Are You Too Slow Of Heart To Believe?

He *hides *unbelief in his hand at *the service plate when he does *not bring it back to his mouth. (MAST)

*[hides] literally, to conceal. While the common and popular translations make an emphasis on laziness, it is quite the contrary. This word should be taken first at its elementary understanding and allow the context to shape its definition. The most basic and fundamental action of this verb is “to hide,” but often it is used in other contexts in terms of hiding something in the earth like a burial. But the context doesn’t allow for burial unless we are to receive this merely in metaphorical terms. And if it is intended to mean a burial of some kind, it doesn’t mean a lack of service or laziness of labor as the following adjective will reveal.

*[unbelief] literally, slowness or passivity. It is referring not to a poor work ethic but a slow response to conform to a spiritual initiative (Lk.24:25). It’s a laziness to repent of moral failures or a lack of discipline to walk in “the spiritual pattern” of service that the hand professes with its offering/gift. In other words, the hand professes a holy servitude by putting it into the service plate while its servitude is far from its mouth. It’s a work of service with hands and feet but without the mind and heart. It’s literally unbelief “buried” or hidden behind works of service (dead works)(Heb.6:1;James 2:17). So the emphasis should not be on laziness but unbelief. Now, however, there is a sister proverb that is similar to this one, but under a different proverbial context, which may be read under the emphasis on the laziness of the fool (Prov.26:15). But, here, Solomon is contrasting labor that is acceptable to God with labor that is still to observed as unbelief. Solomon is addressing the labor of his own son (v.27) in the midst of his training to be Israel’s next king. For Solomon’s son to be handed the responsibility of the kingdom, he must learn “the fear of the Lord;” so it is his son’s manner of labor that he is addressing in this proverb. Is your labor spiritual in its service for others, or is it demonic and self-serving (Rom.12:1-2;James 3:13-18)? Solomon understood that it was the Lord’s kingdom at this point and knew that it could be taken from him. So his children are not to “build their own kingdom” and “self-image,” but are to rule in “a pattern” consistent with the covenant of Israel and of Moses in the grace of the Davidic covenant until the Levitical covenant runs its course. The tension within the spiritual and civic kingdom of Israel is concealed in these proverbial mysteries. But those who have eyes to see and ears to hear these mysteries will be blessed by how and why these proverbs were kept and preserved infallible and inerrant in the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit.

*[the service plate] literally, the plate. The direct article is signifying a particular plate. So in training his own son about this spiritual meal, that intersects not only the house of David but the house of Levi, he points out to him the unbelief of the priests who work day-in-and-day-out around this plate yet do not have the understanding to obey it. In one sense, David was given more spiritual insight regarding the food that was on the plate than the priests who served it (Heb.13:10). David, in the midst of his service, to protect the kingdom, was given a new covenant through this bread that stretched a line of national security to the very day of Christ’s birth. It is this very plate that Solomon is referring to that his son is to remember. It’s “the” plate of the new covenant in David’s house (2Sam.7:8-17). Those who served (past tense) in the tabernacle did not have the right to eat “traditionally” from this plate of the showbread; but now those who serve the temple, which Solomon built, eat (spiritually) what David ate in the new covenant. Failure to understand this resulted in the unbelief of “the” priesthood which Jesus rebuked in the days of her scoffing (Mk.2:24-28). Solomon foresaw this in the days of building the temple, but neither was his son listening nor the priests. Jesus addresses the unbelief that was hidden within their assumption, that they were not permitted to eat the showbread, in reminding them that the priests were “traditionally” the only ones permitted, but without explanation on his part; the original law intended that the priests would eat it with anyone inquiring of the Lord at the table before the veiled mercy seat. However, the tradition, in the (latter) days of the tabernacle, was that neither the priests nor the people were permitted to eat from it (Heb.13:10); and so we were to have this Omnipresent and Omniscient picture that Yahweh is always watching before us while we eat the blessings of the earth. By implication, the priests were responsible to not only convey but illustrate this with the children of Israel as they came to offer their gifts to the tabernacle of service (1Sam.3:1).

*[does not bring it back] literally, to restore. But following the negative, it implies a reach for the bread but an unwillingness to put it in the mouth for fear of stealing what is only the Lord's. It’s an unholy (and unhealthy) fear to understand the wisdom of the bread. Picture a superstitious priest in the temple “believing” that God is watching behind the veil, but he is all alone to examine this bread, and is tempted to eat it, but because he was told that it is a sin, the showbread “became” like it was some kind of forbidden fruit. That’s the negative here in terms of being retrained in the understanding and purpose of the bread. It’s intention never was just to be a showbread but to be eaten by those who inquire to gain wisdom (Gen.3:6;Ecc.2:3,26;Ps.90:12), but the priests have put red-tape around it and said, “Do not enter; it’s unsafe”! This is the “form of godliness,” in terms of a man’s service, in the name of God, but without the power (true faith) that saves him from the fear of crossing the red-tape of the serpent’s deception (2Tim.3:5). This bread was for fellowship with God, but it was unbelief that failed to put this faith upon the lips in service. Truly, these priests were buried in formality and were starving for fellowship (Matt.5:6). Solomon’s proverb sums it up clearly. The hifil stem is causative of their unbelief; for in this double negative as an energic nun (emphatic), their further unbelief (their hardening if you will) is the result of their fear to bring the bread to the fruit of their lips (Rom.16:16;1Cor.16:20;2Cor.13:12;1Thess.5:26).

Not only were they to eat, but they were to understand it with their lips. The testimony of the tabernacle and the temple were to be continually on their lips as they served their neighbor in all things. So not only is “the negative” failure to eat but to bring it back up from the depth of their understanding (consumption). This means that though a man serves “the” table, and though a man may even eat (visually) at the table, he has not truly eaten unless the man of faith also regurgitates what he eats to feed back to his neighbor. Therefore, this is not a proverbial rebuke to those who do not come to the table, but to those who do but do not truly eat from the table. All their service was in the formality, but for Solomon, it is was in the fellowship of the service.