I. Introduction
Proverbs 12:22 presents one of the Hebrew wisdom tradition's most condensed statements on truth, deception, and divine evaluation. In a mere seven words, it establishes a theological framework for understanding how YHVH perceives human communication and conduct. Yet the very brevity that makes the proverb memorable also makes it susceptible to misapplication. When lifted from its literary and linguistic context, the verse can be weaponized in ways that invert its pedagogical function.
This analysis examines the verse's grammatical architecture, lexical depth, textual transmission, forensic context, and structural theology to recover its intended function within the Wisdom tradition. The goal is not merely translation but understanding: what does the text assume about its reader, and what posture does it demand?
II. The Hebrew Text
תּוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה שִׂפְתֵי־שָׁקֶר וְעֹשֵׂי אֱמוּנָה רְצוֹנוֹ
to'avat YHVH siftei-sheqer / v'osei emunah retzono
"An abomination of YHVH are lips-of-falsehood, but doers-of-faithfulness are His delight."
The verse exhibits classic antithetical parallelism, the dominant structural pattern in Proverbs. Two clauses stand in opposition, connected by the adversative conjunction ו (waw). The first clause pronounces divine condemnation; the second, divine approval. Yet as we shall see, the parallelism is not perfectly symmetrical—and this asymmetry carries theological weight.
III. Grammatical Analysis
A. Clause Structure
The verse employs verbless predication in both clauses, a characteristic feature of proverbial discourse. The absence of explicit verbs creates a sense of permanent, axiomatic truth—this is not describing a single event but a standing reality.
The first clause places the predicate (תּוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה, "abomination of YHVH") before its subject (שִׂפְתֵי־שָׁקֶר, "lips of falsehood"). This predicate-fronting is emphatic: the verse begins not with the condemned object but with YHVH's evaluative stance. We encounter divine judgment before we know what is being judged.
The second clause inverts this order. The subject (עֹשֵׂי אֱמוּנָה, "doers of faithfulness") precedes the predicate (רְצוֹנוֹ, "His delight"). This chiastic arrangement (predicate-subject // subject-predicate) creates literary balance while maintaining distinct emphases in each clause.
B. Construct Chains
The verse contains three construct chains (סמיכות), each binding two nouns into a single conceptual unit:
תּוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה — "abomination of YHVH" (what YHVH finds abominable)
שִׂפְתֵי־שָׁקֶר — "lips of falsehood" (lips characterized by deception)
עֹשֵׂי אֱמוּנָה — "doers of faithfulness" (those whose actions exhibit reliability)
The construct chain is not merely grammatical but conceptual. In Hebrew, the construct relationship often implies essence or characteristic identity. "Lips of falsehood" are not lips that occasionally lie but lips whose essential character is deceptive. Similarly, "doers of faithfulness" are not people who occasionally act reliably but people whose conduct consistently exhibits trustworthiness.
C. The Dual: שִׂפְתֵי
The word שִׂפְתֵי is the construct form of שְׂפָתַיִם, the dual of שָׂפָה ("lip"). The dual in Hebrew denotes paired body parts: eyes, ears, hands, lips. By using the dual, the proverb invokes the whole apparatus of speech—not a single utterance but the organ of communication itself.
This is significant. The condemnation is not merely of a lie told but of lips that have become instruments of falsehood. The metonymy moves from act to character: the proverb addresses not an incident but an identity.
D. The Active Participle: עֹשֵׂי
The word עֹשֵׂי is the masculine plural construct form of the Qal active participle of עָשָׂה ("to do, make"). The participle in Hebrew denotes continuous or characteristic action. Unlike a perfect verb (completed action) or imperfect verb (incomplete action), the participle describes someone in the ongoing state of doing.
עֹשֵׂי אֱמוּנָה thus means not "those who did faithfulness" or "those who will do faithfulness" but "those who are characteristically, habitually doing faithfulness." The participle demands a track record. It describes people whose present conduct is consistent with their past conduct and (implicitly) their future conduct.
This grammatical point is crucial for proper application. One cannot claim the status of "doer of faithfulness" through a single act or assertion. The participle requires demonstrated, ongoing reliability.
IV. The Critical Asymmetry: Lips versus Doers
The most theologically significant feature of Proverbs 12:22 is the structural asymmetry between its two clauses. Observe the parallel terms:
A-side (condemned): שִׂפְתֵי — lips (noun, body part, speech organ)
B-side (praised): עֹשֵׂי — doers (participle, active agents, conduct)
If the verse maintained strict parallelism, we would expect a body-part parallel in the second clause—perhaps "hands of faithfulness" or "feet of reliability." Alternatively, we might expect an agent-noun in the first clause—"speakers of falsehood" to match "doers of faithfulness." Instead, the proverb deliberately breaks symmetry.
The A-side locates deception in speech. The B-side locates reliability in action. This asymmetry encodes a theological claim: YHVH condemns false speech, but He delights not in true speech but in faithful conduct. The opposite of deceptive lips is not honest lips but reliable action.
This structural decision reflects a pervasive biblical skepticism about words. Words can be performed, manufactured, strategically deployed. Actions, accumulated over time, reveal character in ways that words cannot. The proverb does not say "those who speak faithfully are His delight." It says "those who do faithfulness."
The implication is sobering: one cannot talk one's way into the B-category. The category of divine delight is populated exclusively by doers—people whose conduct over time demonstrates the quality that their speech might claim. Speech belongs to the danger zone. Action is the realm of proof.
V. Lexical Analysis
A. תּוֹעֵבָה (To'evah) — "Abomination"
The noun תּוֹעֵבָה (to'evah) is among the Hebrew Bible's strongest terms of disapproval. It appears over a hundred times in the Hebrew Bible, with particular concentration in Deuteronomy, Proverbs, and Ezekiel. The word denotes not merely moral disapproval but visceral rejection—that which is utterly incompatible with holiness, order, and covenantal relationship.
In Proverbs alone, תּוֹעֵבָה describes: false weights and measures (11:1; 20:10, 23), the sacrifice of the wicked (15:8; 21:27), the way of the wicked (15:9), evil plans (15:26), the proud in heart (16:5), and acquitting the wicked while condemning the righteous (17:15).
The common thread is violation of fundamental order. תּוֹעֵבָה marks things that corrupt the basic structures of covenantal community: honest commerce, just courts, sincere worship, truthful speech. It is not mere distaste but structural revulsion—the reaction of holiness to that which corrodes the foundations of communal life.
In Deuteronomy, תּוֹעֵבָה frequently describes idolatry and the worship practices of other nations (Deut 7:25-26; 12:31; 13:14; 17:4; 18:12; 27:15; 32:16). The semantic overlap between idolatry and deceptive speech is not accidental. Both involve a fundamental misrepresentation of reality—idols represent false gods; lying lips represent false states of affairs. Both corrupt the relationship between sign and signified that makes community possible.
When Proverbs 12:22 declares lying lips תּוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה, it places deception in the register of covenant violation. This is not merely rude or unkind or impolite. It is structurally incompatible with the holy God who is Himself אֱמֶת—truth, reliability, faithfulness. YHVH's revulsion at lying lips is not arbitrary preference but theological necessity: falsehood violates the very nature of the God who speaks creation into being with words that correspond perfectly to reality.
B. שֶׁקֶר (Sheqer) — "Falsehood"
The noun שֶׁקֶר (sheqer) denotes falsehood, deception, or fraud, very often with a strong sense of intentional misrepresentation. It appears over a hundred times in the Hebrew Bible, most frequently in the prophetic literature and Psalms. The word typically implies intentionality: שֶׁקֶר is not error or mistake but purposeful misrepresentation.
Hebrew possesses multiple terms for various kinds of untruth. כָּזָב (kazav) emphasizes disappointment or failure of expectation. שָׁוְא (shav') denotes emptiness or worthlessness. שֶׁקֶר often carries a strong sense of intentional misrepresentation. Lips of שֶׁקֶר are not mistaken lips or confused lips but intentionally deceiving lips.
This specificity matters for proper application. Proverbs 12:22 does not condemn being wrong. It condemns שֶׁקֶר—knowing, deliberate falsehood. A person who states something they believe to be true, even if it turns out to be incorrect, is not thereby guilty of שִׂפְתֵי־שָׁקֶר. The proverb addresses character, not epistemology—the willful deceiver, not the honestly mistaken.
C. אֱמוּנָה (Emunah) — "Faithfulness"
The noun אֱמוּנָה (emunah) derives from the root אמן (aleph-mem-nun), one of the most theologically significant roots in Biblical Hebrew. From this root come: אָמֵן (amen), "truly, so be it," the liturgical affirmation of reliability; אֱמֶת (emet), "truth, faithfulness," reality as it actually is; הֶאֱמִין (he'emin), "to believe, trust," reliance on another's reliability; and אֹמֶן (omen), "guardian, nurse," one who can be relied upon.
The core semantic field of אמן involves firmness, stability, and reliability. The root appears in architectural contexts (pillars, doorposts) as well as relational ones. Something possessing אֱמוּנָה is structurally sound—it holds its weight, keeps its shape, does what it appears to do.
Applied to persons, אֱמוּנָה denotes trustworthiness demonstrated over time. A person of אֱמוּנָה is one whose words match their deeds, whose promises predict their performance, whose past behavior reliably indicates their future behavior. אֱמוּנָה is not a feeling or intention but a track record—the accumulated evidence of consistency between commitment and conduct.
This is why the proverb pairs אֱמוּנָה with עֹשֵׂי ("doers"). אֱמוּנָה cannot be claimed; it can only be demonstrated. The construct phrase עֹשֵׂי אֱמוּנָה describes people whose actions exhibit structural reliability—not those who assert their faithfulness but those whose conduct proves it.
D. רָצוֹן (Ratzon) — "Delight, Favor, Acceptance"
The noun רָצוֹן (ratzon) derives from רָצָה (ratsah), "to be pleased with, accept favorably." In cultic contexts, רָצוֹןoften describes the divine acceptance of sacrifice—the moment when an offering is received as pleasing. In wisdom contexts, it denotes favor, goodwill, or delight.
The phrase רְצוֹנוֹ (retzono) means "His delight" or "His favor"—that which YHVH receives with pleasure. The suffix -וֹ attaches the delight personally to YHVH: this is not abstract approval but divine pleasure.
The contrast with תּוֹעֵבָה could not be sharper. תּוֹעֵבָה is visceral revulsion; רָצוֹן is deep pleasure. The verse positions these as the only two divine responses: abomination or delight. There is no neutral category, no indifferent middle ground. YHVH either recoils from deceptive speech or receives with pleasure the conduct of the faithful. The proverb leaves no room for lukewarm divine assessment.
VI. Textual Witnesses and the Stability of the Reading
The meaning of Proverbs 12:22 does not rest on a fragile or idiosyncratic reading of the Masoretic Text. The major textual witnesses are strikingly aligned in both wording and emphasis.
The Septuagint renders:
βδέλυγμα κυρίῳ χείλη ψευδῆ, οἱ δὲ πιστῶς ποιοῦντες δεκτοί.
"Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are acceptable [to him]."
Two points are important. First, βδέλυγμα ("abomination") corresponds directly to תּוֹעֵבָה, preserving the strongest register of divine revulsion. Secondly, the LXX keeps the verbally active language on the B-side: πιστῶς ποιοῦντες ("those who act faithfully"). The Greek translators could easily have written "those who speak truthfully" to mirror the "lips" of the first clause. They did not. They heard, and preserved, the same asymmetry: deceptive lips versus faithful doers.
The Aramaic Targum and the Syriac Peshitta likewise use verbal and participial constructions that emphasize faithful doing rather than merely faithful speaking. Across these versions, produced in different linguistic and theological environments, the core semantic architecture remains unchanged: God revulsed by false speech as a habitual stance; God pleased not by "true talkers" but by those whose actions manifest reliability.
This broad textual alignment makes it difficult for any responsible reader to claim that the verse primarily concerns "my correct statements in this argument." The reception history of the text consistently locates divine delight in embodied faithfulness, not in the ability to quote the proverb at one's opponents.
VII. Literary Context in Proverbs
Proverbs 12:22 sits within a collection of sayings attributed to Solomon (Proverbs 10:1–22:16), characterized by two-line antithetical parallelism. The surrounding verses address related themes:
12:17 — "Whoever speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit."
12:19 — "Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment."
12:20 — "Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, but those who plan peace have joy."
The thematic cluster establishes a sustained meditation on truth-telling, deception, and their consequences. Within this cluster, 12:22 provides the theological capstone: the preceding verses describe horizontal effects (evidence, endurance, joy), while 12:22 reveals the vertical dimension—how YHVH Himself responds to human truthfulness and deceit.
Notably, the chapter also addresses the theme of appearances versus reality. Verse 9 observes that "Better to be despised and have a servant than to be self-important and lack food." Verse 16 notes that "fools show their anger at once, but the prudent ignore an insult." The chapter's wisdom consists partly in recognizing that surface presentations (honor, composure) may not reflect underlying realities (poverty, restraint). Into this context, verse 22 introduces divine perception that cuts through all performance: YHVH sees through lips to conduct, through claims to character.
VIII. Forensic Frame: Falsehood as Courtroom Category
Proverbs 12:22 does not float in an ethical vacuum. The pairing of false speech and YHVH's revulsion sits inside Israel's broader concern with truthful testimony, particularly in legal settings.
Several nearby proverbs explicitly frame deceptive speech in courtroom terms:
"A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies" (Prov 14:5).
"A truthful witness saves lives, but one who breathes out lies is deceitful" (14:25).
"A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape" (19:5, 9).
Likewise, Deuteronomy 19:15–21 legislates the treatment of a "false witness who has testified falsely against his brother": the penalty is that whatever harm the liar sought to inflict is turned back on his own head. The principle of lex talionis applies to false accusation: if you accuse falsely, you receive the penalty you sought to impose. In other words, to call someone a "liar" in this tradition is implicitly to place them in the false-witness dock.
That has two consequences for Proverbs 12:22:
First, "lying lips" is courtroom language. The proverb is not about trivial inaccuracies or casual disagreement. It is about lips that function like a corrupt witness—knowingly distorting reality in ways that damage others and corrode covenantal trust.
Second, accusing someone of "lying lips" is itself a risky speech-act. Because the tradition treats false accusation as seriously as false testimony, to label another person's lips שֶׁקֶר is to take on a heavy epistemic and moral burden. If the accuser is themselves careless with facts, fills in gaps with speculation, or imputes motives they cannot possibly know, they begin to resemble the very "false witness" the law condemns.
In this forensic frame, the use of Proverbs 12:22 as a casual insult or a rhetorical flourish in public disputes is a category error. One cannot simply baptize one's side of a controversy as "truth" and the other as "lying lips" without doing exactly what the legal tradition forbids: issuing verdicts without the evidentiary foundation that warrants them.
IX. Epistemic Ethics: When Are You Allowed to Say "Liar"?
The Hebrew term שֶׁקֶר does not name "being wrong." It names knowingly misrepresenting reality. That distinction is not academic—it is the difference between error and fraud.
In practice, this means at least three things:
First, disagreement is not deception. If two accounts conflict, it does not automatically follow that one party is committing שֶׁקֶר. They may have different information, different interpretations, or partial vantage points. Until one can show that a party knew their statement to be false and chose it anyway, "lying lips" is premature.
Second, speculation about motives is off-limits. To say "you are lying" is not merely to criticize the content of a statement; it is to make a claim about the speaker's internal state: you know better, and you are deceiving on purpose. Short of a confession or overwhelming, convergent evidence, that is knowledge most speakers do not have. Confidently asserting it without warrant edges toward becoming שֶׁקֶר in its own right.
Third, the proverb's bar is higher than social media's. Online discourse often treats "liar" as shorthand for "I strongly disagree" or "I find your position morally repugnant." Proverbs 12:22 will not cooperate with that dilution. If the category "lying lips" is reserved for deliberate, characterological deception, then most of what passes for "calling out lies" in public religious discourse is not supported by this text—and may in fact be condemned by it when done recklessly.
If we take the epistemic demand of שֶׁקֶר seriously, then the burden of proof sits with the accuser. The more confidently one invokes Proverbs 12:22 against someone else, the more exposed one is to the charge of false witness if one's own evidentiary base is thin. The proverb thus presses not only for honesty in what we report, but for humility in what we claim to know about others' hearts.
X. The Pedagogical Function of Proverbs
Understanding the proper use of Proverbs 12:22 requires understanding the genre of Proverbs itself. The book explicitly addresses its reader as "my son" (1:8, 10, 15; 2:1; 3:1, 11, 21; etc.), positioning itself as parental instruction to a learner. The proverbs are formational, not informational—their purpose is to shape the character of the one who studies them.
This pedagogical framing has a crucial implication: proverbs function as mirrors for self-examination. When the sage presents the category of "lying lips," the implied question is: "Are my lips characterized by falsehood?" When the sage describes "doers of faithfulness," the implied question is: "Does my conduct demonstrate reliability over time?"
The entire rhetorical strategy of Wisdom literature assumes a posture of humility before the text. The "simple" and "young" who are addressed (1:4) are presumed to need formation. The teacher who delivers the proverbs has presumably internalized them first. The currency of wisdom is self-knowledge, not accusation.
This explains why the book of Proverbs so frequently warns against hasty speech, quick judgment, and confident self-assessment. "Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him" (26:12). "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (18:17). The sage who delivers Proverbs 12:22 would be the first to apply it to his own lips before pointing it at another's.
XI. Weaponizing the Proverb: Public Disputes and Performative Piety
A common modern misapplication of Proverbs 12:22 occurs when the verse is deployed as a public weapon in the midst of a factual dispute. The pattern is familiar:
There is an unresolved conflict about what happened, who knew what, and when.
Both sides present partial timelines, leaked messages, and competing interpretations.
Rather than patiently establishing facts, one party posts Proverbs 12:22 as a caption or reply, implicitly casting the other side as "lying lips" and themselves as "doers of faithfulness."
On the surface, this looks like a bold stand for biblical truth. In reality, it often does three theologically disastrous things at once:
First, it smuggles in a verdict the text does not grant. The very point at issue—who is deceiving and who is reliable—is treated as already settled. The proverb is then quoted as if it supported that prior judgment. But Proverbs 12:22 offers no names. It supplies categories and divine evaluations. It does not tell us, in any particular controversy, who belongs where. To use it as though it did is to abuse it.
Second, it converts a mirror into a missile. As Wisdom literature, the primary function of the proverb is to confront the reader with their own potential for self-deception and unfaithfulness. The first question it invites is "Where do my lips and my actions stand before YHVH?" When it is instead turned outward as an accusation, that formative function is inverted. The speaker exempts themselves from scrutiny and assumes the role of prosecutor.
Third, it turns speech into a substitute for the very faithfulness the verse demands. The structural asymmetry of the proverb (lips vs. doers) is designed to subordinate words to deeds. YHVH's delight is reserved for those whose actions over time embody אֱמוּנָה. When someone claims that status by posting the verse—especially in lieu of providing a transparent, consistent record of their own behavior—they are attempting to secure with their lips what can only be earned through their conduct. On the proverb's own terms, that strategy fails.
In such cases, the danger is not merely that the verse is being "used out of context," but that it is being used in a way that moves the speaker closer to the category it condemns. To call another's lips שֶׁקֶר without the requisite knowledge and evidence is itself a kind of misrepresentation. To posture as a "doer of faithfulness" by means of public piety and selective disclosure is to elevate lips over deeds. In both respects, weaponized citation risks becoming the very "abomination to YHVH" that the text pronounces.
XII. Power, Platform, and the Asymmetry of Speech
One further distortion occurs when Proverbs 12:22 is deployed by those who control institutions, platforms, or official narratives against those who do not. In such cases, the invocation of "lying lips" is not simply an individual moral claim; it becomes an exercise of power.
In the world of Proverbs, a "false witness" is dangerous precisely because his words carry legal weight. His testimony can secure or deny justice, protect or destroy a neighbor. That danger is magnified, not reduced, when the "witness" speaks from an office, a brand, a communications apparatus, or a large public following.
When a leader, spokesperson, or institutional representative publicly cites Proverbs 12:22 against a critic, at least three asymmetries are at work:
First, asymmetry of reach. The institutional speaker can project their framing of "lying lips" to an audience that may never hear the other side. The proverb is then not simply a theological observation but a tool for shaping public perception.
Second, asymmetry of information. Those inside an organization often possess documents, timelines, and internal deliberations that outsiders cannot access. To declare another's lips שֶׁקֶר while withholding relevant information is to leverage secrecy against them. The accused cannot clear themselves because the evidence is controlled by the accuser.
Third, asymmetry of risk. Institutional actors frequently have legal counsel, crisis-communications support, and financial buffers. Whistleblowers and critics often do not. Calling them "liars" therefore exposes them to reputational and material harm they are poorly positioned to absorb.
None of these asymmetries make truthful rebuke impossible. Sometimes institutions must say, "This accusation is false." None of this forbids naming a lie as such when the evidence is clear; it forbids doing so lightly or strategically. But Proverbs 12:22, read in the light of the false-witness tradition, requires those with power to be more cautious, not less, in how they pronounce "lying lips." The greater the reach and control an actor possesses, the more their words resemble courtroom testimony—and the more strictly the lex talionis logic of Deuteronomy 19:15–21 applies to them.
In other words, when leaders invoke Proverbs 12:22 against their critics, they are not standing outside the proverb as neutral exegetes. They are placing their own lips, and the institutions they represent, directly under its scrutiny.
XIII. Crisis Management, Technical Truth, and the Gravity of שֶׁקֶר
Modern public-relations practice often distinguishes between "lying" and "managing the narrative." Statements are crafted to be technically accurate while omitting context, rearranging chronology, or selectively disclosing facts in ways that minimize institutional exposure. From a strictly legal perspective, such statements may be defensible. From the vantage point of Proverbs 12:22, they are far more precarious.
The category שֶׁקֶר does not necessarily require a sentence that can be disproven word-for-word. It names a settled pattern of misrepresentation—a way of using words so that those who hear you come away with a picture of reality that you know to be skewed. One can accomplish that by: saying less than one knows at crucial points; timing disclosures so that serious information is buried or neutralized; emphasizing minor uncertainties to cast doubt on major certainties; or presenting partial timelines that one knows will be misunderstood.
None of these maneuvers need involve an outright false proposition. Yet their cumulative effect is to make one's lips function as instruments of distortion rather than clarification. At that point, the distinction between "strategic communication" and שֶׁקֶר begins to collapse.
For those who wish to take Proverbs 12:22 seriously, this means that the question cannot be restricted to "Have I said anything that could be proven false?" It must expand to "Have I used my words in such a way that my hearers are more accurately informed about reality—or less?" The former moves toward אֱמוּנָה; the latter drifts toward the "lying lips" that YHVH finds abominable.
XIV. Theological Implications
A. Divine Perception
Proverbs 12:22 assumes that YHVH perceives the difference between deceptive speech and faithful conduct. This is not merely moral instruction but theological claim: the God of Israel sees through verbal performance to behavioral reality. No amount of articulate piety substitutes for demonstrated reliability.
This divine perception renders strategic religious speech futile. One cannot manipulate YHVH with well-chosen words while one's conduct tells a different story. The asymmetry of the verse (lips versus doers) encodes YHVH's own evaluative priority: He attends less to what is said than to what is done.
B. Covenantal Reliability
The use of אֱמוּנָה connects human reliability to divine reliability. YHVH is Himself the paradigm of אֱמוּנָה—the God who keeps covenant, whose words correspond to His acts, whose character is utterly consistent. Human אֱמוּנָה reflects divine אֱמוּנָה. Those who exhibit reliability in their dealings image the reliable God.
Conversely, deceptive speech is not merely interpersonal harm but theological distortion. It introduces into the community a pattern of word-deed disconnect that is fundamentally foreign to YHVH's character. Lying lips are abomination precisely because they embody anti-God behavior in the midst of God's people.
XV. Conclusion: The Proverb That Judges Its Quoters
Proverbs 12:22 draws a hard line: on one side, lips whose settled trade is deception; on the other, people whose lives are marked by reliable action. One group provokes YHVH's revulsion, the other His delight. There is no neutral category and no third way.
The verse's own structure, vocabulary, and canonical setting make two things clear: The condemnation falls not on those who are merely mistaken, but on those who have turned their mouths into instruments of misrepresentation. The commendation falls not on those who can quote the right texts, but on those whose track record of conduct manifests the firmness and reliability the Hebrew tradition calls אֱמוּנָה.
That means this proverb is fundamentally unsafe for anyone who wants to use it to win arguments. It will not sit tamely in the hand of the polemicist. The moment a speaker lifts Proverbs 12:22 to brand a rival as "lying lips" while assuming their own place among the "doers of faithfulness," the text turns—and begins to question the accuser:
Are you as certain of their deliberate deception as you sound?
Have you been as transparent about your own actions as you demand of them?
Does your public posture match your private record over time?
Used rightly, Proverbs 12:22 drives us toward confession, patience, and a ruthless honesty about our own words. Used wrongly, it becomes yet another religious performance—a pious inscription over a life that may or may not actually be faithful. In that case, the first set of lips in the verse that YHVH finds abominable may not be those of the person it was aimed at, but of the one who chose to quote it—precisely in order to shield themselves from the costly truth-telling the proverb demands.
The proverb sits in judgment over all lips in every conversation—including, and perhaps especially, the lips that quote it.
———
Rev. LL Dan-i-El
