Category: Notes and Studies on Proverbs

Exegetical-critical commentary on the Book of Proverbs, in the form of a series of detailed studies, accompanied by occasional sets of supplemental notes.

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 13:14-25

Proverbs 13:14-25

Verses 14-25 represent the second main proverb grouping of chapter 13. It is less easy to discern distinct sub-groupings here than in the first grouping (i.e., vv. 1-5, 6-13). However, one might delineate vv. 14-18 as a loose grouping, framed by proverbs (vv. 14 and 18) emphasizing the importance of the receiving instruction (hr*oT / rs*Wm); Heim (p. 165f) similarly notes the envelope structure of vv. 13-18. For the proverbs in vv. 19-25, there is a certain coherence involving the related thematic motifs of wealth/prosperity, eating, and the satisfying of one’s appetite/desire.

Verse 14

“(The) instruction of (the) wise (is) a wellspring of life,
for (the) turning away from (the) snares of death.”

This proverb, which emphasizes the importance of heeding and accepting the teachings (“instruction”, hr*oT) of Wisdom, has a natural position at the head of this grouping (cf. verse 1); it is quite similar to 14:27 (for a detailed comparison, see Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 353-8), while the message expressed can be found throughout the collection (and also the lectures/poems of chapters 1-9). The noun roqm* denotes a place where one digs for water—that is, a well, along with the underground source of water (spring); cf. the earlier use of the noun in 5:18 and 10:11. Wisdom is implicitly being described by the image of life-giving water, with the mouth of the wise/righteous as a source for this wisdom; through the words and teachings of the righteous, others receive the teachings of Wisdom (which lead to life). On the fundamental theme that following the path/teachings of Wisdom leads to life, see especially throughout chapters 1-9 (3:2, 16, 18, 22; 4:10, 13, 22-23; 6:23; 8:35; 9:11; cf. also 2:19; 5:6).
The motif of the “wellspring of life” here is clearly linked to the “tree of life” in verse 12, serving as one of numerous points of coherence throughout chapter 13. As previously mentioned, a number of commentators (e.g., Heim, Schipper) treat vv. 12-19 as a distinct proverb-grouping.

The infinitive that governs the second line builds upon the first, expressing the goal/purpose. It best treated here as gerundive (so noted also by Waltke, p. 547), and thus translated “(the) turning away”. Cf. the earlier use of the noun vq@om (denoting a wooden snare used for trapping birds) in 12:13, and on the trap/hunting imagery, esp. 1:17-18; 7:22-23.

Verse 15

“Understanding (of what is) good gives (one) favor,
but (the) path of treacherous (one)s (is) constant (strife).”

The noun lk#c@ is a regular Wisdom-term (cf. 3:4; 16:22; 19:11; 23:9) denoting the understanding, skill, and ability necessary to prosper and succeed, etc. The bound expression bof lk#c@ can mean “good understanding”, but also “understanding of (what is) good”. It is characteristic of the wise/righteous ones, and results in favor—both from God and from other human beings (cf. 3:4). By contrast, the “path” (i.e., conduct, lifestyle, etc.) of the wicked results in continual strife, misfortune, and various evils. The path/walking idiom (here the common noun Er#D#, “path”) occurs frequently throughout these proverbs, having been featured especially in the lectures and poems of chapters 1-9. The wicked here are characterized as “treacherous” (participle of the verb dg~B*); cf. earlier in 2:22; 11:3, 6; 13:2.

The final word of the second line is problematic. The MT reads /t*ya@, “continual, constant”, especially in the sense of “continually flowing” (waters), and typically connoting the idea of “lasting, enduring”. As such, it tends to be a positive characteristic (indicating life and blessing, etc.) and thus would be quite out of place here. There have been two proposed emendations. The first, originally suggested by G. R. Driver (“Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs” Biblica 32 [1951], p. 181), and followed more recently, e.g., by Heim (p. 165), posits that a negative particle ya! has dropped out (by haplography), and that the text originally read /t*ya@ ya!, i.e., “[is] not/never constant”. However, given the extreme rarity of ya! as a negative particle, this seems rather unlikely. A better option, accepted by Fox (p. 567), Waltke (p. 548), and others, is to emend the text to <d*ya@, meaning something like “their destruction”, which might well be reflected by the LXX (e)n a)pwlei/a|) and Syriac versions, i.e., “(the) path of (the) treacherous (leads to) their destruction”.

There are two strong contextual arguments for retaining the MT. First, the idea of “constantly flowing waters”, implicit in the term /t*ya@, echoes the motif of a “wellspring” (roqm*) in the previous verse. Second, there is the alliterative wordplay within the verse, between /t*ya@ (’ēytān) and the verb form /T#y] (yitten, “he/it gives”) in line 1; cf. Schipper, p. 452; Fuhs, p. 220. While the adjective /t*ya@ tends to be used as a positive characteristic, occasionally it is used in a negative context, such as, e.g., Job 33:19b, in reference to continual pain and affliction. Something similar, in a darkly ironic sense, may well be intended here—viz., constant evil and strife.

The LXX adds a line that effectively links verse 15 with v. 14, understanding the “instruction” (hr*oT) in v. 14 in terms of the Law (Torah) [cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 212]:

“Good insight gives favor,
(and) indeed to know (the) law is (sign of) a good mind,
but (the) ways of (those) despising (it end) in destruction.”

Verse 16

“Every shrewd (person) acts with knowledge,
while a fool spreads thick (folly everywhere)!”

This proverb connects the idea of tu^D^ (“knowledge”) with lk#c@ in v. 15 (see above)—both being regular Wisdom-terms that reflect the nature and character of the wise/righteous person. The verb hc*u* in line 1 is presumably the common root (I) meaning “make, do, act”; however, given the parallel with cr^P* (“spread”) in line 2, there may be some wordplay with the separate root (III) meaning “cover” (cf. Waltke, p. 548). There almost certain is a bit of wordplay present in the second line, involving the two regular (and largely interchangeable) foolishness-roots lsk and lwa (I). The noun tl#W#a! (derived from the second of these roots), in a Wisdom context, means “foolishness, stupidity”, but it properly denotes “thickness, (something) thick”; used with the verb cr^P* it suggests the idea of spreading out a “thick covering”. I translate the line “while (the) fool spreads thick (folly everywhere)”.
The rendering of the verb by Fox (p. 567) as “spew” (i.e., “[the] fool spews [out] folly”) is fitting, particularly given the parallels in 12:23 and 15:2; however, his related suggestion that the verb be emended to vr^P* (in what would be an extremely rare and questionable usage) is hardly necessary.

Throughout Proverbs, the adjective <Wru* (“clever, cunning, shrewd”), often used elsewhere in a negative sense, features as a positive characteristic of the wise (cf. 12:16, 23, etc.).

Verse 17

“A wicked messenger will fall in(to many an) evil,
but an envoy of firm trust (is) a source of healing.”

In this proverb, a wicked person, illustrated through the image of a messenger, is characterized particularly as being unreliable. Such a person brings harm and misfortune to himself, but also (implicitly) for the one(s) who sent him (cf. 10:26). By contrast, the trustworthy and reliable messenger is a “source of healing” for others (cf. the use of aP@r=m^ earlier in 4:22; 6:15; 12:18), in addition to finding blessing and prosperity himself (cf. 25:13). For the expression “fall in(to) evil”, cf. also 17:20.

The noun Ea*l=m^ is the regular term for a “messenger”, while the parallel ryx! (II, cf. Egyptian ḏi-ir, Arabic ṣāra [ṣyr]), much less common, seems to refer specifically to a messenger (or envoy) sent on longer missions (to more distant lands, etc.). Note the other Scriptural occurrences in 25:13; Isa 18:2; 57:9; Jer 49:14; Obad 1. Cf. the brief discussion by Schipper, p. 453f, and the study by Samuel A. Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World, Harvard Semitic Monographs 45 (Scholars Press: 1988).

The expression <yn]Wma$ ryx! literally means “envoy of firmness”, with the plural form <yn]Wma$ perhaps best understood as a comprehensive plural. The term /Wma@ (as a noun) means “firmness”, but normally in the sense (as with the root /ma generally) of “faithfulness, trustworthiness”, i.e., one who is trustworthy and reliable. The comprehensive plural would thus indicate “completely reliable”.

Verse 18

“Poverty and contempt (comes to one) going free of discipline,
while (the one) guarding a rebuke will be weighted (with honor).”

The importance of accepting discipline has featured as a key theme, throughout chapters 1-9 and in a number of these proverbs (see verse 1). In particular, the nouns rs*Wm (“instruction”, often with an emphasis on “discipline, correction”) and tj^k^oT (“rebuke, reproof”) occur frequently, being similarly paired together in 3:11; 5:12; 6:23; 10:17; 12:1; 15:5, 10, 32. Here, the idea of accepting or rejecting discipline is expressed in more extreme terms—viz., of the person “going free/loose” (vb ur^P*) of any discipline (cf. 15:32), contrasted with the one who “guards” it carefully; for other occurrences of ur^P*, cf. 1:25; 4:15; 8:33; 29:18. The verb rm^v* (“guard”), along with the near-synonymous rx^n` (“keep watch [over]”), occurs frequently in this ethical-religious context, both throughout Proverbs and in other Wisdom-texts.

This proverb declares that poverty and dishonor will come to the undisciplined (i.e., foolish/wicked) person, while, by contrast, riches and honor are promised to the one who accepts and internalizes discipline (i.e., by “guarding” it in his heart) so that it becomes part of his habitual behavior and personal character. The verb dbk in the rare Pual (i.e., Piel passive) means “be made heavy, be given weight” and refers to being “made heavy” with both riches and honor (Ehrlich and Fox [p. 568] make the same observation).

Verse 19

“A desire coming to be (fulfilled) is pleasant to (the) soul,
but (it is something) abhorrent for fools to turn from evil.”

The first line of this proverb seems simply to state a general principle, common to all people (cf. verse 12). However, the second line strongly suggests that the familiar contrast, between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked, is present here as well (cf. 10:24; 11:23). And yet, it may be that the entire proverb relates to the foolish/wicked, implying that their unwillingness to turn away (vb rWs, cf. verse 14) from evil is an indication of their desire and that which pleases their soul (cf. verse 2). This would be phrased ironically, making the contrasting pivot to be between the verb br^u* (III, “be pleasant/pleasing”) and the root bu^T* (“abhor, find abhorrent”). On the use of hw`a&T^ (“desire”) for improper or wicked cravings, see, e.g., Num 11:4; Ps 10:3; 112:10 (cf. Fox, p. 569).

Verse 20

“(The one) walking with (the) wise will be(come) wise,
while (the one) consorting (with) fools will find evil.”

As Fox notes (p. 569), the Kethib and Qere variants of the first line represent distinct proverbs, both of which are entirely valid:

    • “Walk with (the) wise and be(come) wise (yourself)” [Kethib]
    • “(The one) walking with (the) wise will be(come) wise” [Qere]

The LXX supports the Qere, which is also more consistent in relation to line 2; but for that same reason, the Kethib is perhaps to be preferred as the more difficult reading (so Meinhold, p. 226; Schipper, p. 438., etc.). I have adopted the Qere above, since these proverbs tend to describe characteristic behavior, of the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked, respectively.

The thrust of the proverb involves who one associates with on a regular/daily basis. In line 1 the verb is El^h* (“walk” + ta# [“with”]), while in line 2 it is hu*r* (“associate [with], be involved [with])”. The person who regularly associates with the wise will become wise; by contrast, the one who associates with the foolish will become foolish. Actually, the fate of the latter is described as “finding evil [i.e., bad things]” for himself; the Niphal (passive) of the verb uu^r* is perhaps better translated here as “be harmed/damaged” (cf. 1:10-11ff; 22:24-25). The folly that takes over a person’s life is ultimately harmful and destructive, as many of the proverbs clearly indicate.
As an ancient Near Eastern parallel, Schipper (p. 456) cites the Egyptian Instruction of Khasheshonqi (13, x + 6-7): “The friend of a fool is a fool; the friend of a wise man is a wise man. The friend of an idiot is an idiot.” (cf. Lichtheim III.169).

Note the alliterative wordplay between the verbal roots hu*r* and uu^r* in line 2 (also observed by Fox, p. 569). Even more notable is the play between the participle hu#r) here and the noun hu*r* (“evil”) in v. 21.

Verse 21

“(For the) sinners, evil pursues (them);
but (for the) righteous, good makes (things) complete.”

The contrasting fates of the wicked and the righteous, a frequent theme in these proverbs, here are formulated with the wicked/righteous as the object upon which evil and good (respectively) act. Evil pursues (vb [d^r*) the wicked (here characterized as “sinful [one]s, sinners”); cf. Sirach 27:10. By contrast, good makes things complete (i.e., full) for the righteous. The verb <l^v* (“be full/complete”) in the Piel (i.e., “make [things] complete”) often carries a strong connotation of recompense (i.e., “repay”), including in a religious-theological context with God as the effective subject—viz., repaying (i.e., completing the transaction) for all people as is proper, rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked. Cf. verse 13 and earlier in 11:31; for the general use of the verb in terms of completing a transaction or fulfilling an obligation, cf. 6:31; 7:14.
It is possible to treat God as the implied subject of <l^v*, “He makes complete [i.e., repays/rewards] with good”. However, the parallelism of the couplet is better served if bof (“good”) is the subject of the verb, just as hu*r* (“evil”) is the subject in line 1; cf. Waltke, p. 549.

Verse 22

“A good (man) provides an inheritance for (the) sons of (his) sons,
while (the) wealth of a sinner is hidden away for the righteous!”

A righteous person is blessed and rewarded by YHWH and thus prospers, so that he is able to provide an inheritance for his descendants. By contrast, the wicked is punished by God and experiences loss (even to the point of poverty, cf. verse 18 [above]), so that he has nothing to leave for his descendants (cf. 11:29). Indeed, the promise here is that what wealth might have come to them is “hidden away” (vb /p^x*) for the righteous—meaning that, ultimately, in the course of time, it will end up in the hands of the righteous (cf. 28:8; Job 27:16-17). The earlier proverb in 11:29 indicates that the foolish will end up giving service to the wise.
This is one of the few instances in the Proverbs where it is suggested that the proper recompense (by God) for the righteous and wicked, respectively, may nor occur immediately, but will only be realized over the course of time (and, perhaps, only after generations have passed).

This proverb is joined with the one prior (v. 21) through the description of the wicked as “sinful/sinners”, and also through the linking term bof (“good”).

Schipper (p. 457) cites two Egyptian parallels to this proverb:

“…A surplus of good deeds is a storehouse that the children will later find” (Cairo CG 42208 [41], front side, line 22)
“The punishment for those who have strayed from the right path is having to leave their savings to another” (Papyrus Insinger Instruction 18:17)

Verse 23

“(There is) much eating (from the) plowing of (the) poor,
and there is (also) a carrying away (of it) without justice.”

This proverb is intriguing, due to its seemingly ambiguous wording that allows for a number of different interpretations and translations. The main point of difficulty is the word <yv!ar*—does it means “heads” (i.e., chief/first ones, prominent men and families in society), or is a variant of <yv!r* meaning “(the) poor” (i.e., those who are poor)? In the former instance, the line refers to the plowing of the fields possessed by the wealthy (and the food that is produced); in the second, the reference would likely be to the work of plowing done by the poor, or, possibly, the plowing of what little land was in possession of the poor. In that first case, the point of the proverb would be that the wealthy may prosper, but then their riches are lost (“carried/swept away”, vb hp*s*) as a result of (their) injustice (lit., “lack of justice, without justice”). If the first line refers to the poor, as those doing the work of plowing, then the entire proverb represents a prophetic word against social injustice and exploitation of the poor (compare, e.g., Ezek 22:29; cf. Schipper, p. 458)—the prosperity comes on the backs of the poor, and is an injustice which results, ultimately, in the wealth being “carried away”. The latter interpretation seems preferable, given the parallel between “the plowing of the poor” (line 1) and “a lack of justice” (line 2).
Mention should be made of the approach taken by Fox (p. 570), who vocalizes the first two words of line 1 as lk@a) br^, translating “a great (man) eats [lit., is eating]”, i.e., “A great (man) is eating (the) plowing of (the) poor”. This reading sharpens the point of the injustice that is present in society.

The existential aspect (“there is…”) is expressed two different ways. In line 1, the noun br) carries an implicit verb, i.e., “(there is) an abundance”, “(there is) much”; in line 2, the actual particle of existence (vy@) is used.

LXX attests rather a different reading of this proverb (especially in the first line); cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 214f:

“(The) righteous [pl.] will make [i.e., spend] many years in riches,
but (the) unrighteous [pl.] will perish (in time) cut short.”

Verse 24

“(The one) holding back his rod (is) hating his son,
while (the one) loving him seeks it (for) discipline.”

The importance of discipline (rs*Wm) has been emphasized throughout (cf. verse 18, above). The wise person is willing to accept/receive discipline, as part of one’s necessary instruction and training (in wisdom). This particularly applies to a child or young person and the discipline he/she receives from his/her parents. In keeping with the wider Near Eastern Wisdom tradition, Proverbs is largely framed in terms of the instruction/training that a son receives from his father. Most often, the emphasis is on the son’s willingness to accept discipline, but here the focus is on the need for the father to give it. In this regard, correction is identified by the use of the “rod” (fb#v#); if taken literally, it would indicate that such parental discipline (may) regularly entail corporal punishment, even as it still does in many cultures (and in most traditional societies). To “hold back” (vb Ec^j*) the ‘rod’ means that the parent is withholding and forgoing the necessary discipline of the child. Instead, the parent should “seek after” the rod (i.e., to apply discipline). The verb rj^v* (II) fundamentally means “seek out/after”, based on the literal idea of going around looking for something. There may also be an allusion to the noun rj^v^ (I), referring to the “dawn” (i.e., early morning), and thus to a separate denominative verb rj^v* which developed meaning “get up early, do something early”, sometimes with the connotation “so something diligently”. The wording could also imply the need to discipline the child early on, and/or from an early age; cf. Plöger, p. 157; Schipper, p. 458.

A similar admonition to the parent is given in 19:18; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15, 17. Compare the treatment of the subject in Sirach 30.

Fox (p. 571) notes the sibilant-alliteration and internal rhyme that is present in this couplet:

ḥôśeḵ šiḇṭô śônē’ ḇenô
we’ōhĕḇô šiḥĕrô mûsār

Verse 25

“(The) righteous is eating unto (the) fullness of his soul,
but (the) belly of (the) wicked (one)s is (entirely) lacking!”

The motif of “eating” (lka) occurred earlier in v. 23; in that proverb (cf. above) it may have referred to eating that took place by the wicked—alluding to the temporary prosperity and wealth that existed before it was “carried away” (as the result of injustice). Here, the “eating” (i.e., prosperity) belongs to the righteous. The righteous person, who experiences blessings from God, is able to eat to the point of fullness and complete satisfaction (as expressed by the verbal root ubc); cf. earlier in 3:10; 12:11, 14. His appetite is filled, but also his soul—viz., the two aspects of meaning for the noun vp#n#. By contrast the “belly” of the wicked is lacking nourishment; both soul and stomach are empty. The verb rs^j* denotes “lack, be lacking”, but it can also have the related meaning “lessen, become less, decrees”, implying both lack/poverty and the idea that what little the wicked may have available to them will continue to become less and less (cf. Matt 13:12 par). Compare the earlier proverb in 10:3.
The specific use here of the verbal root rsj may be intended to echo the expression bl@ rs^j& (“lacking of heart”, i.e., “lacking sense”) as a designation of the foolish; cf. 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21; 12:11. Cf. Schipper, p. 459.

As is often the case in these proverbs, the contrast between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked is expressed through the use of the singular in the first line and the plural in the second—here, qyD!x^ (“righteous”, singular) and uv*r* (“wicked”, plural [<yu!v*r=]).

    • 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 “Fuhs” are to Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar, Forschung zur Bibel 95 (Echter-Verlag: 2001).
    • 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 “Scherer” are to Andreas Scherer, Das weise Wort und seine Wirkung: Eine Untersuchung zur Komposition und Redaktion von Proverbia 10,1-22,16, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament [WMANT] 83 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1999).
    • Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 13:6-13

Proverbs 13:6-13

This is the second sub-grouping of vv. 1-13; see the previous study on vv. 1-5. This unit contains a cluster of proverbs dealing with the subject of wealth/riches (and the contrast of rich vs. poor). Some commentators (e.g., Heim, pp. 162-4) prefer to delineate vv. 7-11 as a unit, and this shorter grouping has somewhat greater coherence in terms of the wealth/riches theme.

Verse 6

“Righteousness watches over (the) completeness of (one’s) path,
but wickedness twists (the way of) sin (all around)!”

In this couplet, the familiar righteous/wicked contrast is formulated in abstract terms—viz., righteousness vs. wickedness. Similarly, it is the path that a person follows which is view. This continues the path/walking idiom (using the regular term Er#D# for “path”) which was particularly prominent in the lectures and poems of chapters 1-9. For the righteous, their path is “complete”, i.e., the expression “completeness of (the) path” (Er#D# <T*), by which we should probably understand “a path that is completely straight”; cf. 2:7; 10:9, 29; also 19:1; 20:7; 28:6. By contrast, the wicked have strayed from the right path, and their paths are thus crooked/twisted—expressed here by the verb [l^s* (Piel, “turn, twist”); cf. 19:3; 21:12; 22:13 (note also Job 12:19), where the idea of “overturning” (in a judgment context) is prominent. Here, as well, it is implied that the turning/twisting paths of the wicked lead to their being overturned (i.e., come to destruction/ruin). Parallel to “completeness of (one’s) path” is the noun taF*j^ (“error, sin”), and thus the noun should be read as a shorthand for “path/way of sin” (cf. Waltke, p. 546), i.e., a path that is governed and dominated by sin and error.
It is less likely that taF*j^ should be read as a collective for “sinners”, as some commentators have proposed; cf. Plöger, p. 156; Scherer, p. 120; Schipper, p. 446.

The verb rx^n` (“keep watch [over]”) occurs frequently (along with the near-synonymous rm^v*, “guard”) in Wisdom texts—including the idea that a person must watch over his path (and guard the teachings of Wisdom), as well as the promise that Wisdom will, in turn, watch over such a person. Cf. the 10 occurrences of the verb in chapters 1-9 (2:8, 11; 3:1, 21, etc.), and, most recently, in verse 3. On the specific idea of a righteousness guarding a person, see esp. 11:3, 5-6.

Verse 7

“There is (one) making himself rich, and (yet) there is nothing at all;
(there is also one) making himself poor, yet (possessing) much wealth.”

This is the first of several proverbs in this section dealing with wealth/riches. The contrast is between a person “making himself rich” and one “making himself poor”—Hitpael reflexive forms of the verbs rv^u* and vWr, respectively (note the alliterative assonance, miṯ‘ašēr / miṯrôšēš). It is possible that these terms imply a measure of pretense—i.e., making oneself out to be, or pretending to be, rich/poor. In that instance, the first line means that a person pretends to be rich even though he has no such wealth, while, conversely, a wealthy person acts (humbly/modestly) as though he were poor; cf. 12:9. However, the contrast may be between the person who pursues the acquisition of riches, but in a vain/wicked manner, and the one who is willing to give away his wealth through the generosity of charitable giving, etc.; cf. 11:24ff.

As Waltke (p. 546) notes, the initial existential particle vy@ (“there is”) in line 1 applies to line 2 as well, i.e., “(there is also one) making himself poor”. The existential particle is matched in line 1 by the negative particle (of non-existence), /y]a^ (“there is no[t]”), thus heightening the contrast in the line itself (cf. Schipper, p. 446)—viz., “there is one making himself rich” yet “there is not (any real wealth) at all”.

Verse 8

“(The) cover (for the) soul of a man (is) his riches,
but a poor man does not hear a stern rebuke.”

This second proverb dealing with wealth/riches is problematic, due to the fact that the second line does not make all that much sense in context. It may well be, as Fox (p. 563f) suggests, that the line was miscopied during the course of transmission, influenced by the wording in verse 1b. However, if this is so, then the original text of the line can no longer be recovered. It should be noted that the LXX generally supports the MT as we have it. A tiny fragment of verse 8 is preserved in the Qumran manuscript 4QProvb, and it also supports the MT insofar as it attests the words umv al, “does not hear”.
The tiny fragments of vv. 6-9 in the aforementioned Qumran manuscript are all that survives from chapter 13 (after virtually nothing from chapters 1-12 [only bits of 1:27-2:1]). The surviving portions support the MT, but the amount is so little as to shed almost no light on the text. Fortunately, a bit more of the text of chapters 14-15 is preserved (but nothing after chap. 15) and will be discussed in passing during the upcoming studies.

Possibly, hr*u*G+ here should be understood more in terms of a threat than a rebuke. In any case, if the MT of the second line represents the original proverb as it was intended, then the sense may be that the poor person has no motivation to respond to a breach that requires reparation on his part. The noun rp#K) IV, “cover(ing)”, tends to be used in this context—viz., for payment made to cover an offense or breach of agreement, etc. The rich person is able to make such a payment, and thus can protect (i.e., provide cover for) his life and livelihood.

It is not immediately clear the extent to which this proverb is meant to continue the contrast between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked. The wording of line 2 (if original/authentic) would seem to identify the poor person, in this instance, with the foolish/wicked, perhaps in the sense that the foolish person, unwilling to accept discipline, ends up being reduced to poverty, and then is unable to respond adequately when harsh words and threats of punishment come against him.

Verse 9

“(The) light of (the) righteous (one)s shines,
while (the) lamp of (the) wicked is extinguished!”

As Fox (p. 564) notes, the light/shining imagery here in this proverb serves as a metaphor for life itself, but also to the quality of life; cf. the similar wording in Job 18:5-6 (for the second line, see also Job 21:17; Prov 24:20). In light of the wealth/riches focus in vv. 7-8, the motif of light shining probably alludes, at least in part, to one’s prosperity (i.e., receiving good things and blessings). This would seem to be confirmed by the use of the verb jm^c*, which normally means “be glad, rejoice”, but here carries the primitive meaning “radiate, shine”. By contrast, the wicked ultimately receive no blessing; indeed, they experience quite the opposite: a loss of gladness and prosperity. The verb Eu^D* (“be extinguished”) expresses the exact opposite of jm^c* (“shine”) and may also allude to the death/destruction of the wicked.

The LXX includes an additional couplet (cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 208):

“Deceitful souls go astray in (their) sins,
but righteous (one)s are compassionate and show mercy.”

Verse 10

“An empty (man) in heat (of passion) gives a fight,
but with (those) receiving counsel (there is) wisdom.”

This proverb appears to be rather awkward in formulation, regardless of how one parses the initial word qr. The MT vocalizes as the generic adverb qr^ (“only”), but the Versions seem to support the reading qr@ (= qyr@), viz., a substantive adjective meaning “empty (person)”. A strong argument in favor of this vocalization is the conceptual parallel in v. 11a with the noun lb#h# (“vapor”) which in a Wisdom context often connotes “emptiness, vanity”. I have adopted the vocalization qr@; cf. Fox, p. 564f; Yoder, p. 152f. In this setting, qr@ designates the foolish person, who, in the heat (/odz`) of passion (or of anger, insolence, etc.), is quick to fight and quarrel with others. By contrast, the wise person is willing to hear (and heed) the counsel of others. Cf. the use of /odz`, with a strong connotation of “pride/arrogance”, in 11:2; 21:24.

Schipper (p. 449) cites the following Egyptian proverbs:

“You should not be hard-headed in fighting with your neighbors; your helpers [will fall?. . . ]” (Ostracon Petrie 11, Ramesside-period Prohibitions)
“Pride and arrogance are the ruin of their owner” (Papyrus Insinger 4.22; cf. Lichtheim, III.189)

Verse 11

“Wealth (gained) from (mere) vapor becomes less,
while (the one) gathering on (the) hand increases (it).”

As noted above, the reading qr@ (“empty”) in v. 10a is preferred, in part, because of the conceptual parallel with the noun lb#h# here. This noun literally means “vapor, breath, wind”, often emphasizing the insubstantial (and fleeting) quality of such. This is particularly so as a Wisdom-idiom, where lb#h# connotes “emptiness, vanity” (cf. 21:6; 31:30); see especially throughout Qohelet (1:2, 14; 2:1, 11, et al.). Thus, the sense of the line here is that wealth obtained through vain/empty pursuits does not last, and will only lessen/decrease (vb fu^m*) over time; cf. 21:6. However, it should be noted that a number of commentators (e.g., Fox, p. 565f) prefer to emend the text from lbhm to lhbm (assuming a scribal error [metathesis]), to be vocalized as lh*b)m=, a passive (Pual) participle of the verb lh^B*, which denotes being in a panic, i.e., rushing about in a hurried manner. The line would then read “Wealth (gained while) rushing about becomes less”; cf. 10:2; 20:21; 28:22.
The LXX supports (at least in part) the proposed emendation with the translation: “Property gathered in haste without (regard for) law becomes less, but the (one) gathering together for himself with good reverence will be multiplied.” An extra line follows (variant of the added couplet in v. 9, cf. above): “(The) righteous (one) has compassion and lends”. See Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 209.

In either case, the second line contrasts wealth that is gained through careful and diligent work—a thematic emphasis that can be seen in a number of these proverbs (cf. verse 4; 10:4-5; 12:11, 24, 27). The specific idiom is “gathering on hand”, where the expression dy` lu^ (lit. “upon [the] hand”) can denote that which is “at hand” (cf. Exod 2:5; Num 2:17, etc.), or it may refer to doing the work (of gathering) “by hand”. The implication is that the work is done slowly and carefully, ‘little by little’, but the result is an accumulation of wealth that will last, even increasing over time.

Verse 12

“An expectation being drug out makes weak (the) heart,
but a tree of life (is) a desire coming (to fruition).”

This proverb may be related conceptually with the idea (in v. 11b) of work that is done, slowly and gradually, over time. The “dragging out” (vb Ev^m*) of the expectation for completion/fulfillment of one’s desire can have a weakening effect on a person’s spirit (“heart”); however, when that desire comes to be fulfilled it gives renewed life and vitality to the person. Elsewhere in Proverbs, the motif of a “tree of life” refers to Wisdom itself (and the teachings of Wisdom), cf. 3:18; 11:30, also 15:4. It is thus likely that an allusion to Wisdom (and the wise) is present here as well. The implication may be that the wise person does not become discouraged over time, but remains diligent—and, through patience and hard work, this diligence is rewarded with life-giving blessings (from God); cf. Fox, p. 566. On the desire of the righteous, compare the proverb in 10:28.

The thematic similarity with verse 19 leads a number of commentators (e.g., Meinhold, Schipper, Heim) to delineate vv. 12-19 as a distinct proverb-grouping, and this is an entirely valid way of dividing the text. Heim, in particular, recognizes groupings in vv. 1-6, 7-11, 12-19; according to this division, as noted above, the shorter grouping of vv. 7-11 receives somewhat more coherence (than does a grouping of vv. 6-13) from the wealth/riches theme.

Verse 13

“(The one) showing contempt for a word will be ruined by it,
but (he) who fears an order—he will be made complete (by it)!”

This proverb essentially matches the sentiment in verse 1, thus providing a framing inclusio for the grouping of vv. 1-13. As in that earlier proverb, the contrast is between the one who despises/rejects a word of instruction and the one who accepts/receives it. The first instance here—designating the characteristic behavior of the foolish/wicked—is expressed by the verb zWB (+ preposition l), “show contempt for (something)”. The contrasting behavior, of the wise/righteous person, is to “fear” the teaching/instruction of Wisdom (cf. the conceptually related idiom of the “fear of YHWH”, 3:7; 14:2; 24:21; 31:30). Such instruction is expressed by the general (and traditional) terms rb*D* (“word”) and hw`x=m! (“order, command”) with their obvious religious implications—viz., the parallel between the instruction of Wisdom and the Divine Instruction (of the Torah); cf. Schipper, p. 450f. This parallel is suggested throughout Proverbs, but cf. especially in Psalm 119.

The contrasting fate of the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked is also highlighted in this proverb. The one who shows contempt for instruction will be ruined (vb lb^j* III) by it, whereas the one who fears (and thus accepts) it will find completion/fulfillment (i.e., blessing and reward from God); the verb <l^v* (“be complete/full”) is often used in the context of Divine recompense—blessing for the righteous and punishment for the wicked. Cf. 19:16, etc.
Fox (p. 566) follows Ehrlich in vocalizing the verb <lvy as a Qal form (<l*v=y], “be complete”) rather than MT Pual (<L*v%y+, “be made complete”). The root regularly connotes health, well-being, security, being at peace, etc. The contrast with the “ruin” of the wicked is the well-being and security of the righteous. Some commentators (cf. Meinhold, p. 222f; Schipper, pp. 438, 451) would identify the verb lbj with root II, from the language of borrowing and lending, i.e., “take/receive a pledge (for a loan)”.

The LXX adds a further proverb which will be discussed (in connection with verse 14) 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). 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 “Scherer” are to Andreas Scherer, Das weise Wort und seine Wirkung: Eine Untersuchung zur Komposition und Redaktion von Proverbia 10,1-22,16, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament [WMANT] 83 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1999).
    • Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).
    • Those marked “Yoder” are to Christine Roy Yoder, Proverbs, Abingdon Old Testament Commentary (Abingdon: 2009).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 13:1-5

Chapter 13

There are two broad groupings for the proverbs in chapter 13—vv. 1-13 and 14-25. Each of these can be further divided into two sub-groups. For vv. 1-13, these are delineated as vv. 1-5 and 6-13. The grouping of vv. 1-13 is framed by a pair of proverbs (in vv. 1 and 13) dealing with the familiar Wisdom-theme of accepting or rejecting instruction—the wise accept it, while the foolish reject it.

It is more common for commentators (e.g., Heim, Schipper, Meinhold) to divide the chapter according to the groupings of vv. 1-11, 12-19, 20-25. This is a valid approach (esp. with regard to vv. 12-19 as a distinct grouping), but I prefer a different division, the reasons for which will be elucidated in the notes.

Proverbs 13:1-5

The sub-grouping of vv. 1-5 has a more coherent structure than does vv. 6-13. Indeed, all five proverbs feature, in different ways, the thematic motif of the mouth—referring to speech, but also to one’s appetite/desire. There is a certain chiastic thematic structure for these verses:

    • V. 1—How a person responds to a good/true word (instruction)
      • V. 2—Image of the mouth that both consumes (i.e., takes in) and produces (i.e., puts out) ‘fruit’
        • V. 3—Contrast between the closed (i.e., guarded) and open mouth
      • V. 4—Image of the appetite (i.e., desire) that both hungers and is fulfilled
    • V. 5—How a person responds to an evil/false word
Verse 1

“A wise son (listens to) correction from a father,
but a mocker (surely) will not hear a stern rebuke.”

Throughout chapters 1-9, there is a strong emphasis on the importance of listening to instruction and accepting discipline (cf. also 12:1). The noun rs^Wm, a regular Wisdom-term that occurs frequently in Proverbs (31 times, including 13 in chapters 1-9), means “instruction”, but often with the clear connotation of “discipline, correction”; it thus epitomizes both of these thematic aspects. The Lectures in chaps. 1-9 are all framed by the traditional Wisdom-device of a father addressing his son; cf. also the beginning of the Collection, 10:1.

The regular wise vs. foolish contrast continues here, but with the foolish person characterized as a “mocker” (Jl@). This term, which occurs predominantly in the book of Proverbs (14 of 16 Scriptural occurrences, cf. earlier in 1:22; 3:34; 9:7-8), refers to a foolish person who has begun to reject/refuse instruction and the teachings of Wisdom, and thus is already well on the path toward wickedness.

The noun hu*r*G= is relatively rare, occurring 15 times in Scripture and only three times in Proverbs (cf. v. 8; 17:10; also the Wisdom-context of Qoh 7:5 and Job 26:11). It properly denotes a shout or a roar, and thus, in this context, implies a stern/harsh rebuke, possibly with a certain threatening tone (cf. the use in a warfare context, e.g., Isa 30:17; Ps 18:16[15]). The sense may be that a mocker, who is already showing tendencies toward wickedness, will not heed even a forceful rebuke.

A verb is lacking in the first line, and most translators supply one to fill out the sense of the line; Fox (p. 561) is an exception (cf. also Schipper, pp. 437, 442), translating the line as a ‘bunt juxtaposition’: “A wise son—a father’s discipline”. Waltke (p. 545) follows the Syriac by glossing “hears/listens (to)”, parallel to the verb in line 2; and I have done the same. Other commentators would emend the noun ba* (“father”) to the verb bh^a* (“love”), so that the line reads “A wise son loves instruction/correction”. A preferable approach would be to assume an “existential” predication, to the effect that instruction and discipline (that is received) produces a wise son—i.e., “A wise son (comes to be through) a father’s instruction”; cf. Fox, p. 561; Heim, p. 159f; Meinhold, p. 217f.

Verse 2

“From (the) fruit of a man’s mouth, he eats good,
while (the) soul of (the) treacherous (is for) violence.”

This is the first of a series of three mouth/appetite proverbs, unified by the nouns hP# (“mouth”, v. 3) and vp#n# (“soul”, vv. 3-4). The juxtaposition with vp#n# has a two-fold significance. First, there is the contrast between outward action (speech) and inward disposition and intention (soul). Second, the noun vp#n# can also mean “throat” and “appetite”, thus providing a suitable parallel with “mouth” and the idea of eating (a point also noted here by Heim, p. 161, and other commentators).

The mouth-idiom in line 1 also works in two directions: (1) the mouth produces fruit (speech/behavior), and (2) it consumes fruit (resultant blessing). For the wise and righteous person, the ‘fruit’ that is both produced and consumed is good. The wise person’s conduct (esp. speech) is good, and thus he/she is blessed (by God) with good things in return; cf. 12:14 (on the comparison with v. 2, see Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 295-303). Similarly, the soul (or “appetite”) of the wicked produces evil (spec. violent and lawless behavior, sm*j*), and will experience evil things in return. The wording also indicates that the wicked person desires (i.e., longs for) violence, being willing to carry it out (against others) and even to take delight in it; cf. 1:31 and the portrayal of wicked/violent young men in 1:10-19; 2:12-15. For similar fruit/eating imagery, cf. 4:17; 18:20-21; 19:28.

The wicked are characterized as “treacherous (one)s”, <yd!g+B); cf. earlier in 2:22; 11:3, 6, and further in v. 15; 21:18; 22:12; 23:28; 25:19.

The LXX rendering creates a stronger moral sense for the proverb: “From (the) fruits of righteousness (the) good (man) shall eat, but (the) souls of (those cross)ing over the law will perish (in an) untimely (manner)”. This version was likely influenced by 11:30 (LXX); cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 206; Schipper, p. 437.

Verse 3

“(The one) watching over his mouth (is) guarding his soul;
but (the one) pulling apart his lips, ruin (comes) to him!”

The mouth imagery continues here, with another juxtaposition of the nouns hP# (“mouth”) and vp#n# (“soul”, also “appetite”) in line 1. The wise person keeps watch (vb rx^n`) over his mouth, meaning (primarily) that he is prudent and guarded in his speech (cf. 11:13; 12:23). The verbs rx~n` (“keep watch [over]”) and rm^v* (“guard”) are largely synonymous, being frequently used in parallel; both verbs occur often in Proverbs, in an ethical-religious context (cf. 4:23, etc.). The use of rm^v* with the noun vp#n# here can have a double-meaning. On the one hand, it indicates that the person who is careful with his speech will end up protecting his soul (i.e., his life); on the other hand, the connotative meaning of “appetite” for vp#n# (see above) suggests that the one who watches his speech will also guard his appetites and desires.

The foolish/wicked person guards neither his speech nor his appetite/desire; instead, his ‘mouth’ is wide open (lit., his lips are “pulled apart”, vb qc^P*). The only other Scriptural occurrence of this verb is in Ezek 16:25, in connection with the crude image of a woman with her legs spread wide open (ready for sexual intercourse); a similarly licentious connotation is surely implied here as well. The noun hT*j!m= properly denotes something that is broken or shattered; here, as in 10:14-15, 29, it refers to the destruction and ruin that comes to the wicked (as punishment from God).

For similar proverbs, cf. 16:17b; 18:7; 21:23; for a comparison between the latter and v. 3 here, see Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 334-47. Numerous proverbs from the ancient Near East express the importance of watching/guarding one’s mouth, as these examples (cited by Schipper, p. 444) from the Akkadian Counsels of Wisdom (26-27) and the Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (Saying 15):

“Let your mouth by controlled and your speech guarded:
Therein is a man’s wealth—let your lips be very precious.”
(translation W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature [Eisenbrauns: 1996], p. 101)

“Above all else, guard [vb rfn] your mouth;
and as for what you have h[eard], be discreet!
For a word is a bird,
and he who releases it is a fool.”
(translation Lindenberger)

Verse 4

“(The) slow-mover desires, yet there is not(hing for) his soul,
while (the) soul of (the) diligent (one)s is made fat!”

The wise are characterized as “diligent” (JWrj*), i.e., hard-working, resourceful, and trustworthy, cf. 10:4; 12:24, 27 (all five Scriptural occurrences of this adjective are in Proverbs, see also 21:5). By contrast, the foolish are often lazy and slack in their work (cf. 10:4; 12:24, 27); here the specific adjective lx@u* (“slow-moving, slow to act, moving with difficulty”) is used, as in 6:6, 9; 10:26. The moral of this proverb is simple: those who work diligently will richly enjoy food and other good things (as blessings), while those who are slack or lazy in their work will go empty. As in vv. 2-3, the noun vp#n# has a double meaning: “soul”, but also “appetite”. For similar warnings regarding the fate of the lazy/sluggish worker, cf. 6:11; 20:4; 21:25.

The syntax of the first line is difficult (and awkward) to reproduce in English. A literal translation would be: “Desiring, and (yet) there is not, his soul, (that of the) slow-mover”; one might also translate with an ellipsis (cf. Schipper, p. 444):  “Desiring, and (yet) there is not(hing)—(the) soul of (the) slow-mover”. I have rendered it above as concisely as possible.
The awkwardness of the syntax is due in large measure to the presence of the o– suffix on the noun vp#n#, since a simple construct form would make for a clearer line: “He desires, but there is not(hing for the) soul of (the) slow-mover”. The significance of the suffix has been variously explained, apart from the most reasonable (but awkward) explanation, viz., that it anticipates the following substantive adjective (lx@u*, “slow-moving [one]”). Cf. Schipper, p. 438; Scherer, p. 120. The ancient Versions apparently sought to alleviate the problematic syntax as well, through their translations, cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 207.

Verse 5

“A word of falsehood (the) righteous (man) hates,
but (the) wicked causes a stink and shame (by it).”

As noted above, this proverb matches the first of the grouping (v. 1). In that earlier saying, the contrast was presented between how a wise and foolish person, respectively, responds to a good and true word (of instruction/discipline); here, the contrast is between how a righteous and wicked person each respond to an evil/false word (“word of falsehood”). The righteous person hates such a word and thus will avoid it (shunning it). The wicked person, by contrast, seems to love it, willingly embracing and making the most of it. The verbs va^B* (Hiphil, “cause a stink”), and rp^j* (II Hiphil, “cause shame/disgrace”) refer to the use that the wicked makes of the false/evil word and also to the evil that is produced as a result. In English idiom, the wicked “makes a stink” (i.e., makes a big deal out of it), but also causes a stink (literally, produces a bad smell), i.e., something foul and rotten; Heim (cf. also McKane) suggests the sense of a “smell of scandal”. Ultimately, the wicked person brings both shame and a bad smell upon himself; cf. Waltke, p. 546, on the possible interpretation of these verb forms as internal/reflexive Hiphils.
Some commentators (e.g., Fox, p. 562f) prefer to treat the first verb as a form of voB (I Hiphil, “cause shame”, also “be put to shame”), making it more or less synonymous with the following rp^j*. 

See the earlier occurrences of the noun rq#v# (“false thing, falsehood”) in 6:17, 19; 10:18; 11:18; 12:17, 19, 22.

    • 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 “Scherer” are to Andreas Scherer, Das weise Wort und seine Wirkung: Eine Untersuchung zur Komposition und Redaktion von Proverbia 10,1-22,16, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament [WMANT] 83 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1999).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 12:20-28

Proverbs 12:20-28

I recognize vv. 13-19 (see the previous study) and 20-28 as distinct proverb-groupings. However, such divisions of the Proverbs collection, in most instances, can hardly be definitive, and commentators may divide the proverbs in chapter 12 in other ways that are quite valid. In particular, Heim (p. 154) makes a strong case for the coherence of vv. 15/16-23 based on patterns of word usage (as indicated by the following diagram):

According to the way that I have delineated vv. 13-28, the grouping of vv. 13-19 emphasizes the importance of a person’s speech (as indicative of his/her behavior), while the focus in vv. 20-28 tends to be on the inward intention and personal integrity of the individual—summarized and epitomized by the thematic motif of the “heart”. Indeed, verses 20-25 present a sequence of proverbs with this basic orientation, the specific noun bl@ (“heart”) occurring in vv. 20, 23, 25. The grouping is capped by a pair of proverbs (vv. 26, 28) featuring the familiar theme of the contrasting fates of the righteous and wicked; this thematic emphasis is present in many proverbs of the Collection, but not always so explicit as the subject of the saying.

The proverb in verse 27 has a peculiar position—between the two contrasting-fate proverbs of vv. 26 and 28—but it is clearly related to v. 24, and thus provides another strand of coherence for the grouping. Its position could serve as a subtle reminder that a person’s regular daily conduct (whether wise or foolish, righteous or wicked) effects his/her ultimate fate.

Verse 20

“Deceit (is) in (the) heart of (those) devising evil,
but for (those) planning (what is) fully good, gladness.”

There is conceptual ‘catchword’-bond between v. 20 and the prior v. 19, based on the idea of falsehood/deceit—rq#v# (“false thing, falsehood”) in v. 19, and hm*r=m! (“deceit”) here in v. 20 (cf. verse 17, and v. 5 and 11:1). The shift in focus from one’s speech to one’s inner intention and character (i.e., “heart”) is clear from the use of the noun bl@ (“heart”) as well as the parallel verbs vr^j* (I) and Ju^y`. Each verb is expressed as a substantive verbal noun (participle) indicating a person’s regular/characteristic behavior. The verb vr^j* (I) denotes making a cut or groove in a surface, such as in the activity of engraving or ploughing; it often carries the figurative (and intellectual) meaning of “devise”, which is clearly the sense here (cf. earlier in 3:29; 6:14, 18). The verb Ju^y` denotes the activity of giving/taking direction, often with the meaning of “give/take advice or counsel”; sometimes a more general meaning of “plan, make plans” is in view, as seems to be the case here.

The wicked, who act with deceit, are devising harm/evil (for others), expressed by the common substantive adjective ur^. By contrast, the righteous intend only what is good and beneficial. In this regard, the noun <olv*, denoting fullness/completion, means “(something) completely good”, with a strong connotation of “well-being”—viz., the health and welfare of others in the community. The verb Ju^y`, in particular, emphasizes this aspect of public/social welfare; cf. 11:14. The righteous act with a sense of joy and gladness, and this, in turn, leads to the same (joy/gladness) coming back to them (from God) as a reward.

Verse 21

“There shall not come near to the righteous any (evil) power,
while (the) wicked (one)s are (themselves) full of evil!”

Poetically, it is almost impossible to translate the noun /w#a* here with any concision. Derived from the verbal root /wa, it refers to the exertion of force, usually with negative/harmful effect (or purpose), against someone; cf. the earlier use in 6:12, 18; 10:29, also 17:4. It might be rendered as “disaster” or “harm” (emphasizing the effect, cf. 22:8), but that seems to me unsuitably narrow. Waltke’s translation “malevolence” is quite apt, but cumbersome as poetry. With some reluctance, I translate the noun here as “(evil) power”, in order to bring out the conceptual wordplay with the parallel ur^ in line 2. The same substantive adjective, meaning “evil”—whether in the moral and spiritual sense, or in terms of “harm, injury”, etc.—was used in v. 20 (cf. above).

The verb hn`a* means “come near”, in the circumstantial sense of something that “befalls” (i.e., meets with, happens to) a person—usually something negative/harmful. In this case, there is a dual-aspect of meaning to the use of hn`a* along with the noun /w#a*: (1) the idea that the heart of the righteous is not affected by any malevolent influence, and (2) the promise that the righteous will be protected from harm, etc. (see, e.g., Psalm 91:10). A similar dual meaning applies to the use of ur^ in relation to the wicked in line 2: (1) their heart is “full of evil” i.e., the intent to do evil/harm to others; and also (2) that their lives will be filled with evils (disasters, etc.), viz., as punishment for their wicked behavior. On the specific image of the wicked being “filled with evil”, cf. 1:31; 14:14.

Verse 22

“An abhorrent thing to YHWH (are) lips of falsehood,
but (those) acting with firmness (are) His delight!”

The expression “lips of falsehood” echoes v. 19 (“lip of truth”, “tongue of falsehood”). However, this proverb does not represent a continuation of the speech-emphasis in vv. 15-19 (see the previous study) as much as it reflects the focus here in vv. 23-25—namely on the relationship of a person’s “heart” (i.e., inward intention and personal character) to his/her behavior (both speech and action). Indeed, one’s behavior is a reflection of one’s heart.

The couplet clearly sets in parallel a person’s speech (“lips”) and his/her conduct (vb hc*u*, “do, act, make”). The contrast, which applies to both speech and action, is between the noun rq#v# (“falsehood”, characterizing the wicked) and hn`Wma$ (“firmness”, characterizing the righteous). As previously discussed, the noun hn`Wma$ (cf. tm#a#), which denotes “firmness”, often means “faithfulness, trustworthiness, truthfulness”; it could easily be translated “faithfulness” or “truthfulness” here (cf. the use of tm#a# in v. 19).

The contrast between the noun hb*u@oT and /oxr* draws upon traditional religious terminology—viz., something abhorrent to YHWH vs. something that is pleasing and acceptable to Him; cf. the same juxtaposition in 11:1, 20. The former occurs with some frequency in Proverbs (20 times, cf. earlier in 3:32; 6:16; 8:7; 11:1, 20); so also the latter (14 times, cf. 8:35; 10:32; 11:1, 20, 27; 12:2). In 6:17, a “tongue of falsehood” is similarly declared to be something abhorrent to God. Compare the sayings from the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope (cf. Fox, p. 557; Schipper, p. 432):

“Do not speak falsely to a man,
The God abhors it;
Do not sever your heart from your tongue” (13.15-17)
“God hates the falsifier of words,
He greatly abhors the dissembler” (14.2-3)
(translation Lichtheim II.154)

Verse 23

“A shrewd man (is one) covering knowledge,
while (the) heart of fools calls out (their) folly.”

This proverb also deals with the relationship between the heart and speech/action. The contrast is not between the righteous and the wicked, but between the wise and the foolish. As throughout Proverbs (see, e.g., verse 16), the adjective <Wru* (“clever, cunning, shrewd”) is used in a positive sense, as a characteristic of those who are wise. It seems contradictory to think that the wise/righteous ones ought to cover up knowledge, but the focus is on the value of exercising prudence and modesty in declaring the things that a person knows—whether general knowledge or something that has been specifically revealed to him (by another) in confidence. For similar use of the verb hs*K* (“cover”) in this positive ethical sense, see the note on verse 16.

By contrast, the foolish person is more apt to be quick about demonstrating his/her knowledge, and will speak (and act) recklessly and foolishly in the process. Moreover, since their heart is dominated by foolish things (“folly”), this will become evident through their speech and action. Even if they think that they are speaking/acting with knowledge and wisdom, they will “call out” (vb ar*q*) their folly; cf. Qohelet 10:3. The proverb in 13:16 is quite similar, while in 15:2 there is a more precise contrast between the speech (“mouth”/”tongue”) of the wise and foolish person, respectively. For a detailed comparison between v. 23 and 13:16, see Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 320-8.

Verse 24

“(The) hand of (the) diligent (one)s will rule,
but (a) loose (hand) will be (put) to hard labor!”

This proverb resembles that of 10:4 with its contrast between those (i.e., the wise) who are diligent in their work and those who work with a “loose hand” (i.e., in a negligent or lazy/idle manner). For the contrasting terms JWrj* (substantive adjective, “diligent [one]”) and hY`m!r=, cf. the earlier note on 10:4. Here, the feminine noun hY`m!r= should not be understood as an abstract term (i.e., “looseness”), but in relation to the noun dy` (“hand”), i.e., “a loose hand”. Of course, from the standpoint of the parallel with <yx!Wrj* (“diligent [one]s”) in line 1, the noun hY`m!r= properly stands for “(those working with) a loose hand”; cf. Waltke, p. 517f.
All of the Scriptural occurrences (5) of JWrj* (VI) are in Proverbs; in addition to 10:4 and this verse here, cf. v. 27; 13:4; 21:5.

The noun sm^ (cf. Akkadian massu) refers to forced labor/service, i.e., compulsory labor for which a person is conscripted (corvée); cf. 2 Sam 20:24; 1 Kings 5:27f; 9:15ff; 12:4. The irony in the line is that the person who was negligent or lazy in doing his own work will end up being forced to perform hard labor in the service of others. This is another variation on the lex talionis principle, whereby the punishment given to a person corresponds to the crime. By contrast, the diligent worker will eventually be rewarded with a position of rule, so that his “hands” will no longer need to perform the manual labor. As with many such proverbs, v. 24 is expressing a general principle and/or an ideal situation, to which there may be numerous exceptions (at least in the short term); however, ultimately the expectation is that God will reward the wise/righteous and punish those who persistently act in a foolish/wicked manner.

Verse 25

“Worry in (the) heart of a man bends it down,
but a good word gives it gladness.”

As in vv. 22-23 (see above), the proverb here relates a person’s speech to his/her “heart”. In this instance, there is no wise/foolish or righteous/wicked contrast; instead, we have a simple maxim, principally regarding the effect of worry (hg`a*D=) on a person—viz., it “bends down” (vb hj*v*, Hiphil, in English we would say “weighs down”) a person’s heart. By contrast, a “good word” (or, perhaps, good thought) makes the heart glad (i.e., cheers it up). There is only a loose connection here to the contrasting actions and disposition of the wise vs. foolish. The foolish person more easily succumbs to worry and concern, while the wise person remains cheerful (in thought and speech) and also brings cheer to others (through his/her speech).

The noun hg`a*D= (“worry”) would normally be considered as grammatically feminine and the noun bl@ (“heart”) masculine, and yet the corresponding verb form (hN`j#v=y~) in line 1 indicates the opposite (viz., masculine verb with feminine suffix); the same applies to the verb in line 2 (hN`j#M=c^y+). So, unless the MT (or the author/editor) is in error, hg`a*D= is apparently being treated as a masculine noun, and bl@ as feminine. It is possible that the Masoretes have simply misvocalized the words; if one assumes that originally the text lacked the final vowel letters, then the following vocalization of the verb forms ‘corrects’ the apparent grammatical discrepancy: h%n+j#v=y~ and h%n+j#M+c^y+. In any case, there is obvious alliterative assonance (and end-rhyme) between the two verb forms; according to a ‘corrected’ vocalization, they are transliterated as yašḥenhū and yeśammeḥenhū. For more on the textual issue, cf. Fox, p. 558f.

For proverbs with a similar thematic emphasis, cf. 15:13, 30; 17:22.

Verse 26

“(The) righteous searches (the way for) his companion,
while (the) path of (the) wicked leads them (all) astray!”

The interpretation of the first line of this proverb is much disputed, mainly due to the meaning of the first word, rty (MT rt@y`). It is best explained as a form of the verb rWT, which has the basic meaning “go around (looking)”, i.e., “look/search around”. This would be the only occurrence of the verb in Proverbs, but it occurs several times in Qohelet in reference to “searching out” wisdom and knowledge (1:13; 2:3; 7:25), and there is another important Wisdom-reference in Job 39:8. The familiar path/walking motif in line 2 is suitable to this verb. It has been explained here as a Hiphil (causative form), corresponding to the MT vocalization rt@y`; the meaning, properly, would be “make search around”, but the parallel in Job 39:8 suggests that the vocalization should perhaps be rt%y= (= rWty+), a Qal form. That same verse contains the noun Whu@r=m! (“his pasture”), which is identical, except in MT vocalization, with Whu@r@m@ (“his companion”) here in v. 26. This yields two viable interpretive approaches for the line:

    • The righteous one helps “search out” (the way) for his companion
    • The righteous one “searches out” his pasture-land (i.e., his place of rest and nourishment)

Two other options may be mentioned. Following the Targum, the word rty is understood as deriving from the verbal root rt^y` (“be/go beyond”), so that the meaning of the line is something like “The righteous is (or goes) beyond his companion”; Heim (p. 157) favors this explanation, but it seems out of place in the context of these proverbs. Fox (p. 559; cf. Textual Commentary, p. 204f) follows J. A. Emerton (“A Note on Proverbs xii. 26”, ZAW 76 [1964], pp. 191-3) in vocalizing the verb as a passive (Hophal) form of rt^n` (“be loose”), rT^y% (“be loosened”), and the noun as the prepositional expression hu*r*m@ (“from evil”). The line would then read, “The righteous is loosened [i.e., released] from evil” (cf. 11:6, 8). The explanation is plausible, but it does not seem entirely suitable to the path/walking parallel in line 2.

Of the two options presented above, I have opted for the former—viz., the righteous helps others search out wisdom, enabling them to find (and stay on) the right path (cf. also Plöger, p. 153; Meinhold, p. 215; Schipper, p. 434). Yet I also recognize that the latter approach is also possible—viz., in searching out Wisdom, the righteous are able to find nourishment (for themselves) and a blessed pasture (of rest) as the goal/end of their path.

Verse 27

“(The one hunting with) a loose hand will not roast his catch,
but (the) diligent (one has the) precious wealth of (the) land.”

As I noted in the introduction above, the position of this proverb is peculiar, but it does have a clear connection within the grouping to the proverb in v. 24 (cf. above), particularly in its use of the noun hY`m!r= (referring to one who works with a “loose hand”) and the substantive adjective JWrj* (“diligent [one]”). There is reference in the first line to hunting, with the noun dy]x^ denoting that which is caught (for food) in the hunt. The sense of the line is that through negligence (i.e., his “loose hand”), the careless/lazy (i.e., foolish) person will not be able to enjoy eating the food that he has caught. By contrast, the wise person, who works diligently, will be able to enjoy the “precious wealth of the land”. The hunting idiom may continue here in the second line, though the terminology perhaps applies better to the wider view of farming and herding, etc., which tends to be a better indicator of a person’s wealth (/oh).

With Waltke (p. 518), I identify the noun <d*a* as equivalent to hm*d*a& (“land, ground”), i.e., <d*a* IV (cf. HALOT, p. 14f).

Verse 28

“In (the) pathway of righteousness (there is) life,
[indeed, its path (is entirely) without death!]”

It is possible the MT of the second line of this final proverb is corrupt, since the nouns Er#D# and hb*yt!n+ (cf. byt!n`) are essentially equivalent (both meaning “path”). In light of the expected contrast between the righteous and wicked, it has been postulated that one of these two ‘doublet’-words was erroneously included in place of another word—viz., a wickedness-term. Such an interpretation would require vocalizing the following la as the preposition la# (“to”) rather than the MT negative particle la^. The result is a second line that reads: “while (the) path of {…} (leads) to death”—a clear and natural contrastive parallel with the first line. The LXX supports such a reading, with the translation: “but (the) paths of (those) remembering wrongs (leads) to death”. One is left to guess at what Hebrew word might underly the use of the Greek substantive mnhsi/kako$ plur., “(those) remembering wrongs”; see Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 205. And cf. the critical commentaries (e.g., Plöger, p. 147; Meinhold, p. 214; Waltke, p. 518; Fox, p. 560) for more on the textual and interpretative issues involved.

In the MT as it stands, the couplet does not contain an antithetic contrast between the righteous and the wicked; rather, the focus is entirely on the righteous and the path (viz., the right path of Wisdom) that they walk. The parallelism is synonymous, with the second line building upon (and intensifying) the thought expressed in the first. The initial w-conjunction, then, would presumably be emphatic-affirmative (i.e., “indeed…”), with the negative expression tw#m*-la^ (“no[t] death”, i.e., “without death”) parallel to <yY]j^ (“life”). The doublet pair of synonymous path-nouns remains problematic, since “path of its path” or “way of its path” hardly seems appropriate, unless the ‘doubling’ is simply meant as an emphatic device. For lack of any better option, I have tentatively translated the noun pair for emphasis, i.e., “its path (entirely)”.

Until more evidence comes to light in support of a Hebrew text of the second line that corresponds to something like the contrastive couplet of the LXX, I have followed the MT, encasing the entire line in square brackets to indicate the textual uncertainty surrounding it.

    • 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).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 12:13-19

Proverbs 12:13-19

It is clear that 12:13 begins a group of proverbs dealing with the familiar theme of a person’s speech. However, it not as well-defined where such a grouping ends. Heim (pp. 152ff) treats vv. 13-23 as a distinct grouping (so also Meinhold, pp. 208ff), to which he includes v. 25; Schipper (p. 417) similarly defines vv. 13-25 as a unit. In my view, the primary grouping covers vv. 13-19, the section being framed by proverbs (vv. 13, 19) dealing specifically with the speech-motif of a person’s lips. However, Heim, in particular, makes a fine argument for the coherence of the proverbs in vv. 16-23, which will be discussed in the next study.

Verse 13

“By a breach of lips, a snare (for the) evil (man),
but (the) righteous shall come out from distress.”

There is a catchword bond between this proverb and the one prior (v. 12, see the previous study), based on the motif of the trap/snare, in connection with the evil (ur^) person. In v. 12, the noun used was doxm*, denoting the net or trap laid (by a hunter/fowler) to catch the hunted (dwx) prey; here, in v. 13, it is vq@om, the wooden snare used to catch birds, etc. Both terms can be used, figuratively, in a Wisdom-context, in reference to the ‘traps’ set by the wicked (for the innocent and/or righteous). As we have seen (cf. the earlier notes on 11:6 and 12:12), it is a regular Wisdom-theme that the wicked end up being caught (and destroyed) by the very ‘traps’ they laid for others. That is very much the theme here as well, only with an emphasis on one’s speech. It is by their speech (lit., “lips”) that the wicked are snared (to their own ruin and peril).
Regarding the catchword-bonding of vv. 12 and 13, Heim (p. 153f) makes the interesting observation that vv. 11-14 have a certain kind of chiastic arrangement. This could argue for a wider structural intent within the collection, beyond the grouping of vv. 13-19 (or 13-23). He also illustrates a loose chiastic structure for vv. 16-23 (p. 154), which will be mentioned further in the next study. 

The wording of the first line is ambiguous, since the adjective (ur^, “evil”) could stand as a substantive (i.e., “evil [person]”) or it could modify vq@om (i.e., “evil snare”); the parallelism of the couplet, as well as the parallel with v. 12, argues for the former (cf. Waltke, p. 516). In verse 12, the adjective was in the plural, i.e., “evil (one)s”.

The expression <y]t^p*v= uv^p#B= is also somewhat ambiguous and can be difficult to translate. The noun uv^P# refers fundamentally to a “breach of faith/trust” between two parties (that is a breach in the relational bond); it can be used in a socio-ethical (i.e., between two people) and a religious-ethical (i.e., between a person and God) context, the two being closely related. Thus, the expression “by a breach of lips” means “by a breach of faith caused by one’s speech”.

The second line, which continues the thematic righteous/wicked contrast in these proverb-couplets, has a two-fold meaning: (1) the righteous are able to escape from the trap that the wicked set (by their speech), and (2) the speech of the righteous enables them to come out of any distress (whereas the wicked cannot). Both aspects are valid, but the former would seem to be primarily in view. The translation of the waw-consecutive in the second line as a gnomic action/condition (cf. Waltke, p. 516) would favor the second meaning, viz., “(the) righteous (one) goes forth from distress”.

Note the similar proverbs in 11:9; 18:7, and 29:6. The LXX includes an additional couplet (cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 201), so that v. 13, in its expanded form, reads:

“Through sin of (the) lips, (the) sinner falls into snares,
but (the) righteous (one) flees out of them.
The (one) looking (with) gentle (glance)s will receive mercy,
but the (one) confronting (men) in (the) gates will distress souls.”

Verse 14

“From (the) fruit of (his) mouth, a man is filled with good,
and (the) deed of a person’s hand returns to him.”

The speech-emphasis from v. 13 continues here, though the proverb departs from the usual righteous/wicked contrast. Instead, the point is made that a person’s speech brings recompense—whether blessing or its opposite—just as one’s actions do. The action performed by a person is expressed here by the rather cumbersome sequence “(the) act/deed [lWmG=] of (the) hand of a person [<d*a*]”, which I have contracted for poetic concision.

The righteous person is in view in the first line. This is clear from the use of the noun yr~P= (“fruit”, cf. earlier in v. 12; 11:30), and also the noun bof (“[something] good”). As a result of their wise and upright speech, which becomes a blessing for others, the righteous are blessed (by God) with good things (cf. 13:2; 18:20). The same principle applied to the wicked: viz., as the result of the evil/harmful speech, they ultimately receive harm and punishment from God.

The idea of Divine blessing/punishment is certainly in view with regard to the use of the verb bWv (“return”) in the second line, and it likely explains the Qere variant (Hiphil form, byv!y`), “He shall make (it) return” (cf. 19:17; 24:12), rather than the Kethib bWvy` (“it shall return”). My translation follows the Kethib (so also Fox, Waltke, and others).

Verse 15

“(The) path of a fool (is) straight in his (own) eyes,
but (one) hearing counsel (is the) wise (man).”

The focus on a person’s action in v. 14b leads into this next proverb, which utilizes the familiar path-motif (Er#D#) in the ethical sense of a person’s regular/characteristic behavior (which also does include speech). As we have seen, this path/walking idiom featured prominently in the lectures and poems of chapters 1-9, along with the “straight” vs. “crooked” contrast. The path of the wise/righteous ones is straight (rv*y`), while that of the foolish/wicked is crooked (expressed through several different terms). The point made here is that the foolish person thinks (or wants to believe) that he/she is walking on a straight path (and walking straight), but, in fact, such a person is not. The path is only straight in their eyes (“in his [own] eyes”); cf. 3:7; 14:12; 16:2, 25; 21:2; 26:12; 28:11; 30:12. For a comparison between the proverbs in 16:2 and 21:2, cf. Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 303-15.

The foolish person is typically contrasted with the wise, just as the wicked and righteous are contrasted. As Waltke (p. 517) and others have noted, the substantive adjective <k*j* (“wise [person]”) is best viewed as the subject of the second line. However, this does not work well in English unless the Hebrew word order is altered, viz., “but (the) wise (man is one) hearing [i.e., willing to hear] counsel”; in my translation above, I have retained the Hebrew word order. The implication is that the foolish person is unwilling to heed the wise/sound counsel of others, or, perhaps, does not feel that he even needs such advice (his path seeming to him to be “straight”). It is to be inferred that such “counsel” (hx*u@) may entail a corrective rebuke, which, as numerous proverbs have indicated, the foolish are unwilling to accept (cf. 5:12, 23; 12:1, etc.). In addition, a willingness to receive the counsel of others produces a positive and beneficial social environment; cf. Fuhs, p. 211; Schipper, p. 427.

Verse 16

“(The) fool, in th(at) day, makes known his anger,
while (the one) covering an insult (is) shrewd.”

The contrast between the wise and foolish, regarding their characteristic behavior (and especially their speech), continues here from v. 15. In this instance, the wise person is described as <Wru* (“clever, cunning”)—a term which can be used in either a positive or negative sense. In Proverbs, it is used consistently in a positive sense, as a characteristic of the wise (cf. verse 23; 13:16; 14:8, 15, 18; 22:3; 27:12), while elsewhere in Scripture (Gen 3:1; Job 5:12; 15:5) it has a negative connotation. Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 315-9, compares the proverbs in vv. 16 and 23.
The use of the noun lyw]a$ (“foolish person, fool”) in both vv. 15 and 16 is another obvious example of the kind of ‘catchword’ bonding by which individual proverbs came to be combined at the granular level. 

The issue in this proverb involves how a person responds when one receives an insult (/olq*, viz., being treated in a contemptuous or disgraceful manner). The foolish person quickly (<oYB^, “in th[at very] day”, “in the [same] day”) displays his anger—primarily through his speech. By contrast, the wise person “covers (up)” the insult—that is, does not respond to it, acting like it didn’t happen or that it was not a serious matter; cf. 29:11. For a similar use of the verb hs*K* (“cover”), in a positive sense, cf. v. 23; 10:12; 11:13; 17:9.
For the verb in the first line, the MT has a Niphal (passive) form, ud^W`y] (“is [made] known”). However, the consonantal text can also be vocalized as a Hiphil (active) form, u^d!oy (“he makes known”). The latter is supported by the Versions and is preferred by a number of commentators (e.g., Fox, p. 555; Textual Commentary, p. 201); I have followed it as well, though the MT reading is quite valid in its own right: “(As for the) fool, in th(at) day his anger is made known”.

The second line has the same syntactical format as that of v. 15—properly, following the Hebrew word order, “while (one) covering an insult (is the) shrewd (man)”. In this instance, mainly for poetic concision, I have altered the format slightly, producing a more natural predication in English: “while (the one) covering an insult (is) shrewd”.

Verse 17

“(He who) breathes out truth puts forward what is right,
but a witness of false (word)s (acts with) deceit.”

The speech-emphasis of this proverb-grouping becomes more explicit again here in v. 17—the proverb dealing with the situation where a person acts as a witness (du@), testifying to things that they saw or heard. The point in this proverb is that the reliability of a person (as a witness) reflects his/her essential righteousness (or wickedness, as the case may be)—viz., their character is manifest and evidenced by their speech.

The verb jWP (“breath/blow out”) can be used with the specific (and technical) meaning of “give forth testimony” (cf. Ugaritic ypḥ, Arabic fwḥ, fyḥ); virtually all the Scriptural occurrences of jWP with this meaning are in Proverbs (6:19; 14:5, 25; 19:5, 9), cf. Psalm 27:12. The noun hn`Wma$ literally means “firmness”, often in the sense of “faithfulness, trustworthiness”, but it can also have the strong connotative meaning of “truth”; for poetic concision, and to bring out of the contrast with “false words/things” (<yr!q*v*) in the second line, I have translated it here as “truth”. The verb dg#n# means “put (something) in front, set (it) before (someone)”, often in the more general sense of “declare, announce”; it typically implies a conspicuous public setting, such as that of a witness giving testimony. The same verb may be implied in the second line, for the point of contrast; in any case, it is practically necessary to supply a verb (glossed) in translation, as I have done above.

The importance of speaking truthfully, and of giving truthful testimony, is an obvious (and nearly universal) wisdom-tenet. Of the examples that might be cited, cf. the aphorism in the Egyptian (Demotic) Instruction of Khasheshonqi (13, x + 15): “Speak truth to all men; let it cleave to your speech” (Schipper, p. 429; Lichtheim, III.169).

Verse 18

“There is (one) babbling like (the) stabbings of a sword,
but (the) tongue of (the) wise (is a source of) healing.”

The foolish person is characterized (in his/her speech) as one who speaks in an imprudent and rash/reckless manner, which can cause irritation, and also more serious harm, to others. This carelessness and recklessness in speech is expressed here by the rare verb hf*B*/af*B* (cf. Arabic baṭbaṭa), referring generally to loose and heedless talk. In order to bring out the pejorative sense of its usage (cf. Lev 5:4; Ps 106:33; also Sir 5:13), I have translated it here as “babble”. That a certain talkativeness is intended would be suggested by the plural torq=d=m^ (“stabbings”), implying a situation where a person is repeatedly stabbed. These might merely be irritating pricks or far more serious piercings. On the traditional comparison of the tongue with a sword—in both its shape and piercing effect—see, e.g., Psalm 57:5[4].
Schipper (p. 429) cites an example from the Egyptian (Demotic) Instruction of Papyrus Insinger (4:5): “The foolish tongue of the stupid man is his knife for cutting off life” (Lichtheim, III.188).

If the tongue of the foolish can end up causing harm and injury, the tongue of the wise has the opposite effect—viz., as a source of healing (aP@r=m^). On the words and teachings of Wisdom as a source of health/healing (for those who will heed them), cf. 3:8; 4:22; 16:24. See also the earlier sentiment in 11:30.

Verse 19

“A lip firm in truth will be firm even unto (the end),
but until (the) blink (of an eye), a tongue of falsehood!”

As noted above, the framing proverbs of vv. 13 and 19 share the use of the term “lip(s)” (hp*c*) as a speech-idiom. Here, as in v. 17, it is the truthfulness of the righteous person’s speech that is in focus, contrasted with the falseness (and falsehood, rq#v#) of the wicked. The noun tm#a# is closely related to hn`Wma$ in v. 17; both means “firmness”, often in the sense of “faithfulness, trustworthiness” (and thus “truthfulness, truth”). Literally, the expression is “lip of firmness”, which. in light of v. 17 and the contrast with falsehood, should be translated “lip of truth(fulness)”. However, it is worth bringing out also the conceptual wordplay with the following verb /WK (“be firm”); thus, I have translated the expression as “lip firm in truth”.

Just as the speech of the righteous and wicked reflect their respective nature (and character), so it also indicates their respective fate. The righteous will remain firm (in righteousness and wisdom), and they will also be kept firm (i.e., secure, well-established) by God. This security will last du^l*, a temporal expression that essentially means “until (the end)” —implying long life (as a blessing from God), but also, perhaps, alluding to a blessed afterlife. By contrast, any security that the wicked possess or experience will be brief, lasting only for a moment.

The term hu*yG]r=a^, best understood as a noun (comparable to ug^r#) with a prosthetic –a (cf. Fox, p. 556), denotes a “movement, waving”, in a temporal sense—viz., a brief movement like the wave (of a hand), or, in colorful English idiom, the “blink (of an eye)”. I have taken the liberty of utilizing this idiom in my translation, even as other commentators and translators have done, so that the expression reads “until the blink (of an eye)” —viz., the wicked last only until the blink of an eye. In the moment, they may seem to prosper and to rest secure, but it is only fleeting; ultimately, they will perish under God’s judgment that He brings upon them.
Other commentators (e.g., Schipper, p. 430; Waltke, p. 547) explain the form hu*yG]r=a^ as a Hiphil cohortative (of the verb ug^r*), so that the expression means something like “until I should blink (an eye)”.

The LXX of the first line reads: “True lips give [lit. set down] straight testimony”. The use of the noun marturi/a (“witness, testimony”) indicates that the translator(s) understood dul to mean du@l* (“for/as a witness”). Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 203; Schipper, p. 415.

The thematic emphasis on the contrasting fates of the righteous and wicked will come into greater prominence (again) in the proverbs of vv. 20-28, which will be examined 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). 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 “Fuhs” are to Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar, Forschung zur Bibel 95 (Echter-Verlag: 2001).
    • 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 “Lichtheim, III” are to Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume III: The Late Period (University of California Press: 1980).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 12:1-12

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. 

Verse 1

“(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=).

Verse 2

“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.

Verse 3

“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.

Verse 4

“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”.

Verse 5

“(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.

Verse 6

“(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.

Verse 7

“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.

Verse 8

“(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”.

Verse 9

“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”.

Verse 10

“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.

Verse 11

“(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.”

Verse 12

“(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).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 11:23-31

Proverbs 11:23-31

The final proverb-grouping of chapter 11, vv. 23-31, is framed by a pair of sayings (vv. 23 and 31) that continue the thematic emphasis on the contrasting fates of the righteous and wicked, respectively (cf. Heim, p. 144, who incorrectly [in my view] includes v. 22 within the grouping). In between (vv. 24-30), the proverbs focus on different aspects of how a person deals with wealth/money, as well as the broader theme (as in vv. 13-22, cf. the previous study) of how one’s conduct—whether wise or foolish, righteous or wicked—affects the community. Compare the earlier proverbs in vv. 14-17 emphasizing how a person’s behavior in daily matters can affect one’s household (for good or for ill), as well as the wider society.

The proverbs of vv. 24-29 are distinguished by their consistent use of a substantive verbal noun (participle)—i.e., “[the one/s] doing/being {such}—to describe the regular and characteristic behavior of the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked, respectively.

Verse 23

“(The) desire of (the) righteous (is) truly (for the) good,
while (the) hope of (the) wicked (is) flaring anger.”

The sense of this proverb resembles that of 10:24 (cf. also v. 28). The implication is that, because the righteous desire what is good (bof), they will receive good (i.e., blessing) from God. By contrast, the wicked, whose nature and conduct is characterized by intemperate and evil ‘outbursts’ (of anger, etc.), they will receive the like (viz., wrath/punishment) from God. The noun hr*b=u# refers to a passionate outburst (usually of anger); cf. Arabic ġabira, ġarb, ġariba. It may be derived from the verbal root rbu (I), “pass through, pass over”, though other scholars posit a separate root rbu (II) with a meaning something like “be(come) angry”. The noun here characterizes both the wicked and God’s (angry) response to them (cf. Psalm 78:49; 90:9; Isa 13:9; 14:6; Hab 3:8, etc.); the expression “day of anger” (hr*b=u# <oy) earlier in v. 4 alludes to the tradition of the “day of YHWH”, when God pours out His anger (in judgment) against the wicked/nations. I have translated hb*r=u# above as “flaring anger”.

The LXX reads “but the hope of the wicked perishes [a)polei=tai]”, which could imply a form of the verbal root dba, rather than rbu. More likely, the proverb was given an interpretive rendering under the influence of v. 7, though De Rossi does mention the reading hdba in a 13th century Spanish manuscript (his MS 941), as noted by de Waard, p. 41. See Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 192.

The adverbial particle Ea^ in the first line is emphatic (affirmative/ asseverative), i.e., “indeed, surely, truly”. It can also be used in a restrictive sense (i.e., “only”), which here would mean that the righteous desire only what is good. The sense in the second line is a bit different. It is not that the wicked actually hope for passionate anger, or expect to receive it in return; rather, as Fox notes (p. 541), their conduct has this effect—viz., their intemperate and evil behavior inevitably brings God’s wrath upon them.

Verse 24

“There is (one) scattering, and it is added (to him) again,
and (one) holding back from (what is) right, (leading) only to lack.”

In the context of the wealth/money sayings of vv. 24-30, the use of the verbs rz~P* (Piel, “scatter”) and Ec^j* (“hold back, withold”) in this proverb must refer (primarily) to the handling of money. In this regard, the idea of “scattering” one’s wealth and resources can have either (1) the negative sense of reckless and profligate spending, or (2) the positive meaning of generosity shown to others (through charitable giving, etc.). The verb rz~P* itself tends to have a negative meaning, referring to the scattering of people (i.e., exile/dispersion); however, when it is used in reference to material resources (and with God as the subject) the sense is positive—viz., the providential care and favor shown by God, Psalm 147:6; Jer 3:13, the closest parallel being Psalm 112:9. The verb Ec^j* can similarly be used in both a negative and positive sense, even in Proverbs. For example, holding back (i.e., showing restraint) in one’s speech or temper is generally a good thing (10:19; 17:27; 29:11), whereas a parent withholding discipline from a child is a bad thing (13:24). The closest parallel to the usage here is in 21:26, where it is stated that the righteous does not hold back from giving to others when needed.

It is possible to read this proverb (separately, on its own) as a paradoxical saying (cf. Fox, p. 541f), to the effect that a person may spend recklessly and still gain/maintain wealth, while another tries to save in a right manner and yet ends up in need. However, within the context of the contrast between righteous and wicked (v. 23), one ought to view the “scattering” in line 1 as indicative of the generosity of the wise/righteous person, and, conversely, the “holding back” of resources as a mark of the foolish/wicked. The modifying expression in line 2, rv#ym!, “from (what is) straight” (i.e., “from [what is] right”) tends to confirm this point—viz., the foolish/wicked person “holds back from (what is) right”. The adjective rv*y` (“straight”, and the verbal root rvy) is a key Wisdom-term in this regard, referring to the straight and right path (of Wisdom), from which the foolish/wicked have turned away. The expression can also carry the more practical meaning of “from what is proper” in a particular situation or under certain circumstances (cf. verse 26, below).

The adverb dou can mean “again” (repetition) or “more/further” (continuance). In the immediate context of line 1, the promise may be that the person who “scatters” will have the wealth restored (i.e., nothing will be lost); or, possibly, that he/she will come to gain even more. Both aspects are probably intended, though the thematic emphasis on blessing (from God) suggests that the latter is primarily in view. The same adverbial particle (Ea^) from v. 23 occurs here; as mentioned above, it can have the restrictive meaning of “only” as well as the affirmative “indeed, surely”. The shared usage of this term is presumably an example of the ‘catchword’-bonding that facilitated the joining together of individual proverbs during the process of collection.

Verse 25

“A soul of blessing shall (itself) be made fat;
and (the one) watering, he also shall be watered.”

The emphasis on generosity and charitable giving, as a characteristic of the righteous, continues in this proverb (from v. 24a). Occasionally, the proverbs of this collection (i.e., in chapters 10-11ff) lack the contrastive juxtaposition of righteous vs. wicked (or wise vs. foolish); and, indeed, here the focus is entirely upon the wise and righteous person, who is described as being (and having) a “soul of blessing” (hk*r*B= vp#n#). It is a subjective genitive, expressing the character of the righteous person’s “soul”; however, as Waltke (p. 505) notes, it can also be treated as a “genitive of the mediated object”, referring to the blessing that the righteous bestows on others. At the same time, the expression surely alludes to the blessing that comes to the righteous (from God), though such Divine blessing is specifically referenced here by the following verb (/v@D* Pual, “is made fat”).

The use of the verb hw`r*/hr*y` [II] (“[have] water”, Hiphil, “give water”) in the second line, like rz~P* (“scatter”) in v. 24, is a figurative idiom for beneficial/charitable giving (to others). The verb ar*y` should be seen as a by-form of hr*y` II (as Waltke, p. 505, and other commentators [e.g., Plöger, p. 133; Meinhold, p. 198; Schipper, p. 409] have noted), a Hophal imperfect form (vocalization ar#Wy = hr#Wy); the verbs hr*y` II and hw`r* are closely related (presumably from a shared biconsonantal root) with a common meaning. The ethical-religious principle is basic: the person who blesses others will be blessed (by God) in turn.

The LXX of this proverb is quite different, and it is difficult to see how the translation might relate to the MT (or a different underlying Hebrew text): “A soul of good account [i.e., blessed] (is) all [i.e., entirely] simple, but a hot-tempered man has/shows no good favor”. Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 193f; de Waard, p. 41.

Verse 26

“(The one) withholding grain, (the) people shall mark him,
but blessing (comes) to (the) head of (one) providing grain.”

The thematic focus of vv. 24-25, involving generosity of giving (and its beneficial effects on others in society), here is applied to the specific situation of a wealthy person (or government official) who is in the position of supplying grain for the people. This is expressed two different ways: (i) through the use of the noun rB* (“grain”), and (ii) by the verb rb^v* II (from the noun rb#v# II, “grain”) which refers to the buying/selling and supplying of grain. The verb rb^v*, in the sense of “supply/provide grain”, is matched in the first line by verb un~m* + rB* (“withhold grain”). The meaning of un~m* (“hold back, restrain, hinder”) is quite similar to that of Ec^j* in v. 24 (see above). The verbal noun ryB!v=m^ (Hiphil participle of rb^v* II) is famously used of Joseph in Gen 42:6 (cf. also the use of the verb 14 times in the Joseph narrative, esp. in chaps. 42-43). The “holding back” of grain echoes the warning against deceitful weights and measures (in commercial practice) in the opening proverb (verse 1) of our chapter; cf. Amos 8:5-6.
Schipper, p. 409f (cf. also Meinhold, p. 199), mentions other ancient Near Eastern texts dealing with the issue of withholding grain, such as in the Code of Hammurabi (§§70-5).

The verb bq^n` in line 1 fundamentally means “mark”, specifically in the sense of boring or drilling a hole. Occasionally, as here, it has the special meaning of “mark out” someone as cursed (or [put] under a curse); cf. Lev 24:11, 16; Job 3:8 [note]. Possibly there is a relative play on the contextual meaning we find in Gen 30:28, where the reference is to the establishing of a price (wages), which might be relevant to the commercial context here of supplying (and withholding) grain.

For the specific motif of blessing coming upon the “head” of the righteous, cf. earlier in 10:6.

It is worth mentioning the loose chiastic structure of this proverb:

    • “(The one) withholding grain
      • (the) people will mark/curse him /
      • but blessing (comes) to (the head)
    • (of the one) providing grain.”
Verse 27

“(The one) looking around for good seeks favor;
while (the one) searching for evil, it comes to him!”

Though worded a bit awkwardly, the basic principle in this proverb, based on the context of vv. 24-26 (see above), is that the person who seeks good (for others) is actually seeking (and will find) good (i.e., blessing) for him/herself. Similarly, evil will come to the one seeking out evil (for others). The noun /oxr* denotes that which is pleasing (and acceptable) to a person; it is often used in a religious sense (viz., of that which is pleasing to God), and that is certainly in view here, though one should not diminish the expectation that the righteous will find favor among humans (i.e., within human society) as well (cf. 1 Sam 2:26; Lk 2:52).

The verb rj^v* (II) means “go around (looking), look around (for)”; as such, it is parallel with the more common vr^D* (“search [out]”) in line 2. It is also largely synonymous with the accompanying verb vq^B* (Piel, “seek [out]”) in line 1; however, in terms of the parallelism of the couplet, vp^B* is part of a “seek / find” parallel: “he seeks” (line 1) / “it comes to him” (line 2). This seeking/finding dynamic applies to both the righteous and the wicked, even though the parallel is distributed (poetically) across the two lines of the couplet.

The LXX is apparently translating the participle vr@j) (“[the one] devising”, Grk tektaino/meno$) rather than MT rj@v) (“[the one] looking around”). This either represents a misreading of the Hebrew or a scribal error (metathesis). Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 194f.

Verse 28

“(The one) trusting in his riches, he shall fall;
but like (the) rising (foliage the) righteous shall sprout!”

The sequence of proverbs (vv. 24-28) dealing specifically with the handling of wealth/money concludes with this saying; it only deals with riches in relation to the foolish/wicked person. Indeed, the foolish/wicked person is described as one who trusts (and has confidence) in his earthly riches; on the folly of relying upon one’s wealth for security, cf. verse 4 and 10:2; also Psalm 49:7[6]; 52:9[7], etc.

By contrast, the righteous have their trust (and confidence/security) in God, and in His righteousness and Wisdom, etc. The wicked shall fall (vb lp^n`), but the righteous shall rise up (hl*u*)—with the idea of rising (and the verbal root hlu) expressed through the noun hl#u*, which is used of the rising/sprouting foliage (of a tree or plant), cf. especially Psalm 1:3. This imagery entails the noun hl#u* and the verb jr^P* (I), “sprout, blossom”. The comparative description of the righteous as a flourishing plant or tree, planted in rich and well-watered ground, occurs in a number of passages (e.g., Psalm 92:13[12]; Jer 17:8) and is a fixture of the Wisdom tradition (see Psalm 1:3 and verse 30 below).

Verse 29

“(The one) disturbing his house will inherit (the) wind,
and (the) fool (will be) a servant to (the) wise of heart.”

Like verse 25 (see above), this proverb in v. 29 lacks the strict righteous vs. wicked contrast that governs most of the proverbs in this collection. In v. 25, the focus was on the wise/righteous person, while here it is on the foolish/wicked. The wording of the first line and the use of the verb rk^u* (“stir up, disturb, trouble”) echoes the earlier proverb in verse 17 (see the note in the previous study). There the reference was to a person disturbing “his (own) flesh”, while here it is to “his house”; however, I noted that “flesh” (ra@v=) in v. 17 likely alludes to both the individual and his family/relations (i.e., household), and thus the parallel between the statements (in v. 17b and 29a) is very close.
As previously mentioned, the verb rk^u* can sometimes carry the more severe connotative meanings of “mar”, “hinder”, “bring confusion/disorder”, “(cause) ruin”, “destroy”, etc.

As Fox (p. 544) notes, the message in line 1 seems to apply to both the elder father (i.e., master of the house, “his house”) and the younger son (who will inherit [vb lj^n`] the house). Insofar as it is the father who disturbs/troubles his house, the warning is that he will end up leaving nothing (except the “wind”) for his children to inherit. Instead of being the master of his own house, the foolish person will end up as the servant in another’s house—namely, the house of a person who is wise and discerning (“wise of heart”). The expression “wise of heart” corresponds to the foolishness-terminology “lacking of heart” (cf. 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21).
The motivic image of wind (or “breath”), j^Wr, features in a number of Wisdom-texts as representing the transitoriness of earthly/human life, often with the connotation of “emptiness, uselessness, vanity”, etc. See especially the recurring refrain throughout Qohelet (1:14, 17; 2:11, et al.).

This proverb features, famously, in the stage play (and subsequent film adaptation[s]) Inherit the Wind.

Verse 30

“(The) fruit of (the) righteous (is) a tree of life,
and (the one) taking souls (for life is) wise.”

The first line of this proverb echoes the imagery in v. 28b (see above), comparing the righteous to a flourishing tree. To this general image is added the specific Wisdom-motif of the “tree of life” (<yY]j^ Ju@, cf. 3:18 [note]; 13:12; 15:4). It is specifically the fruit of the righteous that is said to be (or become) a “tree of life”, which, based on 3:18, implies that this “fruit” is to be identified specifically with Wisdom.

The second line is more difficult, since the idiom of “taking a soul” (vb jq^l* + vp#n#) normally carries the negative meaning of killing (1:19; Jon 4:3; Ezek 33:6) or capturing (6:25-26; 1 Sam 2:16; 5:1) a person. For this reason, a number of commentators (e.g., Ehrlich, Toy, McKane, Murphy) have proposed emending <k*j* (“wise”) to sm*j* (“violence”, or more generally, “lawlessness”). In support of such an emendation is the LXX version: “…but (the) souls of (those stepp)ing across the law [i.e., lawbreakers, transgressors] are taken away (in an) untimely (manner)”. It is assumed that the adjective para/nomo$ (“[going] aside/across [i.e., contrary to, breaking] the law”) renders sm*j*. The Syriac seems to reflect a similar translation, i.e., “and (the) souls of evildoers are scattered”; cf. Waltke, p. 510. On the LXX and Versions, see Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 196.

However, the MT is tenable if one understands jq^l* in the positive sense of taking a person out of danger (i.e., saving/rescuing them), as in Psalm 49:16[15]; the righteous then, through their wise teachings and example, have the beneficial effect of saving souls (cf. James 5:20; Jude 23). Another possibility is to draw upon the Wisdom-usage of the related noun jq^l# (“taking/receiving”); this noun carries the general sense of “give and take” (i.e., exchange), but can be used with the specific contextual meaning of “teaching, instruction”, and so it occurs a number of times in Proverbs (1:5; 4:2; 7:21; 9:9; 16:21, 23). However, as Fox (p. 545) notes, the verb jq^l* is not used in this context. A third option is to interpret the verb here in the sense of “capture”, but with the positive connotation of ‘capturing’ someone for a good cause, such as in Jesus’ famous image of the disciples as missionary ‘fishermen’ who ‘catch’ souls for the Kingdom of God (Matt 4:19 par).

For more on the different ways of explaining/interpreting this proverb, see the discussions by Fox (p. 545) and Waltke (p. 510), etc., and the discussion by Heim, pp. 145-6, as well as the more unusual suggestion made by Dahood (p. 24). Cf. also the articles by Daniel C. Snell, “‘Taking Souls’ in Proverbs XI 30”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 33 (1983), pp. 362-5; William A. Irwin, “The Metaphor in Prov 11,30”, Biblica 65 (1984), pp. 97-100; and Lee M. Fields, “Proverbs 11:30: Soul-Winning or Wise Living?”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50 (2007), pp. 517-35.

Just as v. 29 focused on the wicked/foolish person, so v. 30 has the righteous/wise person entirely in view. In these proverbs (so also v. 25) the explicit characteristic contrast between the righteous and wicked is absent.

Verse 31

“See—(if the) righteous on the earth is fully (repaid),
how much (more the) wicked and sinning (person)!”

This final proverb matches the initial proverb of this grouping (v. 23, cf. above) in its emphasis (again) on the contrasting fates of the righteous and wicked. The righteous will be repaid (by God) for their wise and right conduct, and so also the wicked will be repaid for their foolish and sinful behavior. The verb <l^v* (“be full, complete”) in the Piel means “make (something) complete”, such as “complete an agreement”, “fulfill an obligation”, “make full payment”, etc. In this context (and note the monetary focus for many of the prior proverbs, cf. above), the emphasis is on paying back someone in full; in particular, God, in His judging of humankind, will repay people for the things they have done, whether righteous or wicked.

The locative expression “on the earth” in line 1 should be tied to the verb <l^v* rather than the adjective qyD!x^ (“[the] righteous”). In other words, the repayment for the righteous is made “on the earth”, viz., in this earthly life. This is in accordance with the promised blessings of long life, security, and prosperity, that are stressed in the earlier proverbs (esp. the Lectures of chapters 1-9, cf. 3:2, 16; 4:10; 9:11). If the righteous will be repaid (by God) in this way, how much more so will it be for the wicked—viz., that they will be repaid for their sin and evil folly. The conjunction of the particles [a^ and yK! has this emphatic (and adversative) force. A bit curious is the addition af@ojw+ (“and [the] sinning [one]”, “and [the] sinner”) since it hardly seems necessary following the substantive adjective uv*r* (“[the] wicked”); it may have been included simply to fill out the meter of the line.

The specification that the ‘repayment’ will take place “on the earth” creates certain logical (and theological) problems, since it would be easy enough to find numerous examples of situations where people who seem to be wholly righteous or wicked apparently do not receive the appropriate ‘repayment’ during their lifetime. The difficulty can be resolved if one allows for judgment in the afterlife; but, if judgment is limited to the span of one’s life on earth, the just ‘repayment’ by God is less certain (in spite of the principle expressed here in v. 31). Waltke (p. 514) is of the opinion that the expression “on the earth” does not carry through to the judgment of the wicked in the second line; as he states it:

The verset probably implies a distinction between the present remedial punishment of the righteous “in the earth” and the future penal punishment of the wicked, the theme of this section. The preceding proverbs leave no doubt that their eternal death is in view. The incomplete passive does not specify the agent, but other proverbs point to the LORD. If the divine justice would be relaxed at all, it would be in favor of the righteous.

It is, of course, natural that Jews and Christians would tend to view the proverb in terms of an end-time (eschatological) or afterlife judgment, even as the proverb is utilized in 1 Peter 4:18—on which, see the article by James Barr, “Jrab—MOLIS: Prov 11:31, I Pet 4:18″, Journal of Semitic Studies 20 (1975), pp. 149-64; cf. Schipper, p. 412.

    • 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 “de Waard” are to Jan de Waard, yl?m Proverbs, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 17 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2008).
    • 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).
    • Those marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology, Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 113 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1963).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 11:13-22

Proverbs 11:13-22

There are few definite or clear indicators of structure for the collection of proverbs in chapter 11, and thus there is considerable variety in the ways that commentators divide and group the sayings. For the purposes of this study, I am treating verses 13-22 as a grouping; recognition of these proverbs as comprising a distinct group may be questionable, but no more so than the groupings proposed by other commentators.

There is a sequence of four proverbs (vv. 14-17) emphasizing how a person’s behavior in daily matters can affect one’s household (for good or for ill) as well as the wider society. Then follows another four proverbs (vv. 18-21) continuing the thematic emphasis (cf. the prior studies) on the contrasting fates of the righteous and wicked, respectively. Again, the implication is that, if one acts in the foolish/wicked manner indicated in vv. 14-17, that person is in danger of meeting the fate of the wicked described in vv. 18-21. The proverb-grouping is framed by a pair of sayings (vv. 13 and 22) on the importance of exercising discretion and prudence in one’s affairs. In v. 13 (which picks up on the theme from v. 12), it is a person’s speech that is in view, while in v. 22 the focus is more generally on the way one conducts oneself (in particular, on how women conduct themselves, cf. verse 16).

Verse 13

“(The one) going about gossiping uncovers a secret,
but (the one) being firm of spirit covers (the) thing.”

This initial proverb builds upon the one prior (v. 12) with its emphasis on discretion in one’s speech—that is, knowing when to speak and when it is best to keep silent. The noun lyk!r* can mean “slander”, but, particularly in the older texts, also “gossip(ing)”, which is clearly what is intended here (of course, even ordinary ‘gossip’ can easily become slanderous talk). The idiom “going (about) gossiping”, using a participle of the verb El^h* (“walk, go”), indicates regular and active behavior. An injunction against gossiping occurs in the Torah (Lev 19:16), and the fundamental warning here is repeated in 20:19. The noun dos (“secret”) properly refers to something said confidentially. The sense of the line is that the person who foolishly goes about gossiping will, whether intentionally or unwittingly, reveal something that was meant to be kept confidential; the revealing of such a matter can bring shame and distress (and even more serious harm) to others.

It is proper to keep quiet about (lit., “cover”) such a matter, and the wise person will do so, as indicated here in the second line. Here, the wise person is characterized as “being firm [vb /m^a*] of spirit” —which is the opposite of being “lacking of heart” (v. 12, etc.). The root /ma, which denotes firmness, often carries the ethical connotation of “faithful, trustworthy, reliable” —viz., the sort of person in whom one can have confidence. For this positive sense of the verb hs*K* (“cover”) in matters of speech, cf. 10:12; for the negative usage, cf. 10:6/11, 18.

This proverb establishes the point of reference for the sequence of vv. 14-17 (see above), focusing on the effect that a person’s behavior (whether wise or foolish) has on the community (and the wider society). The prior verses 10-12 also have this general orientation, and it is possible to treat vv. 10-17 as a distinct proverb-grouping (cf. Waltke, p. 490ff, who delineates vv. 10-15 as a group).

Verse 14

“In there being no guidance, a people will fall,
while (there is) safety in an abundance of counsel.”

The societal consequences of wise/foolish behavior are quite clear in this proverb which warns that an entire people can “fall” and come to ruin because of a lack of wisdom (cf. Hos 4:6; Isa 5:13). This is expressed via the negative particle of absence/non-existence (/y]a^, “there is no[t]”), in the prepositional phrase tolB%j=T^ /ya@B=, “in there being no guidance” —which can be translated in a temporal-circumstantial sense as “when there is no guidance”.

The rare noun hl*B%j=T^ (plural) is a Wisdom-term that occurs just five times in Proverbs (1:5; 12:5; 20:18; 24:6) and once in Job (37:12). It would seem that this noun is to be derived from a root lb^j* I (cf. Akkadian ḫabālu, “bind, harness”), with the plural form referring to the ropes used to steer/guide a ship or to harness and lead about a horse, etc. So far as it is used in the Wisdom literature, it is a figure for disciplined (and forceful) guidance and direction. Its importance is particularly indicated by its use in 1:5.

By contrast, when a society is rich in wisdom—viz., has many wise individuals who can provide wise counsel (“giving counsel”, vb Ju^y`), i.e., “counselors” (the singular participle can stand for a plural, cf. Waltke, p. 490)—it becomes safe and secure (cf. the conceptual motif of “firmness” [/ma] in v. 13). Note the similar proverbs in 15:22; 20:18; 24:6.

Verse 15

“One risks serious harm when he is guarantor for a stranger,
but (the one) hating (the) striking (of palms) is secure.”

The warning in this proverb encapsulates the more extensive teaching in 6:1-5 (see the earlier note) against acting carelessly and foolishly in financial matters—particularly, in the case of acting as a guarantor (i.e., guaranteeing payment) on behalf of a person who takes out a loan. The verb br^u* [I] (cf. Akkadian erēbu) is regularly used in this specific context; meanwhile the idiom “strike [vb uq^T*] (the) hands [lit. palms]” is used to express the idea of reaching/concluding an agreement, just as in English we would say “strike an agreement” or “shake hands on it”. For the specific use of the idiom in this particular context (with the verb br^u*), cf. 6:1-2; 17:18; 22:26; Job 17:3. It is especially foolish to guarantee a loan when a stranger is involved (rz`, literally, one who is “aside”, or who has “turned aside”, rWz); if one is forced to repay the loan personally, it can lead to financial ruin (for the individual and his family). It is much better to avoid the practice altogether (lit., to “hate” it, vb an@c*).

A cognate accusative (adjective) of the verbal root uu^r* (“be bad”) is used here for emphasis: u^ory@ ur^, which might be translated “he will experience (something) bad (that is) bad”, i.e., “will experience something very bad”; often this connotes suffering harm/damage, i.e., “will suffer serious harm”. In this warning-context, the sense presumably is “risks serious harm”.
With Waltke (p. 490), I regard the adjective ur^ as an internal accusative, thus obviating the need to emend or repoint the text (to an infinitive absolute, u^r)). In the MT as it stands, one could conceivably read ur^ as a substantive adjective (“bad [person]”) that is the subject of the verb, viz., “A bad (man) will experience harm”; in light of this, a number of commentators (e.g., Fox, p. 536; cf. Toy, p. 230; Plöger, p. 134) would vocalize ur as an infinitive absolute (u^r)).

Such advice is part of the wider Near Eastern Wisdom tradition, as indicated, for example, by the saying from the Egyptian Instruction of Khasheshonqi (cited by Schipper, p. 402): “Do not lend money at interest without obtaining a security. / Do not be too trusting lest you become poor.” (16, x + 21-22).

Verse 16

“A woman of favor holds (much) worth,
while fearsome (men) take hold of wealth!”
or—
“A women of favor holds (much) worth,
and <diligent> (men) hold (much) wealth!”

The sense of this proverb is highly problematic—a point that is surprisingly ignored by many commentators. The principal difficulty is the substantive (plural) adjective in the second line, which in the MT is <yx!yr!u*. This adjective (Jyr!u*), which has the basic meaning “fearsome, awesome”, occurs with some frequency as a substantive that designates the “powerful ones” in society, but also often with the negative connotation of ruthlessness and violence. Based on the contrast that occurs in most of these proverbs, we would expect the positive description (viz., of the wise/righteous) in the first line to be juxtaposed with the negative portrait of the foolish/wicked in line 2. The use of Jyr!u*, particularly in the sense of “violent/ruthless (one)s”, would certainly fit this pattern; however, it produces a strange contrast: “woman of grace/favor” vs. “violent/ruthless (men)”.

Fox (p. 537f) proposes that the text be emended to <yx!Wrj* (“diligent [one]s”)—viz., the adjective JWrj* rather than Jyr!u*. In favor of this proposal is:

    • The fact that Jyr!u* occurs nowhere else in Proverbs while JWrj* occurs five other times (10:4; 12:24, 27; 13:4; 21:5, indeed all of the Scriptural occurrences are in Proverbs).
    • It produces a more reasonable parallel within the couplet: viz., wise/prudent women and men, instead of virtuous woman vs. ruthless men. Against the proposal is the consistent wise/foolish and righteous/wicked contrast that runs through most of the proverbs in these chapters (and all of the other proverbs in vv. 13-22); one expects it here as well, though there are other exceptions to this pattern (see v. 7; 10:18, 26).
    • The LXX reads a)ndrei=oi (“manly, vigorous”), which could serve as a rendering of <yx!yr!u*, though it typically has the positive connotation of “courageous, virtuous”. But it is worth noting that it is used specifically to translate <yx!Wrj* in 10:4 (in a similar context), which makes it likely that <yx!Wrj* was also present the Hebrew text being translated here in v. 16.

It is also noteworthy that the LXX has an expanded form of the verse, containing a pair of proverb-couplets, which, if accurately reflecting the Hebrew original, would resolve the difficulties inherent in the MT:

“A woman of good favor works honor for her man,
but a seat without value (is) a woman hating right (deed)s.
Those (who are) in need come to be hesitant of riches,
but the manly [a)ndrei=oi] (one)s make themselves firm with riches.”

A few commentators (e.g., Ringgren) believe that the LXX does reflect the Hebrew original, and this makes for an appealing solution. The result would be a pair of clear and consistent proverbs, rather than the single apparently unclear and inconsistent proverb of the MT. See the discussion by E. Tov in “Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, and T. H. Tobin, S.J. College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5 (University Press of America, 1990), pp.43-56 [46]; cf. Waltke, p. 497; Schipper, p. 403.

It is in such instances that one greatly regrets the utter paucity of evidence for Proverbs in the Dead Sea manuscripts, since those might otherwise resolve certain textual questions or issues. Sadly, mere scraps from just two manuscripts of Proverbs have survived, and they contain virtually nothing of chapters 2-12.

Verse 17

“A man of kindness deals (well) with his soul,
while a cruel (one) disturbs his (own) flesh.”

The expression “man of kindness” (ds#j* vya!) clearly matches “woman of favor” (/j@ tv#a@) in v. 16 (see above) and may explain why these two proverbs would have become joined together. Here the emphasis is not on wisdom (or righteousness) per se, but on whether a person is good/kind (dsj) or cruel (rzk, adj. rz`k=a^) toward others. The principle is, that the man who is good to others ends up bringing good to himself as well, while the one who is cruel, only causes harm and trouble to himself. The verb lm^G` has the general meaning “do (to someone), act (toward someone)”, i.e., “deal with, treat”, either for good or for ill (here the meaning clearly is “treat well”). The contrasting verb rk^u* means “stir up, disturb”, or (more forcefully), “cause disorder, confuse, hinder”, and even “mar, ruin, destroy”; it occurs several more times in Proverbs (v. 29; 15:6, 27).

It is likely that the expression “his flesh” (ora@v=) refers both to the individual person and to his family/household/relatives (cf. Fox, p. 538). Indeed, the noun ra@v= (as also rc*B*) often carries this ethno-communal sense. In further support of this view is the famous parallel in v. 29 (“[the one] disturbing his house”), and cf. also the focus in v. 21 (“[the] seed [i.e., descendants] of [the] righteous”); note also 15:27 (Schipper, p. 403f, who also suggests that the proverbs here in vv. 17-18 can be seen as an application of the famous precept in Lev 19:18; cf. Fuhs, p. 198).

There are two aspects of the syntax of this verse that are obscured in my translation above and need to be highlighted. First, the verbs in each line are substantive participles, expressing regular/characteristic behavior: “(the one) dealing (well) with his soul” / “(the one) disturbing his flesh”. Secondly, these participial expressions represent the predicate for each clause and precede the subject in the Hebrew word order (cf. Waltke, p. 497). This wording was not followed in translation, mainly for poetic concision, but also to avoid a confusing rendering in English; I give the proper syntactical parallelism here:

    • “(the one) dealing (well) with his soul /
      • a man of kindness (is)
    • (the one) disturbing his flesh /
      • a cruel (man is)”

Note also the modest alliteration in the second line, between the verb rk^u* (‘ākar) and the adjective rz`k=a^ (’akzār).

Verse 18

“A wicked (man) is (the one) doing work of deceit,
but (the one) sowing righteousness (has) a firm wage.”

As noted above, with verse 18 there is a shift, from the proverbs (vv. 14-17, also v. 13) emphasizing the effects of a person’s behavior on society, to those which again describe the contrasting fates of the righteous and wicked (vv. 18-21). Clearly, it is to be inferred that the behavior leads to the respective fate, being mentioned here as a warning to that effect.

The reference to a person’s wage (rx#c#) in line 2 is related to the idea of doing work (tL^u%P=) in line 1. There is a double meaning to the deceitfulness (rq#v#) mentioned in line 1—it characterizes the work (i.e., deeds) that the wicked person does, but it also reflects the nature of the wage that he receives (and thinks that he will receive). By contrast, the righteous person works in a right (and righteous) manner (“sowing rightness”), and receives a corresponding wage (from God), one that is “firm” (lit., “a wage of firmness”), i.e., sure and true. Cf. Hosea 10:12, and note the similar idea (and idiom) expressed by Paul in Galatians 6:8-9.

Note the alliterative wordplay between rq#v# (šeqer, “deceit”) and rk#c# (śeker, “wage”).

Verse 19

“Thus (does) righteousness (lead) to life,
while (the one) pursuing evil (comes) to death!”

This terse proverb builds (and expounds) on the one prior (v. 18, above), outlining the contrasting fates of the righteous and wicked in unusually blunt terms. One suspects that this couplet may have been added by the author of chapters 1-9, who was presumably also an editor of the larger collection (cf. Fox, p. 538); in any case, it features the important thematic emphasis (from those Lectures)—viz., that the right path of wisdom leads to life, while the crooked paths of folly and wickedness lead to death (cf. 1:19; 2:18-19; 3:2, 16, 18; 4:10, 13, 22-23; 5:5-6; 6:23; 7:23, 27; 8:35-36; 9:11). The thematic conjunction of righteous-wage-life here in vv. 18-19 is also found in the earlier proverb of 10:16. On the specific idiom of pursuing (vb. [d^r*) righteousness/wickedness, cf. 12:11; 15:9; 21:21.

Fox (p. 538f) cites other proverbs (1:19; 6:29; 24:14; 26:19; 30:20) that begin with the adverb /K@ (II, “thus, so”), though it can also be read as the adjective (I, in the confirmatory or asseverative sense of “certainly, surely”)—both being derived from the root /WK (“be firm, right, straight”). Cf. Waltke, p. 497f. The LXX translates /B@ (“son”, ui(o/$): “A righteous son comes to be unto life”.

Verse 20

“Abhorrent to YHWH (are the one)s twisted of heart,
but pleasing to Him (are those) complete in (their) path!”

The noun hb*u@oT denotes something that is abhorrent (i.e., loathsome, disgusting, repellent) to a person; by contrast, /oxr* is something that is pleasing, appealing, and acceptable. Both terms are frequently used in an ethical-religious context, in reference to God’s response and reaction to something. hb*uoT occurs relatively often in Proverbs (20 times), including earlier in 3:32; 6:16; 8:7; 11:1; /oxr* occurs 14 times, including earlier in 8:35; 10:32; 11:1. The two terms are used together in 11:1 (see the prior note); cf. also 12:22.
For poetic concision, both nouns are translated as adjectives, i.e., “abhorrent” / “pleasing”.

This proverb also utilizes the familiar juxtaposition of straight-vs-crooked in relation to the path/walking idiom. The parallel between “heart” and “path” makes clear what could easily be inferred in prior passages—namely, that a person’s regular/daily behavior (“path”) outwardly reflects the inner condition of the “heart”. For the wicked, their heart, just like the path they walk, is crooked (lit., “twisted” vQ@u!, cf. 2:15; 8:8, etc.). By contrast, the heart (and path) of the righteous is complete (i.e., completely right and straight); the adjective <ym!T* (cf. also <T*, “complete”) is frequently used in this ethical-religious sense in the Wisdom texts—cf. 1:12; 2:21; note also Job 1:1, 8; 2:3, and frequently in the book of Job.

The idea that God can see/know the heart (i.e., inward thought and intention) of the individual is not limited to the Scriptural Wisdom tradition. Schipper (p. 405), for example, cites a saying from the Egyptian Instruction of Khasheshonqi (26, x +11): “The god looks into the heart” (cf. Lichtheim, 3.179).

Verse 21

“Hand to hand—an evil (man) will not be clear (of guilt),
but (the) seed of (the) righteous (one)s will be rescued!”

This proverb expounds upon v. 20 much as verse 19 does upon v. 18 (see above). The contrasting fates (of the righteous and wicked) are expressed here in traditional religious terms—viz., of Divine judgment. The wicked (lit. bad/evil ur^) person will be punished by God—he/she will not be cleared (vb hq*n`) of guilt. By contrast, the righteous will be rescued and allowed/enabled to escape (vb fl^m*) punishment from God. This safety/salvation will extend to the “seed” (i.e., children/descendants) of the righteous; the familial and community orientation echoes the societal-communal context of the earlier proverbs in the grouping (also vv. 10-12, see above).

The idiom “hand to hand” (dy`l= dy`) probably stems from the practice of “striking” (clapping/clasping) hands to seal an agreement (see above on verse 15, and cf. 6:1-2). It thus would connote something like “you can be sure of it!” —in this instance, you can be sure of what the author declares in the proverb regarding the respective fates of the righteous and wicked in relation to the Divine judgment. The same idiom is used in 16:5; a much earlier Near Eastern parallel may also be attested in the correspondence from Mari (cf. the reference in Schipper, p. 405). The LXX translates the expression in terms of an actual agreement (i.e., joining of hands) between people: “(The one) throwing in hands with (another’s) hand unjustly will not be without punishment”; cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 191.

We have noted on a number of occasions, in these proverbs contrasting the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked, that the singular form is used in the first line while a plural is used in the second; that is the case here as well—ur^ (“evil/wicked”, singular), qyD!x^ (“righteous”, plural [<yqyD!x^]). It is a stylistic device that adds variation to the frequent parallelism (which might otherwise become repetitive).

Verse 22

“A nose-ring of gold in (the) nostril of a pig—
(so is) a woman (who is) beautiful but lacking taste!”

This closing proverb matches the opening proverb of v. 13 (see above) in its general emphasis on the importance of possessing (and exercising) discretion and prudence—both in one’s speech (v. 13) and overall conduct. Here, the conduct of women is particularly in view, much as in the concluding poem of 31:10ff (and cf. verse 16a, above). The point clearly is that inner beauty is to be valued over outward attractiveness (a point particularly important for young men when choosing a wife). Here, outward beauty (hp*y`) and ornament is compared in terms of a golden nose-ring (cf. Gen 24:47; Isa 3:21; Ezek 16:12). The inward lack of beauty (i.e., ugliness and crudeness) is likened to that of a pig (with its ugly snout). The lack of ‘beauty’ in this sense means a lack of “taste” (<u^f^)—that is, of good sense and sound judgment, just as in English idiom we can speak of a person “lacking (good) taste”. It is an idiom for foolishness, much like the more common expression “lacking heart” (v. 12, etc.). The specific expression here is “turning away of taste” (<u^f* tr^s*), which is quite difficult to translate literally in this context. The idea is that good sense has abandoned the person, though it doubtless also alludes the idea that the person has turned away from good sense him/herself (cf. Waltke, p. 498). For poetic concision, and to bring out the conceptual parallel with the expression “lacking heart”, I have translated it here as “lacking taste”. For other occurrences of this figurative use of <u^f^, cf. 26:16; Job 12:20; Psalm 119:66.

The idea of a foolish woman’s outward allure echoes the various depictions of the ‘Strange Woman’, as a representation and personification of folly, in chapters 1-9; cf. especially 7:10, 16-17. However, in those poems, the main source of her allure is not her physical beauty but her seductive speech (2:16; 5:3; 6:24; 7:5, 13ff, 21; 9:16f). The speech-emphasis is in keeping with the ‘Strange Woman’ as personifying the opposite of Wisdom—i.e., foolish, vain and deceptive words in contrast to the straight and sound teachings of Wisdom. The specific focus on the behavior of women echoes the earlier reference in 16a and marks a point of inner coherence for the proverbs in this grouping; Waltke (pp. 497ff) would go so far as to make these two proverbs the frame for the grouping (vv. 16-22).

For more on this verse, see the article by Knut M. Heim, “A Closer Look at the Pig in Proverbs xi 22”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 58 (2008), pp. 13-27.

    • 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 “Fuhs” are to Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar, Forschung zur Bibel 95 (Echter-Verlag: 2001).
    • Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).
    • Those marked “Toy” are to Crawford Howell Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (1899).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 11:1-12

Chapter 11

Proverbs 11:1-12

As previously mentioned, the traditional chapter divisions for Proverbs 10-29 are somewhat arbitrary and do not necessarily reflect any definite structure for the collection. In particular, the division between chapters 10 and 11 is far from clear, as one can find proverbs (and groups of proverbs) with the same or similar thematic emphasis in both chapters. However, I do regard verses 2-12 as a distinct and valid proverb-grouping. Indeed, the proverbs in vv. 3-11, much like those of 10:24-25, 27-30 (discussed in the previous study), feature the theme of the contrasting fates for the righteous and wicked, respectively (cf. Heim, p. 137; Whybray, Composition, pp. 96-7). In turn, this grouping is framed by a pair of similar sayings (vv. 2, 12) that include the idea of the wicked showing contempt, and bringing shame/disgrace, to others.
For different ways of delineating the proverb-groupings of chapter 11, see the summary by Heim, pp. 135-8.

The position of the proverb in verse 1 is peculiar, since it seems to have little or no connection with what follows in vv. 2-12, and its only connection with the preceding proverbs is the shared use of the noun /oxr* with 10:32 (a clear example of catchword-bonding as method for joining individual proverbs). However, it must be noted that chapter 11, rather more so than chap. 10, contains a number of proverbs that mention commercial/financial activity along with an emphasis on the importance of fair and honest dealings with people (in daily business, etc.). In this regard, verse 1 anticipates some of the proverbs that occur later in the chapter (in vv. 15ff).

This positioning of verse 1, along with the framing proverbs of vv. 2 and 12, implies a relationship with the fate-declarations in vv. 3-11. That is to say, if a person regularly acts in a foolish and wicked way toward others (in daily life and business), then, as a result, he/she will end up meeting the fate of the wicked described in vv. 3-11.

Verse 1

“Balance-scales of deceit (are) an abhorrent thing to YHWH,
but a fully (honest) stone-weight (is) His delight.”

There are a number of proverbs in the collection that mention the ethical importance of the use of fair/honest weights and measures in business dealings (cf. 16:11; 20:10, 23). The issue was also part of the Divine Instruction (Torah)—cf. Lev 19:35-36; Deut 25:15—and was referenced as an ethical (and social justice) concern by the Prophets (e.g., Hos 12:7; Amos 8:5). It is also found in the wider Wisdom Tradition of the ancient Near East, as, for example, in the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope (§§16, 17); note also the injunction in the Code of Hammurabi (§94). Cf. Fox (p. 530), and Schipper (p. 392), who cites several other ancient Near Eastern references.

The adjective <l@v* I (from the root <lv) means “full, complete”; in this context, the meaning is “fully/completely honest” (so also in Deut 25:15). The noun hb*u@oT, denoting something loathsome and abhorrent (to someone), is frequently used in an ethical-religious sense (viz., something abhorrent to God, and thus also to the righteous), and occurs fairly often in the Proverbs (20 times, cf. earlier in 3:32; 6:16; 8:7). The noun hb*u@oT thus represents the opposite of /oxr*, which denotes something that is “pleasing, favorable, acceptable” to someone (translated here “delight”). On YHWH’s ‘delight’ for a person who is honest and truthful, cf. 12:22.

On the possible positional relation of this proverb to vv. 2-12ff, and the connection with 10:32 (based on the shared use of the noun /oxr*), see the introduction above.

Verse 2

“(When someone) heated comes, then comes contempt,
while with (the) careful (one)s (is found) wisdom.”

This is the first of two proverbs, framing the group of vv. 3-11, which make the point that the foolish/wicked ones act in a contemptuous way (and treat people with contempt); here the root hl*q* (noun /olq*) is used, while in v. 12 it is zWB (cf. below). Here the foolish/wicked ones are designated by the noun /odz` (from the verbal root dyz!), denoting someone who is “hot/heated”, usually in the ethical sense of “hot with anger” (i.e., ‘hot-tempered’) or with the specific connotation of “insolence, arrogance”; cf. 13:10; Deut 17:12; 18:22. Such a person acts (and speaks) rashly (i.e., foolishly) and in a presumptuous or arrogant manner; this leads to contemptuous conduct and to treating people with contempt. By contrast, the wise/righteous person is characterized by u^Wnx*—that is, acting and thinking in a clear/careful way. Such a ‘level-headed’ person represents the exact opposite of the rash-tempered one. See Schipper, p. 393, for several examples of a similar contrast made in the Egyptian Wisdom texts (e.g., Papyrus Insinger, 4.22; 33.23).

The qatal + wayyiqtol verbal structure here represents, not past tense per se, but, rather, a specific sequence of events—viz., first rashness and hot-tempered/arrogant behavior, then contempt. In other words, the contempt comes as a consequence/result of a person’s rash/arrogant conduct. I understand this contempt primarily in terms of the foolish/wicked person’s treatment of others, but it may also allude to the fate of the foolish/wicked (anticipating the thematic emphasis in vv. 3-11)—viz., that they themselves will be treated with contempt; cf. 16:18; 18:12; 29:23.

Frequently in these contrastive righteous vs. wicked proverbs, the singular is used in the first line, and the plural in the second; such is the case here. It is a stylistic device, for poetic variation within the couplet.

Note the alliteration and rhyming rhythm of the first line (cf. Fox, p. 531, and mentioned by other commentators as well):

/olq* ab)Y`w~ /odz` aB*
bā’ zādôn | wayyābō’ qālôn

Verse 3

“(The) completeness of (the) straight guides them,
but (the) twisting of (the) treacherous ravages them!”

This is the first of a sequence of proverbs (vv. 3-11) that emphasize the contrasting fates of the righteous and wicked (cf. 10:24-25, 27-30). The expressions “completeness of the straight” and “twistedness of the treacherous” are precisely parallel, but conceptually the four terms, as given, represent a chiastic sequence:

    • “completeness” (hM*T%), as a characteristic of the righteous
      • “straight” (rv*y`), i.e., upright
      • “twisting” ([l#s#), i.e., crooked and perverse
    • “treacherous” (dg@oB, verbal adjective), characteristic of the wicked

The verb dg^B* (“be treacherous”) particularly indicates an implied social context (as in vv. 1-2)—that is, of how a person deals with others in society. The wise and righteous person is straight and honest in his/her dealings, acting with truthfulness and integrity (in a “complete” manner).

The contrasting characteristics of “straightness” (rvy) and “twistedness” ([ls) relate to the traditional path/walking idiom that featured so prominently in chapters 1-9. Cf. the use of [ls in 13:6; 15:4; 19:3; 21:12; 22:12.

Most commentators follow the Qere for the final word of the verse, reading the imperfect (yiqtol) verb form <D@v*y+ (“it ravages them”) rather than the Kethib perfect form (or suffixed noun) with w-conjunction, <dvw (“indeed it ravages them”, or “indeed it [is] their devastation”).

The LXX (A) has a very different version of this proverb (cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 185): “(With the) dying off of (the) righteous, he leaves behind concern, / but (soon) at hand and (a cause) for joy (is the) destruction of (the) impious!”.

Verse 4

“Wealth gives no benefit in (the) day of (His) anger,
while righteousness snatches (one) from death.”

This proverb closely resembles 10:2 (see the earlier note), the main differences (in the first line) being: (1) the riches are simply referred to as a person’s strength/substance (i.e., “wealth”, /oh) and not described as having been gathered “by wickedness”; (2) there is a contextual reference to the judgment (by God) of the wicked, referred to as “(the) day of anger” (i.e., YHWH’s anger). This alludes to the “day of YHWH” concept from the Prophets; cf. especially Zeph 1:18, where a similar emphasis on the uselessness of a person’s worldly/material riches occurs.
For more on the relationship between 10:2 and 11:4, see the discussion by Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 213-7.

This couplet is missing from the LXX, though it is supplied in some manuscripts from the Theodotion version; cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 185.

Verse 5

“(The) rightness of (the) complete shall keep straight his path,
but in his (own) wickedness (the) wicked (one) falls!”

The characteristic designations (of the wise/righteous) from vv. 3 (<mt, “complete”) and 4 (qdx, “right[eous]”) are combined here in v. 5, set in contrast with uvr (“wicked”, used twice). The point in this proverb, clearly made, is that the righteous character of the righteous results in their life/salvation, while the wicked character of the wicked leads to their death/destruction. Salvation is expressed here in terms of keeping one’s path straight (another use of the path/walking idiom), which leads to life. The falling (vb lp^n`) of the wicked likewise alludes to the path/walking motif, suggesting that they fall because they do not keep to the straight (and level) path; instead, the crooked paths that they walk are filled with obstacles and rough surfaces which easily cause a person to stumble and fall.

The preposition B on the suffixed noun otu*v=r! (“his [own] wickedness”) can be translated “in” (i.e., “in the mist of his wickedness”) or “by” (i.e., “because or by means of his wickedness”). Both ways of reading the expression are entirely valid; cf. Fox, p. 532, who cites Rabbi Moše Cordovero (Ramak/Ramaq) to the effect that this proverb depicts the wicked man’s path “as full of holes into which he may stumble”. It has been noted (by Fox, and cf. Kselman, p. 546) that there may be some wordplay here between otu*v=r!b= (“in his wickedness”) and otv=r!b= (“in his net”), playing on the idea, found often in the Psalms, that the wicked end up falling into the pit that they themselves dig (for the righteous/innocent victim), or the trap that they set; cf. especially Psalm 35:7-8. See also the exposition/elaboration of this proverb in v. 6 (below).

Verse 6

“(The) rightness of (the) straight shall snatch them (from danger),
while by (their) desire (the) treacherous (one)s are captured!”

This proverb represents an elaboration of the prior one (v. 5), utilizing characteristic terminology (for the righteous and wicked, respectively) from the earlier v. 3. In particular, the righteous are characterized as “straight” (rv*y`, cf. also the verb in v. 5) while the wicked are referred to as “treacherous” (being/acting treacherously, vb dg^B*). The parallel with being “snatched (out of danger)” (vb lx^n`, Hiphil) confirms that the idiom of keeping one’s path straight (in v. 5a) relates to being saved from God’s judgment (and obtaining life).
The literary technique whereby particular terms and thematic motifs are utilized multiple times (in different combinations) is referred to by Schipper as a principle of “undulation” (p. 396; cf. also 354-6, 361ff).

The construct expression in the second line (MT), “in/by (the) desire of (the) treacherous”, almost certainly produces a misleading distortion of the proverb’s intent, suggesting that the upright ones are captured by the evil desires of the wicked. The MT may be explained as the result of a final <– having dropped out, with the text originally reading <t*W`h^b=W (“in/by their [own] desire”). Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 186; Waltke, p. 481; Schipper, p. 388. The noun hW`h^ (I/II), from the root hwh (I), allows for several possible layers of meaning (as Fox notes, p. 533), including (i) evil/sinful desire, (ii) disaster and harm, and (iii) harmful, threating, or deceitful words. All three of these are clearly relevant to the character (and conduct) of the wicked. The wicked are captured by their own wicked conduct, just as (in v. 5) they fall by it. As in v. 5b, the prefixed preposition B= can mean “in” (i.e., into, in the midst of) or “by” (i.e., by means of, because of). The use of the verb dk^l* (“catch, capture”) gives further support to the idea that there is double-meaning wordplay (“wickedness”/”net”) present in v. 5b (cf. above).
Dahood (p. 21) explains the MT noun form tW^h^ differently, not as a construct form of hW`h^, but as a possible feminine singular substantive (according to the Phoenician spelling).

Verse 7

“With (the) dying of a [wicked] man, hope perishes—
and (the) expectation of wealth (also) perishes!”

It is probable that the MT of the first line of v. 7 has been secondarily altered/expanded by the addition of the adjective uv*r* (“wicked”); if so, then, in its original form, the proverb was a tighter 4+3 couplet (without any occurrence of the righteous-wicked contrast). Indeed, two manuscripts omit the adjective, and the shorter text is adopted by other commentators (such as Waltke, p. 481). And yet, it would make sense that the author/editor of the collection, in order to conform the proverb to the righteous-wicked contrast of vv. 3-11, might have been the one to add the adjective (which also occurs in the parallel saying of 10:28; cf. Schipper, p. 396; Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 240ff). In any case, the longer text certainly fits the thematic context of vv. 3-11.
Fox (p. 533f) prefers to omit the noun <d*a* (“[hu]man”), but it is far more likely that it was the adjective uv*r* that was added, whether by the author/editor or subsequently by copyists.

The double use of the similar nouns hw`q=T! and tl#j#oT, both of which mean “hope, expectation”, also occurred in 10:28, where the contrast of fates (between righteous and wicked) was featured. Clearly, the point is that of 10:28b—namely, that the hopes of the wicked perish with them at the time of their death. This includes their “strength/wealth” (/oa I, cf. /oh in v. 4), which is of no use to them at the time of death—the parallel with v. 4 suggesting a sudden or premature/untimely death as a judgment from God.

The LXX preserves the righteous/wicked contrast for this couplet: “(With the) ending (of the life) of a righteous man, hope does note perish, / but (the) boast of the impious (one)s perishes!” Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 186f.

Verse 8

“(The) righteous (one) will be snatched from distress,
and (the) wicked will come (there) in place of him!”

This proverb represents a creative reorientation to the righteous-wicked contrast that runs throughout vv. 3-11 (but which may not have been present originally in v. 7, cf. above). Instead of a formal contrast, built into the poetic parallelism of the couplet, it is depicted conceptually through the imagery of the verse: viz., the wicked person comes into distress (or a ‘tight spot’) in place of (tj^T^) the righteous. Once YHWH has rescued (“snatched”, vb lx^n` Hiphil) the righteous out of distress, the wicked come to take their place. The implied idea may be that the wicked fall into the very trap they set for the righteous; as noted above (cf. on vv. 5-6), such a conceptual framework appears numerous times in the Psalms (35:7-8, etc.). Note the similarity of 12:13b to the first line here (cf. Schipper, p. 397).

Verse 9

“With (his) mouth (the) impious (one) would harm his companion,
but with knowledge (the) righteous (one)s are snatched (from harm).”

The juxtaposition of vv. 8 and 9 would seem to confirm that the “distress” (hr*x*) mentioned in v. 8 represents a hostile/oppressive ‘trap’ that was set for the righteous by the wicked. Indeed, here the wicked (called [n@j*, “impious”) intend to harm (and even ruin/destroy) others through their evil speech (cf. 10:31-32, and the earlier speech-proverbs in chap. 10). That such attacks are made against a “companion” suggest the verbal characteristic of “being/acting treacherous” (vb dg^B*, vv. 3, 6).

Dahood (p. 21f) explains hp, not as the noun meaning “mouth”, but as a verb cognate with Ugaritic ph (“see, watch”), so that the first line would read “By watching (the) impious (one), his companion comes to harm”; Dahood understands tjv specifically in terms of the meaning “pit” (denominative verb “fall into a pit”). 

Once again, the righteous, it is promised, will be “snatched” (i.e., rescued) from any such harm that the wicked intend. In v. 8, the traditional language implies that it is God who rescues them; but, here in v. 9, it is knowledge (i.e., wisdom) that provides the means of rescue. Since God is ultimately the source of true Wisdom, He is also the ultimate source of rescue for the righteous. One is reminded of the Wisdom-teachings of the lectures in chapters 1-9, which repeatedly promise that following the voice and path of Wisdom will enable the young person to avoid being lured down the crooked paths of folly and wickedness (e.g., 2:12-19, cf. the specific use of the verb lx^n` in vv. 12 and 16).

This couplet provides another instance of singular/plural variation in the contrast between righteous and wicked—singular of [n@j* (“impious”) and plural of qyD!x^ (“righteous”). The adjective [n@j* (root [nj) is a bit difficult to translate with precision (cp. the treatments in HALOT, p. 335f, and TDOT [K. Seybold], V.37-8). I tend to doubt the separate roots (I/II) delineated in HALOT; it seems that the fundamental meaning (for all occurrences of the root), much like that of [ls (cf. verse 3), is “turn, twist, distort”. As a characteristic of the wicked, [n@j* thus means something like “distorted”, both in character and action. In particular, as the context here suggests, the [n@j* person distorts his/her speech, so as to harm and deceive others. I have translated the adjective rather conventionally as “impious”, but “twisted” or “perverse” would doubtless be more accurate.

Verse 10

“With (the) good of (the) righteous, (the) city rejoices—
and, with (the) perishing of (the) wicked, (also) a ringing cry!”

The righteous/wicked contrast is expressed differently here (cf. also verse 8, above), without the use of a formal contrastive parallel. Instead, the point is made that a city will rejoice at both the prospering/blessing (“good”) of the righteous and the ruin/perishing of the wicked. Not that the people of a particular city will actually respond in such a way—rather, the proverb expresses a generalized ideal as to how people, if they truly understood the situation, would react. The saying may also, in an indirect way, reflect the actual consequences of the situations that are envisaged. Since the blessing/prosperity of the righteous means good for the surrounding community, they will end up rejoicing; similarly, since the wicked often cause oppression, distress, and harm for their community, their death might likewise be a cause for joy (meaning relief from oppression, etc.). Cf. the proverb in 28:12.

Verse 11

“With (the) blessing of (the) straight (one)s, a city is (raised) high,
but by (the) mouth of (the) wicked (one)s it is torn down!”

As in v. 10, the effects that the lives of the righteous and wicked, respectively, have on the surrounding society are highlighted. Formally, this proverb follows the pattern of the one prior (in v. 10), but with the contrastive parallel, in line with most of the proverbs in vv. 3-11, being present again. And, once more, it is the characteristic speech of both righteous and wicked that is in view. The expression “blessing of (the) straight [i.e., righteous]” is transitional in this regard, alluding at once to the blessing that comes (from God) upon the righteous (v. 10) and also to the blessing that the righteous themselves bring (to others), especially in terms of their speech (viz., words of blessing). Such words of blessing are juxtaposed (in stark contrast) to that which comes out of the mouth of the wicked. The words of the righteous have the effect of building up (lit., lifting high) the city (i.e., uplifting the community), while those of the wicked only end up tearing it down. Cf. 29:8 for a proverb which similarly describes the effect that the wicked have on a “city”; and note a comparable use of the verb sr^h* (“tear down”) in 14:1.

Verses 10-11 represent a special variation on the overall theme (in vv. 3-11) on the contrasting fates of the righteous and wicked: their character and conduct have a collateral effect on the fate of the surrounding community (and society), viz., the “city”. Schipper (p. 399) suggests that this “city”-motif may intentionally echo the setting of the dramatic scenes in 1:20-21ff; 7:6-12ff; and 9:3-4ff; in any case, the reader/hearer of the book will likely make the connection.

Verse 12

“He (who) speaks contemptuously to his companion (is) lacking heart,
while a man of discernment knows (how) to keep silent.”

This final proverb of the grouping continues the thematic motif (from vv. 9, 11) on a person’s speech, while, at the same time, providing a framing inclusio (along with v. 2, see above) for the proverbs of vv. 3-11. These two framing proverbs feature the idea of the foolish/wicked ones acting contemptuously (and showing contempt) to others. In verse 2, the root hl*q* (noun /olq*) was used, while here it is zWB. It is also noteworthy that, while vv. 3-11 feature a contrast between the righteous and wicked, in vv. 2 and 12 the contrast is more properly between the wise and foolish. The implication seems to be that, by (regularly) showing contempt for others, the foolish ones proceed ever more firmly down the path toward wickedness and will likely meet the fate of the wicked (described in vv. 3-11).

In verse 2, this aspect of foolishness was expressed in terms of acting rashly, with a hot-tempered arrogance (/odz`); here the more frequently occurring expression “lacking of heart” is used (cf. earlier in 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21, and again in 12:9, 11; 15:21; 17:18; 24:30; 28:16). In Proverbs, this expression refers to a person who lacks wisdom and understanding (in English idiom we would say “lacking sense”), but, potentially at least, might still be able to learn and acquire it. However, if such a person spurns, ignores, or otherwise neglects the teachings of Wisdom, he/she will surely proceed ever further down the paths of folly and wickedness. Even a reckless youth may occasionally act contemptuously toward others; the more frequent and severe that such signs of contempt are indicates a growing wickedness.

There are two ways of reading the first line: (i) a statement that the one who shows contempt to others (lit., to his companion) is lacking sense; or (ii) emphasizing that the foolish person (lacking sense) will likely act contemptuously toward others. The MT vocalizes the initial verb (zWB) as a participle (zB*), which certainly suggests regular/characteristic behavior (“[the one] showing contempt”); it could also be vocalized as a perfective form (zB^), which would tend to support reading (ii), cf. Waltke, p. 490. In that case, the better translation in English would be: “(The one) lacking heart speaks contemptuously to his companion”. In either case, the Hebrew word order in the couplet is chiastic:

    • “speaks contemptuously to his companion
      • (one) lacking heart /
      • but a man of discernment
    • knows (how) to keep silent”

The emphasis on wisdom/knowledge supports the rendering of the verb vr^j* (“be/keep silent”) as “know how to keep silent”. The speech-emphasis of the verse (as also vv. 9, 11) indicates that the contextual nuance for the verb zWB (“be contemptuous, show contempt”) is “speak contemptuously”. Knowing how/when to remain silent (and exercise discretion) is similarly indicated as a sign of wisdom and discernment in 17:28 where the same verb (vr^j* II) in the Hiphil is used; cf. Schipper, p. 400; Meinhold, p. 192.

    • 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 “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology, Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 113 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1963).
    • Those marked “Kselman” are to John S. Kselman, “Ambiguity and Wordplay in Proverbs XI”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 52 (2000), pp. 545-7.

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 10:23-32

Proverbs 10:23-32

Verses 23-30 appear to form a coherent proverb-grouping, based on the theme of the contrasting fates of the righteous and the wicked (cf. Heim, pp. 127ff; Meinhold, pp. 180ff). The fates of the righteous and the wicked, respectively, are determined by their characteristic behavior—established in the opening proverb, v. 23. The proverbs in vv. 24-25, 27-30 then proceed to describe, in various ways, the fates of the righteous/wicked: for the righteous, blessing from God, security and long life; for the wicked, loss of hope, ruin and an untimely or premature death.

Only the proverb in verse 26 would seem to be out of place in this grouping; at best, it is marginally related to the overarching theme. A good number of proverbs deal with the subject of laziness, idleness, and neglect (of duty or hard work). Indeed, all of the Scriptural occurrences (14) of the adjective lx@u* (“slow-moving”, i.e., “lazy, sluggish”) are in the book of Proverbs. The earlier occurrences in 6:6, 9 are instructive with regard to how verse 26 may be seen as related to the grouping of vv. 23-30. The Lecture in 6:1-19 illustrates a progression, from careless/foolish behavior in practical matters (vv. 1-5) all the way to outright wickedness (vv. 16-19). The “lazy” person (lx@u*, vv. 6-11) is partway down this progression (viz., from foolisness to wickedness). Yet, he is still capable of changing his ways, of learning wisdom and walking the straight/right path. In this regard, the proverb here in v. 26 corresponds to the exhortation in 6:6ff. As Heim states it (p. 130; cf. Plöger, p. 129), the sluggard “is on the way to becoming a wicked fool” —that is, if he does not learn to heed the voice of Wisdom.

The final two proverbs (vv. 31-32) form a coda to this grouping, and a suitable conclusion to chapter 10 as a whole—the emphasis on a person’s speech (through the representative motif of the “mouth”, “lips”, and “tongue”) being found earlier in vv. 8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-21. However, the traditional chapter divisions remain rather arbitrary and fluid in relation to the recognized structures within the collection, and there are comparable speech-proverbs in chapter 11 (vv. 9, 11, 13). There are also proverbs in chap. 11 dealing with the theme of the contrasting fates of the righteous and the wicked (see above). Indeed, it is possible to treat 10:28-11:7 as a distinct proverb-grouping (as, e.g., Fuhs does, pp. 187ff), framed by the similar proverbs in 10:28 (see below) and 11:7.

Verse 23

“As laughter to a fool (is the) working of scheme(s),
but wisdom (is so) to a man of discernment.”

The foolish person (lys!K=) is inclined toward harmful folly and wickedness, described here in terms of acting (vb hc*u*, “do, make, work”) in accordance with a certain kind of “buzzing” (hM*z] I, cf. the verbal root <mz I)—that is, negative and harmful thoughts, suggestions, plans, schemes, etc. Behavior that accords with hM!z] (in this negative sense) represents sin and wickedness, often of a very notorious or shameful kind. By, contrast, the wise person (“man of understanding/discernment”) acts in accordance with wisdom (and righteousness). The fool takes delight (lit., it is “laughter to [him]”) in acting according to harmful/shameful “buzzing”, whereas the “buzzing” (hM*z]m=) that the wise heed is upright and rooted in sound knowledge and understanding (cf. 1:4; 2:11; 3:21; 5:2; 8:12; Sir 44:4). For the basic thought expressed in line 1, cf. 2:14; 15:21.

Verse 24

“(The) fear of (the) wicked, it shall come (upon) him,
while (the) desire of (the) righteous He does grant.”

With the characteristic behavior of the righteous and wicked established in v. 23, the remaining proverbs of this grouping (vv. 24-30, except for v. 26) present the contrasting fates for the righteous and wicked, respectively. This is a regular feature in Wisdom literature and a key component of the dualistic contrast between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked. The parallelism of the couplet is loose, but formal:

    • “(the) fear of the wicked” | “it shall come (to) him”
    • “(the) desire of the righteous” | “He shall give/grant (it)”

The second component of each line describes an action by God (YHWH)—punishment for the wicked and blessing for the righteous. This is expressed impersonally in the first line: “it shall come (upon) him” (i.e., upon the wicked). YHWH is the implied subject of the verb in the second line as well (cf. verse 22; Fox, p. 525f; Heim, pp. 128-9): “He shall give (it to the righteous)”; in the context of giving (vb /t^n*) a favor or blessing, we would tend to say “grant” rather than “give”.
Waltke (p. 467) prefers to treat /T@y! as indefinite (i.e., “one gives”), citing Job 37:10; Prov. 13:10, and translating as if it were passive (“it is given”). Plöger (p. 122) would revocalize as a passive form, /T*y%. 

God gives to the righteous the very things that they desire (and hope for), since such things are (and must be) good and right, cf. 11:23; but He gives to the wicked the things that they fear (and would wish to avoid), cf. 3:25; 15:21; Isa 66:4. The expression “fear [hr*ogm=] of the wicked” here means “the thing feared by the wicked”, i.e., what the wicked fear. The feminine noun hr*ogm= (“fear, dread”, cf. the verbal root rWG III) is quite rare, occurring just three times in the Scriptures (cf. Psalm 34:5[4]; Isa 66:4); a bit more common is the masculine noun rogm* (I), Psalm 31:14[13]; Isa 31:9; Jer 6:25; 20:3, 10; 46:5; 49:29. Compare the warning given by personified Wisdom in 1:27.

Verse 25

“As (with the) passing of a wind-storm, so (the) wicked are no more,
but (the) righteous (have) a foundation (into the) distant (future)!”

Ultimately, the wicked are destroyed (by God’s Judgment) that comes (and then goes), lit. “passes by” (vb rb^u*), with the suddenness of a great wind-storm (hp*Ws, cf. 1:27). This alludes to the idea that the wicked will suffer a sudden and unexpected (and untimely) death. The negative particle /y]a^ expresses the idea of absence or non-existence, i.e., “is/are not”; frequently, particularly in Wisdom texts, it means that a person no longer exists (i.e., is dead).

It is also possible to translate the prepositional phrase in the first line, as a temporal-conditional phrase (cf. Waltke, p. 467)— “when (the) wind-storm passes by” —a condition that applies to both the wicked and the righteous, with two different outcomes. The wicked are destroyed by the storm, but the righteous survive and are kept safe (Ps 57:1, etc.)—because their ‘house’ has a strong foundation (dosy+); cf. Jesus’ famous illustration in Matt 7:24-27 par. In any case, the emphasis in the second line is on the strength and security that the righteous possess (12:3, etc.)—viz., Divine protection as a blessing from YHWH. It will last them into the distant future (<l*ou), implying a long life and (possibly) a blessed afterlife.
One should perhaps gloss the second line as “but (the) righteous (are) a foundation…” —viz., they themselves are strong and secure. 

YHWH is frequently portrayed in connection with the storm (i.e., storm-theophany), and Divine judgment like the coming of a storm upon humankind, in which the wicked are ‘swept away’ —e.g., Psalm 58:10[9]; Job 21:18; Isa 17:13; 28:2; 30:30; Jer 23:19; 30:23; Ezek 13:13.

In both vv. 24 and 25, the adjective uv*r* (“wicked”) is singular, while qyD!x^ (“righteous”) is plural. This singular/plural variation within the parallelism of the couplet occurs with some frequency in the Proverbs, as we have already seen (a number of times in the proverbs of chap. 10).

Verse 26

“Like sour wine to the teeth
and like smoke to the eyes,
so (is) the slow-mover to (those) sending him!”

The adjective lx@u* denotes one who is “slow-moving” (i.e., sluggish), with connotations of laziness, idleness, and neglect (of work/duty). As noted above, all fourteen Scriptural occurrences of this adjective are in the book of Proverbs, the previous instances being 6:6, 9 (cf. the overall context of 6:6-11). The person who is slow to carry out his duties is an irritation and a burden to those who sent him (expecting him to fulfill his duties promptly). Fox (p. 527) notes other proverbs dealing with the role of messengers, as well proverbs warning against laziness (in addition to 6:6ff, cf. 13:4; 15:19; 19:15, 24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30ff; 26:13ff). The saying in 26:6 is particularly appropriate to the context here; cf. Schipper, p. 382, who also cites two comparable Egyptian examples.

See the introduction above regarding the possible relation of this proverb to the context of vv. 23-30.
The LXX, perhaps in order to bring the proverb more in line with the immediate context of the section (cf. Heim, p. 127), apparently translates lx@u* as paranomi/a (“going aside/over the law”, i.e., “law-breaking, transgression”).

Metrically, this verse is a 4+3 couplet, which I have presented above as a 2+2+3 tricolon.

Verse 27

“(The) fear of YHWH adds to (one’s) days,
while (the) years of (the) wicked are cut short!”

This couplet returns to the principal theme of vv. 23-30—namely, the contrasting fates of the righteous and the wicked, respectively. Here, the righteous are defined as those who possess (and exhibit) a “fear of YHWH”, that is, a reverence and devotion toward Him, giving to Him the honor and worship that He is due. This attribute of “fear of YHWH” is both characteristic of the wise person and essential for the true learning/gaining of Wisdom (cf. 1:7; 2:5; 9:10).

Long life is a fundamental blessing that YHWH provides for the righteous (e.g., Exod 23:26); and, in the Lectures of chapters 1-9, it was promised to those who faithfully follow the path/teachings of Wisdom (3:2, 16, 18; 4:10; 9:11; cf. also 3:22; 4:22-23; 6:23; 8:35). By contrast, the path of folly and wickedness leads to death (cf. 1:19; 2:18-19; 7:27; 8:36), often expressed in terms of a premature or sudden/untimely death (cf. Job 15:32f; 22:16; Qoh 7:17, etc.). As Fox (p. 527) mentioned, this dynamic can be understood in terms of the years allotted for a specific person, or to the average human lifespan. In either case, the righteous will live even longer than expected, while the life of the wicked is “cut short” (on the use of the verb rx^q* in this context, cf. Psalm 89:46[45]; 102:24[23]).
It is a general precept or principle that is stated, to which there are exceptions (as is the case with many of the proverbs). The author/compiler surely was aware that sometimes the wicked end up living to a ripe old age, while the life of those who are seemingly righteous can be cut short. Certain Wisdom texts (such as the book of Job) do occasionally deal with the apparent incongruity of such aberrant situations.

That the promise of long life is part of the wider ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Tradition can be seen, for example, from the following lines of the Sumerian Instructions of Ur-Ninurta (cf. Schipper, p. 382):

“He who knows how to respect religious affairs, who voluntarily [pleases his god]…” (lines 20-21ff)
“…what he has lost is restored (to him).
Days will be added to his days;
years will be plenty in addition to the years he (already) has.” (lines 25-27)
“But the man who does not fear the affairs of (his) god,
[who does not voluntarily] please [(his) god]…” (lines 30-31ff)
“…the days when he lives will not be right.” (line 33)
(translation Bendt Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer [CDL Press: 2005], pp. 229-31)

Verse 28

“(The) expectation of (the) righteous (is) gladness,
but (the) hope of (the) wicked shall perish!”

The righteous can expect (and, indeed, are promised) blessing and happiness (“gladness”, hj*m=c!), while all that the wicked hope for perishes (vb db^a*, lit. “goes/runs away”). This is presumably another reference to the death of the wicked; when they die, all of their hopes perish with them—nothing lasts or remains. The nouns tl#j#oT and hw`q=T! are parallel and largely synonymous, both essentially meaning “expectation, hope” (viz., something that is awaited with hopeful expectation). The noun hw`q=T!, however, also has a double-meaning, which draws out the allusion to a person’s death; in addition to the meaning “hope, expectation”, it also has the concrete denotation of “cord, thread” —as of (figuratively) a person’s life (see the usage in Job 4:6; 6:8; 8:14), when, at death, the cord is “cut” (cf. Qoh 12:6). See the similar use of both tl#j#oT and hw`q=T! in 11:7; cf. also 11:23; 23:18; 24:14.

In contrast to vv. 24-25 (see above), the adjectives qyD!x^ (“righteous”) and uv*r* (“wicked”) in v. 28 are both plural.

Verse 29

“A strong place for the complete (is the) path of YHWH,
while a broken ruin (awaits) for (those) doing evil!”

In this couplet, the righteous and wicked are referenced by the corresponding characteristics of being “complete” (adj. <T* or noun <T)) and “doing evil”, respectively. The expression /w#a* yl@u&P), like the term /w#a* itself, has a relatively wide range of connotative meaning: “causing harm/disaster”, “doing what is false/vain”, “acting with deception”, “committing sin”, “acting (with) injustice”. For the sake of simplicity (and poetic concision), I have translated rather generically as “(those) doing evil” (or “doers of evil”).

The characteristic actions of the wicked (i.e., “doing evil” [of varying kinds]) are also set in contrast with “(the) path of YHWH”, utilizing the familiar path/walking motif (here via the common noun Er#D#) that occurs so frequently in chapters 1-9. The wise/righteous person is one who walks on the straight/right path of Wisdom (which is also the path of God). By walking straight on this path, the righteous are protected by God, and thus the pathway becomes a “strong place” (“place of strength”, “stronghold”)—viz., a place that is protected, secure, and fortified. This locative noun zoum* occurs with some frequency (along with similar terms) in the Psalms (e.g., 27:1; 28:8; 33:3[2]) where the idea of Divine protection features prominently, but only this one occurrence here in Proverbs. The concept, however, is similar to the strong/secure “foundation” (dosy+) that the righteous are said to possess in v. 25b (see above).

By contrast, the wicked have for their security only a “broken ruin” hTj!m=; cf. the earlier usage in vv. 14-15. This alludes to a lack of protection, and also to the destruction and ruin that comes to the wicked (as judgment/punishment from God). This second line resembles that of 21:15, but with a rather different (figurative-psychological) use of hT*j!m=; see the discussion by Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 256-51; cf. Schipper, p. 383.

Verse 30

“(The) righteous into (the) distant (future) shall not be shaken,
but (the) wicked shall not dwell (secure) on (the) earth!”

The security and protection YHWH provides for the righteous (v. 29), and the firm foundation He gives them for their dwelling (v. 25), means that they will never be shaken or caused to move from their place. This is expressed here by the verb fom (“move, waver, sway/stagger”), which is frequently used (esp. in the Psalms) in connection with the idea of Divine protection. By contrast, the wicked have no secure dwelling-place on earth; ultimately, they are provided no protection by God, but instead are judged and punished by Him, and, when they die, all that they possess perishes with them. Cf. a similar contrast in 2:21-22.

As Waltke notes (p. 468), lB^ is the regular negative adverb used with the verb fom (cf. Waltke-O’Connor, p. 57; HALOT, p. 131).

As in v. 25, the righteous are said to possess this blessing (i.e., Divine security and protection) “into the distant (future)” (<l*oul=). As mentioned above, this implies the blessing of long life, but it may also allude to the idea of a blessed afterlife.

Verse 31

“(The) mouth of (the) righteous grows wisdom,
while (the) tongue of (the) twisted shall be cut off!”

Chapter 10 closes with a pair of proverbs that reiterate a thematic emphasis from earlier in the chapter (vv. 8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-21)—namely, the importance of a person’s speech (utilizing the motif of “mouth”, “lips”, and “tongue”) and how it reflects one’s underlying character (whether wise/righteous or foolish/wicked).

This speech-proverb applies the thematic orientation from vv. 23-30—viz., the contrasting fates of the righteous and the wicked—to its particular nexus. Thus, here in line 2, God’s judgment upon the wicked comes in response to their wicked (lit. “twisted”) speech. The verb tr^K* (“cut [off]”) is a regular way of referring to the death of a person, though here it could also allude to the idea of a person’s tongue (the manifestation of his wickedness) being “cut out”; cf. Psalm 12:4[3]. Compare the saying of Ahiqar 66 (156), also cited by Fox (p. 529) and Schipper (p. 384):

“May (the) Mighty One [i.e., El/God] twist (the) mouth of the twisted and tear out [his] tongue!”
(c/o James M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar [Johns Hopkins University Press: 1983], pp. 156-7).

This Aramaic curse-saying twice uses a by-form (ipa) of the same root (iph, “turn, twist”) used here in v. 31 to describe the wicked (hk*P%h=T^, “twisted [one]s”). All but one (Deut 32:20) of the ten Scriptural occurrences of hk*P%h=T^ are in Proverbs (see earlier in 2:12, 14; 6:14; 8:13).

At the same time, as Fox (p. 529) notes, tr^K* here also suggests the cutting down of a tree or plant, even as the verb bWn in line 1 is used for the sprouting and growth of plants (cf. Psalm 92:15[14]; Zech 9:17). Heim (p. 132), following Bühlmann, Delitzsch, and Plöger (p. 130), regards the noun hm*k=j* (“wisdom”) as an instrumental accusative—i.e., “grows through wisdom”. The line thus would refer to the personal growth (and blessing/prosperity) of the righteous rather than to the wisdom that the righteous produce (through their speech), cf. Psalm 37:30. For the idea of ‘fruit’ that is produced by the mouth, see 12:14; 13:2; 18:20; cf. Fox, p. 529; Meinhold, p. 184.
Dahood (pp. 20-21) argues that the verb bWn here means “flow” (as of liquid, cf. [Wn II), and that the form /wudy in v. 32 (see below) has a comparable meaning, derived from a root cognate with Arabic waḏa‘a (“to flow”, cf. Ugaritic d‘t “sweat”). Cf. the discussion of this proposal by Waltke, p. 468.

Verse 32

“(The) lips of (the) righteous know (what is) pleasing,
but (the) mouth of (the) wicked (only) twisted (thing)s!”

This closing proverb shifts the point of contrast, between the speech of the righteous and wicked, to the underlying character of the speech, rather than the fate/result that the speech produces (v. 31). The righteous knows what is pleasing (/oxr*, cf. Qoh 10:12)—and, particularly, what is pleasing and acceptable to God; and those are the things that the righteous regularly speak. By contrast the wicked, who are themselves twisted (v. 31), speak twisted (i.e., crooked, perverse) things; cf. the use of the same plural noun tokP%h=T^. Clearly, the speech by the wicked reflects and expresses their underlying character: i.e., twisted people speak twisted words (cf. 2:12).

Fox (p. 529f; Textual Commentary, p. 184), along with Toy (p. 219) and others, suggests that MT /wudy be emended to read /wuby (vb ub^n`), so that the first line instead reads: “(The) lips of (the) righteous pour forth (what is) pleasing”.

    • 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 “Fuhs” are to Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar, Forschung zur Bibel 95 (Echter-Verlag: 2001).
    • Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).
    • Those marked “Toy” are to Crawford Howell Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (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).