Commentari biblici

1. Who is as the wise man?] The question comes in abruptly as from a teacher who calls the attention of his scholars to things that are φωνήεντα συνέτοισιν (“significant to those who understand”) and remind us of the “He that hath ears to hear let him hear” in our Lord’s teaching (Matthew 11:15; Matthew 13:9; Mark 4:9). Something there was in what he is about to add, to be read between the lines. It required a á man to “know the interpretation” (the noun is Chaldaean and is found, with a slight variation, as the prominent word in Daniel 4:5; Daniel 4:7) of the “thing” or better, “of the word.” We find the probable explanation of this suggestive question in the fact that the writer veils a protest against despotism in the garb of the maxims of servility.

a man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine] Literally, illuminates his face. The word paints with a wonderful vividness the almost trans-figuring effect of the “sweetness and light” of a serene wisdom, or of the joy that brightens a man’s countenance when he utters his Eureka over the solution of a long-pondered problem.

the boldness of his face shall be changed] Literally, the strength of face, i.e. its sternness. The words have been very variously translated, (1) as in the LXX. “his shameless face shall be hated,” (2) as by Ewald “the brightness of his countenance shall be doubled.” There is no ground, however, for rejecting the Authorised Version. The “boldness of the face” is, as in the “fierce countenance” of Deuteronomy 28:50; Daniel 8:23, the “impudent face” of Proverbs 7:13, the coarse ferocity of ignorance, and this is transformed by culture. The maxim is like that of the familiar lines of Ovid,

“Adde quod ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes,

Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros.”

“To learn in truth the nobler arts of life,

Makes manners gentle, rescues them from strife.”

Epp. ex Ponto ii. 9. 47.

2. I counsel thee to keep the king’s commandment] The words in Italics “counsel thee,” have nothing answering to them in the Hebrew, and the grammar of the sentence does not allow us to translate with the Vulgate, “I keep the king’s commandment.” The pronoun on the other hand is emphatic and it introduces a series of precepts. We have therefore to supply a verb, I, for my part, say, which is practically equivalent to the English Version. The reference to the king is not without its bearing on the political surroundings of the writer and therefore on the date of the book. It is a natural inference from it that the writer, whether living in Palestine or elsewhere, was actually under a kingly government and not under that of a Satrap or Governor under the Persian King, and that the book must therefore have been written after the Persian rule had become a thing of the past. On this view Ptolemy Philopator has been suggested by one writer (Hitzig); Herod the Great by another (Grätz). See Introduction, ch. ii. The interpretation which explains the word as referring to the Divine King must be rejected as allegorising and unreal. The whole tone of the passage, it may be added, is against the Solomonic authorship of the book. The writer speaks as an observer studying the life of courts from without, not as a king asserting his own prerogative. Even on the assumption that Proverbs 25:2-6 came from the lips of Solomon, they are pitched in a very different key from that which we find here.

and that in regard of the oath of God] It is not without significance as bearing on the question of the date and authorship of the book, that Josephus relates (Ant. xii. 1) that Ptolemy Soter, the Son of Lagus, carried into Egypt a large number of captives from Judæa and Samaria, and settled them at Alexandria, and knowing their scrupulous reverence for oaths, bound them by a solemn covenant to obey him and his successors. Such an oath the Debater bids men observe, as St Paul bade Christians obey the Emperor, “not only for wrath but also for conscience’ sake” (Romans 13:5). Submission was the part of a wise man seeking for tranquillity, however bad the government might be. Of such covenants between a people and their king we have an example in 1 Chronicles 29:24.

3. Be not hasty to go out of his sight] The phrase is explained by Genesis 4:16; Hosea 11:2 as implying flight or desertion. Such a flight the Teacher looks on as an act of impatient unwisdom. It is better to bear the yoke, than to seek an unattainable independence. So those who have grown grey in politics warn younger and more impetuous men against the folly of a premature resignation of their office.

stand not in an evil thing] The Hebrew noun (as so often elsewhere) may mean either “word” or “thing:” the verb may mean “standing” either in the attitude (1) of persistence, or (2) protest, or (3) of hesitation, or (4) of obedient compliance. Hence we get as possible renderings, (1) “Persist not in an evil thing;” i.e. in conspiracies against the king’s life or power. (2) Protest not against an evil (i.e. angry) word. (3) Stand not, hesitate not, at an evil thing, i.e. comply with the king’s commands however unrighteous. (4) Obey not in an evil thing, i.e. obey, but let the higher law of conscience limit thy obedience. Of these (1) seems most in harmony with the context, and with O. T. usage as in Psalm 1:1. Perhaps, however, after the manner of an enigmatic oracle, not without a touch of irony, requiring the discernment of a wise interpreter, there is an intentional ambiguity, allowing the reader if he likes, to adopt (3) or (4) and so acting as a test of character.

he doeth whatsoever pleaseth him] The words paint a sovereignty such as Greek poets loved to hold up for men’s abhorence,

ἀλλʼ ἡ τυραννὶς πολλά τʼ ἄλλʼ ἐυδαιμονεῖ,

κἄξεστιν αὐτῇ δρᾶν λέγειν δʼ ἂ βούλεται.

“The tyrant’s might in much besides excels,

And it may do and say whate’er it wills.”

Soph. Antig. 507.

Here also we have an echo of the prudential counsel of Epicurus, who deliberately preferred a despotic to a democratic government (Sen. Ep. xxix. 10), and laid it down as a rule, that the wise man should at every opportune season court the favour of the monarch (καὶ μόναρχον ἐν καιρῷ θεραπεύσει), Diog. Laert. x. 1, § 121.

4. Where the word of a king is, there is power] Better, Forasmuch as the word of a king is power, or rather authority. The latter word in the Hebrew text is used in Chaldee as meaning a ruler, or potentate. In the last clause, “Who may say unto him, What doest thou?” we have an echo of Job 34:13, where the question is asked in reference to the sovereignty of God. The covert protest of the writer shews itself in thus transferring, as with a grave irony, what belonged to the Divine King to the earthly ruler who claimed a like authority. The despot stands, or thinks he stands, as much above the questionings and complaints of his subjects, as the Supreme Ruler of the Universe does above those of men in general.

5. Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing] The words are once again ambiguous. If the “commandment” is that of the king, they enjoin unhesitating servile obedience as in the interpretation (3) of Ecclesiastes 8:3. If, according to the all but invariable use of the word in the O. T., we take it as the “commandment” of God, the meaning is in harmony with the interpretation (4) of the previous precept, and parallel with the French motto, “Fais ton devoir, avienne que pourra” (“Do thy duty, come what may”). Here again, it seems natural to assume an intentional ambiguity. A like doubt hangs over the words “shall feel (literally know) no evil thing” which may mean either “shall be anxious about no moral evil,” or more probably “shall suffer no physical evil as the penalty of moral.” Can we not imagine the writer here also with a grave irony, uttering his Delphic oracles, and leaving men to choose their interpretation, according as their character was servile or noble, moved by “the fear of the Lord,” or only by the fear of men?

a wise man’s heart discerneth both time and judgment] The “heart” as, for the most part, elsewhere in the Old Testament, includes the intellectual as well as the moral element in man’s nature. In the word “time” we have, as in ch. Ecclesiastes 3:1, the καιρός or “season” on which Greek sages laid so great a stress. What is meant is that the wise man, understanding the true meaning of the previous maxim, will not be impatient under oppression, but will bide his time, and wait in patience for the working of the Divine Law of retribution. This meaning is, however, as before, partially veiled, and the sentence might seem to imply that he should let his action depend on opportunities and be a time-server in the bad sense.

6. Because to every purpose there is time and judgment, therefore] The English conjunctions misrepresent the sequence of thought, and we should read “For to every purpose there is time and judgment, for the misery (or, better, the wickedness) of man …” The wise man waits for the time of judgment, for he knows that such a time must come, and that the evil of the man (i.e. of the tyrant) is great upon him, weighs on him as a burden under which he must at last sink. This seems the most natural and legitimate interpretation, but the sentence is obscure, and has been very differently interpreted. (1) The evil of man (of the oppressor) is heavy upon him (the oppressed). (2) Though there is a time and a judgment, yet the misery of man is great, because (as in the next verse) he knows not when it is to come.

7. For he knoweth not that which shall be] The subject of the sentence is apparently the wicked and tyrannous ruler. He goes on with infatuated blindness to the doom that lies before him. The same thought appears in the mediæval proverb, “Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat,” or, in our modern condemnation of the rulers or the parties, who “learn nothing, and forget nothing.” The temper condemned is that (1) of the cynical egoism, which says, “Apres moi, le deluge,” (2) of those who act, because judgment is delayed, as if it would never come.

8. There is no man that hath power over the spirit] The word for “spirit,” may mean either “the wind” or the “spirit,” the “breath of life” in man, and each sense has been adopted by many commentators. Taking the former, which seems preferable, the latter involving a repetition of the same thought in the two clauses of the verse, we have a parallel in Proverbs 30:4, perhaps also in John 3:8. Man is powerless to control the course of the wind, so also is he powerless (the words, though general in form, point especially to the tyrannous oppressor,) to control the drift of things, that is bearing him on to his inevitable doom. The worst despotism is, as Talleyrand said of Russia, “tempered by assassination.”

neither hath he power in the day of death] Better, over the day of death. The analogy of the previous clause, as to man’s impotence to control or direct the wind, suggests that which is its counterpart. When “the day of death” comes, whether by the hand of the assassin, or by disease and decay, man (in this case again the generalized thought applies especially to the oppressor) has no power, by any exercise of will, to avert the end. The word for “power” in the second clause is, as in Daniel 3:3, the concrete of the abstract form in the first, There is no ruler in the day of death.

there is no discharge in that war] The word for “discharge” occurs elsewhere only in Psalm 78:49, where it is rendered “sending,” and as the marginal reading (“no casting of weapons”) shews has been variously interpreted. That reading suggests the meaning that “in that war (against death), there is no weapon that will avail.” The victorious leader of armies must at last succumb to a conqueror mightier than himself. The text of the English version is probably, however, correct as a whole, and the interpolated “that,” though not wanted, is perhaps excusable. The reference is to the law (Deuteronomy 20:5-8) which allowed a furlough, or release from military duty, in certain cases, and which the writer contrasts with the inexorable sternness which summons men to their battle with the king of terrors, and that a battle with a foregone and inevitable conclusion. Here the strict rigour of Persian rule under Darius and Xerxes, which permitted no exemption from service in time of war, was the true parallel (Herod. iv. 84, vii. 38).

neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it] Better, neither shall wickedness deliver its lord. The last word is the same as Baal, in the sense of a “lord” or “possessor,” and is joined with words expressing qualities to denote that they are possessed in the highest degree. Thus “a lord of tongue” is a “babbler” (ch. Ecclesiastes 10:11), “lord of hair” is “a hairy man” (2 Kings 1:8), and so on. Here, therefore, it means those who are specially conspicuous for their wickedness. The thought is as before, that a time comes at last, when all the schemes and plans of the oppressor fail to avert his punishment, as surely as all efforts to prolong life fail at last to avert death.