# comment

text:
<p>s 6:7 which having no chief, overseer or ruler-</p><p>Solomon taught that if the ants can be so zealous, well why can’t the ecclesia of God be zealous [for it was ‘believers’ that he was teaching]. The ants scurry around, working as if there is no tomorrow, to build up something so precarious that is in any case so tragically short lived. Can’t we be yet more zealous, with a like loving co-operation, building the eternal things that we are (<a href='B:240 6:6-7'>Pro 6:6-7</a>)? And Solomon pressed the point further, in that ants are self-motivated; they need no “guide, overseer or ruler”. This was surely a reference to the complex system of overseers which Solomon had to place over Israel in order to build the temple and build up the Kingdom. The same Hebrew word for “overseer” is found in <a href='B:130 23:4'>1Ch 23:4</a>; <a href='B:130 26:29'>1Ch 26:29</a>:&nbsp; Yet ideally, he seems to be saying, every Israelite ought to be a zealous worker. <a href='B:240 12:24'>Pro 12:24</a> says the same: “The hand of the diligent [whoever he / she is] shall bear rule [in practice]” [s:w. <a href='B:240 6:7'>Pro 6:7</a> “ruler”]. And we must ask ourselves, whether for whatever reason the new Israel hasn’t slumped into the same problem, of lack of self-motivation, waiting to be asked to do something before we do it, over-relying upon our “overseers”. The ants aren’t like this. They see the job to be done, and naturally get on with it.</p><p>The self-motivated example of the ant should inspire our service and operations. They need no “guide, overseer or ruler”. But these are the very words used about Solomon’s elaborate hierarchy of foremen and slave drivers whom he used to ‘get the job done’ in his kingdom. He rejected his own wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>s 6:8 yet provides her bread in the summer and gathers her food in the harvest-</p><p>See on :7. This again glorifies works and hard work inappropriately. Good harvests were God's blessing for obedience to the covenant; bad harvests were judgment for breaking the covenant (<a href='B:300 5:17'>Jer 5:17</a> s:w:). But Solomon assumes that hard work will bring good harvests. Again, real spirituality is ignored, and the conditional nature of Divine blessing is also overlooked, just as Solomon did in his own life.</p>


text:
<p>s 6:9 How long will you sleep, lazy one? When will you arise out of your sleep?-</p><p>See on :6. 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>6:10 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep-</p><p>I have suggested on :9 that this condemnation of sleep and laziness is part of a works based mentality that at best is not very spiritually mature. It is therefore significant that when these words are repeated in <a href='B:240 24:33'>Pro 24:33</a>, Solomon 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" (<a href='B:240 24:32'>Pro 24:32</a>).</p>


text:
<p>6:11 so your poverty will come as a robber, and your scarcity 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>


text:
<p>6:12 A worthless person, a man of iniquity, is he who walks with a perverse mouth-</p><p>True as the Proverbs are which condemn "a worthless / wicked person" (<a href='B:240 6:12'>Pro 6:12</a>; <a href='B:240 16:27'>Pro 16:27</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>), again we have a subtext of Solomon seeking to justify himself and his father David, and to criticize the various competitors to Solomon's throne. "A worthless person" is the term used for Nabal (<a href='B:90 25:17'>1Sa 25:17</a>), those in David's camp who were not fully supportive of David (<a href='B:90 30:22'>1Sa 30:22</a>), Sheba who plotted to overthrow the Davidic line as king (<a href='B:100 20:1'>2Sa 20:1</a>), and particularly of those who wanted to overthrow Solomon as king (<a href='B:140 13:7'>2Ch 13:7</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:13 who winks with his eyes, who signals with his feet, who motions with his fingers-</p><p>The body language of sinners is commented upon several times in the Bible. This is the degree to which God observes human behaviour. And we have wonderful insights into that of the Lord Jesus; His eyes and hands are often as it were zoomed in upon in the Gospel records. Body language is indeed a "signal" of our innermost heart; and for the wicked, they yield all the members of their bodies to work unrighteousness (<a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p>6:14 in whose heart is perverseness, who devises evil continually, who always sows discord-</p><p>Solomon here reasons as if any of his opponents (see on :12) are wrong because they "sow discord". This has ever been an argument deployed by autocratic rulers- any criticism or opposition is wrong because it undermines "unity".</p>


text:
<p>6:15 Therefore his calamity will come suddenly. He will be broken suddenly, and that without remedy-</p><p>Being broken without remedy (as in <a href='B:240 29:1'>Pro 29:1</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. The "sudden" nature of condemnation is also a Biblical theme. The Bible is very clear about what will lead to condemnation, and yet when it comes, the condemned will as it were be taken by surprise. For they have ignored all the teaching about judgment and assumed it doesn't apply to them.</p>


text:
<p>6:16 There are six things which Yahweh hates; yes, seven which are an abomination to Him-</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:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:17 proud eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood-</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. An example of indirect reference to Solomon's pride is found in the way the record points a similarity between Paul and Solomon. Each was given wisdom, and each was given a Satan to humble them because of the way wisdom bloats a man's ego. The fact that we have 'the truth' in basic doctrinal terms - plus a fair bit of other Divine wisdom - really will tempt us to be proud. This is the sort of thing we individually and collectively need to exhort ourselves strongly about:&nbsp;&nbsp;Like us, Solomon knew theoretically the paramount danger of pride;&nbsp; he lists it as the most fundamental of the seven things God hates (<a href='B:240 6:17'>Pro 6:17</a> cp. 16:5,18). Indeed, Solomon correctly implies in <a href='B:240 28:25'>Pro 28:25</a> that pride is an outcome of lack of faith, and this was exactly true in Solomon's case. His lack of faith in the future kingdom led him to be proud:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>We note here and in <a href='B:230 119:69'>Psa 119:69</a>; <a href='B:230 119:78'>Psa 119:78</a> and elsewhere that pride is associated with slandering others. This inflated self importance is what leads pride people to do others down by slandering them, that they may appear higher:&nbsp;"Innocent blood" refers to Saul's persecution of David's "innocent blood" (s:w. <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a>). "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>).</p>


text:
<p>6:18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are swift in running to mischief-</p><p>As so often in the Bible, action is presented as the direct result of thought. This was a conception foreign to their contemporary belief systems, where all that mattered was external behaviour. The Lord's "sermon on the mount" develops this teaching as the essence of all spiritual life. Israel were condemned by God specifically for their wicked schemes / imaginations (s:w. <a href='B:290 55:7'>Isa 55:7</a>; <a href='B:290 59:7'>Isa 59:7</a>; <a href='B:300 4:14'>Jer 4:14</a>). <a href='B:290 59:7'>Isa 59:7</a> repeats this verse about Judah generally. The Proverbs so often end up descriptions of the house of Judah in their later history; whereas Solomon liked to think that his kingdom would be eternal, governed according to his principles as taught in the book of Proverbs.</p>


text:
<p>6:19 a false witness who utters lies, and he who sows discord among brothers-</p><p>This is true, and needs to be given its due weight by those who divide brethren in Christ. But Solomon also doubtless has in view the discord between him and his half brothers, who were contenders for his throne. He considers the cause of the divisions to be "lies", a slander campaign against him and his father. But the division amongst David's sons was a direct fulfilment of Nathan's prediction of the consequence of David's sins associated with Bathsheba. But Solomon seeks to whitewash David, considering any friction arising from his father's sins as mere slander. He doesn't follow David in openly confessing sin and rejoicing in Divine grace.</p>


text:
<p>6:20 My son, keep your father’s commandment, and don’t forsake your mother’s teaching-</p><p>David so often talks about God's "law", using the word torah. But Solomon so often speaks of his own torah, and that of his wife, the mother of "my son" (s:w. <a href='B:240 1:8'>Pro 1:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:1'>Pro 3:1</a>; <a href='B:240 4:2'>Pro 4:2</a>; <a href='B:240 6:20'>Pro 6:20</a>; <a href='B:240 7:2'>Pro 7:2</a>; <a href='B:240 13:14'>Pro 13:14</a>; <a href='B:240 31:26'>Pro 31:26</a>). Yet elsewhere in the Bible, the well over 200 occurrences of torah are always about God's law. Solomon applies the word to his own teachings and that of his wife, and thereby plays God. whilst it could be argued that Solomon's teachings were Divinely inspired, all the same he ought surely to have spoken of them as God's torah rather than his own torah. This kind of playing God is seen so often in the teachers of God's people.</p><p>Solomon exhorted&nbsp; others to keep the law of their mother, so that&nbsp; it&nbsp; would&nbsp; keep&nbsp; the from the attractive Gentile girl. And don't&nbsp; think, he went on, that in this context you can take fire into&nbsp; your&nbsp; hands&nbsp; and&nbsp; not be burnt. You can't play around with your &nbsp;own&nbsp; sexuality&nbsp; without&nbsp; it&nbsp; having&nbsp; a permanent spiritual effect&nbsp; upon&nbsp; you&nbsp; (6:27). But dear Bathsheba's words to Solomon warning&nbsp; against&nbsp; the Gentile woman in Proverbs 31 were completely forgotten by him:&nbsp;</p><p>Solomon told his son, and presumably all his sons, to keep their father’s commandment and not forsake the teaching of their mother. In this he was just blindly repeating his own experience of youth, and yet the way he repeated it was irrelevant seeing that his wives were largely Gentiles. To tell them to follow the laws of their mothers was hardly good advice. But he said it because it seemed the right thing, it was what he had been told as a child. David&nbsp; was&nbsp; motivated&nbsp; by a desire to fulfil&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; Law's&nbsp;&nbsp; command&nbsp;&nbsp; that&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; word&nbsp;&nbsp; should&nbsp; be enthusiastically taught by parents to their children. Externally, Solomon&nbsp; likewise&nbsp; obeyed the command. But he did so as a result of&nbsp; living out parental expectation; he did what his parents had done&nbsp; to&nbsp; him. Yet Rehoboam didn't really take Divine principles very&nbsp; seriously&nbsp; in&nbsp; his later life, although there is reason to think&nbsp; that&nbsp; he did so originally. And so he too lived&nbsp; out&nbsp; the&nbsp; spiritual experience of his father Solomon; the rot&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; only&nbsp;&nbsp; external&nbsp; spirituality&nbsp; snaked&nbsp; through&nbsp; those generations,&nbsp; until&nbsp; the&nbsp; real spirit of the Truth was lost, and only&nbsp; an&nbsp; external&nbsp; shell remained. There is ample evidence that this&nbsp;&nbsp; is&nbsp; exactly&nbsp; the&nbsp; situation&nbsp; in many areas today.</p>


text:
<p>6:21 Bind them continually on your heart. Tie them around your neck-</p><p>Solomon made the classic mistake of assuming that his will and word were effectively equivalent to the word of God. In <a href='B:240 6:21'>Pro 6:21</a> he speaks of the need to bind the law about your heart and neck; but in <a href='B:260 8:6'>Son 8:6</a> he asks his Gentile lover to “set me as a seal upon your heart” and arm. And often in Proverbs he uses the language of the blessings for keeping God’s law and turns them into the blessings for keeping his law.</p>


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


text:
<p>6:23 For the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light. Reproofs of instruction are the way of life-</p><p>The connection is with <a href='B:230 119:105'>Psa 119:105</a>: "Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light for my path". The "word" in view was the prophetic word that David would be king and Saul would be destroyed. Solomon reapplied this in <a href='B:240 6:23'>Pro 6:23</a>; but his legalism comes out, in that he changed "Your word" (of promise) to "the law" and the "commandments".</p>


text:
<p>6:24 to keep you from the immoral woman, from the flattery of the wayward wife’s tongue-</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 "strange" (AV) woman&nbsp; (<a href='B:240 2:16'>Pro 2:16</a>; <a href='B:240 5:20'>Pro 5:20</a>; <a href='B:240 6:24'>Pro 6:24</a>; <a href='B:240 7:5'>Pro 7:5</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 23:27'>Pro 23:27</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a>). 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>6:25 Don’t lust after her beauty in your heart, neither let her captivate you with her eyelids-</p><p>The&nbsp; blindness&nbsp; of&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; is&nbsp; driven&nbsp; home time and again. He warned&nbsp; the&nbsp; typical&nbsp; young&nbsp; man&nbsp; about&nbsp; being captivated by the eyelids of the Gentile woman (<a href='B:240 6:25'>Pro 6:25</a>); yet it was the eyes of Miss&nbsp; Egypt&nbsp; that&nbsp; he openly admitted stole his heart (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 6:5'>Son 6:5</a>):&nbsp;</p><p>Solomon often emphasized the importance of keeping the heart (<a href='B:240 2:10-16'>Pro 2:10-16</a>; <a href='B:240 3:5-6'>Pro 3:5-6</a>; <a href='B:240 4:23'>Pro 4:23</a> to <a href='B:240 5:5'>Pro 5:5</a>; <a href='B:240 6:23-26'>Pro 6:23-26</a>); he had foreseen that the essential sin of God’s people was “the plague of his own heart” (<a href='B:110 8:46'>1Ki 8:46</a>), and he imagined how for this sin God’s people would later pray towards the temple. And yet his wives turned away his heart (<a href='B:110 11:13'>1Ki 11:13</a>), for all this awareness that the heart must be kept. It was as if the more he knew the truth of something, the more he wanted to do the very opposite. And this is exactly true of our natures. It’s why we ourselves can discern the same perversity in our lives. Perhaps with Solomon he reasoned that in his case, foreign wives wouldn’t turn away his heart. Just as our flesh thinks ‘Yes, but it can’t happen to me’. Perhaps too he reasoned that if the temple somehow could bring forgiveness for the plague of the heart, his heart was incorruptible because of the temple:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:26 For a prostitute reduces you to a piece of bread. The adulteress hunts for your precious life-</p><p>Truth&nbsp; flowed&nbsp; through&nbsp; Solomon's&nbsp; mouth&nbsp; with ease, but took no lodgment at all in his heart. Truth, absolute and pure, flows through our hands in such volume. Bible study after Bible study, chapter&nbsp; after&nbsp; chapter::. But does it mean anything&nbsp; at&nbsp; all&nbsp; to us? <a href='B:240 6:26'>Pro 6:26</a> warns the young man that the Gentile woman will take his money and leave him destitute at the end. These words seem to be alluded to by Solomon years later in <a href='B:250 6:2'>Ecc 6:2</a>, where he laments that despite his wealth and success, a Gentile&nbsp; would have it all after his death. He saw in later life that&nbsp; his&nbsp; warnings&nbsp; to&nbsp; the young men of Israel had been in the form of painting a picture of a typical young man who epitomized youthful&nbsp; folly;&nbsp; but&nbsp; now&nbsp; he&nbsp; saw&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; had been making a detailed prophecy of himself.</p>


text:
<p>6:27 Can a man scoop fire into his lap, and his clothes not be burned?-</p><p>He soberly warns against the strange (i:e. Gentile) woman, observing that a man cannot take this kind of fire into his bosom and not be burned by it. Yet this is exactly what he was doing at the time he wrote that. His public removal of his Egyptian wife from the house of David "because the places are holy" (<a href='B:140 8:11'>2Ch 8:11</a>) is therefore to be seen as spiritual pride, appearing to do the right thing, when his heart was far from it. Burning clothes is the phrase used about what was to be done to the leper (<a href='B:30 13:52'>Lev 13:52</a>; <a href='B:30 13:57'>Lev 13:57</a>). The adulterer would be treated by others as a leper.</p>


text:
<p>6:28 Or can one walk on hot coals, and his feet not be scorched?-</p><p>This is exactly what Solomon thought he could do with women. And he was scorched, a figure for condemnation. "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 25:22'>Pro 25:22</a>; <a href='B:240 26:21'>Pro 26:21</a>). The man who gets involved with sexual sin reasons that he can tip toe over condemnation without being destroyed or his clothes catching fire (<a href='B:240 6:27'>Pro 6:27</a>). A sober warning of the psychology of all human sin.</p>


text:
<p>6:29 So is he who goes in to his neighbour’s wife-</p><p>When he warns his son not to go in to his neighbour’s wife, this may be thought to be looking back to his parents’ failure; for Bathsheba was the literal neighbour to David, living next door to his palace. But Solomon so glorifies his parents that I wonder if in fact he had so whitewashed their behaviour in his own mind that he is, as it were, unaware of how he was sounding. He may have been genuinely convinced they had done nothing wrong, and it was all a case of fake news and slander. Despite David's psalms of penitence.</p><p>Whoever touches her will not be unpunished-</p><p>The book of Proverbs outlines the basis upon which Solomon was to judge Israel. This can be read as Solomon warning that he would not show any grace to a man who went in to his neighbour's wife. But he was only conceived by David because God had not punished David as that iniquity deserved. We see here Solomon's utter refusal to accept grace, or to reflect the grace shown to his family to others. His harsh legalism leads me to conclude that he had [in his own mind] whitewashed his parents as if their sin had never happened.</p>


text:
<p>6:30 Men don’t despise a thief, if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry-</p><p>Solomon is arguing that there is utterly no excuse for adultery, and therefore he will always prosecute it to the ultimate term; he is arguing that adultery with the woman next door is just inexcusable for any reason. As noted on :29, he is totally hardened by his legalism to any kind of grace; were it not for the grace shown to his father, David would have died before Solomon was even conceived.</p>


text:
<p>6:31 but if he is found, he shall restore seven times. He shall give all the wealth of his house-</p><p>The wealth or substance of a man's house is the phrase used in <a href='B:240 1:13'>Pro 1:13</a>, of those who fill their houses with wealth by violence. Solomon presents a perhaps simplistic caricature of the wicked; they use violence, steal, commit adultery etc. And the righteous are consistently wise and righteous, according to Proverbs. Whereas in reality, sin and righteousness is far more subtle. A man like Solomon's father David was righteous and yet also sinned.</p>


text:
<p>6:32 He who commits adultery with a woman is void of understanding. He who does it destroys his own soul-</p><p>Solomon didn't commit adultery, but he sinned sexually by taking 1000 wives / concubines, who were Gentiles and idolaters. As so often happens, people who fail in the general area of sexuality love to focus upon the specific sins of others in that general area which they themselves have not committed. This is classic human psychology. Solomon is ever glorifying his father David, and he appears to not consider David and his own mother to have committed adultery. Yet he so openly justifies David, whilst condemning adultery in the strongest terms. It seems to me that he had found a way of whitewashing his parents' sin, as so many tend to do in various areas. Solomon simply fails to perceive that God's true people sin as do other sinners; it is faith in grace which makes the difference. But Solomon doesn't perceive this critical nuance. His father David had understanding, but committed adultery. So Solomon's simplistic worldview, whereby the world is divided between stellar examples of spirituality on one hand and vile criminal sinners on the other, is shown to be bankrupt and at best unrealistic.</p>


text:
<p>6:33 He will get wounds and dishonour, his reproach will not be wiped away-</p><p>This is indeed what happened to Solomon's father David; but I have argued on :29-32 that Solomon doesn't consciously have David's experience in view. His Proverbs often subtly criticize his half brothers and all who had been problematic for David after his sin with Bathsheba. Solomon sees their behaviour as solely their fault and lack of wisdom. He doesn't accept any of that behaviour was in fact provoked by the sins of David his father.</p>


text:
<p>6:34 For jealousy arouses the fury of the husband. He won’t spare in the day of vengeance-</p><p>Solomon seems to be saying that such refusal by the husband to pity / spare in the day of judgment is the attitude he will uphold as the judge (see on :29). Solomon is out of step with his father David, who spared Saul and his family (s:w. <a href='B:90 23:21'>1Sa 23:21</a>; <a href='B:100 21:7'>2Sa 21:7</a>); and was condemned because he showed no pity / sparing to Uriah in taking his wife (s:w. <a href='B:100 12:4'>2Sa 12:4</a>; <a href='B:100 12:6'>2Sa 12:6</a>). Refusal to accept the reality of sin and God's consequent grace makes people harsh in their judgments.</p>


text:
<p>6:35 He won’t regard any ransom, neither will he rest content, though you give many gifts-</p><p>I suggested on :34 that Solomon is saying that the husband's insistence upon the death penalty rather than any "ransom" will be eagerly upheld by him in judgment (:29). David his father committed murder, for which no ransom was to be accepted (s:w. <a href='B:40 35:31'>Num 35:31</a>). But God spared David by grace. And God does constantly ransom / redeem hopeless sinners from condemnation; this was what led Him to give His Son for the world's redemption. "Ransom" is a form of the Hebrew word for covering or atonement. But the very core of God's gracious operation with men was not appreciated by Solomon at all, and his technical wisdom only led him to deny this grace.</p>


text:
<p>s 7:1 My son, keep my words. Lay up my commandments within you-</p><p>Proverbs contains a number of Samson allusions (16:32; 25:28). But the most powerful are in 7:1,5,22,25-27, where the young Israelite is commended to God's word, because this will keep him from falling to the wiles of the Gentile woman, who throws down strong men into the way of miserable death. Solomon evidently writes with allusion to Samson; that here was the man who loved God's word, and yet went so astray with women. And tragically enough, Solomon himself did just the same! He realized and lamented the tragedy of Samson, as a lover of the word who fell for the Gentile woman; and then, with all his wisdom, he did the very same thing! Here, for all to see, is the crucial difference between knowledge and faith. </p><p>Solomon seems to allude to David hiding God's word in his heart (<a href='B:230 119:11'>Psa 119:11</a>) by asking his son to hide his word in his heart (s:w. <a href='B:240 2:1'>Pro 2:1</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>). Again Solomon is putting his own words in the place of God's words. Whilst his wisdom was inspired by God, I detect something wrong here. He is effectively playing God, and not directing people to God's word but rather to his own words, true and inspired as they might be. This came to full term in Solomon's attitude that personal loyalty to himself was loyalty to God- even when Solomon was far from God in his ways. And the same trap is fallen into by those who hold parts of 'God's truth'; they can come to thereby play God and demand personal loyalty to themselves rather than to God:&nbsp;</p><p>Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>); but he didn't preserve of observe them (<a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (<a href='B:240 2:8'>Pro 2:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:26'>Pro 3:26</a>), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (<a href='B:240 4:4'>Pro 4:4</a>; <a href='B:240 6:22'>Pro 6:22</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>; <a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>), preservation was through following the example of the wise (<a href='B:240 2:20'>Pro 2:20</a>); rather than stressing obedience to God's ways, and replacing David his father's simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (<a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>s 7:2 Keep my commandments and live! Guard my teaching as the apple of your eye-</p><p>David so often talks about God's "law", using the word torah. But Solomon so often speaks of his own torah, and that of his wife, the mother of "my son" (s:w. <a href='B:240 1:8'>Pro 1:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:1'>Pro 3:1</a>; <a href='B:240 4:2'>Pro 4:2</a>; <a href='B:240 6:20'>Pro 6:20</a>; <a href='B:240 7:2'>Pro 7:2</a>; <a href='B:240 13:14'>Pro 13:14</a>; <a href='B:240 31:26'>Pro 31:26</a>). Yet elsewhere in the Bible, the well over 200 occurrences of torah are always about God's law. Solomon applies the word to his own teachings and that of his wife, and thereby plays God. whilst it could be argued that Solomon's teachings were Divinely inspired, all the same he ought surely to have spoken of them as God's torah rather than his own torah. This kind of playing God is seen so often in the teachers of God's people.</p><p>David had taught his children with the words: “Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord” (<a href='B:230 34:11'>Psa 34:11</a> - did David say this to his children every evening?). And Solomon uses just the same words, even whilst disobeying God’s law at the same time in his own life. He repeats these very words of David when teaching his own son: “My son, keep [retain] my words</p><p> keep my commandments and live” (<a href='B:240 7:1-2'>Pro 7:1-2</a>). The idea of keeping commandments in order to live is a reference back to the many Deuteronomy passages where Moses pleads with Israel to keep God’s commands and live. But Solomon came to perceive his father David’s commands as those of God, and in his generation he watered this down in his own mind until he assumed that his commands to his children were to be treated by them as the law of God- no matter how far he had strayed himself from God’s law. It’s a gripping, frightening psychology.</p>


text:
<p>s 7:3 Bind them on your fingers, write them on the tablet of your heart-</p><p>Often in Proverbs Solomon uses the language of the blessings for keeping God’s law and turns them into the blessings for keeping his law; e:g. “My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee. Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye. Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart” (<a href='B:240 7:1-3'>Pro 7:1-3</a> AV). And we all do the same in essence, whenever we assume that our consciences are effectively the will of God; when we ‘play God’ by allowing our words and will to count as if they are His word.</p><p>The idea is that devotion to the covenant should be externally visible as well as in the heart. But the New Testament emphasizes that it is God who writes upon the table of the human heart by His Spirit (<a href='B:540 3:3'>2Co 3:3</a>). Solomon assumes that by intellectual effort, man can do this to himself. There could be the implication that Solomon considered that his Proverbs had now replaced the tables of the covenant; the same word is used. See on <a href='B:240 3:1-2'>Pro 3:1-2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>s 7:4 Tell wisdom, You are my sister. Call understanding your relative-</p><p>"Relative" translates a Hebrew word which occurs only in <a href='B:80 2:1'>Rth 2:1</a> about a relative who has the power to redeem. Solomon misses the point that redemption is by grace through faith, as explained on <a href='B:240 6:35'>Pro 6:35</a>. He thinks that the mere possession of intellectual truth, what he terms "wisdom", will be enough to redeem a person. This attitude to Divine truth led him to personal spiritual disaster, as it has so many.</p>


text:
<p>s 7:5 that they may keep you from the strange woman, from the foreigner who flatters with her words-</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" woman&nbsp; (<a href='B:240 2:16'>Pro 2:16</a>; <a href='B:240 5:20'>Pro 5:20</a>; <a href='B:240 6:24'>Pro 6:24</a>; <a href='B:240 7:5'>Pro 7:5</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 23:27'>Pro 23:27</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a>). 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><p>Solomon here argues as if mere intellectual assent to the truths he was teaching would keep a man safe from sexual temptation. But Solomon himself possessed all this truth and failed miserably in this area (see on :21).</p>


text:
<p>s 7:6 For at the window of my house I looked out through my lattice-</p><p>Solomon here claims that he had come to his conclusions by his observations, although one wonders if he is speaking literal truth about the incident he claims to be reporting. It is perhaps 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. He does the same in <a href='B:240 24:30-32'>Pro 24:30-32</a>, where his conclusions [see notes there] were not correct. We may conclude that in this anthology he is mixing Divine wisdom with his own pet issues.</p><p>Solomon in <a href='B:240 7:6'>Pro 7:6</a> likens himself to a wise man looking out through his lattice window and noticing a man going astray with a woman. But the precise figure is used in <a href='B:260 2:9'>Son 2:9</a> for how his illicit, paganic Gentile girlfriend found his doing this to be so attractive, if not somehow erotic. The connection shows how totally confused Solomon was in his personal spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>s 7:7 I saw among the simple ones. I discerned among the youths a young man void of understanding-</p><p>This 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 also in <a href='B:240 22:15'>Pro 22:15</a> - see notes there.</p>


text:
<p>s 7:8 passing through the street near her corner, he went the way to her house-</p><p>The idea is of furtive movement; and she herself lurked at the corners (:12). The impression is that he met her on the corner, and they arranged to meet later at her house that evening.</p>


text:
<p>s 7:9 in the twilight, in the evening of the day, in the middle of the night and in the darkness-</p><p>Solomon is therefore claiming that he made these observations throughout a period of many hours, stretching from evening to midnight (:6):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:10 Behold, there a woman met him with the attire of a prostitute, and with crafty intent-</p><p>AV "subtil of heart". This is a phrase used positively a heart which keeps to God's word (<a href='B:230 119:69'>Psa 119:69</a>; <a href='B:240 3:1'>Pro 3:1</a>; <a href='B:240 4:23'>Pro 4:23</a>; <a href='B:240 23:26'>Pro 23:26</a> etc:). The idea is being developed that this sinful woman is a parody of the righteous woman called wisdom:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:11 She is loud and defiant. Her feet don’t stay in her house-</p><p>Just as the woman wisdom "loudly" proclaims her truths on the streets. This woman is a conscious parody of the righteous woman. We note that Solomon considered that the wise woman does stay in her house, whereas the sinful woman doesn't. This appears to be Solomon's chauvinism rather than true wisdom. For he then presents the woman wisdom as being publically on the streets pleading with men to turn in to her wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>7:12 Now she is in the streets, now in the squares, and lurking at every corner-</p><p>See on :8,11. "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>7:13 So she caught him, and kissed him. With an impudent face she said to him-</p><p>See on :27. She catches him in parody of how the good woman wisdom takes hold of righteous men (as in Php_3:12). Likewise "impudent" is the word for 'to strengthen', used in <a href='B:250 7:19'>Ecc 7:19</a> of how wisdom strengths the wise.</p>


text:
<p>7:14 Sacrifices of peace offerings are with me. This day I have paid my vows-</p><p>Her references to her obedience to the Mosaic law are understandable once we perceive how she is a parody of the wise woman "wisdom" (see on :11,13,15-17,19,20; <a href='B:240 9:17'>Pro 9:17</a>). Her attraction is because she claims to be obedient to the requirements of Israel's God. I will note throughout the Song of Solomon that Solomon likewise sees his idolatrous, Gentile girlfriend as righteous, presenting her in the terms of Israel; when her heart was far from it. And this was what finally led the young man Solomon to his destruction. Again and again, we see Solomon going the way of the foolish which he laments and points out at such length. He failed to personalize wisdom, to see the conditional nature of his standing before God, and his possession of theoretical truth led him to never examine himself.</p>


text:
<p>7:15 Therefore I came out to meet you, to diligently seek your face, and I have found you-</p><p>This again parodies the way wisdom seeks and finds wise men (s:w. <a href='B:240 8:17'>Pro 8:17</a>); or rather they seek and find her. But Solomon appears to draw a contrast between the whore seeking and finding the man, and the wise woman being sought and found by men. But Solomon fails to perceive that God by grace is in search of man, and indeed He had searched for and found Solomon's father David (<a href='B:230 89:20'>Psa 89:20</a>). Solomon really understands nothing of the grace by which God works constantly in practice. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>7:16 I have spread my couch with carpets of tapestry, with striped cloths of the yarn of Egypt-</p><p>This woman Solomon warns of appears to want to serve Yahweh, and presents herself in the very language of the tabernacle (<a href='B:240 7:14'>Pro 7:14</a>; <a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>). And yet Solomon goes and falls for just such a woman. One can only conclude that the more true spiritual knowledge we have, the more prone we are to do the very opposite. Such is our nature.</p>


text:
<p>7:17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon-</p><p>The Proverbs so frequently refer to the dangers of the house of the Gentile woman; yet the Song shows the Egyptian girl dearly wishing that Solomon would come with her into her house. And&nbsp; Solomon,&nbsp; just&nbsp; like&nbsp; the foolish young man he wrote about, went right ahead down the road to spiritual disaster he so often warned others about. He warns the young man of the dangers of the Egyptian woman who perfumes her bed with myrrh (<a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>)- and then falls for just such a woman (<a href='B:230 45:8'>Psa 45:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>7:18 Come, let’s take our fill of loving until the morning. Let’s solace ourselves with loving-</p><p>The whore offers her "love" to the man, whereas Solomon presents the wise woman wisdom as only loving those who first love her (<a href='B:240 8:17'>Pro 8:17</a>; see on :15). Again, Solomon has it all wrong. It is not man's search for intellectual truth about God which is the initial spark in the Divine-human encounter. The opposite is the case. It is not that we loved God first, but rather that God first loved us (<a href='B:690 4:19'>1Jn 4:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p>7:19 For my husband isn’t at home. He has gone on a long journey-</p><p>Verse 11 has described the woman as not staying at home. Solomon's idea is that the woman who has no husband at home will go out of her home to look for sex. This could reflect a rather crude chauvinism. Perhaps he ignored the Biblical warnings that women would turn away his heart from God because he considered that women had no real power. He built houses for his wives and made them stay at home. The man who goes away on a long journey is used by the Lord for the basis of His parables of the man who goes to a far country (<a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a>; <a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a>). This continues the theme developed in earlier verses, that this woman is a parody of true spirituality. But there is a twist; see on :20.</p>


text:
<p>7:20 He has taken a bag of money with him; he will come home at the full moon-</p><p>I suggested on :19 that the Lord in His parables of the man taking a journey was as it were deconstructing the language here, to confirm that the woman is a fake believer. In His stories, the man doesn't take his money with him, but rather gives it to his servants to manage (<a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a>). The woman gives the impression that her husband has taken money with him to enjoy himself, perhaps with other women, and again the Lord may have this in mind in the construction of the parable of the prodigal son who likewise leaves his home with money. The promise that he will return "at the full moon" suggests this family is observant of the Mosaic feasts. Again, the woman gives the impression of spirituality and devotion to the Mosaic law, externally. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>7:21 With persuasive words she led him astray-</p><p>"Persuasive words" is the word usually translated doctrine or teaching, always used about the teaching of wisdom (<a href='B:240 1:5'>Pro 1:5</a>; <a href='B:240 4:2'>Pro 4:2</a>; <a href='B:240 9:9'>Pro 9:9</a>; <a href='B:240 16:21'>Pro 16:21</a> etc:). Again, the woman is presented as the antithesis of the wise woman wisdom. They both teach, but the whore's teaching leads astray. This contrast between such women is found in Revelation, where the whore is the antithesis of the bride of Christ. "Led him astray" is the very term used of how Solomon's wives turned his heart astray from God (<a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:9'>1Ki 11:9</a>). The more Solomon knew Divine truth, the more he seems to have considered himself free to ignore it and in fact do the very opposite. He clearly thought that mere possession of that truth was the basis for his justification, and dismissed any idea of self examination or awareness that he might in fact personally fail in obedience.</p><p>With the flattering of her lips, she seduced him-</p><p>Solomon in :5 argues as if mere intellectual assent to the truths he was teaching would keep a man safe from sexual temptation and the flattery of bad women. But Solomon himself possessed all this truth and failed miserably in this area. The Hebrew literally refers to the smoothness of her lips; and Solomon admired the smoothness of the lips of his illicit Gentile girlfriend (s:w. <a href='B:260 4:3'>Son 4:3</a>; <a href='B:260 4:11'>Son 4:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:9'>Son 7:9</a>). Again we see Solomon doing the exact opposite of the wisdom and theoretical truth he was blessed with.</p>


text:
<p>7:22 He followed her immediately, as an ox goes to the slaughter, as a fool stepping into a noose-</p><p>As explained on :21, this is exactly what happened to Solomon. AV "As a fool to the correction of the stocks". 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>7:23 Until an arrow strikes through his liver, as a bird hurries to the snare, and doesn’t know that it will cost his life-</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>In <a href='B:250 9:12'>Ecc 9:12</a>&nbsp; he&nbsp; says&nbsp; that he suffered the fate of all men in that soon&nbsp; he would die, he would suddenly be caught like a bird in a snare,&nbsp; although&nbsp; he knew not his time. These are the very ideas of&nbsp; <a href='B:240 7:23'>Pro 7:23</a> AV&nbsp; concerning the snaring of the simple young man by the&nbsp; Gentile woman: "As a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life". But here he presents the Gentile woman is a snare leading to death. But <a href='B:250 9:12'>Ecc 9:12</a> shows Solomon claiming that death is a&nbsp; snare brought about by time and chance; he thereby minimalized the sin of marriage out of&nbsp; the faith:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:24 Now therefore, sons, listen to me. Pay attention to the words of my mouth-</p><p>If we "attend" to God's word (<a href='B:240 2:2'>Pro 2:2</a>; <a href='B:240 4:1'>Pro 4:1</a>; <a href='B:240 7:24'>Pro 7:24</a>), then He will "attend" to our word, of prayer (<a href='B:230 55:2'>Psa 55:2</a> and often in the Psalms). There is thereby a mutuality between God and man. Our attitude to His word becomes reflected in His attitude to our words in prayer; for God and man are in dialogue.</p><p>He spoke of his law as giving life and blessing, appropriating the very terms of Deuteronomy about the blessings of obedience to God’s law. Wisdom said: “Now therefore my sons, hearken unto me: for blessed are they that keep my ways” (<a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a> RV). Yet these are the very words Solomon uses when talking to his kids: “Now therefore my sons, hearken unto me” (<a href='B:240 5:7'>Pro 5:7</a>; <a href='B:240 7:24'>Pro 7:24</a>). Conclusion? Solomon sees the woman “Wisdom” as a personification of himself:&nbsp;&nbsp; It was really Solomon's self-justification. He personally was wisdom, so he thought. This is how self-exalted his possession of true wisdom made him. And of course, his kids didn’t listen to wisdom’s way. In passing, I have noted that those raised ‘in the truth’ often find it very hard to take criticism in later life. They find tolerance of others’ views hard; they perceive themselves to be right to an intolerant extent. Is this not a little bit of the Solomon syndrome?&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:25 Don’t let your heart turn to her ways. Don’t go astray in her paths-</p><p>The young man's heart&nbsp; was made to go astray because of her, and her house&nbsp; led him to death (<a href='B:240 7:27'>Pro 7:27</a>). Miss Egypt caused Solomon's heart&nbsp; to&nbsp; go astray (<a href='B:110 11:1-4'>1Ki 11:1-4</a>), he built her a house, and her house became an idol temple which destroyed Solomon's faith. Yet&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; warned&nbsp; the&nbsp; young men of Israel all about this in Proverbs 7; and he even pointed out that such a woman would have all the&nbsp; outward&nbsp; trappings&nbsp; of&nbsp; Yahweh&nbsp; worship; she would claim an enthusiasm&nbsp; for&nbsp; keeping&nbsp; peace&nbsp; offerings and vows (<a href='B:240 7:14'>Pro 7:14</a>). Solomon&nbsp; was&nbsp; the&nbsp; young&nbsp; man&nbsp; whose picture he was painting.</p>


text:
<p>7:26 for she has thrown down many wounded. Yes, all her slain are a mighty army-</p><p>Solomon had seen many good men destroyed by bad women, a whole army of them. And yet he went that same way. Knowledge of theoretical truth, observation of the sad path of others::. is all not enough. There must be a humble personalization of wisdom, which only comes from throwing ourselves upon God's grace, experiencing that grace, and wanting to respond to it in a life and thought pattern in conformity to His will and way. But Solomon hadn't known any of that.</p>


text:
<p>7:27 Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the rooms of death-</p><p>Solomon's wisdom was given to him as a young man, and the book of Proverbs appears to be collections of the various statements of that wisdom. But about the same time, he also got involved with multiple Gentile women who led him astray from God and to idolatry. The very warnings he gives against the adulteress and Gentile woman were ignored by him; he became the young man who went wrong with women. His girlfriend speaks in the very language of the Gentile woman of Proverbs: "I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother's house::. into her chamber" (<a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>). Compare this with "She caught him::. come not near the door of her house::. her house::. the chambers of death" (<a href='B:240 7:13'>Pro 7:13</a>; <a href='B:240 7:27'>Pro 7:27</a>; <a href='B:240 5:8'>Pro 5:8</a>). We see here the warning for all time; that we can know God's ways in theory, whilst disobeying them in practice, absolutely to the letter. Indeed it may be so that the more we know them, the more strongly we are tempted by our nature to break them.</p>


text:
<p>s 8:1 Doesn’t wisdom cry out? Doesn’t understanding raise her voice?-</p><p>These are the very words used of how man is to cry out and raise his voice for wisdom and understanding (<a href='B:240 2:3'>Pro 2:3</a>). The idea is that God's wisdom and understanding is crying out to those who are crying out for it. There is thus a mutuality between God and man. And the old Yiddish proverb comes true: "And going out to find Him / I met Him coming towards me". God is in search of man, and true man is in search for God. And when they meet, there is that electric spark, parties in Heaven celebrating the reconnection.</p>


text:
<p>s 8:2 On the top of high places by the way, where the paths meet, she stands-</p><p>The crying out of wisdom in Proverbs is alluded to by the Lord as the pattern for our appealing to men and women. A feast is prepared by wisdom, and she sends out people to invite others to come in to it (<a href='B:240 9:1-3'>Pro 9:1-3</a>)- clearly the basis for the Lord's parable about the King's feast. Those who reject these invitations sin against their own souls (<a href='B:240 8:36'>Pro 8:36</a>)- just as those who reject our witness reject the appeal of God against themselves (<a href='B:490 7:30'>Luk 7:30</a>). Wisdom appeals to people "where the paths meet" (<a href='B:240 8:2'>Pro 8:2</a> RV), just as the Lord taught that our witness to people places them at a 'crossroad', whereby they have to decide for or against their God. In this context my point is that the appeal of "wisdom" in Proverbs is in a spirit of urgency- an urgency inspired by the ultimate seriousness of the message, and the fact that there are only two paths in Proverbs which men can chose. It's either eternal life or eternal death, the way of wisdom or folly, obedience to the call of the woman wisdom or to the call of the harlot. There's no third way- and this should be the spirit of our witness. Insofar as we appreciate the ultimate eternity of the issues we're preaching about, so we will find a power of urgency that somehow appeals to people and compels them.</p>


text:
<p>s 8:3 Beside the gates, at the entry of the city, at the entry doors, she cries aloud-</p><p>The wise woman wisdom is presented here as the antithesis of the whore described in Proverbs 7, who is also seen outside, crying aloud to men. They both teach, but the whore's teaching leads astray. This contrast between such women is found in Revelation, where the whore is the antithesis of the bride of Christ:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>s 8:4 To you people I call! I send my voice to the sons of mankind-</p><p>The call or cry of wisdom is presented as in response to the cry of the believer for wisdom (s:w. <a href='B:240 2:3'>Pro 2:3</a>; <a href='B:240 7:4'>Pro 7:4</a>). There is a mutuality between God and man. We search for God, yet God is in search of man. And when we meet, there is that electric spark spoken of in the parables of Luke 15, whereby Heaven and earth are united together in an electric spark of joy at finding each other. Solomon parallels "the sons of mankind", people generally, with simple fools (:5). Whilst there is an element of truth in this from a spiritual angle, we also get the impression that Solomon despises people generally, leading him to abuse his own people at the end of his reign, whipping them into submission, as they were to complain of at his death.</p>


text:
<p>s 8:5 You simple, understand prudence. You fools, be of an understanding heart-</p><p>See on :4. David likens himself to the simple who was made wise by God's word (<a href='B:230 19:7'>Psa 19:7</a>; <a href='B:230 119:130'>Psa 119:130</a>), and was therefore preserved (<a href='B:230 116:6'>Psa 116:6</a>). To be taught by God's word we have to become "simple", unlearning and placing to one side all our perceived knowledge and understandings. Solomon repeats David's theme by saying that wisdom makes wise the simple (<a href='B:240 1:4'>Pro 1:4</a>; <a href='B:240 8:5'>Pro 8:5</a>; <a href='B:240 9:4'>Pro 9:4</a>). But he is equating "wisdom" with the words of God, although for Solomon, "wisdom" seems to be what he is saying and teaching. Solomon doesn't direct his listeners back to God's word, as David did, but rather towards loyalty to his teaching. Inspired as it was, his lack of extended reference to God's law places his own teaching of "wisdom" above that law. This is in sharp contrast to David's attitude in Psalms 119.</p>


text:
<p>s 8:6 Hear, for I will speak excellent things. The opening of my lips is for right things-</p><p>The woman wisdom's lips and words are contrasted with those of the whore in <a href='B:240 7:21'>Pro 7:21</a>. See on :3. "Excellent" translates a Hebrew term usually referring to a ruler or prince, the very term used of Solomon as king (<a href='B:110 1:35'>1Ki 1:35</a>; <a href='B:240 28:16'>Pro 28:16</a>). Again, we see Solomon assuming that the words of wisdom are the words of himself as king. He failed to appreciate the degree to which he was merely a channel for God's truth, and came to assume that his words and positions were on the same level as God's. He therefore ended up playing God, assuming that submission to himself was submission to Divine wisdom. And this is an abiding temptation for all who are used as channels for God's truth. Solomon liked to imagine that he was perfectly obedient to his mother's command to open his lips in right judgment (s:w. <a href='B:240 31:9'>Pro 31:9</a>). 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>).</p>


text:
<p>s 8:7 For my mouth speaks truth. Wickedness is an abomination to my lips-</p><p>As noted on :6, Solomon's personification of wisdom ends up with him effectively considering that it is his own mouth which speaks truth, and his lips simply cannot utter wickedness. And so he went wrong; he assumed that because he did speak Divine truths, therefore all his words and positions were those of wisdom. He thereby lost any sense of personal self examination, or awareness of his own possibility of personal failure. And again we see this repeated in the lives of others who know and teach God's truth.</p>


text:
<p>s 8:8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness. There is nothing crooked or perverse in them-</p><p>As noted on :6,7, Solomon takes this personification of wisdom too far- in that he ends up thinking all the words of his mouth must be right just because he was chosen as the channel for God's words. The "crooked and perverse" are those David his father saw as being condemned (s:w. <a href='B:230 18:26'>Psa 18:26</a>), in contrast to "the pure". Solomon wrongly assumed that his knowledge of Divine truth made him "pure" of itself.</p>


text:
<p>s 8:9 They are all plain to him who understands, right to those who find knowledge-</p><p>The implication is that anyone who disagreed with or misunderstood what Solomon said was not really seeking knowledge. And yet there is, as always, a general truth here; that God's words are "plain" and clear to those who love Him. Those who wish to do God's will can easily discern doctrine / teaching (<a href='B:500 7:17'>Joh 7:17</a>). Much [although not all] 'misunderstanding' or complaint that the Bible is hard to understand is rooted in a refusal to do God's will. People often do not understand because they don't want to. All is plain and clear to those of a humble heart:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:10 Receive my instruction rather than silver; knowledge rather than choice gold-</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>8:11 For wisdom is better than rubies. All the things that may be desired can’t be compared to it-</p><p>The words of <a href='B:220 28:18'>Job 28:18</a> are repeatedly quoted in Proverbs (<a href='B:240 3:15'>Pro 3:15</a>; <a href='B:240 8:11'>Pro 8:11</a>; <a href='B:240 20:15'>Pro 20:15</a>). "Wisdom" in Proverbs refers not so much to nuggets of truth, but to a way of life in relationship with God; for that is the context in the source passage in <a href='B:220 28:18'>Job 28:18</a> cp. 28:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:12 I, wisdom, have made prudence my dwelling. Find out knowledge and discretion-</p><p>The emphasis of Solomon is always upon needing to "find out knowledge" through accepting the wisdom he taught. This is no bad exhortation of itself. But it is not the accent given by an understanding of God's grace. Through intellectual searching, we will not find out God, i:e. build relationship with Him- as Job concluded. The Bible is not a riddle to be solved, with relationship with God waiting there as a reward for getting things right. Bible study alone doesn't lead a man to God; or else this would be reason for boasting in intellectual prowess. The Divine-human encounter and relationship is instead predicated upon His prevenient grace, His initiative in seeking us. And so it is not so much a question of us knowing God, but of His knowing us (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>). We love because He first loved us (<a href='B:690 4:19'>1Jn 4:19</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:13 The fear of Yahweh is to hate evil. I hate pride, arrogance, the evil way, and the perverse mouth-</p><p>Solomon, as often, repeats his father's phrases. Here he has in mind <a href='B:230 97:10'>Psa 97:10</a> "You that love Yahweh, hate evil". But Solomon replaces loving Yahweh with fearing Yahweh. and he gives far stronger accent to the aspect of 'hating' evil and evil people. This is not merely Solomon wishing to put everything in black and white terms; but through that, he is seeking to use God's truth as a vehicle through which to express hatred against others, rather than love. And this is related to why he thinks in terms of fearing God rather than loving Him.</p>


text:
<p>8:14 Counsel and sound knowledge are mine. I have understanding and power-</p><p>The word translated "power" is frequently used of the power of a king, which is the context of the following verses. Solomon is justifying himself, arguing that he has power to act as he likes because he has wisdom. And the same abuse of possession of Divine truth has so often been seen. By contrast, David often uses this word for "power" about God's power, and the way He uses it to save people, by grace (<a href='B:230 106:8'>Psa 106:8</a> etc:). But Solomon speaks of such "power" as being possessed by kings [he has himself in view], predicated upon the possession of wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>8:15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice-</p><p>Solomon is again justifying himself. 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 :14). And he ends his reign abusing and whipping his people. He maintained his intellectual grasp of wisdom to the end (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>), 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:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:16 By me princes rule; nobles, and all the righteous rulers of the earth-</p><p>By "the earth", Solomon has in view the eretz promised to Abraham. The local rulers he had established were to teach his wisdom and judge and rule according to it. But again, Solomon's personification of wisdom gets confused with himself personally. For it was he who had appointed the various rulers, princes and nobles of Israel, as the historical records record. But he says here that wisdom had done that.</p>


text:
<p>8:17 I love those who love me. Those who seek me diligently will find me-</p><p>The Lord Jesus taught that we should love our enemies, and not fall into the trap of only loving those who love us (<a href='B:470 5:44-46'>Mat 5:44-46</a>). He seems to be alluding here to Solomon’s claim that wisdom says: “I love them that love me” (<a href='B:240 8:17'>Pro 8:17</a>). It seems likely that He was consciously showing that God’s grace is in fact the very opposite of what Solomon thought. God loves His enemies, and doesn’t only love those who love Him; and this is to be our credo likewise:&nbsp;</p><p>The woman wisdom is the opposite of the whore in Proverbs 7, who likewise says she seeks and finds men (<a href='B:240 7:15'>Pro 7:15</a>). But Solomon appears to draw a contrast between the whore seeking and finding the man, and the wise woman being sought and found by men. But Solomon fails to perceive that God by grace is in search of man, and indeed He had searched for and found Solomon's father David (<a href='B:230 89:20'>Psa 89:20</a>). Solomon really understands nothing of the grace by which God works constantly in practice.</p>


text:
<p>8:18 With me are riches, honour, enduring wealth, and prosperity-</p><p>This, again, is true, but not quite so simply as Solomon likes to present it. It is true that he chose wisdom rather than wealth, and was rewarded for that with great and enduring wealth. But many of God's wise people have been poor, or lost their wealth and honour; His Son being the parade example (<a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a>). Yet Solomon failed to realize that his wealth was given to him by grace, and not because he was wise. And so he makes the false step further, to say that if we have wisdom, we will then have wealth. And logically, any who are poor are so because they have refused wisdom. And that is simply a wrong conclusion. The Gospel has ever been "good news for the poor", rather than a rebuke of them for their poverty.</p>


text:
<p>8:19 My fruit is better than gold, yes, than fine gold; my yield than choice silver-</p><p>This as it were seeks to qualify the simplistic conclusion offered in :18, that wisdom leads to wealth. Solomon has indeed just said that, but now he says that the fruit of wisdom is even more valuable than the material wealth which he thinks wisdom will give to the wise. Solomon's father David concluded that the law of God was better than gold and solver (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:72'>Psa 119:72</a>). But as so often in the book of Proverbs, Solomon speaks of the wisdom he was teaching in the same terms as the Bible elsewhere speaks of God's entire revelation. And he saw fit to flout God's law. It was as if his obsession with the wisdom material he was teaching had led him to effectively replace God's laws with his own. He saw the particular Divine truths he had been given as eclipsing the rest of God's revelation; a mistake we see commonly made.</p>


text:
<p>8:20 I walk in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of justice-</p><p>Again it seems that Solomon's personification of wisdom leads him to come out with things which he clearly enough saw as descriptions of himself. He saw himself as wisdom personified, walking always in the right way, and always judging justly. And the one who walked in "the way of righteousness" would never die (<a href='B:240 12:28'>Pro 12:28</a> s:w:). Solomon saw his possession of Divine truths as the guarantee of itself that he was the eternal Messianic king. He had been warned that he must walk in the way of God if he was to have long life (s:w. <a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a>); but he assumed that the mere possession of Divine wisdom meant he was in that "way". As he got older and was reminded of his own mortality, he would have realized that he had to recalculate his position; and he ended up with the cynicism about his own wisdom seen in Ecclesiastes:&nbsp; And yet his injustice to his own people was evidence enough that he didn't do this in reality, but only in his own mind (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>8:21 that I may give wealth to those who love me. I fill their treasuries-</p><p>I discussed on :18 how this is not totally true. Often Solomon’s Proverbs bring out the tension between wealth and wisdom, and the need to choose wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:11'>Pro 8:11</a>; <a href='B:240 16:16'>Pro 16:16</a>). But whilst he was inspired to write this, and true as it all was, it is inevitable that Solomon said all this with his mind on the way that he had rejected wealth for wisdom when asked by God for his wish. He thought that his right choice in early life [cp. Christian baptism] justified him in later loving wealth rather than wisdom. He taught that wisdom filled the treasuries of the wise (<a href='B:240 8:21'>Pro 8:21</a> RV)- just as his treasuries were filled with wealth.</p>


text:
<p>8:22 Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of His work, before His deeds of old-</p><p>LXX has "created" for "possessed". Wisdom was "set up" (:23), "brought forth" (:24,25). Wisdom is presented as having been 'created' by God, right at the beginning, before the present world was made. Any attempt to use this passage to prove the eternal preexistence of the Lord Jesus is doomed to failure, therefore. It is true that the passage in <a href='B:500 1:1-3'>Joh 1:1-3</a> about the logos or "word" existing in the beginning, on account of whom all was made, may be alluding here. But clearly enough in this passage, "wisdom" is personified, just as the "word" is in <a href='B:500 1:1-3'>Joh 1:1-3</a>. The Lord Jesus didn't physically, personally exist before His conception. The word, or wisdom / logos, became flesh in Him (<a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a>). And indeed He thereby became the living embodiment of the word / wisdom, and can therefore truly be called "Christ::. the wisdom of God" (<a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a>; <a href='B:530 1:30'>1Co 1:30</a>). But this is not to say that He personally existed in Solomon's time. To insist on reading the text like this is to miss the point that the language of personification and preexistence "with God" is common in Jewish and indeed all Semitic writings. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth existed-</p><p>This kind of language is common in the literature of the time; see on :22. But it is primitive to suggest that there was a literal personal being called wisdom who existed at the beginning, just as it is to suggest this person was the Lord Jesus. The records of His birth leave out any possibility for His personal preexistence. Thus chapter 42 of the Book of Enoch likewise speaks of the personality and preexistence of Wisdom: "Wisdom found no place where she could dwell; therefore was her dwelling in heaven. Wisdom came forth in order to dwell among the sons of men, and found no habitation; then she returned to her place, and took her seat among the angels". Likewise Wis_8:3: "In that she dwelleth with God, she magnifieth her nobility". This is the language of personification; in no way is a literal being in view.</p>


text:
<p>8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water-</p><p>The specific references to the waters are because the Genesis creation is spoken of as happening after a point at which the earth was covered with deep waters (<a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a>). But before that point, wisdom was there, God's plan, His ways. LXX "Before the springs of the waters came forward" would be a reference to the opening up of the fountains at the flood (<a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>8:25 Before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was brought forth-</p><p>The language of <a href='B:230 90:2'>Psa 90:2</a> about God Himself, who existed before the mountains were settled. But again we note that "wisdom" was brought forth; it had a beginning. Whereas God has no beginning. We cannot simply equate wisdom with God. There is a marked difference between them. Any attempt to prove "Jesus = God" because He is called the wisdom of God is therefore simplistic and lacking in attention to what the text is saying:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:26 while as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields-</p><p>The distinction is between the areas used by man and those not. LXX "The Lord made countries and uninhabited places".</p><p>Nor the beginning of the dust of the world-</p><p>This could be an oblique reference to the seed of Abraham, who were to multiply as the dust- if they followed the way of wisdom. Or "The highest part of the dust of the world" could refer to the creation of man from the dust, the rosh or head of all creation (<a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a>; <a href='B:250 3:20'>Ecc 3:20</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:27 When He established the skies, I was there; when He set a circle on the surface of the deep-</p><p>Here as in <a href='B:220 22:14'>Job 22:14</a>, the reference is to the idea that there was a dome like vault called "heaven", imagined as resting on an ocean which surrounds the earth. As with the language of demons in the New Testament, wrong ideas aren't necessarily corrected in the Biblical record. People had these ideas, but believed that God was behind them. And the overall form [belief, faith in God as creator] was more significant to God than the exact content. Human attempts at religion have emphasized the opposite.</p>


text:
<p>8:28 when He established the clouds above, when the springs of the deep became strong-</p><p>This may be a reference to the events of the flood, when the springs of the deep were unleashed (<a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a>). The flood, therefore, was an outcome of "wisdom", it was according to God's plan and in line with His principles, and not some senseless pouring out of Divine anger. LXX "When he made secure the fountains of the earth beneath the heaven" would continue the allusions to current conceptions of creation and cosmology, however incorrect (see on :27).</p>


text:
<p>8:29 when He gave to the sea its boundary, that the waters should not violate His commandment, when He marked out the foundations of the earth-</p><p>The reference may be to the earth / land promised to Abraham. The sea of Gentile nations were given a boundary beyond which they could not pass in their aggression toward Israel (<a href='B:300 5:22'>Jer 5:22</a>). This was all by the Divine grace which is such an integral part of His "wisdom", His purpose, His word from the beginning:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:30 then I was the craftsman by His side. I was a delight day by day, always rejoicing before Him-</p><p>This again is the language of personification and not to be taken literally. And such language is found in contemporary writings, with no hint that a literal person is to be imagined. Thus in Wis_7:22, Wisdom is called "the worker of all things::. from the beginning". And indeed the whole of creation was according to God's wisdom (<a href='B:240 3:19'>Pro 3:19</a>); God spoke, and the creation came about. Creation is presented in Genesis as by the spoken word of God, but that "word" reflected His wisdom, the logos which was from the beginning.</p>


text:
<p>8:31 rejoicing in His whole world. My delight was with the sons of men-</p><p>The joy of God and the Angels in creation is elsewhere mentioned (<a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a>; <a href='B:230 104:31'>Psa 104:31</a>). In this sense, "wisdom" rejoiced. God's special joy was in the creation and salvation of men- according to the principles of His wisdom:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:32 Now therefore, my sons, listen to me, for blessed are those who keep my ways-</p><p>Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>); but he didn't preserve of observe them (<a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (<a href='B:240 2:8'>Pro 2:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:26'>Pro 3:26</a>), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (<a href='B:240 4:4'>Pro 4:4</a>; <a href='B:240 6:22'>Pro 6:22</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>; <a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>), preservation was through following the example of the wise (<a href='B:240 2:20'>Pro 2:20</a>); rather than stressing obedience to God's ways, and replacing David his father's simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (<a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>).</p><p>He spoke of his law as giving life and blessing, appropriating the very terms of Deuteronomy about the blessings of obedience to God’s law. Wisdom said: “Now therefore my sons, hearken unto me: for blessed are they that keep my ways” (<a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a> RV). Yet these are the very words Solomon uses when talking to his kids: “Now therefore my sons, hearken unto me” (<a href='B:240 5:7'>Pro 5:7</a>; <a href='B:240 7:24'>Pro 7:24</a>). Conclusion? Solomon sees the woman “Wisdom” as a personification of himself:&nbsp;&nbsp; It was really Solomon's self-justification. He personally was wisdom, so he thought. This is how self-exalted his possession of true wisdom made him. And of course, his kids didn’t listen to wisdom’s way. In passing, I have noted that those raised ‘in the truth’ often find it very hard to take criticism in later life. They find tolerance of others’ views hard; they perceive themselves to be right to an intolerant extent. Is this not a little bit of the Solomon syndrome?&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise. Don’t refuse it-</p><p>The same power of wisdom in the natural creation just described can be articulated to men who accept wisdom, thereby forming a new creation (<a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>8:34 Blessed is the man who hears me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at my door posts-</p><p>This may be an intentional contrast with the bad woman if Proverbs 7, who tempts men to furtively enter the doors and gates of her house. And Solomon failed in this; for the Song of Solomon speaks of the "gates" of his illicit Gentile girlfriend (<a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a>), outside which Solomon waited secretly at night (<a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>; <a href='B:260 5:4'>Son 5:4</a>). The language of doors, posts and gates recurs in the descriptions of Solomon's temple. The subtext could be that Solomon considered that building to be the repository of wisdom, in that from there he taught wisdom; whereas the true abode of wisdom is in human hearts.</p>


text:
<p>8:35 For whoever finds me finds life, and will obtain favour from Yahweh-</p><p>True as this is, as noted on :12, through intellectual searching, we will not find out God, i:e. build relationship with Him- as Job concluded. The Bible is not a riddle to be solved, with relationship with God waiting there as a reward for getting things right and our intellectual search ending in 'finding'. Bible study alone doesn't lead a man to God; or else this would be reason for boasting in intellectual prowess. The Divine-human encounter and relationship is instead predicated upon His prevenient grace, His initiative in seeking us. And so it is not so much a question of us knowing God, but of His knowing us (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>). We love because He first loved us (<a href='B:690 4:19'>1Jn 4:19</a>.</p><p>God's "favour" isn't predicated upon our intellectual prowess in mastering "wisdom" (<a href='B:240 8:35'>Pro 8:35</a>) nor upon our good works (<a href='B:240 12:2'>Pro 12:2</a>). Academic truth and / or good living isn't as it were the key which opens up access to God's grace. For otherwise Divine "favour" would be a reward, and grace would no longer be grace. See on :36.</p>


text:
<p>8:36 But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul. All those who hate me love death-</p><p>"Sins" is the word for 'missing', and is the antithesis of 'finding' wisdom in :35. But whilst this may be true in a sense, Solomon has the idea that those who seek wisdom but miss finding her will be punished for it. The truth is that God is in search of man, and finally all we have to do is say "yes" to His approach. Intellectual failure will not of itself mean that we have 'missed' God; for He is right on course for us. The Divine-human encounter I discussed on :12 will surely happen; for God is coming out to meet us, and is focused upon us. The sin, the failure, is to refuse His approach. But Solomon, like many fundamentalists, puts the failure on missing wisdom, not finding truth, for whatever reason.</p>


text:
<p>s 9:1 Wisdom has built her house, she has carved out her seven pillars-</p><p>See on <a href='B:240 8:2'>Pro 8:2</a>. Solomon's great obsession had been the building of the temple, replete with pillars. I have noted on Proverbs 8 that his personification of "wisdom" is to the point that he speaks of himself as "wisdom" personified. So here, his picture of wisdom building her grand and glorious house is in fact referring to his building of grandiose houses, both for God and for himself and his wives.</p>


text:
<p>s 9:2 she has prepared her bread, she has mixed her wine. She has also set her table-</p><p>A table with bread and wine on it is the language of the altar, the table of Yahweh. As noted on :1, Solomon presents the house wisdom built as the temple which he had built.</p>


text:
<p>s 9:3 she has sent out her maidens, she cries from the highest places of the city-</p><p>The call or cry of wisdom is presented as in response to the cry of the believer for wisdom (s:w. <a href='B:240 2:3'>Pro 2:3</a>; <a href='B:240 7:4'>Pro 7:4</a>). There is a mutuality between God and man. We search for God, yet God is in search of man. And when we meet, there is that electric spark spoken of in the parables of Luke 15, whereby Heaven and earth are united together in an electric spark of joy at finding each other.</p>


text:
<p>s 9:4 Whoever is simple, let him turn in here! As for him who is void of understanding, she says to him-</p><p>David likens himself to the simple who was made wise by God's word (<a href='B:230 19:7'>Psa 19:7</a>; <a href='B:230 119:130'>Psa 119:130</a>), and was therefore preserved (<a href='B:230 116:6'>Psa 116:6</a>). To be taught by God's word we have to become "simple", unlearning and placing to one side all our perceived knowledge and understandings. Solomon repeats David's theme by saying that wisdom makes wise the simple (<a href='B:240 1:4'>Pro 1:4</a>; <a href='B:240 8:5'>Pro 8:5</a>; <a href='B:240 9:4'>Pro 9:4</a>). But he is equating "wisdom" with the words of God, although for Solomon, "wisdom" seems to be what he is saying and teaching. Solomon doesn't direct his listeners back to God's word, as David did, but rather towards loyalty to his teaching. Inspired as it was, his lack of extended reference to God's law places his own teaching of "wisdom" above that law. This is in sharp contrast to David's attitude in Psalms 119.</p>


text:
<p>s 9:5 Come, eat some of my bread, drink some of the wine which I have mixed!-</p><p>The contrast is with the invitation of wicked men to eat their bread and drink their wine of wickedness and violence (<a href='B:240 4:17'>Pro 4:17</a>). Solomon again presents life as being of diametrical opposites, with people within Israel divided between the desperately, criminally wicked- and the spotlessly wise and righteous. But this is simply not true to reality. Human thought and behaviour within the people of God is more mixed than that. Bread and wine even in Old Testament times were of sacramental significance. The wicked are presented as not offering true sacrifice, but a fake appearance of it, to the praise and glory of wickedness and violence. Whereas the wise offer perfectly acceptable sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p>s 9:6 Leave your simple ways, and live. Walk in the way of understanding-</p><p>These are the words used by David in <a href='B:230 119:37'>Psa 119:37</a>: "Revive me in Your ways". This idea of living in God's ways was a promised blessing for remaining in the covenant (<a href='B:50 5:33'>Deu 5:33</a>; <a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>). Solomon here uses the phrase for living in the way of understanding, but the difference with his father David was that David asks to be "revived" or made to live in those ways; whereas Solomon exhorts people to attempt to do this in their own strength and steel willpower. And this ultimately fails, as it did with Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>s 9:7 He who corrects a mocker invites insult; he who reproves a wicked man invites abuse-</p><p>What is said in :7-9 is true enough, but it presupposes that we judge who is a mocker or scoffer (:8) before sharing with them the reproof and hope of true wisdom. This is out of step with God's universal appeal to "all men" as sinners to repent and accept His grace; wise and unwise, mockers and spiritual enthusiasts alike, are all sinners and in that sense unwise. And the records of the "insults" and "abuse" suffered by the Lord Jesus and His apostles are evidence enough that they did not seek to avoid these things by only selectively witnessing to only some men- those they judged wise.</p>


text:
<p>s 9:8 Don’t reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you-</p><p>As noted on :7, this may be true, but it is not an approach of love. Job's friends were scoffers (s:w. <a href='B:220 16:20'>Job 16:20</a>), but still they were reproved by him and God. Our appeal to others should not be made selectively, based upon the likely response we think they will make. Thus it is quite wrong to reason that a person should not be baptized because they may fall away, or it may divide the church. We think of how John the Baptist rebuked Herod, and was hated for it by Herodias.</p><p>Reprove a wise man, and he will love you-</p><p>Solomon may be justifying his father David's response to Nathan the prophet.</p>


text:
<p>s 9:9 instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning-</p><p>This is true, but as noted on :7,8, it rather presupposes that we can somehow judge the spiritual nature of our audience before we begin sharing instruction / wisdom with them. It is indeed so that there is an upward spiral in spiritual life, whereby the wise become wiser. But our motive for wanting to share wisdom ought to be to make the foolish wise, rather than confirm the wise in their wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>9:10 The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom, the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding-</p><p>Solomon repeats his father David's conclusion that wisdom begins with the fear of Yahweh (<a href='B:230 111:10'>Psa 111:10</a> = <a href='B:240 1:7'>Pro 1:7</a>; <a href='B:240 9:10'>Pro 9:10</a>). This statement is in sharp contrast with the accepted view of the times, that wisdom was held by the sages, and was accessible only by sitting at their feet. But this idea (and it is common enough today too) is subverted by this idea that wisdom begins in each individual heart being in fear of Yahweh- so that wisdom from Him can be personally experienced, taught directly through relationship with Him rather than sitting at the feet of a human sage. "Wisdom" is parallel with getting "a good understanding" by 'doing His work' or obeying His commandments (<a href='B:230 111:10'>Psa 111:10</a> b). The work we are to do for God in obeying His ways is not simply a test of our obedience; it is designed to give us wisdom. Wisdom therefore comes from experience of obedience and relationship with God, rather than from picking up nuggets of 'truth' from human sages:&nbsp;The fear of God is therefore not so much referring to a fear of the consequence of our sins; but the fear or reverence expressed through keeping His commandments (see on <a href='B:230 112:1'>Psa 112:1</a>):&nbsp;</p><p>"Holy One" can as well be translated "the assembly", the 'holy ones', as if Solomon saw wisdom as held by a group of holy people.</p>


text:
<p>9:11 For by me your days will be multiplied. The years of your life will be increased-</p><p>Solomon claims that the righteous / wise live long lives, and therefore the unwise have shorter lives. This was the promise for obedience to the old covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 11:21'>Deu 11:21</a>). But it is not always the case, as Job learned (s:w. <a href='B:220 29:18'>Job 29:18</a>). And it was so with the Lord Jesus. And faithful men often lament that the wicked seem to get long life, whilst the righteous don't. The answer to that conundrum is that final blessing of long life is at the resurrection, at the last day; and not in this life. But Solomon didn't see that; he thought that long life now was the only reward. He failed to perceive the real meaning of the Gospel of the Kingdom:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:12 If you are wise, you are wise for yourself. If you mock, you alone will bear it-</p><p>Solomon presents wisdom as of great personal benefit, indeed it is "for yourself"; and folly likewise is to your loss. But this presents a somewhat selfish view of wisdom. Solomon had been granted wisdom not for himself, but because he wanted to know how best to rule God's great people (<a href='B:110 3:9'>1Ki 3:9</a>). But once he has the wisdom, he becomes exalted by it, and concludes that wisdom is essentially for the personal benefit of those who have it, "you are wise for yourself" (<a href='B:240 9:12'>Pro 9:12</a>). Whatever truths are revealed to us are so that we might use them to the glory of God with others, and not to merely keep them for our own personal benefit.</p>


text:
<p>9:13 The foolish woman is loud, undisciplined, and knows nothing-</p><p>Just as the woman wisdom "loudly" proclaims her truths on the streets. This woman is a conscious parody of the righteous woman of Proverbs 8. This contrast between such women is found in Revelation, where the whore is the antithesis of the bride of Christ:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:14 She sits at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city-</p><p>We note that Solomon considered that the wise woman does stay in her house, whereas the sinful woman doesn't. This appears to be Solomon's chauvinism rather than true wisdom. For he then presents the woman wisdom as being publically on the streets pleading with men to turn in to her wisdom.</p><p>The&nbsp;blindness&nbsp;of&nbsp;Solomon is driven&nbsp;home time and again:&nbsp; The&nbsp; wicked&nbsp; Gentile&nbsp; woman is associated with a large&nbsp;&nbsp; house&nbsp; in&nbsp; a&nbsp; high&nbsp; place, in&nbsp; the&nbsp; temple&nbsp; area. But this is exactly where Solomon built his Egyptian wife a&nbsp;house!&nbsp;</p>


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


text:
<p>9:16 Whoever is simple, let him turn in here. As for him who is void of understanding, she says to him-</p><p>Again, this is a parody of the woman wisdom, who likewise gives teaching to "the simple". The person without / lacking or void of understanding is typically the adulterer or sexual sinner (s:w. <a href='B:240 6:32'>Pro 6:32</a>; <a href='B:240 7:7'>Pro 7:7</a>; <a href='B:240 9:4'>Pro 9:4</a>; <a href='B:240 9:16'>Pro 9:16</a>). But Solomon failed with women, despite priding himself on his wisdom. So by 'having understanding' he seems to refer to the mere intellectual possession of it. He thought this would alone preserve men from temptation and sin; but he utterly failed to personalize wisdom. Possession of Divine truth does not of itself preserve from sin; and Solomon is the parade example of this.</p>


text:
<p>9:17 Stolen water is sweet. Food eaten in secret is pleasant-</p><p>"Water" is euphemism for semen, confirming that illicit sexual behaviour is in view, which agrees with the context. The idea of secret bread may allude to the shewbread, and I suggested on <a href='B:240 7:14'>Pro 7:14</a> that this bad woman portrays herself in the language of the Mosaic law. This was the basis of her attraction to a young Israelite man.</p>


text:
<p>9:18 But he doesn’t know that the dead are there, that her guests are in the depths of Sheol-</p><p>The idea is that they are in a living death; her house is the house of the grave. "Guests" is literally "called / invited ones". They responded to her call, which is a parody and antithesis of the call of wisdom. And indeed there are only two ways before us in life, the call of the word of God and that of the flesh, personified here as a whore.</p>


text:
<p>10:1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son makes a glad father; but a foolish son brings grief to his mother-</p><p>Although this is all inspired wisdom, Solomon does seem to have his mind on his own self-justification in the way he expresses it. All his many references to "David my father" suggest his spirituality was a living out of parental expectation. He had been called the "wise son" of David (<a href='B:110 5:7'>1Ki 5:7</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>) even before David died, and he clearly wanted to live out that expectation by asking for wisdom and implying his father would've been so happy with him. Yet his heart was far from personal wisdom, as he later admits in Ecclesiastes.</p><p>He says that a wise son makes a glad father, so intent was he on living out his father’s expectations even after David’s death. Because of this he teaches that the King must always be right and be respected, whatever happens (<a href='B:240 16:10-15'>Pro 16:10-15</a>). He saw himself as the Messianic King and therefore infallible. He again and again failed to realize the conditionality of all God has promised.</p>


text:
<p>10:2 Treasures of wickedness profit nothing, but righteousness delivers from death-</p><p>"Treasures" is Heb. storehouses. Solomon built these for his horses and his wealth. We have a tendency to do the very thing we know is wrong, just as Solomon married Gentile women despite all his warnings against doing so. This is one window on the ability of religious people to be the worse hypocrites.</p><p>David appealed to God's righteousness for deliverance from the consequence of his sins (<a href='B:230 71:2'>Psa 71:2</a>). This was appropriate, seeing that David had been saved from death by God's imputation of His righteousness to David (<a href='B:230 32:1-4'>Psa 32:1-4</a>), by grace through faith; seeing David's sins left him with no righteousness of his own. And it was on this basis that David believed he would continue to be saved / delivered / rescued (s:w. <a href='B:230 51:14'>Psa 51:14</a> in the Bathsheba context). But Solomon failed to learn from his mother and father's experience of grace, teaching instead that personal righteousness is what saves (<a href='B:240 10:2'>Pro 10:2</a>; <a href='B:240 11:4'>Pro 11:4</a>; <a href='B:240 11:6'>Pro 11:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>10:3 Yahweh will not allow the soul of the righteous to go hungry, but He thrusts away the desire of the wicked-</p><p>In the court of Heaven, God “thrusteth away the desire of the wicked” (<a href='B:240 10:3'>Pro 10:3</a> RV)- as if their prayers are rejected there. And yet Solomon appears to simplistically assume that the righteous never suffer, which the book of Job and other scripture show quite simply not to be the case. It is however true that the righteous would not starve to death; God would always provide for them. And this should be of huge strength to us in our battle against the fears which arise from living in a materialistic society.</p>


text:
<p>10:4 He becomes poor who works with a lazy hand, but the hand of the diligent brings wealth-</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>10:5 He who gathers in summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during the harvest is a son who causes shame-</p><p>Solomon contrasts wisdom with shame. But he goes too far in saying that the wise gather in harvest time; for that is what most people do, wise or unwise. He seems over enthusiastic to paint those without the wisdom he taught as lazy and shameful. But there are many who reject Divine wisdom who are zealous gatherers of their harvest, and hard workers. As noted elsewhere in Proverbs, it could be that the Lord's parable of the rich fool with great harvests is intended to correct some of these images. For He there presents the man with good harvests as foolish, and lacking wisdom; whereas Solomon claims that good harvests are the reward for the wise, and the foolish don't enjoy that.</p>


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


text:
<p>10:7 The memory of the righteous is blessed, but the name of the wicked will rot-</p><p>The Hebrew idea of 'name' is of reputation, and that is demonstrated here by being paralleled with 'memory'. Who we are and what we spiritually achieve will be eternally remembered. Careers, attainment of wealth etc. will fade away [AV "rot"].</p>


text:
<p>10:8 The wise in heart accept commandments, but a chattering fool will fall-</p><p>The same words are used about Moses receiving commandments on Sinai (<a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>). This is one of many times when the average Israelite was encouraged to rise up to the spirit of Moses. The contrast is between receiving God's word and thus getting into an upward spiral of spirituality; and talking so much that we don't receive God's words. That same tension is found in :14.</p>


text:
<p>10:9 He who walks blamelessly walks surely, but he who perverts his ways will be found out-</p><p>Again Solomon presents life as polar opposites, with the righteous "blameless", walking surely on the path of righteousness; and the wicked whose ways are perverted. But this is not how spiritual reality is; nobody is blameless, the righteous don't walk surely all the time, but slip from the path as David did. And yet this doesn't make them perverts of the way. It was this overly simplistic view of things which led Solomon to assume himself to be a stellar example of spirituality, assured of acceptance with God; and thereby failing to appreciate that for all his wisdom and professed faith, his behaviour was disobedient and hypocritical. This led to him finally turning away from Yahweh. If he had maintained a more realistic and humble view of human spirituality, his own included, then he could have avoided this:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:10 One winking with the eye causes sorrow, and a chattering fool will fall-</p><p>The body language of sinners is commented upon several times in the Bible. This is the degree to which God observes human behaviour. And we have wonderful insights into that of the Lord Jesus; His eyes and hands are often as it were zoomed in upon in the Gospel records. Body language is indeed a "signal" of our innermost heart; and for the wicked, they yield all the members of their bodies to work unrighteousness (<a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p>10:11 The mouth of the righteous is a spring of life, but violence covers the mouth of the wicked-</p><p>See on :6. Solomon uses&nbsp;the figure of a well of living water to describe spiritual words&nbsp;and&nbsp;thinking (<a href='B:240 10:11'>Pro 10:11</a>; <a href='B:240 13:14'>Pro 13:14</a>; <a href='B:240 14:27'>Pro 14:27</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>). Yet this is&nbsp;the&nbsp;very&nbsp;figure which he uses concerning his worldly bride (<a href='B:260 4:15'>Son 4:15</a>):&nbsp;It could be argued that this typifies the massive imputation of righteousness&nbsp;which the Lord Jesus grants to us, His worldly Gentile bride. But I would rather see it as an example of how he chose to justify his love for worldly women by as it were clothing those women in his own mind with the imagery of spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>10:12 Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all wrongs-</p><p>"Covers", not in the sense of turning a blind eye, but of forgiving just as God covers or deals with / atones [Heb. 'covers'] for sin. The "strife" is defined as that between brothers arising from lies (s:w. <a href='B:240 6:19'>Pro 6:19</a>). This is true, and needs to be given its due weight by those who divide brethren in Christ. But Solomon also doubtless has in view the discord between him and his half brothers, who were contenders for his throne. He considers the cause of the divisions to be "lies", a slander campaign against him and his father; and even if there were truth in any of it, he orders it to be covered by love. But the division amongst David's sons was a direct fulfilment of Nathan's prediction of the consequence of David's sins associated with Bathsheba. But Solomon seeks to whitewash David, considering any friction arising from his father's sins as mere slander. He doesn't follow David in openly confessing sin and rejoicing in Divine grace.</p>


text:
<p>10:13 Wisdom is found on the lips of him who has discernment, but a rod is for the back of him who is void of understanding-</p><p>LXX "He that brings forth wisdom from his lips smites the fool with a rod". Solomon has himself in view, but now instead of attributing wisdom to Divine inspiration, he starts to consider that it emanated from himself. When he died, the people complained that he had whipped [Heb. 'beaten'] them unreasonably (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). It was Solomon's false view of his wisdom which led him to do this. He assumed that he must be right, he was infallible, because of his possession of Divine truths. He justified indulging his natural human tendency to be overly harsh on others because he claimed he was the source of all wisdom. And again we see a parallel in fundamentalist Christian groups; where the more dogmatic are the claimants to possession of absolute truth about everything, the more they tend to abuse others and show no mercy to any who fail to attain to their supposed wisdom:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:14 Wise men lay up knowledge, but the mouth of the foolish is near ruin-</p><p>"Knowledge" is presented as accumulating progressively, as a witness to the acceptability of the wise. But knowledge in this sense is not the basis of justification with God, contrary to what Solomon [and many fundamentalists] liked to think.</p>


text:
<p>10:15 The rich man’s wealth is his fortified city; the destruction of the poor is their poverty-</p><p>This seems to reason as if wealth is a strong city to the wise and righteous of :14, and poverty is the fault of the poor, who are the foolish and wicked of :16. And yet there simply isn't such a direct correlation between wisdom and wealth for the believer; the book of Job and so much Biblical revelation make it clear that the poor are those who tend to respond more to the Gospel (<a href='B:490 7:22'>Luk 7:22</a>). Solomon's choice of wisdom over wealth was indeed pleasing to God, and so he was given wealth by God. But that was a gift by grace. Yet it led Solomon to assume that his wisdom [which was anyway not his own, but God's gift to him] was the basis for his wealth; and that therefore possession of Divine wisdom meant wealth, and thereby poverty was a punishment of God upon the foolish. This is simply not the case.</p>


text:
<p>10:16 The labour of the righteous leads to life; the increase of the wicked leads to sin-</p><p>"Life" and "sin" are placed in antithesis. We would rather read "death" instead of "sin", as death is the opposite of life. But sin can be put for death in that "the wages of sin is death" (<a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a>). But Solomon here veers towards belief in salvation by works, or "labour". Paul explains that this is simply not the case. "Life" is by grace, through faith and not of works (<a href='B:520 4:6'>Rom 4:6</a>). But the wonder of grace was unknown to Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>10:17 He is in the way of life who heeds correction, but he who forsakes reproof leads others astray-</p><p>This appears to be an out of context allusion to David's words in <a href='B:230 38:14'>Psa 38:14</a>, reflecting on his sin with Bathsheba, and how he felt unable to give reproof to others: "Yes, I am as a man who doesn’t hear, in whose mouth are no reproofs". Solomon was obsessed with David his father, speaking hundreds of times of "David my father". But he failed to have his humility; he endlessly dishes out reproofs in Proverbs, indeed he sees his Proverbs as reproofs to people (e:g. <a href='B:240 1:25'>Pro 1:25</a>; <a href='B:240 6:23'>Pro 6:23</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:18'>Pro 13:18</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:31'>Pro 15:31</a>; <a href='B:240 29:15'>Pro 29:15</a>); whereas David humbly felt unable to do so because of his awareness of his sins. And at the time David wrote the Proverbs, when he received wisdom at the start of his reign, he was sinning likewise [in essence] by marrying foreign women:&nbsp;See on <a href='B:240 7:22'>Pro 7:22</a>.</p>


text:
<p>10:18 He who hides hatred has lying lips; he who utters a slander is a fool-</p><p>Whether we speak the slander or think it and keep our mouth tactfully shut- it's all the same before God. Nicespeak and tact aren't the same as the true spirituality which includes the love which thinks no evil. See on :20. Perhaps Solomon has in view the "hatred" of his brother Amnon (<a href='B:100 13:15'>2Sa 13:15</a>). The word for "hatred" is used by David in the Psalms, about both the house of Saul and also Solomon's half brothers (see on <a href='B:230 25:19'>Psa 25:19</a>; <a href='B:230 103:9'>Psa 103:9</a>; <a href='B:230 109:5'>Psa 109:5</a>). All these were contenders to Solomon's throne, and he appears to here condemn them as fools who shall therefore be condemned. This constant focus upon the judgment of others led Solomon to be quite unaware of his personal responsibility to judgment himself:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:19 In the multitude of words there is no lack of disobedience, but he who restrains his lips does wisely-</p><p>"The multitude of words" is a phrase quoted from <a href='B:220 11:2'>Job 11:2</a>, one of the scriptures which would have been available to Solomon. And the conclusion is that Job's multitude of words was not altogether right, and he would have been wiser to restrain his lips, as he himself realizes at the end.</p>


text:
<p>10:20 The tongue of the righteous is like choice silver; the heart of the wicked is of little worth-</p><p>The tongue and the heart / mind are paralleled- thoughts are as bad as words. See on :18. I will suggest on :21 and :31 that the "tongue" effectively means 'the teaching'. Solomon's utilitarian attitude still comes through, in his description of the heart of the wicked as 'worth little', whereas the teaching of the righteous is precious as silver. A wicked heart is abomination to God, and not merely 'worth little'.</p>


text:
<p>10:21 The lips of the righteous feed many, but the foolish die for lack of understanding-</p><p>"Feed" is the word for "pastors" in <a href='B:300 12:10'>Jer 12:10</a>. The idea 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>


text:
<p>10:22 Yahweh’s blessing brings wealth, and He adds no trouble to it-</p><p>Again Solomon presents the advantage of accepting his wisdom as being in that it will give genuine wealth now. But that is not always the case, as so many Biblical characters came to realize. However we can read "The blessing of the Lord has nothing added to it by human toil" (<a href='B:240 10:22'>Pro 10:22</a> RVmg:). But just because we don’t have to do it, we do. This is the power of grace; it doesn’t force us to monotonous service, but should be a wellspring of fresh motivation, to do perhaps the same things with an ever fresh spirit.</p>


text:
<p>10:23 It is a fool’s pleasure to do wickedness, but wisdom is a man of understanding’s pleasure-</p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>10:24 What the wicked fear will overtake them, but the desire of the righteous will be granted-</p><p>This is true in ultimate terms at the day of judgment. But that doesn't seem to be what Solomon has in view. He sees the whirlwind of judgment coming in this life (:25), because he had no clear view of the future Kingdom and judgment. But the book of Job ought to have led Solomon to a more subtle view of the difference between the wicked and the righteous. The thing righteous Job greatly feared came upon him (<a href='B:220 3:25'>Job 3:25</a>), as did the whirlwind of apparent judgment (:25):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:25 When the whirlwind passes, the wicked is no more; but the righteous stand firm forever-</p><p>'Have an eternal foundation'. Who we are now is the basis of who we will eternally be. Hence the supreme importance of character formation and personality developed in this life. See on :24; <a href='B:230 35:5'>Psa 35:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>10:26 As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to those who send him-</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>10:27 The fear of Yahweh prolongs days, but the years of the wicked shall be shortened-</p><p>Solomon claims that the righteous / wise live long lives, and therefore the unwise have shorter lives (<a href='B:240 9:11'>Pro 9:11</a>; <a href='B:240 10:27'>Pro 10:27</a>). This was the promise for obedience to the old covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 11:21'>Deu 11:21</a>). But it is not always the case, as Job learned (s:w. <a href='B:220 29:18'>Job 29:18</a>); righteous men like David and Hezekiah felt their days had been shortened (s:w. <a href='B:230 89:45'>Psa 89:45</a>; <a href='B:230 102:23'>Psa 102:23</a>). And it was so with the Lord Jesus. And faithful men often lament that the wicked seem to get long life, whilst the righteous don't. The answer to that conundrum is that final blessing of long life is at the resurrection, at the last day; and not in this life. But Solomon didn't see that; he thought that long life now was the only reward. He failed to perceive the real meaning of the Gospel of the Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p>10:28 The prospect of the righteous is joy, but the hope of the wicked will perish-</p><p>David's "hope / 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>10:29 The way of Yahweh is a stronghold to the upright, but it is a destruction to the workers of iniquity-</p><p>The very process of walking in the right way, in the hour by hour business of spiritual life, indeed confirms us in that way. God's way is designed to confirm those who walk in it; and those who work iniquity are caused to stumble further by it into destruction. "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>10:30 The righteous will never be removed, but the wicked will not dwell in the land-</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><p>"He will never be shaken" is spoken in <a href='B:230 112:6'>Psa 112:6</a> in the context of the outcome of the final judgment. Being unmoved or never shaken is a major theme of the Psalms of David. Human beings naturally seek for stability, but look for it in the wrong places, imagining that their idols shall never be shaken (s:w. <a href='B:290 40:20'>Isa 40:20</a>; <a href='B:290 41:7'>Isa 41:7</a>). It is only the receipt of eternal salvation at the last day which means we shall never be moved; that is the only ultimate stability (<a href='B:230 62:2'>Psa 62:2</a>; <a href='B:230 62:6'>Psa 62:6</a> s:w:). Their stability will be associated with that of God's eternal Kingdom to be centered upon Zion (s:w. <a href='B:230 125:1'>Psa 125:1</a>). For in secular life under the sun, the righteous do suffer and their lives are "shaken". Solomon's statements that the righteous shall never be shaken / moved (<a href='B:240 10:30'>Pro 10:30</a>; <a href='B:240 12:3'>Pro 12:3</a>) are only ultimately true in this sense; but whether he spoke them with that understanding is debatable:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:31 The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom, but the perverse tongue will be cut off-</p><p>This again is true as it stands, but Solomon puts all the focus upon holding true wisdom / teaching, and then teaching it. He sees this as the basis for being righteous. Solomon of course was the one who had the wisdom and taught it, so he is justifying himself as "righteous" thereby. But he was not a spiritual person, he lived otherwise to that wisdom, and fell away from his faith in Yahweh. The problem with holding and teaching Divine truth is that we are tempted to think that this thereby justifies us. But alone, it doesn't. See on :32.</p>


text:
<p>10:32 The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked is perverse-</p><p>See on :6,31. Solomon again presents an overly simplistic position; the lips of the righteous are good, and those of the wicked are bad. But the reality is that righteous people say some bad things at times, and are saved by grace. James is far closer to spiritual reality when he writes that the tongue is an uncontrollable evil, and none of us succeed in not offending any by our words, and in this context of the tongue, "in many things we offend all" (<a href='B:660 3:2'>Jas 3:2</a>). The conclusion therefore is that we must cast ourselves upon God's grace. But this was something Solomon knew nothing about.</p>


text:
<p>11:1 A false balance is an abomination to Yahweh, but accurate weights are His delight-</p><p>See on <a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a>. "Abomination" is the common word for idols (e:g. <a href='B:50 7:25-26'>Deu 7:25-26</a>). Idolatry is here interpreted as things like 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>11:2 When pride comes then comes shame, but with humility comes wisdom-</p><p>This is true, but Solomon seems to be also implying that anyone who doesn't accept his wisdom by which he ruled Israel was therefore proud. Autocratic rulers like Solomon often use appeals to humility to quash any dissent; and he ended up whipping and abusing his people. Pride is the opposite of being shamed; the proud person will be brought down to shame even in this life, according to Solomon. Whereas the Bible often teaches that the proud apparently prosper, and are only brought to shame at the day of final judgment; and this perspective wasn't what Solomon accepted, as he liked to think of himself as the Messiah figure.</p>


text:
<p>11:3 The integrity of the upright shall guide them, but the perverseness of the treacherous shall destroy them-</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>11:4 Riches don’t profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death-</p><p>“Riches profit not in the day of wrath: but righteousness delivereth from death” (<a href='B:240 11:4'>Pro 11:4</a>). Riches kept in hand will not help us through the day of judgment. But righteousness, which in the Hebraic parallel in this verse refers to the correct use of riches, will deliver us from eternal death.</p><p>David appealed to God's righteousness for deliverance from the consequence of his sins (<a href='B:230 71:2'>Psa 71:2</a>). This was appropriate, seeing that David had been saved from death by God's imputation of His righteousness to David (<a href='B:230 32:1-4'>Psa 32:1-4</a>), by grace through faith; seeing David's sins left him with no righteousness of his own. And it was on this basis that David believed he would continue to be saved / delivered / rescued (s:w. <a href='B:230 51:14'>Psa 51:14</a> in the Bathsheba context). But Solomon failed to learn from his mother and father's experience of grace, teaching instead that personal righteousness is what saves (<a href='B:240 10:2'>Pro 10:2</a>; <a href='B:240 11:4'>Pro 11:4</a>; <a href='B:240 11:6'>Pro 11:6</a>).</p>


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


text:
<p>11:6 The righteousness of the upright shall deliver them, but the unfaithful will be trapped by evil desires-</p><p>"Destructive" or "wickedness" is the word used of the wickedness of Ahithophel and Absalom (<a href='B:230 55:11'>Psa 55:11</a>). Solomon's Proverbs seem in places a justification of himself as king over his brother Absalom. He uses the same word to speak of "transgressors are taken in their own wickedness / destructiveness" (<a href='B:240 11:6'>Pro 11:6</a>); how a liar [Absalom] listens to a 'destructive' tongue [in taking advice from Ahithophel] (<a href='B:240 17:4'>Pro 17:4</a>); and how a foolish son [Absalom] is the calamity or destruction of his father (<a href='B:240 19:13'>Pro 19:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>11:7 When a wicked man dies, hope perishes, and expectation of power comes to nothing-</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>).</p>


text:
<p>11:8 A righteous person is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked walks into it in his place-</p><p>LXX "A righteous man escapes from a snare, and the ungodly man is delivered up in his place". The allusion may be to David's frequent references to having been saved from the snares of Saul. But David prayed for those deliverances from snares according to God's grace; whereas Solomon sees them as due to righteousness.</p>


text:
<p>11:9 With his mouth the godless man destroys his neighbour, but the righteous will be delivered through knowledge-</p><p>It is indeed true that words have great power, as seen in the 'destruction' of Job by his friends. The tongue is indeed a destructive fire (<a href='B:660 3:5-6'>Jas 3:5-6</a>). But it is not the case that "knowledge" delivers the righteous. Deliverance / salvation is by grace through faith. Solomon had all the knowledge, but it didn't save him. This is the myth of the idea of "saving truth"; intellectual purity of understanding will not of itself save.</p>


text:
<p>11:10 When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices. When the wicked perish, there is shouting-</p><p>This had various historical fulfillments, not least in the destruction of Haman and exaltation of Mordecai (<a href='B:190 8:15'>Est 8:15</a>; <a href='B:120 11:20'>2Ki 11:20</a>; <a href='B:140 23:21'>2Ch 23:21</a>). But again Solomon is rather simplistic. When the wicked Absalom perished, David mourned, and likewise for Saul.</p>


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


text:
<p>11:12 One who despises his neighbour is without wisdom, but a man of understanding holds his peace-</p><p>The person without / lacking or void of understanding is typically the adulterer or sexual sinner (s:w. <a href='B:240 6:32'>Pro 6:32</a>; <a href='B:240 7:7'>Pro 7:7</a>; <a href='B:240 9:4'>Pro 9:4</a>; <a href='B:240 9:16'>Pro 9:16</a>). So the despising of the neighbour particularly refers to adultery with his wife. I have noted that in previous verses, Solomon is seeking to justify his father David and the Davidic succession through himself. But he overlooks how David sinned with Bathsheba. Or, he is indeed alluding to it, but is saying that although his father lacked wisdom at that point, the man of understanding / wisdom will say nothing about it.</p>


text:
<p>11:13 One who brings gossip betrays a confidence, but one who is of a trustworthy spirit is one who keeps a secret-</p><p>David frequently complains in his Psalms about gossip about him, both at the time of Saul's persecution of him and of Absalom's rebellion and putsch. "Keeps a secret" is AV "concealeth the matter", and may continue the theme of :12; that despite David's unwisdom in sleeping with Bathsheba [which is still whitewashing David, as what he did was a major sin and not just a lack of wisdom], the faithful will conceal the matter instead of gossiping about. Which is clearly what happened amongst those who were to become contenders against Solomon for the throne.</p>


text:
<p>11:14 Where there is no wise guidance the nation falls, but in the multitude of counsellors there is victory-</p><p>"The nation" is better "the people". And the people of Israel fell in war with the Philistines, under Saul's unwise leadership (s:w. <a href='B:100 1:4'>2Sa 1:4</a>; <a href='B:100 1:12'>2Sa 1:12</a>). Whereas under David, they were led to victory. Always Solomon seems to want to justify his father David. "Victory" is AV "safety", and may allude to how the lives of Solomon and David were saved by wise counsellors (s:w. <a href='B:110 1:12'>1Ki 1:12</a>). Solomon may also be having a swipe at Ahithophel, the grandfather of his mother Bathsheba, who began as a wise counsellor but then became an unwise counsellor when he turned against David.</p>


text:
<p>11:15 He who is collateral for a stranger will suffer for it, but he who refuses pledges of collateral is secure-</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>11:16 A gracious woman obtains honour, but violent men obtain riches-</p><p>"Violent men" is AV "strong men". The idea seems to be that grace and strength are associated with the wisdom which Solomon sees as bringing honour and wealth. But the word for "obtains" is used by David always with the sense that it is God who obtains / establishes / holds up the righteous, by grace (s:w. <a href='B:230 16:5'>Psa 16:5</a>; <a href='B:230 17:5'>Psa 17:5</a>; <a href='B:230 41:12'>Psa 41:12</a>; <a href='B:230 63:8'>Psa 63:8</a>). Although Solomon is obsessed with "David my father" and forever justifying him, he totally fails to have the perspective of grace and humility which characterized him.</p>


text:
<p>11:17 The merciful man does good to his own soul, but he who is cruel troubles his own flesh-</p><p>This continues the theme of :16, that the advantage of wisdom is that it benefits you in this life; and the unwise are only hurting themselves. Whilst this is true, it seems an altogether human and secular approach to God's truth. Because the purpose of our believing, obedient lives is for God's wider glory, and to pave the way for life in His Kingdom in the future. But these things seem almost unknown to Solomon. "The merciful man" may be a reference to Solomon's ancestor Boaz (s:w. <a href='B:80 2:20'>Rth 2:20</a>). This kind of self-justification of his ancestral line is seen so often in Solomon's words.</p>


text:
<p>11:18 Wicked people earn deceitful wages, but one who sows righteousness reaps a sure reward-</p><p>Reading this verse along with :19 leads us to conclude that the wages in view are life for the righteous, seen as a just reward; and death for the wicked. But as noted on :19, this is not really true to spiritual reality. For all men sin, there is not one righteous, as David realized (<a href='B:520 3:10'>Rom 3:10</a>). Later, Solomon cynically concludes that the wicked and the righteous all die the same death, and so, he concludes, there is no great advantage in righteousness (<a href='B:250 9:2'>Ecc 9:2</a>). This contrasts with Solomon's huge emphasis in Proverbs upon the difference between the wicked and the righteous (e:g. <a href='B:240 11:18'>Pro 11:18</a>). But it seems he got to that wrong conclusion because he assumes that the blessing for righteousness is in this life, and likewise the curses for wickedness. He totally fails to think in terms of the future judgment and eternal life of God's future kingdom. And so as he himself got older and approached death, he concluded that death means that all effort towards righteousness is therefore vain. He made the same mistake as the false teachers of <a href='B:530 15:19'>1Co 15:19</a>, who likewise considered that "hope in Christ" was only helpful for "this life", because they rejected the resurrection of the body and future judgment and reward:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:19 He who is truly righteous gets life; he who pursues evil gets death-</p><p>The LXX implies that the righteous are born that way and shall inherit eternal life simply because of their pedigree; and Solomon was the classic case of this, totally overlooking the conditional nature of the promises made to David about him: "A righteous son is born for life: but the persecution of the ungodly&nbsp;ends&nbsp;in death". Whilst these things are true in a sense, Paul in Romans 1-8 points out the obvious truth than no man apart from the Lord Jesus "is truly righteous", and eternal life is a gift by grace. And "the wages of sin is death" (<a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a>) for us all, and not just those who "pursue evil"; for all have sinned. The life and death in view here are perhaps the "wages" of :18.</p>


text:
<p>11:20 Those who are perverse in heart are an abomination to Yahweh, but those whose ways are blameless are His delight-</p><p>Solomon rightly emphasizes that the "perverse" or "wayward" are wayward in their hearts (<a href='B:240 11:20'>Pro 11:20</a>; <a href='B:240 17:20'>Pro 17:20</a>), leading to wayward ways in practice (<a href='B:240 2:15'>Pro 2:15</a>); but he repeats his father's mistake, in saying he will have nothing to do with those who are wayward in their hearts (s:w. <a href='B:230 101:4'>Psa 101:4</a>). The mistake was in assuming that he could judge human hearts. It continues the far over simplified view of people which Solomon has; the righteous have pure hearts, always obedient; and wicked have bad hearts. But the Bible warns that all of us have hearts which are fountains of evil thoughts (<a href='B:480 7:15'>Mar 7:15</a>; <a href='B:480 7:21-23'>Mar 7:21-23</a> etc:).</p>


text:
<p>11:21 Most certainly, the evil man will not be unpunished, but the seed of the righteous will be delivered-</p><p>The contrast is between the evil man [who is punished] and the seed of the righteous [who is saved]. Salvation is thereby predicated upon being the seed of the righteous. Solomon speaks hundreds of time of "David my father"; he considered his salvation was assured because of his father. But again, this is not fully the case. Personal spirituality is required.</p>


text:
<p>11:22 Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout, so is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion-</p><p>The same term is used of Tamar, daughter of Solomon's half brother Absalom (<a href='B:100 14:27'>2Sa 14:27</a>), whose family would have been potential contenders with Solomon for the throne. He as ever is using Divine truth in a way which knocks back his enemies and portrays himself as justified. "Beautiful woman" is the term Solomon uses about his illicit Gentile girlfriend (<a href='B:260 1:8'>Son 1:8</a>), and it is the term sarcastically used about her by Israelite competitors (<a href='B:260 5:9'>Son 5:9</a>; <a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>). Seeing Solomon's wives were idolaters, they lacked discretion; and yet Solomon loved them and married them. He behaved with women completely opposite to his own teachings.</p>


text:
<p>11:23 The desire of the righteous is only for good; the expectation of the wicked is wrath-</p><p>This again seems rather simplistic, drawing a dualistic picture of the righteous who seek only good, whereas the wicked can only expect the wrath of Divine judgment. Yet "there is none righteous" (<a href='B:520 3:10'>Rom 3:10</a>), and our desires are not only and solely for good. There are mixed motives in even the best of us. We are saved from wrath by grace and being counted righteous by that grace, as Paul makes clear (<a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>11:24 There is one who scatters, and increases yet more. There is one who withholds more than is appropriate, but gains poverty-</p><p>The one who scatters widely is the generous (:25); and Solomon sees generosity as sure to bring more wealth. But if this is the motive for our generosity, then this isn't surely the kind of self-sacrificial giving until it costs us which God wishes of us. It all fits with the same theme, of righteousness having advantage in this life, and surely bringing wealth. But as I have commented elsewhere, this just isn't the case. And the mean often do not find poverty, but rather apparent wealth. This surely was the intention of the Lord's parable of the rich fool, which can be read as a correction of Solomon's perspective. The difference between the generous and the mean will only be finally articulated in the judgment of the last day, and not in this life. But Solomon refused to be aware of that, and therefore as he came nearer to his own death, he lost his faith and wrote the rejection of wisdom we have in Ecclesiastes.</p>


text:
<p>11:25 The generous soul shall be made fat; he who waters shall be watered also himself-</p><p>As discussed on :24, Solomon sees the advantage of generosity and wisdom generally as being for this life. He totally lacks any sense of a judgment and Kingdom yet to come. And this was the root of his own spiritual undoing. David saw himself as being "made fat" by God's grace (<a href='B:230 23:5'>Psa 23:5</a>, s:w. "anoint"), whereas Solomon sees this as a direct result of the good deeds of the righteous, such as generosity (<a href='B:240 11:25'>Pro 11:25</a>) and hard work (<a href='B:240 13:4'>Pro 13:4</a>). This is exactly the kind of justification by works which Paul argues against in Romans.</p>


text:
<p>11:26 People curse someone who withholds grain, but blessing will be on the head of him who sells it-</p><p>The allusion may be to Joseph selling the grain he had stored. But Solomon sees the motivation for such behaviour as being to get a blessing from people. To do good is seen as the way to get favour or blessing from men (:27). And yet the Biblical emphasis is upon the blessing of Divine grace, a teaching found right back in the covenant with Abraham. At this point, Solomon is heavily pushing a works-based righteousness, whose end is in having a good life right now. Again, the perspective of the future Kingdom is totally absent.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>11:27 He who diligently seeks good seeks favour, but he who searches after evil, it shall come to him-</p><p>As noted on :26, the idea is that one should do good because this is the way to favour or blessing from men. But David emphasizes the need to receive favour / acceptance from God, which is granted by His grace in response to repentance (<a href='B:230 30:5'>Psa 30:5</a>; <a href='B:230 30:7'>Psa 30:7</a>; <a href='B:230 51:18'>Psa 51:18</a>; <a href='B:230 69:13'>Psa 69:13</a>; <a href='B:230 106:4'>Psa 106:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>11:28 He who trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous shall flourish as the green leaf-</p><p>The same words as in David's vision of how Solomon's kingdom would be in <a href='B:230 72:7'>Psa 72:7</a>: "In his days, the righteous shall flourish". So Solomon's later statement here that the righteous would flourish is therefore a reference to this, assuming that David's fantasy of Solomon having an eternal kingdom was going to be fulfilled in him. In <a href='B:230 92:11-12'>Psa 92:11-12</a>, David thinks that he himself will see the righteous flourishing (s:w. <a href='B:230 72:7'>Psa 72:7</a>). So he may be imagining that he would somehow be resurrected and see this happening in Solomon's reign. His hope will come ultimately true, but through the kingdom of the Lord Jesus and not Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>11:29 He who troubles his own house shall inherit the wind. The foolish shall be servant to the wise of heart-</p><p>Solomon appears to be overlooking how his father David had troubled his own house, according to the condemnation of Nathan. Such a person will inherit nothing; whereas Solomon liked to think that the Davidic line through him would inherit everything. It appears that Solomon had a blindness to the nature of his parents' sin, and whitewashed them in his own mind, rather than presenting them [as David would have wished] as the parade example of Divine grace.</p>


text:
<p>11:30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; he who is wise wins souls-</p><p>This is true insofar as we really can be the source of life for others. But access to the tree of life has been taken away because of human sin; only in the restored Eden of the Kingdom of God on earth will we be able to eat the fruit of the tree of life. Indeed God in His grace and wisdom barred access to the tree of life, knowing that eternity in our present state would be a curse. But Solomon likes to think that his kingdom is the Kingdom of God, and the life according to his wisdom was effectively the life eternal. Again we see a failure in Solomon to perceive that the true life and restoration of Eden was yet future. This would explain why as he got older and approached death, he became disillusioned; for clearly his life had not been the life of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>11:31 Behold, the righteous shall be repaid in the earth; how much more the wicked and the sinner!-</p><p>LXX "If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?". The righteous remnant who spoke often to one another about Yahweh will only be "spared" by God's grace (<a href='B:460 3:17'>Mal 3:17</a>). The accepted will feel so certain of this that they will almost argue with the Lord Jesus at the day of judgment that He hasn't made the right decision concerning them (<a href='B:470 25:37-40'>Mat 25:37-40</a>). It's only a highly convicted man who would dare do that. Thus the Father will have to comfort the faithful in the aftermath of the judgment, wiping away the tears which will then (see context) be in our eyes, and give us special help to realize that our sinful past has now finally been overcome (<a href='B:730 21:4'>Rev 21:4</a>). We will be like the labourers in the parable who walk away clutching their penny, thinking "I really shouldn't have this. I didn't work for a day, and this is a day's pay".</p><p>Peter quotes this in <a href='B:670 4:18'>1Pe 4:18</a>, although he quotes liberally and mixing quotation with interpretation. Peter never introduces his quotations as Paul does, with an "It is written::.". And he always quotes from the LXX, and often in a rather loose way. Peter was illiterate, and would have known the LXX quotations by memory, recollecting how they had been read to him, rather than having read them with his own eyes and memorized them. And this shows in the way he quotes the Old Testament- although the whole process and final product was Divinely inspired.</p>


text:
<p>12:1 Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid-</p><p>Solomon here quotes his father's words in <a href='B:230 50:17'>Psa 50:17</a> "since you hate instruction". Solomon thus accuses any who refuse his Proverbs of doing just this, hating instruction, which in the context of <a href='B:230 50:17'>Psa 50:17</a> means 'You are condemned' (s:w. <a href='B:240 5:12'>Pro 5:12</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>12:2 A good man shall obtain favour from Yahweh, but He will condemn a man of wicked devices-</p><p>God's "favour" isn't predicated upon our intellectual prowess in mastering "wisdom" (<a href='B:240 8:35'>Pro 8:35</a>) nor upon our good works (<a href='B:240 12:2'>Pro 12:2</a>). Academic truth and / or good living isn't as it were the key which opens up access to God's grace. For otherwise Divine "favour" would be a reward, and grace would no longer be grace.</p>


text:
<p>12:3 A man shall not be established by wickedness, but the root of the righteous shall not be moved-</p><p>"Not::. moved" is alluding to how David considered that his inheritance and dynasty would not be moved (<a href='B:230 16:8'>Psa 16:8</a>). The context is of David's desire to take the hill of Zion from the Jebusites, and for it to become his by conquest. He was confident he could do this in God's strength, and by saying "I shall not be moved" he identifies himself with Zion which "shall not be moved" (<a href='B:230 46:5'>Psa 46:5</a>). And indeed God came through for David. Because he put Yahweh "always before me", he was given mount Zion and established his kingdom there; but he looked forward to resurrection as the ultimate means of receiving the inheritance (<a href='B:230 16:8-10'>Psa 16:8-10</a>). This passage is then quoted about the Lord Jesus- who likewise shall establish His Kingdom upon David's throne in Zion (<a href='B:490 1:34-35'>Luk 1:34-35</a>) because of His trust in Yahweh. But Solomon, as the son of David, liked to imagine that his dynasty would continue unmoved anyway; he failed to perceive that the unmoved dynasty was due only to God's grace through the Lord Jesus.</p><p>"He will never be shaken" is spoken in <a href='B:230 112:6'>Psa 112:6</a> in the context of the outcome of the final judgment. Being unmoved or never shaken is a major theme of the Psalms of David. Human beings naturally seek for stability, but look for it in the wrong places, imagining that their idols shall never be shaken (s:w. <a href='B:290 40:20'>Isa 40:20</a>; <a href='B:290 41:7'>Isa 41:7</a>). It is only the receipt of eternal salvation at the last day which means we shall never be moved; that is the only ultimate stability (<a href='B:230 62:2'>Psa 62:2</a>; <a href='B:230 62:6'>Psa 62:6</a> s:w:). Their stability will be associated with that of God's eternal Kingdom to be centered upon Zion (s:w. <a href='B:230 125:1'>Psa 125:1</a>). For in secular life under the sun, the righteous do suffer and their lives are "shaken". Solomon's statements that the righteous shall never be shaken / moved (<a href='B:240 10:30'>Pro 10:30</a>; <a href='B:240 12:3'>Pro 12:3</a>) are only ultimately true in this sense; but whether he spoke them with that understanding is debatable:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:4 A worthy woman is the crown of her husband, but a disgraceful wife is as rottenness in his bones-</p><p>This is true, but as ever Solomon has his own self justification in view. For "a worthy woman" is the term used of his ancestor Ruth (<a href='B:80 3:11'>Rth 3:11</a>), and he uses it of his mother Bathsheba (<a href='B:240 31:10'>Pro 31:10</a>). The wife who brings disgrace may refer to David's wife Michal, Saul's daughter, whom he divorced:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:5 The thoughts of the righteous are just, but the advice of the wicked is deceitful-</p><p>True enough, but probably another swipe at David's advisor Ahithophel, Solomon's great grandfather.</p>


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


text:
<p>12:7 The wicked are overthrown, and are no more, but the house of the righteous shall stand-</p><p>The implication is that the house of the wicked is overthrown, but the house of the righteous is established. True as this is, the subtext is that Solomon is reflecting upon how the house of Saul and other opponents was "no more", but the house of David through himself was established.</p>


text:
<p>12:8 A man shall be commended according to his wisdom, but he who has a warped mind shall be despised-</p><p>Solomon of course was the man well known for his wisdom. But that wisdom had been given him by God for the purpose of leading Israel. But Solomon went on to conclude that there mere possession of wisdom is what commends a man personally; and all others are therefore "warped" and to be "despised". His possession of wisdom didn't save him personally. This problem is commonly experienced especially in small time Protestant groups; the assumption is that there mere possession of Divine truth is enough to justify a man and commend him before God and man.</p>


text:
<p>12:9 Better is he who is lightly esteemed and has a servant, than he who honours himself, and lacks bread-</p><p>Perhaps a reference to David, who considered himself "lightly esteemed" (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>). We could translate "the lightly esteemed servant", as David was at that time to Saul. The only other reference to a man who "lacks bread" is David's curse upon Joab (<a href='B:100 3:29'>2Sa 3:29</a> s:w:), whose family were contenders against Solomon for the throne. So the unsuccessful power grab by Joab is alluded to, and Solomon hints that any who tried to take the throne from him were merely honouring themselves in their own minds.</p>


text:
<p>12:10 A righteous man respects the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel-</p><p>Solomon may have in view Balaam's unreasonable beating of his donkey. What he writes is true, but it reflects his simplistic, dualistic view; even when a wicked man [as Solomon defines him] shows tender mercy to his animal, Solomon sees that as cruelty. He utterly fails to recognize that human behaviour is a jagged graph, good people sin, and bad people do good things; we are saved not by consistent, stellar living before God, but by faith in His grace. But he fails to perceive this, when he should have learnt it from his father's experiences and his Psalms.</p>


text:
<p>12:11 He who tills his land shall have plenty of bread, but he who chases fantasies is void of understanding-</p><p>Solomon speaks often of how hard work will "satisfy with bread" (<a href='B:240 12:11'>Pro 12:11</a>; <a href='B:240 20:13'>Pro 20:13</a>; <a href='B:240 28:19'>Pro 28:19</a>). David his father uses the phrase in the context of saying that being 'satisfied with bread' is part of God's gracious blessing (<a href='B:230 132:15'>Psa 132:15</a>). We see here how Solomon became focused upon works, rather than faith in the blessings which come from Divine grace. And yet he uses the words his father had used; but he interprets them as justification of works rather than acceptance of grace.</p>


text:
<p>12:12 The wicked desires the plunder of evil men, but the root of the righteous flourishes-</p><p>Solomon may be using "root" in the sense of 'the offspring of the root', for the root of David is his Messianic descendant (<a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a>; <a href='B:730 5:5'>Rev 5:5</a>; <a href='B:730 22:16'>Rev 22:16</a>). And this was who Solomon wrongly perceived himself to be. He could have been the offspring of that root, but that was conditional upon his personal spirituality. But he considered that mere descent by the flesh was enough; an error made by Israel throughout their history.</p>


text:
<p>12:13 An evil man is trapped by the sinfulness of his lips, but the righteous shall come out of trouble-</p><p>As noted on :10 and often, Solomon assumes the righteous never sin with their lips. Whereas <a href='B:660 3:1-5'>Jas 3:1-5</a> explains what we all sadly know from honest experience; that nobody fails to sin with their lips, even the best of us. He utterly fails to recognize that human behaviour is a jagged graph, good people sin, and bad people do good things; we are saved not by consistent, stellar living before God, but by faith in His grace. But he fails to perceive this, when he should have learnt it from his father's experiences and his Psalms. The righteous don't always come out of trouble in this life, the Lord Jesus being the parade example. Their victory is only ultimately in the future day of judgment and the Kingdom, which concepts Solomon chose not to understand, as he assumed that his kingdom was God's Kingdom, and he was Messiah.</p>


text:
<p>12:14 A man shall be satisfied with good by the fruit of his mouth; the work of a man’s hands shall be rewarded to him-</p><p>Solomon correctly parallels words and actions, as the Scriptures often do. But as noted on :13, he assumes the righteous never sin with their lips. Whereas <a href='B:660 3:1-5'>Jas 3:1-5</a> explains what we all sadly know from honest experience; that nobody fails to sin with their lips, even the best of us. And he continues to teach justification by the works of human hands. We shall indeed be given as our works shall be (<a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a>), but not in this life; only at the day of final judgment.</p>


text:
<p>12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who is wise listens to counsel-</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>12:16 A fool shows his annoyance the same day, but one who overlooks an insult is prudent-</p><p>There's a definite link between shame and anger. Take a man whose mother yelled at him because as a toddler he ran out onto the balcony naked, and shamed him by her words. Years later on a hot Summer evening the man as an adult walks out on a balcony with just his underpants on. An old woman yells at him from the yard below that he should be ashamed of himself. And he's furiously angry with her- because of the shame given him by his mother in that incident 20 years ago. Shame and anger are clearly understood by God as being related, because His word several times connects them: "A fool's anger is immediately known; but a prudent man covers his shame" (<a href='B:240 12:16'>Pro 12:16</a>); A king's anger is against a man who shames him (<a href='B:240 14:35'>Pro 14:35</a>). Or consider <a href='B:90 20:34'>1Sa 20:34</a>: "So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month::. because his father had done him shame". Job's anger was related to the fact that he felt that ten times the friends had shamed him in their speeches (<a href='B:220 19:3'>Job 19:3</a>). Frequently the rejected are threatened with both shame and anger / gnashing of teeth; shame and anger are going to be connected in that awful experience. They will "curse [in anger]::. and be ashamed" (<a href='B:230 109:28'>Psa 109:28</a>). The final shame of the rejected is going to be so great that "they shall be greatly ashamed::. their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten" (<a href='B:300 20:11'>Jer 20:11</a>). Seeing they will be long dead and gone, it is us, the accepted, who by God's grace will recall the terrible shame of the rejected throughout our eternity. Their shame will be so terrible; and hence their anger will likewise be. Because Paul's preaching 'despised' the goddess Diana, her worshippers perceived that she and they were somehow thereby shamed; and so "they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians" (<a href='B:510 19:27-28'>Act 19:27-28</a>). It's perhaps possible to understand the wrath of God in this way, too. For His wrath is upon those who break His commands; and by breaking them we shame God (<a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom 2:23</a>); we despise his desire for our repentance (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>12:17 He who is truthful testifies honestly, but a false witness lies-</p><p>This may sound like a pointless statement of the obvious an axiomatic. But we likely need to read in an ellipsis; the truthful always testify honestly, and liars always lie. But this is simply not the case. Solomon utterly fails to recognize that human behaviour is a jagged graph, good people sin, and bad people do good things; we are saved not by consistent, stellar living before God, but by faith in His grace. But he fails to perceive this, when he should have learnt it from his father's experiences and his Psalms.</p>


text:
<p>12:18 There is one who speaks rashly like the piercing of a sword, but the tongue of the wise heals-</p><p>This uses the language of David, in complaining that his opponents in the house of Saul and the followers of Solomon's half brother Absalom have tongues which pierce like swords (<a href='B:230 57:4'>Psa 57:4</a>; <a href='B:230 64:3'>Psa 64:3</a>). Again, what Solomon says is true, but he is using Divine truth to have a dig at his potential competitors for the throne, and to historically justify his father David:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:19 Truth’s lips will be established forever, but a lying tongue is only momentary-</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>12:20 Deceit is in the heart of those who plot evil, but joy comes to the promoters of peace-</p><p>"Plot evil" is the phrase used of Saul's plots against David (<a href='B:90 23:9'>1Sa 23:9</a>). Saul likely still had his supporters even in Solomon's time, and Solomon came to the throne after&nbsp; period of continual attempts to take the throne from the Davidic line through Absalom. And he uses his Proverbs, true as they are, to do down any potential opposition, and to present support of him as the only way to national peace and unity- an old ploy.</p>


text:
<p>12:21 No mischief shall happen to the righteous, but the wicked shall be filled with evil-</p><p>Again Solomon presents an over simplistic picture. Mischief / evil does happen to the righteous, and the sufferings of the Lord Jesus are the parade example. David also had suffered much evil. And the wicked prosper in this life. These words are only true within the perspective of a future judgment and a future Kingdom of God on earth when the eternal outcomes of human behaviour will be manifest. But Solomon refused to factor this in, and saw wisdom as having an immediate effect and reward in this life. He had totally refused to learn the lessons of the book of Job, which was extant scripture at his time.</p>


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


text:
<p>12:23 A prudent man keeps his knowledge, but the hearts of fools proclaim foolishness-</p><p>We may be intended to understand the silence of the lips of the prudent as contrasted with the heart of the foolish speaking freely. In this case, the heart and the tongue are paralleled, as often in scripture; for out of the heart, the mouth speaks (<a href='B:490 6:45'>Luk 6:45</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:24 The hands of the diligent ones shall rule, but laziness ends in slave labour-</p><p>See on <a href='B:240 6:7'>Pro 6:7</a>. Solomon's reign concluded with him putting people into slave labour and whipping them. He sees this as fair punishment for their laziness. But by enslaving people and whipping them for their supposed laziness, he was acting like Pharaoh.</p>


text:
<p>12:25 Anxiety in a man’s heart weighs it down, but a kind word makes it glad-</p><p>"Weights it down" is the usual word for 'to bow down', and may continue the theme of :24; that the diligent Solomon would have men down to him, although he considers that his words could also lift them up with gladness. Again, these things are all true, but they are being used to justify Solomon's rulership style, which was far from spiritual and was often abusive, especially at the end of his reign.</p>


text:
<p>12:26 A righteous person is cautious in friendship, but the way of the wicked leads them astray-</p><p>The need to choose friends wisely is true, and yet it would appear justification for how Solomon filled his cabinet with "yes men".</p>


text:
<p>12:27 The slothful man doesn’t roast his game, but the possessions of diligent men are prized-</p><p>The slothful man catcheth / roasteth not that which he &nbsp;took in hunting” (<a href='B:240 12:27'>Pro 12:27</a> RVmg:) may be one of the Proverbs’ historical commentaries- in this case, on Jacob. The implication would be that Jacob was lazy in staying in the tent and not hunting. But again we see a glorification of works, rather than of grace and faith.</p>


text:
<p>12:28 In the way of righteousness is life; in its path there is no death-</p><p>LXX "In the ways of righteousness is life; but the ways of those that remember injuries&nbsp;lead&nbsp;to death". This is true, but Solomon would be hinting that any legitimate complaints about the behaviour of himself or his father were wrong because love doesn't remember past abuses. That argument is faulty on various counts, but the point is that Solomon is yet again seeking to whitewash his father and himself, and place them beyond any criticism.</p><p>The term "way of righteousness" is found in <a href='B:240 8:20'>Pro 8:20</a> "I walk in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of justice". Again it seems that Solomon's personification of wisdom leads him to come out with things which he clearly enough saw as descriptions of himself. He saw himself as wisdom personified, walking always in the right way, and always judging justly. And the one who walked in "the way of righteousness" would never die (<a href='B:240 12:28'>Pro 12:28</a> s:w:). Solomon saw his possession of Divine truths as the guarantee of itself that he was the eternal Messianic king. He had been warned that he must walk in the way of God if he was to have long life (s:w. <a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a>); but he assumed that the mere possession of Divine wisdom meant he was in that "way". As he got older and was reminded of his own mortality, he would have realized that he had to recalculate his position; and he ended up with the cynicism about his own wisdom seen in Ecclesiastes:&nbsp; And yet his injustice to his own people was evidence enough that he didn't do this in reality, but only in his own mind (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>13:1 A wise son listens to his father’s instruction, but a scoffer doesn’t listen to rebuke-</p><p>The book of Job makes it clear that it is the content of an elder's instruction which should govern whether or not it is accepted. But Solomon demands submission to him simply because he is a king and a father. Being "wise" is predicated therefore upon accepting Solomon's truths; personal behaviour and spirituality doesn't come into the picture with Solomon, and his own apostasy shows the end of this line of thinking.</p>


text:
<p>13:2 By the fruit of his lips, a man enjoys good things; but the unfaithful crave violence-</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>13:3 He who guards his mouth guards his soul; one who opens wide his lips comes to ruin-</p><p>This continues the common theme of Proverbs, that the advantage of wisdom is that it benefits you in this life; and the unwise are only hurting themselves. Whilst this is true, it seems an altogether human and secular approach to God's truth. Because the purpose of our believing, obedient lives is for God's wider glory, and to pave the way for life in His Kingdom in the future. But these things seem almost unknown to Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>13:4 The soul of the sluggard desires, and has nothing, but the desire of the diligent shall be fully satisfied-</p><p>The Proverbs contain repeated condemnation of laziness. Lack of a zealous work ethic is a rejection of wisdom, according to Solomon. As Solomon explains in Ecclesiastes 1, he was an active person, not lazy by nature. And yet he lacked spirituality. He claimed that his service of God was due to his spirituality, but it was in reality merely a semblance of serving God when it was really just reinforcing his own personality type. His mocking of the "sluggard" or "lazy one" is so frequent (<a href='B:240 6:6'>Pro 6:6</a>; <a href='B:240 6:9'>Pro 6:9</a>; <a href='B:240 10:26'>Pro 10:26</a>; <a href='B:240 13:4'>Pro 13:4</a>; <a href='B:240 15:19'>Pro 15:19</a>; <a href='B:240 19:24'>Pro 19:24</a>; <a href='B:240 20:4'>Pro 20:4</a>; <a href='B:240 21:25'>Pro 21:25</a>; <a href='B:240 22:13'>Pro 22:13</a>; <a href='B:240 24:30'>Pro 24:30</a>; <a href='B:240 26:13-16'>Pro 26:13-16</a>). But it is a reflection of his own works-based approach to righteousness; the 'wise' "do" good things, and the wicked don't do enough good things. Personal spiritual mindedness and relationship with God are simply not emphasized.</p><p>Solomon sees the advantage of generosity and wisdom generally as being for this life. He totally lacks any sense of a judgment and Kingdom yet to come. And this was the root of his own spiritual undoing. David saw himself as being "made fat" by God's grace (<a href='B:230 23:5'>Psa 23:5</a>, s:w. "anoint"), whereas Solomon sees this as a direct result of the good deeds of the righteous, such as generosity (<a href='B:240 11:25'>Pro 11:25</a>) and hard work (<a href='B:240 13:4'>Pro 13:4</a>). This is exactly the kind of justification by works which Paul argues against in Romans.</p>


text:
<p>13:5 A righteous man hates lies, but a wicked man brings shame and disgrace-</p><p>Again, Solomon is justifying his father David, who uses these words to describe how he "hates lies" (<a href='B:230 119:104'>Psa 119:104</a>; <a href='B:230 119:128'>Psa 119:128</a>; <a href='B:230 119:163'>Psa 119:163</a>). The reality was that David had brought shame and disgrace through his sin with Solomon's mother, Bathsheba. But Solomon seems at pains to make a case that the righteous don't do this kind of thing, and the shame and disgrace which arose was due to Solomon's half brothers and court politics. Whereas Nathan is clear that it all came as a consequence for David's sin.</p>


text:
<p>13:6 Righteousness guards the way of integrity, but wickedness overthrows the sinner-</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. 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>13:7 There are some who are made rich, yet have nothing. There are some who are made poor, yet have great wealth-</p><p>The Hebrew grammar makes these reflexive verbs, as if the making rich or poor are done to the person by themselves, possibly referring simply to their own perceptions of themselves. Solomon's own words were so true of him: “There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing [quoted in <a href='B:730 3:17'>Rev 3:17</a> about the rejected]: there is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great wealth” (<a href='B:240 13:7'>Pro 13:7</a> AV). This last phrase is quoted about the Lord Jesus, who made Himself poor on the cross (<a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a>). And yet Solomon, who made himself rich, is the very anti-Christ, the only specific person associated in the Bible with the number 666 (<a href='B:110 10:14'>1Ki 10:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>13:8 The ransom of a man’s life is his riches, but the poor hear no threats-</p><p><a href='B:240 13:8'>Pro 13:8</a> speaks of how our attitude to wealth is a crucial factor in our eternal destiny: “The ransom of a man’s life are his riches”. Just prior to that we read in <a href='B:240 13:7'>Pro 13:7</a>: “There is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches”. This verse is actually part quoted in <a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a> and Php_2:7, about how on the cross, the Lord Jesus made himself poor, of no reputation, and now has been so highly exalted. Our living out of the Lord’s cross is shown in our making of ourselves poor. That is surely the unmistakable teaching of this allusion. But Solomon may have had in view the way that rich people were held to ransom to part with their riches for the sake of their lives being spared, whereas the poor don't have this problem. He may be thereby implying that wealth is the most important thing a man has after his physical life. This accords with his mistaken view that the wise get wealth and the foolish are poor.</p>


text:
<p>13:9 The light of the righteous shines brightly, but the lamp of the wicked is snuffed out-</p><p>"The righteous" in :5 and elsewhere in Proverbs refers to David, and Solomon was the "lamp" or descendent given to David, shining brightly in his kingdom (<a href='B:110 15:4'>1Ki 15:4</a>). But Solomon was not the Messianic "lamp" of David in its ultimate term (<a href='B:230 132:17'>Psa 132:17</a>). He failed to fulfil the conditions to become the Messianic son of David. But he prides himself that he is shining brightly, whereas all other contenders for the throne had been snuffed out. Again, what he says is true, but is harnessed to his own personal self-justification.</p>


text:
<p>13:10 Pride only breeds quarrels, but with ones who take advice is wisdom-</p><p>Again this is true, but almost every verse in this section has included some self justification. "Quarrels" is the word used in the parable about the strivings between David's sons (<a href='B:100 14:6'>2Sa 14:6</a>). He is implying that all the quarrels about his being the one to have the throne merely came from pride, and the wise will accept Solomon's kingship.</p>


text:
<p>13:11 Wealth gained dishonestly dwindles away, but he who gathers by hand makes it grow-</p><p>Solomon believed that his own wealth was a result of his wisdom. But wealth is given by God, and in his case, he was told that right at the start of his reign. It didn't come from his own hard work, but from God's gracious gift, in recognition of his desire for wisdom to teach Israel. And again, the Lord's parable of the rich fool shows that the rich sometimes take their wealth to the grave. But the ultimate perspective upon wealth is that it cannot affect in any way our eternity, nor be taken into God's Kingdom. Indeed, it must be shed if we are to enter the needle gate into the Kingdom- whether or not the wealth was attained by our hard work or by dishonesty.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


