THE DEATH OF THE INHERITANCE BECOMES HER

*An inheritance *loathed *from *the beginning *will neither *be blessed *at her end. (mast) 

Proverbs 20:21 (NKJV)

An inheritance gained hastily at the beginning Will not be blessed at the end.

*[An inheritance] literally, an inheritance. There is nothing hidden here as the Hebrew noun stands alone in her absolute form. She is the object that steers the imperfective mood of this phrase from its beginning to its end. The verb actions describe her passivity, as she is the inheritance expected to be received by the subject. And as the actions revolve around her as the human body is to the soul, she remains mute to her own existence, dead to her own reality. In her feminine form, she is subservient to the verbs’ intents and motives, possessed by the directions of the verbs’ subject. She is the naked focus and centerfold of all the actions of the verbs. All eyes are upon what her feminine subserviency represents in her absolute form and state (Heb.9:15; Eph.1:11-14; Acts 8:18-23; Eph.5:25). 

But what is this inheritance? Is this referring to the spiritual heritage that is promised to us through Christ (Gen.3:15), or is it referring merely to the estate of lands that were given to the fathers of Israel (Dt.32:45-47), who were commanded to pass it down to every generation of their tribe’s children (1Kgs.21:3)? Or can it be referring to both the spiritual and the natural inheritance (Gen.25:32)? 

First, there is no direct or definite article to bind this to any one particular inheritance. Solomon is then making a general application rather than a direct one, in a bullet point like fashion, of the spiritually lazy man who ruins or curses the reputation of ‘earthly’ father or mother with irresponsible actions to the feministic beauty of the subjugation of this inheritance. I believe the following verbs develop what she is to be for us, from her beginning to her end in the verb stems, and define what this inheritance is to all of us as we also consider the following proverb in our contextual outline of these applications of Solomon’s judgments of the spiritually lazy man (Pr.20:22).  

Second, an inheritance like this serves fearlessly, as the object, in her neutrality of the verbs conjoined to her, which also serve the subject alone. She has one job, which is to serve her master well in what she is to him as God’s inheritance. Whether the subject rejects her or not, she remains to serve as the inheritance, for her duty doesn’t change in his rejection nor does what she is, as she is given to the subject from God, whether by gift or by wages to the offspring of Adam, that are represented by the subject of the proverb, the spiritually lazy man. 

*[loathed] literally, to loathe. But this Hebrew verb only has two occurrences by which we can judge its Biblical context. And the “AV” translates it differently on each occasion. Therefore, I don’t seek to judge this above the measure of my gift, in the knowledge that I have attained, to act dogmatically in my judgment (Pr.18:17). However, I don’t believe there is a need to alter the original definition of this verb for the sake of a double passive voice. Nor does this appear in the Septuagint to help guide my understanding of how it was defined or translated in the early church. All I have to work with are the dictionaries and the interpretive aides to stir up my understanding, which is limited. 

The verb stem functions in the Pual, which makes it a passive verb form already, but it is also operating as a passive participle, participle to the inheritance, meaning it is the inheritance which is passive in the action of this verb. But also, as the verb stem itself is passive, I don’t believe the change of meaning exists unless we add another subject, which doesn’t appear to me, to even be in the text, which some ‘translators’ seek to render as greed. This thought of greed is simply not in the Hebrew as I can see it. And if it were, that wouldn’t make the verb stem passive but force it to be active. Greed would be the active motivation to pursue the inheritance (Acts 8:18-19), but because there [is] a double passive here, it appears to me that the original meaning stands. 

As this is an inheritance ‘commanded’ to be passed down from generation to generation within the tribes, there is, then, an opportunity for a passive loathing of the inevitable receiving of her, as she is to be typically given over to the responsibility of the firstborn (Num.3:40,50; 8:16-18; Dt.21:15-17; 25:5-10; Ex.13:12; 22:29). In other words, there was no motivation in the invisible subject of this statement to actively make use of the inheritance as the firstborn successor. It doesn’t have to be assumed here, then, that an inheritance was always desired, especially in a culture that required a great responsibility in connection to receiving her (1Tim.3:1-7). So it is my judgment then, that the verb is describing the inactivity of the expectant recipient, under a growing attitude of regret and disdain for this material inheritance, that if blessed by God, will morph into a greater spiritual blessing (Eph.6:4; Col.3:21; Pr.22:6; Acts 8:17), which in turn will bring not only greater condemnation for failure to fulfill his duty to her but a greater burden (of honor) to carry her along (2Pet.1:21; 2Cor.4:16-18), for without the blessing of the Holy Spirit she would be a grave burden (Lk.12:48; James 3:1).  

So now wouldn’t it be better not to give the inheritance to the firstborn at all, rather than to give her to them merely for the sake of them being the firstborn, as the “better covenant” does, by granting fathers liberty in such spiritual matters (Lev.26:11-28)? However, we are not to view this from the New Covenant perspective (Acts 8:16; Gal.3:18). We are establishing, however, the proverbial principle here, as Solomon is viewing it from the Old Covenant perspective, applying a general proverb to all the future seed of Abraham’s covenant. 

Therefore the statement is true from both perspectives, regardless of how the principle is applied, which [we will see], Lord willing, how Solomon applies it from his perspective in the next proverbial bullet point (Pr.20:22). But for us, the inheritance is the spiritual fulfillment of the promised Seed, incarnated in the womb of the virgin (her Seed)(Gen.3:15). So Christ serves as this inheritance (to us) in the fulfillment of his incarnation (Mk.10:45), but because ‘the end’ of the woman (Eve) was to be ‘her death’ from the beginning (Gen.3:22), the inheritance in the form of wisdom is carried along in her feminine subserviency to Christ until “her end” was to be carried away in the death of his incarnation of the flesh (Pr.9:1; Mk.13:2), whose bodily resurrection is the spiritual inheritance of all the saints (1Cor.1:18-31; 15:50-53; Heb.2:14). 

*[from] literally, from. The preposition here is working with the meaning of the verb stem in the flow of the following verb conjunction’s imperfective voice. So, as the Pual verb stem itself is passive, and while the definition of verb literally means to grow weary of something (or someone) under the emotion of disdain, the preposition, here, then grants the liberty of this verbal emotion to increase, in a direction with the imperfective flow, in the ‘passive’ pursuit of the purpose (or intent) of the inheritance (Num.11:20; Isa.53:3), which is salvation (Gen.3:15; Matt.1:21). The gospel is our servant in the reality of this inheritance, but Christ, even as he [is] the gospel, is above the wisdom of it all. And so the preposition can also be used as “in the beginning” or “at the beginning,” but again, the verb flow, as she conjoins to the next stem, which is in the imperfective, doesn’t permit this. 

Therefore, in her original proverbial context, I believe the inheritance referred to here is both the material (and spiritual) inheritance promised of God from Israel’s beginning and from before the fall of man into sin (Rev.13:8; 17:8). It is the first creation with promise, which has her end in the eternal Sabbath of the new heavens and new earth, the day that God has sanctified for himself (Heb.4:4, 7-10; 2Cor.5:17; 2Pet.3:13; Gen.2:2). We see an example of this in Esau versus Jacob. Jacob was greedy for the inheritance, while it was Esau’s by firstborn birthright (Heb.12:16-17). However, Esau didn’t care for the responsibility and honor of the inheritance but rather loathed her in the beauty of her spiritual honor (and holy weight). Nevertheless, Esau received the “material” inheritance as the rights of the firstborn but without “the holy blessing.” The spiritual inheritance then, which comes by blessing only, came to Jacob, though being greedy for the material sense of her, did indeed have honor for the spiritual grace and benefit of her. 

Therefore every emotional desire for an inheritance is not to be assumed as evil. However, a desire to take hold of her, by a means other than the time to learn the responsibility to her, or from a motive that is impure regarding her, is unhealthy and evil. Jacob had greedy motives that were impure in his novice approach to bypass the blessing of the firstborn; however, because of the sovereign election of the Father’s love fixed upon him, was given time (grace) to learn the understanding of the spiritual responsibility to the inheritance, to her, as she was to be the soul of his body, not passed down to him from the material power laid up by his father, Isaac, but by what Jacob was able to build in himself, under the spiritual wisdom and unconditional security (election) laid up for him by God the Father. And is demonstrated clearly in Jacob’s journey away from the firstborn’s blessing, in establishing a new name, from Jacob to Israel, by the spiritual and fatherly blessing of Yahweh (Gen.32:24-32). So, in Jacob, we have an example of how to pursue the inheritance for her spiritual worth, that is by faith (1Cor.9:24; 2Tim.4:7; Heb.12:1); but in Esau, how not to receive the inheritance, in a spiritually lazy loathing of her, to his ‘greater’ judgment in denying his responsibility to her, only receiving the wages that were his due by the law of the firstborn (Rom.6:23; Ex.11:5; 12:12, 29).  

*[the beginning] literally, the beginning. I believe this is pointing all the way back to Adam’s fall to describe the beginning of this loathing, this hatred for spiritual things. It was a loathing of God’s commandment that led both Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit. The tree of knowledge that God reserved for himself, to declare his power and sovereignty over them (Gen.3:5). From this beginning, we find this loathing, this contempt of God, in a world that was to serve as (the) man’s inheritance. And so it is from “that” beginning, in the definitive of this time, but as it (time) is conjunctive to the Hebrew imperfective verb, to be blessed, in her negation of the inheritance, as she continues to the very end of her service to the subject, the spiritually lazy man. Solomon is presuming the reader will know and understand the theology behind this context. Therefore, the direct article applies to a particular beginning, the beginning of Adam’s laziness not to watch over his inheritance. So it is addressing the origin of Adam’s failed headship in the blessing of God. And so now, as she (the inheritance) is related to the negation of this blessing upon her, she applies directly to “the promise” to be blessed again as she is handed down by faith, in wisdom, through a form of sound words, to every cultural generation, that has been apprehended to a change through this promise and inheritance. Therefore, the beginning of these cultures only have their change through ‘the blessing,’ just as when the blessing was removed from Adam’s culture of faith in Abel’s death (Gen.4:25). The seed of promise must come only through what God has chosen to bless (Gen.4:26), as it was for Noah’s generation (Gen.6:13-22; 9:1). Men are but men (enos) like Enosh without the appointed Seed of God (Seth). And so there was a pattern change, or a change of image and likeness, of what was ordained (by Yahweh) to be (called) the sons of God (Elohim) (Adam’s ‘spiritual’ line) versus what was to be called the children of men (Adam’s carnal image)(Gen.5:1-3), if you have been given the eyes to recognize the conjunctive “but” in verse three (Gen.5:3; Eph.2:2-3; 5:6-8; 1Jn.3:10; Gal.4:30-31; Rom.9:8; Lk.16:8). 

*[will neither] literally, the conjunctive negation. This continues the verbal joining of the verb actions but in the subject’s rejection of the inheritance. It is like a door hinge upon which the actions of the subject swings, from his loathing of her to the death of her, because God refuses to bless her (spiritually) as far as He is loathed in her materially (Mk.7:6; James 4:3). So the fault of this failure to be blessed is laid squarely on the hinge that swings open the door of this loathing and eventually closes on the death and destruction of the inheritance (Matt.25:10-13), as she is strictly material until God blesses her with the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, who is the salvation of the Jews (Jn.4:9-22). 

In other words, as far as this inheritance is loathed by the children of Israel, which is her slavery to the material reality of her own existence, that is, her inability to judge her own existence or her unawareness of the value and worth of her election in the life of God (Rom.3:1-3; 11:28-29), because she lays dead to the inheritance like a carcass in a coffin (Eph.2:1; Heb.9:2-5; Dt.31:26; 1Kgs.8:9; 2Cor.3:7-18), that is cursed from her beginning to her end under the headship of the subject, the spiritually lazy man, which was Adam, as she is represented in his removal from the blessing of God’s garden when he was led by her to sin against their inheritance (Gen.3:6), his very worth in the election of the grace of life (Gen.1:27; 1Cor.11:7; 1Pet.3:7). 

She was to be his heart and soul, but God was to be his Spirit, his head, the life of his reason and purpose, for he was created in the wisdom of God (Ecc.7:11-12, 29). But he exchanged her, as his spiritual inheritance, for the material lie of ruling with her under the influence of evil, forsaking what was known to be good in the self-denial of the forbidden tree of God’s sovereignty, who was to rule over them (Gen.2:16-17; Matt.16:26; Mk.8:36), and in corrupting the life of her soul (by not blanketing her with himself)(Mk.10:8; 1Cor.6:16) to her very death, in the forsaking of his Spirit in God (1Cor.11:3; Mk.15:34; 1Cor.1:22-25; Gen.3:22; 1Cor.2:7, 13-16), to continue to look upon her nakedness in her fellowship with the fruit of the forbidden tree. It is this inheritance, only when blessed by God, that makes the man one with himself, created in the image of God. But in forsaking her, negating to fill her with the life that is in himself (1Cor.15:45), which was the image of God, he forsakes the life of his own soul, the very Spirit of God (1Cor.6:17). 

*[be blessed] literally, to be blessed. But some define this, to be adored, as it is translated in one context “made to kneel” and as “praised” twice. On five occasions, it was translated “salute.” So, collectively, in our general application, Solomon may be addressing the hidden value and worth of this inheritance, but that’s not likely, given the context regarding the loathing of her; for she is nothing more than a material inheritance until there is a spiritual blessing priced upon her by the Spirit of God in the grace of life (1Pet.3:5). She is not blessed until she is made irresistible by the beauty and image of Christ abiding in her (Lk.11:27), for it was Eve who carried sin in the bosom of her womb (Gen.3:6; 2Cor.5:21), which brought death into the world by casting aside the Word of God (Gen.3:1-6). She loathed the inheritance of the grace of life as much as Adam did, her representative head, so she is without excuse (Rom.1:20-21). And so she is not adored, as she stands in the inheritance of the bondwoman, for surely God sees her as a slave to sin, for which she shall be cast out (Gal.4:30).

*[at her end] conjunctively, to her end. As this is a conjunction of the preposition of the previous verb stem, which was rendered “from,” is imperfectively translated here, as “at,” in the yiqtol Hebrew verb stem, in conclusion to the negation of the blessing associated with the inheritance. So it is literally rendered ‘at her end.’ Because she was loathed in the beginning, she continues to be hated to her very end (Rom.9:13). As long as the inheritance, which is this present world, in which Adam was created to have dominion, remains cursed in the absence of God blessing her by the Spirit of Christ, she continues to be loathed in her death (Rev.20:11; 21:1; 2Pet.3:5, 7, 10; Matt.5:18). The wrath of God abides on her forever (Rom.1:18; Jn.3:36). When the material inheritance is gone, because the spiritual blessing has been removed (Rev.18:23), her soul remains in death, unaware of the great value of the blessing that she was passed over for in the gratification of Adam’s sin (2Cor.11:3), for it was Adam who sinned whereas Eve was deceived. Because she was left without a spiritual head, the inheritance that she represents in the wisdom of God fades away like dust in the wind.