a href='B:220 28:18'>Job 28:18</a> cp. 28:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>20:16 Take the garment of one who puts up collateral for a stranger-</p><p>The law of Moses didn't forbid giving or taking collateral for loans, it accepted this would happen (<a href='B:20 22:25-27'>Exo 22:25-27</a>). But Solomon in the Proverbs is quite obsessed with forbidding it in very strong terms (<a href='B:240 6:1-3'>Pro 6:1-3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:15'>Pro 11:15</a>; <a href='B:240 17:18'>Pro 17:18</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 22:26'>Pro 22:26</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a> - all quite some emphasis). Perhaps Solomon recalled some bad experience in his family because of this. There is the otherwise curious statement in <a href='B:90 17:18'>1Sa 17:18</a> that David's brothers, Solomon's uncles, were to return a collateral. Perhaps this ruined the family and Solomon's wisdom has some human element in it, reflecting his own bad experiences in his family life. But there is nothing wrong with giving or taking collateral for a loan; what is condemned in God's law is the abuse of the debtor and the abuse of the situation. Indeed David and Hezekiah ask God to be collateral for their needs and debts in various ways (<a href='B:230 119:122'>Psa 119:122</a>; <a href='B:290 38:14'>Isa 38:14</a>). And God gives the Holy Spirit in our hearts as collateral on His debt, as He sees it, to save us (<a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a>; <a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>); and in response we give our hearts as a pledge to Him (<a href='B:300 30:21'>Jer 30:21</a> Heb:). So forbidding the practice seems out of step with the spirit of grace. It would mean asking of God what we are unprepared to do for others. Solomon had not known need, neither material nor spiritual, and it shows in his attitude to this matter. It makes hollow all Solomon's exhortations to be generous to your poor neighbour and to be a brother in adversity to your neighbour (<a href='B:240 14:21'>Pro 14:21</a>; <a href='B:240 17:17'>Pro 17:17</a>). Solomon is here reasoning from the viewpoint of secular wisdom.</p><p>And hold him in pledge for a wayward woman-</p><p>The&nbsp; blindness&nbsp; of&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; is&nbsp; driven&nbsp; home time and again; he knew Divine truth, but the more he knew it, the more he lived the very opposite, failing to grasp the deeply personal relevance of truth to himself. A whole string of passages in Proverbs warn&nbsp;of&nbsp; the&nbsp; "strange" &nbsp;(AV) woman&nbsp; (2:16;&nbsp; 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; 20:16; 23:27;&nbsp; 27:13). Yet the very same word (translated "outlandish", AV) is&nbsp; used&nbsp; in&nbsp; <a href='B:160 13:26'>Neh 13:26</a> concerning&nbsp; the women Solomon married. The antidote&nbsp;to&nbsp; succumbing to the wicked woman was to have wisdom- according to Proverbs. And Solomon apparently had wisdom. Yet he succumbed to the wicked woman. He was writing Song of Solomon at the same time as Proverbs. The reason for this must be that Solomon didn't really have wisdom. Yet we know that he was given it in abundance. The resolution of this seems to be that Solomon asked&nbsp; for&nbsp; wisdom &nbsp;in&nbsp; order&nbsp; to&nbsp; lead&nbsp; Israel&nbsp; rather than for himself,&nbsp; he used that wisdom to judge Israel and to educate the surrounding&nbsp; nations:&nbsp; But&nbsp; none of it percolated to himself. As custodians&nbsp; of&nbsp; true&nbsp; doctrine-&nbsp; for&nbsp; that is what we are- we are likely to suffer from over familiarity with it. We can become so accustomed&nbsp; to 'handling' it, as we strengthen each other, as we preach,&nbsp; that&nbsp; the personal bearing of the Truth becomes totally lost&nbsp; upon us, as it was totally lost upon Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>20:17 Fraudulent food is sweet to a man, but afterwards his mouth is filled with gravel-</p><p>"Fraudulent" is 'deceit'. The allusion is to Ahithophel, who had betrayed Solomon's father David, when once they had eaten bread together, although in deceit (<a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a>). And he then committed suicide, to which the mouth of a corpse being filled with gravel may allude. Always Solomon seems to have in view the justification of David and condemnation of his opposition.</p>


text:
<p>20:18 Plans are established by advice; by wise guidance you wage war!-</p><p>Solomon's advice to his son sounds all well and good; but Rehoboam was given two different paths of advice by his advisors. Again, Solomon's words are true, but simplistic. Because as Rehoboam's case shows, the issue is not so much having advisors per se, but deciding which advisors to listen to. Solomon too had advisors (<a href='B:110 12:6'>1Ki 12:6</a>), but did what he wanted, making this Proverb somewhat hollow when applied to himself.</p>


text:
<p>20:19 He who goes about as a tale-bearer reveals secrets; therefore don’t keep company with him who opens wide his lips-</p><p>"Opens wide" is the word for "enticed". Solomon's idea of avoiding sin was in resisting the enticement of very sinful people (s:w. <a href='B:240 1:10'>Pro 1:10</a>; <a href='B:240 16:29'>Pro 16:29</a>). He pays no attention to the heart, whereas the Biblical message is always that sin is to be avoided in the heart. Spiritual mindedness, rather than mere disassociation from sinners, is of the essence. <a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a> warns that our heart should not be enticed (s:w:); but Solomon sees enticement as merely from very sinful individuals.</p><p>Solomon rightly condemns gossip and the stirring up of divisions. But he is writing up his Divinely given wisdom at the start of his reign, where there were various groups of opposition to him. These groupings had all arisen from the divisions which arose after his parents' sin with each other; they were a consequence for David's sin, which Nathan had prophesied. Inevitably, David's behaviour had invited all manner of gossip and strife. But Solomon seems to blame this on the gossipers, and carefully considers they alone are guilty; for he is ever glorifying and whitewashing his father David.</p>


text:
<p>20:20 Whoever curses his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in blackness of darkness-</p><p>A "lamp" was understood as the inheritance and continuation as king (<a href='B:110 15:4'>1Ki 15:4</a>). Solomon here has in view how his half brother Absalom, and indeed his other half brothers, had contended with him for the throne; but their "lamp" in this sense had been extinguished. And he likes to imply that this was because they had cursed their father David, whereas Solomon revered him.</p>


text:
<p>20:21 An inheritance quickly gained at the beginning won’t be blessed in the end-</p><p>If indeed :20 is referring to Absalom, this may also allude to him; implying Absalom and Solomon's other competitors for the throne had sought to grab the inheritance of their father David, but had not retained it in the end.</p>


text:
<p>20:22 Don’t say, I will pay back evil. Wait for Yahweh, and He will save you-</p><p>Solomon considered that much evil had been done to him and his father David by the various contenders for the throne. Solomon had been careful to cut down all such opposition when he became king, not&nbsp; following the example of David when he became king, in being so gracious to the house of Saul his contenders. But here he rather hypocritically claims he had not repaid evil, alluding to how David had not repaid evil by killing Saul when he could have done, but had waited for Yahweh to remove Saul and establish his kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>20:23 Yahweh detests differing weights, and dishonest scales are not pleasing-</p><p>AV "are an abomination". This repeats <a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a>. "Abomination" is the common word for idols (e.g. <a href='B:50 7:25-26'>Deu 7:25-26</a>). Idolatry is here interpreted as things like dishonest scales and a quiet desire to repay evil (:22). These internal things are the essence of idolatry. Solomon often uses the word "abomination" for quiet, secret sins, words and the matters of the heart, internal attitudes and judgments (<a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a>; <a href='B:240 11:20'>Pro 11:20</a>; <a href='B:240 12:22'>Pro 12:22</a>; <a href='B:240 13:19'>Pro 13:19</a>; <a href='B:240 15:26'>Pro 15:26</a>; <a href='B:240 16:5'>Pro 16:5</a>; <a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a>; <a href='B:240 20:10'>Pro 20:10</a>; <a href='B:240 20:23'>Pro 20:23</a>; <a href='B:240 24:9'>Pro 24:9</a>; <a href='B:240 26:25'>Pro 26:25</a>; <a href='B:240 28:9'>Pro 28:9</a>; <a href='B:240 29:27'>Pro 29:27</a>). And this of course is the essence of idolatry in our age; this is the practical force to us of all Biblical teaching about idolatry.</p><p>But the context here is of Solomon claiming that his wisdom makes him a correct judge of men (:26). This is likewise the context of <a href='B:240 16:11'>Pro 16:11</a>: "Honest balances and scales are Yahweh’s; all the weights in the bag are His work". The stress may be on the fact that Yahweh is the ultimate judge, weighing all things in perfectly accurate balances and with ultimately true weighting. This then leads on to the implication in :26 and <a href='B:240 16:12'>Pro 16:12</a> that a true king, and Solomon refers to himself, cannot judge wrongly because he is king on God's behalf. His judgment must therefore be accepted as correct, because he is king on behalf of Yahweh, the ultimately true and fair judge. Hence <a href='B:240 16:11'>Pro 16:11</a> LXX "or the throne of rule is established by righteousness". But this is reasoning which is biased towards Solomon's self justification, and desire to cement himself as the unquestioned moral judge and teacher of Israel- although personally he was so far from it.</p>


text:
<p>20:24 A man’s steps are from Yahweh; how then can man understand his way?-</p><p>David here quotes his father's words in <a href='B:230 37:23'>Psa 37:23</a>: "The steps of a good man are ordered by Yahweh". Man without God's help cannot therefore understand his "way". But God understands man's way because He alone understands the way of wisdom (<a href='B:220 28:23'>Job 28:23</a> s:w:), and therefore David prays to be "made to understand the way" (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:27'>Psa 119:27</a>). And Solomon has used this phrase about wisdom empowers man to understand his way (<a href='B:240 14:8'>Pro 14:8</a>). The only way to understand life's way is therefore from the God who is ordering it; unaided, without His gift of wisdom, we cannot understand it. See on :27; <a href='B:240 21:29'>Pro 21:29</a>.</p>


text:
<p>20:25 It is a snare to a man to make a rash dedication, then later to consider his vows-</p><p>The reference is to the way that it was common in those days, as it still is in Semitic languages and cultures, to make very extreme promises of dedication which could not then be kept. Clearly Solomon has in view Jephthah's rash vow. But he also surely alludes to his half brother Absalom's attempted putsch to wrest the throne from David and Solomon, which used the guise of having made a vow he needed to perform (s:w. <a href='B:100 15:7-8'>2Sa 15:7-8</a>). So again and again we see Solomon saying what is true and wise enough, but always with some underlying narrative justifying himself and his father.</p>


text:
<p>20:26 A wise king winnows out the wicked, and drives the threshing wheel over them-</p><p>Solomon uses language elsewhere used about Messiah’s final judgment when he says this. He felt that his judgment must be that of God, therefore he had to be right, because he ‘had wisdom’, he ‘had the truth’; he assumed that because he was the king, therefore his heart would inevitably be guided by the Lord (<a href='B:240 21:1'>Pro 21:1</a>), and he could judge and condemn others. This is where abusing the knowledge or possession of Divine truths can lead. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>20:27 The spirit of man is Yahweh’s lamp, searching all his innermost parts-</p><p>This must be understood in the context of :24. There is as it were cooperation between God and man in order to understand our ways. Without the lamp of His word and involvement in our spirit, the unaided spirit of man cannot search out himself with any real meaning. Our self examination is in this sense God's, although we may not be conscious of it.</p>


text:
<p>20:28 Love and faithfulness keep the king safe; his throne is sustained by love-</p><p>"Mercy and truth" ("love and faithfulness") were to be the basis of David's throne because that is what upheld God's throne. And David was to reign on God's behalf, his throne was to be as God's throne (<a href='B:290 16:5'>Isa 16:5</a>; <a href='B:230 89:14'>Psa 89:14</a>; <a href='B:230 101:1'>Psa 101:1</a>). Solomon liked to imagine that his throne was likewise upheld by God as His throne, also on the basis of "mercy and truth" ("grace and justice"). But he assumed that would happen automatically, whereas David's response to this is given in Psalms 101 - he vows that he will personally reign in "grace and justice", whereas Solomon assumes that God will provide the "grace and justice" ("mercy and truth") as it were automatically. “Mercy and truth preserve the king, and he upholdeth his throne by mercy” (<a href='B:240 20:28'>Pro 20:28</a> RVmg:) says as much- the promises (“mercy and truth” usually refer to God’s promises) had been given to David and just because of that, Solomon was sure that his throne and kingdom would thereby be upheld. He forgot the crucial need for personal, obedient relationship with God.</p>


text:
<p>20:29 The glory of young men is their strength. The splendour of old men is their gray hair-</p><p>This is true in an outline, broad brush sense. But Solomon is not merely describing things how they are for the sake of it. He seems to be painting a word picture of how he saw himself, the strong, glorious young man, along with his splendid father David.</p>


text:
<p>20:30 Wounding blows cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the innermost parts-</p><p>Again this is true, but Solomon by the end of his reign&nbsp; was beating his people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>); he came to consider that most of God's people were fools, needing to be cleansed by his punishment of them. Because they had refused the rebuke of his wisdom, he thought that therefore he could lash them. Those who are lifted up with pride at their possession of "truth" often come to despise and abuse others.</p>


text:
<p>21:1 The king’s heart is in Yahweh’s hand like the watercourses; He turns it wherever He desires-</p><p>"Turns" is the word for "incline", used by David of how he himself inclined his heart to God's word (<a href='B:230 119:51'>Psa 119:51</a>; <a href='B:230 119:112'>Psa 119:112</a>; <a href='B:230 119:157'>Psa 119:157</a>). But David prayed that God would incline his heart towards His word (<a href='B:230 119:36'>Psa 119:36</a>) and away from sin (<a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>). This is how the Holy Spirit works to this day- we are confirmed in the psychological attitudes we ourselves choose to have. The word is used of God's mighty "stretched out" arm and "strong hand" in human affairs (<a href='B:230 136:12'>Psa 136:12</a> and often in Isaiah). This powerful hand of God is at work in human hearts, confirming us in the psychological way in which we ourselves wish to go. In this sense God turns or inclines the heart where He wishes (<a href='B:240 21:1'>Pro 21:1</a>). Solomon in the Proverbs places all the emphasis upon a person themselves in their own strength inclining their heart toward his teaching (<a href='B:240 2:2'>Pro 2:2</a>; <a href='B:240 4:5'>Pro 4:5</a>; <a href='B:240 4:20'>Pro 4:20</a>; <a href='B:240 5:1'>Pro 5:1</a>). He fails to appreciate what David his father did; that God's word is His word and not that of the human channel through which it comes. And he totally puts the emphasis upon human strength of will, self inclination towards God's word, rather than perceiving as David did that without God's psychological help in this, we shall ultimately fail. As Solomon himself did.</p><p>When Solomon, as the current King, wrote this, it's possible to understand this as a claim that whatever he thought in his heart was in fact from God. He played God, having convinced himself that he was somehow automatically thinking on God's behalf. This is one of the dangers of mishandling the Divine truth and wisdom which is granted us to possess.</p><p>Solomon's heart was "turned away", or 'influenced' by his wives towards idols (<a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>). Yet Solomon uses this very idea of the heart being turned or influenced in <a href='B:240 2:2'>Pro 2:2</a>; <a href='B:240 22:17'>Pro 22:17</a> about the need to turn our hearts towards God's word. He taught, but did the very opposite. And perhaps <a href='B:240 21:1'>Pro 21:1</a> explains why he did this- he says there that Yahweh turns the heart of the King wherever He wishes- and so perhaps he thought that control of our thinking and inclinations is unnecessary, because somehow God will do it for us. And there's a lesson there for us, who may assume at times that God will somehow control our hearts for us, rather than our making a conscious effort towards mind control.</p>


text:
<p>21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but Yahweh weighs the hearts-</p><p>Is he perhaps drawing a contrast between the infallibility of the King's thought, compared to the deceit of the human heart in the population? Thus Solomon came to see himself as somehow more than human.</p><p>We all know from our own experience with temptation that we can justify anything. Every way of man can seem right in his own eyes because of this feature of our nature (<a href='B:240 14:12'>Pro 14:12</a>; <a href='B:240 16:25'>Pro 16:25</a>; <a href='B:240 21:2'>Pro 21:2</a>). The truth of this statement demonstrates the error of the humanistic approach of 'follow your heart', 'do what feels good and right to you'. There must be the influence of God's word to put us on the path to life.</p>


text:
<p>21:3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to Yahweh than sacrifice-</p><p>This was quite a paradigm breaking statement, seeing Solomon was living under the law of Moses. His father David came to a similar, but far more mature conclusion after his sin with Solomon's mother, Bathsheba. He concluded that God wanted a broken, contrite, repentant heart rather than sacrifice (<a href='B:230 51:17'>Psa 51:17</a>). Solomon instead speaks of doing righteous acts, rather than sacrifice. He had so whitewashed his father David that he closed his mind to learn the deep spiritual insights which David had come to as a result of recognizing his sin, rather than subconsciously denying it as Solomon did.</p>


text:
<p>21:4 A high look and a proud heart are the lamp of the wicked, and are sin-</p><p>A "lamp" was understood as the inheritance and continuation as king (<a href='B:110 15:4'>1Ki 15:4</a>). Solomon here has in view how his half brother Absalom, and indeed his other half brothers, had contended with him for the throne; but their "lamp" in this sense had been extinguished- because of their pride and the "high look" of Absalom. Again we see how Solomon constantly uses God's truth in order to justify himself and constantly have a dig at his competitors; just as many misuse "truth" today.</p>


text:
<p>21:5 The plans of the diligent surely lead to profit; and everyone who is hasty surely rushes to poverty-</p><p>When he writes things like “the thoughts of the diligent tend only to plenteousness” (<a href='B:240 21:5'>Pro 21:5</a> AV), he must inevitably be connecting his own fantastic wealth / blessing with his hard work. He was justifying himself by works rather than by faith; he assumed his righteousness and acceptance with God rather than struggling through the work of faith. Yet he could say “Labour not to be rich; cease from thine own wisdom” (<a href='B:240 23:5'>Pro 23:5</a> AV). He had all the right theory. Solomon was an active, industrious person by nature; and whilst all his many proverbs criticizing the lazy and glorifying the diligent are true as they stand, is there not in all this some element of self-justification, interpreting his own natural personality type as inherently righteous?</p><p>Here again we see Solomon's works based attitude. He sees poverty as the result of laziness, and profit / plenty coming from hard work (<a href='B:240 14:23'>Pro 14:23</a>; <a href='B:240 21:5'>Pro 21:5</a>). He fails to appreciate the wider narrative in spiritual life. The good news is for the poor, which group may include the lazy. And works will not save, and God's salvation is what is ultimately required by man. But Solomon had no eternal perspective, because he thought his kingdom was God's. And so as he got older and closer to death, he reasons that the reality of death means that man has no profit or preeminence (s:w. <a href='B:250 3:19'>Ecc 3:19</a>). If he had accepted the Gospel of the future Kingdom of God, he would have focused more upon salvation by grace through faith, and less upon the supremacy of hard work and profit / preeminence in this life.</p>


text:
<p>21:6 Getting wealth by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapour for those who seek death-</p><p>"A lying tongue" is the very phrase David uses about Saul's smear campaign against him (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 31:13'>Psa 31:13</a> cp. <a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>). This frequency of reference in itself indicates the weight with which this tragedy rested upon David's mind. It makes good homework to list all the lies Saul told David. But these words also apply to the lies told to David at the time of Absalom's rebellion, who for years prior to it had bad mouthed David to the men of Israel. Solomon repeatedly condemns "the mouth of the wicked" (<a href='B:240 10:6'>Pro 10:6</a>; <a href='B:240 10:11'>Pro 10:11</a>; <a href='B:240 10:32'>Pro 10:32</a>; <a href='B:240 11:11'>Pro 11:11</a>; <a href='B:240 12:6'>Pro 12:6</a>; <a href='B:240 15:28'>Pro 15:28</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>). All he says is true enough, but he clearly enough has in view how his father David had condemned the supporters of Saul and Absalom as having "the mouth of the wicked" (<a href='B:230 109:2'>Psa 109:2</a>). And these were the groups who were threatening his power and throne. Solomon presents himself by implication as having the mouth of the just / righteous. And yet we must note that David too had spoken multiple words of deceit in relation to the murder of Uriah. Indeed the phrase is used in <a href='B:290 53:9'>Isa 53:9</a> as if the Lord Jesus was the only man who didn't have a "mouth of deceit". Solomon like David was in denial of the fact that we all sin with our mouths, as James makes clear in <a href='B:660 3:1-3'>Jas 3:1-3</a>:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>21:7 The violence of the wicked will drive them away, because they refuse to do what is right-</p><p>GNB "The wicked are doomed by their own violence". This continues the Biblical theme that the wicked are essentially condemned by themselves more than by the Lord; they "make the answer now", their behaviour is of itself their own condemnation. 'Driven away' is the figure of condemnation in <a href='B:230 35:5'>Psa 35:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>21:8 The way of the guilty is devious, but the conduct of the innocent is upright-</p><p>Or "crooked... straight". Whilst the way of life of itself is straight and direct, it is far too simplistic to imagine that the righteous are totally innocent, the sinners are totally guilty; and the righteous walk in a direct path to the Kingdom, marching ever upright. This is simply not true to spiritual reality and experience. David was of course an example of how things are in reality. But as with many today, Solomon's simplistic dualism led him to assume that he was in the "innocent" category; he therefore didn't examine himself, didn't seriously think he was capable of major sin, and considered others to be in that group of "the guilty". And this led him totally astray.</p>


text:
<p>21:9 It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than to share a house with a contentious woman-</p><p>A man on a housetop recalls the story of David's sin with Solomon's mother, Bathsheba. I detected on <a href='B:240 18:22'>Pro 18:22</a> Solomon's justification of David's divorce with Michal. And here too there is a subtext, however unconscious even. Solomon appears to have totally whitewashed his parents, and any consequence of David's sins are blamed by Solomon upon his half brothers and foolish men, as if they were totally guilty and David totally innocent; for this was his worldview. See on :8,19; <a href='B:240 25:24'>Pro 25:24</a>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>21:10 The soul of the wicked desires evil; his neighbour finds no mercy in his eyes-</p><p>LXX "The soul of the ungodly shall not be pitied by any man". Solomon's judgmentalism and lack of pity is notable in the Proverbs. Yet had God not shown grace and pity to his father David, Solomon would not have been born. David was rebuked for not showing pity regarding the sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (<a href='B:100 12:6'>2Sa 12:6</a>). But Solomon shows no understanding of these things, no awareness of grace, and he acts as if David never sinned with his mother, and as if he too has never sinned:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>21:11 When the mocker is punished, the simple gains wisdom. When the wise is instructed, he receives knowledge-</p><p>This seems to be justifying David's command for Solomon to punish the mocker Shimei, who had cursed him at the time of Absalom's rebellion. At the time, David had forgiven Shimei and forbidden his men to kill him. But at the end of his life, David didn't maintain that level of grace, and commanded Solomon to ensure that he brought Shimei's grey hairs down to the grave with blood (<a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). And Solomon justified this collapse of forgiveness and grace by saying that it would give wisdom to others and instruct the wise.</p>


text:
<p>21:12 The Righteous One considers the house of the wicked, and brings the wicked to ruin-</p><p>To 'bring to ruin' is the word for 'subvert' or 'destroy' in <a href='B:240 19:3'>Pro 19:3</a>: "The foolishness of man subverts his way". But God, "the righteous One", overthrows the wicked. Solomon thereby equates the foolish with the wicked. But he seems to classify as foolish anyone who doesn't accept his take on life, or is ignorant of the wisdom he teaches. Ignorance, and even intellectual failure, is not of itself wickedness. Solomon has such a dualistic view of things that he assumes anyone who is not wise and thereby wealthy to be foolish and thereby wicked. But amongst God's people, things are not so black and white. And we are not to judge, largely because we simply cannot judge:&nbsp;</p><p>LXX "A righteous man understands the hearts of the ungodly: and despises the ungodly for their wickedness". Solomon considered that his mere possession of Divine truth enabled him to infallibly judge people and to read their hearts. And thereby despise sinners. But Solomon wasn't infallible, knowledge of Divine truth doesn't empower us to read and judge human heart. God doesn't despise sinners (<a href='B:220 36:5'>Job 36:5</a>), but sorrows for them and seeks to save them.</p>


text:
<p>21:13 Whoever stops his ears at the cry of the poor, he will also cry out, but shall not be heard-</p><p>Solomon speaks of the wicked within Israel as stopping their ears at the cry of the poor. He is alluding to how David his father had complained that the judges of Israel were like cobras who stopped their ear to the voice of charmers, refusing the voice of God's word (<a href='B:230 58:4'>Psa 58:4</a> s:w:). Connecting the ideas, the cry of the poor is the cry of God's word to us; our response to them is our response to them.</p>


text:
<p>21:14 A gift in secret pacifies anger; and a bribe in the cloak, strong wrath-</p><p>LXX and GNB are rather different, and do not justify bribery: "If someone is angry with you, a gift given secretly will calm him down". But if NEV and MT are followed, this may connect with :15, which speak of how the righteous "do justice", and don't take bribes, therefore. Solomon's continual theme of justice and a just judiciary would be a swipe at his half brother Absalom, who had tried to become the judge of Israel and offered biased judgments towards whoever supported his attempt to take Solomon's throne (<a href='B:100 15:1-6'>2Sa 15:1-6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>21:15 It is joy to the righteous to do justice; but it is a destruction to the workers of iniquity-</p><p>"The workers of iniquity" is a phrase repeatedly used by Solomon's father David concerning the supporters of Saul, and also those supporting David's half brothers- all of which were groups who were potential contenders for Solomon's throne. See notes on <a href='B:230 5:5'>Psa 5:5</a>; <a href='B:230 6:8'>Psa 6:8</a>; <a href='B:230 14:4'>Psa 14:4</a>; <a href='B:230 28:3'>Psa 28:3</a>; <a href='B:230 36:12'>Psa 36:12</a>; <a href='B:230 53:4'>Psa 53:4</a>; <a href='B:230 59:2'>Psa 59:2</a>; <a href='B:230 64:2'>Psa 64:2</a>; <a href='B:230 92:7'>Psa 92:7</a>; <a href='B:230 92:9'>Psa 92:9</a>; <a href='B:230 94:4'>Psa 94:4</a>; <a href='B:230 94:16'>Psa 94:16</a>; <a href='B:230 101:8'>Psa 101:8</a>; <a href='B:230 125:5'>Psa 125:5</a>; <a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>; <a href='B:230 141:9'>Psa 141:9</a>. So whilst Solomon speaks truly, so far as it goes, he uses language which subtly condemns his political opponents. Thus he harnessed God's truth towards his own self justification, as many do today.</p>


text:
<p>21:16 The man who wanders out of the way of understanding shall remain in the assembly of the dead-</p><p>GNB "Death is waiting for anyone who wanders away from good sense". I suspect this is the correct sense, because Solomon constantly speaks as if this life is the time for the reward for wisdom, and the punishment for unwisdom.</p>


text:
<p>21:17 He who loves pleasure shall be a poor man; he who loves wine and oil shall not be rich-</p><p>"Pleasure" is s:w. "mirth" in <a href='B:250 2:1-2'>Ecc 2:1-2</a>; <a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>. Solomon had to re-learn this for himself rather than&nbsp;accept the direct Divine teaching about it which he knew and taught. But again Solomon appears set on seeing the outcomes as all in this life. For many who love oil and wine are rich, and the poor are not always pleasure lovers. But Solomon sees things within the terms of his simplistic dichotomy, where the wise are generally rich and the foolish and lazy are generally poor:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>21:18 The wicked is a ransom for the righteous; the treacherous for the upright-</p><p>"Treacherous" or "traitors" is the term used by David of Saul and his supporters (<a href='B:230 25:3'>Psa 25:3</a>; <a href='B:230 59:5'>Psa 59:5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:158'>Psa 119:158</a>). Solomon uses this term, teaching that "transgressors" must be rooted out of the earth / eretz promised to Abraham (<a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a>), and that the "transgressors" are to face judgment (<a href='B:240 11:3'>Pro 11:3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:6'>Pro 11:6</a>; <a href='B:240 13:2'>Pro 13:2</a>; <a href='B:240 21:18'>Pro 21:18</a>; <a href='B:240 22:12'>Pro 22:12</a>; <a href='B:240 23:28'>Pro 23:28</a>; <a href='B:240 25:19'>Pro 25:19</a>). All Solomon says is true, but he clearly has in view the house and supporters of Saul, who were a group he felt he needed to repress in order to keep his own kingdom and power intact.</p>


text:
<p>21:19 It is better to dwell in a desert land, than with a contentious and fretful woman-</p><p>See on :9. I detected on <a href='B:240 18:22'>Pro 18:22</a> Solomon's justification of David's divorce with Michal. And here too there is a subtext, however unconscious even; however true Solomon's observation may be in more general terms. For David divorced Michael whilst he was still in the desert, on the run from her father Saul.</p>


text:
<p>21:20 There is precious treasure and oil in the dwelling of the wise; but a foolish man swallows it up-</p><p>Again, Solomon teaches that generally, the wise are wealthy. This simply doesn't accord with observed reality, neither with Biblical history and lament that the wicked prosper in this life. Solomon comes to this simplistic dichotomy in order to justify himself, the one made rich by God's gift rather than his own hard work or wisdom. For he abused that grace by assuming that his wealth was because of his wisdom. Whereas that doesn't accord with the chronology of his life; he inherited riches from David, chose wisdom, and God then gave him great wealth as a young man. The idea seems to be that the wise hoard their treasure, whereas a fool "spendeth it up" (AV) if wealth comes to him. The Lord's parable of the rich fool who hoarded his wealth is therefore again seen to be correcting Solomon's perspective. That man was in the position of Solomon; his wealth was only for this life, and he had totally ignored the factor of human mortality, as many do today.</p>


text:
<p>21:21 He who follows after righteousness and kindness finds life, righteousness, and honour-</p><p>The "life" which Solomon saw as the reward for wisdom was not therefore "eternal life"; because in this life, the wise "finds life". And "honour", good standing in the eyes of men, was so important to Solomon. He lacks any Kingdom perspective, nor an awareness of the future day of judgment. For he assumes that his kingdom is God's promised future Kingdom, and he is the Messianic ruler. As he got older and came nearer to death, he lost all faith- as seen in his musings in Ecclesiastes. His wives turned his heart to their idols. If he had more firmly accepted with all humility the gospel of the Kingdom to come, this could have all been avoided.</p>


text:
<p>21:22 A wise man scales the city of the mighty, and brings down the strength of its confidence-</p><p>"Confidence" is literally 'fortress'. The secure fortress was Zion (<a href='B:290 32:18'>Isa 32:18</a>; <a href='B:230 125:1'>Psa 125:1</a> s:w:), "the stronghold of Zion, the same is the city of David" (<a href='B:100 5:7'>2Sa 5:7</a>). Whilst what Solomon says is true, and repeats the multiple cases of David in the Psalms professing trust in Yahweh as his strong fortress, Solomon as ever has his agenda of self justification; he saw his possession of Zion as a sign that he feared Yahweh acceptably, and that his children would continue the Davidic line of glory. But sacred space is not so ultimately important to God. Possession of the literal stronghold of Zion was nothing compared to trust in Yahweh:&nbsp;</p><p>The allusion is to how Joab scaled the city of Zion. But Joab turned against David, and his family and supporters became one of the groups of opposition to Solomon. Solomon here gives credit to his father David, the "wise man", as he sees him, for scaling the city of Zion; when in fact it was Joab who did it. Again we see his desire to exalt and glorify his father.</p>


text:
<p>21:23 Whoever guards his mouth and his tongue keeps his soul from troubles-</p><p>As explained on :21, Solomon sees the advantage of controlling our tongue as simply being that we are thereby preserved from "troubles" in this life. And yet David suffered "troubles" from Saul, although innocent (s:w. <a href='B:90 26:24'>1Sa 26:24</a>; <a href='B:100 4:9'>2Sa 4:9</a>). David understood that Yahweh was a refuge from "troubles" (s:w. <a href='B:230 9:9'>Psa 9:9</a>; <a href='B:230 10:1'>Psa 10:1</a>; <a href='B:230 22:11'>Psa 22:11</a>; <a href='B:230 25:17'>Psa 25:17</a>; <a href='B:230 34:6'>Psa 34:6</a> and so often); rather than thinking, as did Solomon, that we are somehow preserved from them due to steel willed self control&nbsp; and wise speaking. Solomon glorified his father David, but totally failed to grasp his far more spiritual perspective.</p>


text:
<p>21:24 The proud and haughty man, scoffer is his name; he works in the arrogance of pride-</p><p>David had spoken of the house of Saul as scoffing at him (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:51'>Psa 119:51</a>). And the line of David had been chosen to replace Saul because he had refused Samuel's reproof. David had accepted reproof and was open to it, notably from Nathan the prophet (<a href='B:230 38:1'>Psa 38:1</a>; <a href='B:230 141:5'>Psa 141:5</a>); and so again Solomon's Proverbs are true, but he harnesses them to the justification of himself and his father. But Solomon was only to remain the prophetic son of David if he accepted reproof (s:w. <a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>); and he didn't. He refused to personalize his own wisdom, as we can.</p>


text:
<p>21:25 The desire of the lazy kills him, for his hands refuse to labour-</p><p>The Proverbs contain repeated condemnation of laziness. Lack of a zealous work ethic is a rejection of wisdom, according to Solomon. As Solomon explains in Ecclesiastes 1, he was an active person, not lazy by nature. And yet he lacked spirituality. He claimed that his service of God was due to his spirituality, but it was in reality merely a semblance of serving God when it was really just reinforcing his own personality type. His mocking of the "sluggard" or "lazy one" is so frequent (<a href='B:240 6:6'>Pro 6:6</a>; <a href='B:240 6:9'>Pro 6:9</a>; <a href='B:240 10:26'>Pro 10:26</a>; <a href='B:240 13:4'>Pro 13:4</a>; <a href='B:240 15:19'>Pro 15:19</a>; <a href='B:240 19:24'>Pro 19:24</a>; <a href='B:240 20:4'>Pro 20:4</a>; <a href='B:240 21:25'>Pro 21:25</a>; <a href='B:240 22:13'>Pro 22:13</a>; <a href='B:240 24:30'>Pro 24:30</a>; <a href='B:240 26:13-16'>Pro 26:13-16</a>). But it is a reflection of his own works-based approach to righteousness; the 'wise' "do" good things, and the wicked don't do enough good things. Personal spiritual mindedness and relationship with God are simply not emphasized.</p>


text:
<p>21:26 There are those who covet greedily all day long; but the righteous give and don’t withhold-</p><p>This is the phrase only elsewhere used for Israel's coveting of meat in the wilderness (<a href='B:40 11:4'>Num 11:4</a>; <a href='B:230 106:14'>Psa 106:14</a>). The reason for their lust was because they were lazy (:25). They ought to have instead thought of what they could give, rather than lusting for what they could additionally get. This generous attitude is&nbsp; the antidote to lust.</p>


text:
<p>21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: how much more, when he brings it with a wicked mind!-</p><p>Solomon may have in view Saul's rejection from the kingship for his wrong attitude to sacrifice (<a href='B:90 15:21-22'>1Sa 15:21-22</a>). Likewise the attempts of Absalom and Adonijah to take the throne from David and Solomon involved the offering of sacrifices (<a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>; <a href='B:110 1:9'>1Ki 1:9</a>). What Solomon says in the Proverbs is true on one level, but he harnesses Divine truth to justify himself and his own agendas; just as we can.</p>


text:
<p>21:28 A false witness will perish, but a man who listens speaks consistently-</p><p>The Hebrew implies that the man who has heard truth will constantly speak about it. Solomon has much to say about true and false witnesses (<a href='B:240 6:19'>Pro 6:19</a>; <a href='B:240 12:17'>Pro 12:17</a>; <a href='B:240 14:5'>Pro 14:5</a>; <a href='B:240 14:25'>Pro 14:25</a>; <a href='B:240 19:5'>Pro 19:5</a>; <a href='B:240 19:9'>Pro 19:9</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>; <a href='B:240 21:28'>Pro 21:28</a>; <a href='B:240 24:28'>Pro 24:28</a>; <a href='B:240 25:18'>Pro 25:18</a>). Whilst his warnings are true enough, he surely has an element of self justification in what he writes. Because he was aware that his parents, David and Bathsheba, had been accused of many things which had led to all the opposition against David at the end of his reign, and which opposition Solomon had to contend with in order to retain the throne for himself. David laments the false witness of the house of Saul and his own sons, Solomon's half brothers (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 35:11'>Psa 35:11</a>). The continual condemnation of false witnesses must be understood in this context. Whilst it is all true so far as it goes, Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p>


text:
<p>21:29 A wicked man hardens his face; but as for the upright, he establishes his ways-</p><p>"Establishes" is "understands". The same phrase is used in <a href='B:240 20:24'>Pro 20:24</a>: "A man’s steps are from Yahweh; how then can man understand his way?". David here quotes his father's words in <a href='B:230 37:23'>Psa 37:23</a>: "The steps of a good man are ordered by Yahweh". Man without God's help cannot therefore understand his "way". But God understands man's way because He alone understands the way of wisdom (<a href='B:220 28:23'>Job 28:23</a> s:w:), and therefore David prays to be "made to understand the way" (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:27'>Psa 119:27</a>). And Solomon has used this phrase about wisdom empowers man to understand his way (<a href='B:240 14:8'>Pro 14:8</a>). The only way to understand life's way is therefore from the God who is ordering it; unaided, without His gift of wisdom, we cannot understand it.</p>


text:
<p>21:30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against Yahweh-</p><p>This appears to be stating an obvious truth, until we discern the allusion to Ahithophel's counsel to destroy David and take the throne away from him and Solomon. See on :27,28.</p>


text:
<p>21:31 The horse is prepared for the day of battle; but victory is with Yahweh-</p><p>"Prepared" is the word translated "established" in the promises of the eternal establishment of David's throne (<a href='B:100 7:12-13'>2Sa 7:12-13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a> etc:), and Solomon wrongly assumed that the conditional nature of the promises concerning the seed were just irrelevant to him as he had wisdom. Therefore he uses the word of how his kingdom has been "established" (<a href='B:110 2:24'>1Ki 2:24</a> s:w:). The previous verses have all featured allusions to Solomon's contenders for the throne being stopped by God, they tried to prepare or establish themselves but it never worked out (<a href='B:100 15:1'>2Sa 15:1</a>; <a href='B:110 1:5'>1Ki 1:5</a>); and so surely Solomon has the idea in mind that he has been established as the promised Messianic seed of David with an eternally "established" throne and kingdom. This leads him to the conclusion that the outcome of wisdom and folly is in this life, and he has no perspective of a final day of judgment and eternal establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. This is why the simplistic dichotomies he presents between the blessed and wise, and the cursed and foolish, are not always true to observed experiences in this life. For it is the future Kingdom which puts them in ultimate perspective.</p>


text:
<p>22:1 A good name is more desirable than great riches, and loving favour is better than silver and gold-</p><p>The dating of Proverbs becomes crucial in interpreting the book. It can too easily be assumed that the Proverbs were part of the wisdom given to Solomon in his youth, and his subsequent life was a tragic example of saying 'Do as I say but not as I do', going directly against the principles taught in the theoretical wisdom he had been given. And that may well be so. But we need to consider the possibility that the Proverbs were written throughout the life of Solomon, at least, up until his final, public turning away from Yahweh to other gods in his old age, which probably gave rise to the book of Ecclesiastes. The comments here in 22:1 about a name, a lasting legacy, being better than wealth may well have arisen from his own reflection upon what little his wealth had done for him. It is who we are, our name before God and our lasting legacy, which is important- bank balances are utterly irrelevant to it. It was David who 'got him a name' through his work for the Lord (<a href='B:100 8:13'>2Sa 8:13</a>); David had the name, and Solomon the wealth. Solomon was obsessed with his father- so many times he refers to "David my father". His proverbs are shot through with allusion to David. And now perhaps he reflects that his father had done better than he. David had the name, Solomon the riches. But the riches were nothing compared to the name. A case can be made that the wise, righteous one portrayed in Proverbs is based around David, and Solomon's message was to be like David his father, whom he saw as the embodiment of the theoretical wisdom which he had received. Or we could read Solomon here as saying that his father had wealth, but it was his name / legacy / record which was far more significant.</p>


text:
<p>22:2 The rich and the poor have this in common-</p><p>Or, "the rich and poor meet together". Perhaps Solomon had in view Nathan's parable to David after his sin with Bathsheba (Solomon's mother). David was likened to the rich man, and Uriah to the poor man (<a href='B:100 12:1'>2Sa 12:1</a>). The same Hebrew words are used. The parable would have been well known to Solomon, because Bathsheba was his mother. He was perhaps reflecting that David and Uriah met together in that they were only human, each made equal to the other by reason of having a common creator. It may be that the subtext here [once again] is Solomon seeking to minimize the failures of his father and his dynasty, as if to say 'Dad was of course only human, as human as Uriah, they were both the same…'.</p><p>Yahweh is the maker of them all-</p><p>One implication of believing that God is our personal creator is that we will not be envious of the rich; we will not see them as so fundamentally different from ourselves.</p>


text:
<p>22:3 A prudent man sees danger, and hides himself-</p><p>The Hebrew word for "prudent" is twice used about David whilst under persecution from Saul (<a href='B:90 23:22'>1Sa 23:22</a>). The context is that David was hiding himself in the forests of Ziph (<a href='B:90 23:19'>1Sa 23:19</a>). And so Solomon says that the prudent man hides himself. The "danger" [Heb. 'evil'] naturally refers to the 'evil' foreseen by David which was determined against him by Saul; the same word for "evil" / "danger" is found in <a href='B:90 20:7'>1Sa 20:7</a>; <a href='B:90 20:9'>1Sa 20:9</a>. Without doubt, Solomon is setting up his father David as the parade example and embodiment of his teaching. So whilst all he says is true, there is also a subtext of justifying his father and his father's choice of himself as king. Our witness to others, our use of God's Truth, can likewise have mixed motives and very human, self-justifying subtexts to it. We can also see Solomon moving towards a position whereby he personally distances himself from the great truths he is preaching; his idea is 'Look at my father, follow his example, he was a truly good man'; rather than rejoicing in God's truths for himself, and unconsciously radiating them to others in his own life.</p><p>But the simple pass on, and suffer for it-</p><p>The Hebrew translated "pass on" is used of how Saul 'passed on' to sin at Gilgal (<a href='B:90 15:12'>1Sa 15:12</a>; <a href='B:90 15:24'>1Sa 15:24</a>), and was condemned for doing so, resulting in his replacement by David. On David's death, there were multiple interest groups within Israel, reflected in the various rebellions against David in his final years. One of those groups was the family of Saul and those loyal to the memory of Saul; and all these groups had to be repressed by Solomon. Thus Solomon in Proverbs so often paints the foolish one, the simple one, the disobedient, in terms of Saul. Again, there is a subtext of self-justification and fortification of ones' own position, despite the words spoken being true enough of themselves. Our motivation for witness needs to be pure, to simply proclaim God's grace, to make known His Son, to see their glory... and all human agendas must be left behind. But we have to search our own psychology very deeply to come to this level of self-understanding.</p><p>LXX "An intelligent man seeing a bad man severely punished is himself instructed, but fools pass by and are punished".</p>


text:
<p>22:4 The result of humility and the fear of Yahweh is wealth, honour, and life-</p><p>David himself said that it was humility which had 'made him great or 'increased' him (<a href='B:100 22:36'>2Sa 22:36</a> Heb:; the common translations suggest that it was God's humility which increased David, but there is no pronoun in the Hebrew text. The statement is simply that humility had increased David). And David had reigned in "the fear of Yahweh" (<a href='B:100 23:3'>2Sa 23:3</a>). David was given "wealth" [s:w:] as a result of this (<a href='B:130 29:12'>1Ch 29:12</a>; <a href='B:130 29:28'>1Ch 29:28</a>), as well as "honour" (s:w. <a href='B:130 17:18'>1Ch 17:18</a>). Again, Solomon is presenting his own father as the parade example. The three blessings of wealth, honour and [long] life were the very things which God gave to Solomon in reward for having chosen wisdom (<a href='B:110 3:13-14'>1Ki 3:13-14</a>). So Solomon could be arguing that he had been given those things because of his humility. Solomon had more "wealth" than any other person on earth at the time (the same Hebrew word is used as here for "wealth"; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a>). So surely Solomon is speaking with some reference to himself. Actually, he was given the wealth because of his love of wisdom, not because of his humility. And yet Solomon here may be claiming to be humble, and citing his blessings as evidence. This of course is revolting- to parade ones' own supposed humility.</p><p>Solomon is here alluding to the way that he did not ask for riches, but wisdom; and was rewarded with the gift of riches. But this is but false humility. For he boasts about his riches in <a href='B:240 14:24'>Pro 14:24</a> "The crown of the wise is their riches, but the folly of fools crowns them with folly". It was Solomon who was the king and wore the ultimate crown in his society. And he implies that his fantastic riches were a result of his wisdom, and that his pattern should be followed by others. But he fails to remember that his desire for wisdom was recognized by God in that He gave Solomon riches. Those riches were a gift from God, by grace, and not acquired or generated by his own application of wisdom (<a href='B:110 3:13'>1Ki 3:13</a>). He therefore misused his possession of wisdom and experience of grace to justify himself, and present himself as a self made man; when he was not that at all.</p>


text:
<p>22:5</p><p>Thorns and snares are in the path of the wicked-</p><p>The Proverbs often allude to the Law of Moses or earlier Israelite history. Here the reference is to the only other time that “thorns and snares” occur together in the Bible, in <a href='B:60 23:13'>Jos 23:13</a>, where Israel are warned that association and intermarriage with the pagan world around them will be as thorns and snares to them. The wicked therefore put these things in their own path; and again, Solomon makes this warning whilst failing spectacularly himself in this very thing. And yet the language of "thorns and snares" is very much what Solomon's father David used about the fate of those who persecuted him (<a href='B:230 11:6'>Psa 11:6</a>; <a href='B:230 69:22'>Psa 69:22</a>; <a href='B:230 119:110'>Psa 119:110</a>; <a href='B:230 140:5'>Psa 140:5</a>)- the likes of Saul and Absalom, whose supporters were the very ones who had been in competition with Solomon for the throne. The same Hebrew word translated "wicked" is used by David about all his enemies and opponents (<a href='B:100 22:27'>2Sa 22:27</a>; <a href='B:230 101:4'>Psa 101:4</a>).</p><p>The language of snares alludes to Solomon's father David, asking to be saved from such snares (<a href='B:230 141:9'>Psa 141:9</a>) and rejoicing that he and God's people had been (<a href='B:230 124:7'>Psa 124:7</a>). The initial reference may have been to Saul laying snares for David through getting him to marry his daughters and thereby seeking to kill him; and in <a href='B:230 119:110'>Psa 119:110</a> David is proud he has not fallen into those snares. Solomon likewise is hinting that the family of Saul, who were still his political opponents, were not better than gentile whores, and he didn't want his own family to intermarry with them. But Psalms 119 finishes with David saying bluntly that he has "gone astray" (<a href='B:230 119:176'>Psa 119:176</a>), as if to say that earlier he had far overrated his own obedience to God's law.</p><p>In Proverbs, Solomon is continually alluding positively to his father's words. But in <a href='B:250 9:12'>Ecc 9:12</a> he alludes to those words cynically. Solomon seems to be cynically commenting that all men are finally snared in death. Earlier Solomon had warned about avoiding spiritual snares (<a href='B:240 7:23'>Pro 7:23</a>; <a href='B:240 22:5'>Pro 22:5</a>), but finally in <a href='B:250 9:12'>Ecc 9:12</a> he concludes that death is the unavoidable snare; and therefore all attempts to avoid being morally snared into sin are ultimately vain. He came to this perspective because he failed to fully grasp the hope of the resurrection of the body at the last day. He thought he would have the Kingdom now, and this led to his rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom and its moral implications:&nbsp;</p><p>Whoever guards his soul stays away from them-</p><p>The very same Hebrew words used of how the son of David could be the Messiah figure if he took heed to, or 'guarded', his soul (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>). Solomon is of course assuming that he had fulfilled the conditions for being the true 'Son of David'; when in fact he did not. We can make the same fatal assumption. Whilst on one hand rejoicing in God's grace, we need to ever bear in mind a sense of the future we might miss, and our extreme frailty before God's ultimate judgment. Significantly, David repeatedly uses these same words to beg God to 'guard his soul' (<a href='B:230 25:20'>Psa 25:20</a>; <a href='B:230 86:2'>Psa 86:2</a>; <a href='B:230 97:10'>Psa 97:10</a>; <a href='B:230 121:7'>Psa 121:7</a>); whereas Solomon speaks as if the righteous do this in their own strength, guarding their own soul; and he seems to assume that he is amongst the category who guarded their own soul. In our days this may translate in terms of those who think by their own Bible study and steel-willed obedience they can guard their souls, keeping themselves in the way; instead of throwing themselves upon the spiritual action of God. Comparing David's Psalms with Solomon's Proverbs, we often see David asking God to do the same things which Solomon says the righteous man must do himself. This matter of guarding our soul is one of a number of such examples.</p>


text:
<p>22:6</p><p>Train up-</p><p>The Hebrew word is only elsewhere translated 'to dedicate', and is used of Solomon's dedication of the temple (<a href='B:140 7:5'>2Ch 7:5</a>). So in view of the above comments, it could even be that Solomon here is wrongly assuming that a mere dedication ceremony alone will ensure a child will not depart from the way of his or her dedicators. Rabbinic commentary sees here a reference to circumcision, from which there can be no departing; at very least, the Rabbis recognize that the Hebrew refers to a one off dedication ceremony, rather than to a process of 'training up'.</p><p>A child in the way he should go-</p><p>God works with individuals and we are each independently judged regardless of whether we had believing or unbelieving parents, and so it cannot be that someone comes to the Kingdom simply because of faithful parents. And yet none of us will reach salvation purely by our own effort; there are other elements over and above that, and faithful parenting is one such element in the final algorithm which determines who is saved and who isn’t. It’s an endless motivation for parents, therefore, to raise their children in God’s way. The verse as it stands presents various problems. For one, it's not true to experience- children are raised one way and yet they depart from it. And is it really so that the final destiny of a believer's child simply must be salvation, because they cannot depart from the way in which they were raised? Or is the verse not talking about spiritual matters at all? Could it be so that any individual cannot depart from the way, just because they had good parents? I suggest that the notes on :1 be reviewed at this point. Because the verse makes sense in the context of Solomon seeking to justify himself as the only legitimate 'son of David', the only rightful King, who automatically fulfilled the conditions which God had given regarding how the Son of David must be obedient to Him if he is going to continue as the Messianic King. So Solomon would be claiming that because his father David was righteous, and he had been raised by his father, therefore he was bound to never depart from the right way.</p><p>The Biblical comment is that when Solomon was old, he did depart from the way of his father David and did not have the heart of "David his father" (<a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>). Surely there is an intended connection with this Proverb; Solomon was wrong to assume that because of his pedigree, he simply had to be a Kingdom person and could not possibly depart from the way of his father. He did depart from it, for all his much repeated obsession with "David my father". And he stands as a warning for all time to those who consider that they will never depart from the faith of their fathers. I would go so far as to say that <a href='B:240 22:6'>Pro 22:6</a> is therefore presented by <a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a> as not being strictly true- this is simply part of Solomon's self-justification, and our notes on the rest of Proverbs 22 demonstrate that almost every verse here is alluding to David and an example of Solomon's self-justification.</p><p>Solomon here speaks of bringing up a child in the way he should go. Sadly by the time of <a href='B:250 2:19'>Ecc 2:19</a> and his experience with his own children, he comments about his heir: “Who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool?”. He simply didn’t see the relevance of his wisdom to his own personal family life. Yet he proudly insisted: “Who is as the wise man?”, as if the possession of theoretical truth and wisdom was the ultimate possession; and he then goes on to say that this made him beyond criticism (<a href='B:250 8:2-4'>Ecc 8:2-4</a>). This surely must be a danger for any community or individual who considers they have “the truth” and who considers the possession of it to be of the utmost importance:&nbsp;</p><p>And when he is old he will not depart from it-</p><p>Again, Solomon is justifying his father David and presenting him as the parade example of all Solomon's wisdom; for the same word is used by David in claiming that he had never 'departed' from God's ways (<a href='B:100 22:23'>2Sa 22:23</a>; <a href='B:230 119:102'>Psa 119:102</a>).</p>


text:
<p>22:7</p><p>The rich rule over the poor-</p><p>This may appear totally out of context, unless we follow the exposition of :6 offered above, which suggests that here we have Solomon deep in personal self-justification. The Hebrew for "rules" is so often used about Solomon's 'ruling'; and likewise he is described as rich / wealthy in the same contexts. He is observing that he has become the richest man on earth, and is ruling the poor, with others in servitude to him. He considered this to be his spiritual self-justification; just as weak believers can wrongly consider their material prosperity to automatically reflect their justification before God. What is stated in this verse would appear an almost pointless truism, a stating of the obvious- until we realize that Solomon is referring to himself, and [mistakenly] citing his wealth and power as evidence of his rightness before God.</p><p>And the borrower is servant to the lender-</p><p>When experiencing blessings for obedience, Israel would lend to many nations (<a href='B:50 28:12'>Deu 28:12</a>). Solomon may well have lent to the nations who came to him; in any case, he is alluding to the blessings for spiritual obedience, and considering (wrongly) that his material wealth thereby declares him to be a spiritual person.</p>


text:
<p>22:8</p><p>He who sows wickedness reaps trouble- The same word for "wickedness" is used by David about Saul (the "wicked man" of <a href='B:230 43:1'>Psa 43:1</a>); about Nabal "the fool" (<a href='B:230 53:1'>Psa 53:1</a>), and about Joab and Joab's family (<a href='B:100 3:29'>2Sa 3:29</a>; <a href='B:100 3:34'>2Sa 3:34</a>). All these were interest groups with whom Solomon had been in competition for the throne. Solomon's words are true enough, but he seems to be teaching them with a strong hint that they refer to his opponents and thereby justifying himself.</p><p>And the rod of his fury will be destroyed- The idea of "the rod" is commonly used regarding a scion / descendant. In the context of Proverbs 22, Solomon is saying that David's "rod", i:e. himself, will be blessed; but the attempts of others to have their 'rod' take the throne will not work out because they are wicked. Solomon overlooked the fact that God had set him on His throne. He took this as meaning that he was thereby justified spiritually, and that all other pretenders to the throne were therefore wicked. The Hebrew for "fury" is used by David in the Psalms about the rage of Saul's supporters against him.</p><p>But note GNB "If you plant the seeds of injustice, disaster will spring up, and your oppression of others will end". Solomon did oppress others. Discipline and punishment of the unwise is a big theme in Solomon's Proverbs. He took it to the extent of whipping his own people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). This abusive attitude to people arose from his obsession with the idea that he had wisdom, and people generally are fools, idiots, unwise- and therefore he could abuse them. This attitude is another outcome of believing that mere possession of truths about God justifies us, and declares all other people foolish, unwise and able to be legitimately abused by us. In contrast, the heart of God (as of David) bleeds for such people and wants to save them rather than gloat in their unwisdom and punish them for it.</p>


text:
<p>22:9 He who has a generous eye will be blessed; for he shares his food with the poor-</p><p>Heb. 'a good eye'. The Hebrew of <a href='B:90 25:8'>1Sa 25:8</a> uses these two words in appealing for Nabal to be generous to David and his men in their poverty. And the second half of the verse makes that allusion explicit: "for he shares his food with the poor". The same Hebrew words for 'sharing' and 'food' are found in <a href='B:90 25:11'>1Sa 25:11</a> concerning Nabal's refusal to 'give' his 'bread' to the poor David. Yet again we find Solomon justifying his father David, and implicitly criticizing his father's enemies. And here he is of course directly repeating David's own words in <a href='B:230 41:1'>Psa 41:1</a>: "Blessed is he who considers the poor". The Hebrew translated "food" is literally "bread", and we recall the incident where David's supporters at Nob gave bread to him and his men (<a href='B:90 21:3'>1Sa 21:3</a>; <a href='B:90 21:6'>1Sa 21:6</a>; <a href='B:90 22:13'>1Sa 22:13</a>); the same two Hebrew words are used as here in <a href='B:240 22:8'>Pro 22:8</a> 'to share [give] food [bread]'. Solomon is going over his father's life and pronouncing blessing on those who supported David, and judgment upon those who did not. The huge number of times that Solomon uses the phrase 'my father David' reflects this psychological obsession with his father. It resulted in his living out parental expectation, whilst having a terrifying emptiness within himself when it came to real personal spirituality. The same words for 'giving bread' are used by Hiram, when he says that Solomon 'gave him bread / food' in return for his assistance with building the temple (<a href='B:110 5:9'>1Ki 5:9</a>). This was purely a commercial transaction, but it may be that Solomon is here justifying it as some act of grace and kindness on his part.</p>


text:
<p>22:10</p><p>Drive out-</p><p>"Drive out" is the same Hebrew word is used for how Solomon "thrust out Abiathar from being priest" (<a href='B:110 2:27'>1Ki 2:27</a>) because he had supported those who had rebelled against his father David. Solomon felt that Abiathar had thus 'mocked' David, and felt that the idea of 'unity' and lack of strife / dissension justified his purges.</p><p>The mocker-</p><p>The word used by David to describe his enemies (<a href='B:230 1:1'>Psa 1:1</a>; <a href='B:230 119:51'>Psa 119:51</a>), whose descendants in turn became Solomon's threats to the throne.</p><p>And strife will go out-</p><p>The same root word used regarding how at the end of David's reign, the people of Israel "were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:100 19:9'>2Sa 19:9</a>). Solomon inherited that situation when he came to the throne. Solomon is using the argument used by so many in history and to this day- in order to achieve peace in a community, it's necessary to assign historical precedents to the opposition, slander them, appeal to some kind of Divine judgment of them, and exclude them in order to reduce strife and enable unity within the group. But this is not to say that the Proverbs are not inspired truth; it's the way Solomon uses the principles which is such a dangerous mixture of flesh and spirit, and which is our warning and lesson.</p><p>Yes, quarrels and insults will stop<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea is of reproach, and the same word is used by David to describe what the house of Saul had done to him (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>). Solomon is arguing that the only way to end this situation is to drive out any opposition.</p><p>22:11 He who loves purity of heart and speaks gracefully is the king’s friend- Having in :10 spoken of his plan to purge Israel of opposition, Solomon now gives the other side of the coin. Anyone who is supportive of him and speaks nicely to him will be "the king's friend" and he considers loyalty to him an evidence of "purity of heart". One sees this today in church life- anyone who takes the side of a certain leader is pronounced to be 'most spiritually minded' and so forth. But "the king's friend" was a technical term for a senior Government minister, and the term is used only once elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, with reference to one of Solomon's chief officers: "Zabud the son of Nathan was chief officer, the king’s friend" (<a href='B:110 4:5'>1Ki 4:5</a>). Nathan was one of David's hawks, one of his hardest core loyalists, and Solomon appointed his son as his chief advisor; and justifies it by pronouncing this man as pure of heart just because he was "king's friend". There is no particular ipse facto reason for thinking that a king's friend is automatically pure of heart; but this Proverb declares that to be the case. Again, Solomon appears to be using Divine wisdom to justify his own politics, and this is a lesson that needs to be learnt in church life today.</p>


text:
<p>He who loves purity of heart and speaks gracefully is the king's friend- Having in :10 spoken of his plan to purge Israel of opposition, Solomon now gives the other side of the coin. Anyone who is supportive of him and speaks nicely to him will be &quot;the king's friend&quot; and he considers loyalty to him an evidence of &quot;purity of heart&quot;. One sees this today in church life- anyone who takes the side of a certain leader is pronounced to be 'most spiritually minded' and so forth. But &quot;the king's friend&quot; was a technical term for a senior Government minister, and the term is used only once elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, with reference to one of Solomon's chief officers: &quot;Zabud the son of Nathan was chief officer, the king's friend&quot; (<a href='B:110 4:5'>1 Kings 4:5</a>). Nathan was one of David's hawks, one of his hardest core loyalists, and Solomon appointed his son as his chief advisor; and justifies it by pronouncing this man as pure of heart just because he was &quot;king's friend&quot;. There is no particular ipse facto reason for thinking that a king's friend is automatically pure of heart; but this Proverb declares that to be the case. Again, Solomon appears to be using Divine wisdom to justify his own politics, and this is a lesson that needs to be learnt in church life today.</p>


text:
<p>22:12 The eyes of Yahweh-</p><p>"The eyes of the Lord" is a phrase commonly found in the historical records of David. And so Solomon surely also had in mind Saul, who did evil in the eyes of the Lord and was therefore rejected and replaced by David (<a href='B:90 15:19'>1Sa 15:19</a>), because the eyes of the Lord looked upon David's heart and therefore chose him and not Saul (<a href='B:90 16:7'>1Sa 16:7</a>). David himself had claimed that the eyes of the Lord preserved him against all opposition from Saul and his supporters (<a href='B:90 26:24'>1Sa 26:24</a>), and that even when his throne was under threat from Absalom's rebellion, "the eyes of the Lord" would restore him his throne (<a href='B:100 15:25'>2Sa 15:25</a>). When this happened, David exalted that he was seen as pure in the Lord's eyes (<a href='B:100 22:25'>2Sa 22:25</a>), and God's comment in <a href='B:110 15:5'>1Ki 15:5</a>; <a href='B:110 15:11'>1Ki 15:11</a> confirms this. All this was highly relevant to Solomon at the start of his reign, when he was given his wisdom, and when perhaps he wrote it down in the form of the book of Proverbs. So a statement that is true enough in itself is being given a subtext of justifying David's dynasty through Solomon. God's comment on all this subtexting and self-justification is in <a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a>: "Solomon did that which was evil in the eyes of Yahweh, and didn't go fully after Yahweh, as did David his father".</p><p>Another reading is possible. Angels have a special role in performing the miracle of preserving God's word intact. This work of the Angels is maybe referred to here in <a href='B:240 22:12'>Pro 22:12</a> "The eyes (Angels) of the Lord preserve knowledge", which is now concentrated in the form of the written word.</p><p>Watch over knowledge-</p><p>The idea of being 'preserved' or watched over is commonly used by David in the Psalms he wrote whilst under persecution from Saul or opposition from pretenders to his throne at the end of his life (<a href='B:230 12:7'>Psa 12:7</a>; <a href='B:230 25:21'>Psa 25:21</a>; <a href='B:230 31:23'>Psa 31:23</a>; <a href='B:230 32:7'>Psa 32:7</a>; <a href='B:230 40:11'>Psa 40:11</a>; <a href='B:230 61:7'>Psa 61:7</a>; <a href='B:230 64:1'>Psa 64:1</a>; <a href='B:230 140:1'>Psa 140:1</a> all use the same Hebrew word as found here in <a href='B:240 22:12'>Pro 22:12</a> for "preserve"). Yet again, Solomon is upholding his father David as the parade example of a man preserved by God, and he is using that to proclaim his own preservation by God. But David also very often uses this word to speak of how he in turn had 'preserved' or 'kept' God's way and commandments. And Solomon didn't want to notice that conditional element.</p><p>Solomon surely by metonymy is putting 'discretion' or 'wisdom' for the discreet / wise person, who was preeminently himself. In contrast to the apostates alluded to in the previous verses, whose destiny and claims to the throne had ended in failure, he hints that his preservation to be king was because "the eyes of the Lord" had preserved him because he was wise / discreet. But he overlooks the fact that his wisdom was a gift from God and was not intrinsic to himself. The "eyes of the Lord" perhaps allude to Angels, and Solomon may have in view how the cherubim preserved / guarded the way to the tree of life; and he obviously felt that he and his kingdom were in the way to the tree of life, to the Kingdom of God on earth.</p><p>But He frustrates the words of the unfaithful-</p><p>A reference to how Solomon perceived that all opposition to him had come to nothing. "The unfaithful" is a term David uses about Saul and his other opponents (<a href='B:230 25:3'>Psa 25:3</a>; <a href='B:230 59:5'>Psa 59:5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:158'>Psa 119:158</a>). But Biblical history demonstrates that in fact his dynasty was not preserved in the absolute terms he envisaged, because upon his death, the majority of Israel divided from his dynasty and made Jeroboam their king and rejected the dynasty of David: "What portion have we in David? Neither do we have an inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, Israel! Now see to your own house, David" (<a href='B:110 12:16'>1Ki 12:16</a>).</p><p>"Unfaithful" or "traitors" is the term used by David of Saul and his supporters (<a href='B:230 25:3'>Psa 25:3</a>; <a href='B:230 59:5'>Psa 59:5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:158'>Psa 119:158</a>). Solomon uses this term, teaching that "transgressors" must be rooted out of the earth / eretz promised to Abraham (<a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a>), and that the "transgressors" are to face judgment (<a href='B:240 11:3'>Pro 11:3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:6'>Pro 11:6</a>; <a href='B:240 13:2'>Pro 13:2</a>; <a href='B:240 21:18'>Pro 21:18</a>; <a href='B:240 22:12'>Pro 22:12</a>; <a href='B:240 23:28'>Pro 23:28</a>; <a href='B:240 25:19'>Pro 25:19</a>). All Solomon says is true, but he clearly has in view the house and supporters of Saul, who were a group he felt he needed to repress in order to keep his own kingdom and power intact.</p>


text:
<p>22:13 The lazy one says, There is a lion outside! I will be killed in the streets!-</p><p>"The lazy one" is a term only found in Proverbs , , 14 times at that. Solomon was active, for all his sins, he was not lazy. That wasn't his personality type. And he rather glorifies that, as if works can justify a person, and as if more passive personality types are thereby found to be condemned and rejected by God. That isn't the case; personality type is not the basis upon which we are justified before God. Rather is it by grace through faith, and Solomon just didn't get that at all. David was the man characterized by being fearless of lions (<a href='B:90 17:34'>1Sa 17:34</a>). So again, we see a subtext of justifying his father David. Solomon's implication is surely that a lion may indeed be outside, but it is laziness which stops a man going outside. And again, that seems rather a strange thing to say. Surely fear is the reason a man won't go outside in this case, not laziness. But Solomon calls the man lazy, because he himself was well known as not a lazy person.</p><p>It's also worth noting that Saul and also Absalom's supporters are described as lions (<a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a>; <a href='B:100 17:10'>2Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:230 10:9'>Psa 10:9</a>; <a href='B:230 22:13'>Psa 22:13</a>; <a href='B:230 22:21'>Psa 22:21</a>). David was given victory against them all, by grace, as he often celebrated in the Psalms. But Solomon considered that such victory was because he and his father were not lazy, and had gone out against the lions. There's a significant difference in approach, and again, Solomon is justifying himself by framing Divine wisdom in a way which alludes to himself and his father.</p>


text:
<p>22:14 The mouth of an adulteress is a deep pit: he who is under Yahweh’s wrath will fall into it-</p><p>The Hebrew zur is translated "strange women" in the AV, but it can mean simply one who turns aside (LXX "a transgressor"). It doesn't have to refer to a woman who tempts. Solomon may be saying that by listening to wrong advisers, "he who is under Yahweh's wrath will fall". The Hebrew for "fall" is repeatedly used about the 'fall' of Saul and his family (<a href='B:90 31:1'>1Sa 31:1</a>; <a href='B:90 31:4'>1Sa 31:4</a>; <a href='B:90 31:8'>1Sa 31:8</a>; <a href='B:100 1:4'>2Sa 1:4</a>; <a href='B:100 1:10'>2Sa 1:10</a>; <a href='B:100 1:12'>2Sa 1:12</a>; <a href='B:100 1:19'>2Sa 1:19</a>; <a href='B:100 1:25'>2Sa 1:25</a>; <a href='B:100 1:27'>2Sa 1:27</a>; <a href='B:230 5:10'>Psa 5:10</a>; <a href='B:230 7:15'>Psa 7:15</a>; <a href='B:230 20:8'>Psa 20:8</a>; <a href='B:230 35:8'>Psa 35:8</a>; <a href='B:230 36:12'>Psa 36:12</a>; <a href='B:230 57:6'>Psa 57:6</a>), whereas David did not "fall" due to Saul's machinations (<a href='B:90 18:25'>1Sa 18:25</a>; <a href='B:90 26:20'>1Sa 26:20</a> s:w:). "He who is under Yahweh's wrath" would be how Solomon saw Saul and his family. There might even be reference to the way in which Saul 'fell' to the earth as a result of the words of the witch woman at Endor (<a href='B:90 28:20'>1Sa 28:20</a> s:w:), and to how the family of Joab [who tried to usurp David's throne in opposition to Solomon] were cursed to 'fall' (<a href='B:100 3:29'>2Sa 3:29</a>).</p><p>Solomon rejected this wisdom and only came to agree with it&nbsp; through doing just what he here condemns (<a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>).</p>


text:
<p>22:15</p><p>Folly is bound up in the heart of a child-</p><p>This doesn't serve as any evidence that human beings are born intrinsically evil, because the next half of the verse says that this 'folly' can depart from a person as they pass through the process of discipline. The majority of the 25 usages of the word translated "folly" are found in Solomon's Proverbs; perhaps he had in view Nabal, 'folly', whose wife Abigail was one of his father's wives, and whose children were surely in competition with him for the throne. He therefore appears to rather belabour the folly of 'folly', and here makes the point that whatever 'folly' had been in him as a child, had been driven from him by the discipline of his wonderful father David. "Bound up" is the same Hebrew word used about those who 'conspired' against David (<a href='B:100 15:31'>2Sa 15:31</a>). Solomon may be implying: 'But if these people had been properly brought up, like I was, as the true scion of David, then such conspiracy would have been driven out of them in youth as it was with me'. "Child" can just as well be translated "young man". <a href='B:240 7:7'>Pro 7:7</a> singles out a particular "young man" [s:w. "child"] who was lacking in "heart", whose folly stood out from that of the other "simple ones". These may well refer to the 200 'simple ones' who went with Absalom in his rebellion against David (<a href='B:100 15:11'>2Sa 15:11</a>). One of them was particularly singled out here by Solomon as being foolish. And it's no accident that David calls Absalom "the young man [s:w. "child"] Absalom" (<a href='B:100 14:21'>2Sa 14:21</a>; <a href='B:100 18:5'>2Sa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:100 18:12'>2Sa 18:12</a>; <a href='B:100 18:29'>2Sa 18:29</a>; <a href='B:100 18:32'>2Sa 18:32</a>). "Young man" was perhaps David's term of endearment for Absalom. The same "young man" [s:w. "child"] may be in view here in 22:15. The context of the chapter is Solomon arguing that he and not anyone else like Absalom was the rightful successor to David. He may be suggesting that Absalom had not been properly raised from childhood, his foolishness had not been driven from him by a good upbringing, and therefore he was not the proper candidate for their father's throne. Seeing it was women who raised the children, it's significant that Absalom's mother appears to have been a Gentile, daughter of a Syrian king (<a href='B:100 3:3'>2Sa 3:3</a>), whereas Solomon was the son of Bathsheba, from a Jerusalem family right at the center of David's Government.</p><p>The rod of discipline drives it far from him-</p><p>This is the same word as found in the promises to David in <a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a> about David's Messianic son: "I will chasten him with the rod of men". Solomon felt he was the fulfilment of those promises, and that the warning of conditionality, that the Messianic Son must beware not to sin, simply meant that he as a child had naturally been foolish, but "the rod" had driven this from him. In this way Solomon minimized the sense of possible failure and the conditionality of the promises made to him. A related word translated "discipline" is found in <a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; <a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>, where Solomon's son Rehoboam recognizes that Solomon had 'chastised' or 'disciplined' his people severely. And it was this which led to the diminishing of Solomon's dynasty, rather than its establishment. Again we see evidence that Solomon's justification of his dynasty and claim to the throne didn't hold up for long. Subsequent Biblical history always seems to disprove and invalidate his claims.</p><p>Solomon has so much to say about "correction" or "instruction" coming from the possession of wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:10'>Pro 8:10</a>; <a href='B:240 8:33'>Pro 8:33</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:1'>Pro 13:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>; <a href='B:240 15:32'>Pro 15:32</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>; <a href='B:240 19:20'>Pro 19:20</a>; <a href='B:240 19:27'>Pro 19:27</a>; <a href='B:240 22:15'>Pro 22:15</a>; <a href='B:240 23:12-13'>Pro 23:12-13</a>). But in the end he chastised or corrected his people by whipping them (s:w. <a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; <a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>). Solomon initially asked for wisdom in order to guide his people, but he ended up whipping / physically chastising them into conformity with his wishes rather than allowing wisdom to correct. Again, he was playing God; for it is God through His wisdom who chastises, and not man. But Solomon thought he was effectively God to his people. This is why Solomon argues that servants cannot be corrected by words (<a href='B:240 29:19'>Pro 29:19</a> s:w:), and a child must be physically chastised (s:w. <a href='B:240 19:18'>Pro 19:18</a>; <a href='B:240 29:17'>Pro 29:17</a> cp. <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 23:13'>Pro 23:13</a>), regardless of his screams of pain. This kind of thing is a denial of his claims elsewhere that it is Divine wisdom which chastises / corrects, and such correction is from God and not man. Solomon's final description of himself as an old and foolish king who refuses to be admonished says it all (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>); he admonishes others (s:w. <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), but refuses to be admonished or corrected by his own wisdom. He failed to personalize it.</p>


text:
<p>22:16 Whoever oppresses the poor for his own increase and whoever gives to the rich-</p><p>David's Psalms 119 seems written when he was on the run from Saul. He speaks of how he was 'oppressed' by Saul (<a href='B:230 119:121-122'>Psa 119:121-122</a>); and he saw himself as "the poor". Samuel had predicted that Saul would oppress the poor for his own gain, and so it happened. So we have here another sideward swipe at the house of Saul. And yet as noted on other verses in this chapter, Solomon was ultimately guilty of what he accuses his opponents of; for it was he who oppressed the poor in Israel, and this led to the decline of his dynasty.</p><p>Oppression seems to have been a characteristic of the reigns of Saul and Absalom. See on <a href='B:230 62:10'>Psa 62:10</a>. This was the equivalent of how Saul oppressed David. Samuel's insistence that he has not oppressed the people is in the context of his warning that Saul would do this (<a href='B:90 12:3-4'>1Sa 12:3-4</a>). When Solomon later condemns the 'oppressors' (s:w. <a href='B:240 14:31'>Pro 14:31</a>; <a href='B:240 22:16'>Pro 22:16</a>; <a href='B:240 28:3'>Pro 28:3</a>; <a href='B:240 28:24'>Pro 28:24</a>), he has in view a wishing of judgment upon the house of Saul. "The poor" whom they had oppressed would easily refer to David (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>; <a href='B:230 34:6'>Psa 34:6</a>).</p><p>Both come to poverty-</p><p>Considering that the wicked often prosper materially in this life, “poverty” must refer to poverty of spirit.</p>


text:
<p>22:17 Turn your ear, and listen to the words of the wise; apply your heart to my teaching-</p><p>Now begins the "thirty pieces of advice". "The wise" is a title of both David (<a href='B:100 14:20'>2Sa 14:20</a>) and Solomon (<a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>; <a href='B:110 5:7'>1Ki 5:7</a>). Solomon makes the connection with himself obvious in the second half of the verse: "apply your heart to my teaching". Wisdom was listening to him and obeying him; and of course he had been given Divine wisdom, so he was partially right. It's just unfortunate that the rest of the chapter is his own self-justification. "My teaching" is literally "my knowledge" (see AV). But Solomon also taught that knowledge comes from God (<a href='B:240 2:6'>Pro 2:6</a> s:w:). David had urged people to turn to God's word directly (especially throughout Psalms 119), whereas Solomon 'plays God' and urges people to get there Divine knowledge from him. By doing so, he associates respect of himself with respect towards God.</p><p>As noted on <a href='B:230 119:36'>Psa 119:36</a>; <a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>, David believed that God could act deep within the psychology or heart of man, to incline us toward righteousness and away from evil. This is how the Holy Spirit works today. Solomon believed the same (s:w. <a href='B:110 8:58'>1Ki 8:58</a>), but only in theory; for his Gentile wives inclined or turned away his heart from God (s:w. <a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>; <a href='B:110 11:9'>1Ki 11:9</a>). God will not turn our hearts anywhere we ourselves don't want to go. Solomon often appeals for us to incline our hearts to wisdom (s:w. <a href='B:240 2:2'>Pro 2:2</a>; <a href='B:240 4:20'>Pro 4:20</a>; <a href='B:240 5:1'>Pro 5:1</a>; <a href='B:240 22:17'>Pro 22:17</a>), but he himself was inclined to apostasy (s:w. <a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>; <a href='B:110 11:9'>1Ki 11:9</a>). All his emphasis is upon the need to incline ourselves, whereas his father David trusted in the work of the Spirit to incline his heart to good and away from evil (<a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>; <a href='B:230 119:36'>Psa 119:36</a> etc:):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>22:18 For it is a pleasant thing if you keep them within you-</p><p>David had written of the blessedness of keeping God's word within us, but Solomon speaks of keeping his teaching within the heart. Whilst admittedly he was teaching Divine wisdom, we can see how he was misusing his position in order to get a personal following. Every true teacher is not standing between God and man, but merely directing attention to God's word, rather than his or her own words.</p><p>If all of them are ready on your lips-</p><p>The sense of the Hebrew is unclear. "If you remember them and can quote them" (GNB), "if all of them are ready on your lips" (ESV), "they shall also gladden thee on thy lips" (LXX). Perhaps the idea is that they would be recited as songs- in other words, Solomon wished for his Proverbs to be recited and perhaps sung just as the Psalms of his father David had been. In this case we can yet again sense an overpowering pressure he felt to live out parental expectation. See on 22:20 Haven't I written to you thirty excellent things.</p>


text:
<p>22:19 That your trust may be in Yahweh<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again, David is the one who is so often presented as 'trusting in Yahweh' (the same Hebrew word is found in <a href='B:230 13:5'>Psa 13:5</a>; <a href='B:230 21:7'>Psa 21:7</a>; <a href='B:230 22:9'>Psa 22:9</a>; <a href='B:230 25:2'>Psa 25:2</a>; <a href='B:230 26:1'>Psa 26:1</a>; <a href='B:230 27:3'>Psa 27:3</a>; <a href='B:230 28:7'>Psa 28:7</a>; <a href='B:230 40:4'>Psa 40:4</a>; <a href='B:230 52:8'>Psa 52:8</a>; <a href='B:230 65:5'>Psa 65:5</a>; <a href='B:230 71:5'>Psa 71:5</a> etc:); thus Solomon presents his father David as the epitome of the idealized believer. Solomon considers that listening to his Proverbs will lead the listener to such trust; David uses the word to describe how he had to throw himself upon the Lord due to his own sins (<a href='B:230 52:8'>Psa 52:8</a>) or extremity of situation. Solomon, by contrast, seemed to consider 'trust' as something attainable by mere theory.</p><p>"Trust" is literally 'a fortress'. The secure fortress was Zion (<a href='B:290 32:18'>Isa 32:18</a>; <a href='B:230 125:1'>Psa 125:1</a> s:w:), "the stronghold of Zion, the same is the city of David" (<a href='B:100 5:7'>2Sa 5:7</a>). Whilst what Solomon says is true, and repeats the multiple cases of David in the Psalms professing trust in Yahweh as his strong fortress, Solomon as ever has his agenda of self justification; he saw his possession of Zion as a sign that he feared Yahweh acceptably, and that his children would continue the Davidic line of glory. But sacred space is not so ultimately important to God. Possession of the literal stronghold of Zion was nothing compared to trust in Yahweh:&nbsp;</p><p>I teach you today, even you- Does Solomon have one specific individual in view? Is this the same person to whom he refers as "my son"? If we are to take this literally, then we are left with the impression that Solomon wished his own son Rehoboam to be as fixated upon him as Solomon had been upon his own father David. The relative failure of Rehoboam would therefore be another demonstration that Solomon's theories about his own dynasty were wrong.</p>


text:
<p>22:20 Haven’t I written to you thirty excellent things of counsel and knowledge-</p><p>The Hebrew is capable of various translation; another option is to read this as meaning 'I have written to you things which you are to copy out and memorize'. In this case, we would again see Solomon seeking to have his Proverbs memorized and recited just as his father's Psalms were. We must remember that David was the greatest composer / musician of the day; everyone was going around humming his songs and muttering his words as they worked. And Solomon wanted his Proverbs to be treated likewise. See on 22:18 If all of them are ready on your lips. There are many repeated verses in Proverbs<strong>- </strong></p><p>it seems over 20% of the material is repeated. One reason for that could be that the material was designed to be memorized and / or publically performed.</p>


text:
<p>22:21 to teach you truth, reliable words, to give sound answers to the ones who sent you?-</p><p>People came to hear Solomon’s wisdom from many nations (<a href='B:110 4:34'>1Ki 4:34</a>), so the book of Proverbs was maybe first compiled as an answer to be sent back to them:&nbsp;But many versions translate the Hebrew the opposite way around: "When you are sent to find it out, you will bring back the right answer" (GNB).</p>


text:
<p>22:22</p><p>Don't exploit the poor, because he is poor<strong>- </strong></p><p>AV "rob". The word is used of what Saul did to "the poor" David (<a href='B:230 35:10'>Psa 35:10</a>).</p><p>And don't crush the needy in court<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again, we find the Hebrew used for how Saul tried to "crush" David (<a href='B:230 143:3'>Psa 143:3</a>). "In court" is literally 'the gate', and perhaps Solomon had in view how his competitor Absalom stood in the gate promising all kinds of advantage over the poor to the rich.</p>


text:
<p>22:23 for Yahweh will plead their case, and plunder the life of those who plunder them-</p><p>The same phrase used of how God pleaded David's case against Saul and Nabal (<a href='B:90 24:15'>1Sa 24:15</a>; <a href='B:90 25:39'>1Sa 25:39</a>; <a href='B:230 35:1'>Psa 35:1</a>; <a href='B:230 119:154'>Psa 119:154</a>) and Absalom (<a href='B:230 43:1'>Psa 43:1</a>). Yet again, David is presented as the parade example of the righteous, and David's enemies are presented as the unwise and rejected.</p>


text:
<p>22:24 Don’t befriend a hot-tempered man-</p><p>The same word is used about David's brother Eliab, another opponent of David (<a href='B:90 17:28'>1Sa 17:28</a>); Saul (<a href='B:90 20:30'>1Sa 20:30</a>; <a href='B:230 55:3'>Psa 55:3</a>) and all David's enemies (<a href='B:230 138:7'>Psa 138:7</a>). Whilst all Solomon says in the Proverb is indeed true, he clearly had an agenda- to justify his purging of the party of all historical opponents to his father.</p><p>And don’t associate with one who harbours anger-</p><p>Solomon is justifying his purging of those associated with his father's opponents. But the Hebrew words used here are used of Solomon's association with Gentile women, who led him away from the faith of his father (<a href='B:110 11:2'>1Ki 11:2</a>). And we have seen this so often in church life. Those who shout the loudest against association with others within the community of God's people are often the very ones who are deeply associated with unbelievers through various forms of unspiritual relationships.</p>


text:
<p>22:25 lest you learn his ways, and ensnare your soul-</p><p>Bad company, even amongst the people of God, rubs off on us; we are more vulnerable to negative spiritual influences than we think. Solomon's idea was that friendship with unspiritual people will eventually result in us learning their ways and acting like them, even if that is not the case at the point of initial friendship. This was precisely what Solomon himself did in marrying Gentile women, who in time did indeed make him learn their idolatrous ways. David was the one who repeatedly avoided the snares set for him by Saul (s:w. <a href='B:90 18:21'>1Sa 18:21</a>; <a href='B:230 64:5'>Psa 64:5</a>; <a href='B:230 140:5'>Psa 140:5</a>; <a href='B:230 141:9'>Psa 141:9</a>). So again, the wise man is being set up as Solomon's father David.</p>


text:
<p>22:26 Don’t you be one of those who strike hands, of those who are collateral for debts-</p><p>The prohibition was in the case of a person standing surety when they did not actually have the money to do so (:27), in fact they only had their 'bed', which may be a reference to the outer garment in which a poor person slept (<a href='B:20 22:26-27'>Exo 22:26-27</a>). The warning would appear to be not to boast of wealth which you don't have, standing surety for someone else's debt when actually if they default, you all the same could not pay the debt. All the rest of this chapter has been making allusion to historical figures and incidents in the lives of David and Solomon. It would be surprising if there is no such allusion here in :26,27, but admittedly it is hard to perceive. But it may well have been an allusion to a situation well known at the time.</p><p>The law of Moses didn't forbid giving or taking collateral for loans, it accepted this would happen (<a href='B:20 22:25-27'>Exo 22:25-27</a>). But Solomon in the Proverbs is quite obsessed with forbidding it in very strong terms (<a href='B:240 6:1-3'>Pro 6:1-3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:15'>Pro 11:15</a>; <a href='B:240 17:18'>Pro 17:18</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 22:26'>Pro 22:26</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a> - all quite some emphasis). Perhaps Solomon recalled some bad experience in his family because of this. There is the otherwise curious statement in <a href='B:90 17:18'>1Sa 17:18</a> that David's brothers, Solomon's uncles, were to return a collateral. Perhaps this ruined the family and Solomon's wisdom has some human element in it, reflecting his own bad experiences in his family life. But there is nothing wrong with giving or taking collateral for a loan; what is condemned in God's law is the abuse of the debtor and the abuse of the situation. Indeed David and Hezekiah ask God to be collateral for their needs and debts in various ways (<a href='B:230 119:122'>Psa 119:122</a>; <a href='B:290 38:14'>Isa 38:14</a>). And God gives the Holy Spirit in our hearts as collateral on His debt, as He sees it, to save us (<a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a>; <a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>); and in response we give our hearts as a pledge to Him (<a href='B:300 30:21'>Jer 30:21</a> Heb:). So forbidding the practice seems out of step with the spirit of grace. It would mean asking of God what we are unprepared to do for others. Solomon had not known need, neither material nor spiritual, and it shows in his attitude to this matter. It makes hollow all Solomon's exhortations to be generous to your poor neighbour and to be a brother in adversity to your neighbour (<a href='B:240 14:21'>Pro 14:21</a>; <a href='B:240 17:17'>Pro 17:17</a>). Solomon is here reasoning from the viewpoint of secular wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>22:27 If you don’t have means to pay, why should he take away your bed from under you?-</p><p>See on :26. This is a somewhat exaggerated statement, because the spirit of the Mosaic law in <a href='B:50 24:13'>Deu 24:13</a> effectively forbad this. But as noted on :26, Solomon is so obsessed by this particular issue of collateral that he exaggerates his case.</p>


text:
<p>22:28 Don’t move the ancient boundary stone, which your fathers have set up-</p><p>This is cited as one of the clearest quotations in Proverbs from the Egyptian 'Wisdom of Amenemopet'. Here we may see evidence of Solomon wishing to appease his Egyptian wife; or, if in fact the Egyptian document was quoting from Proverbs, we would have evidence that Solomon's Egyptian wife shared some of the Proverbs with her people. However, Solomon is here only repeating the spirit of the Mosaic command about this (<a href='B:50 19:14'>Deu 19:14</a>; <a href='B:50 27:17'>Deu 27:17</a>); so my sense is that it was the Egyptians who copied from the Biblical source rather than the other way around. The preceding verses are about pretending to have more cash wealth than one does; and this verse is similar, in warning against appearing to have more land than one does. In the spirit of Solomon's self-justification which has been seen earlier in this chapter, it could be that Solomon, as the world's richest man, is saying that he has real wealth, and doesn't have to pretend. In this case we again can perceive an element of self-justification and criticism of anyone less than him.</p>


text:
<p>22:29 Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will serve kings. He won’t serve obscure men-</p><p>For Solomon as a king to teach that only smart people serve kings is again merely a truism- until we realize the manipulative game he is playing. The message really is: 'If you submit to me as king, then you're smart. You must be- because my proverb says you will be!'. But we must remember that there were many pretenders to the throne at Solomon's time, and so by reasoning like this he is seeking to justify himself and those who take his side. As noted before several times in this chapter, Solomon's attempts to inject self-justification into the Proverbs so often ended up going wrong. Jeroboam was a zealous, industrious servant of Solomon, who fitted the language of this verse exactly (<a href='B:110 11:28'>1Ki 11:28</a>); but he later turned against Solomon and divided Solomon's kingdom in the next generation. We can also see in "a man skilled in his work" a reference to the skilled men of Hiram, king of Tyre, who worked for Solomon in building the temple. But again, Solomon and Hiram fell out and again, Solomon's kingdom suffered because of this (<a href='B:110 9:13'>1Ki 9:13</a>). Solomon's flattery of his servants through this Proverb just didn't come to anything- indeed, it ended up in grief.</p>


text:
<p>23:1 When you sit to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before you-</p><p>Solomon was the "ruler" (s:w. <a href='B:110 4:21'>1Ki 4:21</a>; <a href='B:140 7:18'>2Ch 7:18</a>), but he may have in view any person of authority, as he uses the term in <a href='B:240 22:7'>Pro 22:7</a> "the rich rules over the poor". The book of Proverbs has in view a bad ruler (s:w. <a href='B:240 28:15'>Pro 28:15</a>; <a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a>; <a href='B:240 29:12'>Pro 29:12</a>; <a href='B:240 29:26'>Pro 29:26</a>; <a href='B:250 9:17'>Ecc 9:17</a>). And this bad ruler offers deceitful food (<a href='B:240 23:3'>Pro 23:3</a>), which Solomon in Proverbs 23 advises against eating. We need to recall that eating together was seen as a sign of fellowship and acceptance of each other within the same cause. Solomon may have in view Jeroboam, who clearly sought to usurp Solomon as king. Or he may be alluding back to the various people like Absalom and Adonijah who had feasted to celebrate their apparent usurping of David's throne. The LXX in <a href='B:240 23:1-8'>Pro 23:1-8</a> reads rather differently to the Masoretic Text, and speaks much of the evil of the ruler in view.</p>


text:
<p>23:2 put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite-</p><p>The idea may be that through eating heartily with this bad ruler, you are sucked deeper into fellowship with him.</p>


text:
<p>23:3 Don’t be desirous of his dainties, since they are deceitful food-</p><p>Heb. "don't desire huge meals". But Solomon did the very opposite in his own life (<a href='B:110 4:22-23'>1Ki 4:22-23</a>). But see on :2. "Deceitful" is a word associated with idols (s:w. <a href='B:370 2:4'>Amo 2:4</a>). There may be an allusion to participating in idol feasts which this wicked ruler presided over.</p>


text:
<p>23:4 Don’t weary yourself to be rich; in your wisdom, show restraint-</p><p>But Solomon did desire wealth in the end (<a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a>; <a href='B:250 2:11'>Ecc 2:11</a>). When he writes things like “the thoughts of the diligent tend only to plenteousness” (<a href='B:240 21:5'>Pro 21:5</a> AV), he must inevitably be connecting his own fantastic wealth / blessing with his hard work. He was justifying himself by works rather than by faith; he assumed his righteousness and acceptance with God rather than struggling through the work of faith. Yet he could say “Labour not to be rich; cease from thine own wisdom” (<a href='B:240 23:4'>Pro 23:4</a> AV). He had all the right theory. Solomon was an active, industrious person by nature; and whilst all his many proverbs criticizing the lazy and glorifying the diligent are true as they stand, is there not in all this some element of self-justification, interpreting his own natural personality type as inherently righteous?</p><p>LXX "If thou art poor, measure not thyself with a rich man; but refrain thyself in thy wisdom" could be read as Solomon saying that he, the ultimate rich man, was not to be questioned, but his authority accepted without question.</p>


text:
<p>23:5 Why do you set your eyes on that which is not? For it certainly sprouts wings like an eagle and flies in the sky-</p><p>If the reference is to wealth (:4), then Solomon appears very hypocritical in that for him, wealth was clearly something he set his eyes upon. And he often says that riches are given as a reward for wisdom. And yet on the other hand, he theoretically recognizes that wealth can disappear and has no ultimate reality. But so many will say the same, theoretically accepting how ephemeral are riches; and yet focus their lives and thinking upon them.</p><p>The LXX reads this as applying to the ruler and not the food: "If thou shouldest fix thine eye upon him, he will disappear; for wings like an eagle's are prepared for him, and he returns to the house of his master".</p>


text:
<p>23:6 Don’t eat the food of him who has a stingy eye, and don’t crave his delicacies-</p><p>To eat together, or to decline to do so, was understood as a religious act, a sign of acceptance of a person. Hence the radical nature of the open table policy of the Lord Jesus in the New Testament. The man with the stingy eye is presumably the wicked ruler of :1. If a more wealthy or powerful person invited you to their table, it would be hard for the weaker person to decline it. But this is what Solomon urges.</p>


text:
<p>23:7 for as he thinks about the cost, so he is. Eat and drink! he says to you, but his heart is not with you-</p><p>AV "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he". The Israelites were seen as grasshoppers by their enemies- and so this is how they came to perceive themselves (<a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a>). <a href='B:240 23:7'>Pro 23:7</a> RV observes: “As he reckoneth within himself, so is he”. We are defined by our own self-perception. We must come in the end to perceive ourselves from God’s perspective and not according to how men perceive us. We must see ourselves from outside ourselves, and thereby “guide thine own heart in the way” (<a href='B:240 23:19'>Pro 23:19</a>).</p><p>It is a common Bible teaching that how a man thinks is expressed in his actions (<a href='B:240 23:7'>Pro 23:7</a>; <a href='B:470 12:34'>Mat 12:34</a>); a little reflection upon our own actions will confirm this. We think of something and then we do it. Our ‘spirit’ or mind may reflect upon the fact that we are hungry and desire food. We see a banana going spare in the kitchen; that desire of the ‘spirit’ is then translated into action - we reach out for the banana, peel it and eat. This simple example shows why the Hebrew word for ‘spirit’ means both the breath or mind, and also power. Our spirit, the essential us, refers to our thoughts and therefore also to the actions which we take to express those thoughts or disposition within us. On a far more glorious scale, God’s spirit is the same; it is the power by which He displays His essential being, His disposition and purpose. God thinks and therefore does things. “As I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand” (<a href='B:290 14:24'>Isa 14:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>23:8 The morsel which you have eaten you shall vomit up, and lose your good words-</p><p>The allusion may be to <a href='B:220 20:15'>Job 20:15</a>, where the man who has gained riches wrongfully vomits them up (s:w:). The same word is used of eating too much honey, and vomiting it up (<a href='B:240 25:16'>Pro 25:16</a>). All this is true, but <a href='B:240 23:8'>Pro 23:8</a> says that eating the tasty food of the wicked ruler will also lead to vomiting it up. Again Solomon may be cementing his own power, suggesting that any other wealthy ruler is somehow fake, and to sit at his table, in acceptance of him, would be like eating too much honey, partaking in riches wrongfully acquired. Perhaps he has Jeroboam in view:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>23:9 Don’t speak in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words-</p><p>Solomon has little patience with fools. He considers anyone who doesn't immediately accept his wisdom to be unworthy of any further effort. He has none of the spirit of patient evangelism which was in David, and which is supremely seen in God's tireless efforts to bring resistant fools to wisdom and His way.</p><p>This abusive attitude to people arose from Solomon's obsession with the idea that he had wisdom, and people generally are fools, idiots, unwise- and therefore he could abuse them. This attitude is another outcome of believing that mere possession of truths about God justifies us, and declares all other people foolish, unwise and able to be legitimately abused by us. In contrast, the heart of God (as of David) bleeds for such people and wants to save them rather than gloat in their unwisdom and punish them for it.</p>


text:
<p>23:10 Don’t move the ancient boundary stone; don’t encroach on the fields of the fatherless-</p><p>This is cited as one of the clearest quotations in Proverbs from the Egyptian 'Wisdom of Amenemopet'. Here we may see evidence of Solomon wishing to appease his Egyptian wife; or, if in fact the Egyptian document was quoting from Proverbs, we would have evidence that Solomon's Egyptian wife shared some of the Proverbs with her people. However, Solomon is here only repeating the spirit of the Mosaic command about this (<a href='B:50 19:14'>Deu 19:14</a>; <a href='B:50 27:17'>Deu 27:17</a>); so my sense is that it was the Egyptians who copied from the Biblical source rather than the other way around.</p><p>But we also perceive here a spirit of conservatism, wishing everything to be set in stone, because all truth is with Solomon, his judgment is unquestionably correct, no other teacher is to be listened to, and all the boundary stones are to be kept in place in every way. This may be in order to cement the placing of Jerusalem in Solomon's tribal canton of Judah, rather than Benjamin. And he is using the need to protect the fields of the fatherless as a cover for that. This kind of thing often happens in politics; defence of the defenceless is used as a cover for policies which have quite different agendas.</p>


text:
<p>23:11 for their Defender is strong, He will plead their case against you-</p><p>See on :10. "Defender" is 'redeemer', used of Boaz being the kinsman redeemer for Ruth and Naomi. God has an especial interest in the weak, and loves to redeem them. This provides endless encouragement to us, the weak. If we will perceive our weakness. And those who are against the weak, in whatever way [including against the spiritually weak], will be judged. God enters a court of judgment against such people, and Solomon implies that happens in this life.</p>


text:
<p>23:12 Apply your heart to instruction, and your ears to the words of knowledge-</p><p>Solomon has so much to say about "correction" or "instruction" coming from the possession of wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:10'>Pro 8:10</a>; <a href='B:240 8:33'>Pro 8:33</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:1'>Pro 13:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>; <a href='B:240 15:32'>Pro 15:32</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>; <a href='B:240 19:20'>Pro 19:20</a>; <a href='B:240 19:27'>Pro 19:27</a>; <a href='B:240 22:15'>Pro 22:15</a>; <a href='B:240 23:12-13'>Pro 23:12-13</a>). But in the end he chastised or corrected his people by whipping them (s:w. <a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; <a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>). Solomon initially asked for wisdom in order to guide his people, but he ended up whipping / physically chastising them into conformity with his wishes rather than allowing wisdom to correct. Again, he was playing God; for it is God through His wisdom who chastises, and not man. But Solomon thought he was effectively God to his people. This is why Solomon argues that servants cannot be corrected by words (<a href='B:240 29:19'>Pro 29:19</a> s:w:), and a child must be physically chastised (s:w. <a href='B:240 19:18'>Pro 19:18</a>; <a href='B:240 29:17'>Pro 29:17</a> cp. <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 23:13'>Pro 23:13</a>), regardless of his screams of pain. This kind of thing is a denial of his claims elsewhere that it is Divine wisdom which chastises / corrects, and such correction is from God and not man. Solomon's final description of himself as an old and foolish king who refuses to be admonished says it all (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>); he admonishes others (s:w. <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), but refuses to be admonished or corrected by his own wisdom. He failed to personalize it.</p>


text:
<p>23:13 Don’t withhold correction from a child. If you punish him with the rod, he will not die-</p><p>As explained on :12, this is true so far as it goes, and is a fair enough commentary upon the Mosaic instruction to stone to death a disobedient son. But Solomon took this idea of physical chastisement too far, to the point of not giving due weight to the power of God Himself through His wisdom to discipline or chastise a person.</p>


text:
<p>23:14 Punish him with the rod, and save his soul from Sheol-</p><p>Quite clearly, the efforts of parents on behalf of their children can affect the eternal destiny of a third party. <a href='B:240 23:13-14'>Pro 23:13-14</a> speaks of how we can save a child from the [eternal] grave by correctly disciplining and teaching him. Indeed, the Proverbs have so much to say about how parental influence can affect a child’s eternal destiny. But see on :12.</p><p>Discipline and punishment of the unwise is a big theme in Solomon's Proverbs. He took it to the extent of whipping his own people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). This abusive attitude to people arose from his obsession with the idea that he had wisdom, and people generally are fools, idiots, unwise- and therefore he could abuse them. This abusive attitude to people is another outcome of believing that mere possession of truths about God justifies us, and declares all other people foolish, unwise and able to be legitimately abused by us. In contrast, the heart of God (as of David) bleeds for such people and wants to save them rather than gloat in their unwisdom and punish them for it.</p>


text:
<p>23:15 My son, if your heart is wise, then my heart will be glad, even mine-</p><p>Solomon here envisages a meeting of hearts between father and son (:16). And indeed family relationships are enhanced beyond any description if hearts are connected spiritually. He parallels the son's wise heart with the son's lips speaking rightly (:16), correctly understanding that thoughts lead to words (<a href='B:470 12:34'>Mat 12:34</a>).</p>


text:
<p>23:16 yes, my heart will rejoice, when your lips speak what is right-</p><p>See on :15. But Solomon is repeating to his son what David had said to him, in commanding him to have lips which spoke truth and not falsehood (s:w. <a href='B:230 34:13'>Psa 34:13</a>). Solomon's heart departed from Yahweh and was turned aside to idols, even if his lips continued to teach Divine truth (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>). But families can still go through the motions of spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>23:17 Don’t let your heart envy sinners; but rather fear Yahweh all the day long-</p><p>David had calmly urged not to be envious of the wicked (s:w. <a href='B:230 37:1'>Psa 37:1</a>), but he himself almost failed in this (<a href='B:230 73:3'>Psa 73:3</a> s:w:). We can profess clearly how much we are not envious of others; and then find ourselves like David, caught in a pang of crisis when we wonder why our lives cannot be like those of the world around us. Solomon simplistically commanded not to be envious of the wicked, drawing a simple contrast between the wicked, and the righteous who are not envious of them (<a href='B:240 3:31'>Pro 3:31</a>; <a href='B:240 23:17'>Pro 23:17</a>; <a href='B:240 24:1'>Pro 24:1</a>; <a href='B:240 24:19'>Pro 24:19</a> s:w:). But this is not how it was in reality with his father David, who admits to almost having given in to envy of the wicked (<a href='B:230 73:3'>Psa 73:3</a>) despite his earlier simplistic condemnation of such envy (<a href='B:230 37:1'>Psa 37:1</a>), and was only saved from that by God's gracious action on his heart (<a href='B:230 73:2'>Psa 73:2</a>). Solomon's proverbs seem to fail to address this complexity of situations because of his own self-righteousness; and yet all he says is inspired and true so far as it goes.</p>


text:
<p>23:18 Indeed surely there is a future hope, and your hope will not be cut off-</p><p>David's "expectation" in the context of <a href='B:230 62:5'>Psa 62:5</a> was the continuation of his own kingdom, despite all the threats against it from the likes of Saul, Absalom and others who would usurp his Davidic kingship and kingdom. Solomon likely uses the word for "expectation" with the same subtext; that all opposition to him was based upon a false expectation which would be dashed by God (s:w. <a href='B:240 10:28'>Pro 10:28</a>; <a href='B:240 11:7'>Pro 11:7</a>; <a href='B:240 11:23'>Pro 11:23</a>; <a href='B:240 23:18'>Pro 23:18</a>; <a href='B:240 24:14'>Pro 24:14</a>). LXX "For if thou shouldest keep these things, thou shalt have posterity; and thine hope shall not be removed" would imply that Solomon thought that the promises concerning his kingly line continuing depended upon accepting his wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>23:19 Listen, My son, and be wise, and keep your heart on the right path!-</p><p>AV "Guide thine heart in the way". This is true insofar as there must be an element of self control and self direction of our thoughts. But it is hard to consciously direct our heart. David by contrasted invited God to keep his heart in the way / right path (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:32'>Psa 119:32</a>). And the Holy Spirit is available to all who make the same request today. Those who trust in their own steel will and self direction often utterly fail, as Solomon did.</p>


text:
<p>23:20 Don’t keep company with those who drink too much wine, or those who gorge themselves on meat-</p><p>This again is true, but the Lord Jesus was known and mocked for keeping company with gluttons and drunkards. He had no fear of guilt by association nor contamination by communion. Mere physical separation from wicked people, of the type so often advised by Solomon, will not lead to our own spiritual growth nor their salvation.</p>


text:
<p>23:21 for the drunkard and the glutton shall become poor; and drowsiness clothes them in rags-</p><p>LXX "for every drunkard and whoremonger shall be poor; and every sluggard shall clothe himself with tatters and ragged garments". This sounds exactly the picture of the prodigal son presented by the Lord Jesus in His parable. But again, His parable appears designed to engage with Solomon's views and modify or qualify them. For the Father, God, eagerly wants the repentance of such a person and is ever waiting and looking out for their repentance. But Solomon simply writes off such persons as lacking wisdom, and as it were forgets them.</p>


text:
<p>23:22 Listen to your father who gave you life, and don’t despise your mother when she is old-</p><p>But Solomon disregarded Bathsheba's warning not to drink and marry Gentiles (Proverbs 31) - he did just this when she was old. Solomon also fails to give due weight to the fact that the mothers of his sons were unbelieving Gentiles. He is coming out with wise words when his own family life was totally out of step with them.</p>


text:
<p>23:23 Buy the truth, and don’t sell it. Get wisdom, discipline, and understanding-</p><p>"The truth" is a term associated with God's covenant with David and Abraham. The Hebrew for "buy" carries the idea of establishing. The idea is that knowledge and understanding would establish the promises to David and the line through Solomon. But Biblically, "the truth" is God's truth to man, His faithfulness to His covenant. But as often, Solomon sees it the other way around; truth must be bought by man from God, insofar as man gets the right knowledge about Him. This basic denial of grace is seen in so many Christian groups.</p>


text:
<p>23:24 The father of the righteous has great joy. Whoever fathers a wise child delights in him-</p><p>Solomon considers himself as the ultimately wise child. Clearly from Psalms 45, 72, David delighted in Solomon. So again, he is using Divine truth to justify himself.</p>


text:
<p>23:25 Let your father and your mother be glad! Let her who bore you rejoice!-</p><p>The wicked woman lying in wait to kill the simple man (<a href='B:240 23:25-27'>Pro 23:25-27</a>) is a clear enough reference to Delilah and her henchmen lying in wait in the bedroom. And yet, for all this reflection upon Samson, Solomon went and did par excellence according to Samson's well-studied folly. And we can do the same, in principle. There is this vast distance between knowledge and belief.</p>


text:
<p>23:26 My son, give me your heart; and let your eyes observe my ways-</p><p>Even when married to Gentile women, Solomon could charge his son to "observe my ways. For... a strange [Gentile] woman is a narrow pit" (<a href='B:240 23:26-27'>Pro 23:26-27</a>). The fact he himself had fallen into the pit of marriage to unbelievers just didn't seem to occur to him; he was sure that he was in fact an upright example. This passage reflects more than many the extent to which Solomon's conscience was so deeply damaged. For he wasn't saying 'Do as I say but not as I do'. He was beyond that- doing the very wrong that he warned others not to do, and confidently presenting himself to them as a good example whose ways were to be observed.</p><p>Solomon was so sure of his own rightness that he just couldn't conceive that in reality he might sin or break the principles he preached. He warns his son to "observe my ways. For... a gentile woman is a narrow pit" (<a href='B:240 23:26-27'>Pro 23:26-27</a>). He held himself up in this matter as an example to his son even at the very time when he had married Gentile women! He describes in Ecclesiastes how he indulged every possible desire, and took each of his lusts to its ultimate term. Yet he warned his son to only eat honey in moderation, i:e. don't gorge your natural desires (<a href='B:240 25:16'>Pro 25:16</a>). This sense of the impossibility of spiritual failure is stamped all over Solomon; and it has been the downfall of so many others too.</p><p>David by contrast felt he was kept or guarded in the way of integrity by God constantly pointing out that way to him (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:33'>Psa 119:33</a>). Solomon seems to think that mere possession of Divine truth made him "righteous", and this of itself kept him in the way; and the way to follow was his way rather than God's. He has none of the constant desire to be taught which David had, because he assumed he had received total truth. Those who consider they hold "the truth" as a package of doctrinally correct propositions can make the same mistake as Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>23:27 For a prostitute is a deep pit; and a Gentile woman is a narrow well-</p><p>Often the Proverbs allude to characters in Israel's history. The references to a wise son rejoicing his father and mother (<a href='B:240 23:25'>Pro 23:25</a>) and saddening them by his folly shout for application to Samson. The warnings about not looking at a strange woman recall how Samson saw the Philistine girl in Timnath and the prostitute in Gaza (14:1; 16:1). The wicked woman lying in wait to kill the simple man (<a href='B:240 23:25-27'>Pro 23:25-27</a>) is a clear enough reference to Delilah and her henchmen lying in wait in the bedroom. And yet, for all this reflection upon Samson, Solomon went and did par excellence according to Samson's well-studied folly. And we can do the same, in principle. There is this vast distance between knowledge and belief:&nbsp;</p><p>The&nbsp; blindness&nbsp; of&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; is&nbsp; driven&nbsp; home time and again; he knew Divine truth, but the more he knew it, the more he lived the very opposite, failing to grasp the deeply personal relevance of truth to himself. A whole string of passages in Proverbs warn&nbsp;of&nbsp; the Gentile / "strange" &nbsp;(AV) woman&nbsp; (2:16;&nbsp; 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; 20:16; 23:27;&nbsp; 27:13). Yet the very same word (translated "outlandish", AV) is&nbsp; used&nbsp; in&nbsp; <a href='B:160 13:26'>Neh 13:26</a> concerning&nbsp; the women Solomon married. The antidote&nbsp;to&nbsp; succumbing to the wicked woman was to have wisdom- according to Proverbs. And Solomon apparently had wisdom. Yet he succumbed to the wicked woman. He was writing Song of Solomon at the same time as Proverbs. The reason for this must be that Solomon didn't really have wisdom. Yet we know that he was given it in abundance. The resolution of this seems to be that Solomon asked&nbsp; for&nbsp; wisdom &nbsp;in&nbsp; order&nbsp; to&nbsp; lead&nbsp; Israel&nbsp; rather than for himself,&nbsp; he used that wisdom to judge Israel and to educate the surrounding&nbsp; nations:&nbsp; But&nbsp; none of it percolated to himself. As custodians&nbsp; of&nbsp; true&nbsp; doctrine-&nbsp; for&nbsp; that is what we are- we are likely to suffer from over familiarity with it. We can become so accustomed&nbsp; to 'handling' it, as we strengthen each other, as we preach,&nbsp; that&nbsp; the personal bearing of the Truth becomes totally lost&nbsp; upon us, as it was totally lost upon Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>23:28 Yes, she lies in wait like a robber, and increases the unfaithful among men-</p><p>"Lie in wait" is the word for ambush. Solomon often uses the word, as if it is for him a major characteristic of sinners (<a href='B:240 1:11'>Pro 1:11</a>; <a href='B:240 1:18'>Pro 1:18</a>; <a href='B:240 7:12'>Pro 7:12</a>; <a href='B:240 12:6'>Pro 12:6</a>; <a href='B:240 23:28'>Pro 23:28</a>; <a href='B:240 24:15'>Pro 24:15</a>). But it's a rather specific word to use so often. It's as if Solomon is consciously alluding to his father's experiences at the hands of the house of Saul (s:w. <a href='B:230 10:9'>Psa 10:9</a>; <a href='B:230 59:3'>Psa 59:3</a>), whom Solomon considered a threat to his own kingship. And so he seems to rather like using the term about sinners, as if using his wisdom to have a dig at his immediate opposition.</p><p>"Transgressors" or "traitors" is the term used by David of Saul and his supporters (<a href='B:230 25:3'>Psa 25:3</a>; <a href='B:230 59:5'>Psa 59:5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:158'>Psa 119:158</a>). Solomon uses this term, teaching that "transgressors" must be rooted out of the earth / eretz promised to Abraham (<a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a>), and that the "transgressors" are to face judgment (<a href='B:240 11:3'>Pro 11:3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:6'>Pro 11:6</a>; <a href='B:240 13:2'>Pro 13:2</a>; <a href='B:240 21:18'>Pro 21:18</a>; <a href='B:240 22:12'>Pro 22:12</a>; <a href='B:240 23:28'>Pro 23:28</a>; <a href='B:240 25:19'>Pro 25:19</a>). All Solomon says is true, but he clearly has in view the house and supporters of Saul, who were a group he felt he needed to repress in order to keep his own kingdom and power intact.</p>


text:
<p>23:29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes?-</p><p>Solomon here in <a href='B:240 23:29-31'>Pro 23:29-31</a> strongly condemns wine, but later gave himself to wine (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>). And so he again demonstrated how although his wisdom remained with him and he continued to teach it (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>), he had failed to personalize that wisdom. It flowed through his mind and his mouth, but took no personal lodgment in his heart.</p>


text:
<p>23:30 Those who stay long at the wine; those who go to seek out mixed wine-</p><p>"Seek" is the word used for seeking wisdom (<a href='B:220 28:27'>Job 28:27</a>; <a href='B:230 139:1'>Psa 139:1</a>). The fact the supposedly wise man Solomon sought to wine in later life (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>) shows that he had not personally sought for wisdom. He had been given a mass of Divine truth in one shot, as it were; but had never personally sought for God or His truth. And this can be true of many 'raise in the Truth', as they think, who in later life find themselves searching everywhere for the truth they had supposedly found in youth:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>23:31 Don’t look at the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly-</p><p>Compare this with “</p><p>the roof of thy mouth like the best wine, that goeth down smoothly for my beloved” (<a href='B:260 7:9'>Son 7:9</a> RV)- how did Solomon know unless even at a relatively young age, he knew about the sensation of wine from personal experience? Again we see Solomon's failure to be personally touched by the wisdom he knew.</p>


text:
<p>23:32 In the end, it bites like a snake, and poisons like a viper-</p><p>The effect of wine is presented in terms of the serpent, the symbol of all sin and evil. That Solomon would freely explore wine and alcoholism as a possible source for enjoyment in later life (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>) is again indication enough that he utterly failed to grasp the truths he held and taught on any personal level.</p>


text:
<p>23:33 Your eyes will see strange things, and your mind will imagine confusing things-</p><p>AV "strange women". The idea is that the drunkard will get involved with strange or Gentile women. But this is precisely what Solomon did, before he turned to alcohol (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>). He was involved with strange women, but condemns alcohol. But he links the two here, and so it is unsurprising that he turns to alcohol later in life. Again, his "wisdom" remained as technical knowledge, so many smart ideas, and was not personalized by him.</p>


text:
<p>23:34 Yes, you will be as he who lies down in the midst of the sea, or as he who lies on top of the rigging-</p><p>The implication may be that the drunk sailor in view was intended to be the captain or pilot of the boat, on top of the rigging, watching astutely as to the direction of the vessel; thus it would be a specific warning to Solomon's son, as the next king. Hence LXX "as a pilot in a great storm":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>23:35 They hit me, and I was not hurt! They beat me, and I don’t feel it! When will I wake up so that I can do it again?-</p><p>Solomon sees the folly of alcoholism in that the drunkard never learns, and the addiction leads him to seek it again, somehow closing off his mind to the damage he is doing himself and the consequences of his actions. But Solomon married Gentile women (see on :34), and then takes to alcohol (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>), with no sense of the personal implications of his actions. And this was his problem all along; he refused to personalize the truths he held and taught, and insisted others accepted. This is a basic feature of human nature, which we see in others and of course in our own temptations.</p>


text:
<p>24:1&nbsp; Don’t be envious of evil men; neither desire to be with them-</p><p>See on :19. Solomon has much to say about the evil of envy (e.g. <a href='B:240 14:30'>Pro 14:30</a>; <a href='B:240 23:17'>Pro 23:17</a>; <a href='B:240 24:1'>Pro 24:1</a>; <a href='B:240 24:19'>Pro 24:19</a>; <a href='B:240 27:4'>Pro 27:4</a>). But true as his condemnations of envy are, he surely has in mind the way that Ephraim envied Judah, and envied his throne (s:w. <a href='B:290 11:13'>Isa 11:13</a>). This all came to full term after his death, when Ephraim departed from Judah under Jeroboam. Again, Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning. But as he faced death, he came to realize that all such envy is as nothing before the reality of death, which he understood as the end of life, as he had assumed this life was the time for reward and expresses no personal hope in a resurrection of the body (<a href='B:250 4:4'>Ecc 4:4</a>; <a href='B:250 9:6'>Ecc 9:6</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>24:2 for their hearts plot violence, and their lips talk about mischief-</p><p><a href='B:230 7:14'>Psa 7:14</a>; <a href='B:230 7:16'>Psa 7:16</a> twice refers to the "mischief" [s:w:] done to David by Cush [<a href='B:230 7:1'>Psa 7:1</a> states the Psalm is about the words and plans of Cush]. Solomon is again referring to how the enemies of his father, whose descendants and supporters were likely still threats to Solomon, were condemned by God.</p>


text:
<p>24:3 Through wisdom a house is built; by understanding it is established-</p><p>The "house" here refers to David's house / family- but this was established through Solomon's line by God's gracious promise to David, not by Solomon's wisdom. Again, his wisdom and possession of academic truth led him to forget the power of grace. Solomon overlooked all the hard work that his father had done in preparing for the temple to be built- in that he claimed all glory for himself: “Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established” (<a href='B:240 24:3'>Pro 24:3</a>) he said- perfectly true, but with the self-justifying twist behind the words in his case, that he had built the temple thanks to his own wisdom. Wisdom is given, he said, to the man who is pleasing to God (<a href='B:250 2:26'>Ecc 2:26</a>)- again referring to himself.</p>


text:
<p>24:4 by knowledge the rooms are filled with all rare and beautiful treasure-</p><p>AV "chambers", an allusion to Solomon's store cities where he placed his wealth. But that wealth was a gift from God to him (<a href='B:110 3:13'>1Ki 3:13</a>), it was not because of his wisdom in itself. Again he fails to perceive grace because of his possession of Divine truth.</p>


text:
<p>24:5 A wise man has great power and a knowledgeable man increases strength-</p><p>David's house waxed stronger and stronger (<a href='B:100 3:1'>2Sa 3:1</a>)- but by grace, because God chose as a sovereign choice to work through Solomon and continue the Davidic line of rulership through him. LXX "A wise man is better than a strong man; and a man who has prudence than a large estate".</p>


text:
<p>24:6 for by wise guidance you wage your war; and victory is in many advisors-</p><p>David had two men specifically noted as his advisors / counsellors (his uncle Jonathan and Ahithophel- <a href='B:130 27:32-33'>1Ch 27:32-33</a>) and likely he had others, e.g. Nathan the prophet. Again Solomon is justifying his father's Government.</p>


text:
<p>24:7 Wisdom is too high for a fool: he doesn’t open his mouth in the gate-</p><p>Solomon's simplistic division of people into wise and foolish meant that he despised the fools. He had no interest in evangelism, in trying to persuade them. If they refused wisdom initially, he put them in the 'hopeless' basket as fools who weren't worth bothering with. He had no patience with them, no attempt to patiently persuade or engage with them. God is so different. And this is exactly the condemnatory attitude in those who today have such simplistic worldviews.</p>


text:
<p>24:8 One who plots to do evil will be called a schemer-</p><p>"Will be called" may suggest a name and shame policy by Solomon; for the wisdom given him was ostensibly to enable him to govern and judge Israel. Any who plotted against him (for that is surely the implication) would be pilloried. But Proverbs has much to say about judgment for unwisdom; there is no grace in Solomon. He had not reflected upon his father's salvation by grace alone. Or Solomon may intend this as a commentary upon how the history of his family should be read; for "schemer" is the word used by David for his enemies within the camps of Saul and Absalom (<a href='B:230 10:2'>Psa 10:2</a>; <a href='B:230 10:4'>Psa 10:4</a>; <a href='B:230 21:11'>Psa 21:11</a>; <a href='B:230 31:13'>Psa 31:13</a>; <a href='B:230 37:7'>Psa 37:7</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>24:9 The schemes of folly are sin. The mocker is detested by men-</p><p>"Is an abomination". "Abomination" is the common word for idols (e.g. <a href='B:50 7:25-26'>Deu 7:25-26</a>). Idolatry is here interpreted as things like pride and telling lies (:17). These seven things are the essence of idolatry. There is a recurring nature to them, just as idols got a grip on the mind of the worshipper. Solomon often uses the word for quiet, secret sins, words and the matters of the heart, internal attitudes and judgments (<a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a>; <a href='B:240 11:20'>Pro 11:20</a>; <a href='B:240 12:22'>Pro 12:22</a>; <a href='B:240 13:19'>Pro 13:19</a>; <a href='B:240 15:26'>Pro 15:26</a>; <a href='B:240 16:5'>Pro 16:5</a>; <a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a>; <a href='B:240 20:10'>Pro 20:10</a>; <a href='B:240 20:23'>Pro 20:23</a>; <a href='B:240 24:9'>Pro 24:9</a>; <a href='B:240 26:25'>Pro 26:25</a>; <a href='B:240 28:9'>Pro 28:9</a>; <a href='B:240 29:27'>Pro 29:27</a>). And this of course is the essence of idolatry in our age; this is the practical force to us of all Biblical teaching about idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>24:10 If you falter in the time of trouble, your strength is small-</p><p>There are many references to the "day of trouble" in David's Psalms. Solomon appears to be boasting of his father's deliverance from various 'days of trouble'. But the phrase is used of the Assyrian invasion (s:w. <a href='B:290 37:3'>Isa 37:3</a>). And some of the Proverbs were rewritten at the time by Hezekiah (<a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>24:11 Rescue those who are being led away to death! Indeed, hold back those who are staggering to the slaughter!-</p><p>AV "If thou forbear to deliver...". Sins of omission are perhaps our most besetting weakness; and to forbear to rescue others on the path to destruction is likely one of our commonest sins of omission.</p><p>David may be alluding to the situation in <a href='B:100 18:16'>2Sa 18:16</a>, where the followers of Absalom were held back [s:w:] from slaughter by David's army. And as always, Solomon wishes to give a positive spin on every historical event in the life of his father David.</p>


text:
<p>24:12 If you say, Behold, we didn’t know this; doesn’t He who weighs the hearts consider it?-</p><p>This is a great example of where the Bible is absolutely piercing in its analysis of our human psychology. For from earliest childhood, this is indeed our excuse: 'I didn't know. I didn't notice. I didn't do anything wrong'. And indeed we may not 'do' wrong, in committing sins of commission. But this is exactly our childish excuse for the great sin of omission we commit when we fail to rescue those heading for eternal death (:11).</p><p>He who keeps your soul, doesn’t He know it? -</p><p>God now weighs hearts, and only at the last day renders to every man according as his works shall be. The essence of judgment is therefore ongoing. It's not as if God is not paying attention, and will only review everything at the last day. If we believe that God keeps our soul, we should be thereby motivated to reach out and try to preserve others as He does to us.</p><p>Shall He not render to every man according to his work?-</p><p>Quoted about the last judgment in <a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a>. The "work" in view would therefore be our attitude to others, whether we kidded ourselves we didn't notice their predicament or not.</p>


text:
<p>24:13 My son, eat honey, for it is good; the droppings of the honeycomb, which are sweet to your taste-</p><p>An allusion to how Saul forbad his men to eat honey but Jonathan ate a honeycomb in defiance of this (<a href='B:90 14:29'>1Sa 14:29</a>). Another justification of his father David. But Solomon is unwittingly perhaps identifying himself with Samson, the only other Biblical character who found and ate a honeycomb- and he was well nigh destroyed by foreign women also.</p>


text:
<p>24:14 so you shall feel wisdom to be to your soul; if you have found it, then there will be a reward, your hope will not be cut off-</p><p>David's "reward" or "expectation" in the context of <a href='B:230 62:5'>Psa 62:5</a> was the continuation of his own kingdom, despite all the threats against it from the likes of Saul, Absalom and others who would usurp his Davidic kingship and kingdom. Solomon likely uses the word for "expectation" with the same subtext; that all opposition to him was based upon a false expectation which would be dashed by God (s:w. <a href='B:240 10:28'>Pro 10:28</a>; <a href='B:240 11:7'>Pro 11:7</a>; <a href='B:240 11:23'>Pro 11:23</a>; <a href='B:240 23:18'>Pro 23:18</a>; <a href='B:240 24:14'>Pro 24:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>24:15 Don’t lay in wait, wicked man, against the habitation of the righteous. Don’t destroy his resting place-</p><p>An allusion to how Saul sent men to lay in wait around David's house (<a href='B:90 19:11'>1Sa 19:11</a>). "Lie in wait" is the word for ambush. Solomon often uses the word, as if it is for him a major characteristic of sinners (<a href='B:240 1:11'>Pro 1:11</a>; <a href='B:240 1:18'>Pro 1:18</a>; <a href='B:240 7:12'>Pro 7:12</a>; <a href='B:240 12:6'>Pro 12:6</a>; <a href='B:240 23:28'>Pro 23:28</a>; <a href='B:240 24:15'>Pro 24:15</a>). But it's a rather specific word to use so often. It's as if Solomon is consciously alluding to his father's experiences at the hands of the house of Saul (s:w. <a href='B:230 10:9'>Psa 10:9</a>; <a href='B:230 59:3'>Psa 59:3</a>), whom Solomon considered a threat to his own kingship. And so he seems to rather like using the term about sinners, as if using his wisdom to have a dig at his immediate opposition.</p>


text:
<p>24:16 for a righteous man falls seven times, and rises up again; but the wicked are overthrown by calamity-</p><p>An allusion to David's moral failures- glorifying David in that he rose up after them. Seven times may suggest complete failure. The wicked are overthrown because they will not rise up from their sin in repentance. However, I have noted elsewhere in Proverbs that Solomon appears to totally whitewash David's sin with Solomon's mother Bathsheba. So he may be using "falls" not in the sense of falling into sin, but in the sense of being overwhelmed by calamity. This would give more force to the opening word of the verse: "for...". The connection with :15 is that it is futile for the wicked to try to overthrow the righteous, because the righteous will arise from whatever temporary calamity is brought upon them. This is also how the idea of 'falling' is used in :17.</p>


text:
<p>24:17 Don’t rejoice when your enemy falls, don’t let your heart be glad when he is overthrown-</p><p>Alluding to how David did not rejoice when Saul fell in battle. This section of the chapter has many references to David. Solomon is using the truths revealed to him as "wisdom" to justify and glorify his father, and thereby himself. And Divine truth can be abused in the same kind of way today.</p>


text:
<p>24:18 lest Yahweh see it, and it displease Him, and He turn away His wrath from him-</p><p>I suggested on :17 that Solomon had in view how David didn't rejoice when Saul fell. But David was genuinely sad when Saul fell, and subsequently showed grace to Saul's family. But Solomon knew nothing of grace, and is ever eager to criticize all his potential competitors for his throne. And so he makes the point that David's lack of rejoicing over Saul actually meant for sure that the wrath of God was upon Saul and his family:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>24:19 Don’t fret yourself because of evildoers; neither be envious of the wicked-</p><p>David had calmly urged not to be envious of the wicked (s:w. <a href='B:230 37:1'>Psa 37:1</a>), but he himself almost failed in this (<a href='B:230 73:3'>Psa 73:3</a> s:w:). We can profess clearly how much we are not envious of others; and then find ourselves like David, caught in a pang of crisis when we wonder why our lives cannot be like those of the world around us. Solomon simplistically commanded not to be envious of the wicked, drawing a simple contrast between the wicked, and the righteous who are not envious of them (<a href='B:240 3:31'>Pro 3:31</a>; <a href='B:240 23:17'>Pro 23:17</a>; <a href='B:240 24:1'>Pro 24:1</a>; <a href='B:240 24:19'>Pro 24:19</a> s:w:). But this is not how it was in reality with his father David, who admits to almost having given in to envy of the wicked (<a href='B:230 73:3'>Psa 73:3</a>) despite his earlier simplistic condemnation of such envy (<a href='B:230 37:1'>Psa 37:1</a>), and was only saved from that by God's gracious action on his heart (<a href='B:230 73:2'>Psa 73:2</a>). Solomon's proverbs seem to fail to address this complexity of situations because of his own self-righteousness; and yet all he says is inspired and true so far as it goes.</p>


text:
<p>24:20 for there will be no reward to the evil man; and the lamp of the wicked shall be snuffed out-</p><p>God promised to give David a light / candle in Jerusalem through the kingship continuing through Solomon (same word in <a href='B:110 11:36'>1Ki 11:36</a> "that David may have a light [candle, s:w:] always before Me in Jerusalem"]. Solomon is justifying his own taking of the throne.</p>


text:
<p>24:21 My son, fear Yahweh and the king. Don’t join those who are rebellious-</p><p>Solomon [in the context of our note on :20] is suggesting that anyone who questions his right to the throne is not fearing God, and anyone involved in rebellion will be destroyed (:22). AV "With them that are given to change". Such ultra conservatism is common in Solomon's thought; he wanted to cement himself in power permanently, and so he clamped down on any change in any context.</p>


text:
<p>24:22 for their calamity will rise suddenly; and who knows the destruction of them both?-</p><p>This is alluding to <a href='B:50 32:35'>Deu 32:35</a> about the sudden calamity of Israel as a nation if they turn to idolatry. But Solomon applies this language to any group of individuals within Israel who might be rebellious against his rule (:21). Again, he is using Divine truths to bolster his own personal position. But again Solomon is too simplistic in assuming that "calamity" is the judgment of the rebellious. For David his father experienced plenty of calamity (s:w. <a href='B:100 22:19'>2Sa 22:19</a>). But this contradicts the simplistic worldview which Solomon wishes to present, whereby the wise have wonderful lives, and the foolish are sinners whose lives are full of calamity. It was this simplistic worldview, failing to perceive that bad things happen to good people, and good people also sin and are foolish at times, which led Solomon to the conceit which was his destruction.</p>


text:
<p>24:23 These also are sayings of the wise<strong>- </strong></p><p>The rest of this chapter is a separate and third section, incorporated into the anthology which is the book of Proverbs. But it is effectively an appendix to the second section.</p><p>To show partiality in judgment is not good-</p><p>Solomon was famous for his wise judgment of the two prostitutes. He showed no partiality in that judgment. And so again, whilst what he says is true, he is using Divine truths to justify himself. And he is also having a swipe at his competitor Absalom, who set himself up as the judge of Israel and yet showed partiality towards his potential supporters (<a href='B:100 15:5-6'>2Sa 15:5-6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>24:24 He who says to the wicked, You are righteous; peoples shall curse him, and nations shall abhor him-</p><p>An indirect criticism of Absalom's unjust giving of judgment being the basis upon which he garnered support for his rebellion against David (<a href='B:100 15:6'>2Sa 15:6</a>). The allusion is to <a href='B:50 15:1'>Deu 15:1</a>. Solomon repeats this idea in <a href='B:110 8:32'>1Ki 8:32</a>, where he says that God condemns the wicked but justifies the righteous. And in <a href='B:240 24:24'>Pro 24:24</a> and other Proverbs, he teaches that this is how men should judge, lest they be cursed. But by having this position, he shows his total lack of appreciation of God's grace to his father David. For David was worthy of condemnation, but by grace, he the wicked was justified, counted righteous, when he was not (<a href='B:230 32:2'>Psa 32:2</a> cp. <a href='B:520 4:4-6'>Rom 4:4-6</a>). This lack of appreciation of grace arose from how it seems Solomon totally whitewashed the sin of his father David with his mother Bathsheba. And it resulted in his lack of grace, and failure throughout Proverbs to appreciate that human behaviour is nuanced, and is not simply divided between spotlessly righteous behaviour and terrible sinfulness.</p>


text:
<p>24:25 but it will go well with those who convict the guilty, and a rich blessing will come on them-</p><p>As noted on :24, Solomon fails to appreciate that God does not convict the guilty in every case, but imputed righteousness to the likes of his father David. God's blessing is in fact the imputation of righteousness to the guilty "without works" (<a href='B:520 4:6'>Rom 4:6</a>). But the "blessing" can be read as the blessing and approbation of men; hence LXX "But they that reprove him shall appear more excellent, and blessing shall come upon them". What seems to matter to Solomon is how justice appears to men, rather than reflecting God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>24:26 An honest answer is like a kiss on the lips-</p><p>AV "Every man shall kiss his lips that giveth a right answer". This smacks of the self congratulatory attitude of Solomon throughout Proverbs. LXX likewise "Every man shall kiss his lips that giveth a right answer". The answer in view would be the legalistic, harsh judgment of :25. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p>24:27 Prepare your work outside, and get your fields ready. Afterwards, build your house-</p><p>Justifying how David prepared for the building of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>24:28 Don’t be a witness against your neighbour without cause. Don’t deceive with your lips-</p><p>David is called Saul's "neighbour" (<a href='B:90 15:28'>1Sa 15:28</a>; <a href='B:90 28:17'>1Sa 28:17</a>). And he persecuted David "without cause" (<a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a>; <a href='B:230 35:7'>Psa 35:7</a>; <a href='B:230 35:19'>Psa 35:19</a> <a href='B:230 69:4'>Psa 69:4</a>; <a href='B:230 109:3'>Psa 109:3</a>; <a href='B:230 119:161'>Psa 119:161</a> etc:). Solomon has much to say about true and false witnesses (<a href='B:240 6:19'>Pro 6:19</a>; <a href='B:240 12:17'>Pro 12:17</a>; <a href='B:240 14:5'>Pro 14:5</a>; <a href='B:240 14:25'>Pro 14:25</a>; <a href='B:240 19:5'>Pro 19:5</a>; <a href='B:240 19:9'>Pro 19:9</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>; <a href='B:240 21:28'>Pro 21:28</a>; <a href='B:240 24:28'>Pro 24:28</a>; <a href='B:240 25:18'>Pro 25:18</a>). Whilst his warnings are true enough, he surely has an element of self justification in what he writes. Because he was aware that his parents, David and Bathsheba, had been accused of many things which had led to all the opposition against David at the end of his reign, and which opposition Solomon had to contend with in order to retain the throne for himself. David laments the false witness of the house of Saul and his own sons, Solomon's half brothers (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 35:11'>Psa 35:11</a>). The continual condemnation of false witnesses must be understood in this context. Whilst it is all true so far as it goes, Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p>


text:
<p>24:29 Don’t say, I will do to him as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work-</p><p>True enough, but a justification of his father David's refusal to kill Saul. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>24:30 I went by the field of the lazy, by the vineyard of the man void of understanding-</p><p>The Proverbs contain repeated condemnation of laziness. Lack of a zealous work ethic is a rejection of wisdom, according to Solomon. As Solomon explains in Ecclesiastes 1, he was an active person, not lazy by nature. And yet he lacked spirituality. He claimed that his service of God was due to his spirituality, but it was in reality merely a semblance of serving God when it was really just reinforcing his own personality type. His mocking of the "sluggard" or "lazy one" is so frequent (<a href='B:240 6:6'>Pro 6:6</a>; <a href='B:240 6:9'>Pro 6:9</a>; <a href='B:240 10:26'>Pro 10:26</a>; <a href='B:240 13:4'>Pro 13:4</a>; <a href='B:240 15:19'>Pro 15:19</a>; <a href='B:240 19:24'>Pro 19:24</a>; <a href='B:240 20:4'>Pro 20:4</a>; <a href='B:240 21:25'>Pro 21:25</a>; <a href='B:240 22:13'>Pro 22:13</a>; <a href='B:240 24:30'>Pro 24:30</a>; <a href='B:240 26:13-16'>Pro 26:13-16</a>). But it is a reflection of his own works-based approach to righteousness; the 'wise' "do" good things, and the wicked don't do enough good things. Personal spiritual mindedness and relationship with God are simply not emphasized.</p>


text:
<p>24:31 behold, it was all grown over with thorns. Its surface was covered with nettles, and its stone wall was broken down-</p><p>I will suggest on :32,33 that this is not a mature attitude; see on :30. The broken down wall of Israel (<a href='B:290 5:5'>Isa 5:5</a>; <a href='B:330 13:14'>Eze 13:14</a>) was not a result of Israel's&nbsp; lack of hard work or laziness. Walls are broken down and houses left desolate for many reasons, not least Divine judgment of men because they refused to believe in Him, rather than because they were lazy. For works cannot save.</p>


text:
<p>24:32 Then I saw, and considered well. I saw, and received instruction-</p><p>On this point of the need for hard work, Solomon is at best immature; see on :33. It is therefore significant that he doesn't claim this to be part of the package of Divine wisdom given to him; rather he says he worked this out from his own observations of broken down houses and farmsteads, and in mock humility claims to have thereby "received instruction". See on <a href='B:240 7:6'>Pro 7:6</a>; <a href='B:240 16:19'>Pro 16:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>24:33 a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep-</p><p>This despising of sleep is in contrast to the spiritual maturity of David, who understood that true blessing comes from God alone and not from human works, and God gives His beloved sleep, in contrast to vainly rising early and working late to achieve blessing (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>). Time and again, we find Solomon glorifying "my father David", seeking to live out parental expectations; and yet quite out of step with David's spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>24:34 so your poverty will come as a robber, and your want as an armed man-</p><p>Solomon repeatedly sees poverty as being the fault of the poor, and their refusal of his teaching of wisdom (s:w. <a href='B:240 6:11'>Pro 6:11</a>; <a href='B:240 10:4'>Pro 10:4</a>; <a href='B:240 10:15'>Pro 10:15</a>; <a href='B:240 13:7-8'>Pro 13:7-8</a>; <a href='B:240 13:18'>Pro 13:18</a>; <a href='B:240 13:23'>Pro 13:23</a>; <a href='B:240 24:34'>Pro 24:34</a>; <a href='B:240 28:19'>Pro 28:19</a>; <a href='B:240 31:7'>Pro 31:7</a>). Many of these passages are effectively mocking the poor, which Solomon condemns in <a href='B:240 17:5'>Pro 17:5</a>. He fails to take his own wisdom, as we also see in his behaviour with foreign women. Again we see Solomon's works based approach to righteousness, and lack of grace; refusing to accept that we are all poor men before God, as David himself exemplified when he cried to God as a poor man (<a href='B:230 34:6'>Psa 34:6</a>). But his much beloved father David was unashamed to say he was a materially "poor man" (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>); and Uriah, whom he wronged, is described also as a "poor man" (<a href='B:100 12:1'>2Sa 12:1</a>). The poor were to be defended and given to (<a href='B:230 82:3'>Psa 82:3</a>), and the Bible is clear that poverty isn't necessarily a result of sin or unwisdom. But Solomon fails to appreciate this, so obsessed is he with works, and the idea that obedience to his anthology of Proverbs will make the poor prosperous, as if God's truth is a kind of wealth creation scheme:&nbsp;</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>25:1</p><p>These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out-</p><p>This begins the fourth section of the anthology of wisdom sayings which Solomon put together in this book of Proverbs. It seems that just as Solomon used these Divine truths to justify himself, and it led to his spiritual undoing, so Hezekiah may have likewise used these Proverbs with an agenda of self justification. This doesn't make them untrue or not Divinely inspired; but Divine truth is being used at times with the subtext of self justification, just as it can be today.</p>


text:
<p>25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter-</p><p>This is not to be read as meaning that God plays hard to get, hiding Himself, leaving the Bible as a riddle to be solved, with relationship with God offered to those who crack it. God is in search of man, and is desperate to connect with us. The idea may be that it is His glory which conceals Him, but we can as it were see through that glory if we know Him. The reference to the glory of kings being to search out God would sound like Solomon implying he has the glory of having found God. And yet if so, he is totally missing the point that man cannot by searching find out God (<a href='B:220 11:7'>Job 11:7</a>); rather it is by grace that God reveals Himself to men. And God is in search of man, far more than we are searching for Him. We only love because He first loved us; and it is more a question of God knowing us than our knowing Him.</p><p>LXX "The glory of God conceals a matter: but the glory of a king honours business". This could be read as a justification of Hezekiah's wrongful handling of the business of the Babylonian ambassadors; see on :1,25.</p>


text:
<p>25:3 As the heavens for height, and the earth for depth, so the hearts of kings are unsearchable-</p><p>This appears to be Solomon implying that he as king was beyond analysis or criticism by others, because his heart was unsearchable. But David his father used the same word in saying that God is unsearchable (s:w. <a href='B:230 145:3'>Psa 145:3</a>; <a href='B:220 9:10'>Job 9:10</a>; <a href='B:220 11:7'>Job 11:7</a>). But Solomon lacked this sense of wonder because he had no personal relationship with God, and so he comes to use terms only appropriate to God in his own self defence and aggrandizement.</p>


text:
<p>25:4 Take away the dross from the silver, and material comes out for the refiner-</p><p>"Dross" is used by David to refer to the house of Saul (see on <a href='B:230 119:119'>Psa 119:119</a>). It would seem that Solomon has this in view. But "take away" is LXX "beat out", and the Proverbs have much to say about beating. Solomon ended up beating his own people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>, and he justifies this by quasi spiritual reasoning, forcing his Proverbs to justify his poor behaviour.</p>


text:
<p>25:5 remove the wicked from the king’s presence, and his throne will be established in righteousness-</p><p>This was justifying the way he killed Shimei at the establishment of his kingdom. The promises to David involved the establishment of Solomon’s throne. But God had declared clearly enough that this depended upon Solomon’s personal spirituality. But he willfully failed to see this, deciding that: “Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness” (<a href='B:240 25:5'>Pro 25:5</a> AV). He externalized righteousness, believing in a form of guilt-by-association, which the righteous would avoid. He redefined righteousness not as anything personal, but a separation from sinners. And there is no lack of evidence that the Christian community has in places and at times fallen into some similar form of legalism. His concept of righteousness was not God’s. He forgot all about personal holiness, and instead focused upon not being guilty by association with sinners. And he thought this would justify him as righteous. The same error has been made so many times since. For how often has it happened that brethren who have had the most to say about separation from “the wicked” reveal personal lives which are anything but righteous. Solomon's attitude to being king was similar.</p>


text:
<p>25:6 Don’t exalt yourself in the presence of the king, or claim a place among great men-</p><p>Solomon thought that his possession of theoretical wisdom placed him in a God-like position above his people (see on :3), and therefore they dare not even begin to question him or examine him; and none should therefore dare to ‘put himself forth’ in the King’s presence (<a href='B:240 25:6'>Pro 25:6</a> AV). Truly, “knowledge puffs up”. And our very possession of ‘the truth’ of Christ and the word of God carries with it the same potential temptations, leading us to consider the world so far beneath us, that we can do what we wish with no accountability to anyone. And so brethren with amazing Biblical knowledge end up in court for pedophilia, etc. etc.</p>


text:
<p>25:7 for it is better that it be said to you, Come up here, than that you should be put lower in the presence of the prince, whom your eyes have seen-</p><p>These words are worked by the Lord Jesus into His parable of the final judgment (<a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a>). But Solomon's original idea is that he is the undisputed prince, to whom there should be no opposition. Any who rise up closer to the throne would do so by Solomon's express invitation; and any who tried to rise up without that would be shamed. The Lord Jesus reapplied all this to Himself and His Kingdom and judgment. Solomon wrongly imagine his kingdom to be God's Kingdom, and himself the Messianic ruler. And so the Lord's parable alludes to Solomon's words and corrects them.</p>


text:
<p>25:8 Don’t be hasty in bringing charges to court. What will you do in the end when your neighbour shames you?-</p><p>"Bringing charges to court" is AV "strive" and that may simply be the meaning; it is the same word for "debate" in :9. But it is all the same true that recourse to the judiciary is not the ideal thing for believers, as Paul also says. Rather should there be discussion between individuals and seeking for resolution (:9). But the motive for Solomon's advice is so that you don't get shame if you are judged to be in the wrong (:10). This desperate avoidance of shame at all costs is a major theme in Solomon's Proverbs, and reflects his overall focus upon the external rather than the internal. He does indeed talk about the heart, but on balance I would conclude that he is more concerned about appearances before men than before God. And this led to his own spiritual downfall.</p>


text:
<p>25:9 Debate your case with your neighbour, and don’t betray the confidence of another-</p><p>See on :8. The advice in :8 is not to "debate" at all (s:w. 'bring charges to court'). The endless need to 'take the matter up' with others really reflects much about our own insecurity. The 'debating' in view appears to involve betraying the confidence of another. If we hear gossip about another, we are to seek to disregard it, rather than go to our neighbour and raise / debate the matter. We are not to gossip, nor are we to distribute gossip; he that utters or distributes a slander is a fool (<a href='B:240 10:18'>Pro 10:18</a>). This is an Old Testament foretaste of the spirit of love expounded in 1 Corinthians 13 in the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p>25:10 lest one who hears it put you to shame, and your bad reputation never depart-</p><p>This desperate avoidance of shame at all costs is a major theme in Solomon's Proverbs, and reflects his overall focus upon the external rather than the internal. He does indeed talk about the heart, but on balance I would conclude that he is more concerned about appearances before men than before God. And this led to his own spiritual downfall.</p>


text:
<p>25:11 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver-</p><p>Appropriate speech to others is compared here to the spreading and action upon gossip condemned in :9,10. The idea seems to be that good words will be preserved as an ornament (:12), beautifully framed. This may be true, but Solomon as ever has the subtext inserted of his own self justification; for it is his words of wisdom which he knew were to be preserved, and he was compiling the book of Proverbs as a permanent record of his words, as an ornament. Settings is LXX "in a necklace of sardius", connecting with the idea of body jewelry in :12. But Solomon was blown away by the jewelry of his illicit Gentile girlfriend; he looked on the external, rather than on the internal. "The necklace you are wearing has stolen my heart" (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a> GNB).</p>


text:
<p>25:12 As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover to an obedient ear-</p><p>This again may be Solomon's justification of his father David, who was obedient to the reproofs of Nathan, regarding Bathsheba and the temple building project. But again the hint is of external show; the obedient ear is outwardly adorned with a gold earring. Wisdom is portrayed as profitable because of the good public image it creates for the wise.</p>


text:
<p>25:13 As the cold of snow in the time of harvest-</p><p>This is hyperbole, because it contradicts <a href='B:240 26:1'>Pro 26:1</a>, where snow in harvest is a curse. What Solomon says is always true in a sense. But he seeks to exaggerate wisdom and folly to such an extent that he ends up with a simplistic dichotomy between good people and bad people which is unrealistic to the point of being false. Because wise people suffer and fail; and fools are sometimes wise. Human behaviour and its outcomes are not so simply divisible. The wise don't enjoy wonderful lives, nor do fools have miserable lives. The final outcomes are not in this life, as Solomon wrongly implies, but at the last day and in the eternity of God's future Kingdom- which perspective Solomon simply fails to adopt.</p><p>So is a faithful messenger to those who send him; for he refreshes the soul of his masters-</p><p>This positive comment about faithful ambassadors must be read in the context of the fact that <a href='B:240 25:13'>Pro 25:13</a> was one of the Proverbs rewritten in Hezekiah's time. He sinned with regard to the ambassadors of Babylon (<a href='B:140 32:31'>2Ch 32:31</a>), but perhaps he was led into this by willfully misreading this Proverb, or at least getting it rewritten with the subtext of justifying what he did. See on :2,25:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>25:14 As clouds and wind without rain, so is he who boasts of gifts deceptively-</p><p>LXX "As winds and clouds and rains are most evident objects, so is he that boasts of a false gift". I suggested on :1 that these words were rewritten at the time of Hezekiah. The boasting of gifts deceptively would then refer to the false claims of Rabshakeh to give Judah a land of blessing, or to offer them horses upon which to fight him.</p>


text:
<p>25:15 By patience a ruler is persuaded; a soft tongue breaks the bone-</p><p>The Hebrew for "persuaded" is nearly always translated "deceived". The connection of a soft tongue is with <a href='B:240 15:1'>Pro 15:1</a>, where a soft answer turns away wrath. This would have relevance to the soft answers of Isaiah and Hezekiah to the princes of Assyria, which resulted in the turning away of the angry Assyrian army. So whilst this verse is [as ever] true as it stands, there is the subtext added which glorifies Hezekiah' response to the Assyrian crisis; see on :1.</p>


text:
<p>25:16 Have you found honey? Eat as much as is sufficient for you, lest you eat too much and vomit it-</p><p>Solomon warns about only eating a limited amount of the honey you may find. Yet Ecclesiastes 1, 2 show how Solomon found honey as it were, he had the opportunity to do and experience what he wanted- and he ate so much he became spiritually sick. The allusion may be to <a href='B:220 20:15'>Job 20:15</a>, where the man who has gained riches wrongfully vomits them up (s:w:). The same word is used of eating too much honey, and vomiting it up (<a href='B:240 25:16'>Pro 25:16</a>). All this is true, but <a href='B:240 23:8'>Pro 23:8</a> says that eating the tasty food of the wicked ruler will also lead to vomiting it up. Again Solomon may be cementing his own power, suggesting that any other wealthy ruler is somehow fake, and to sit at his table, in acceptance of him, would be like eating too much honey, partaking in riches wrongfully acquired. Perhaps he has Jeroboam in view:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>25:17 Let your foot be seldom in your neighbour’s house, lest he be weary of you and hate you-</p><p>This must be connected with :18; the warning is against being such a busybody in your neighbour's life that you end up falsely testifying about him to others.</p>


text:
<p>25:18 A man who gives false testimony against his neighbour is like a club, a sword, or a sharp arrow-</p><p>Solomon has much to say about true and false witnesses (<a href='B:240 6:19'>Pro 6:19</a>; <a href='B:240 12:17'>Pro 12:17</a>; <a href='B:240 14:5'>Pro 14:5</a>; <a href='B:240 14:25'>Pro 14:25</a>; <a href='B:240 19:5'>Pro 19:5</a>; <a href='B:240 19:9'>Pro 19:9</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>; <a href='B:240 21:28'>Pro 21:28</a>; <a href='B:240 24:28'>Pro 24:28</a>; <a href='B:240 25:18'>Pro 25:18</a>). Whilst his warnings are true enough, he surely has an element of self justification in what he writes. Because he was aware that his parents, David and Bathsheba, had been accused of many things which had led to all the opposition against David at the end of his reign, and which opposition Solomon had to contend with in order to retain the throne for himself. David laments the false witness of the house of Saul and his own sons, Solomon's half brothers (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 35:11'>Psa 35:11</a>). The continual condemnation of false witnesses must be understood in this context. Whilst it is all true so far as it goes, Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p>


text:
<p>25:19 Confidence in someone unfaithful in time of trouble is like a bad tooth or a lame foot-</p><p>There are many references to the "day of trouble" in David's Psalms. Solomon appears to be boasting of his father's deliverance from various 'days of trouble'. But the phrase is used of the Assyrian invasion (s:w. <a href='B:290 37:3'>Isa 37:3</a>). And this and some of the Proverbs were rewritten at the time by Hezekiah (<a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>). "Confidence" is the word for "trust" associated with Hezekiah's trust in Yahweh, and perhaps the relevance to his times is that trust in Egypt for deliverance from the Assyrians didn't work out.</p><p>"Transgressors" or "unfaithful" is the term used by David of Saul and his supporters (<a href='B:230 25:3'>Psa 25:3</a>; <a href='B:230 59:5'>Psa 59:5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:158'>Psa 119:158</a>). Solomon uses this term, teaching that "transgressors" must be rooted out of the earth / eretz promised to Abraham (<a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a>), and that the "transgressors" are to face judgment (<a href='B:240 11:3'>Pro 11:3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:6'>Pro 11:6</a>; <a href='B:240 13:2'>Pro 13:2</a>; <a href='B:240 21:18'>Pro 21:18</a>; <a href='B:240 22:12'>Pro 22:12</a>; <a href='B:240 23:28'>Pro 23:28</a>; <a href='B:240 25:19'>Pro 25:19</a>). All Solomon says is true, but he clearly has in view the house and supporters of Saul, who were a group he felt he needed to repress in order to keep his own kingdom and power intact.</p>


text:
<p>25:20 As one who takes away a garment in cold weather, or vinegar on soda, so is one who sings songs to a heavy heart-</p><p>The taking away of a garment may be a comment upon the man who demands back the pledge of a garment overnight (<a href='B:50 24:13'>Deu 24:13</a>). We marvel at how the God who is so apparently far removed from this world actually knows and feels for the desperately poor, and imagines their situations. And wishes to legislate on their behalf. And He is no less sensitive today. LXX "As vinegar is bad for a sore, so trouble befalling the body afflicts the heart".</p>


text:
<p>25:21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat. If he is thirsty, give him water to drink-</p><p>This was a radical paradigm break with the general philosophy that enemies were to be hated. Solomon however elsewhere urges strict judgment upon others for their failures; and he showed no grace in his own life. So we see the warning of knowing all about grace, but acting as if untouched by it. Which is a challenging warning to we who profess to live under grace. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>25:22 for you will heap coals of fire on his head, and Yahweh will reward you-</p><p>"Hot coals" is the word used to figuratively describe condemnation (<a href='B:230 120:4'>Psa 120:4</a>; <a href='B:230 140:10'>Psa 140:10</a>; <a href='B:240 6:28'>Pro 6:28</a>; <a href='B:240 25:22'>Pro 25:22</a>; <a href='B:240 26:21'>Pro 26:21</a>). But God hates having to condemn the wicked, he takes no pleasure in this, but rather wishes their salvation. So although what Solomon says is true enough, and apparently quoted with approval in the New Testament (<a href='B:520 12:20'>Rom 12:20</a>), we wonder whether he really had any kind of a heart for grace and the salvation of others. For he seems to reason as if we should be kind to our enemy so that he might later be condemned- rather than in the hope that our grace might lead him to repentance.</p><p>The fire of condemnation at the judgment has already been kindled by men's attitudes now (<a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a>), and hence by doing good to such men when they abuse us we (now) "heap coals of fire upon his head". "Your enemy" here must therefore refer to someone who is responsible to the last judgment. <a href='B:600 3:15'>2Th 3:15</a> implies 'an enemy' was first century vocabulary for a shunned and rejected false teacher. See on <a href='B:720 1:23'>Jud 1:23</a>. By showing grace to your enemy within the people of God / the church who refuses to repent, you are actually making his final punishment worse.</p><p>But I don't understand this as meaning that our motivation for such kindness should be the gleeful thought that we will thereby earn for them greater and more painful condemnation at the last day. Such motives would surely be foreign to all we have seen and known in the Father and Son. Rather am I attracted to the suggestion that there is a reference here to the practice, originating in Egypt, of putting a pan of hot coals over the head of a person who has openly repented. In which case, we would be being taught to show grace to our enemies, in order that we might bring them to repentance. This would chime in with the teaching elsewhere in Romans that God's goodness leads us to repentance (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a>). And this is how we should be, especially with our brethren. The idea of excluding our brethren seems to me the very opposite of the spirit of grace which we have received.</p><p>Paul quotes the words of <a href='B:240 25:21-22'>Pro 25:21-22</a> in <a href='B:520 12:20'>Rom 12:20</a>. But he omits to apply the last part of <a href='B:240 25:22'>Pro 25:22</a> to us: "And the Lord shall reward you". Paul's point is that we should not resist evil, leave God to glorify His Name- and enable this to happen, without seeking for a personal reward for our righteousness. It's as if Paul is saying: 'The condemnation of the wicked, when God, not you, pours out His vengeance, will glorify Him. So do your part to bring this about, don't worry about the reward you're promised so much as the bringing about of His glory'.</p>


text:
<p>25:23 The north wind brings forth rain: so a backbiting tongue brings an angry face-</p><p>GNB "Gossip brings anger". Solomon rightly condemns gossip and the stirring up of divisions. But he is writing up his Divinely given wisdom at the start of his reign, where there were various groups of opposition to him. These groupings had all arisen from the divisions which arose after his parents' sin with each other; they were a consequence for David's sin, which Nathan had prophesied. Inevitably, David's behaviour had invited all manner of gossip and strife. But Solomon seems to blame this on the gossipers, and carefully considers they alone are guilty; for he is ever glorifying and whitewashing his father David.</p>


text:
<p>25:24 It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than to share a house with a contentious woman-</p><p>A man on a housetop recalls the story of David's sin with Solomon's mother, Bathsheba. I detected on <a href='B:240 18:22'>Pro 18:22</a> Solomon's justification of David's divorce with Michal. And here too there is a subtext, however unconscious even. Solomon appears to have totally whitewashed his parents, and any consequence of David's sins are blamed by Solomon upon his half brothers and foolish men, as if they were totally guilty and David totally innocent; for this was his worldview. See on <a href='B:240 21:8'>Pro 21:8</a>; <a href='B:240 21:19'>Pro 21:19</a>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>25:25 Like cold water to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country-</p><p>This is one of the Proverbs reapplied to Hezekiah (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>). The good news or gospel from a far country could refer to the news from Ethiopia which made the Assyrians withdraw from Jerusalem. But "a far country" in the Old Testament often refers to Babylon, and is the phrase used about the ambassadors from there who were Hezekiah's undoing (<a href='B:290 39:3'>Isa 39:3</a>). This could be read as a justification of Hezekiah's wrongful handling of the business of the Babylonian ambassadors; see on :1,2,13:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>25:26 Like a muddied spring, and a polluted well, so is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked-</p><p>David in his earlier Psalms exalts and boasts to God that his feet have not slipped, indeed he was overly confident that his feet would never slip / "be moved" (<a href='B:230 17:5'>Psa 17:5</a>; <a href='B:230 21:7'>Psa 21:7</a>; <a href='B:230 55:22'>Psa 55:22</a>; <a href='B:230 62:2'>Psa 62:2</a>; <a href='B:230 62:6'>Psa 62:6</a>; <a href='B:230 125:1'>Psa 125:1</a>). His more mature reflection is that he had wrongly said "I shall never slip [AV "be moved"]" (<a href='B:230 30:6'>Psa 30:6</a>), and his feet had indeed slipped, not least over the Bathsheba incident (<a href='B:230 38:16'>Psa 38:16</a>; <a href='B:230 94:18'>Psa 94:18</a>). Solomon didn't learn this lesson, for he likewise assumed that the righteous would never be moved / slip (<a href='B:240 10:30'>Pro 10:30</a>), although he appears to accept that even a righteous man like his father had indeed slipped (<a href='B:240 25:26'>Pro 25:26</a>). And Solomon himself did so, not learning the lesson from his father's mistaken assumption that the righteous can never slip.</p>


text:
<p>25:27 It is not good to eat much honey; nor is it honourable to seek one’s own honour-</p><p>See on :16. Solomon was so sure of his own rightness that he just couldn't conceive that in reality he might sin or break the principles he preached. He describes in Ecclesiastes how he indulged every possible desire, and took each of his lusts to its ultimate term. Yet he warned his son to only eat honey in moderation, i:e. don't gorge your natural desires. This sense of the impossibility of spiritual failure is stamped all over Solomon; and it has been the downfall of so many others too.</p><p>LXX "It is not good to eat much honey; but it is right to honour venerable sayings". This would suggest that the honey refers to teachings, and Solomon is basically implying that his sayings should be honoured, and any others rejected.</p>


text:
<p>25:28 Like a city that is broken down and without walls is a man whose spirit is without restraint-</p><p>LXX "So is a man who does anything without counsel". Again as noted on :1, this may be a justification of Hezekiah, who dealt with the Assyrian crisis by saying he trusted in God's counsel to overcome the Assyrians (<a href='B:120 18:20'>2Ki 18:20</a>). Like Solomon, Hezekiah's Proverbs are all Divinely inspired and true, but he seems to insert into them a subtext of self justification.</p>


text:
<p>26:1 Like snow in summer and as rain in harvest, so honour is not fitting for a fool-</p><p>We note the apparent contradiction with <a href='B:240 25:13'>Pro 25:13</a>, where snow in the time of harvest is seen as a blessing. This is hyperbole, because it contradicts what we read here in <a href='B:240 26:1'>Pro 26:1</a>, where snow in harvest is a curse. What Solomon says is always true in a sense. But he seeks to exaggerate wisdom and folly to such an extent that he ends up with a simplistic dichotomy between good people and bad people which is unrealistic to the point of being false. Because wise people suffer and fail; and fools are sometimes wise. Human behaviour and its outcomes are not so simply divisible. The wise don't enjoy wonderful lives, nor do fools have miserable lives. The final outcomes are not in this life, as Solomon wrongly implies, but at the last day and in the eternity of God's future Kingdom- which perspective Solomon simply fails to adopt.</p>


text:
<p>26:2 Like a fluttering sparrow, like a darting swallow, so the undeserved curse doesn’t come to rest-</p><p>Perhaps as GNB "Curses cannot hurt you unless you deserve them. They are like birds that fly by and never light". As noted on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, these Proverbs are relevant to the Hezekiah and Assyria situation, and the reference may be to the curses of Rabshakeh against Yahweh and His people. By contrast, Yahweh saved Jerusalem at that time "as birds flying" (<a href='B:290 31:5'>Isa 31:5</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>26:3 A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools!-</p><p>In&nbsp; tandem&nbsp; with&nbsp; Solomon's later&nbsp; lack&nbsp; of&nbsp; conscience&nbsp; and real spiritual mindedness, there arose&nbsp; an&nbsp; incredible&nbsp; hardness in Solomon in his later life. His wisdom initially&nbsp; made him soft and sympathetic, able to empathize with the&nbsp; mind of others (e.g. the prostitute mother of the baby); and even before his&nbsp; endowment&nbsp; with&nbsp; the&nbsp; gift&nbsp; of wisdom he had the humility to recognize&nbsp; that he was but a little child (<a href='B:110 3:7'>1Ki 3:7</a>) . But as his&nbsp; apostacy&nbsp; developed,&nbsp; he&nbsp; came&nbsp; to whip his people (<a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>),&nbsp; treating&nbsp; them&nbsp; as&nbsp; he&nbsp; thought fools should be treated (<a href='B:240 26:3'>Pro 26:3</a>)-&nbsp; suggesting that he came to see himself as the only wise&nbsp; man,&nbsp; the&nbsp; only&nbsp; one&nbsp; truly&nbsp; in&nbsp; touch&nbsp; with&nbsp; reality, and therefore&nbsp; despising everyone else. <a href='B:110 5:13-16'>1Ki 5:13-16</a> reveals that Solomon&nbsp; had&nbsp; 153,000&nbsp; full&nbsp; time&nbsp; and&nbsp; 90,000&nbsp; part&nbsp; time&nbsp; male servants:&nbsp; Israel's&nbsp; complaint&nbsp; that&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; had&nbsp; whipped them implies&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; treated them like slaves, with himself as the slave-driver:&nbsp;</p><p>LXX "As a whip for a horse, and a goad for an ass, so&nbsp;is&nbsp;a rod for a simple nation". It was this attitude which led Solomon to beat his own people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). Like many who hold God's truth, the mere holding of it lifted Solomon up in pride, and he came to despise all others who didn't accept his wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>26:4 Don’t answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him-</p><p>This verses is clearly intended to be connected with :5, the idea being that there are times when a fool should be answered according to his folly, and times when he shouldn't be. This is one of the Hezekiah Proverbs (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>), and the allusion may be to how Hezekiah commanded the people not to answer Rabshakeh (<a href='B:120 18:36'>2Ki 18:36</a>), who is thereby interpreted as the archetypical "fool". But a fool must at times be answered (<a href='B:240 26:5'>Pro 26:5</a>), and the idea may be that God will answer fools like Rabshakeh in His own way and in His own time; and we don't need to. But we then get the hint that Hezekiah, like Solomon, was using the Divine truth of the Proverbs with a subtext of his own self justification, just as we can. See on :6,7,8,16.</p>


text:
<p>26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes-</p><p>Solomon may have in view how God resurrected Samuel to rebuke the foolish Saul, the night before his death. Solomon is continually making historical allusions which justify his father and mock his competitors for the throne. See on :4.</p>


text:
<p>26:6 One who sends a message by the hand of a fool is cutting off his own feet and drinking violence-</p><p>I suggested on :4 that this is one of the Hezekiah Proverbs, specifically relevant to the situation during the Assyrian encirclement of Jerusalem. Rabshakeh, the servant of the king of Assyria, is presented as a "fool", and by using him, the king of Assyria was cutting off his own feet. This and other of Hezekiah's Proverbs (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) which mock messengers would then be the reference of <a href='B:120 19:21'>2Ki 19:21</a>, where we read that the daughter of Zion had mocked at and despised the Assyrians and their messengers. There is no other recorded fulfilment of this. Defeat by Assyria looked certain, and so to mock them at the time when they would [humanly speaking] soon be seeking their grace- was a true act of faith. See on :16.</p>


text:
<p>26:7 Like the legs of the lame that hang loose: so is a parable in the mouth of fools-</p><p>LXX "As well&nbsp;take away the motion of the legs, as transgression from the mouth of fools". This would then continue the mockery of the messengers of the King of Assyria (see on :6). But on a more general level, it is true that parables are actually to confirm the fools in their foolishness; this was the reason the Lord effectively gave when asked why He had started speaking in parables. It was so that the audience might not understand (see on <a href='B:470 13:13-14'>Mat 13:13-14</a>). See on :9.</p>


text:
<p>26:8 As one who binds a stone in a sling, so is he who gives honour to a fool-</p><p>I suggested on :4,6 that the particular fool in view is Rabshakeh, who had been honoured by the king of Assyria. But because of God's anger with this "fool", the military technology of Assyria would be confounded. Not a stone would be hurled at Jerusalem- exactly as stated in <a href='B:120 19:32'>2Ki 19:32</a>.</p>


text:
<p>26:9 Like a thorn that goes into the hand of a drunk person, so is a parable in the mouth of fools-</p><p>"Parable" is the usual word for "Proverb" used of Solomon's Proverbs. He is saying that they will do no good to fools, nor will they be effective if taught by the mouth of fools. The idea of the Proverbs is that they are to be as thorns, provoking our response; but the fool is as it were drunk, and it will have no effect upon them. This is true to an extent. But Solomon is effectively saying that there is no point in trying further to educate those he classifies as "fools". And this is seen in the attitude of so many who claim to have "the truth". It is in sharp contrast to the continually searching, seeking attitude of the Father and Son, who approach the lost as if they are going to keep seeking them until they find them.</p>


text:
<p>26:10 As an archer who wounds all, so is he who hires a fool or he who hires those who pass by-</p><p>The reference to the Hezekiah / Assyria situation continues. For the Assyrians hired passers by as their mercenaries in their onslaught against Jerusalem. They are mocked as foolish; see on :4. Their archers would be ineffective because "not an arrow shall be fired" against Zion (<a href='B:120 19:32'>2Ki 19:32</a>). Such mockery was an act of faith, seeing that defeat and begging for mercy from the Assyrians seemed inevitable, humanly speaking. LXX "All the flesh of fools endures much hardship; for their fury is brought to nought". This recalls <a href='B:290 51:13'>Isa 51:13</a> about the Assyrians: "Where is the fury of the oppressor?".</p>


text:
<p>26:11 As a dog that returns to his vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly-</p><p>This is true, and is quoted in <a href='B:680 2:22'>2Pe 2:22</a>. Peter uses it about the Jews whom he had baptized on the day of Pentecost who were returning to Judaism. Their conversion away from Judaism had been a vomiting up of rotting unclean food; and they were now returning to what they had once vomited up. Judaism is not at all spirituality, according to how Peter, Paul, Stephen and others allude to it. The washing of baptism is likened to a vomiting up of rotten food. Again the implication is that the vomiting of the old life was a one off act which occurred at a specific time- their baptism. Baptism is therefore a specific action of the Spirit upon us in moral terms:&nbsp;</p><p>But as noted on :9, Solomon is arguing that fools never learn, and so it's not worth trying with them. And this is seen in the attitude of so many who claim to have "the truth". It is in sharp contrast to the continually searching, seeking attitude of the Father and Son, who approach the lost as if they are going to keep seeking them until they find them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>26:12 Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him-</p><p>Not being 'wise in our own eyes' is a major theme of Solomon's Proverbs (<a href='B:240 3:7'>Pro 3:7</a>; <a href='B:240 12:15'>Pro 12:15</a>; <a href='B:240 26:12'>Pro 26:12</a>; <a href='B:240 26:16'>Pro 26:16</a>; <a href='B:240 28:11'>Pro 28:11</a>). We are to recognize that there is no inherent wisdom in man; it must be taught to us from God's word. And yet we live in a postmodern world, where what seems or feels good to our own gut is taken to be the highest personal truth. This was what led Judah to condemnation (s:w. <a href='B:290 5:21'>Isa 5:21</a>), because trusting in their own opinions and gut feelings left them insensitive to God's word. Paul quotes the idea in <a href='B:520 12:16'>Rom 12:16</a>; to be wise in our own eyes means that we ignore those whom we naturally consider worthy of being ignored. But that is not necessarily the way of the Spirit. But when Solomon lost his faith, he comments that whether a man has wise eyes or not (s:w:) is irrelevant in the face of death (<a href='B:250 2:14'>Ecc 2:14</a>). He clearly conceived wisdom as only helpful for this life; he had no real personal faith in the resurrection of the dead or the establishment of the future Kingdom of God. And this led him to ultimately despise his own wisdom as futile:&nbsp;</p>&nbsp;<p>LXX "I have seen a man who seemed to himself to be wise; but a fool had more hope than he". This would imply that a specific individual is in view, and I suggested on :4,6 that it is Rabshakeh in the Hezekiah context.</p>


text:
<p>26:13 The lazy person says, There is a lion in the road! A fierce lion roams the streets!-</p><p>As explained on :14, Solomon's condemnation of laziness is unrealistic in that he is justifying his own works based righteousness, rather than the righteousness of faith. Surely a wise person will not go outside if a lion is roaming around. Solomon clearly overstates his case here. In the Hezekiah context (see on :4,6), the fierce lion that was being feared was the Assyrians. But it seems rather inappropriate to complain that those who feared them were lazy; faithless, maybe, but "lazy" suggests an obsession against this particular vice. LXX "A sluggard when sent on a journey" would continue the theme of criticizing messengers, which as noted on :4,6 has especial reference to Rabshakeh in the Hezekiah context.</p>


text:
<p>26:14 As the door turns on its hinges, so does the lazy one on his bed-</p><p>The Proverbs contain repeated condemnation of laziness. Lack of a zealous work ethic is a rejection of wisdom, according to Solomon. As Solomon explains in Ecclesiastes 1, he was an active person, not lazy by nature. And yet he lacked spirituality. He claimed that his service of God was due to his spirituality, but it was in reality merely a semblance of serving God when it was really just reinforcing his own personality type. His mocking of the "sluggard" or "lazy one" is so frequent (<a href='B:240 6:6'>Pro 6:6</a>; <a href='B:240 6:9'>Pro 6:9</a>; <a href='B:240 10:26'>Pro 10:26</a>; <a href='B:240 13:4'>Pro 13:4</a>; <a href='B:240 15:19'>Pro 15:19</a>; <a href='B:240 19:24'>Pro 19:24</a>; <a href='B:240 20:4'>Pro 20:4</a>; <a href='B:240 21:25'>Pro 21:25</a>; <a href='B:240 22:13'>Pro 22:13</a>; <a href='B:240 24:30'>Pro 24:30</a>; <a href='B:240 26:13-16'>Pro 26:13-16</a>). But it is a reflection of his own works-based approach to righteousness; the 'wise' "do" good things, and the wicked don't do enough good things. Personal spiritual mindedness and relationship with God are simply not emphasized.</p>


text:
<p>26:15 The lazy one buries his hand in the dish; he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth-</p><p>See on :14. This is a caricature of laziness, and not a particularly convincing one, suggesting the author has an obsessive campaign against it rather than a rational position. Solomon as a personality type was an active person who despised laziness. But laziness or zeal is to some degree an inherited characteristic, and can arise from a host of factors unrelated to the presence or absence of wisdom / true spirituality. Solomon was using the Divine truths given to him to reinforce and confirm his own native personality type, as many do today. And it seems Hezekiah was wired likewise (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>26:16 The lazy one is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who answer with discretion-</p><p>See on :12,14,15. LXX "A sluggard seems to himself wiser than one who most satisfactorily brings back a message". This would continue the apparent obsession with criticizing evil messengers who are lazy fools. This makes sense when we appreciate what is explained on :4,6; that the reference is to the messengers of the king of Assyria in Hezekiah's time.</p>


text:
<p>26:17 Like one who grabs a dog’s ears is one who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own-</p><p>LXX "As he that lays hold of a dog's tail, so is he that makes himself the champion of another's cause". As noted on 4,6, this has relevance to the situation at the time of the Assyrian encirclement of Jerusalem. Rabshakeh is presented as championing the cause of others, and treating Judah like a dog; and from his use of the Yahweh Name, ability to speak Hebrew and knowledge of the situation within Judah, it would seem Rabshakeh was an apostate Jew who then championed the cause of Assyria. This is yet again the daughter of Zion mocking those who looked poised to overcome her. See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>26:18 Like a madman who shoots burning torches, arrows, and death-</p><p>This is the language of siege engines shooting these things. The "madman" would refer to Rabshakeh and the Assyrians. Their intention to do these things was stymied (<a href='B:120 19:32'>2Ki 19:32</a>). See on :10. The LXX would allude to the fair but deceptive words spoken by him in offering the Jews a great life in a land like their own: "As those who need correction put forth&nbsp;fair&nbsp;words to men...".</p>


text:
<p>26:19 so is the man who deceives his neighbour and says, Am I not joking?-</p><p>LXX "So are all that lay wait for their own friends". This would again allude to Rabshakeh, the betrayer of his people (see on :17), and those within Judah who had gone over to the Assyrian side. "Joking" is the word for "mockery", and that may be the idea here. Rabshakeh was joining in the mockery of Yahweh and the faithful in Zion.</p>


text:
<p>26:20 For lack of wood a fire goes out; without gossip, a quarrel dies down-</p><p>Solomon rightly condemns gossip and the stirring up of divisions. But he is writing up his Divinely given wisdom at the start of his reign, where there were various groups of opposition to him. These groupings had all arisen from the divisions which arose after his parents' sin with each other; they were a consequence for David's sin, which Nathan had prophesied. Inevitably, David's behaviour had invited all manner of gossip and strife. But Solomon seems to blame this on the gossipers, and carefully considers they alone are guilty; for he is ever glorifying and whitewashing his father David.</p>


text:
<p>26:21 As coals are to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a contentious man to kindling strife-</p><p>"Hot embers" is the word used to figuratively describe condemnation (<a href='B:230 120:4'>Psa 120:4</a>; <a href='B:230 140:10'>Psa 140:10</a>; <a href='B:240 6:28'>Pro 6:28</a>; <a href='B:240 25:22'>Pro 25:22</a>; <a href='B:240 26:21'>Pro 26:21</a>). Strife between persons can lead to condemnation, because God will finally judge according to our attitudes to others. We must therefore be so careful not to be contentious, for the contentions and strife engendered might well trigger strife and hatred between brethren which leads to their condemnation. Those who endlessly cause contention in the name of "contending for the faith" need to consider this seriously.</p>


text:
<p>26:22 The words of a whisperer are as dainty morsels, they go down into the innermost parts-</p><p>Solomon rightly condemns gossip and the stirring up of divisions. But he is writing up his Divinely given wisdom at the start of his reign, where there were various groups of opposition to him. These groupings had all arisen from the divisions which arose after his parents' sin with each other; they were a consequence for David's sin, which Nathan had prophesied. Inevitably, David's behaviour had invited all manner of gossip and strife. But Solomon seems to blame this on the gossipers, and carefully considers they alone are guilty; for he is ever glorifying and whitewashing his father David. And yet what he writes is so true; throwaway comments of gossip take deep lodgment in the hearers.</p><p>LXX "the words of cunning knaves" would have reference to internal court intrigue against his father David.</p>


text:
<p>26:23 Like the glaze covering an earthen vessel are smooth words with an evil heart-</p><p>LXX "Silver dishonestly given is to be considered as a potsherd: smooth lips cover a grievous heart". Solomon probably has in view Absalom, and Hezekiah has in view (as in :18) the fair but deceptive words spoken by Rabshakeh in offering the Jews a great life in a land like their own.</p>


text:
<p>26:24 A malicious man disguises himself with his lips, but he harbours evil in his heart-</p><p>LXX "A weeping enemy promises all things with his lips, but in his heart he contrives deceit". Again (as in :18) this references the fair but deceptive words spoken by Rabshakeh in offering the Jews a great life in a land like their own.</p>


text:
<p>26:25 When his speech is charming, don’t believe him; for there are seven abominations in his heart-</p><p>"Abomination" is the common word for idols (e.g. <a href='B:50 7:25-26'>Deu 7:25-26</a>). Idolatry is here interpreted as things like pride and telling lies (:17). These seven things are the essence of idolatry. There is a recurring nature to them, just as idols got a grip on the mind of the worshipper. Solomon often uses the word for quiet, secret sins, words and the matters of the heart, internal attitudes and judgments (<a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a>; <a href='B:240 11:20'>Pro 11:20</a>; <a href='B:240 12:22'>Pro 12:22</a>; <a href='B:240 13:19'>Pro 13:19</a>; <a href='B:240 15:26'>Pro 15:26</a>; <a href='B:240 16:5'>Pro 16:5</a>; <a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a>; <a href='B:240 20:10'>Pro 20:10</a>; <a href='B:240 20:23'>Pro 20:23</a>; <a href='B:240 24:9'>Pro 24:9</a>; <a href='B:240 26:25'>Pro 26:25</a>; <a href='B:240 28:9'>Pro 28:9</a>; <a href='B:240 29:27'>Pro 29:27</a>). And this of course is the essence of idolatry in our age; this is the practical force to us of all Biblical teaching about idolatry. See on :24.</p><p>LXX "Though&nbsp;thine&nbsp;enemy intreat thee with a loud voice, consent not: for there are seven abominations in his heart". Again (as in :18) this references the fair but deceptive words spoken by Rabshakeh in offering the Jews a great life in a land like their own.</p>


text:
<p>26:26 His malice may be concealed by deception, but his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly-</p><p>Solomon's initial reference would have been to the deceit and hatred of his half brothers Amnon (s:w. <a href='B:100 13:15'>2Sa 13:15</a>) and Absalom. The Hezekiah context, as noted throughout this chapter, would refer to the betrayal of Rabshakeh. But again we note that for Solomon, the greatest reward for wickedness was shame before others. This was about the only concept he had of punishment, and likewise blessing was understood in terms of glory before others. He has no Kingdom perspective because he considered he was the ultimate judge of all, and his kingdom was, he supposed, the Kingdom of God on earth as promised to David.</p>


text:
<p>26:27 Whoever digs a pit shall fall into it; whoever rolls a stone, it will come back on him-</p><p>This likewise as in :26 had in view the various adversaries to David who had come to a sticky end; and in the Hezekiah context, to Rabshakeh.</p>


text:
<p>26:28 A lying tongue hates those it hurts; and a flattering mouth works ruin-</p><p>The Bible quite rightly emphasizes the extreme power of words. Such emphasis was not seen in contemporary religion. And neither is it today. The "lying tongue" was that of Saul and Absalom in Solomon's context (s:w. <a href='B:230 109:2'>Psa 109:2</a>); for Hezekiah, the "lying tongue" was that of Rabshakeh, and the same phrase is used about him in <a href='B:230 120:2'>Psa 120:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>27:1</p><p>Don’t boast about tomorrow; for you don’t know what a day may bring forth-</p><p>This could be read in the Hezekiah context (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) as commentary upon the boasts of the Assyrians to return to destroy Jerusalem after defeating the Ethiopians, and various other boasts about what they would do to Zion. In just one night, their army was destroyed.</p>


text:
<p>27:2 Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips-</p><p>Solomon's hypocrisy is complete; for the praise of the "wise man" throughout Proverbs is effectively self praise. Perhaps his desire for praise from a stranger / foreigner was misused by Solomon in order to justify his Gentile girlfriend who praised him, according to the Song of Solomon. And perhaps this was likewise twisted by Hezekiah (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) to justify his acceptance of the praise of the Babylonian ambassadors which was his spiritual undoing. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>27:3 A stone is heavy and sand is a burden; but a fool’s provocation is heavier than both-</p><p>GNB "The weight of stone and sand is nothing compared to the trouble that stupidity can cause". This is a Hezekiah Proverb (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>); the "provocation" of his son Manasseh led to the huge burden of judgment upon Judah (s:w. <a href='B:120 23:26'>2Ki 23:26</a>). Hezekiah's son clearly paid no attention to his father's proverbs. And what Hezekiah aims at others became true for his own family.</p>


text:
<p>27:4 Wrath is cruel and anger is overwhelming; but who is able to stand before jealousy?-</p><p>Solomon has much to say about the evil of jealousy / envy (e.g. <a href='B:240 14:30'>Pro 14:30</a>; <a href='B:240 23:17'>Pro 23:17</a>; <a href='B:240 24:1'>Pro 24:1</a>; <a href='B:240 24:19'>Pro 24:19</a>; <a href='B:240 27:4'>Pro 27:4</a>). But true as his condemnations of envy are, he surely has in mind the way that Ephraim envied Judah, and envied his throne (s:w. <a href='B:290 11:13'>Isa 11:13</a>). This all came to full term after his death, when Ephraim departed from Judah under Jeroboam. Again, Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning. But as he faced death, he came to realize that all such envy is as nothing before the reality of death, which he understood as the end of life, as he had assumed this life was the time for reward and expresses no personal hope in a resurrection of the body (<a href='B:250 4:4'>Ecc 4:4</a>; <a href='B:250 9:6'>Ecc 9:6</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>27:5 Better is open rebuke than hidden love-</p><p>David had accepted rebuke and was open to it, notably from Nathan the prophet (<a href='B:230 38:1'>Psa 38:1</a>; <a href='B:230 141:5'>Psa 141:5</a>); and so again Solomon's Proverbs are true, but he harnesses them to the justification of himself and his father. But Solomon was only to remain the prophetic son of David if he accepted reproof (s:w. <a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>); and he didn't. He refused to personalize his own wisdom, as we can.</p>


text:
<p>27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; although the kisses of an enemy are profuse-</p><p>As noted on :5, the allusion is to how David had accepted rebuke from Nathan, but had been betrayed by the kisses of Ahithophel, who was the great grandfather of Solomon, and who had turned against David. Again Solomon's Proverbs are true, but he harnesses them to the justification of himself and his father.</p>


text:
<p>27:7 A full soul loathes a honeycomb; but to a hungry soul, every bitter thing is sweet-</p><p>This may be another connection with the parable of the prodigal son; see on :8. "Loathes" is 'tramples upon', a may be a critical comment upon how Saul had forbidden his men to eat anything, but Jonathan disobeyed and ate a honeycomb. All the time we observe Solomon's implicit criticism of his enemies.</p>


text:
<p>27:8 As a bird that wanders from her nest, so is a man who wanders from his home-</p><p>But the Lord's parable of the prodigal son again seems to deconstruct Solomon's attitude here (see on :7); for all the same, the loving Father sought the return of such a man. LXX is even more appropriate to this: "As when a bird flies down from its own nest, so a man is brought into bondage whenever he estranges himself from his own place".</p>


text:
<p>27:9 Perfume and incense bring joy to the heart; so does earnest counsel from a man’s friend-</p><p>This is true, but Solomon may again be using Divine truth to justify himself; for he had appointed the son of Nathan the prophet, loyal to David his father, as "the king's friend" (<a href='B:110 4:5'>1Ki 4:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>27:10 Don’t forsake your friend and your father’s friend. Don’t go to your brother’s house in the day of your disaster: better is a neighbour who is near than a distant brother-</p><p>As noted on :6, this is true, but Solomon is clearly alluding to himself and his father. David's loyal friends such as Hushai (s:w. <a href='B:100 16:17'>2Sa 16:17</a>) were the ones who established Solomon in power, whereas his own half brothers were competitors for his throne:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>27:11 Be wise, my son, and bring joy to my heart, then I can answer my tormentor-</p><p>The "tormentor" suggests a specific reference to the Assyrian / Hezekiah situation (<a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>). The idea was that the sons of the faithful would at that time would speak with the enemies in the gate (<a href='B:230 127:5'>Psa 127:5</a>). We note that David wanted to answer his tormentors / reproachers by receiving God's grace (<a href='B:230 119:41-42'>Psa 119:41-42</a>). Solomon instead wants to answer them by having a wise son. Again we see his lack of focus upon grace. LXX "And remove from thyself reproachful words".</p>


text:
<p>27:12 A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge; but the simple pass on and suffer for it-</p><p>As noted on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, these proverbs of Hezekiah are true, but tend towards his own self justification. Here the reference seems to be to the wise taking refuge within Jerusalem during the Assyrian invasion, whilst those who didn't were overrun and suffered.</p>


text:
<p>27:13 Take his garment when he puts up collateral for a stranger-</p><p>The law of Moses didn't forbid giving or taking collateral for loans, it accepted this would happen (<a href='B:20 22:25-27'>Exo 22:25-27</a>). But Solomon in the Proverbs is quite obsessed with forbidding it in very strong terms (<a href='B:240 6:1-3'>Pro 6:1-3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:15'>Pro 11:15</a>; <a href='B:240 17:18'>Pro 17:18</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 22:26'>Pro 22:26</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a> - all quite some emphasis). Perhaps Solomon recalled some bad experience in his family because of this. There is the otherwise curious statement in <a href='B:90 17:18'>1Sa 17:18</a> that David's brothers, Solomon's uncles, were to return a collateral. Perhaps this ruined the family and Solomon's wisdom has some human element in it, reflecting his own bad experiences in his family life. But there is nothing wrong with giving or taking collateral for a loan; what is condemned in God's law is the abuse of the debtor and the abuse of the situation. Indeed David and Hezekiah ask God to be collateral for their needs and debts in various ways (<a href='B:230 119:122'>Psa 119:122</a>; <a href='B:290 38:14'>Isa 38:14</a>). And God gives the Holy Spirit in our hearts as collateral on His debt, as He sees it, to save us (<a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a>; <a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>); and in response we give our hearts as a pledge to Him (<a href='B:300 30:21'>Jer 30:21</a> Heb:). So forbidding the practice seems out of step with the spirit of grace. It would mean asking of God what we are unprepared to do for others. Solomon had not known need, neither material nor spiritual, and it shows in his attitude to this matter. It makes hollow all Solomon's exhortations to be generous to your poor neighbour and to be a brother in adversity to your neighbour (<a href='B:240 14:21'>Pro 14:21</a>; <a href='B:240 17:17'>Pro 17:17</a>). Solomon is here reasoning from the viewpoint of secular wisdom.</p><p>Hold it for a wayward woman!-</p><p>The&nbsp; blindness&nbsp; of&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; is&nbsp; driven&nbsp; home time and again; he knew Divine truth, but the more he knew it, the more he lived the very opposite, failing to grasp the deeply personal relevance of truth to himself. A whole string of passages in Proverbs warn&nbsp;of&nbsp; the&nbsp; "strange" &nbsp;(AV) woman&nbsp; (2:16;&nbsp; 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; 20:16; 23:27;&nbsp; 27:13). Yet the very same word (translated "outlandish", AV) is&nbsp; used&nbsp; in&nbsp; <a href='B:160 13:26'>Neh 13:26</a> concerning&nbsp; the women Solomon married. The antidote&nbsp;to&nbsp; succumbing to the wicked woman was to have wisdom- according to Proverbs. And Solomon apparently had wisdom. Yet he succumbed to the wicked woman. He was writing Song of Solomon at the same time as Proverbs. The reason for this must be that Solomon didn't really have wisdom. Yet we know that he was given it in abundance. The resolution of this seems to be that Solomon asked&nbsp; for&nbsp; wisdom &nbsp;in&nbsp; order&nbsp; to&nbsp; lead&nbsp; Israel&nbsp; rather than for himself,&nbsp; he used that wisdom to judge Israel and to educate the surrounding&nbsp; nations:&nbsp; But&nbsp; none of it percolated to himself. As custodians&nbsp; of&nbsp; true&nbsp; doctrine-&nbsp; for&nbsp; that is what we are- we are likely to suffer from over familiarity with it. We can become so accustomed&nbsp; to 'handling' it, as we strengthen each other, as we preach,&nbsp; that&nbsp; the personal bearing of the Truth becomes totally lost&nbsp; upon us, as it was totally lost upon Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>27:14 He who blesses his neighbour with a loud voice early in the morning, it will be taken as a curse by him-</p><p>This is a Hezekiah Proverb (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>); the phrase "with a loud voice" is that used of Rabshakeh in <a href='B:120 18:28'>2Ki 18:28</a>. The "blessing" he hypocritically announced was the offer of a wonderful new life for Judah in Assyria. He is the one presented by Hezekiah as the fool:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>27:15 A continual dropping on a rainy day and a contentious wife are alike-</p><p>LXX "On a stormy day drops&nbsp;of rain drive a man out of his house; so also does a railing woman&nbsp;drive a&nbsp;man&nbsp;out of his own house". I detected on <a href='B:240 18:22'>Pro 18:22</a> Solomon's justification of David's divorce with Michal, from whose house he had to flee the night her father sent to murder him there. So here too there is a subtext, however unconscious even; however true Solomon's observation may be in more general terms.</p>


text:
<p>27:16 restraining her is like restraining the wind, or like grasping oil in his right hand-</p><p>Solomon does the very opposite of what he says here; for he uses the word for "oil" or "ointment" about the ointment of his illicit Gentile girlfriend, which he found so attractive (<a href='B:260 4:10'>Son 4:10</a>). Yet in <a href='B:240 27:16'>Pro 27:16</a> he warns that a bad woman has such oil; but he falls for her. He utterly failed to personalize his wisdom, it flowed through his mouth and mind without taking any personal lodgment within him. And we must be warned by this ability of human nature:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>27:17 Iron sharpens iron; so a man sharpens his friend’s countenance-</p><p>Perhaps this is to be connected with the teaching about the shape or face of men in :19, where a man's face is his heart. We don't read that a file or whetstone makes iron sharper; but rather than iron sharpens iron. The idea may be that is because we are of the same nature that fellowship sharpens us. This was why the Lord Jesus was of the same nature as ourselves, so that His fellowship with us can change our face into His, as Paul says in <a href='B:540 3:16-18'>2Co 3:16-18</a>.</p>


text:
<p>27:18 Whoever tends the fig tree shall eat its fruit; he who looks after his master shall be honoured-</p><p>This could be a reference by Hezekiah (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) to the false offer by Rabshakeh that his "master", the king of Assyria, could give Judah a land of fig trees where they could enjoy the fruit.</p>


text:
<p>27:19 As water reflects a face, so a man’s heart reflects the man-</p><p>This continues the great Biblical theme that the heart is the man; the face [the external] is the heart [the internal]. The critical importance of the heart / mind is unique to the Bible and true Christianity. Other religions focused upon the external and tokenistic, the behaviour alone; whereas the passion of Yahweh is for the human heart. The great emphasis upon the work of the Spirit in the New Testament likewise reflects this. LXX "As faces are not like&nbsp;other&nbsp;faces, so neither are the thoughts of men".</p>


text:
<p>27:20 Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied; and a man’s eyes are never satisfied-</p><p>The lack of "satisfaction" is a major theme in the descriptions of condemnation for those who break the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a>). And it is the principle we must live by today; that the only satisfaction is in the things of God's Kingdom. Even in this life, the eye is not "satisfied" with seeing or wealth (s:w. <a href='B:240 27:20'>Pro 27:20</a>; <a href='B:250 1:8'>Ecc 1:8</a>; <a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>; <a href='B:250 5:10'>Ecc 5:10</a>). And those who seek such satisfaction from those things will find that dissatisfaction is the lead characteristic of their condemnation (<a href='B:230 59:15'>Psa 59:15</a>). Tragically Solomon knew the truth of all this but lived otherwise; just as so many do who give lip service to the idea that the things of the flesh cannot satisfy.</p><p>Sin never satisfies. “Hell and destruction are never satisfied, and the eyes of man are never satisfied” (<a href='B:240 27:20'>Pro 27:20</a> RV), Solomon wrote in his youth; and then in old age, he came to basically the same conclusion, having spent his life working back to the truth that he had been taught in his youth (<a href='B:250 1:8'>Ecc 1:8</a>; <a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>). And there are many men and women who have done the same. We all tend to be empirical learners; and yet this is the great power of God’s word, that through it we need not have to learn everything through our failures; but we can receive His Truth, trust it, and simply live by it. Otherwise we shall be like Solomon</p>


text:
<p>27:21 The crucible is for silver, and the furnace for gold; but man is tested by his praise-</p><p>This must be connected with <a href='B:240 17:3'>Pro 17:3</a>: "The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but Yahweh tests the hearts". The idea is that Yahweh seeks purified hearts, spiritual mindedness, more than anything else; and the fire of affliction is used to purify our thinking. Purified hearts or spirits is the aim of the work of the Holy Spirit as taught in the New Testament. Yet a man must use the refining pot when he receives praise (<a href='B:240 27:21'>Pro 27:21</a> AV "so is a man to his praise"). We have some election over this refining process, we are to work together with God in it; but the end result is the purification of the heart / mind / spirit.</p><p>I suggested on :2 that there is reference here to the praise Hezekiah received from the Babylonians. This Proverb was twisted by Hezekiah (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) to justify his acceptance of the praise of the Babylonian ambassadors which was his spiritual undoing. He was tested by the receipt of praise- and failed the test.</p>


