Chapter 12
Proverbs 12:1-12
I regard the first twelve verses of chapter 12 as a loose proverb-grouping. Other commentators would further divide this section into smaller clusters—cf. Heim (vv. 1-7, 8-12) and Schipper (vv. 1-4, 5-12)—but I do not find these convincing. The proverbs of vv. 3-12 cohere with regard to the thematic focus on a man’s household and the way in which he handles it (i.e., manages and deals with it). The motif of a house (and its foundation) is present in vv. 3 and 7. In verse 4, the subject is a man’s wife (i.e., the lady of the house), while vv. 2 and 5 focus on the plans that a person makes (which include, to a large extent, one’s household plans). Verse 10 deals with how a man treats his animals; vv. 9 and 11 refer to the working of the land and its produce. Finally, verse 12 alludes to desiring (i.e., coveting) the wife and/or property of another man. The proverbs in vv. 1, 6, and 8 do not particularly relate to this thematic emphasis, but are maxims of a more general kind, employing the traditional contrast between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked. The proverbs with a household focus, for the most part, make use of this same contrast.
It goes without saying that these proverbs, like virtually all of those in the Collection, are presented from the man’s (i.e., male) point of view—referring to a man and his wife, etc. (and are translated accordingly). However, from a modern-day standpoint, it is easy enough to turn these proverbs around so that they apply to the situation of a woman and her husband, etc.
“(The one) loving discipline loves knowledge,
but (the one) hating a rebuke (is) like a beast!”
This initial proverb emphasizes the importance of being willing to receive (and accept) discipline (from a parent, teacher, or other authority figure); this was an important thematic emphasis particularly in the Lectures of chapters 1-9 (cf. 1:23, 25, 30; 3:11-12; 5:12f, 23; 6:23). The noun rs*Wm means “instruction”, but often with the strong connotation of “discipline, correction”; the parallel with hj*k^oT (“reproof, rebuke”) in line 2 makes clear that discipline is in view. The nouns rs*Wm and hj*k^oT are both regular Wisdom-terms: 30 of the 51 Scriptural occurrences of rs*Wm are in Proverbs (with 13 in chapters 1-9), likewise for 16 of the 24 occurrences of hj*k^oT (6 in chaps. 1-9); the two terms are similarly paired together in 3:11; 5:12; 6:23; also 10:17; 13:18, etc.
The constrastive idiom of love/hate is utilized to describe one who is willing to accept/receive discipline (i.e., ‘loves’ it), or, conversely, one who rejects/refuses it (i.e., ‘hates’ it); cf. 5:12; 15:10, also 1:22, 29; 4:6; 8:17, 21, and note further the love/hate contrast in 9:8; 13:24. Clearly, it is the wise person who accepts discipline, and the foolish person who refuses it. Here, this aspect of wisdom it expressed by the characteristic of “loving knowledge”, while the foolish person is “like a (mere) beast”. As Schipper (p. 419) mentions, the animal-reference here evokes the earlier proverb in 11:22.
Both verbs in line 1 are participles—viz., “(The one) loving discipline (is) loving knowledge”; for poetic concision I translate, “(The one) loving discipline loves knowledge”.
The adjective ru^B* means “like a beast”, i.e., “bestial, brutish”; it is derived from the noun ryu!B=, which denotes livestock (either oxen, cattle, or camels) and apparently stems from a root (rub III) that refers to the dung produced by such animals. In this Wisdom-context, the adjectively basically means “stupid, foolish”, but with the particularly harsh nuance of being ‘brute-like’; cf. 30:2; Psalm 49:11[10]; 73:22; 92:7[6].
As noted above, the proverb in v. 1 does not seem to be related particularly to the household-emphasis that runs throughout vv. 2-12; however, there is a loose conceptual-thematic relation (based on the term ru^B*) to the proverb in v. 10, which focuses on how a man deals with his livestock-animals (hm*h#B=).
“A good (man) obtains acceptance from YHWH,
while a man of schemes He considers wicked!”
The familiar righteous/wicked contrast of these proverbs is reintroduced here in v. 2, but distinctively, in terms of the person’s relationship to God (and His judgment). The righteous person is characterized, fundamentally, as good (bof); he does what is acceptable/pleasing (/oxr*) to YHWH, and thus finds acceptance (/oxr*) from Him (cf. 8:35). By contrast, the wicked person is considered wicked (vb uv^r*, Hiphil), and thus is rejected, by God; he is characterized here by malicious ‘scheming’. The noun hM*z]m=, which was used earlier in 1:4; 2:11; 3:21; 5:2; 8:12, properly denotes a “buzzing” —particularly in the sense of the thoughts and plans that are ‘buzzing’ around, in a person’s mind, and which one hears and thinks about, etc. It is a neutral term, which can be used in either a positive or (more frequently) negative context; here, it applies specifically to the wicked and is translated (in the plural) as “schemes”, i.e., evil or mischievous and harmful thoughts and plans, etc.
“A person is not made firm by wickedness,
but (the) root of (the) righteous will not be shaken!”
As noted above, there is an allusion here to the foundation of a person’s house (cf. verse 7, below), expressed here through the verb /WK (“be firm”). The use of the verb in the Niphal (passive) stem is qualitative, reflecting a characteristic of the individual person (and his house)—viz., made firm, set firmly in place, fixed (and secure). It is only the righteous person who is thus firmly and securely set in place, not the wicked, since, as the proverb states, a person (<d*a*) is “not made firm by wickedness”; cf. 10:25.
The motif shifts from that of a house (implied) to that of a tree which has its roots strong and firmly in place (cf. 11:30 for the Wisdom-motif of the wise/righteous person as a flourishing tree [“tree of life”]). Such a person will not be moved or shaken (vb fom)—or, even more forcefully (according to the idiom), cannot be removed (i.e., uprooted from his place). The verb fom occurs quite frequently in the Psalms (in a similar Wisdom-context), e.g., 112:6; 125:1, etc.; and cf. earlier in 10:30 (where the same negative particle lB^ is used), also 24:11; 25:26. When a person is set firm, he/she cannot be moved out of place; cf. the earlier use of /oK, in relation to the path/walking idiom, in 4:26.
“A woman of strength (is the) crown of her husband,
but as rottenness in his limbs (is one) bringing shame.”
The thematic emphasis on a man’s household comes more clearly into view here in v. 4, focusing on one’s wife (lit., “woman”, hV*a!). This focus echoes the earlier proverb in 11:16 (cf. also v. 22) and anticipates the famous hymn in 31:10-31.
The noun lu^B^ properly means “lord, master”, but such a translation, in this context (in modern English), would carry a misleadingly negative connotation; thus, I translate lu^B^ conventionally as “husband”.
The noun ly]j^ means “strength”, but with a range of connotative and contextual meaning (cf. Fox, p. 547f), including the socio-economic aspects of “wealth, (social) status/position, ability to exert influence”, as well as the ethical aspects of “capability, virtue, bravery, nobility”. While the socio-economic aspects may be relevant here, it is primarily the ethical sense of the term that is in view; the English translation “substance” (i.e., “woman of substance”) captures these better than does “strength”. The opposite here of the “woman of strength/substance” (viz., worthy, of virtue and good regard in society, cf. Ruth 3:11) is one who “causes/brings shame” (vb voB, Hiphil, cf. 10:5)—particularly, shame to her husband.
The virtuous/noble wife is like a crown to her husband’s well-being; while a disgraceful wife eats away at his well-being, bringing rottenness/decay (bk*r*) to what would otherwise be the strength of his limbs (on this motif, cf. 14:30). As noted in the introduction (above), this proverb could be reoriented to make the same point(s) regarding the relation of a noble/virtuous (or, by contrast, disgraceful) husband to his wife.
The LXX has a somewhat different version of the second line: “but just as a worm in (the) wood, so a woman acting bad(ly) ruins/destroys a man”.
“(The) designs of (the) righteous (are of good) judgment,
while (the) guiding thoughts of (the) wicked are deceit.”
The focus on a person’s thoughts (and plans) echoes the earlier proverb in v. 2 (see above). The noun hb*v*j&m^ denotes something that is “woven”, in the sense of a plan that is devised, etc.; I translate it here as “design”, to preserve something of the verbal root meaning (“weave”), cf. earlier in 6:18 and six more times in Proverbs. The noun hl*B%j=T^, the derivation of which is less clear, seems to have the basic meaning of a “guiding/directing thought” (of the seven Scriptural occurrences, six are in Proverbs [cf. earlier in 1:5; 11:14]). The guiding thoughts and plans of the righteous reflect sound judgment (and a concern for justice), fP*v=m!, while those of the wicked are characterized by deceit (hm*r=m!).
The adjectives qyD!x^ (“righteous”) and uv*r* (“wicked”) are both in the plural here; cp. verse 3, where a singular man (who may be wicked) is contrasted with the righteous (adj. qyD!x^) in the plural. As we have noted, this singular/plural variation, in the proverbs contrasting the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked, is relatively common.
“(The) words of (the) wicked (are) laying (in wait) for blood,
while (the) mouth of (the) upright snatches them (from danger).”
The focus on a person’s thoughts (v. 5) is balanced here by an emphasis on his speech (cf. the numerous earlier speech-proverbs in chaps. 10-11). It is the same righteous/wicked contrast, only here the righteous are designated by the characteristic “straight” (rv*y`), which occurs frequently in Proverbs (particularly in the context of the path/walking idiom in chaps. 1-9, etc.). In order to preserve a clear sense of the basic contrast, I have translated rv*y` (plural) here conventionally as “upright”.
The speech of the wicked has an evil and hostile intent, looking to attack others, like bandits (or predators) “laying (in wait)” (vb br^a*) for blood (echoing 1:11-18, cf. Schipper, p. 422). Ultimately, however, the wicked will be trapped (and come to ruin) by their own devices. Indeed, this proverb has much in common, both conceptually and in wording, with the series in 11:5-9 (see esp. vv. 8-9). The parallel with 11:9 makes clear that the third person plural object suffix here on the verb lx^n` (Hiphil, “will snatch them [from danger]”) refers to the righteous ones themselves (cf. Plöger, p. 148; Fox, p. 549; Schipper, p. 422; and others, for the same point). The speech of the righteous protects them and enables them to be rescued from danger, while the wicked fall into the very trap that they set (for others) through their own evil and malicious speech.
On the similarities and differences between v. 6b and 11:6a, see Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 259-63.
“Overturn (the) wicked, and they are no (more),
but (the) house of the righteous shall stand!”
The thematic motif of a person’s house, which was alluded to in v. 3 (see above, and cf. earlier in 11:29), is made explicit here (by the noun ty]B^). The motif applies to the individual person—with a man’s household representing a natural extension of the man himself. The use of the verb Ep^h* (“[over]turn”) is appropriate to the house idiom—viz., the overturning of a house (which lacks a secure foundation). When the wicked (and their “house”) are “overturned”, they come to ruin and are destroyed (“they are no [more]”, <n`ya@), with nothing left (of the household) for their descendants to inherit (11:29). By contrast, the righteous (and their “house”) is secure, with a strong foundation, and so it will stand (vb dm^u*). Cf. 10:25, and the famous illustration by Jesus in Matt 7:24-27 par.
As Waltke notes (p. 515; cf. Fox, p. 549), the infinitive (of the verb Ep^h*) here functions as an imperative.
“(According) to (the) mouth of his insight, a man is praised,
while (the one) crooked of heart (will come) to contempt.”
The wise person is worthy of praise, and (ultimately) will come to be praised (by others, and by God); by contrast, the wicked will come to be held in contempt (zWB).
This proverb echoes the speech-proverb of v. 6 through the common use of the noun hP# (“mouth”); however, here the noun is used idiomatically in the sense of “measure”—i.e., “according to the mouth of his insight” means “according to the measure of his insight” (viz., insofar as he is wise). The proverb also connects, conceptually, back to the earlier saying in v. 5 regarding a person’s thoughts (i.e., plans, designs, etc.). Here, the thoughts and intentions of the wicked are referenced by the characteristic expression “crooked of heart” (bl@ hw@u&n~); cf. 11:20, where a different term (vQ@u!) is used for “crooked”. While the righteous (and their speech, behavior, etc.) are regularly described as “straight” (cf. verse 6), the wicked are correspondingly referred to as “crooked”; the term for the latter here is a verbal adjective (participle) of the verb hw`u* (“bend, twist”), the root being manifest more commonly by the derived noun /w)u* (“crooked [thing], crookedness”).
The noun lk#c# denotes that which a person possesses, enabling him/her to succeed or to find success; it frequently connotes “ability, skill, understanding, insight”, etc. In Proverbs, it is primarily a Wisdom-term (cf. 3:5; 13:15, etc.), which I translate here as “insight”.
“Good (is one) being made light of and (yet with) a servant for him
(more) than (one) giving weight to himself but lacking bread.”
The thematic household emphasis, present in several of the prior proverbs (cf. above), continues here in v. 9, with the motifs of possessing a servant (“a servant [belonging] to him”) and lacking bread (i.e., food). Fox (p. 550f), following a suggestion by Tur-Sinai, would emend MT db#u#w+ (“and a servant”) to read rWbu&w~ (“and produce”); this makes a more suitable parallel to “bread/food” in line 2, but there is really no textual or versional support for such an emendation. More commonly, the noun db#u# is revocalized to the participle db@u), so that the phrase reads “and (yet) working for him(self)” (cf. Heim, p. 150); as Fox notes, this seems to be how the proverb was understood by Ben Sira (cf. Sirach 10:27 A).
There is a clear contrast between the passive (Niphal) of the verb hl*q* (cf. ll^q*, “be light”), “be made light of”; and the reflexive (Hitpael) of db^K* (“be heavy/weighty”), “make oneself heavy, give weight to oneself”. The righteous person is “made light of” (i.e., belittled, mocked, treated with contempt) by others, through no fault of his own; by contrast, the wicked person gives weight (i.e., honor, prestige) to himself, whether or not it is deserved (and the implication is that it is not deserved).
The verb db^K* is used in the same sense of “seeking honor (for oneself)” in Ben Sira (Sir 10:27); cf. also Nah 3:15. I disagree with the commentators who read the Niphal of hl*q* in line 1 similarly in a reflexive sense (i.e., “making oneself little”) rather than passive; cf. Schipper, p. 423. Waltke’s suggestion (p. 515) that the Niphal be viewed as a ‘tolerative’ passive, i.e., “allowing oneself to be made light of”, is preferable.
This proverb has a less well-defined ethical-religious orientation, being more practical in its emphasis. If a person possesses a solid and well-run household (as indicated by possessing servants) then it does not matter all that much if he is belittled by others, since he still has strength and security. However, if a person is lacking a household, to the point that he does not have sufficient food (or other basic resources), then it is rather foolish for him to exalt himself, pretending to be greater and more prominent than he truly is.
The preposition /m! at the beginning of the second line is another instance of the comparative /m!, which virtually requires the translation “(more) than”.
“A righteous (man is) knowing (the) soul of his beast,
while (even the) mercies of (the) wicked (are) cruel.”
The household theme here focuses on how a man handles his animals—spec. livestock (cattle, etc.). The noun hm*h@B= usually refers to domestic animals and livestock, but can also be used more generally to mean “animal, beast”. The translation “beast” echoes the earlier use of ru^B* (“like a beast, brutish”) in v. 1 (see above). The noun vp#n# (“soul”), in this context, refers to the life and well-being of the individual animal, but it can also refer to its “appetite” and, thus, to the aspect of care for one’s animals that entails keeping them well-fed and healthy (cf. 10:3). The wise and righteous man “knows (the) soul of his beast” —viz., discerns the animal’s needs, being attentive to them, and showing proper care.
By contrast, the wicked and foolish man does not understand nor care properly for his animal’s needs; indeed, what little care (“mercies”, “[indication]s of compassion”, used sarcastically [cf. Waltke, p. 527]) he does show is weak and insufficient, and, as such, amounts to little more than cruelty toward the animal (cf. Fox, p. 551). The way a man treats his household animals reflects his handling of the entire household.
“(The one) working his land will be filled with bread,
but (the one) pursuing empty (thing)s (is) lacking heart.”
Here the household theme involves diligent working of the land (on the importance of which, cf. earlier in 10:4, 5); the verb db^u* (“do work, serve”) echoes the earlier use of the noun db#u# (“servant”) in v. 9a (and is an argument in support of the MT reading of that line).
Given the phrase “will be filled with bread” in line 1, one might expect something comparable in line 2—viz., to the effect that the foolish person (and negligent worker) will be lacking bread (as in v. 9b). However, instead, what such a person is lacking is “heart” (i.e., sense), the expression “lacking of heart” being a regular foolishness-term (cf. earlier in 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21; 11:12). While there is definitely a contrastive parallel between being “full of” (vb ub^c*) bread and “lacking” heart/sense, the parallel is even more precise between the verbal root ubc (“be full”) and qyr! (“be empty”). Instead of diligent work, the foolish and lazy/negligent man ends up pursuing other “empty things” (<yq!yr!), which leaves his household empty, viz., of the produce and resources that it needs (and would otherwise have).
On the similarity of this proverb to the one in 28:19, see Schipper, p. 424, and the discussion in Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 288-90. As a general aphorism, line 1 is similar to the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope (8.17-18) [cf. Schipper]:
“Plow your fields and you’ll find what you need,
You’ll receive bread from your threshing floor.”
The LXX contains an additional couplet between vv. 11 and 12 (see Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 199):
“(He) who is pleased by spending (time) with wine,
in his own strongholds he will leave behind dishonor.”
“(The) wicked (man) desires (the) snare of evil (one)s,
but (the) root of (the) righteous gives (forth fruit)!”
The household emphasis of the prior proverbs concludes here in v. 12, with a pair of relevant motifs: (1) the verb dm^j* (“desire”) with its traditional association of coveting (viz., desiring the property of another man), cf. Exod 20:17, etc.; and (2) a reprisal of the tree motif from v. 3, through the word vr#v# (“root”), but also the implicit reference to the tree giving forth fruit (cf. 11:30; Psalm 1:3, etc.).
The point in the first line is that what the wicked man desires (or covets) ends up becoming a snare that traps the wicked (lit. “evil [one]s”); cf. 1:17-18; 5:22; 7:22-23, and the frequent references in the Psalms to the idea that the wicked will fall into the very trap that they set for others (cf. 11:8)—9:16-17 [15-16]; 35:7-8; 57:7[6]; 64:6[5]ff; 141:9-10. On the general idea that the things the wicked desire end up becoming a snare for them, cf. Psalm 69:23[22]; 106:36.
The final verb, /t^n` (“give”, /T@y], “it gives”, “it will give”), lacks a direct object. A number of commentators (e.g., Fox, p. 553) would emend the MT to the adjective /t*ya@, “continual, lasting”. More likely, the object-noun is simply implied, or, possibly, has dropped out of the text. Schipper (p. 425) suggests that the word should be understood as /j@ (“favor”), which is used with the verb /t^n` earlier in 3:34; cf. also 13:15. Given the tree idiom, and in light of 11:30, it seems more probable that the reference is to the tree (and its root) giving forth fruit (yr!P=), which is the gloss that Heim (p. 150) also adopts; cf. especially the comparable Wisdom reference in Psalm 1:3. The righteous become a blessing for others, while the wicked provide no help to others (instead seeking their harm) and, ultimately, they cannot even help or save themselves.
-
- 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). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
- 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 “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 “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).
