Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

1 The godless flee without any one pursuing them;

But the righteous are bold like a lion.

We would misinterpret the sequence of the accents if we supposed that it denoted רשׁע as obj.; it by no means takes ואין־רדף as a parenthesis. רשׁע belongs thus to נסוּ as collective sing. (cf. e.g., Isaiah 16:4);

(Note: The Targum of Proverbs 28:1 is, in Bereschith rabba, c. 84, ערק רשּׁיעא ולא רריפין להּ ; that lying before us is formed after the Peshito.)

in 1b, יבטח , as comprehensive or distributive (individualizing) singular, follows the plur. subject. One cannot, because the word is vocalized כּכפיר and not כּכּפיר , regard יבטח as an attributive clause thereto (Ewald, like Jerome, quasi leo confidens ); but the article, denoting the idea of kind, does not certainly always follow כ . We say, indifferently, כּארי or כּארי , כּלּביא or כּלביא , and always כּאריה , not כּאריה . In itself, indeed, יבטח may be used absolutely: he is confident, undismayed, of the lion as well as of the leviathan, Job 40:23. But it is suitable thus without any addition for the righteous, and נסו and יבטח correspond to each other as predicates, in accordance with the parallelism; the accentuation is also here correct. The perf. נסו denotes that which is uncaused, and yet follows: the godless flee, pursued by the terrible images that arise in their own wicked consciences, even when no external danger threatens. The fut. יבטח denotes that which continually happens: the righteous remains, even where external danger really threatens, bold and courageous, after the manner of a young, vigorous lion, because feeling himself strong in God, and assured of his safety through Him.

return to '

There now follows a royal proverb, whose key-note is the same as that struck at Proverbs 25:2, which states how a country falls into the οὐκ ἀγαθόν of the rule of the many:

Through the wickedness of a land the rulers become many;

And through a man of wisdom, of knowledge, authority continues.

If the text presented בּפשׁע as Hitzig corrects, then one might think of a political revolt, according to the usage of the word, 1 Kings 12:19, etc.; but the word is בּפּשׁע ,

(Note: Thus to be written with Gaja here and at Proverbs 29:6, after the rule of Metheg - Setzung, §42.)

and פּשׁע (from פּשׁע , dirumpere ) is the breaking through of limits fixed by God, apostasy, irreligion, e.g., Micah 1:5. But that many rulers for a land arise from such a cause, shows a glance into the Book of Hosea, e.g., Hosea 7:16: “They return, but not to the Most High ( sursum ); they are become like a deceitful bow; their princes shall then fall by the sword;” and Hosea 8:4: “They set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not.” The history of the kingdom of Israel shows that a land which apostatizes from revealed religion becomes at once the victim of party spirit, and a subject of contention to many would-be rulers, whether the fate of the king whom it has rejected be merited or not. But what is now the contrast which 2b brings forward? The translation by Bertheau and also by Zöckler is impossible: “but through intelligent, prudent men, he (the prince) continueth long.” For 2a does not mean a frequent changing of the throne, which in itself may not be a punishment for the sins of the people, but the appearance at the same time of many pretenders to the throne, as was the case in the kingdom of Israel during the interregnum after the death of Jeroboam II, or in Rome at the time of the thirty tyrants; יאריך must thus refer to one of these “many” who usurp for a time the throne. בּאדם may also mean, Proverbs 23:28, inter homines ; but אדם , with the adjective following, e.g., Proverbs 11:7; Proverbs 12:23; Proverbs 17:18; Proverbs 21:16, always denotes one; and that translation also changes the כּן into a “so,” “then” introducing the concluding clause, which it altogether disregards as untranslatable. But equally impossible is Böttcher's: “among intelligent, prudent people, one continues (in the government),” for then the subject-conception on which it depends would be slurred over. Without doubt כּן is here a substantive, and just this subject-conception. That it may be a substantive has been already shown at Proverbs 11:19. There it denoted integrity (properly that which is right or genuine); and accordingly it means here, not the status quo (Fleischer: idem rerum status ), but continuance, and that in a full sense: the jurisdiction (properly that which is upright and right), i.e., this, that right continues and is carried on in the land. Similarly Heidenheim, for he glosses כן by מכון הארץ ; and Umbreit, who, however, unwarned by the accent, subordinates this כן [in the sense of “right”] to ידע as its object. Zöckler, with Bertheau, finds a difficulty in the asyndeton מבין ידע . But these words also, Nehemiah 10:29, stand together as a formula; and that this formula is in the spirit and style of the Book of Proverbs, passages such as Proverbs 19:25; Proverbs 29:7

(Note: The three connected words ובאדם מבין ידע have, in Löwenstein, the accents Mercha, Mercha, Mugrash; but the Venetian, 1515, 20, Athias, v. d. Hooght, and Hahn, have rightly Tarcha, Mercha, Mugrash, - to place two Merchas in Ben-Naphtali's manner.)

show. A practical man, and one who is at the same time furnished with thorough knowledge, is thus spoken of, and prudence and knowledge of religious moral character and worth are meant. What a single man may do under certain circumstances is shown in Proverbs 21:22; Ecclesiastes 9:15. Here one has to think of a man of understanding and spirit at the helm of the State, perhaps as the nearest counsellor of the king. By means of such an one, right continues long (we do not need to supply להיות after “continues long”). If, on the one side, the State falls asunder by the evil conduct of the inhabitants of the land, on the other hand a single man who unites in himself sound understanding and higher knowledge, for a long time holds it together.

return to '

A proverb of a tyrant here connects itself with that of usurpers:

A poor man and an oppressor of the lowly -

A sweeping rain without bringing bread.

Thus it is to be translated according to the accents. Fleischer otherwise, but also in conformity with the accents: Quales sunt vir pauper et oppressor miserorum, tales sunt pluvia omnia secum abripiens et qui panem non habent , i.e., the relation between a poor man and an oppressor of the needy is the same as that between a rain carrying all away with it and a people robbed thereby of their sustenance; in other words: a prince or potentate who robs the poor of their possessions is like a pouring rain which floods the fruitful fields - the separate members of the sentence would then correspond with each other after the scheme of the chiasmus. But the comparison would be faulty, for גּבר רשׁ and אין לחם fall together, and then the explanation would be idem per idem . A “sweeping rain” is one which has only that which is bad, and not that which is good in rain, for it only destroys instead of promoting the growth of the corn; and as the Arab, according to a proverb compared by Hitzig, says of an unjust sultan, that he is a stream without water, so an oppressor of the helpless is appropriately compared to a rain which floods the land and brings no bread. But then the words, “a poor man and an oppressor of the lowly,” must designate one person, and in that case the Heb. words must be accentuated, גבר רשׁ ועשׁק דלים (cf. Proverbs 29:4). For, that the oppressor of the helpless deports himself toward the poor man like a sweeping rain which brings no bread, is a saying not intended to be here used, since this is altogether too obvious, that the poor man has nothing to hope for from such an extortioner. But the comparison would be appropriate if 3a referred to an oppressive master; for one who belongs to a master, or who is in any way subordinated to him, has before all to expect from him that which is good, as a requital for his services, and as a proof of his master's condescending sympathy. It is thus asked whether “a poor man and an oppressor of the lowly” may be two properties united in the person of one master. This is certainly possible, for he may be primarily a poor official or an upstart (Zöckler), such as were the Roman proconsuls and procurators, who enriched themselves by impoverishing their provinces (cf. lxx Proverbs 28:15); or a hereditary proprietor, who seeks to regain what he has lost by extorting it from his relatives and workmen. But רשׁ (poor) is not sufficient to give this definite feature to the figure of the master; and what does this feature in the figure of the master at all mean? What the comparison 3b says is appropriate to any oppressive ruler, and one does not think of an oppressor of the poor as himself poor; he may find himself in the midst of shattered possessions, but he is not poor; much rather the oppressor and the poor are, as e.g., at Proverbs 29:13, contrasted with each other. Therefore we hold, with Hitzig, that רשׁ of the text is to be read rosh , whether we have to change it into ראשׁ , or to suppose that the Jewish transcriber has here for once slipped into the Phoenician writing of the word;

(Note: The Phoen. writes רש ( i.e., רשׁ , rus ); vid., Schröder's Phönizische Gram. p. 133; cf. Gesen. Thes. under ראשׁ .)

we do not interpret, with Hitzig, גּבר ראשׁ in the sense of ἄνθρωπος δυνάστης , Sir. 8:1, but explain: a man (or master = גּביר ) is the head (cf. e.g., Judges 11:8), and oppresses the helpless. This rendering is probable, because גּבר רשׁ , a poor man, is a combination of words without a parallel; the Book of Proverbs does not once use the expression אישׁ רשׁ , but always simply רשׁ ( e.g., Proverbs 28:6; Proverbs 29:13); and גּבר is compatible with חכם and the like, but not with רשׁ . If we stumble at the isolated position of ראשׁ , we should consider that it is in a certain measure covered by דלים ; for one has to think of the גבר , who is the ראשׁ , also as the ראשׁ of these דלים , as one placed in a high station who numbers poor people among his subordinates. The lxx translates ἀνδρεῖος ἐν ἀσεβείαις as if the words of the text were גּבּור רשׁע (cf. the interchange of גּבר and גּבּור in both texts of Psalms 18:26), but what the lxx read must have been גּבּור להרשׁיע (Isaiah 5:22); and what can גּבּור here mean? The statement here made refers to the ruinous conduct of a גּבר , a man of standing, or גּביר , a high lord, a “wicked ruler,” Proverbs 28:15. On the contrary, what kind of rain the rule of an ideal governor is compared to, Psalms 72:1-8 tells.

return to '

4 They who forsake the law praise the godless;

But they who keep the law become angry with them,

viz. the godless, for רשׁע is to be thought of collectively, as at Proverbs 28:1. They who praise the godless turn away from the revealed word of God (Psalms 73:11-15); those, on the contrary, who are true to God's word (Proverbs 28:18) are aroused against them ( vid., regarding גרה , Proverbs 15:18), they are deeply moved by their conduct, they cannot remain silent and let their wickedness go unpunished; התגּרה is zeal (excitement) always expressing itself, passing over into actions (syn. התעורר , Job 17:8).

return to '

A similar antithetic distich:

Wicked men understand not what is right;

But they who seek Jahve understand all.

Regarding the gen. expression אנשׁי־רע , vid., under Proverbs 2:14. He who makes wickedness his element, falls into the confusion of the moral conception; but he whose end is the one living God, gains from that, in every situation of life, even amid the greatest difficulties, the knowledge of that which is morally right. Similarly the Apostle John (1 John 2:20): “ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things” ( οἴδατε πάντα ): i.e., ye need to seek that knowledge which ye require, and which ye long after, not without yourselves, but in the new divine foundation of your personal life; from thence all that ye need for the growth of your spiritual life, and for the turning away from you of hostile influences, will come into your consciences. It is a potential knowledge, all-comprehensive in its character, and obviously a human relative knowledge, that is here meant.

return to '

What is stated in this proverb is a conclusion from the preceding, with which it is also externally connected, for רשׁ (= ראשׁ ), רשׁע , רע , and now רשׁ , follow each other:

Better a poor man who walketh in his innocence,

Than a double-going deceiver who is rich thereby.

A variation of Proverbs 19:1. Stainlessness, integritas vitae , as a consequence of unreserved devotion to God, gives to a man with poverty a higher worth and nobility than riches connected with falsehood which “halts between two opinions” (1 Kings 18:21), and appears to go one way, while in reality it goes another. The two ways דּדכים (cf. Sir. 2:12, οὐαί ἁμαρτωλῷ ... ἐπιβαίνοντι ἐπὶ δύο τρίβους ) are, as Proverbs 28:18, not ways going aside to the right or to the left of the right way, but the evil way which the deceiver truly walks in, and the good way which he pretends to walk in (Fleischer); the two ways of action placed over against one another, by one of which he masks the other.

return to '

7 He who keepeth instruction is a wise son;

But he that is a companion of profligates bringeth his father into shame.

We have translated תורה at Proverbs 28:4 by “law;” here it includes the father's instruction regarding the right way of life. נוצר תּורה , according to the nearest lying syntax, has to be taken as pred. זוללים are such as squander their means and destroy their health, vid., under Proverbs 23:20. רעה signifies, as frequently from the idea of (cf. Proverbs 29:3) pasturing, or properly of tending, to take care of, and to have fellowship with. יכלים shall put to shame denotes both that he himself does disgrace to him, and that he brings disgrace to him on the part of others.

return to '

This verse continues a series of proverbs (commencing in Proverbs 28:7) beginning with a participle:

He who increaseth his wealth by interest and usury,

Gathereth it for one who is benevolent toward the lowly.

Wealth increased by covetous plundering of a neighbour does not remain with him who has scraped it together in so relentless a manner, and without considering his own advantage; but it goes finally into the possession of one who is merciful towards the poor, and thus it is bestowed in a manner that is pleasing to God (cf. Proverbs 13:22; Job 22:16.). The Kerı̂ , which drops the second ב , appears to wish to mitigate the sharpness of the distinction of the second idea supposed in its repetition. But Leviticus 25:35-37, where an Israelite is forbidden to take usury and interest from his brother, the two are distinguished; and Fleischer rightly remarks that there נשׁך means usury or interest taken in money, and תרבית usury or interest taken in kind; i.e., of that which one has received in loan, such as grain, or oil, etc., he gives back more than he has received. In other words: נשׁך is the name of the interest for the capital that is lent, and מרבּית , or, as it is here called תרבית , the more, the addition thereto, the increase (Luther: ubersatz ). This meaning of gain by means of lending on interest remains in נשׁך ; but תרבית , according to the later usus loq., signifies gain by means of commerce, thus business-profit, vid., Baba Mezîa, v. 1. Instead of יקבּצנּוּ , more recent texts have the Kal

(Note: If, as Hitzig, after J. H. Michaelis, remarks, the word were Ben-Asher's יקבּצנּוּ , then it would be thus rightly punctuated by Clodius and the moderns. Kimchi, in the Wörterbuch under קבץ , adduces this word as Ben-Asher's. But the Masora knows nothing of it. It marks יקבּצנּוּ , Jeremiah 31:10, with לית as unicum , and thus supposes for the passages before us יקבּצנּוּ , which certainly is found in MSS, and is also marked on the margin with לית as unicum .)

יקבּצנּוּ . לחונן also is, as Proverbs 14:31; Proverbs 19:17, part. Kal, not inf. Poel: ad largiendum pauperibus (Merc., Ewald, Bertheau), for there the person of him who presents the gift is undefined; but just this, that it is another and better-disposed, for whom, without having it in view, the collector gathers his stores, is the very point of the thought.

return to '