Stop Flattering Yourself!

*He who carries away *a secret *to slander *violates confidence, *but because you are easy, *do not partner with *the lips of a flatterer.  (MAST)

Proverbs 20:19 (NKJV)

19 He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets; Therefore do not associate with one who flatters with his lips.

*[He who carries away] literally, to take captive. But the word picture is of a commoner being dragged away naked into exile as a slave. The verb is masculine participle singular. Therefore, like a straw man, this is tossed out as a crumb of caution to the pledge collector. Now, the Hebrew verb as it is throughout the Bible translates in various ways. 34 times the AV rendered it as ‘uncover,’ 28 times as ‘captive,’ and 22 times as ‘carry away.’ And the list goes on. But I believe these to be the major ones consistent with the word picture that Solomon is laboring to set up. 

So now we finally come to see Solomon exercising some sympathy toward this spiritually lazy man, and for now on, I'm going to refer to him as the depraved man, the natural man (1Cor.2:14; 15:44; James 1:23; Rom.1:26-17; Eph.2:3; 2Pet.2:12; Jude 10). He is setting up a picture for ‘that man’ that will not leave him solely responsible for his losses (2Tim.2:26). Solomon is creating a straw man to relieve some of the burden stacked up against the ‘bad business practices’ he has made in his spiritual ignorance. It appears to us, now, that he may have been ‘dragged’ into court by a collector’s evil scheme (James 2:6). Apparently, these collectors make it their purpose to take pledges from the vulnerable. Therefore these particular collectors are not esteemed by Solomon’s court. Their ambition is evil because they made it their business to profit from such a pledger's imprisonment. So then, this phrase begins as a broad statement of fact, as a straw man; but closes with an imperative application for the natural man. 

Therefore as this proverbial application unfolds, we see not only another imperative but another twofold (spiritual) judgment. There’s nothing legally Solomon can do as the civil agent to keep the collectors from preying upon the foolish. Still, he can make spiritual judgments, even from his civil judgment seat as a redeemed citizen of the commonwealth, for it was for Israel's spiritual wealth that the Law was instituted to start with (Ex.20:1-2). Solomon sees this as an ‘intentional uncovering’ of the man’s shame to defraud him of things essential to his everyday life. He has become an unnecessary slave to the lender (Pr.22:7). Because of his spiritual ignorance, the cloak, like insurance, covers the wife and children, but the lazy man is put to forced labor to pay off his debt (Pr.12:24). Therefore the collectors profit from a depraved man’s misfortune. Forced labor may become a life sentence for a man who loves his depravity. But while a collector is free to profit from this depravity, he is not free to exploit this, that is, to parade his depravity openly in the courts to hold him as a personal slave. The man’s spiritual ignorance may keep him under the collector’s power (Ex.21:5). However, the law of jubilee was designed to give 'that man' opportunity to set himself free from another man’s conscience (Ex.21:2), and to keep the collector from exalting his own conscience over his slave (Ex.21:4). 

So, like a stranger in a foreign land, the depraved man is carried off naked and exposed like plunder for forced labor. In shame, he is dragged away without his dignity, to learn the discipline of humility (Heb.12:5-11; James 1:9-11). The markings, or (the pride) of his owner, will be forever etched upon the skin of his will like a tattoo (Ex.21:6; 2Tim.2:26), that sought to stand against the nature of the Spirit of the Law (Lev.19:28; Rev.14:11) so that he remembers his naked shame (Rom.7:14); and the forced labor is to teach him to never pledge the covering of his soul against the gift of Israel’s redemption again (Mk.12:29). 

*[a secret] literally, a sphere of confidence. The Hebrew noun is singular. But the noun, in conjunction with both participle verbs, divides the absolute in effect with the verbs. The verbs describe the actions of the masculine singular, whose intentions are to slander ‘the confider’ of this trust. As one complete thought, the noun is describing ‘a secret confidence.’ But in translation, the thought is divided for effect surrounding the actions of the verbs. So it is exercised as an absolute noun to picture an individual’s confidence in the form of a secret confession (or ‘pledge’) for our context. But in effect, of the verb participle, ‘the slanderer,’ it closes as a complete thought as (a violation) against this absolute confidence. 

Therefore, we have this spiritually depraved and vulnerable man, because he is spiritually lazy, though very capable of providing for his pledge, being dragged into this court, either by the wife or by the collector or both, to pay his vow(s). But this is against his will (2Tim.2:26); nevertheless, the letter of the law stands against him (Rom.3:19), but the Spirit of the Law watches over him (Gal.5:16-18; Rom.8:5-8). And so the wisdom of Solomon’s court also provides spiritual correction as well as punishment or civil retribution (Eph.6:4; Pr.12:24).

But what is this secret confidence? It may be the man’s trust in his wife. It may be the man’s trust in the lender to keep the purpose of his loan a secret, which was exposed in the accusations brought out in court against his ability to pay back what is owed (Tit.1:12). Maybe the straw man is like a Hollywood scene, where the lender and the man’s wife plot against him, to bring him to ruin and be forever enslaved to their debts in alimony and child support (Ex.21:4). In either case, all these are a result of his spiritual ignorance and evil choices that lack spiritual discernment (1Cor.7:39; Mal.2:11). Now, whether the lender and his wife are working against him together or not is irrelevant; they both still would have stripped the man down to be covered with nothing but his shame for their own sake. Because of this foolishness, Solomon takes no pleasure in this court (Ezk.33:11). So while this is a blanket statement in the participle, it addresses anyone who fits the description of this bill. Therefore, will collecting the worthless pledge of a ‘depraved man’ be worth the accusation of slander (Ex.20:16-17; 1Cor.6:5-10; Heb.10:29; 1Cor.7:12-14) where the spiritual nature of the law is active (2Thess.2:4; Rom.7:14; 8:34)? In a nation like Israel, there is an expectation of “confidence” that her judges and taskmasters will rule righteously (Pr.25:2). And there is this sphere of trust, on the part of her citizens, in expectation of this to be appropriately handled in the courts as a spiritual example to all nations (Num.17:10; Ex.12:13; 31:13; Zech.3:8; Jer.33:19-26; Dt.16:18; Ezra 10:14). 

*[to slander] literally, to continue on. Now, this is in conjunction with the first verb. But the Hebrew noun that follows, which acts as the adjective to the verb participle, describes the intentions of the verbal action. The purpose behind dragging “the pledger” into court was to slander his confidence and trust in the system for their own personal ambition (James 2:6). The verb is also sometimes used to mean ‘to lead away,’ which increases with the repetition (to continue on) of the slanderer’s intents and motives. It is literally ‘leading the witness’ to incriminate himself (2Tim.2:26; 2Cor.10:4-6). Picture a prosecuting lawyer who preaches for a confession at the risk of damaging the witness's reputation for life, merely to win a pledge that is worth less than it cost to appear in court. In other words, the pledge is a worthless transaction (Matt.16:26). 

So the whole purpose behind the lawsuit is to ruin the man's life and leave him defenseless, hopeless, and naked without his cloak (Rom.12:19; 1Tim.6:8). This wicked lawyer was commissioned to take the pledger for everything he has and is. The pledger was blackmailed, to offer up the last thing he has, to apply for another so-called credit card or ‘running tab’ (Matt.18:21-35; 24:45-51). So we are given another angle to this courtroom, to see how these civil cases play out concerning the pledge violations. Solomon has seen this before and most surely has thought about the spiritual implications of these problems. The party of ‘the collector’ is “escorting” this man to behave like a slave to its power. Its whole purpose is to stand on top of the food chain like a capstone on a pyramid while the labor force is buried under the monument's foundation to the glory of their wealth (Matt.6:19-24; Lk.21:5-7). 

Therefore these riches are collected and stored up for one purpose, to glorify themselves at no expense or cost of their own (Lk.21:1-4). They see themselves as the ruling class, the elite, or in some cases as the superior (natural) race (because they somehow obtained wealth) with the ability to lend it out (Dt.9:3-7; 28:12-14), but this ability is always guarded at the expense of the borrower rather than their own. They never invest at their own risk (Lk.13:4; 14:8). They tax (the wages) that they promise the laborers to secure the means of the profits (the produce) of their own wealth (Dt.14:22; 2Tim.2:6), which is not only to provide them with wages, for in that culture they were often paid in what the land produced, but for their retirement (Lev.25:6, 12), and therefore this was administrated locally rather than federally because of how the Lord administrated justice in the land (Dt.28:15-20). While they possess the right to the knowledge of a particular skill (Ex.31:1-11; Rom.1:30), they use the gift only to enrich themselves in competition with the labor force (1Tim.6:17). They also slander the workers to defraud them of their wages (Tit.1:13). While it is true for many, that the workers are often not worth their skill (Tit.1:10-16), God condemns the pride of the rich who know and do not do (Lk.12:47-48; 1Thess.4:3-8; James 4:13-5:6). 

Now while there is a superior ‘spiritual’ race born not of this world (1Jn.2:15-17), which possesses and is possessed by the ‘holy ethic of love’ (1Cor.2:14, 15:33; 2Cor.5:14), it does not stand on any ‘ethnic’ superiority (Acts 17:26). It is born out of the ‘nature’ of God’s love (1Jn.2:15), which is not inherent or partial to any so-called human race (Rom.13:10; 1Jn.4:8; James 2:8; 1Pet.4:8; Acts 10:34; Rom.2:11-12; Eph.6:9; Col.3:22-4:1). These are ‘dignitaries’ who are spiritually controlled by the nature of the Holy Spirit and understand the limitations and boundaries of their human nature (Jude 5-10; 2Pet.2:9-11; Gal.5:22-24), while they still offer the highest praise to God in the Spirit of Truth (Jn.4:22-24). While their salvific nature, the inner man (Col.3:10; Eph.3:16; 4:23; 2Cor.4:16), cannot be corrupted by evil (1Cor.13:8), their positions can be taken over, and their offices (or earthly work be) corrupted (1Cor.3:15; 15:33; Acts 20:28-30). 

*[violates confidence] So as this verb continues on in dragging this pledger away naked in this courtroom, we find that both the verb and noun are working together with the original participle (2Tim.2:23-26; Pr.18:23). It is ‘he who carries away’ who also slanders or violates the space/trust of this confidence. Suppose this was a pledge regarding a marriage covenant. In that case, we see the collector acting on behalf of the wife, going beyond looking for a settlement but instead pursuing some vengeance. But yet, as we shall see, Solomon stands upon his original verdict (Pr.20:16). But now, instead of offering a civil solution (a new civil law) to this spiritual problem, by creating more corruption in the spheres of confidence, he continues to apply the spiritual solution to this corruption among the commoners, to seek the charity of Yahweh and the commonwealth of Israel in the courts of the holy temple (Ps.65:4; 92:13; 100:4). 

*[but because you are easy] conjunctively, because you are open. As a verb participle, because you are deceivable, gullible, wide-open, spacious, or simple. Therefore, this is the reflection of the depraved man. In order to obtain the satisfaction of his addiction, he is open to anything that will grant him the means of fulfilling it. The conjunction, here, then redirects the indicative into an imperative addressing the depraved man. In other words, he is the target of the slanderer because he is easily deceived. He is a babe concerning evil (1Cor.14:20). He doesn’t see the endgame of the slanderer. So Solomon offers him a spiritual education. Because he is easy and the slanderer is also a flatterer, he must be prepared not to yoke himself to the lips of the con-man. In other words, learn your lesson here. Gain a heart of understanding because of these things.  

While the AV seeks to observe the conjunction as joining the verb to the slanderer, I don’t believe the Hebrew preposition, towards, is functioning that way. Rather, it is joining the two verb stems of this imperative phrase, which are reflexive in the Qal and Hithpael verb stems. In other words, the result of the Qal participle stem is what produces the Hithpael imperative stem. This preposition, then, is facing forwards in the second person rather than ‘away from’ in the third person of the indicative phrase. The conjunction working with the preposition then turns the mind of the addressee in a new direction, but as a result of the slanderer's actions. Therefore this participle verb is describing the action of both the slanderer and the depraved man as one direct imperative reflexive. So while this is describing the depravity of the lazy man, it is also pointing forward with the preposition further expressing the lips of the slanderer. 

The verb can also mean, to flatter; but this portion doesn’t point to the imperative reflexive of the participle (“you” or the easy man) but rather back to the lips of the slanderer. But in what way are these slandering lips simultaneously flattering lips? Well, the slanderer doesn’t intend to draw a man into his scheme by accusing him to his face. Instead, “he leads him” to make his pledge by flattering his itching ears, like a car salesman would, who knows you have a bad credit score, but wants you to go into greater debt by purchasing this car he promises you can afford; or like a time-share salesman, who says you need to spend more time vacationing with your loved ones, so he created a special deal for you to buy more points, even though you would barely keep your head above the crashing ocean waves of debt you’d have to go into to purchase the points. The slanderer, then, takes you for an ‘easy’ target, to swindle you with ‘the art of the spiel,’ and then when you don’t provide for his glamorous scheme, he slanderers or punishes you before the Baals (1Cor.6:6). 

*[do not partner with] reflexively, a backward negation of association. “Don’t flatter yourself.” Don’t ‘continue on’ with he who takes you captive to do his will! Avoid his clever spiel! Literally, do not have fellowship in his share (1Cor.5:9-13). Do not exchange pledges. I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine! This imperative does not suggest to have any dealings with such prosperity schemes (Lk.19:13), but rather do not exchange flattery for flattery (Gal.6:4). As believers, we are to do business in the world, but not apart from wisdom (Pr.4:5-7). We are to live among the evil schemers as an example to them (Jn.17:12-19). In a sense, the verb portrays the word picture of not meddling in these affairs (1Thess.4:11; 1Tim.2:1-2). In other words, as you have to do business with such parties, do business, but do not exchange ideas about the practice of such company (2Cor.6:14; 2Jn. 8-11). Do not become a ‘spiritual’ surety for their schemes. Do not flatter them as they flatter you (Rom.13:9; Gal.5:14; James 2:8). 

*[the lips of a flatterer] literally, the lips of a participle, but again this is in conjunction with the slanderer, rather than joined here as the prepositional participle of the ‘easy’ man or the unsuspecting man. As the verb is reflexive out of this participle, describing more fully the slanderer, we observe the verb's meaning as a ‘partnership.’ Then, the motive behind this reflexive verb is to mingle or come together in one purpose, instead of merely purchasing the means of the service. Therefore it's describing a business partnership, like opening up a restaurant together to share in the profits as each has vowed to provide a particular pledge for a loan. This would be equally true if the verb were describing a marriage partnership. So in the application of these possibilities, it would extend to any covenant regarding marriage, business, and even employer and employee contracts, in which they seek to be yoked together for one purpose (or for a measured share) (1Tim.6:18).