# comment

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>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;<p></p>


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><p></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>


text:
<p>27:22 Though you grind a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with grain, yet his foolishness will not be removed from him-</p><p>LXX "Though thou scourge a fool, disgracing him in the midst of the council, thou wilt&nbsp;still&nbsp;in no wise remove his folly from him". Solomon sees public shaming fools as the only possible way to get them to accept wisdom. And he laments that even this doesn't work, and so one must give up with fools. But all this is at variance with the unending searching of the Father and Son for the lost, as taught in Luke 15. And love seeks to shield from shame, just as the Father sought to do for his foolish prodigal son, rushing out to accompany him on the walk home through the village, lest he be shamed. There are today those like Solomon who think that their mere possession of Divine truth justifies them. And they have the same tendency- to write off people as foolish and not worthy of further effort. This not only stymies their entire approach to evangelism, but makes them wrongly judgmental of those they consider to be foolish, and to have an over exalted view of themselves.</p>


text:
<p>27:23 Know well the state of your flocks, and pay attention to your herds-</p><p>As explained on :24, this appears to be Solomon veering towards the spirit of Ecclesiastes, urging every effort to get wealthy in this life, because that is all you have. Neither he nor Hezekiah (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) have any Kingdom perspective. Solomon liked to think he was God's Kingdom, and Hezekiah was content with his extra 15 years of mortal life and enjoying them as far as he could (<a href='B:290 39:8'>Isa 39:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>27:24 for riches are not forever, nor does even the crown endure to all generations-</p><p>This is true, and evidence enough that Solomon was not in fact the eternal Messianic "son of David" who would reign eternally. And yet despite knowing this, Solomon acts exactly as if his kingdom is the eternal Kingdom of God. And yet on the other hand, he admits here that he has no hope of eternal retention of his wealth or crown. Therefore he urges to zealously count your wealth and work as hard as you can to get wealthy now, in this life, and enjoy it. So we have here the spirit of Ecclesiastes.</p>


text:
<p>27:25 The hay is removed, and the new growth appears, the grasses of the hills are gathered in-</p><p>See on :23,25. The idea again seems to be a glorifying of human labour, so common in Proverbs. Hence LXX "Take care of the herbage in the field, and thou shalt cut grass, and gather the mountain hay". Solomon has no understanding of grace or of relationship with God without works. He was a naturally hard working person, and his many Proverbs glorifying labour and hard work appear to be merely justifying and reinforcing his own native personality type. And we can abuse God's truth likewise. The new growth appearing may be a picture of a new restored situation in the land appearing after the Assyrian invasion had been overcome.</p>


text:
<p>27:26 The lambs are for your clothing, and the goats are the price of a field-</p><p>As suggested on :25, this appears to continue a description of an ideal situation which would come upon the land at the time of the "new growth" of :25. It is perhaps Hezekiah's vision of how things would be under his rule. But it falls far short of Isaiah's prophecies of the Kingdom of God which all could have come true after the Assyrian defeat. Sadly Hezekiah wanted to think, like Solomon, that the reward for righteousness and wisdom was mainly in this life; he has no Kingdom perspective. LXX "That thou mayest have&nbsp;wool of sheep for clothing: pay attention to the land, that thou mayest have lambs".</p>


text:
<p>27:27 There will be plenty of goats’ milk for your food, for your family’s food, and for the nourishment of your servant girls-</p><p>This is a picture of happy agricultural self sufficiency after the Assyrian threat has been dealt with. But it falls so far short of the Kingdom potential; see on :26.</p>


text:
<p>28:1 The wicked flee when no one pursues; but the righteous are as bold as a lion-</p><p>This was the situation promised for Israel if they were obedient to the covenant. But they were not at Hezekiah's time; the victory was by grace, but he gives no space for that consideration. This is a Hezekiah Proverb (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>), and the allusion would be to the remaining Assyrians fleeing after the Angel slew 185,000 of them. The lion was a symbol of Assyria, but as the remnant raced out of Jerusalem to gather their spoil, they were the bold lions. But Hezekiah likes to think that the Assyrians are the wicked, and the Jews were the righteous. He has the same overly simplistic worldview which Solomon also had, whose Proverbs are now being reused by him. For the prophets condemn the Jews at that time; there was only a tiny righteous minority, and the whole salvation of Zion at this time was by grace and not their own righteousness. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>28:2 In rebellion, a land has many rulers, but order is maintained by a man of understanding and knowledge-</p><p>When Solomon laments that a sinful land has many rulers, but stability comes from a wise ruler, he is stating an inspired truth; but it is inevitable that he framed it in such terms as justified his own dictatorial rule, as if his wisdom justified him in crushing any opposition leaders. It was really Solomon's self-justification. And in the Hezekiah context (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>), this becomes a prophecy of how his descendants were to indeed be "many princes" (AV) just before the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>28:3 A needy man who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain which leaves no crops-</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>). But Solomon failed to personalize all this, so obsessed was he with justifying his father. For Solomon ended his reign oppressing his own people.</p>


text:
<p>28:4 Those who forsake the law praise the wicked; but those who keep the law contend with them-</p><p>Solomon condemns those who "forsake the law" (<a href='B:240 4:2'>Pro 4:2</a>; <a href='B:240 28:4'>Pro 28:4</a>), and he likely has the house of Saul in view as his father David did when using this phrase (<a href='B:230 119:53'>Psa 119:53</a>). But he speaks in <a href='B:240 4:2'>Pro 4:2</a> of those who forsook his law; as if he was playing God, considering any inattention to himself as inattention to God. David by contrast continually emphasizes the need not to forsake God's law:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>28:5 Evil men don’t understand justice; but those who seek Yahweh understand it fully-</p><p>This is true, but Solomon had established himself as the judge of Israel, and considered that his judgments were ultimately just and beyond criticism. He condemns any who did criticize him as not seeking Yahweh and evil.</p>


text:
<p>28:6 Better is the poor who walks in his integrity, than he who is perverse in his ways, and he is rich-</p><p>This must be placed alongside Solomon's common theme that the wise are blessed with riches, and the poor are poor because they are foolish. So he admits that some wicked people do get rich, but comparing it with the other Proverbs, he sees this as only temporary.</p>


text:
<p>28:7 Whoever keeps the law is a wise son; but he who is a companion of gluttons shames his father-</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. The Lord's parable of the prodigal son appears to deconstruct Solomon's approach here. For the prodigal was a companion of sinners and didn't keep the law; but his father wasn't unduly worried about the shame on him, and didn't therefore disown the son. Instead he watched constantly for his return, and when he sees him, he runs out [it was shameful for an older man to run in public] through the streets, in order to escort his son home and protect him from shame in the village. And the elder son who claimed to have kept the law was the one who finally rejected himself from the Father's house.</p>


text:
<p>28:8 He who increases his wealth by excessive interest gathers it for one who has pity on the poor-</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 carefullly; 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>28:9 He who turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination-</p><p>"Abomination" is the common word for idols (e:g. <a href='B:50 7:25-26'>Deu 7:25-26</a>). Idoltary 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>28:10 Whoever causes the upright to go astray in an evil way, he will fall into his own trap; but the blameless will inherit good-</p><p>Both Solomon and Hezekiah (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) doubtless had individuals in view, who were the subtext of this wisdom. But to describe the wise as "blameless" is an example of their over simplistic worldview. All have sinned, none are blameless (<a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a>), as David reflected in his Bathsheba Psalms. But Solomon had whitewashed his parents' sin, and knew nothing of the grace David had discovered at that time. The Lord's parables of the lost in Luke 15 may be seeking to deconstruct Solomon's attitude. The self righteous older son, who considered himself blameless, connects with the 99 sheep who "need no repentance". But "all we like sheep have gone astray", those 99 only thought they needed no repentance, and being so snug in their sheepfold actually only enhanced their sense of self righteousness, and that they were not in fact the lost. The phrase "inherit good" is only found again in <a href='B:130 28:8'>1Ch 28:8</a>, where David says that this is to be the outcome for those who "seek" for obedience to God's ways. But 'seeking' is not being "blameless". None are blameless, but the spiritually minded seek for God's ways and will therefore "inherit good". Solomon totally lacked this humility and spiritual reality of David. And so did Hezekiah (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>), who never seems repentant for any of his failures [such as giving the gold of the temple to buy off invaders].</p>


text:
<p>28:11 The rich man is wise in his own eyes; but the poor who has understanding sees through 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>


text:
<p>28:12 When the righteous triumph, there is great glory; but when the wicked rise, men hide themselves-</p><p>The allusion was to the way that Saul "rose up" against David (s:w. <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>), and David hid himself from Saul. The same word is used in :28. But this is a Hezekiah Proverb (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>). The reference would be the glorious triumph over the Assyrians, after the 'arising' of the wicked Assyrians which had led the Jews to "hide themselves". But Hezekiah likes to think that the Assyrians are the wicked, and the Jews were the righteous. He has the same overly simplistic worldview which Solomon also had, whose Proverbs are now being reused by him. For the prophets condemn the Jews at that time; there was only a tiny righteous minority, and the whole salvation of Zion at this time was by grace and not their own righteousness. The "triumph" and "glory" was God's and not that of the Jews. See on :1.</p>


text:
<p>28:13 He who conceals his sins doesn’t prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy-</p><p>"Mercy" is the word for "compassion". But the basis for that compassion was to be Israel's repentance (s:w. <a href='B:50 30:13'>Deu 30:13</a> etc:). But God's compassion / mercy was often given to His people anyway, because they were His children, by grace. His compassion is therefore on the basis of His mercy and grace, rather than a proportionate response to steel willed human repentance and self reformation (s:w. <a href='B:230 116:5'>Psa 116:5</a>). His compassion is actually always there for His children, even when they are in exiled punishment from Him (s:w. <a href='B:300 31:20'>Jer 31:20</a>; <a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a>). Solomon failed to perceive this grace, instead focusing solely upon the aspect of God showing compassion to those who are repentant (s:w. <a href='B:240 28:13'>Pro 28:13</a>):&nbsp;He may have in view his father's confession of sins. For David uses the same phrase about how God had covered his sins (<a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a>; <a href='B:230 32:5'>Psa 32:5</a>). But it was confession of personal sin which was so lacking in Solomon and Hezekiah, and was the basis for their spiritual undoing. It's one thing to know the theory of grace and repentance, another to actually personalize it and live and feel by it:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>28:14 Blessed is the man who always fears; but one who hardens his heart falls into trouble-</p><p>This may be true, but Solomon ended up terrorizing his own people, allowing no opposition, beating them into submission (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>), and thereby inculcating a culture of fear. And he was abusing wisdom such as this to justify that climate he wished to create for his own ends. Both Solomon and Hezekiah hardened their hearts in that they decided that they would maintain a set psychological attitude to spiritual things until their deaths. And so they did, as witnessed by Ecclesiastes and <a href='B:290 39:8'>Isa 39:8</a>:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>28:15 As a roaring lion or a charging bear, so is a wicked ruler over helpless people-</p><p>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>28:16 A tyrannical ruler lacks judgment. One who hates ill-gotten gain will have long days-</p><p>"What&nbsp;hath&nbsp; the&nbsp;wise&nbsp; more than the fool?" (<a href='B:250 6:8'>Ecc 6:8</a>) shows how effectively Solomon despised his wisdom; he lost sight of the Kingdom which&nbsp; it&nbsp; led to ultimately, and the God manifestation which it could&nbsp; enable in this life. He had written in his Proverbs that the ruler who lacks wisdom will oppress his people (28:16 AV); and although his wisdom remained with him right to the end, in terms of knowledge (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>; <a href='B:250 12:10'>Ecc 12:10</a>), yet at the end of his reign Solomon was the ruler who did oppress his people. And he had gone on in <a href='B:240 28:16'>Pro 28:16</a> to warn against covetousness in a ruler, even though he went ahead with practicing every conceivable form of it in Ecclesiastes 2. See on <a href='B:240 8:6'>Pro 8:6</a>.</p><p>In the same way as Solomon criticized flirting with Gentile girls but then went and did this himself, so he said many other things in his wisdom which actually condemned himself. Thus “the prince that lacketh understanding is also a great oppressor” (<a href='B:240 28:16'>Pro 28:16</a> AV). Yet Solomon did oppress the people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>)- despite possessing wisdom. He insists that throughout his life, his wisdom had remained with him (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a> RVmg:). So what does this indicate? Surely that the wisdom which he had did not affect his life practically, and thus it was as if he lacked wisdom completely. Mere possession of truth leads to great temptations- for like Solomon, we can reason that this alone justifies us in any behaviour.</p>


text:
<p>28:17 A man who is tormented by having taken life blood will be a fugitive until death; no one will support him-</p><p>David's prayer of repentance and request to be saved from "blood guiltiness" (<a href='B:230 51:14'>Psa 51:14</a>) is literally 'from blood'. He was a man of blood and was guilty of Uriah's innocent blood. David had asked for 'men of blood' to be slain (<a href='B:230 55:23'>Psa 55:23</a> s:w:), those who had taken the blood of the innocent (<a href='B:230 94:21'>Psa 94:21</a>), and for 'men of blood' to be expelled from his presence (<a href='B:230 139:19'>Psa 139:19</a>). And it is not at all clear whether all those Psalms were written before his sin with Bathsheba. God was trying to teach David that he was the type of person whom he condemned. And yet it is unclear if he learned that lesson. Solomon liberally condemns the man who sheds innocent blood (<a href='B:240 6:17'>Pro 6:17</a>; <a href='B:240 28:17'>Pro 28:17</a>), refusing to recognize that his much lauded father had done just this, and was only saved by grace and not by any obedience to wisdom. There is so little grace in the book of Solomon's Proverbs because Solomon had failed to perceive the grace shown to his father.</p>


text:
<p>28:18 Whoever walks blamelessly is kept safe; but one with perverse ways will fall suddenly-</p><p>We wonder at the possible arrogance in assuming that he or any man can walk blamelessly. Only the Lord Jesus fits this. And yet this is the phrase used in God's command to Abraham and his seed (<a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a>). It was only possible for Abraham to do so by his faith in imputed righteousness, by grace through faith. David only realized that after he had to learn it through reflection upon the wonder of how God had counted him righteous after the sin with Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>28:19 One who works his land will have an abundance of food; but one who chases fantasies will have his fill of poverty-</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><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>


text:
<p>28:20 A faithful man is rich with blessings; but one who is eager to be rich will not go unpunished-</p><p>This states clearly Solomon's position that the faithful are blessed in this life [note "is rich"], and the blessings for faith are riches. But this is simply not true to spiritual reality. The righteous are often poor, and the wicked prosper. And the blessings promised to Abraham were of forgiveness of sins and a future eternal inheritance of the earth at the resurrection of the body. And the patriarchs died without having received what God promised in this life. These most basic aspects of the Gospel of the Kingdom were not at all appreciated by Solomon nor Hezekiah. Hezekiah was blessed with wealth after his sickness, as was Solomon at the start of his reign; but hee is wrong to thereby deduce that he wasa "faithful" and the wealth was some kind of reward for that.</p>


text:
<p>28:21 To show partiality is not good; yet a man will do wrong for a piece of bread-</p><p>See on :22. 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>28:22 A stingy man hurries after riches, and doesn’t know that poverty waits for him-</p><p>Both Solomon and Hezekiah [after his deliverance from the Assyrians] were suddenly given great riches by God. They didn't have to seek wealth, because it was just given to them. And yet here they criticize those who seek wealth and are "stingy" in order to attain it. It's easy to criticize people in situations which we haven't been in, and to moralize against them. So whilst the Proverbs warning against seeking to become rich are true enough, they were clearly used by Solomon and Hezekiah as self-justification.</p>


text:
<p>28:23 One who rebukes a man will afterward find more favour than one who flatters with the tongue-</p><p>This may be Solomon justifying how David gave favour to Nathan who rebuked him, whilst rejecting those who merely flattered. The same phrase is used of Ahithophel (<a href='B:230 55:21'>Psa 55:21</a>). And yet Solomon uses the phrase about the danger of Gentile women who flatter with the tongue (<a href='B:240 2:16'>Pro 2:16</a>; <a href='B:240 7:5'>Pro 7:5</a>). But he honoured exactly those women. He is a stellar example of assuming that truth possessed does not need to apply to me. It is beyond hypocrisy; it is a psychological situation whereby the person considers themselves beyond the truth which they themselves assent to and teach to others, even demanding it of them. It is pride and conceit in their worst form:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>28:24 Whoever robs his father or his mother and says, It’s not wrong is a partner with a destroyer-</p><p>See on :3 and <a href='B:230 62:10'>Psa 62:10</a>. David likely has in view Absalom and other brothers of Solomon who were seeking to usurp Solomon. The "destroyer" uses the same word which is applied to the Assyrians in Hezekiah's time (<a href='B:120 18:25'>2Ki 18:25</a>; <a href='B:120 19:12'>2Ki 19:12</a>; <a href='B:290 51:13'>Isa 51:13</a>; <a href='B:290 54:16'>Isa 54:16</a>). The Assyrians become the epitomy of evil and foolishness in Hezekiah's Proverbs. But he fails to take on board the fact that the Jews were as wicked as them. His simplistic dichotomies take no account of this.</p>


text:
<p>28:25 One who is greedy stirs up strife; but one who trusts in Yahweh will prosper-</p><p>AV "He that is of a proud heart". Perhaps Hezekiah has in view the Assyrians, with himself as the prospering one who trusted in Yahweh (<a href='B:120 18:5'>2Ki 18:5</a>). Again he is using these truths to justify himself.</p><p>Solomon correctly implies here 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. 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).</p>


text:
<p>28:26 One who trusts in himself is a fool; but one who walks in wisdom is kept safe-</p><p>"Trusts" is s:w. "trusted" in <a href='B:240 3:5'>Pro 3:5</a>. Hezekiah is commending himself again (<a href='B:120 18:5'>2Ki 18:5</a>). Trust in God is indeed predicated upon some form of "understanding" or 'wisdom', for faith comes by hearing the word of God; although not necessarily of the abstract, academic type which Solomon had in view. Trusting and having wisdom are parallel; to trust in Yahweh requires "understanding" and 'having wisdom'. 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.</p>


text:
<p>28:27 One who gives to the poor has no lack; but one who closes his eyes will have many curses-</p><p>David predicates "no lack" upon fearing Yahweh and simply trusting in Him (<a href='B:230 34:8-9'>Psa 34:8-9</a>). Solomon picks up the idea of the righteous experiencing "no lack" but instead claims it is a reward for generosity (s:w. <a href='B:240 28:27'>Pro 28:27</a>). This is a parade example of the difference between David and Solomon. Solomon picks up his father's words and conclusions, but reframes them to justify himself and works rather than faith.</p>


text:
<p>28:28 When the wicked rise, men hide themselves; but when they perish, the righteous thrive-</p><p>Saul 'rose up' against David (s:w. <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>), and&nbsp; then evil men 'rose up' against David out of his own family (<a href='B:100 12:11'>2Sa 12:11</a> s:w:), especially Absalom who rose up against his father (<a href='B:100 18:31-32'>2Sa 18:31-32</a> s:w:). But David has a tendency to assume that all who rose up against him were arising against God. It's not always so that our enemy is God's enemy. Relationships and the hand of God in human affairs and relationships is more complex than that. And David in <a href='B:230 139:21'>Psa 139:21</a> goes further, to assume that his hatred of people is justified, because they must, he assumes, hate God because they are against him. Solomon seems to make the same mistake when he alludes to such 'risings up' in <a href='B:240 28:28'>Pro 28:28</a>. We must note that "all in Asia" turned away from Paul personally (<a href='B:620 1:15'>2Ti 1:15</a>), and yet according to the letters to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2, 3, there were many faithful individuals amongst them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>29:1</p><p>He who is often rebuked and stiffens his neck will be destroyed suddenly, with no remedy-</p><p>This sounds like a criticism of Solomon's political enemies in the family of Saul. Being broken without remedy (as in <a href='B:240 6:15'>Pro 6:15</a>) suggests that what is in view is an earthen vessel smashed, a figure used in the prophets of the last judgment. Israel were likewise smitten without remedy at the hands of their invaders (s:w. <a href='B:140 36:16'>2Ch 36:16</a>; <a href='B:300 8:15'>Jer 8:15</a>; <a href='B:300 14:19'>Jer 14:19</a>). Many of Solomon's warnings of judgments in the Proverbs come exactly true for the Israel whom he wrongly assumed would be his eternal kingdom. The "remedy" Solomon has in mind is giving heed to wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>29:2 When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people groan-</p><p>This surely refers to the way the people rejoiced at Solomon’s ascension to power (<a href='B:140 9:7'>2Ch 9:7</a>); again he is justifying himself:&nbsp;All the knowledge of God which we quite rightly seek after must be personally applied. The very possession of it and teaching of it to others can of itself make a man or woman demotivated to personally apply it. He foretold that the people would sign when a wicked man ruled them (<a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a> RV)- and they did "sigh" because of the heavy burdens he placed upon them (<a href='B:110 12:4'>1Ki 12:4</a>). See on :4,12.</p>


text:
<p>29:3 Whoever loves wisdom brings joy to his father; but a companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth-</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><p>The Lord's parable of the prodigal son appears to deconstruct Solomon's approach however. For the son who squandered his wealth with prostitutes was the one who was finally saved; whereas Solomon seems to just give up with those he considered fools and sinners. Whereas the love of God is ever seeking and waiting for them.</p>


text:
<p>29:4 The king by justice makes the land stable, but he who takes bribes tears it down-</p><p>Solomon imposed the "yoke" of tribute upon the people (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>), whereas he himself had warned that a king that imposes tribute [NEV "bribes"] on his people "overthrows" a country (<a href='B:240 29:4'>Pro 29:4</a> RV mg:). He saw it all as true- and yet it was far from him personally. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>29:5 A man who flatters his neighbour spreads a net for his own feet-</p><p>In the Hezekiah context, this would refer to Rabshakeh, the apostate Jew who knew Hebrew, used the Yahweh Name and knew the situation in Judah. His flattery was in offering the Jews horses, and to 'emigrate' to Assyria, to receive there a land like their own.</p>


text:
<p>29:6 An evil man is snared by his sin, but the righteous can sing and rejoice-</p><p>As in :8, in the Hezekiah context (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>), the snare in view is the Assyrian encirclement of Jerusalem, which led to their own destruction. The joy of the people of Jerusalem is therefore in view. But Hezekiah likes to think that the Assyrians are the wicked, and the Jews were the righteous. He has the same overly simplistic worldview which Solomon also had, whose Proverbs are now being reused by him. For the prophets condemn the Jews at that time; there was only a tiny righteous minority, and the whole salvation of Zion at this time was by grace and not their own righteousness.</p>


text:
<p>29:7 The righteous care about justice for the poor; the wicked aren’t concerned about knowledge-</p><p>This sounds like a self justifying reference to the way Solomon judged the two prostitutes. LXX "A righteous man knows how to judge for the poor".</p>


text:
<p>29:8 Mockers stir up a city, but wise men turn away anger-</p><p>"Stir up" is AV "bring into a snare". Hezekiah is referring to the judgments upon Jerusalem, encircled by the snare of the Assyrians. But he sees the "wise men" in Zion ass turning away God's wrath from the city. This was true to an extent, but he fails to engage with the massive dimension of God's salvation of Zion from the Assyrians by grace.</p>


text:
<p>29:9 If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man, the fool rages or scoffs, and there is no peace-</p><p>LXX "A wise man shall judge nations". Solomon has in view how all the nations came to him for instruction in justice, and Hezekiah was visited by the leaders of the surrounding nations after the destruction of the Assyrians. They see themselves as "the wise man", in self justification.</p>


text:
<p>29:10 The bloodthirsty hate a man of integrity; and they seek the life of the upright-</p><p>Solomon again alludes to those who sought the life of his father, whom David in his Psalms describes as "bloodthirsty"; for it was the same family groups of Saul and Absalom / Adonijah who were the potential opposition to Solomon. He constantly uses his Proverbs to justify the integrity of David and himself, and to bring down his potential opponents:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>29:11 A fool vents all of his anger, but a wise man brings himself under control-</p><p>LXX as GNB "but the wise reserves his in part". The implication is that the anger of the wise is still there and will be expressed later; perhaps a warning that Solomon the wise man would express in due course his anger with all who had opposed his father and himself.</p>


text:
<p>29:12 If a ruler listens to lies, all of his officials are wicked-</p><p>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>29:13 The poor man and the oppressor have this in common: Yahweh gives sight to the eyes of both-</p><p>In the Hezekiah context, "the oppressor" was the Assyrian and Judah were the poor man. But Hezekiah takes comfort as does David in the fact that all men are no more nor less than human. "Oppressor" is elsewhere "creditor", and may refer to the abuse of the poor by the rich in Hezekiah's time, a vice which the relevant prophets comment upon.</p>


text:
<p>29:14 The king who fairly judges the poor, his throne shall be established forever-</p><p>Solomon is clearly referring to the promises to David, which he assumed were about him. He thought that because he had judged the poor harlots wisely, therefore he would be the promised Messiah. And this was just what David his father had hoped and expected of him. David had even asked Solomon to “do wisely” i:e. to show wisdom, in order that the promises to him about Messiah would be fulfilled (<a href='B:110 2:3'>1Ki 2:3</a> RVmg:). So this was surely one of Solomon’s motives in giving them justice and being ‘wise’; he sought to live out his father’s expectations and to fulfil the requirements of the Messiah figure.</p><p>"Established forever" is the language of the eternal establishment of the Davidic line through his Messianic son; which Solomon wrongly assumed must automatically refer to himself. David led him into this wrong assumption by dedicating "Kingdom" Psalms like Psalms 72 to Solomon. Solomon's fulfilment of the role of David's greater prophetic son was strictly conditional; and he failed totally to meet those conditions. But he uses his possession of wisdom, and teaching of it with his lips, as a reason to wrongly think that he fulfilled the role (<a href='B:240 12:19'>Pro 12:19</a>; <a href='B:240 29:14'>Pro 29:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, but a child left to himself causes shame to his mother-</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 [s:w. "correction"]". 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><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><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>29:16 When the wicked increase, sin increases; but the righteous will see their downfall-</p><p>The first part of this verse is axiomatic, and seems inserted in order to emphasize the reality of the second half, which is what Solomon wants to emphasize. Again Solomon implies that the downfall of the wicked is in this life, so that it is seen by the righteous. But this will only finally be true at the day of judgment, which Solomon has little place for in his thinking as he considers himself the ultimate judge of all. And it was this attitude which led him to major moral failure as he refused to judge himself; and there are many examples of such a path to ruin in Christian leaders.</p>


text:
<p>29:17 Correct your son, and he will give you peace; yes, he will bring delight to your soul-</p><p>As will be explained on :19, 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>29:18 Where there is no Divine revelation, the people cast off restraint; but one who keeps the law is blessed-</p><p>The parallel is between "Divine revelation" (AV "vision"), and "the law". But "the law" of Moses was already in existence and available. This seems another case of where Solomon effectively places his words, the Divine revelation of wisdom to him in a vision of the night, as being the effective replacement of God's law. And he often teaches that "blessing" comes from obeying his teachings about wisdom, rather than directing attention to keeping the covenants with Moses and Abraham which were to be the basis for Divine blessing.</p>


text:
<p>29:19 A servant can’t be corrected by words; although he understands, yet he will not respond-</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>29:20 Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him-</p><p>Solomon now creates a category lower even than "a fool". What he says is true, but he seems to rejoice in categorizing idiots and placing the majority of society in those categories. This all arose from a persuasion that he was the ultimately "wise" because he possessed Divine truth; and such hyper judgmentalism became narcissism, and was his undoing. Those who are proud and judgmental in their possession of "truth" are liable to the same path.</p>


text:
<p>29:21 He who pampers his servant from youth will have him become a son in the end-</p><p>GNB "If you give your servants everything they want from childhood on, some day they will take over everything you own". This sounds very much like Solomon's reflections upon Rehoboam, who was his servant but who then tried to overthrow Solomon and take power. Again, Solomon states Divine truth, but as ever inserts his own agenda of self justification into the way he uses it.</p>


text:
<p>29:22 An angry man stirs up strife, and a wrathful man abounds in sin-</p><p>LXX "digs up sin", perhaps Solomon having a swipe at anyone who dared to make an issue about David's sin with his mother Bathsheba. As noted on :21, he is always seeking to justify himself through the truth which he states and preaches.</p>


text:
<p>29:23 A man’s pride brings him low, but one of lowly spirit gains honour-</p><p>GNB "You will be respected". Solomon's idea is that the advantage of wisdom is that it gains the holder respect and honour in this life, whereas the fool will be brought low in this life. But the ultimate humiliation and honour are not now, but at the last day, of which he has little to say.</p>


text:
<p>29:24 Whoever is an accomplice of a thief is an enemy of his own soul; he takes an oath, but dares not testify-</p><p>The sense is as GNB "He will be punished if he tells the truth in court, and God will curse him if he doesn't". Solomon's wisdom was given him so that he might wisely judge Israel. And he here outlines how he will judge, as the supreme judge of Israel. But as in :23, he sees sinners as destroying themselves. This is true, but he assumes that sin and righteousness have their reward right now in this life; whereas this is only part of the story. Solomon usually omits the final and more important perspective, of God's final judgment and the eternal outcomes of human behaviour in His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>29:25 The fear of man proves to be a snare, but whoever puts his trust in Yahweh is kept 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>).</p><p>LXX "Ungodliness causes a man to stumble: but he that trusts in his master shall be safe" would be Solomon again seeking to inculcate personal loyalty to himself through his Proverbs.</p><p>But GNB is also helpful: "It is dangerous to be concerned with what others think of you, but if you trust the LORD, you are safe". Worry about image and the opinion of others is a lack of faith. Because&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>29:26 Many seek the ruler’s favour, but a man’s justice comes from Yahweh-</p><p>See on :12. Solomon was the judge of Israel, and through this Proverb he insists that his justice is directly from Yahweh. This may have been true initially, or insofar as he judged according to the Divine wisdom he had; but it led him to consider himself generally infallible. He thereby lost any sense of personal sin, possibility of failure or self examination. And this led him to personal spiritual disaster. This is still a Hezekiah Proverb (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>), and would refer to the ambassadors of the nations coming to Hezekiah to seek his favour.</p>


text:
<p>29:27 A dishonest man detests the righteous, and the upright in their ways detest the wicked-</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>LXX adds: "A son that keeps the commandment shall escape destruction; for such an one has fully received it. Let no falsehood be spoken by the king from the tongue; yea, let no falsehood proceed from his tongue. The king's tongue is a sword, and not one of flesh; and whosoever shall be given up to it shall be destroyed: for if his wrath should be provoked, he destroys men with cords, and devours men's bones, and burns them up as a flame, so that they are not even fit to be eaten by the young eagles. My son, reverence my words, and receive them, and repent". The additions of the LXX are at times quoted in the New Testament. So we can take this quite seriously, as a reference to how Solomon and Hezekiah (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) feared their sons were going astray. And they both did, Manasseh especially. We also have an insight here into what Solomon thought kings had the power to do to their people, and he ended up therefore not reigning for God but for himself, and abusing his people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>30:1</p><p>The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, the oracle-</p><p>In identifying Agur, we must give full weight to the statement in <a href='B:240 1:1'>Pro 1:1</a> that this book of wisdom sayings compiled by Solomon is all the wisdom of Solomon. I will suggest on Proverbs 31 that the "Lemuel" is Solomon. And so likewise here. "Agur" means "the collector", and Solomon is clearly the collector or compiler of this work. The mention of his father makes little sense if he is totally unknown; so I suggest this is a code for "David".</p><p>The man said to Ithiel, even to Ithiel and Ucal-</p><p>These names are not attested as Hebrew personal names at the time, and so as noted above, we can understand them to be symbolic persons. The relevance of the meanings of their names may have been more apparent to the original readership than it is to us. But the text is hard to understand, and can be rendered "God is not with me, God is not with me, and I am helpless" (GNB); "The man declares, I am weary, O God; I am weary, O God, and worn out" (ESV).</p>


text:
<p>30:2 Surely I am the most ignorant man, and don’t have a man’s understanding-</p><p>LXX "For I am the most simple of all men, and there is not in me the wisdom of men". The style of these words of Agur / Solomon is different to the Proverbs generally. But this doesn't mean it is not by Solomon. It may be that this chapter is Solomon's reaction to the gift of wisdom he was given (see on :8), and the rest of the Proverbs are his transcription, with editing, of that wisdom. Or parts of it. He may here be reflecting as in :3 that he had not attended any school of wisdom, as was common for an oriental wise man. All his wisdom, therefore, was a direct gift from God.</p>


text:
<p>30:3 I have not learned wisdom, neither do I have the knowledge of the Holy One-</p><p>As noted on :2, Solomon had not attended any school of wisdom, as was common for an oriental wise man. All his wisdom, therefore, was a direct gift from God. Hence LXX "God has taught me wisdom, and I know the knowledge of the holy". This could as well be "the holy ones". He has a place amongst the holy ones, the sages, although a young man; because God had given him wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>30:4 Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in his garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if you know?-</p><p>This is very much the language of the book of Job. The conclusion there, as here, is that no man has done these things. Only God, and not even Moses, despite his ascents and descents to God in Sinai. And that God had given that wisdom to His spiritual child Solomon. Hence GNB "Have any ever mastered heavenly knowledge? Have any ever caught the wind in their hands? Or wrapped up water in a piece of cloth? Or fixed the boundaries of the earth? Who are they, if you know? Who are their children?".</p><p>It is tempting to see in this verse a prophecy of the Lord Jesus. The language of ascending and descending is that of God manifestation and theophany. And this theophany comes to its ultimate revelation in the Son of God, whose name was not then known. For He is made of God "wisdom" to us (<a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a>).</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>30:5 Every word of God is flawless. He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him-</p><p>"Every word of God proves true" (ESV). This is very much the sentiment of David in Psalms 119, expressing faith that his promised kingship would come about because God's word would come true. And Solomon likewise saw his kingship as due to the fulfilment of the word of God promised to David. Hezekiah likewise saw his kingship and survival as king as the fulfilment of God's word to Isaiah. The fulfilment of those prophetic words had involved God being a shield to those who trusted in His prophetic word.</p>


text:
<p>30:6 Don’t you add to His words, lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar-</p><p>This is alluded to in <a href='B:730 22:19'>Rev 22:19</a>. Solomon may have in mind those who might try to add to the promises to David in order to justify their power grabs or taking of his throne from him. Always in Proverbs Solomon seems to use God's truths to bolster himself and his position of power, just as can be done today.</p>


text:
<p>30:7 Two things I have asked of You; don’t deny me before I die-</p><p>LXX "take not favour from me before I die". This could imply that Solomon felt he as David's Messianic son [as he liked to imagine himself] was covered by grace / Divine favour all his days. And this led him to behave in the unspiritual way he did in his private life.</p>


text:
<p>30:8 Remove far from me falsehood and lies. Give me neither poverty nor riches. Feed me with the food that is needful for me-</p><p>Even if Agur isn't Solomon (but see on :1), the words of Agur were selected by Solomon for inclusion in his anthology. Solomon is here alluding to the way that he did not ask for riches, but wisdom (see on :2); 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":&nbsp;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>30:9 lest I be full, deny You, and say, ‘Who is Yahweh?’, or lest I be poor, and steal, and so dishonour the name of my God-</p><p>But this is what happened to Solomon, as it did to Hezekiah. When he was "full", his wives turned his heart away from Yahweh, and he wrote the denial of true faith which we have in Ecclesiastes.</p>


text:
<p>30:10 Don’t accuse a servant along with his master, lest he curse you, and you be held guilty-</p><p>This may be a reference to Rehoboam, Solomon's trusted servant who then turned against him. This is why the Proverbs have much to say about servants. Solomon would be asking that the exiled Rehoboam not be seen as representative of himself. And he threatens that he as the master will then curse any who did so. But LXX has simply "Deliver not a servant into the hands of his master". This would be tacit admission that there were unreasonable masters, and an abused slave had the right to run away.</p>


text:
<p>30:11 There is a generation that curses their father, and doesn’t bless their mother-</p><p>Solomon may be alluding to his half brother Absalom and others in the family who had revolted against David their father, and who were against Solomon's kingship. This means that Solomon is here using Divine truths with a subtext of justifying his own rulership and lineage through David. And this is always a temptation to any who have God's truth; to use it for their own justification. LXX "A wicked generation" is a phrase quoted by the Lord Jesus about the Israel of His day and the last days. Attitudes to family life and parents are seen as the litmus indicator of wickedness.</p>


text:
<p>30:12 There is a generation that is pure in their own eyes, yet are not washed from their filthiness-</p><p>LXX "A wicked generation"; see on :11. The idea of being washed from their filth is alluded to by Peter in <a href='B:680 2:22'>2Pe 2:22</a>. Solomon ended up abusing his people, whipping and beating them because he considered them fools (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). He seems to imply here that his generation were impure, filthy and therefore worthy of such treatment. The heart that bleeds for sinners will be ever seeking to save them, not categorizing them in various compartments of wickedness and then mocking and judging them, as Solomon does in the Proverbs:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>30:13 There is a generation, oh how proud are their eyes! Their eyelids are lifted up-</p><p>"A proud look" is exactly what Solomon's father David didn't have (s:w. <a href='B:230 131:1'>Psa 131:1</a>). He is justifying him, and the word for "lifted up" is a theme here (:13,21,32). It is that used to 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>). But :32 uses the same word for "lifted up" and appears to offer the chance of repentance and forgiveness to such people, which is not typical of Solomon, who generally condemns all opposition to him or David.</p><p>This however is the language used in Song of Solomon of the eyes of his illicit Gentile girlfriend (<a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>; <a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 7:4'>Son 7:4</a>); indeed he was overcome by her eyes (<a href='B:260 6:5'>Son 6:5</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>30:14 There is a generation whose teeth are like swords, and their jaws like knives, to devour the poor from the earth, and the needy from among men-</p><p>Even if Agur isn't Solomon (but see on :1), the words of Agur were selected by Solomon for inclusion in his anthology which is the book of Proverbs. The language here is very similar to that used by David about his persecution by Saul. Solomon may be implying that that "generation" continued, it was the same group who opposed his kingship:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>30:15 The leach has two daughters: ‘Give, give’. There are three things that are never satisfied; four that don’t say, ‘Enough:’-</p><p>LXX "The horse-leech had three dearly-beloved daughters: and these three did not satisfy her; and the fourth was not contented so as to say, Enough"; GNB "A leech has two daughters, and both are named "Give me!"". The leach was a blood sucker. But Solomon's criticisms of animals in :19 (see note there) are because he likens bad women to them. He appears to have in mind a particular woman, perhaps one he codenames Aluqah [translated "leach"], who he found insatiable, along with her daughters. See on :16. Solomon had over 1000 wives, and slept with whom he chose. But he finds this particular woman and her daughters have broken his heart and irritate and anger him because they are so insatiable. Solomon, the apparently powerful over women, becomes ensnared by them, as he laments in <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>.</p>


text:
<p>30:16 Sheol; the barren womb; the earth that is not satisfied with water; and the fire that doesn’t say, ‘Enough’-</p><p>Solomon's 1000 wives would not have seen much of him. He slept with a girl he fancied, and she became his wife, shut up in the harem and perhaps never called for again. And so she was left without children, a barren womb being like a parched land, with an ever burning fire of resentment against him which as it were burnt to the grave, sheol. Solomon, the apparently powerful over women, becomes ensnared by them, as he laments in <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>.</p>


text:
<p>30:17 The eye that mocks at his father, and scorns obedience to his mother: the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, the young eagles shall eat it-</p><p>We will read in Proverbs 31 of Bathsheba's commands to Solomon about women and wine. But he scorned obedience to this:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>30:18 There are three things which are too amazing for me, four which I don’t understand-</p><p>The things listed in :19 all leave no trace of their path or movement. And they all point forward to the way of an adulterous woman (:20). Throughout Proverbs, Solomon is very hard on women and the behaviour of prostitutes and adulterous women. It's quite an obsession with him, and he expresses great bitterness at them, confessing here that their behaviour is beyond even his understanding. Yet he had every woman he fancied, with a harem of 1000 women. But he is so bitter against women who commit adultery. It was inevitable that those women became adulterous, and would hardly remain faithful to Solomon. He likely never saw most of them in the course of a year. And their adultery, as he imagine or fears it, becomes so painful for him. And yet it was the direct result of his unbridled lust in taking so many wives. He who considered himself in power over women was in fact revealed as powerless before them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>30:19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent on a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maiden-</p><p>These things all leave no trace. "The way of a man within a woman" (Heb:) would refer to the sexual act. As discussed on :18, Solomon lived in fear that his many wives were adulterous but with such large numbers, he could never actually prove it. If a king slept with a woman, she became his wife, and was therefore shut up in the harem, perhaps never to be called for by the king ever again. And yet Solomon therefore lived in fear of those women, because he suspected them of adultery but could never prove it as there was no outward sign of it, just as birds, snakes and ships leave no evidence of their path. His reference to the ship in the midst of the ocean may be a wry commentary upon how his mother had described his ideal wife (<a href='B:240 31:14'>Pro 31:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>30:20 So is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done nothing wrong’-</p><p>LXX "who having washed herself from what she has done, says she has done nothing amiss". There is a strange connection with Bathsheba ritually washing herself before David slept with her (<a href='B:100 11:4'>2Sa 11:4</a>). This may be some psychological reflection of the way Solomon continually seeks to whitewash the sin of his father David with his mother Bathsheba. "Wipes her mouth" is GNB "takes a bath". The woman has a quasi spiritual image to her, as found in the whore of Proverbs 7 who likewise outwardly appears ritually obedient to the Mosaic law. In the Song of Solomon, Solomon describes his illicit Gentile girlfriend in the language of Israel and Mosaic laws; he fell for the very kind of woman he so bitterly curses here. Again we see that he comes the parade example of a man who does the very opposite of the truth he has received from God. This is a stage beyond mere hypocrisy; it is the narcissism of someone playing God, who considers themselves personal obedience to the Divine principles they teach. And this is for all time an acute temptation to those who have God's truth, especially in the area of sexuality:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>30:21 For three things the earth trembles, and under four, it can’t bear up-</p><p>The idea is that these are things which should not lifted up in the earth / eretz promised to Abraham. The word for "bear / lift up" is that used to 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><p>But LXX "By three things the earth is troubled, and the fourth it cannot bear". This would make the handmaid of :23 the most awful of all these scenarios.</p>


text:
<p>30:22 For a servant when he is king; a fool when he is filled with food-</p><p>GNB "a slave who becomes a king". The allusions would be to Jeroboam Solomon's servant who wanted to become king (<a href='B:110 11:26'>1Ki 11:26</a>); and to Nabal the fool. If Solomon had truly trusted in God's prophetic word to establish his throne, he wouldn't have needed to continually be fencing and defending himself by sniping at his opponents through his Proverbs.</p>


text:
<p>30:23 for an unloved woman when she is married; and a handmaid who is heir to her mistress-</p><p>The allusions are to Leah, and then to Hagar and Sarah. Solomon's harem of 1000 women doubtless contained many who felt they were "unloved women". He sees truth, but lived otherwise. But LXX "or if a maid-servant should cast out her own mistress; and if a hateful woman should marry a good man":&nbsp; It was the mistress Sarah who cast out Hagar the maidservant; the LXX suggests that if it were the other way around, this would have been a terrible thing. Solomon's justification of Sarah's actions seems wrong; for she was not right in what she did, even though the incident is given typical significance in Galatians 4.</p>


text:
<p>30:24 There are four things which are little on the earth, but they are exceedingly wise-</p><p>LXX "Wiser than the wise". I will note on :26 that all the animals mentioned are seen by Solomon as representative of himself as a hard worker; and he sees himself as the preeminently wise one in Israelite society.</p>


text:
<p>30:25 The ants are not a strong people, yet they provide their food in the summer-</p><p>Even if Agur isn't Solomon (but see on :1), the words of Agur were selected by Solomon for inclusion in his&nbsp; anthology of Proverbs. This statement repeats that of Solomon in <a href='B:240 6:6'>Pro 6:6</a>. 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>30:26 The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks-</p><p>"Rock badgers" (ESV), "rabbits" (LXX). To have a house in rocks was an allusion to royal palaces (<a href='B:290 33:16'>Isa 33:16</a>) and summer palaces carved in mountains. Solomon had such a palace in the Lebanon mountains, and likewise the royal palaces of Babylon (<a href='B:300 51:25'>Jer 51:25</a>) and Edom (<a href='B:380 1:3'>Oba 1:3</a>) were houses in the rocks. Allusions to kings and their palaces continue in :27,28. The idea is that by hard work (see on :26), a man rises up from lowly beginnings to the throne and palace. This is Solomon presenting himself as having attained his throne and palaces by his hard work. But he misses the point; that he was exalted by grace, because he was David's son, and was given wealth and glory by God, and not because of his hard work:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>30:27 The locusts have no king, yet they advance in ranks-</p><p>LXX "march orderly at one command". As explained on :26, the idea is that a tiny locust works his way up to be a leader. Or just reading it as it stands, the idea may be that unity is not brought about by human leadership but by obedience to God's word; which Solomon sees as being taught by his mouth through his Proverbs.</p>


text:
<p>30:28 You can catch a lizard with your hands, yet it is in kings’ palaces-</p><p>LXX "is easily taken". As explained on :26, the idea is that a tiny lizard works his way up to be a king in a palace, even though earlier it would have been easy for men to catch him. But he persevered and got into the palace. This is Solomon presenting himself as having attained his throne and palaces by his hard work. But he misses the point; that he was exalted by grace, because he was David's son, and was given wealth and glory by God, and not because of his hard work. </p>


text:
<p>30:29 There are three things which are stately in their march, four which are stately in going-</p><p>"Stately" implies these animals are to be compared to kings in regal procession; and as noted on :30, Solomon clearly has himself in view, as in all these allusions to animals.</p>


text:
<p>30:30 The lion, which is mightiest among animals, and doesn’t turn away for any-</p><p>Solomon again has himself in view, seeing himself as the lion of the tribe of Judah against whom there can be no opposition as king of beasts. But this language was only finally appropriate for the Lord Jesus as the true Messianic son of David (<a href='B:730 5:5'>Rev 5:5</a>). See on :32. Solomon assumed the promises to David were totally fulfilled in him, and he was perhaps encouraged in this by David's fantasy that this would be the case in Psalms 45, 72 etc. He whitewashed in his own mind the much laboured conditional nature of those promises; he assumed he was right and acceptable before God. This is a particular tendency for some, although not for all. For some struggle to have any positive view about themselves, whereas others are over confident and arrogant in their self perceptions.</p>


text:
<p>30:31 the greyhound, the male goat also; and the king against whom there is no rising up-</p><p>This is Solomon implying that revolt against his kingship is futile; there can be no opposition to him, and any such rising up against him or his father was the work of fools without wisdom (see on :30,32). LXX "a cock walking in boldly among the hens, and the goat leading the herd; and a king publicly speaking before a nation". ESV "a king whose army is with him".</p>


text:
<p>30:32 If you have done foolishly in lifting up yourself, or if you have thought evil, put your hand over your mouth-</p><p>The one who exalted or 'lifted up' himself 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>). "Thought evil" 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>). See on :13,21. But :13 uses the same word for "lifted up"; but here in :32 there is the apparent chance of repentance [with hand over mouth] and forgiveness to such people. But this is not typical of Solomon, who generally condemns all opposition to him or David.</p><p>On one hand Solomon condemns mirth (<a href='B:250 7:4'>Ecc 7:4</a>; Prov. 20:32 LXX "If thou abandon thyself to mirth, and stretch forth thine hand in a quarrel, thou shalt be disgraced"). But this is exactly what Solomon did in <a href='B:250 2:1-2'>Ecc 2:1-2</a>; <a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>. He refused to accept his own wisdom. It was merely a teaching position, and he felt the need to empirically find its truth. he failed to personalize the wisdom he taught, and therefore turned away in the end .</p>


text:
<p>30:33 For as the churning of milk brings forth butter, and the wringing of the nose brings forth blood; so the churning of wrath brings forth judgment-</p><p>GNB "If you hit someone's nose, it bleeds. If you stir up anger, you get into trouble". This is as ever true as far as it goes. But the Proverbs often seek to instill a spirit of conservatism into Israelite society, which would quash opposition, criticism of the leadership and thereby leave Solomon established in power. If he had truly trusted in the promises about the Divine establishment of David's throne, he wouldn't have needed such intrigues.</p>


text:
<p>31:1</p><p>The words of king Lemuel; the oracle with which his mother warned him-</p><p>Bathsheba was a spiritual woman, married to a man of faith (Uriah). Solomon (the Lemuel of the book of Proverbs) was brought up by a very spiritual mother. The spiritual woman of Proverbs 31 whom Solomon likens to his mother is a cameo of the sort of woman Bathsheba was. Note how Lemuel’s mother (Bathsheba) warns her son not to give his strength to women, to those relationships which destroy kings. She surely said this with a sideways glance back at her own failures with David.</p><p>The poem is an acrostic, each verse starting with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In terms of style, it's been observed that this was typical of&nbsp; the “heroic hymn." "It is the kind of hymn that typically would celebrate a soldier’s mighty deeds and his victory in battle" [Waltke]. Domestic work is being lifted up to heroic status, which was not at all how the male based societies of the time saw it. Her "strength" (:17,25), fearlessness (:21,25) etc. are praised, and the Hebrew word translated "virtuous" is elsewhere translated as army, [military] company, band of soldiers, valiant, strong, war etc. (<a href='B:20 14:4'>Exo 14:4</a>; <a href='B:20 14:9'>Exo 14:9</a>; <a href='B:20 14:28'>Exo 14:28</a>; <a href='B:40 31:14'>Num 31:14</a>; <a href='B:100 8:9'>2Sa 8:9</a>; <a href='B:290 10:14'>Isa 10:14</a>; <a href='B:400 4:13'>Mic 4:13</a>). The military sense there in the word is clear. The word is used three times in Ruth; Boaz was a man of "power"(<a href='B:80 2:1'>Rth 2:1</a>), and Ruth is called a "virtuous" woman who would "do mightily" (<a href='B:80 3:11'>Rth 3:11</a>; <a href='B:80 4:11'>Rth 4:11</a>). She appears to be the prototype of the woman of Proverbs 31, but she is given the same title as the powerful Boaz. The point is, the strength was in different ways, but none the same, the power was joint between them, they were in a spiritual and psychological sense as equals. It appeared, of course, that Elimelech was the man of power and Ruth was the powerless female Gentile. But the record is making the point that they were equals.</p><p>LXX removes all reference to "Lemuel": "My words have been spoken by God—the oracular answer of a king, whom his mother instructed". In this case, Solomon is claiming that he is inspired by God because his mother was.</p>


text:
<p>31:2 Oh, my son! Oh, son of my womb!-</p><p>LXX "What wilt thou keep, my son, what? the words of God. My firstborn son, I speak to thee". Solomon was Bathsheba's firstborn son by David; perhaps because she was more of a daughter to Uriah, he had not had children by her (<a href='B:100 12:3'>2Sa 12:3</a>).</p><p>Oh, son of my vows!-</p><p>GNB "the answer to my prayers". After the loss of her first son by David, she would have prayed and vowed to God to give any other son to God.</p>


text:
<p>31:3 Don’t give your strength to women, nor your ways to that which destroys kings-</p><p>Proverbs 31&nbsp; was perhaps written by&nbsp;Bathsheba&nbsp; as advice to her son Lemuel (Solomon). In it she seems to be rebuking Solomon for his ways; or giving him commands which he broke, despite all his emphasis in Proverbs upon obeying the law of ones mother:&nbsp; "What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to them that destroy kings (i:e. women and adultery;&nbsp; surely this was said with a sideways glance at her own relationship with David)" (<a href='B:240 31:3'>Pro 31:3</a> RVmg). Proverbs 31 goes on to describe the ideal wife for Solomon, based upon his mother; exactly the opposite of the women&nbsp; Solomon married. We are left to imagine Bathsheba's grief of&nbsp; mind, especially&nbsp; recalling&nbsp; her husband's special pride in Solomon. This was not just a case of protective mother checking out&nbsp; Solomon's&nbsp; girlfriends&nbsp; in a disapproving manner. She knew, through&nbsp; the&nbsp; inspiration&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; Spirit&nbsp; as&nbsp; well&nbsp; as her own personal&nbsp; experience, the seriousness of messing with women. And she could see her ever so spiritual son going wrong in this.</p><p>He praises his mother for teaching him not to give his strength, “nor to them [women] who destroy kings” (<a href='B:240 31:3'>Pro 31:3</a> RVmg:), and yet he must surely have perceived that this was just what he had done. But he praises his mother for having taught him this truth; all the emphasis was upon academic teaching and acceptance of positions, rather than upon personalizing these things.</p>


text:
<p>31:4 It is not for kings, Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes to say, ‘Where is strong drink?’-</p><p>Her warnings against&nbsp; alcohol were totally&nbsp; disregarded&nbsp;&nbsp; by&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; in&nbsp; his&nbsp; later&nbsp; search&nbsp; for fulfilment&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; flesh (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>):&nbsp;Despite condemning those who ignore the teaching of their mother, Solomon did just that. He was a stellar example of a man who does the very opposite of the truth he has received from God. This is a stage beyond mere hypocrisy; it is the narcissism of someone playing God, who considers themselves personal obedience to the Divine principles they teach. And this is for all time an acute temptation to those who have God's truth, especially in the area of sexuality and addiction.</p>


text:
<p>31:5 lest they drink and forget the law, and pervert the justice due to anyone who is afflicted-</p><p>She pleads with him not to drink&nbsp; lest he “pervert the judgment of any that is afflicted” (:5 AV). And yet on his death, the complaints about his hard oppression of the people indicate that he did just this (due to his taking to drink, according to <a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>?). And yet Proverbs 31 has Solomon praising his mother for her wisdom; he was proud of his mum, and yet he so miserably disobeyed her. He seems to have a mindset in which he felt it was impossible for him to be disobedient. The all important thing for him was who his parents and pedigree were.</p><p>LXX "forget wisdom, and be not able to judge the poor rightly". Perhaps he has this in mind when he protests in <a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a> that his wisdom remained with him. He didn't forget it, in that he still remained aware of it on a theoretical, intellectual level. But he was not thereby justified; and he failed to judge the poor rightly in that he whipped them and abused his people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>31:6 Give strong drink to him who is ready to perish; and wine to the bitter in soul-</p><p>Bathsheba's appeal is for Solomon not to act like one who has no hope for future life, nor as one "bitter in soul". But he takes to alcohol in <a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a> exactly because all his wisdom had taken no personal lodgment within him and he failed to have the perspective of eternity in God's Kingdom. It was those who followed David who were described as "bitter in soul" because of their sharing David's afflictions (<a href='B:90 22:2'>1Sa 22:2</a>; <a href='B:100 17:8'>2Sa 17:8</a>). But David himself despaired of his men being like that; Solomon was to act as king, assured of God's love and final salvation, and not as David's initial followers and those condemned by Divine judgment (<a href='B:330 27:31'>Eze 27:31</a> s:w:). Uriah, Bathsheba's first husband, would have been amongst them and she knew their mindset. Hezekiah uses the same phrase about himself in his final 15 years of life (<a href='B:290 38:15'>Isa 38:15</a>), when as often noted (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>), he followed the sad path of Solomon:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>31:7 let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more-</p><p>By taking to drink (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>), Solomon was acting as if he was a poor, miserable man with no wealth. This is the basis of so much destructive behaviour; a refusal to accept what God has blessed us with. Solomon repeatedly sees poverty as being the fault of the poor, making it parallel here with "misery" as if poverty is the worst calamity. He sees poor people as poor due to 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>


text:
<p>31:8 Open your mouth for the mute, in the cause of all who are left desolate-</p><p>LXX "Open thy mouth with the word of God, and judge all fairly". Solomon initially did this, as shown by his judgment of the two prostitutes. But Solomon finally departed from his mother's command to care for the poor and desolate (:9) by abusing and whipping his people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>), considering them all fools.</p>


text:
<p>31:9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, and serve justice to the poor and needy-</p><p>Solomon liked to imagine that he was perfectly obedient to his mother's command to open his lips in right judgment. But he went further, to assume that whatever he spoke in whatever context was right and true (see on <a href='B:240 8:6-8'>Pro 8:6-8</a>, where the same words are used). Bathsheba speaks as David does in Psalms 72, where he fantasizes that Solomon will be the Messianic king characterized by righteous judgment for the poor and needy. But she realizes that Solomon must consciously act like this, he must be obedient to her command about this matter. Whereas David, and Solomon, assume that merely by being the favourite son of David he is going to automatically be like this.</p>


text:
<p>31:10 Who can find a worthy woman? For her price is far above rubies-</p><p>"More precious than jewels" is the very phrase used about wisdom in <a href='B:240 3:15'>Pro 3:15</a>. The virtuous woman here is portrayed as the embodiment of the 'woman wisdom' with which Proverbs starts. Indeed <a href='B:240 1:8'>Pro 1:8</a> begins with an appeal to heed our mother's teaching, and concludes with Solomon claiming to have done so himself. Solomon respected Bathsheba his mother (<a href='B:110 2:19'>1Ki 2:19</a>) and appears to be justifying her as the most wonderful 'wise woman' ever- and he did so in he context of the sons of David's other wives pretending to the throne and being his political opponents.</p><p>"An excellent wife who can find?" (ESV) is perhaps Solomon cynically observing that none of his wives were like her, similar to his comment to this effect in <a href='B:250 7:28'>Ecc 7:28</a>, which uses the same word for "find": "::. which my soul has sought repeatedly, but I have not found. One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found". And yet, as noted throughout Proverbs 31, he finally disobeys all the commands him, to the letter. He becomes like the man who for ever upholds his mother's Christian wisdom and grace, but acts in the opposite way.</p>


text:
<p>31:11 The heart of her husband trusts in her; he shall have no lack of profit-</p><p>"No need of spoil" (AV) could imply that he will not be tempted to go looking for other relationships because he trusts in his wife. And that feature of trust in our partner is a unique glue which binds a relationship together. But I noted on <a href='B:240 30:18-19'>Pro 30:18-19</a> that Solomon was sceptical of his 1000 wives; he suspected them of adultery, but couldn't prove it. His heart didn't trust in them, and so he looked for other women. He tool whoever he fancied, slept with them, and thereby the girl became his wife, entered the harem, was maybe hardly ever called for again. And thus she was left without children and bitter against Solomon. This was all a direct result of Solomon departing from the teaching of his mother on this matter:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>31:12 She does him good and not harm all the days of her life-</p><p>A swipe at David's other wives from the household of Saul? Solomon speaks in <a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a> as if he were on a journey of discovery as to what would be "good" for a man "all the days of his life"; and yet in <a href='B:240 31:12'>Pro 31:12</a> he spoke of how the way of wisdom and having a wise wife will bring "good" for a man "all the days of his life". Perhaps this is a tacit admission that Solomon had not had a wise wife; and it is also an admission of the way the wisdom he taught had taken zero lodgment in his own heart. It was all just theoretical truth. This is such a warning to us:&nbsp;Solomon, the apparently powerful over women, becomes ensnared and deeply harmed by them, as he laments in <a href='B:240 30:15'>Pro 30:15</a>; <a href='B:240 30:18-19'>Pro 30:18-19</a>; <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>. This was all a direct result of Solomon departing from the teaching of his mother on this matter:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>31:13 She seeks wool and flax and works eagerly with her hands-</p><p>The ideal wife for Solomon is presented as someone like him, hard working and industrious. This fits in with the obsession with works and achievement which fills the Proverbs. There is nothing wrong with it of itself, but there is no emphasis here upon faith in God and spirituality as the lead characteristic a man should look for in a woman:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>31:14 She is like the merchant ships; she brings her food from afar-</p><p>GNB "She brings home food from out-of-the-way places, as merchant ships do". The idea may be that she prepares a wide range of dishes for her husband; something unusual in a society which basically ate the same kind of food each meal. Solomon appear to allude to this when he likens his wives to merchant ships who leave no trace of their path, in that he suspects them of adultery but can't prove it (see on <a href='B:240 30:19'>Pro 30:19</a>). He is admitting that his wives were simply not as his mother had suggested; but she had taught him to focus upon one wife, and he had ignored this.</p>


text:
<p>31:15 She rises also while it is yet night, gives food to her household and portions for her servant girls-</p><p>Despite having female servants and a husband "in the gate" (:23), presumably wealthy, this woman gets her hands dirty with making things with her own hands (:19 etc:). The "portions" are really things to do, assignments. She becomes the basis of the Lord's parable of how He gives His servants tasks when He goes away. He was unafraid to take the description of a woman as a role model for Him as a male.</p>


text:
<p>31:16 She considers a field and then buys it. With the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard-</p><p>The Lord Jesus spoke of the wise man buying a field with hidden treasure in it; and it is God who planted the vineyard of Israel. Again we see how the Father and Son are unafraid to take the description of a woman as a role model for themselves.</p>


text:
<p>31:17 She arms her waist with strength and makes her arms strong-</p><p>Her body is characterized by muscles, with strong arms and waist. This is not what Solomon finds attractive when we find him praising his Gentile lover in the Song of Solomon. He finds attractive the very opposite of the woman presented here by his mother. The lover of his Song appears to be the very antithesis of the virtuous woman.</p>


text:
<p>31:18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable. Her lamp doesn’t go out by night-</p><p>GNB "She knows the value of everything she makes, and works late into the night". LXX continues Solomon's emphasis upon justification by works: "And she finds by experience that working is good". Solomon's romance with the Gentile woman of the Song of Solomon contains only praise of her outward appearance and choice of cosmetics and jewellery; there is no mention of her work or industrious characteristics, which his mother tells him to be attracted to.</p>


text:
<p>31:19 she lays her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle-</p><p>The idea may be as GNB that "She spins her own thread and weaves her own cloth", rather than buying it ready made. Again, the woman of the Song of Solomon is absolutely different, arrayed in the clothing of Egypt and other imported&nbsp; adornments, rather than in clothes she has homespun.</p>


text:
<p>31:20 She opens her arms to the poor; yes, she extends her hands to the needy-</p><p>She is to support her husband in his focus upon the needy (:8,9). But Solomon's Gentile girlfriend of the Song of Solomon is not at all characterized by this. David had seen himself as "poor and needy", needing grace after his sin with Bathsheba and its consequences (<a href='B:230 40:17'>Psa 40:17</a>; <a href='B:230 70:5'>Psa 70:5</a>; <a href='B:230 86:1'>Psa 86:1</a>; <a href='B:230 109:16'>Psa 109:16</a>; <a href='B:230 109:22'>Psa 109:22</a>). He wished Solomon to likewise have pity on the "poor and needy" amongst the Gentiles, those who had likewise repented (<a href='B:230 72:13'>Psa 72:13</a>). And David was especially desirous to himself see the "poor and needy" blessed and accepted as he had been (<a href='B:230 82:3-4'>Psa 82:3-4</a>; <a href='B:230 113:7'>Psa 113:7</a>). It is our personal experience of needing grace which leads us to have a heart for those like us, the poor and needy. Any other motivation will ultimately not abide. Solomon appears to glorify his mother Bathsheba for likewise pitying the poor and needy (<a href='B:240 31:9'>Pro 31:9</a>; <a href='B:240 31:20'>Pro 31:20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>31:21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household; for all her household are clothed with scarlet-</p><p>LXX "Her husband is not anxious about those at home when he tarries anywhere abroad: for all her household are clothed". This again would be the basis of the Lord's parable about Himself as the householder who goes abroad "to a far country". As noted on :15,16, the woman is given a very high status; she is presented as completely managing the household herself in the husband's absence, rather than a household manager assuming that responsibility.</p>


text:
<p>31:22 She makes for herself carpets of tapestry, her clothing is fine linen and purple-</p><p>LXX "She makes for her husband clothes of double texture, and garments for herself of fine linen and scarlet"- rather than buying ready made clothes. But this contrasts with what Solomon found attractive in his illicit Gentile girlfriend in the Song of Solomon. There may here be allusion to the materials of the tabernacle, as if domestic life is but an extension of life in the tabernacle and formal worship of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>31:23 Her husband is respected in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land-</p><p>An allusion to Ruth and Boaz. The implication is that this respect is largely due to his wife and his domestic situation under her good care. This contrasts with attitudes then and now, where a man's domestic life and relationships aren't seen as significant compared to his performance in the job. But the qualification of New Testament elders likewise takes into account domestic life, because this is the litmus test of spirituality in practice.</p>


text:
<p>31:24 She makes linen garments and sells them, and delivers sashes to the merchant-</p><p>LXX "She makes fine linens, and sells girdles to the Canaanites: she opens her mouth heedfully and with propriety, and controls her tongue". The impression is that rather than buying ready made clothes from foreigners, she makes her own clothes, and also sells her produce to other nations. This all contrasts with the woman Solomon falls for in the Song of Solomon, who comes over as a painted doll, clothed in ready made clothes from other lands.</p>


text:
<p>31:25 Strength and dignity are her clothing, she laughs at the time to come-</p><p>LXX "and rejoices in the last day". Unlike Solomon, his mother Bathsheba realizes that life is to be lived in the perspective of a "last day" of judgment, when there will be eternal outcomes for how life is lived today. It was Solomon's failure to realize this which led him to so much arrogance, and the hypocrisy and disobedience which comes from assuming that judgment day will not come at the last day.</p>


text:
<p>31:26 She opens her mouth with wisdom, faithful instruction is on her tongue-</p><p>She is to likewise teach as her husband does. Again, a very high view of women is presupposed here, quite different to that held in society at the time. But we note that 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 mother and 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>


text:
<p>31:27 She looks well to the ways of her household, and doesn’t eat the bread of laziness-</p><p>To eat the bread of laziness was and is a particular temptation for the wife of a wealthy leader. But Solomon was to look for a woman who would not be like that. Yet the impression we get of the girl he fell for in the Song of Solomon is that she was a "prince's daughter" who was not at all a hard worker.</p>


text:
<p>31:28 Her children rise up and call her blessed. Her husband also praises her-</p><p>LXX "And her kindness to them sets up her children for them, and they grow rich, and her husband praises her". The 'setting up' of their children would be because of the wife. There may be some reference to the repeated emphasis upon God 'establishing' the line of David- if they were faithful. There was no way that a Gentile wife could achieve this, and yet Solomon married hundreds of them. He hardly praises his wives; <a href='B:240 30:16-19'>Pro 30:16-19</a> is full of suspicion of them regarding their possible adultery. In fact, Solomon is very down on women in Proverbs, assuming many of them are adulterous and no better than prostitutes. But it was his sleeping with whoever he chose and thereby making them his wives which led to this situation.</p>


text:
<p>31:29 Many women do noble things, but you excel them all!-</p><p>Again we note the positive view of women by Bathsheba, noting that many women do noble things. This was all the more radical, being said at a time when men dominated the public arena and were typically associated with doing noble deeds. LXX "He says, "Many women are good wives, but you are the best of them all"". This is quite contrary to the spirit of Solomon's experience in <a href='B:250 7:26-27'>Ecc 7:26-27</a>, where he as it were goes through all his "many women" one by one, and can't say that a single one of them is "good". Bathsheba clearly has in mind that Solomon would have but one wife, whom he would praise as the best of all women. He totally rejected this ideal.</p>


text:
<p>31:30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain; but a woman who fears Yahweh, she shall be praised-</p><p>Yet Solomon fell for the external beauty of the Gentile woman in the Song of Solomon. David fantasized about Solomon's marriage in <a href='B:230 45:11'>Psa 45:11</a>, where he says that Solomon would greatly desire his Gentile bride because of her "beauty" (s:w:). But Bathsheba here says the opposite; that such beauty is vain, and her fear of Yahweh should be the basis of Solomon's attraction to her. Solomon took David's perspective, which was simply wrong.</p>


text:
<p>31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands! Let her works praise her in the gates!-</p><p>LXX "Let her husband be praised in the gates", as in :23. This is another allusion to Boaz, whose marriage to Ruth produced the line which led to David and Solomon. She is asking Solomon to continue in that spirit; but he didn't. Solomon failed to be the true spiritual seed of David because he didn't at all live in the family spirit which began with the marital example of Boaz and Ruth.</p>


text:
<p>The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem<strong>- </strong></p><p>I will explain on :16 why this book is appropriate to Solomon as author, at the time when his wives had turned away his heart from Yahweh. The "preacher", the convener or gatherer of an assembly for teaching, could as well mean the compiler. He says he produced and set in order many Proverbs (<a href='B:250 12:9'>Ecc 12:9</a>), and this confirms that Solomon is the "son of David" in view. His emphasis upon how he was "king in Jerusalem" suggests he considers his kingship there as a fulfilment of the promises to David, which he considered to be fulfilled in himself. The description of his indulgence in every building project, woman and avenue of human experience in Ecclesiastes 2 can only really apply to Solomon:&nbsp; </p><p>But a case has been made for Hezekiah as the author. The huge amount of Solomonic language, and connections with Proverbs, Song of Solomon and his own recorded life history, would mean that I would still take Solomon as the author. But as explained on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, Hezekiah had a great interest in Solomon, and edited his Proverbs in Proverbs 25-29. I have pointed out throughout that section the relevance of so much of that material to Hezekiah. The way Hezekiah followed Solomon's path to apostasy in later life would explain his interest in the book. And so just as he reused Proverbs 25-29, as stated in <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, so he may have used Ecclesiastes, as he found it so relevant to his own situation at the end of his life. He too had turned away from God in his heart but still retained Divine wisdom- in terms of theoretical truth. Likewise the observation has been made that there is much language used in Ecclesiastes which is influenced by Persian, as if the book was rewritten in captivity. That too may be the case, although I would add that whatever the processes, it was all under the overall inspiration of God. Judah in captivity were as Solomon at the end of his life and Hezekiah in his last 15 years, and the book would therefore have been used as an appeal for their repentance from the vanity of the good life in Persia. <a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a> The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem<strong>- </strong></p><p>I will explain on :16 why this book is appropriate to Solomon as author, at the time when his wives had turned away his heart from Yahweh. The "preacher", the convener or gatherer of an assembly for teaching, could as well mean the compiler. He says he produced and set in order many Proverbs (<a href='B:250 12:9'>Ecc 12:9</a>), and this confirms that Solomon is the "son of David" in view. His emphasis upon how he was "king in Jerusalem" suggests he considers his kingship there as a fulfilment of the promises to David, which he considered to be fulfilled in himself. The description of his indulgence in every building project, woman and avenue of human experience in Ecclesiastes 2 can only really apply to Solomon:&nbsp; </p><p>But a case has been made for Hezekiah as the author. The huge amount of Solomonic language, and connections with Proverbs, Song of Solomon and his own recorded life history, would mean that I would still take Solomon as the author. But as explained on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, Hezekiah had a great interest in Solomon, and edited his Proverbs in Proverbs 25-29. I have pointed out throughout that section the relevance of so much of that material to Hezekiah. The way Hezekiah followed Solomon's path to apostasy in later life would explain his interest in the book. And so just as he reused Proverbs 25-29, as stated in <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, so he may have used Ecclesiastes, as he found it so relevant to his own situation at the end of his life. He too had turned away from God in his heart but still retained Divine wisdom- in terms of theoretical truth. Likewise the observation has been made that there is much language used in Ecclesiastes which is influenced by Persian, as if the book was rewritten in captivity. That too may be the case, although I would add that whatever the processes, it was all under the overall inspiration of God. Judah in captivity were as Solomon at the end of his life and Hezekiah in his last 15 years, and the book would therefore have been used as an appeal for their repentance from the vanity of the good life in Persia.</p>


text:
<p>Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher; Vanity of vanities, all is vanity<strong>- </strong></p><p>Many attempts have been made to claim that Ecclesiastes is a kind of dialogue between a believer, or arguments for belief in Yahweh, and those for unbelief. But all these arguments for some kind of dialectic rather break down, in my opinion, because the Preacher himself here states, and repeats it often, that everything is vanity, including wisdom. Such statements are so global that they cannot really be as it were cancelled out by some other side in a dialectic:&nbsp; And there is no clear schema according to which we can discern which verses fall within which side of the supposed dialectic. It's true that there is a difference between the words of the Preacher and those of the narrator, but this kind of thing is common enough in autobiography. For Ecclesiastes is just that; chapter 2 speaks of Solomon's early kingship, and proceeds to conclude with the description of him in very old age in Ecclesiastes 12. The overall thrust of Solomon's argument is clearly against commitment to God, which is to be expected seeing we know that in old age his heart turned away from Yahweh. The few verses which appear to contradict that are, I suggest, Solomon quoting his previous wisdom and mocking it as vanity. Some of the verses which mention "God" appear to reference Him with sarcasm (see on <a href='B:250 2:24'>Ecc 2:24</a>; <a href='B:250 2:26'>Ecc 2:26</a>; <a href='B:250 6:12'>Ecc 6:12</a>); and not as commending belief in God at all.</p><p>I suggest therefore that there is no such dialectic, but rather we are reading here Solomon's reflections upon his life, as an old man facing death. And this was at a time when the Scriptures tell us his heart had been turned away from Yahweh by his wives; and he died abusing his people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). Seeing Ecclesiastes was clearly written in his old age, it was written at this time when he had turned away. Ecclesiastes therefore never mentions the title "Yahweh", there is no mention of Israel as God's people, nor really of the Mosaic law. If indeed this is a dialectic between faith and unbelief, then we would expect there to be such references to balance out the dialogue. But there is nothing of the sort. </p><p>I suggest that we are hearing Solomon straight up, telling it how he feels it to be, baring his heart. A heart which had turned away from Yahweh. There are some similarities between the book and Egyptian literature, not least an Egyptian work, The Man Who Was Tired of Life, written between 2300 and 2100 BC, where a man disputed with his soul whether life was worth living. Whilst Solomon's words are recorded by inspiration, this doesn't mean that the content of all that is said in Ecclesiastes is true; for there is a difference between inspiration and revelation, and his thoughts here are hardly a "Thus says the Lord". And so it could be that his Egyptian wives had introduced him to this literature and philosophy, and had indeed turned his heart away from Yahweh and towards this:&nbsp; </p><p>I noted throughout commentary on Proverbs that Solomon held God's truths in his mind and preached them; but his heart was far from them, he never personalized them, and his behaviour with women and in whipping his people was all a stellar denial of the truths which he knew and taught. It was beyond hypocrisy, beyond even narcissism, but rather a mindset which arose from assuming himself to be the Messianic son of David, and his kingdom to be the promised Kingdom of God on earth. As he came closer to death and his faculties failed, he ought to have realized his mistake, and looked forward instead to David's greater son, the Lord Jesus. But instead he simply preferred to conclude that for him, all these great ideas were bunk. He made the mistake so many make; that "truth" is truth 'for you', 'for me'; rather than accepting that Divine truth is indeed absolute and global truth for all hearts at all times. </p><p>But his wisdom remained with him, and he still taught those truths, although they were far from his own heart. In this he is a valuable warning to all who hold God's truths; his apostasy, recorded for us in such detail with a unique insight into the psychology of those who turn away. This is the value of Ecclesiastes. Just as I will discuss on the Song of Solomon how we have in those songs a unique insight into the mentality of the man who flirts with those outside the faith. And Solomon may even have been self aware of all this on some level, for he concludes Ecclesiastes by saying that his words are intended as goads (<a href='B:250 12:11'>Ecc 12:11</a>); the very observation that "all is vanity" is in fact a goad to action:&nbsp; </p><p>This suggestion is true to observed reality. It is not uncommon to encounter those who 'know God's truth' who live absolutely contrary to that truth in their private lives. And yet they are keen to teach that truth to others, even commending it to others, and critical of any attempts to as it were water it down. They may be the conservative hawks of churches or denominations; but they have utterly failed to personalize any of it. They have the Solomon syndrome.</p>


text:
<p>What does man gain from all his labour in which he labours under the sun?<strong>- </strong></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 2, 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>As members of His people, doing His will, the labour of our lives is not in vain, seeing it is done "in the Lord" (<a href='B:530 15:58'>1Co 15:58</a>). Paul seems to be alluding to the spirit of Ecclesiastes, which laments that all achievement and labour "under the sun", not "in the Lord", is so tragically vain; there is no sense of final achievement, and this nagging fear about the ultimate validity of life's work must plague all who live outside the sphere of God (<a href='B:250 1:9-11'>Ecc 1:9-11</a>; <a href='B:250 2:18-23'>Ecc 2:18-23</a>). We could understand Paul as specifically disagreeing with Solomon’s attitude that all endeavour is vain.</p>


text:
<p>One generation goes, and another generation comes; but the earth remains forever-</p><p>This is indeed proof enough that the earth shall not be destroyed, but is rather presented as the territory of God's eternal Kingdom. But that was likely not what Solomon had in view primarily; his idea was that just as he felt helpless in old age and that he had achieved nothing of lasting value, so humanity likewise comes and goes as if on an eternal stage. Solomon uses the Hebrews words used in <a href='B:130 16:17'>1Ch 16:17</a>; <a href='B:130 17:14'>1Ch 17:14</a>; <a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a> of how David's seed would remain forever. In Ecclesiastes, he rejected any idea that he would live for ever, claiming he had no idea what lay beyond the grave apart from the unconsciousness of death, and considering that any fulfilment of the promises to David had been in him and his kingdom. But now he was to die and his kingdom pass to a son whom he suspected of being a fool; and his heart had turned away from Yahweh and toward idols. He could be seen as therefore mocking at the very promises which could have been for him the ultimate gospel of the Kingdom:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hurries to its place where it rises<strong>- </strong></p><p>In line with :6, the idea may be that for all its hurrying [Heb. 'panting'], the sun just returns to where it was. And in that Solomon saw a parable of himself. He had sought wisdom, thought he had it, and now jettisoned it for himself; and he was back where he was, no personally wiser. As noted on :4, he had rejected the hope of resurrection from the dead and a future kingdom of God on earth. And so he was left with the impression that the natural creation continues as it were on clockwork, headed nowhere. It is that lack of sense of direction and progress towards an end which is the tragedy of rejecting a knowledge of Yahweh and His purpose:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north. It turns around continually as it goes, and the wind returns again to its courses<strong>- </strong></p><p>This sense of endless, pointless cyclical operation developed in :5-7 is really arguing that the entire natural creation is encoded with the same nihilism and vanity which Solomon felt in himself. He saw the world in the same way as he saw himself, and that is indeed how we are wired. But for those who have the hope of the Kingdom and an awareness of the work of God's Spirit within them, the outlook is different. They therefore and thereby sense within nature a yearning within it toward the day of God's Kingdom coming on earth, trembling in eager expectation and yearning for that day (sa_96:12-13; <a href='B:290 55:12'>Isa 55:12</a>; <a href='B:520 8:19'>Rom 8:19</a>). The passage in Romans 8 connects the work of the Spirit within believers with the work of the same Spirit in all of creation. </p>


text:
<p>All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, there they flow again<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :6. For Solomon, his "wisdom" was merely knowledge. The promises to David, the hope of the Kingdom, had no personal bite for him. He muses that "there is a time" for everything (<a href='B:250 3:1-7'>Ecc 3:1-7</a>), as if his nihilism led him conclude that all behaviour is somehow predestined, all is cyclical, nothing is ultimately new, and even God is caught up in this- for "God seeks again that which He has driven away" (<a href='B:250 3:15'>Ecc 3:15</a>). As water goes around the water cycle (<a href='B:250 1:7'>Ecc 1:7</a>), so everything repeats, things just happen to us (<a href='B:250 3:1-8'>Ecc 3:1-8</a>), there will be no resurrection, no coming back (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a> RV); and there is therefore no real point in endeavour (<a href='B:250 3:9'>Ecc 3:9</a>). This attitude reveals a pathetic failure to let the knowledge of God dynamically impact daily life; there's no appreciation of the Spirit, of God's radical life co-joining with human life, of His mind meeting that of man. Leaving knowledge as mere theory, as so much Bible study can too easily remain, is a dangerous thing. And Solomon is the parade example of it. </p>


text:
<p>All things are full of weariness beyond uttering<strong>- </strong></p><p>He is really arguing that the entire natural creation is encoded with the same nihilism and vanity which Solomon felt in himself. He saw the world in the same way as he saw himself. LXX "a man will not be able to speak of them". And yet Solomon had spoken of all things by the wisdom given him (<a href='B:110 4:32-33'>1Ki 4:32-33</a>), but now he says that the vanity of all human experience is beyond speaking of. Whilst Solomon retained his wisdom, he felt that it was not the full answer to the mystery of life; and the answer was, so far as he could see it, that all things are vain and wearisome. Life is not therefore particularly worth living. He therefore effectively renounced his wisdom, as we will note throughout Ecclesiastes. This is the attitude which arises when we fail to personalize wisdom, and refuse to accept that this life is not God's Kingdom; that is yet to come.</p><p>The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon had spent his life ingratiating his senses, and this was his conclusion. 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>It is possible to see Solomon as an anti-Christ, as well as a type of Christ; like Saul, he was both a type of Christ, and also the very opposite of the true Christ. This point is really brought out in <a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a>, where the true Messiah is described as being “satisfied” with the travail or labour of His soul, and will thereby bring forth many children. The Hebrew words used occur in close proximity in several passages in Ecclesiastes, where Solomon speaks of how all his “travail” or “labour” has not “satisfied” him, and that it is all the more vain because his children may well not appreciate his labour and will likely squander it (<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>; <a href='B:250 6:3'>Ecc 6:3</a>). Likewise the ‘Babylon’ system of Revelation, replete with its feature of 666, is described in terms which unmistakably apply to Solomon’s Kingdom. This feature of Solomon- being both a type of Christ and yet also the very opposite of the true Christ- reflects the tragic duality which is so characteristic of him. </p><p>In <a href='B:250 2:18-19'>Ecc 2:18-19</a> he laments that&nbsp;his labours will achieve nothing; doubtless alluding back to&nbsp;his&nbsp;words in <a href='B:240 5:10'>Pro 5:10</a>, where he says that the Gentile wife will make the young Israelite's labours meaningless. 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>&nbsp;


text:
<p>That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun<strong>- </strong></p><p>The knowing of God and His Son is not something merely academic, consisting only of facts. It is above all an experience, a thrilling and dynamic one. There is no “new thing under the sun” (<a href='B:250 1:9'>Ecc 1:9</a>)- all in this world is born to roll downhill. And yet in Christ, all things are made new in an ongoing sense. The "new song" which his father David loved to sing (<a href='B:230 33:3'>Psa 33:3</a>; <a href='B:230 40:3'>Psa 40:3</a>; <a href='B:230 96:1'>Psa 96:1</a>; <a href='B:230 98:1'>Psa 98:1</a> etc:) reflected the sense that the movement of the Spirit results in our living in "newness of life". But for Solomon, all was as it were old and boring. He had no sense of the Spirit's renewing work within him:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>David’s life was full of grief, anguish and joy (<a href='B:100 1:19-27'>2Sa 1:19-27</a>; <a href='B:100 3:33-34'>2Sa 3:33-34</a>; <a href='B:100 12:15-23'>2Sa 12:15-23</a>; <a href='B:100 18:33'>2Sa 18:33</a>; <a href='B:100 19:4'>2Sa 19:4</a>; <a href='B:100 23:13-17'>2Sa 23:13-17</a>); whereas Solomon’s life lacked any pathos, and he concludes that “what has been done is what will be done” (<a href='B:250 1:9'>Ecc 1:9</a>). Because he sought to only replicate his father externally, he never experienced his very own and personal experiences and growth; he did what he perceived was right not because it was what he wanted, but because it looked smart, and appeared in line with his father. For those raised Christian, these issues are live and difficult. On a psychological level, it appears that those without personal experience, i:e. experience which is uniquely their own, fall into destructive behaviour- and Solomon would fit that pattern. R:D. Laing comments: “If our experience is destroyed, our behaviour will be destructive” (The Politics Of Experience (New York: Pantheon, 1967) p. 12). And it’s been observed that increasingly, modern society is creating behaviours rather than experiences (Martin Marty, A Nation Of Behavers (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1976)). Typical 21st century man or woman has the Solomon syndrome- focused upon others as their heroes, endless learning from others rather than through empirical, personal experience; adopting the conclusions of others without having personally worked them through; indulging in virtual experience [especially, these days, online] rather than actual experience. Both psychology and the Biblical example of Solomon teach that all this tends to self-destructive behaviour in the end.</p>


text:
<p>Is there a thing of which it may be said, Behold, this is new? It has been long ago, in the ages which were before us<strong>- </strong></p><p>The answer of course is that yes there is. The engagement of God in human life produces something radically new, and this will come to full term in the establishment of God's Kingdom upon earth when the Lord Jesus returns. That was effectively what was promised to Abraham and David, but Solomon liked to think that he was the fulfilment of it. And so he failed to as it were sing the "new song" which his father David loved to sing (<a href='B:230 33:3'>Psa 33:3</a>; <a href='B:230 40:3'>Psa 40:3</a>; <a href='B:230 96:1'>Psa 96:1</a>; <a href='B:230 98:1'>Psa 98:1</a> etc:). But for Solomon, all was as it were old and boring. He had no sense of the Spirit's renewing work within him. History only appears to repeat because of human nature being such a constant factor; but the gospel of the Kingdom is that destiny is not dominated by human nature, but will be the result of God's radical intervention in the human narrative upon this earth. </p>


text:
<p>There is no memory of the former; neither shall there be any memory of the latter that are to come, among those that shall come after<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Memory" is LXX "memorial". He may have in view his half brother Absalom's vain desire to build a memorial to himself (<a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a>). It is the Yahweh Name, symbolizing His eternal purpose with the earth, which is the memorial which abides. But Solomon doesn't use the Name in Ecclesiastes. He was concerned about making a memorial from himself, of his own works, failing to have learned the lesson of Absalom. If he had seen his connection with the Yahweh Name and the longer term purpose of God, instead of assuming that his kingdom was God's Messianic kingdom, then he would have had a memorial. But in the book of Proverbs he sees wisdom as good only in that it gives a good name in this life. But now he was facing death and thinking of the passage of the generations, he concludes that it is vain because man has no lasting memorial in this world. And that is so; but human character is so significant to God that we shall indeed have eternal memorial at the resurrection of the body into God's Kingdom upon earth. </p>


text:
<p>I, the Preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon speaks about him being King in Jerusalem (<a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a>; <a href='B:250 1:12'>Ecc 1:12</a>; <a href='B:240 1:1'>Pro 1:1</a>) as if this was the ultimate fulfilment of the Davidic promises. Consider the implications of <a href='B:140 1:9'>2Ch 1:9</a>: "O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the dust of the earth::. give me now wisdom, that I may go out and come in before (i:e. lead) this people". Solomon was asking for wisdom because he thought that he was the Messiah, and he saw wisdom as a Messianic characteristic. He failed to realize that the promises to Abraham and David were only being primarily fulfilled in him (e:g. <a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>); he thought that he was the ultimate fulfilment of them (<a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a> states this in so many words). His lack of faith and vision of the future Kingdom lead him to this proud and arrogant conclusion (cp. building up our own 'Kingdom' in this life through our lack of vision of the Kingdom of God).</p>


text:
<p>I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under the sky. It is a heavy burden that God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Seek" is the word typically used of how Israel were to seek God, and David often uses it in the Psalms. But Solomon didn't seek relationship with God, but rather sought knowledge. And here we have a profound warning. For in these days of wide Biblical literacy and access to tools enabling even laymen to search out the meaning of the Biblical text, we can so easily end up seeking knowledge of itself, however true, without coming to seek or know God in the Hebraic sense of finding legitimate, two way, live relationship with Him.</p><p>David spoke of seeking and praising God's grace with his "whole heart" (<a href='B:230 9:1'>Psa 9:1</a>; <a href='B:230 119:58'>Psa 119:58</a>; <a href='B:230 138:1'>Psa 138:1</a>). Solomon uses the phrase, but speaks of being obedient with the "whole heart" (<a href='B:110 8:23'>1Ki 8:23</a>; <a href='B:140 6:14'>2Ch 6:14</a>) and applying the "whole heart" to the intellectual search for God (<a href='B:250 1:13'>Ecc 1:13</a>; <a href='B:250 8:9'>Ecc 8:9</a>). There is a difference. The idea of whole hearted devotion to God was picked up by Solomon, but instead of giving the whole heart to the praise of God's grace, he instead advocated giving the whole heart to ritualistic obedience and intellectual search for God. This has been the trap fallen into by many Protestant groups whose obsession with "truth" has obscured the wonder of God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and a chasing after wind<strong>- </strong></p><p>This may be true on one level, but it fails to account for the fact work for God will indeed endure and have eternal consequence, granted at the final day of judgment. But this perspective is totally denied by Solomon, and he is writing Ecclesiastes as his autobiography in old age, when his heart had already turned aside from Yahweh. It is only for those who reject Yahweh that life is a chasing after wind; the term is used in <a href='B:350 12:1'>Hos 12:1</a> of how apostate Israel feed upon / chase after the wind, and in <a href='B:300 22:22'>Jer 22:22</a> of how the wind would chase apostate Judah to their destruction. But they were themselves chasing the wind, so condemnation by being chased by the wind was appropriate. If vanity fills our minds now, then the emptiness of unconsciousness will be an appropriate destiny for us. And the world is so full of vanity, which it seeks to insert into our minds. </p>


text:
<p>That which is crooked can’t be made straight; and that which is lacking can’t be counted<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is typical of the kind of fatalism which Ecclesiastes abounds with. Secular people at the end of their lives often come to the conclusion that everything is somehow overruled by 'God', to the point that human behaviour is pretty much all&nbsp; determined and enforced by a force beyond ourselves. Solomon fails to accept the basic thesis of the book of Proverbs; that human actions can be controlled, we have election, and our choices are for real and eternally significant. We can change, and that which is lacking can be made by God's grace and operation in our hearts. And thereby we are accountable for our actions and to Divine judgment. But Solomon didn't believe in this, and so it led him to conclude that human behaviour isn't that significant and is somehow all orchestrated by some higher hand than our own. He may here be alluding to himself, arguing that change is impossible for him.</p>


text:
<p>I said to myself, Behold, I have obtained for myself great wisdom above all who were before me in Jerusalem. Yes, my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge<strong>- </strong></p><p>Those "before me in Jerusalem" has been used by some to argue that the author must have reigned in Jerusalem at a time when many kings had preceded him. But this would create a major problem with the description of the author as being king of Israel in Jerusalem. It ought to read the king of Judah in Jerusalem. But "before" almost never means 'before' in the sense of 'earlier'; the reference is not to "before" in terms of time, but rather is this the common Hebrew word for "in the presence of". All who had come before his presence in Jerusalem didn't match his wisdom. And this is exactly the case with Solomon; many visited him in Jerusalem and heard his wisdom, marvelling that it was greater than theirs.</p><p>The constant moral and physical experimentation led Solomon to the deep cynicism of Ecclesiastes: 'If this is the Kingdom, the ultimate experience, then I don't think much of it'. Ecclesiastes emphasizes that Solomon experienced more glory and wisdom than any other who had been in Jerusalem (<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>); this suggests that he felt he had reached the ultimate experience of the Kingdom, and yet he was not impressed by it. He lacked the faith and humility to look ahead to the future Kingdom, and to realize thereby that all the achievements of this life are as nothing.</p><p>Solomon's building of exotic gardens with "all kind of fruit" (<a href='B:250 2:5'>Ecc 2:5</a>) sounds as if he was attempting to reconstruct Eden;&nbsp; he was so carried away with expressing his own abilities that he effectively created his own kingdom in this life. It seems Solomon's crazy program of building and moral experimentation (outlined in Ecclesiastes 2) began after he had finished building the temple. He seems to have got cynical and depressed after that; he had his kingdom in this life;&nbsp; he looked back and compared himself with others (<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>), and thereby he became proud. He could see that materially and spiritually (in terms of knowledge) he had far, far outstripped all God's previous servants. It was this comparison with others (there is triple emphasis on it) which well indicates his pride.</p><p>The words of <a href='B:50 17:16-20'>Deu 17:16-20</a> are evidently a prophecy of Solomon:&nbsp;&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" (v. 20). 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 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; </p>


text:
<p>I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also was a chasing after wind<strong>- </strong></p><p>LXX "My heart knew much- wisdom, and knowledge, parables and understanding". Solomon accepts his wisdom was as it were just in his head or mind. The LXX even implies he considers his desire for wisdom to have been mistaken, "a waywardness of spirit". And yet God had rewarded him for that desire. We see here the depth of his apostasy from God. </p>


text:
<p>For in much wisdom is much grief; and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow- </p><p>Solomon forgot that his wisdom was a gift from God; he speaks in <a href='B:250 1:16'>Ecc 1:16</a> of how “I have gotten me great wisdom” (RV). His possession of truth led him to the assumption that this was a reward for his own diligence; whereas it was a gift by grace. Yet he himself knew that the wisdom given by God brings joy, whereas human wisdom leads to the grief and depression which afflicted Solomon (<a href='B:250 1:18'>Ecc 1:18</a> cp. 2:26). Solomon&nbsp; 'had&nbsp; the truth', he knew so deeply the true principles of&nbsp; Yahweh&nbsp; worship:&nbsp; But&nbsp; like&nbsp; us,&nbsp; he scarcely considered the enormity&nbsp; of the gap between the theory he knew and the practice of&nbsp; it&nbsp; in&nbsp; his&nbsp; own&nbsp; heart&nbsp; and living. We too have a tendency to build up masses of Biblical and spiritual knowledge, and to let the mere acquisition of it stop us from practicing it. </p>


text:
<p></p><p>I said in my heart, Come now<strong>- </strong></p><p>The more we come to know ourselves, the more we will perceive the importance of self-talk. I take Ecclesiastes to be Solomon’s self-examination at the end of his life. Five times in this short book he describes how “I said in my heart::." (<a href='B:250 2:1'>Ecc 2:1</a>; <a href='B:250 2:15'>Ecc 2:15</a> [twice]; 3:17,18). As he looked back and analyzed how and why he had lived and been as he had, he appreciated that it was all a result of his self-talk, how he had spoken to himself in his mind. His introspection reveals just how we talk to ourselves – e:g. “I said in my heart, “Go on now, I will prove you with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure”“ (<a href='B:250 2:1'>Ecc 2:1</a>). We all talk to ourselves; and the records of the Lord’s wilderness temptations are an amazing psychological window into the self-talk of God’s very own son. </p><p>I will test you with mirth: therefore enjoy pleasure; and behold, this also was vanity<strong>- </strong></p><p>On one hand Solomon condemns mirth (<a href='B:250 7:4'>Ecc 7:4</a>; Prov. 20:32 LXX "If thou abandon thyself to mirth, and stretch forth thine hand in a quarrel, thou shalt be disgraced"). But this is exactly what Solomon did in <a href='B:250 2:1-2'>Ecc 2:1-2</a>; <a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>. He refused to accept his own wisdom. It was merely a teaching position, and he felt the need to empirically find its truth. He failed to personalize the wisdom he taught, and therefore turned away in the end.</p><p>Don't love "pleasure" (<a href='B:240 21:17'>Pro 21:17</a>) and <a href='B:240 14:13'>Pro 14:13</a> "even in mirth there is sorrow" are both 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 direct Divine teaching about it. He recognized that fools love mirth (<a href='B:240 7:4'>Pro 7:4</a>) but still he&nbsp; wanted it. 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>). </p>


text:
<p>I said of laughter, It is foolishness; and of mirth, What does it accomplish?-</p><p>"Mirth" is the word for "pleasure". Solomon sees wisdom as the way to wealth and "pleasure" in this life, and that is the basis for his appeal to men to be wise and accept his wisdom (<a href='B:240 10:23'>Pro 10:23</a>). But David uses the word only of the "pleasure" of the future, restored Kingdom of God on earth (<a href='B:230 126:2'>Psa 126:2</a>); whereas Solomon wanted it all now, just as the 'prosperity gospel' likewise does. And yet as he got older, Solomon realized that such "pleasure" from material things is not in fact pleasure, and he uses the word several times in Ecclesiastes of how pleasure in this life is vain (<a href='B:250 2:2'>Ecc 2:2</a>; <a href='B:250 7:3'>Ecc 7:3</a>; <a href='B:250 10:19'>Ecc 10:19</a>). This approach is in fact a contradiction of his seeking after "pleasure" in Proverbs. He came to this nihilistic position because he failed to perceive that the true "pleasure" is not now, but in the future Kingdom:&nbsp;When we finally realized in Ecclesiastes that it was "not now", he came to see death as the greatest enemy; and yet he refuses to have faith in the hope of resurrection:&nbsp; &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I searched in my heart how to cheer my flesh with wine, my heart yet guiding me with wisdom, and how to lay hold of folly, until I might see what it was good for the sons of men that they should do under heaven all the days of their lives<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon 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. Likewise Solomon speaks in <a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a> as if he were on a journey of discovery as to what would be "good" for a man "all the days of his life"; and yet in <a href='B:240 31:12'>Pro 31:12</a> he spoke of how the way of wisdom and having a wise wife will bring "good" for a man "all the days of his life". Perhaps this is a tacit admission that Solomon had not had a wise wife; and it is also an admission of the way the wisdom he taught had taken zero lodgment in his own heart. It was all just theoretical truth. This is such a warning to us:&nbsp; </p><p>Solomon's mother warned him against&nbsp; alcohol, but her words were totally&nbsp; disregarded&nbsp;&nbsp; by&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; in&nbsp; his&nbsp; later&nbsp; search&nbsp; for fulfilment&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; flesh (<a href='B:240 31:4-5'>Pro 31:4-5</a>):&nbsp;Despite condemning those who ignore the teaching of their mother, Solomon did just that. He was a stellar example of a man who does the very opposite of the truth he has received from God. This is a stage beyond mere hypocrisy; it is the narcissism of someone playing God, who considers themselves personal obedience to the Divine principles they teach. And this is for all time an acute temptation to those who have God's truth, especially in the area of sexuality and addiction:&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>His&nbsp; alcoholism contradicted his own earlier condemnations of drink as being for the&nbsp; unwise&nbsp; (e:g. <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'). His mother pleads with him not to drink&nbsp; lest he “pervert the judgment of any that is afflicted” (<a href='B:240 31:5'>Pro 31:5</a>). And yet on his death, the complaints about his hard oppression of the people indicate that he did just this (due to his taking to drink, according to Proverbs 31?). And yet Proverbs 31 has Solomon praising his mother for her wisdom; he was proud of his mum, and yet he so miserably disobeyed her. He seems to have a mindset in which he felt it was impossible for him to be disobedient. The all important thing for him was who his parents and pedigree were. &nbsp; </p><p>Solomon later turned to alcohol for a while (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>)- yet his girlfriend says that Solomon took her to the house of wine (<a href='B:260 2:4'>Son 2:4</a> RVmg:) whilst still young. The seeds of failure were there early on- he preached against wine in Proverbs, and yet still drunk himself. </p>


text:
<p>I made myself great works. I built myself houses. I planted myself vineyards<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon loved building (<a href='B:250 2:4-6'>Ecc 2:4-6</a>)- he built cities and buildings because it was “the desire of Solomon which he desired” (<a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a> AVmg:), i:e. one of his dominant desires. So when we read that it was the desire of Solomon to build the temple (<a href='B:110 9:1'>1Ki 9:1</a>; <a href='B:110 9:11'>1Ki 9:11</a>), he was merely serving God in a way that naturally appealed to him anyway. “The people sacrificed in high places, because there was no house built” (<a href='B:110 3:2'>1Ki 3:2</a>) surely reflects Solomon’s perspective, not God's- for God Himself didn’t need a built house in which sacrifice could be offered. The temple became such an obsession with Solomon that he came to think that no really acceptable worship could occur outside of the idea which he had so developed in his own mind. It’s rather like thinking that one must have a physical church building in which to be an ecclesia of the living God- who doesn’t dwell in buildings made with hands. </p>


text:
<p>I made myself gardens and parks, and I planted trees in them of all kinds of fruit<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon didn't like the idea of God doing something for him (i:e. building the house); in his own mind, he swamped this concept with his obsession for achieving his own works. The fact that God needs and requires nothing failed to register with him; the fact that salvation is by pure grace meant nothing to him. After Solomon finished the temple, he started work on his own house; <a href='B:250 2:4'>Ecc 2:4</a> relates how he built houses and all kinds of gardens and parks, imitating the garden of Eden and trying to recreate it on earth, travelling down every road of human experience. The implication of this is that once the temple was finished, he felt that the Kingdom had come, and that he must create it himself. He taught Israel that if they sinned even in captivity, then all they had to do was pray towards the temple and they would be forgiven. He saw in that building some kind of atonement for sins. He lost sight of the importance of the blood that made atonement; he replaced the blood of Christ with a work of his own hands. Indeed, it would seem that God’s response to the dedication of the temple in <a href='B:110 9:7'>1Ki 9:7</a> corrects what Solomon has said, in that He says that if Israel sin then He will cast the temple too out of His sight; which is rather different to how Solomon instructed the people to gain forgiveness for the sake of the temple if they were in dispersion. He saw the temple as a talisman- the need for real, meaningful change and repentance and spiritual mindedness to enable the dwelling of God went unperceived. </p>


text:
<p>I made myself pools of water, to water from it the forest where trees were reared<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon’s use of his wealth to create a garden with special rivers and fruit trees was surely an attempt to reproduce Eden on earth (<a href='B:250 2:5-6'>Ecc 2:5-6</a> RV). He thought that he could buy the Kingdom, create the Kingdom paradise on earth, have it now::. and so very many have fallen into the same delusion. The Gospel of God's Kingdom and not our own, yet future and not right now, is a major challenge to all subconscious attempts to build a kingdom of God now in our lives.</p>


text:
<p>I bought male servants and female servants, and had servants born in my house. I also had great possessions of herds and flocks, above all who were before me in Jerusalem<strong>- </strong></p><p>The constant moral and physical experimentation, rather than just accepting God's wisdom, led Solomon to the deep cynicism of Ecclesiastes: 'If this is the Kingdom, the ultimate experience, then I don't think much of it'. Ecclesiastes emphasizes that Solomon experienced more glory and wisdom than any other who had been in Jerusalem (<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>); this suggests that he felt he had reached the ultimate experience of the Kingdom, and yet he was not impressed by it. He lacked the faith and humility to look ahead to the future Kingdom, and to realize thereby that all the achievements of this life are as nothing.</p><p>Solomon's building of exotic gardens with "all kind of fruit" (<a href='B:250 2:5'>Ecc 2:5</a>) sounds as if he was attempting to reconstruct Eden;&nbsp; he was so carried away with expressing his own abilities that he effectively created his own kingdom in this life. It seems Solomon's crazy program of building and moral experimentation (outlined in Ecclesiastes 2) began after he had finished building the temple. He seems to have got cynical and depressed after that;&nbsp;he had his kingdom in this life;&nbsp;he looked back and compared himself with others (<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>), and thereby he became proud. He could see that materially and spiritually (in terms of knowledge) he had far outstripped all God's previous servants. It was this comparison with others (there is triple emphasis on it) which well indicates his pride.</p><p>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" (v. 20):&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; </p>


text:
<p>I also gathered silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and of the provinces. I got myself male and female singers, and the delights of the sons of men- musical instruments, and that of all sorts<strong>- </strong></p><p>These were things he did when he&nbsp; tried to find the meaning of life outside personal faith in God. “I got myself”, he said- he organized the temple worship, the courses of singers etc:, because he liked music and orchestra- not from true service to God. Many like the Queen of Sheba rewarded him for his wisdom with presents- and “I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces” who visited him (<a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a>). He retained wisdom theoretically, but he allowed the human benefits of ‘having the truth’ to swamp him. And so we must beware, lest, e:g:, the happy social environment which knowing the Truth has generated for some comes to dominate our lives of itself; we may ‘retain wisdom’ as Solomon did, but the fire of real spirituality can drop out of our lives so easily. He also fails to take into account that he did not in fact get the wealth and glory of himself. It was given him by God because of his initial choice of wisdom above all things. But his heart has now turned away from God and he sees every Divine blessing as in fact attained by his own labour.</p><p>The&nbsp; words&nbsp; of <a href='B:110 11:1-4'>1Ki 11:1-4</a> have some interesting implications when&nbsp; analyzed:&nbsp;Even&nbsp;before he built the pagan temples for his wives, his marriages to them are described as "evil in the sight of&nbsp; the&nbsp; Lord"&nbsp;(<a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a>):&nbsp;Solomon's marriages are often explained away as political maneuverings. But the record says that Solomon "clave unto&nbsp; these in&nbsp;love",&nbsp; surely&nbsp; alluding to God's definition of marriage&nbsp; as a leaving father and mother and cleaving to a wife. Solomon&nbsp;really&nbsp; loved&nbsp; those women; they weren't just political strings to his bow. They would not have turned away his heart if they&nbsp; were&nbsp; only&nbsp; political&nbsp; relationships:&nbsp;1000 seems a rather exorbitant&nbsp; number in any case. And <a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a> RV says that Solomon sought “the delights of the sons of men, concubines of all sorts”. He took sex to its maximum extent- he had every possible type of woman in his harem. Every hair colour, size, type. “Whatsoever mine eyes desired [this is language elsewhere used about sexual desire] I kept not from them” (<a href='B:250 2:10'>Ecc 2:10</a>). And yet still, he never found one</p><p> counting one by one, as he put it. If ever there is a warning against immorality, it is here. The more relationships one has- and our world glorifies this- the less ultimate satisfaction there can be. God’s way has to be best:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>So I was great, and increased more than all who were before me in Jerusalem-</p><p>Solomon claimed about his wisdom that "By me kings reign, and princes decree justice" (<a href='B:240 8:15'>Pro 8:15</a>). He had been given wisdom in order to reign over Israel on God's behalf, but from that good basis he had slipped into considering himself as therefore automatically just and right in whatever abuse of power he chose to exercise (see on <a href='B:240 8:14'>Pro 8:14</a>). And he ends his reign abusing and whipping his people. He maintained his intellectual grasp of wisdom to the end, but he didn't reign nor live by it. He is proof enough that mere intellectual assent to God's truth is not going to save anyone, nor is "keeping the faith" in intellectual terms the thing which is to be emphasized. For Solomon did this, and it didn't save him:&nbsp; </p><p>My wisdom also remained with me<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea of several of Solomon's proverbs is that "the righteous" are those with "understanding", and it is this understanding which feeds and gives life to others. This is true enough; our sharing with others and influence upon them can indeed lead them to life and not to die eternally. But Solomon appears to again have his own self justification in view; for he considered that he was the preeminently righteous because he was the teacher of Israel, giving them the wisdom given him. But Solomon fell away from Yahweh, even though he says his wisdom remained with him (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>), and he continued to teach others that wisdom to the end of his life (<a href='B:250 12:9'>Ecc 12:9</a>). And so it was simply not true that teaching others makes a person righteous, as Solomon supposed often in Proverbs (e:g. <a href='B:240 10:21'>Pro 10:21</a>):&nbsp; </p><p>Solomon had earlier claimed in <a href='B:240 14:33'>Pro 14:33</a>: "Wisdom remains in the heart of one who has understanding, and is even made known in the inward part of fools". But now, in the disillusion of Ecclesiastes, 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. 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. </p><p>Solomon had God's wisdom throughout his apostacy (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>), as the Truth ever remains with us. God put that wisdom in his heart in order for him to help others, both in Israel and in the world (<a href='B:140 9:23'>2Ch 9:23</a>); yet Solomon failed to realize that he needed to apply it to himself. In the same way as Solomon criticized flirting with Gentile girls but then went and did this himself, so he said many other things in his wisdom which actually condemned himself. Thus “the prince that lacketh understanding is also a great oppressor” (<a href='B:240 28:16'>Pro 28:16</a>). Yet Solomon did oppress the people- despite possessing wisdom. He insists that throughout his life, his wisdom had remained with him (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a> RVmg:). So what does this indicate? Surely that the wisdom which he had did not affect his life practically, and thus it was as if he lacked wisdom completely. Mere possession of truth leads to great temptations- for like Solomon, we can reason that this alone justifies us in any behaviour. And again, consider <a href='B:240 29:4'>Pro 29:4</a> RVmg: “The king by judgment establisheth the land [another self-conscious justification of himself in his early reign]: but he that imposeth tribute overthroweth it”. And this was exactly what Solomon did, in imposing unbearable tribute upon his people. He so clearly sees what is wrong- and then goes and does it. This is one of the features of our nature. And we all have this same tendency. The more we know what is wrong, the more we are inclined to do it. </p>


text:
<p>Whatever my eyes desired, I didn’t keep from them. I didn’t withhold my heart from any joy, for my heart rejoiced because of all my labour, and this was my portion from all my labour<strong>- </strong></p><p>It's interesting how often in Proverbs that Solomon warns about only eating a limited amount of the honey you may find (e:g. <a href='B:240 25:16'>Pro 25:16</a>). 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. </p><p>Most people spend their lives pushing down one or two avenues of self-fulfilment- to own a large home, a nice car (cp. horses and chariots), to achieve some level of sexual and domestic fulfilment, financial power etc. Solomon fantastically succeeded in all these avenues- and came to realize that still he was unfulfilled. He became a workaholic, rejoicing in his own labour- but that too, as many a middle aged man can testify, brought nothing. If only we can perceive it, Solomon provides a fantastic challenge. If we believe the Biblical record of Solomon, none of these avenues will hold much attraction for us any more. But our community- the young especially- throw the majority of their energy into one or two of these avenues. Just a handful who learn the lesson of Solomon could turn the world upside down for Christ- especially given the financial and linguistic possibilities of our age. Yet in all such aspirations to burning zeal and achievement (would we had more of it!), the other lessons of&nbsp; Solomon must be learnt. His building of the temple was " all Solomon's desire which he was pleased to do" (<a href='B:110 9:1'>1Ki 9:1</a>). There is a semantic connection between the Hebrew words for " desire" and " pleased" - the point of which is to emphasize that Solomon's work for God was only an expression of his own zest for self-fulfilment; he served the Truth in ways which only confirmed his own natural inclinations. Appreciating the spirit and blood of Christ, his own weakness, the grace of God, and the subsequent desire to live a life of self sacrifice, of carrying a cross in ways we wouldn't naturally chose- this was all foreign to Solomon. And is it so foreign to us? Solomon's materialism and self-fulfilment are sure warnings to our age.</p>


text:
<p>Then I looked at all the works that my hands had worked, and at the labour that I had laboured to do; and behold, all was vanity and a chasing after wind, and there was no profit under the sun-</p><p>Solomon had taught not to labour to be rich (<a href='B:240 23:4'>Pro 23:4</a>), but he had done just this. He refused now to accept that his wealth and glory had all been given by God in response to his desire for wisdom above all things. He considered that he had worked for it all; and so he was disillusioned with it. For only the gift of God's grace, appreciated as such, will not tarnish in our own minds. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>I turned myself to consider wisdom, madness, and folly: for what can the king’s successor do? Just that which has been done long ago<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon often seems to doubt the wisdom and strength of his son Rehoboam. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are full of warnings to him, and Ecclesiastes laments the tragedy of a powerful man having a fool or weakling following him and squandering the kingdom built up. And that is indeed what happened. Solomon had persuaded himself that he was the unique and total fulfilment of the promises to David. He refused to consider any future Messiah, nor that his line should end in such a Messiah. He was totally self obsessed. He saw that no amount of personal possession of wisdom could affect his successor:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Then I saw that wisdom excels folly, as far as light excels darkness<strong>- </strong></p><p>This must be interpreted in the light of Solomon's cynical statements about his wisdom, and the comment in :15 that the reality of death means that there is no ultimate advantage of wisdom over folly. So he may simply mean, as he often does in the book of Proverbs, that wisdom indeed gives a smoother ride in this life, just as it is better to walk in the light than in darkness. But he never attaches to wisdom any eternal or future advantage; because he sees only this life. "Excel" is the word used only by Solomon in Ecclesiastes for "profit" (<a href='B:250 1:3'>Ecc 1:3</a>; <a href='B:250 2:11'>Ecc 2:11</a>; <a href='B:250 2:13'>Ecc 2:13</a>; <a href='B:250 3:9'>Ecc 3:9</a>; <a href='B:250 5:9'>Ecc 5:9</a>; <a href='B:250 5:16'>Ecc 5:16</a>; <a href='B:250 7:12'>Ecc 7:12</a>). And he has just stated, as he often does, that there is no "profit" or excellence. Because all ends in death. So he here means that wisdom profits more than folly in this life- but in the wider context of Ecclesiastes, we must understand that he sees no profit in anything, ultimately, including in wisdom. </p>


text:
<p>The wise man’s eyes are in his head, and the fool walks in darkness- and yet I perceived that one event happens to them all<strong>- </strong></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;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Then I said in my heart, As it happens to the fool, so will it happen even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart that this also is vanity<strong>- </strong></p><p>The blasphemy of those statements in Ecclesiastes&nbsp; that&nbsp; wisdom is meaningless is hard to plumb. As discussed on <a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a>, this is indeed the position of Solomon, and not just part of a dialogue. Deep within&nbsp; his&nbsp; heart, Solomon's attitude was that "As it happeneth to&nbsp; the&nbsp; fool,&nbsp; so it happeneth even to me (the man made wise by God);&nbsp;and why was I then more wise?" (<a href='B:250 2:15'>Ecc 2:15</a>). <a href='B:250 7:16'>Ecc 7:16</a> is in similar&nbsp; vein: "Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over&nbsp;wise"-&nbsp; even&nbsp; though wisdom and righteousness are what God desires&nbsp; from&nbsp; us&nbsp; above&nbsp; all!&nbsp; This despising of wisdom and the truly&nbsp; spiritually&nbsp; ambitious&nbsp; life was due to Solomon's lack of faith in a resurrection; he had his kingdom in this life, and he failed to see the blinding necessity of a resurrection, judgment and&nbsp; change&nbsp; of nature. This is again a kind of regret expressed by Solomon that he had asked God for wisdom, and God's commendation of his choice is thereby despised by Solomon.</p><p>LXX "This is also vanity, because the fool speaks of his abundance". The Lord's parable of the rich fool appears to allude to this; but Solomon has himself in view. He is therefore understood by the Lord as the rich fool. Despite all his theoretical wisdom. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>For of the wise man, even as of the fool, there is no memory for ever, since in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. Indeed, the wise man must die just like the fool!<strong>- </strong></p><p>What makes the difference for Solomon is the issue of death and the absence for him of any hope of eternity. Had he accepted the gospel of the Kingdom, believed in by Abraham and David, he would have reasoned differently. In the end, Solomon felt that for himself, it was as well to be righteous as to be wicked, for in death there was no further difference (<a href='B:250 9:2'>Ecc 9:2</a>; <a href='B:250 9:5'>Ecc 9:5</a>; <a href='B:250 9:9'>Ecc 9:9</a>). He knows judgment will come (<a href='B:250 11:9'>Ecc 11:9</a>), at least for the young people, but he reasons as if it won’t- at least not for him. He knows, but he doesn’t know on the personal, experiential level. This is why there are apparently contradictory statements in Ecclesiastes. For example, the wise dies as the fool, with no more eternal remembrance than the fool (<a href='B:250 2:15-16'>Ecc 2:15-16</a>). This, Solomon, says, is what he himself believes in his own heart. But in <a href='B:250 7:12'>Ecc 7:12</a> he says that wisdom gives life to those who have it. But then again in <a href='B:240 9:16-18'>Pro 9:16-18</a> he observes that although wisdom can help, it’s benefits are easily undone, so easily as to make it useless. I don’t see these different perspectives as being the difference between life in the world and life in the spiritual realm. They are all spoken with conviction by Solomon, which, to my mind, ruins the idea that he himself believed the Truth but was simply outlining what life is like without God. He advocates both ways. My resolution of this is that he knew and preached God’s Truth, but for him personally, it meant nothing at all. And therefore in practice he advocated the life of self-enjoyment, acting as if all the other truth of wisdom was not operative in practice. </p>


text:
<p>So I hated life, because the work that is worked under the sun was grievous to me; for all is vanity and a chasing after wind<strong>- </strong></p><p>And here is the challenge. The man who had everything, wealth, women, career, artistic fulfilment, with long life and good health to 'enjoy' it::. ended up hating life, because he found it all so vain without God. Finally, life is only worth anything if lived for God. And people spend their lives trying to get just a fraction of Solomon's experiences. Solomon here says he hates life, but in :18 he defines this as meaning he hated all his labour / works which he had done. His life was his works. It was all about external achievement. He had no internal spiritual life or development to look back at. The New Testament puts works and grace in counterpoint. And Solomon knew nothing of grace, nothing of the spirit of David his father, who perceived that we can but accept grace, rather than attempt to justify ourselves by works. There must be far more to our lives than our works. For then we are but human doings rather than human beings:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>"The work that is worked" is the phrase used for how Israel were to "do your work" for six days and then observe the Sabbath (<a href='B:20 23:12'>Exo 23:12</a>). That provision was to teach them that life is more than works; and the spirit of the Sabbath was to point forward to salvation by grace in Christ. This lesson was totally lost upon Solomon. The history of Israel repeatedly talked of how their salvation was the work which God worked (s:w. <a href='B:50 11:3'>Deu 11:3</a>; <a href='B:50 11:7'>Deu 11:7</a> etc:). But Solomon ignored God's work because he was so obsessed with his own work, passing off the work God worked as beyond understanding (<a href='B:250 3:11'>Ecc 3:11</a> s:w:):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I hated all my labour in which I laboured under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who comes after me<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :17. I will suggest on :21 that the labour in view may also be his labour for wisdom. In <a href='B:250 2:18-19'>Ecc 2:18-19</a> he laments that his labours will achieve nothing; doubtless alluding back to&nbsp;his&nbsp;words in <a href='B:240 5:10'>Pro 5:10</a>, where he says that the Gentile wife will make the young Israelite's labours meaningless. 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>&nbsp;


text:
<p>Who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will have rule over all of my labour in which I have laboured, and in which I have shown myself wise under the sun. This also is vanity<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again we see Solomon's fear that his inheritance would be wasted by his son Rehoboam. And he likely had many sons by his many wives, whom he considered fools. If his focus had been upon the fulfilment of the promises to David through a Davidic line [through Solomon] culminating in Messiah, he would have perhaps not struggled so much with this issue of having to leave everything to an heir. But he considered himself the fulfilment of the promises about the great son of David. So to now have to leave his labours to his own possibly unwise son::. was a crushing anticlimax. </p><p>He had spoken in Proverbs of bringing up a child in the way he should go; whereas 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>


text:
<p>Therefore I began to cause my heart to despair concerning all the labour in which I had laboured<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon's complaint&nbsp; at&nbsp; the&nbsp; pointlessness&nbsp; of&nbsp; wisdom in <a href='B:250 2:15-20'>Ecc 2:15-20</a> is liberally sprinkled with personal pronouns; his self-centeredness was&nbsp; part&nbsp; of&nbsp; his materialism and lack of faith in the Kingdom. And&nbsp; for&nbsp;us&nbsp;too,&nbsp;familiarity&nbsp;with the glorious principles of Divine&nbsp; Truth&nbsp; with&nbsp;which we have been entrusted can lead us to the&nbsp; blasphemy&nbsp;of&nbsp;saying, in effect, that those principles are unimportant;&nbsp; they&nbsp;come&nbsp;to&nbsp;mean&nbsp; little to us personally, and thereby we effectively deny their value and worth. "To despair" is the same word translated "without hope" (<a href='B:290 57:10'>Isa 57:10</a>; <a href='B:300 2:25'>Jer 2:25</a>; <a href='B:300 18:12'>Jer 18:12</a>). He had no hope beyond the grave exactly because he had vainly sought justification by works rather than by grace.</p><p>Under the sun<strong>- </strong></p><p>As explained on <a href='B:250 1:2'>Ecc 1:2</a>, I do not see any dialectical argument in Ecclesiastes, oscillating between life "under the sin" and on another hand, some more spiritual perspective. That other perspective is not made clear nor defined. I suggested that Solomon is talking about his life, in his old age position of having turned his heart away from Yahweh and to idols. I suggest it is simply a phrase used by Solomon to describe "life", perhaps influenced by his Egyptian wives, who at this point had turned his heart away from Yahweh to their idols, of which "the sun" was one of the most significant. It may well be a phrase taken from the Egyptian wisdom literature which had influenced Solomon. The only other Biblical usage of the phrase outside of Ecclesiastes is in <a href='B:100 12:12'>2Sa 12:12</a>, where the consequences of David's sin with Solomon's mother were to be worked out openly and publically "under the sun". It could be that despite trying to whitewash David and his sin in Proverbs, Solomon at the end of his life feels he is for ever living with the consequence of that sin of his parents; and thus he blames everything he sees as wrong with his life upon that. This would be a typical thing for a man to do, in psychological terms. And I have noted throughout Proverbs how often Solomon is having a dig at Absalom and others who played their part in the outworking of the consequences of the sin. See on :22:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>For there is a man whose labour is with wisdom, with knowledge, and with skilfulness; yet he shall leave it for his portion to a man who has not laboured for it. This also is vanity and a great evil<strong>- </strong></p><p>He refers to himself when he writes at the end of his life of the man whose labour is in wisdom [cp. his labouring to write out so many Proverbs], and yet it is all pointless in that he will leave it all to a fool after him- he had already seen the unspirituality of his children (<a href='B:250 2:21'>Ecc 2:21</a>). This thinking reflects a perception that his wisdom was totally irrelevant to himself- he wrote it all down for others, but not for himself. Right at the end of Ecclesiastes he chuffles that he still preaches his wisdom to the youth, although he himself has the attitude that it is all meaningless. This is one explanation of the paradox within Ecclesiastes- the teaching of Divine truth, whilst lamenting the pointlessness of it:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>More than anything, Solomon was incurably selfish. Having spent his life writing and teaching wisdom, he makes one of his autobiographical comments: “There is a man whose labour is in wisdom</p><p>yet to man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil” (<a href='B:250 2:21'>Ecc 2:21</a>). Solomon saw “wisdom” as something he had worked for [forgetting it was God’s gracious gift to him], and he treated it as a material possession. Because he saw that he couldn’t take it with him, he felt therefore it was useless- he didn’t, it seems, want to leave it to his son because he felt it was only for him. This was the spirit of the man who buried his talent of Divine Truth in the ground and thought that would be enough- he wouldn’t risk it with others or share it with them. And so Solomon ended up hating all his labour for wisdom (<a href='B:250 2:18'>Ecc 2:18</a>; <a href='B:250 2:21'>Ecc 2:21</a>) because at the end of his life that mere knowledge and teaching of it to others hadn’t transformed or immortalized his personal life. The rejected at the day of judgment may well, tragically, feel the same. </p><p>All the wisdom and relationship with God that a man develops in his life cannot benefit anyone else; each soul must discover for himself (<a href='B:250 2:21'>Ecc 2:21</a>). The emphasis which we have always given to personal Bible study and a lack of authoritarian spiritual leaders is surely correct. It was God's will that Israel should be without a human king. Their lack of such human leadership is described as them each doing what was right in their own eyes. Far from being the negative comment this is often taken to be, the idea is surely that while they were without a human King, as God intended, the people did what was right in their own judgment; they worked out their own relationship with God for themselves. It is significant that a quarter of the names listed in Hebrews 11 were from the period of the Judges, when there was no human King:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>For what has a man of all his labour, and of the striving of his heart, in which he labours under the sun?<strong>- </strong></p><p>As in :21, the labour in view is particularly Solomon's mental labour, striving in his heart, toward wisdom. He was given wisdom as a gift by Divine grace, but he ended up rejecting that and trying to work it all through in his own strength. </p><p>As members of His people, doing His will, the labour of our lives is not in vain, seeing it is done "in the Lord" (<a href='B:530 15:58'>1Co 15:58</a>). This provides a definition of life "under the sun"; it is life not lived "in the Lord". But see on :20. Paul seems to be alluding to the spirit of Ecclesiastes, which laments that all achievement and labour "under the sun", not "in the Lord", is so tragically vain; there is no sense of final achievement, and this nagging fear about the ultimate validity of life's work must plague all who live outside the sphere of God (<a href='B:250 1:9-11'>Ecc 1:9-11</a>; <a href='B:250 2:18-23'>Ecc 2:18-23</a>). We could understand Paul as specifically disagreeing with Solomon’s attitude that all endeavour is vain.</p>


text:
<p>For all his days are sorrows, and his travail is grief; yes, even in the night his heart takes no rest. This also is vanity<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon has been alluding to himself in the previous verses, lamenting his chasing after wisdom; and here he, the man with every available pleasure, laments that his days are full of sorrow and he can't sleep peacefully at night. Yet Solomon had prayed that when God's people were in grief and sorrow because of their sins, they could pray to God using his temple, and be forgiven and have their grief assuaged (<a href='B:140 6:29'>2Ch 6:29</a>). Yet in <a href='B:250 2:23'>Ecc 2:23</a>, Solomon laments that all his days are spent in grief and sorrows (s:w:). The way out of the depression with which he ended his days was repentance and acceptance of God's free grace and forgiveness. But he refused to do this, and turned his heart away from Yahweh:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it is from the hand of God<strong>- </strong></p><p>Paul quotes Solomon's words in <a href='B:250 2:24'>Ecc 2:24</a> as the words of those who have no faith that there will be a resurrection (<a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a>). The rich fool likewise disbelieved the resurrection, and his words also allude to those of Solomon (<a href='B:490 12:19'>Luk 12:19</a> = <a href='B:250 2:24'>Ecc 2:24</a>; <a href='B:250 11:9'>Ecc 11:9</a>). The core problem with Solomon was that he refused any notion of being personally judged, and the hope of eternal life as a consequence for belief and action in this life. Solomon is arguing that a man should just enjoy life now and be satisfied with his work. Because work in the area of wisdom leads to grief and bad conscience about sin (see on :20-23). Solomon's attitude to work is out of step with the teaching in Genesis 3. Labour is a curse to man, and yet is pregnant with blessing if the victory of the seed of the woman is accepted. But Solomon had closed his mind to any future Messianic figure, considering himself to be that. And so his attitude to labour is mistaken. He considers it the best thing that can be done in a life lived without God. For he is writing this at a time when his heart was turned away from Yahweh to idols. And yet this raises the question as to how we are to understand his comment that "This also I saw, that it is from the hand of God". There is indeed so much better for a man than to just enjoy this life and live without God and the hope of resurrection and judgment. So it could be that as elsewhere in Ecclesiastes, this is Solomon referring to God with some sarcasm, as in :26, where he refers to God's gift of wisdom to a man like himself as vanity:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>For who can eat, or who can have enjoyment, more than I?<strong>- </strong></p><p>In this we see the challenge of Solomon to us all. For he experienced, over a long, healthy lifetime, all the "enjoyment" which other men spend their lives trying to achieve just a fraction of. And yet it still filled his days with sorrow, without accepting God's ways for himself:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>For to the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge, and joy; but to the sinner He gives travail, to gather and to heap up, that He may give to him who pleases God. This also is vanity and a chasing after wind<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon has himself in view, as in :25. He pleased God by choosing wisdom and so was given it, as he was given joy by God (<a href='B:260 3:11'>Son 3:11</a>), but he comments that this is all vanity. Because God had also given him wealth, which he had gathered and heaped up in store cities [the same Hebrew word is used]; and he complains that this is God treating him as a sinner. For the "travail" is what he complains of in <a href='B:250 1:13'>Ecc 1:13</a>; <a href='B:250 2:23'>Ecc 2:23</a>; <a href='B:250 3:10'>Ecc 3:10</a>; <a href='B:250 4:4'>Ecc 4:4</a>. This is the kind of sarcastic, blasphemous attitude to God which we noted on :24. </p><p>Contrary to what he states here, he wasn't given wisdom because he pleased God. He had already married a Gentile woman before he became king. Rather was he given wisdom by grace, as a gift, and not as a reward for his righteousness. Many passages in Solomon’s writings seem to indirectly and subtly justify himself. They may be perfectly true, reflecting the wisdom of God, and yet he was using his knowledge of God’s Truth to justify himself as being right- instead of being humbled by wisdom and the true knowledge of God. Consider: “God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom and knowledge” (<a href='B:250 2:26'>Ecc 2:26</a>). He didn’t want to understand that God’s offer to him as a young man, and his grant to him of wisdom, was by pure grace. Solomon suggests that his mere possession of truth made him a “good” man.</p><p>It would seem from Ecclesiastes that Solomon lost any personal hope even of resurrection, and because of this he wonders why he ever initially had asked for wisdom: “I myself perceived that one event [death] happeneth to them all. Then said I in mine heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so will it happen even to me; and why was I then more wise?” (<a href='B:250 2:14-15'>Ecc 2:14-15</a> RV). “God giveth to the man that is good in his sight wisdom</p><p> this also is vanity” (<a href='B:250 2:26'>Ecc 2:26</a>). This is a definite reference back to himself, who was given wisdom, and he considers the gift meaningless because the wise die the same death as the fool. So he now saw it as vanity, seeing there was no personal future hope. What this teaches us is that unless we personally believe we will be in the Kingdom, then all our wisdom is of no value to us personally::. and in the end, we will like Solomon live a life that reflects this. </p>


text:
<p>For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven<strong>- </strong></p><p>"The time" in view appears to be the day of judgment. Having spoken of how there is a time "to plant::. pluck up::. kill::. heal" etc:, we are then told that "God shall judge the righteous and the wicked (at the second coming): for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work" (<a href='B:250 3:1-8'>Ecc 3:1-8</a>; <a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a>). Thus our actions and purposes in every department of life will be examined at "the place of judgment" (<a href='B:250 3:16'>Ecc 3:16</a>). Because all things will in some ways be judged, and are even now, therefore we must fear God and keep His commands (<a href='B:250 3:1'>Ecc 3:1</a>; <a href='B:250 12:13-14'>Ecc 12:13-14</a>). However in :9,10, Solomon seems to be saying that God has burdened men with a life whose every aspect [which he now lists] is without profit and vain. And he may be sarcastic (as noted on <a href='B:250 2:24'>Ecc 2:24</a>; <a href='B:250 2:26'>Ecc 2:26</a>) when he suggests "God" will bring men to judgment for all things in their lives. Or it may be that the whole of this chapter could be a description of how he once thought; he once said in his heart that there would be a future judgment of all things by God (:17). But the contradictions he now sees in the idea of a Divine judgment leads him up to the final conclusion in :22, that because "God" cannot resurrect man to judgment, therefore man may as well get on and enjoy life in a moderate kind of way. Elsewhere Solomon effectively denies any idea of future judgment by God, and so I am inclined to view this chapter as a description of what he once believed, which by the end of the chapter we see he has now jettisoned:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted<strong>- </strong></p><p>As noted on :1, the "time" for these things may mean 'a time for judgment' (:17). We are judged for the time of our birth and death in the sense that God takes into account human lifespan. A sinful man may only encounter God's ways later in life, starting at a certain point on the spectrum, God expects him to move a particular distance from there. Others live long lives and heard God's call in childhood; and a further distance of development is perhaps hoped for from them. God Himself planted and then plucked up His people and also other nations (<a href='B:300 12:17'>Jer 12:17</a>; <a href='B:300 18:7'>Jer 18:7</a>). There is a time to pull out of projects, to give up. But we will be judged as to how, when and with what motives we do so.</p>


text:
<p>a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up<strong>- </strong></p><p>As noted on :2, God Himself breaks down and builds up, kills and heals. We cannot do all these things, but perhaps Solomon has himself in view. Or maybe he is commenting upon the legislation in the law of Moses which required these things to be done. Although in :9 he argues that there is no profit in any of these things.</p>


text:
<p>a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon speaks elsewhere of the spiritual advantage of going to a funeral to weep and mourn, rather than to a wedding to laugh and dance. And here he seems to be saying that for our attitude to all these things, our behaviour in joy or grief, we will be brought into judgment at some time (:17):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Cast away" is "cast", perhaps alluding to stoning people. I suggested on :3,9 that Solomon may have the Mosaic legislations partially in view. He recognizes that there are times when we withdraw from relationships, and times when we form them. And again, there is a time for judgment for all these things (:17). </p>


text:
<p>a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away-</p><p>The opposition between seeking and losing suggests that the losing is effectively the opposite of seeking. The idea is that there is a time to seek, and also a time to accept as lost, and give up seeking. It could be argued that the parables of Luke 15 imply that God never gives up seeking. But in practical reality, there does come a time to cease dialogue, to accept the loss, as God did with Israel. And there is a time for those inevitable choices to be judged (:17). There is a time when we accept that things are lost, cast away. But when and how we decide that, and from what motives, will have its time for judgment. </p>


text:
<p>a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak<strong>- </strong></p><p>In these examples, it is impossibly to define the precise time when we should keep silence compared to speaking out, to unite in relationship or move away in it. And trying to define the precisely correct moment is unwise and inappropriate. But our motives and reasons will have their time for judgment (:17). As noted on :6, many of the examples given seem to be pertinent to human relationships (:8 also). </p>


text:
<p>a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace<strong>- </strong></p><p>I observed on :6,7 that Solomon seems to have in view how human relationships begin and at times come to an end. He accepts that relationships sometimes come to an end, and there is even a time for contention. But when, how, with what motives::. has its time for judgment (:17). </p><p>For Solomon, his "wisdom" was merely knowledge. The promises to David, the hope of the Kingdom, had no personal bite for him. He muses that "there is a time" for everything (<a href='B:250 3:1-7'>Ecc 3:1-7</a>), as if his nihilism led him conclude that all behaviour is somehow predestined, all is cyclical, nothing is ultimately new, and even God is caught up in this- for "God seeks again that which He has driven away" (<a href='B:250 3:15'>Ecc 3:15</a>). As water goes around the water cycle (<a href='B:250 1:7'>Ecc 1:7</a>), so everything repeats, things just happen to us (<a href='B:250 3:1-8'>Ecc 3:1-8</a>), there will be no resurrection, no coming back (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a> RV); and there is therefore no real point in spiritual endeavour (<a href='B:250 3:9'>Ecc 3:9</a>). This attitude reveals a pathetic failure to let the knowledge of God dynamically impact daily life; there's no appreciation of the Spirit, of God's radical life co-joining with human life, of His mind meeting that of man. Leaving knowledge as mere theory, as so much Bible study can too easily remain, is a dangerous thing. And Solomon is the parade example of it. </p><p>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>What profit has he who works in that in which he labours?<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Profit" is a favourite theme of Solomon. He had an incredibly utilitarian view of life, wanting to see the tangible effect of work in this life. Some of the things in :2-8 may allude to obedience to Mosaic legislation, yet he considers this of no profit; just as Israel later did (<a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a> perhaps alludes to Solomon's claim that there was no profit in working). I noted on <a href='B:250 2:17-18'>Ecc 2:17-18</a> that he ends up hating his life because he hates his works. The parallel between works and life meant that he was a human doing rather than a human being. He saw no ultimate profit in his works and life because he was now going to die. He had no sense at all that the works of the righteous "follow them" (<a href='B:730 14:13'>Rev 14:13</a>), and we shall be given the eternal consequence of our works (<a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a>). He concludes Ecclesiastes by admitting that this is the final truth (<a href='B:250 12:14'>Ecc 12:14</a>), but this was not his personal belief nor how he had lived his life. He finally comes to the right conclusion, and had known it all along on some level, occasionally alluding to in his book of Proverbs; but he did not personalize it. He looked for the result of works in this life and didn't find it, and so he hated life, hated his works, and his heart turned away from God to idols. This is the kind of realization which men facing death often come to, but still they refuse to personalize it. We have all surely encountered this kind of thing. And this is our challenge; to personalize it, and live right now as if we are in God's judgment presence, for things great and small, things public and hidden:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I have seen the burden which God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with<strong>- </strong></p><p>This "burden" or "travail" is something Solomon laments throughout Ecclesiastes, and considers himself the parade example of it. He seems to complain that God has given this to people. I suggested on :8 that he considers the time for everything to be somehow predestined, and yet complains that for all these things God seeks to judge people (:17). And so he considers this to be a burden God has given to men to afflict them with. And yet the Biblical idea of travail or burden is that God brings these things in order to spiritually develop His people, to do them good in their latter end (s:w. <a href='B:50 8:2-3'>Deu 8:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 8:16'>Deu 8:16</a>). The travail of Israel in Egypt was to bring a new nation to birth. But Solomon has no sense of ultimate, eternal outcomes; he expects an immediate consequence right now in this life. And so he considers God unreasonable:&nbsp; </p><p>Being "afflicted" was what went on throughout his father David's life (s:w. <a href='B:110 2:26'>1Ki 2:26</a>; <a href='B:230 132:1'>Psa 132:1</a>). But unlike David, he sees no positive outcome for it. </p>


text:
<p>He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in their hearts, yet so that man can’t find out the work that God has done from the beginning even to the end<strong>- </strong></p><p>On <a href='B:250 2:17'>Ecc 2:17</a> I noted that Solomon despised all the 'work that he had worked', because he was obsessed with his own works rather than God's works of salvation by grace. "The work that is worked" is the phrase used for how Israel were to "do your work" for six days and then observe the Sabbath (<a href='B:20 23:12'>Exo 23:12</a>). That provision was to teach them that life is more than works; and the spirit of the Sabbath was to point forward to salvation by grace in Christ. This lesson was totally lost upon Solomon. The history of Israel repeatedly talked of how their salvation was the work which God worked (s:w. <a href='B:50 11:3'>Deu 11:3</a>; <a href='B:50 11:7'>Deu 11:7</a> etc:). But Solomon ignored God's work because he was so obsessed with his own work, briefly passing off the work God worked as beyond understanding (<a href='B:250 3:11'>Ecc 3:11</a> s:w:), and any grasp upon eternity as therefore having been made too difficult by God. He made the mistake so many make, assuming that God's word and work is a riddle to be solved, with eternal life as the reward for figuring it out. God is not like that, hiding as it were behind the Bible or some doctrinal system which He has established as a code to be broken before He deals with men. He is far more proactive than that in seeking our salvation. And to those who truly love Him, His teachings are plain, as they were to David (<a href='B:500 7:17'>Joh 7:17</a>). </p><p>The goodness of God can lead all men to repentance (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a>). God has set a sense of the eternal in the human heart (<a href='B:250 3:11'>Ecc 3:11</a> AVmg). An awareness of judgment is alive as a basic instinct in people. God is “not far from every one of us</p><p> forasmuch as we are [all] the offspring of God” (<a href='B:510 17:27-29'>Act 17:27-29</a> - stated in a preaching context), being created in His image. But Solomon passes all this off as too hard for any human being. The truth was that he presented it as too difficult because he didn't actually want eternity as God offers it, in His Kingdom; he wanted an eternal now, enjoying his own titillations of his own flesh:&nbsp;And he considered that it was better never to have existed (<a href='B:250 4:3'>Ecc 4:3</a>):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice, and to do good as long as they live-</p><p>As noted on :1, his sense may be that he now knows [so he thinks] that it is better to just enjoy life, because God cannot resurrect to judgment (:22).</p>


text:
<p>Also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy good in all his labour, is the gift of God<strong>- </strong></p><p>I have suggested on <a href='B:250 3:1'>Ecc 3:1</a>; <a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a>; Ecc. 3:24 that Solomon is accusing God of being unable to resurrect and judge, and therefore his previous understanding that everything will be brought to judgment was misplaced. Solomon concludes Ecclesiastes however with an admission that this is in fact the case; all in human life will be judged finally. So I take chapter 3 as bravado, which in the face of his final death he has to admit was wrong, although he still fails to repent and accept the personal implications of this. The idea that work is a "gift of God" appears to be deconstructed in the New Testament allusions to this; for they insist that the "gift of God" is the grace of salvation without human works (<a href='B:560 2:8'>Eph 2:8</a>; <a href='B:520 5:15'>Rom 5:15</a>; <a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a>; <a href='B:500 4:10'>Joh 4:10</a>). This suggests that as in <a href='B:250 2:24'>Ecc 2:24</a>; <a href='B:250 2:26'>Ecc 2:26</a>, Solomon uses this idea of "this is the gift of God" wrongly and sarcastically. </p>


text:
<p>I know that whatever God does, it shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it; and God has done it, that men should fear before Him<strong>- </strong></p><p>This must be taken in the context of Solomon's denial that God can resurrect to judgment (:22), and his complaint that all the life choices of :2-7 are predestined and so God is burdening man with the idea of judging them (:8). Solomon reasons as if he has no perspective of eternity at all. I suggested on :8 that God is being accused of predestining the behaviour of people and then calling them to judgment. This is what Solomon once believed, but he is mocking that belief. And saying that in this case, then God is just putting men in fear of Him. Human behaviour is irrelevant, Solomon is saying, because nothing can be added nor subtracted from God's permanent actions:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>That which is has been long ago, and that which is to be has been long ago: and God seeks again that which is passed away<strong>- </strong></p><p>This continues Solomon's accusation that God is unreasonable in demanding judgment for that which is past, because everything is merely cyclical, as Solomon began Ecclesiastes by complaining. The "new song" which his father David loved to sing (<a href='B:230 33:3'>Psa 33:3</a>; <a href='B:230 40:3'>Psa 40:3</a>; <a href='B:230 96:1'>Psa 96:1</a>; <a href='B:230 98:1'>Psa 98:1</a> etc:) reflected the sense that the movement of the Spirit results in our living in "newness of life". But for Solomon, all was as it were old and boring. He had no sense of the Spirit's renewing work within him:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Moreover I saw under the sun, in the place of justice, that wickedness was there; and in the place of righteousness, that wickedness was there-</p><p>Solomon may simply mean that there is no justice in this world, and therefore he had been attracted toward the idea that the final judgment is from God, and at a future time (:17). But "the place of justice" is the phrase used of the place to be established under the Mosaic law for justice (<a href='B:50 17:8'>Deu 17:8</a>). Solomon is saying that the Mosaic idea didn't work, because there was wickedness even in the place of justice. He has little to say about the Mosaic law even in Proverbs, apart from appropriating the language of blessing for obedience to obedience to his Proverbs, which he seems to see as a replacement torah. He was specifically disobedient to the commands about trading in horses and marriage to Gentiles. So specifically disobedient that it was as if he wished to as it were trash the Mosaic law and demonstrate it was obsolete or inapplicable to him:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked; for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work<strong>- </strong></p><p>This could mean that this is what he once said in his heart. The whole of this chapter could be a description of how he once thought, and the contradictions he now sees in the idea of a Divine judgment leads him up to the final conclusion in :22, that because "God" cannot resurrect man to judgment, therefore man may as well get on and enjoy life in a moderate kind of way:&nbsp; </p><p>"Purpose" is the word for "delight". David's "delight" was in God's law (<a href='B:230 1:2'>Psa 1:2</a> s:w:) and also in the things of the future Kingdom of God (s:w. <a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>); our "delight" in those things is reflected in our attitudes to God's word. And we shall be finally judged according to our 'delights', our dominant desires (s:w. <a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a>; <a href='B:250 8:6'>Ecc 8:6</a>). The Lord Jesus was devoted to sharing Yahweh's "delight" ( 53:10). We shall be judged according to what are our dominant desires.</p><p>Solomon had previously correctly understood that "God shall judge the righteous and the wicked (at the second coming): for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work::. for God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or bad" (<a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a>; <a href='B:250 12:14'>Ecc 12:14</a>). Note the emphasis on "every". Even what we have spoken in the ear will be shouted out (<a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a>) -implying others will somehow observe our judgment, cp. <a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a>. If the judgment is merely a yes/no statement which has been worked out taking our whole life into consideration, then this emphasis on every work having a time for consideration and judgment "there" is pointless. However, these verses must be considered in conjunction with those which speak of God's 'forgetting' of bad deeds on account of how people later chose to live. This need not mean that they are erased from God's infinite knowledge; all too often we perceive God's memory as a vast memory bank which can have our sins erased from it. But His knowledge knows no such bounds of human perception; yet He is willing not to hold those things against us, and to therefore count us as having never committed them.</p>


text:
<p>I said in my heart, As for the sons of men, God tests them, so that they may see that they themselves are like animals<strong>- </strong></p><p>As suggested on :17, this may be Solomon's recollection of how he had previously [correctly] understood things. Although all this leads up to the conclusion in :22; that Solomon no longer considers God able to raise the dead and bring them to judgment. But what he writes here as the restatement of his previous position, when he still believed Divine wisdom, is therefore true. <a href='B:250 3:18'>Ecc 3:18</a> says that God ‘tests’ man by making him see that he is just an animal; i:e. those who are humble enough to be His true people will realize the truth of this, but those who are not will fail this ‘test’. It is a considerable task to clear our thinking of the influence of humanism. The plain words of <a href='B:230 39:5'>Psa 39:5</a> are a help: “Man at his best state is but vapour”. “It is not for man to direct his steps” (<a href='B:300 10:23'>Jer 10:23</a> N:I:V:).</p><p>Having spoken of the coming of judgment, <a href='B:250 3:18'>Ecc 3:18</a> RV comments: "It is because of the sons of men, that God might manifest them [i:e. to themselves], and that they might see that they themselves are beasts". The purpose of the judgment is for us, to teach us the gripping truth of the mortality of man. This theory we know, as doctrine. But only in the chilling reality of the judgment will we know it in reality. Again and again I repeat: the judgment seat is for our benefit, not God's. "For he [God] needeth not further to consider a man; that he should go before God in judgment" (<a href='B:220 34:23'>Job 34:23</a> RV). Yet man will go before God in judgment- but for our benefit. </p>


text:
<p>For that which happens to the sons of men happens to animals. Even one thing happens to them. As the one dies, so the other dies. Yes, they have all one breath; and man has no advantage over the animals: for all is vanity<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Advantage" is the word for "profit". 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>); but now his advancing years remind him that there is no ultimate profit because death cuts it short, and reveals man as no better than an animal in the way he dies. Solomon 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:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I suggested on :17,18 that this is a recapitulation of how Solomon had previously understood things when he still held to God's truth. So despite the wrong things he says at times in Ecclesiastes, I believe these descriptions of the death state are true; and they corroborate other Bible passages which teach the same. For indeed there is no immortal soul nor conscious survival of death. The spirit which animates people is that possessed by animals. </p>


