Just What Is Irresistible Grace?

*Seize *his covering *when it is given in pledge *for a debtor, *and for his debts *hold it as collateral. (MAST)

Proverbs 20:16 (NKJV)

16 Take the garment of one who is surety for a stranger, And hold it as a pledge when it is for a seductress.

*[Seize] literally, to lay hold of. But the idea here is that “the covering” was given as collateral. It is something of equal or greater value to the value borrowed. But it is provided as a promise should the ability to fulfill the loan fall through and is surrendered by default. But let's remember the context of this proverb, first. This proverb is directly stated after the previous one, and so it is to be understood as an application and a general principle for every generation (Matt.13:52). The verb is also imperative, so it is a command for the son who inherits Solomon’s throne to be ready, like a warrant officer, “to seize” assets that are promised in these civil pledges. So this translates into a banking term for both the banking institution and the civil authority that is witness to these transactions. But also keep in mind that Solomon is teaching his sons both the spiritual and practical application of this spiritually lazy man who has carried himself into this debt for the sake of their own holiness. This helps create both the spiritual and cultural background of this court application. There comes the point where what was promised must be seized to uphold justice (Pr.21:3, 7; Isa.1:17; Jer.22:15; Deut.24:10; Mic.6:8).

*[his covering] literally, a robe or cloak. But the point and purpose of this piece of clothing is to cover the whole frame of the body. It is like a coat to protect from harsh weather. So it was a very think layer that protected everything underneath. In this culture, it would have been a very costly and valuable possession that was very difficult to part with having an everyday and personal use. However, this noun has an additional meaning, interestingly enough. Because it was often the case than not that the promise wasn’t able to be fulfilled, so it became a term for an “unrighteous standard” associated with extortion, fraud, and deceit. The banking institution was often accused of treacherous actions for leaving a man naked without his cloak (Lev.6:1-5; Deut.24:10-13). In some cases, this was most likely a just judgment against those greedy institutions, but that doesn’t mean every use of this term intends that. I believe Solomon is expecting us to understand this in “spiritual light” regarding the splendor and weight of the lips, which has declared this “covering” as a promise of surety (Pr.20:15). The Hebrew noun is construct (or genitive) of the masculine pronoun that is antecedent of the lips of knowledge in the previous proverb (Pr.20:15).

Therefore the “weight” (or honor) of this pledge is born out of the Spirit of Truth. It is a wise and good principle to do the business of borrowing and lending (Ps.37:21). It bears the weight of God’s approval (Matt.5:42). It also takes the image of Christ’s death and resurrection, the gospel (Eph.4:3). It is "good" knowledge that carries the image of the splendor of Christ’s holiness (Col.3:14). It covers a debt when owed in brotherly love. Debts “estrange” a person from a bond of trust (Ps.2:3). Therefore having a sound weight of collateral creates a trust between neighbors (Ezk.20:37). This is what the cross has bridged for us (Col.1:20). The cross has made debtors (Rom.15:27), who were estranged from the bank of God’s riches in mercy and grace (Eph.2:7, 12; Col.1:27), through the first institution of the marriage union (Matt.19:6; Gen.3:24), and joined them together with God again in sanctification by the institution of the church (Col.2:2), which considers this knowledge holy to the conscience that is cleansed of the corruption of sin (1Thess.3:13; Eph.1:4; 2Cor.7:1; 1Cor.8:7; 1Tim.1:5; 3:9; Heb.9:14; 1Pet.3:21).

And so while Christ is betrayed with a treacherous kiss from the lips of an “unrighteous standard” in the person of Judas (Lk.22:48), the “seizure” of Christ becomes a covering of love for those whom he became surety in substitution for their debt of sin (Gal.3:13; Heb.7:22). So it is “practical” for us to apply this out of the understanding of substitution. We shall see how Deuteronomy (the second law) lays out for us the progression of this standard later, Lord willing, when we further define the term pledge. Nevertheless, it is sufficient for us to see this “covering” as the robe of righteousness (Isa.61:10; Zech.3:4; Lk.9:29; Rev.4:4; 6:11; 7:14), which is the gift of the Spirit (Lk.1:35; 9:34; Heb.9:5; 1Pet.4:8), in pledge for those justified by faith in Christ’s death and resurrection (Eph.1:13-14). The believer is to seize this promise by force (Matt.11:11-15), when necessary, that is, by violent prayer (Matt.5:27-30; 18:6-11; Mk.9:42-48), if the Spirit hasn’t already seized the soul in a conviction of this righteousness and debt of sin (Jn.16:8). And as the context continues to follow in application to the spiritually lazy man, we are not to follow his image of treachery as did Judas, who was the image of the spiritual lazy man (Matt.27:3-10; Acts 1:18-19). In self-confidence and unbelief in the infinite surety of Christ, he paid for his own grave by reducing the value of Christ’s soul to something created from the dust, thirty pieces of silver. Judas chose the covering of dirt over the eternal nature of the Spirit. Therefore, we are to seize this promise through Christ’s surety with the kiss of truth laced with the Spirit of holiness, the weight of sincerity and love (Ps.2:12; 119:103; So.4:11; Rom.12:9).

*[when it is given in pledge] literally, when he. But, as we have said before, the Hebrew has no neuter for pronouns. Now, spiritually speaking, if it refers to an actual person as what was promised, it can only be referring to the person as a substitution, as we have seen these things in the shadow of Christ. However, I don’t believe that is what it is pointing to directly. It is referring to the cloak, which, spiritually speaking, is the doctrine of Christ, not the person of Christ. For our practical application, both in its spiritual and literal sense, we understand this indirectly neutered to the literal covering (or outer garment). It is the work of Christ that directly covers us, not merely indirectly the person of Christ. We do receive his eternal person, but under the law in time and space, it is his work to the point of his death and resurrection that is imputed to us as the covering for our sin. But we also need his eternal righteousness in his person for our resurrection (Matt.5:48). It was he who was seized, and stripped naked of his righteous robe, to bare our naked and unrighteous shame (Jer.13:26; Nah.3:5-6). So the “it” here refers to the work, even though it wasn’t an impersonal work that was accomplished on our behalf. “It” can also refer to the institution of the church, which also works to this purpose and end, in applying this work to the one who believes. I don’t personally like to refer to the Holy Spirit as “it,” but sometimes when referring to the work He does within us, and the gifts He works through us, He is often observed as “it” (Matt.7:11; Lk.11:13; Jn.3:8).

It is the Spirit who covers our nakedness in the righteousness of His revealing of Christ to our soul. We are covered by the life that is in Him, but because He isn’t felt personally but is most often observed effectually, we tend to see him only in His work and refer to Him as “it.” But He is just as much the person of God as Christ is a person of God and the Father is a person of God. As three individual persons, each are one and the same God, in the nature and essence of Spirit (Matt.28:18-20). Therefore, we, too, must share the same substance of Spirit to worship with them in the communion and union of the fellowship of God (Jn.4:23-24). It was Christ who secured this “pledge” (Jn.3:16). The covering of the Holy Spirit joins us to this eternal nature (2Pet.1:4), by virtue of Christ’s dual nature of life (Jn.1:1-2, 12-14), which bonded with flesh, was conceived by the Holy Spirit into the world (Jn.1:14; 8:23). So this “righteous man” was made the standard weight of holiness to balance the scale of our sin debt (Dan.5:27). Therefore this is a spiritual pledge also, by context, in the sanctification of Israel’s governmental institution (Eph.1:13; 2:12; 2Cor.1:21-22; 2Cor.5:1-8; Eph.1:11-14), and as a spiritual precedent, therefore, to enforce equity and justice as a witness among and within these unique institutions (Rom.13). Israel was to be the supreme example (as a nation) of how to perform justice among the nations. Therefore this is eternally more than a general and poetic principle (Matt.24:32-35) and is a progressive application to the Levitical (the first law) priesthood (Matt.22:37-38; Num.18:23) and the summary of the Mosaic (Deuteronomy (the second law)) covenants (Matt.22:39-40). So as Israel progresses, these laws become pressed together, more and more, as they are tested against each new case and pressurized as one proverbial jewel in Solomon’s interpretive application of the Law in both the spiritual and civil demand (Matt.13:45-46).

*[for a debtor] literally, for the estranged. The cultural understanding of this is not to be assumed in the strictest sense of an alien or foreigner. This can also mean, then, someone who is being alienated or isolated from the society. It is like a shunning or imprisonment of someone for failing to live up to that society's standard. For background, we need to remember that Israel was delivered from all her debts, and from slavery to Egypt before the Law was ever given (Rom.5:13, 20). So this was to be a rare occasion for an Israelite to be found estranged from the prosperity of the commonwealth (Deut.23:20). It is assumed, therefore, then, that such a person is cursed because of a particular sin (Deut.11:26-32; 27:26; Gal.3:10). I find it best to translate this Hebrew adjective as a debtor because of the context of the banking terms. Such a person would not be trusted with a loan having this “estranged” reputation. The term here defined, then, indicates that the borrower is known for not paying his debts. So the application here “to seize” is a command to “demonstrate love” for such a person by forcing discipline on him. He is not, however, to be treated with the letter of the Mosaic law.

Deuteronomy 24:10–14 (NKJV)

10 “When you lend your brother anything, you shall not go into his house to get his pledge. 11 You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend shall bring the pledge out to you. 12 And if the man is poor, you shall not keep his pledge overnight. 13 You shall in any case return the pledge to him again when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his own garment and bless you; and it shall be righteousness to you before the Lord your God. 14 “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates.

Leviticus 6:1–5 (NKJV)

1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 “If a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by lying to his neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor, 3 or if he has found what was lost and lies concerning it, and swears falsely—in any one of these things that a man may do in which he sins: 4 then it shall be, because he has sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore what he has stolen, or the thing which he has extorted, or what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or the lost thing which he found, 5 or all that about which he has sworn falsely. He shall restore its full value, add one-fifth more to it, and give it to whomever it belongs, on the day of his trespass offering.

Because at the time of this proverb, some wicked persons found out how to play these laws in their own favor, Solomon sets a precedent “to seize” the pledge that was promised by default (Ps.37:21). Therefore we don’t erase these laws but seek how the laws can be reconciled together to do proper justice without violating any of them. If a new law has to be formed, as Solomon ruled, in favor of the lender, then we must see how the historical background has carried "it" to his court. In this culture, the cloak would be noted as a promise by the court's several witnesses or institutions. However, still, the lender would not repossess the promise, as in this particular case, a cloak, unless it was necessary should the borrower default. And by way of our spiritual application, why does the Spirit choose this particular case to record a cloak as a pledge? Coincidence (1Cor.9:9)? But let’s now try to apply this literally and practically. Today, our culture takes the collateral upfront and puts it towards the loan’s interest, but that’s not how it was used for this form of banking in this culture. The borrower could keep his pledge at no interest unless he failed to pay back the loan in the allotted time (Deut.23:20). The pledge was for the lender’s interest but only applicable in the case of the borrower’s default. It was to the lender’s advantage then should there be a default. Therefore these laws were instituted more specifically to protect the borrower. But eventually, the tables were being turned, and laws were needed to be instituted to protect the lender because spiritually lazy persons would use the preexisting ones to estrange themselves from every lending community. In other words, it is a term then for someone who racks up a bad credit score (Pr.20:17).

Therefore his pledge must be “seized” to administrate proper justice. Now, that’s the negative application to this principle, but the positive is how Christ is our pledge on behalf of our sin debt. He was seized on our behalf to demonstrate this justice for our sins (Lk.23:34). He was held in contempt of these laws as a substitute in our place to satisfy the penalty of this demand. He is our “covering” and atonement for sin (1Jn.2:1-2). Christ restores to us not only the cloak as a covering but access to the unlimited resources of God’s mercy and grace out of His eternal bank of love (Heb.4:16; Jer.51:16; 1Cor.13:8). So the question is: Are you sanctified to deposit your money with the bankers (Matt.25:27; Mk.12:38-44)? Because God is returning for an interest in his deposit in you (Lk.8:11); this deposit of the riches of his grace (Lk.12:48; Rom.5:20; 2Cor.4:15; 9:8). As Christ has forgiven this debt to you, you must forgive your debtors (Matt.6:9-15). But lest we fall too far on the other side of the spectrum, only forgive “material” debts where you can (Jn.20:23), because this command still applies (Matt.22:9-14). It is legalism that will run this horse and buggy on either side of the ditch—antinomianism on the side of the borrower and legalism of the lender's side. But what we need to do is to stay on the straight path and in a direction that honors both God’s justice and mercy (Ps.85:10; Matt.23:23; Lk.11:42). The context of this seizure is for the one who has isolated himself with this treacherous reputation of burying himself in debt (Lk.16:22; Pr.26:15). He has no remorse or shame because he still holds onto his pledge with a clenched fist, and revealing he was never willing to surrender his treacherous covering of the fig leaves in his own self-righteousness (Gen.3:7). So it is a seasonal time for the judge to seize the pledge, by warrant of his failure to fulfill his portion of the oath(s) (Matt.24:45).

*[and for his debts] literally, for the benefit of his illegitimates. This, I believe, as we follow Solomon’s applications, is on behalf of this spiritual lazy man’s wife and children (Matt.26:48). Again, this was most likely a court case regarding a divorce separation or a lawsuit against an employer. In either case, the promises of the lazy man are considered illegitimate. He has covered his treacherous heart with promises he never intended to keep (Mk.14:49). He has violated the covenant (Lk.8:29). Therefore, he has multiple debts (Mk.5:9). But this cloak is to be seized anyway to pay for these illegitimates. Not only has he estranged himself from the lending community, but has alienated his own kin from himself in his love for himself (Mk.5:3). So we have the more significant backdrop of this pressurized command in the shape of a proverb, one of many pearls of truth. These illegitimates must be taken care of and given proper justice (Dt.23:2; Heb. 12:8). The complacency of this man must not continue (Mk.5:19). He must learn to suffer for his choices and failed vows through discipline (Heb.12:9-10). And what we especially need to see here is that the lender of this court is not going after the institution of the family. He is not going after the wife and the children to surrender the promise, which the responsible head of “it” has made, but the one “individual” who has pledged it. The illegitimates get to keep what was borrowed, but only at the expense of the responsible party, and that which was promised in pledge is what must be surrendered at this seizure. We don’t bring down institutions because of one individual. We forgive our debtors, but not at the expense of failing to do justice for our neighbor's common welfare (Matt.22:39; 1Pet.4:8; Ezk.16:8; Pr.10:12).

*[hold it as collateral] literally, impound him as ransom. Again, the Hebrew has no neuter for the pronoun, but I don’t believe the Spirit intends to imprison a man for this sin (1Tim.2:1-7). If anything, he is to be put to forced labor to pay this debt (2Chr.8:8; Pr.12:24). So it is not referring to the borrower but his cloak (Mk.10:45). Therefore I chose to translate the pronoun as "it." It is not a violation worthy of imprisonment because you cannot draw blood from a turnip. This is merely stripping the man of what he should have parted with from the beginning, this false covering in his self-absorbed conceit (Rom.13:10-14; Eph.4:22; Col.2:11; 3:8-9; Gal.3:27-28). While this covering or cloak may not be worth much in its present condition to the lender, it is worth stripping him of it to bring this man to the point of repentance, to the place of shame and remorse. So, “holding this case against him” is not merely for the ransom of his illegitimates that he alienated but for his very own life (Hos.13:14; Pr.13:8; Job 33:24; Matt.16:26). Therefore, the holding of this pledge is for his own ransom (Lk.9:25). It is being held against him so that he can find his way back to cover the nakedness of his shame with repentance. But he must see the image of his shame before he can wear this covering again (Pr.13:8). He must see himself in alienation and estrangement of the eternal and blessed covenant (Gen.2:25; 3:6-13). He is now a foreigner to the commonwealth (Isa.35:10). He is in disrepute (Isa.43:3; Matt.20:28; Mk.10:45).