Chapter 15
I recognize three main proverb-groupings for chapter 15: (1) vv. 1-10, (2) vv. 11-24 (framed by the Sheol-references in vv. 11a and 24b), and (3) vv. 25-33. Each of these may be further divided into two (or three) smaller clusters.
Other commentators divide/outline the chapter rather differently. Heim (pp. 191ff), for example, recognizes the following clusters: vv. 1-4, 5-12, 13-18, 19-23, 24-27, 28-33. The approach by Schipper (pp. 491ff) is somewhat similar: vv. 1-4, 5-12, 13-18, 19-24, 25-33. I share the delineation of vv. 25-33 as a distinct grouping.
Proverbs 15:1-10
This first grouping can be divided evenly into two parts: (i) vv. 1-5, and (ii) vv. 6-10. The first part focuses on a person’s speech (mouth/tongue/lips, cf. also verse 7), which is a familiar area of emphasis in these proverbs. Only verse 3 appears to be out of place, with its allusion to YHWH as the all-seeing Ruler who is ready to punish the wicked and reward the righteous; cf. 14:31 in the context of vv. 28, 35, in the prior grouping (discussed in the previous study). Certainly, a person’s speech is to be included as a key component of the behavior that is judged by God. Indeed, the second part of the grouping (vv. 6-10) deals with a person’s conduct/behavior more broadly. The YHWH-saying in v. 3 is matched by the two in vv. 8-9, where, again, it is clear that YHWH knows everything that a person does, and responds to it accordingly. In verse 8, the focus is on a person’s religious behavior, while in v. 9 the broader ethical aspects are in view.
See the article by R. N. Whybray, “Yahweh-sayings and Their Context in Proverbs, 10,1-22,16” in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament, ed. M. Gilbert, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium [BETL] 51 (Leuven University Press: 1978), pp. 153-165.
Verse 1
“A gentle answer can turn back a burning (rage),
but (the) word of a harsh (tongue) brings up anger.”
As noted above, four of the five proverbs (vv. 1-2, 4-5) in this first sub-group (cf. also v. 7) deal with a person’s speech—its effects and also what such speech demonstrates regarding a person’s character (viz., whether one is wise/righteous or foolish/wicked). Here the contrast of wise vs. foolish is implicit. In the heat of an argument or angry exchange, the ability to respond in a gentle manner is a sign of wisdom. The adjective Er^ means “soft, tender, gentle”, though it can also have the more negative connotation of “weak, thin”. A “gentle answer” (or “soft reply”), Er^ hn#u&m^, has a calming/soothing effect, defusing the situation and “turning back” (vb bWv, Hiphil) anger (lit. “burning”, hm*h@); this can apply to one’s own anger as well as that of another person.
By contrast, harsh and sharp/pointed speech has the opposite effect—that of “stirring up” (vb hl*u* Hiphil, “cause to go up, bring up”) anger. The noun bx#u# (II), along with the verbal root bxu (II), has a relatively wide semantic range. The primary denotation is of a harshness/sharpness that can produce pain (of various kinds, including sadness, grief, etc.) or harm. One need not go so far as to identify bx#u# here as meaning “abuse, insult”, though that certainly would represent a kind of “harsh” speech covered by the term. More generally, the speech should be seen as provocative, producing an angry reaction and fanning (rather than dousing) the flames of an argument or angry exchange.
For more on the principle expressed in this proverb, cf. 25:15; Qoh 10:4, and further below on v. 4. Fox (p. 588f) and Schipper (p. 494) cite several ancient Near Eastern (Egyptian) parallels. For hot-temperedness as a characteristic of the foolish/wicked, see, e.g., 6:34; 22:24; 29:22.
There is conceptual ‘catch-word’ bond (“anger”) between v. 1 here and the prior 14:35 (see the previous study). The LXX facilitates the transition with an expanded (three-line) version of this proverb (cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 230):
“Anger also destroys (those) with (good) sense;
but a response falling under turns away an (angry) impulse,
while a painful word arouses anger (instead).”
The verb u(popi/ptw (“fall under”) here connotes responding in a submissive, non-confrontational manner.
Verse 2
“(The) tongue of (the) wise gives knowledge good (form),
while (the) mouth of fools gushes (shapeless) folly!”
The implicit contrast (between the wise and foolish) in v. 1 is made explicit here in v. 2. The regular substantives <k*j* (“wise [person]”) and lys!K= (“foolish [person], fool”) are both in the plural.
The verb bf^y`, a byform of bof (“be good”), in the Hiphil means “make (something) good”; that is, here, the wise “make knowledge good” through their speech. The sense may be “give knowledge a good (form)” —that is, expressing it finely and beautifully (cf. verse 13) through speech. By contrast, fools express folly through their speech, and do so in a crude and reckless way, lacking all good form—viz., gushing it out (vb ub^n`) in a shapeless and chaotic torrent; cf. verse 28. The verb ub^n` can also mean, specifically, “bubble (forth)”, which also suggests a certain unrestrained shapelessness; on the foolish person’s speech demonstrating his/her folly, cf. 12:23; 13:16; 18:2. At the same time, ub^n` can be used in the positive context of Wisdom pouring forth (from the mouth of the wise), cf. 1:23; 18:4, and the fountain-motif in 10:11; 13:14, also 14:27; 16:22; 25:26.
Dahood (pp. 32-3) argues that the verb bfy here is a by-form of [fy, related to [wf (“drip, flow [over]”); Toy (p. 309) would similarly emend the verb. This admittedly produces a fine parallel with the verb ubn in the second line, but cf. the comments in response by Clifford (p. 151) and Waltke (p. 609).
Verse 3
“In every place (the) eyes of YHWH (keep watch),
looking down on (both the) evil and (the) good!”
As noted above, this saying builds upon the allusive reference (in 14:31) to YHWH as the Creator, in the context of the king-sayings in vv. 28 and 35 (cf. the previous study). And, indeed, YHWH is described here as King—the all-seeing Ruler whose eyes are everywhere (“in every place”), watching everything that human beings do. He sees the “evil” (viz., the wicked ones, and the evil that they do) and the “good” (viz., the righteous and the good that they do), equally. Cf. 5:21; Psalm 11:4; 33:13; 34:16[15]; Amos 9:8; Zech 4:10; 2 Chron 16:9; Sir 15:18-19.
Verses 8-9 (see below) are similar in orientation—viz., YHWH knows/sees all that human beings do and responds accordingly, punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous.
Verse 4
“(The) healing of (the) tongue (is) a tree of life,
while crookedness in it (causes) a break in (one’s) spirit.”
Verse 4 returns to the speech-emphasis of vv. 1-2 (see above), and, in particular, the notion that the speech of a wise person tends to have a healing and soothing (i.e., calming) effect; cf. 12:18. The noun aP@r=m^ here has the double meaning “healing” / “gentleness” (so also earlier in v. 30); and cf. 4:22; 12:18; Jer 14:19. In that earlier reference, the expression was “a heart of healing”, while here it is “healing of the tongue”; yet, the expressions are comparable, since here “of the tongue” is a subjective genitive, viz., the healing that the tongue brings, and which it possesses. By contrast, there is “crookedness” in the tongue of the wicked (in English idiom, we might speak of a ‘forked’ tongue). Here, the “crookedness” motif, used throughout Proverbs (esp. in chapters 1-9) as part of the path/walking idiom, is represented by the noun [l#s# (cf. 11:3, the only other Scriptural occurrence), denoting that which is twisted, crooked, perverse; cf. the use of the verb in 19:3. If the speech of the righteous brings healing, the speech of the wicked does the opposite—namely, it causes a “break” (rb#v#), i.e., creates a wound or fracture, etc. This break occurs “in (the) spirit”, which could refer generally to a person’s life, but may also imply an inward emotional-psychological wound; cf. Isa 65:14.
For the idiom of a “tree of life”, representing the life that comes through Wisdom (and results from following the path/teachings of Wisdom), see also 3:18; 11:30; 13:12.
Verse 5
“A foolish (son) has contempt for his father’s correction,
but (the one) guarding a rebuke shows (himself) shrewd.”
This proverb reintroduces the familiar theme of a father giving instruction (and discipline/correction) to his son. This Wisdom-orientation framed all of the lectures in chapters 1-9 and continues to be utilized at various points in the Collection. In particular, emphasis is given to the importance of accepting discipline and receiving correction, even when it takes the form of a harsh or painful rebuke. The nouns rs^Wm (“instruction”, but also “correction, discipline”) and tj^k^oT (“rebuke, reproof”) are part of the core Wisdom-vocabulary; rs*Wm occurs 31 times (out of 51 Scriptural occurrences) in Proverbs (most recently, 13:24), likewise 16 of the 24 occurrences of tj^k^oT (most recently, 13:18). Cf. also at the close of the chapter, vv. 31-32.
The verb Ja^n` is used for the specific attitude and behavior of the foolish, as those who show contempt for instruction and discipline, disregarding, disparaging and spurning it; cf. 1:30; 5:12. By contrast, the wise person “guards” it, cherishing it, and pays close/careful attention to it. The verb rm^v* (“guard”, along with the synonymous rx^n`, “keep watch [over]”) is used frequently, as a Wisdom-term, in this context; see, most recently, 13:18.
As Waltke (p. 616) notes, the verb form <r!u=y~ can be read either as a Qal stative (“be[come] clever”) or as a Hiphil active form (= <yr!u&y~, “show cleverness, act with cleverness”). In order to capture both possibilities, I have translated reflexively here as “show (oneself) clever”, spec. “show (oneself) shrewd”. The root <ru is often used in a negative sense (i.e., being shrewd, cunning, crafty, scheming), but in Proverbs it is almost always positive—viz., as a Wisdom-term, indicating the intelligence, discernment, prudence, and skill of the wise. For poetic concision, I have rendered it here as “shrewd”, in spite of the negative connotations that can apply to the term in English. For a similar use of the verb, cf. 19:25.
The speech theme of the section (see above) is realized in v. 5 through the subject of the father/teacher’s instruction.
Verse 6
“(The) house of (the) righteous (is) a great store (of treasure),
but with (the) income of (the) wicked (trouble) is stirred up!”
In the second unit of this proverb-grouping, the focus shifts from a person’s speech to his/her conduct (and character) more generally. One’s speech is still in view in v. 7 (see below), but as a component of the individual’s broader pattern and mode of behavior.
One’s regular conduct (and daily business) is symbolized here by the regular motif of the “house” (ty]B^); cf. further in vv. 25ff, and earlier in 11:29; 12:7; 14:1, 11. This image also alludes to a person’s wealth, and, as a related theme, to the blessing that comes (from God) for the righteous, or to the punishment (and loss) that comes upon the wicked. This aspect is clear from the use of the expression br* /s#j) (“great store [of treasure]”, or “store of much [treasure]”) in line 1, and the use of the noun ha*WbT= (“income”, that which “comes [in]”) in line 2. The description of the house of the righteous as a “great store (of treasure)” has a double meaning; on the one hand, it implies the acquisition of wealth (as a blessing from God), but, at the same, it should be understood figuratively (in an ethical-religious sense) as a treasury of wisdom. In the second line, material wealth (“income”) seems to be more clearly in view. Though the wicked might prosper financially for time, this does not come without much disturbance and trouble. The verb rk^u* (cf. earlier in 11:17, 29) means “stir up, disturb”; it can carry the more forceful connotation of “mar, ruin, destroy”, and thus may allude to the ultimate fate (punishment) of the wicked (see v. 10, below). The passive (Niphal) feminine form of the verb would seem to imply a subject with a meaning like “trouble”; on the other hand, it may represent a substantive, i.e., “disturbance” (that which is disturbed) or “ruin” (that which is or has been ruined).
Fox (p. 590f), along with other commentators, follows the Versions (LXX, Syriac, Targum) in reading an initial prefixed b preposition for the first line while omitting it in the second (cf. Textual Commentary, p. 231f). This yields a syntactically clearer couplet:
“In (the) house of (the) righteous (there is) a great store (of treasure),
while (the) income of (the) wicked is marred/disturbed (by trouble)!”
The feminine noun ha*WbT= (“income”) thus serves naturally as the subject of the verb. Moreover, it is easy to explain the loss of the initial b in the first line (i.e., tybb > tyb). Even so, the MT (followed by the Vulgate) unquestionably represents the more difficult reading, and should perhaps be preferred on that basis; cf. Waltke, p. 616. Unfortunately, though the Qumran manuscript 4QProvb contains chapter 15, it is highly fragmentary, and one cannot be sure as to the text of v. 6 at this point, though it may have supported the MT.
The substantives qyd!x* (“righteous”) and uv*r* (“wicked”) are both singular; however, the LXX reads/renders as plural, i.e., “in (the) houses of (the) righteous [pl.]”. Moreover, the LXX includes an additional couplet, which reads like a doublet or a variant version:
“In abundant righteousness (there is) much strength,
while (the) irreverent perish uprooted out of (the) earth!
In (the) houses of (the) righteous (there is) much strength,
while (the) fruit (the) irreverent perishes away!”
Verse 7
“(The) lips of (the) wise disperse (seeds of) knowledge,
while (the) heart of fools (is) not firm (enough for this)!”
The first line of verse 7 reprises the speech-emphasis from vv. 1-2, 4 (see above), but here in terms of the broader scope of a person’s regular conduct and daily life (cf. the “house” motif in v. 6). Moreover, one’s speech (and action) is related here (in the second line) to the inward condition of the person’s heart; that is, the individual’s outward speech reflects and demonstrates the nature of his/her heart—whether he/she is wise/righteous or foolish/wicked.
The “lips” (i.e., speech/words) of the wise put forth knowledge (i.e., wisdom) that others can receive. The verb hr*z* (I) denotes “scattering [i.e., sowing]” seed, as an agricultural idiom, though this idiom is not typically applied to a person’s words. The verb here has also been connected with Akkadian zarū, Ethiopic zaraya/wa (“to flow”, HALOT, p. 280); Dahood (p. 33) similarly postulated a separate root rwz meaning “flow”. This would certainly fit with the image of the lips of the wise ‘pouring forth’ wisdom (cf. the use of ub^n` in v. 2, above).
The adjective /K@ in the second line is sometimes used as a common adverbial particle (“so, thus”), but it properly means “firm” (from the verbal root /WK). The heart of fools is not firm (i.e., right, sound, strong, healthy, cf. 2 Kings 7:9) the way that the heart of the righteous is. I have translated the expression /k@ al) (“not firm”) as “(is) not firm (enough for this)”, relating it to the behavior of the wise in line 1. In this regard, there are two possible meanings: (1) fools are not capable of bringing forth knowledge (that others can use), or (2) the ‘ground’ of their heart is not capable of receiving the ‘seeds’ of wisdom that are dispersed by the wise. Possibly both aspects and points of orientation are intended.
Schipper (p. 496), in connection with v. 5, mentions a saying in the Egyptian Instruction of Khasheshonqi that seems relevant here: “Another’s instruction does not enter into the heart of a fool; what is in his heart is in his heart” (27, x + 10; cf. Lichtheim III, p. 180).
The LXX translated /k@ al) with the negative/privative adjective a)sfalh/$ (“without falling, without fail, unfailing”, i.e., secure). In line 1, the translator seems to have understood the verb as a form of rza (“tie on/around, gird”), since it is rendered as de/detai (“are bound”), i.e., “(The) lips of (the) wise are bound to understanding”. Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 233.
Jesus effectively summarizes the idiomatic ethical-religious language of vv. 6-7 in Matthew 12:34-35.
Verse 8
“(The) sacrifice of (the) wicked (is) an abhorrent (thing) to YHWH,
but (the) prayer of (those who are) straight (is) His delight!”
As mentioned above, the YHWH-saying in v. 3 is matched by the two sayings here in vv. 8-9. In the v. 3 saying, YHWH is described as the all-seeing Ruler whose eyes are watching everything that human beings do, whether good or evil. It is implied that He responds by rewarding the good that the righteous do and punishing the evil that the wicked do. This is the same frame of reference that we find here in vv. 8-9. The focus in verse 8 is on the religious behavior of human beings—that is, of the wicked and righteous (lit. “straight”) ones, respectively. Two kinds, and aspects, of religious behavior are mentioned. The first is the presentation of sacrificial offerings to YHWH, according to the prescribed requirements and for the occasions spelled out in the Torah. The noun jb^z# properly denotes the animal that is slaughtered (vb jb^z*), ritually, to be used as a sacrificial offering; for poetic concision, this is translated here conventionally as “sacrifice”. In the second line, the focus is on the offering of prayer (hL*p!T=) to God—that is, a speech offering (cf. verse 7).
See the seminal study by L. Perdue, Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literature of Israel and the Ancient Near East, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 30 (Scholars Press: 1977); cf. especially, in this context, pp. 156-61.
YHWH abhors the offerings made by the wicked (cf. 21:27, and, as a common prophetic theme, Isa 1:11, etc.) but takes pleasure/delight in (and accepts) those made by the righteous. The former is expressed by the verbal root but (noun, hb*u@oT), the latter by hxr (noun, /oxr*). This is regular ethical-religious terminology, used with some frequency in Proverbs; cf. the noun hb*u@oT in 3:32; 6:18; 8:7; 11:1, 20; 12:22; 13:19, etc., and /oxr* in 8:35; 10:32; 11:1, 21, 27; 12:2, 22; 14:9, 35, etc.
For a detailed comparison between v. 8a and 21:27a, see Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 363-8.
Schipper (p. 498) cites an interesting parallel from ancient Egypt, in a poem found in Demotic Papyrus Rylands 9: “He [i.e., the god Amun] does not take [i.e., accept] an ox from the strong in order to see to his oppression—his ox stinks worse than fish… It is the offering cake of the righteous for which he [i.e., Amun] has regard” (XXV 7-8, with slight abridgement/adaptation).
As often in Proverbs, the righteous are described by the characteristic designation “straight” (rv*y`, i.e., “[up]right”), alluding to the path/walking idiom—viz., those who walk on the right/straight path of Wisdom, and who keep themselves straight on that path; cf. most recently, 14:9, 11-12. The substantives uv*r* (“wicked”) and rv*y` (“straight”) are both plural in v. 8 (as also are the terms in v. 7); however, in the following v. 9, uv*r* is singular, along with the participle (of the verb [d^r*, i.e., “[the one] pursuing [righteousness]”).
Verse 9
“An abhorrent (thing) to YHWH (is the) path of (the) wicked,
but (the one) pursuing righteousness He loves!”
The thought expressed in verse 8 is repeated here, only the focus on a person’s religious behavior has broadened to one’s entire conduct and mode/manner of behavior; cf. Clifford, p. 152; Meinhold, p. 251; Fuhs, p. 242; Schipper, p. 498. Again, the noun hb*u@oT (“abhorrent [thing]”) is used, forming a catchword-bond with v. 8, to express the idea of YHWH’s hatred. This is matched in the second line by the common verb bh^a* (“love”). A person’s way of life, his/her regular, habitual, and characteristic behavior, is summarized by the familiar path/walking motif (here the noun Er#D# for “path”). The righteous are defined as those who walk the path of righteousness (lit., “pursuing righteousness”, cf. 21:21; and the antithesis, 11:19); in v. 8 they are characterized as walking straight on that path (which is also the straight/right path that God has set down for us to walk).
Verse 10
“Discipline (most) severe for (the one) leaving (the) path—
(the one) hating a rebuke (of correction) shall die!”
The fate of the wicked is announced here, at the close of the section, in no uncertain terms (“he shall die!”), anticipating the Sheol references (in vv. 11a, 24b) that frame the next proverb-grouping (to be discussed in the next study). When these proverbs reference the death of the wicked, it is an untimely/premature death that is primarily meant (in contrast to the long and blessed life of the righteous). However, the Sheol-references that follow, as applied to the wicked, might be seen, to some extent, as alluding to the possibility of a blessed afterlife for the righteous.
The death of the wicked is described, with a certain sense of harsh irony, as “correction” (i.e., discipline), rs*Wm—the same noun (and regular Wisdom-term) used earlier in verse 5 (see above). For the wise/righteous, the correction/discipline provided by God (through sound Wisdom-instruction) is a good thing, a blessing; however, for the wicked, it becomes something evil (ur^), i.e., bad, harmful. The expression ur* rs*Wm might be translated properly as “evil correction”, but, as this could be very misleading in English, the rendering has been softened to “severe discipline” (a bit stronger, as “discipline [most] severe”).
This punishment of death awaits all those who leave the path (of Wisdom and God) behind, vb. bz^u*; cf. 5:23, and the comments by Waltke (p. 622) and Fuhs (pp. 242-3). The implication, as the second line makes clear, is that this lifelong process of abandonment (in favor of wicked ways) begins with the unwillingness/refusal to accept instruction and correction (in the ways of Wisdom). Once a person has begun to reject discipline, it becomes part of his/her regular character and pattern of life, whereby the individual grows ever more foolish (and lacking in wisdom), eventually proceeding down paths of outright wickedness. The foolish person’s refusal to accept discipline is expressed here in terms of “hating a rebuke”; cf. 12:1.
Heim (pp. 195ff) treats vv. 5-12 as a distinct proverb-cluster framed by the sayings in vv. 5 and 12 focused on the unwillingness of the foolish person to accept discipline. The saying here in v. 10 could be seen as another point of coherence for such a grouping. This is, indeed, a valid way of parsing the proverbs of chapter 15, though I have chosen (and prefer) to recognize the Sheol-sayings of vv. 11a and 24b as the frame for the central grouping of the chapter (vv. 11-24). The coherence and structure of that grouping will be presented and discussed in the next study.
-
- References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18B (Yale University Press: 2009). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015).
- References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
- References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010).
- Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
- Those marked “Fuhs” are to Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar, Forschung zur Bibel 95 (Echter-Verlag: 2001).
- Those marked “Clifford” are to Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, First edition, The Old Testament Library [OTL] (Westminster John Knox Press: 1999).
- Those marked “Toy” are to Crawford Howell Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary (C. Scribner’s Sons: 1899).
- Those marked “Heim” are to Knut Martin Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 273 (Walter de Gruyter: 2001); those marked “Heim, Poetic Imagination” are to idem, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 4 (Eisenbrauns: 2013).
- Those marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology, Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 113 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1963).