Tag: Speaking Evil

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 10:15-22

Proverbs 10:15-22

The proverbs of verses 15-22 appear to form a loose grouping, framed by vv. 15 and 22 with their focus on the theme of riches. At the same time, verse 15 is connected to the prior v. 14 (see the previous study) through the common use of the noun hT*j!m= (translated as “ruin”)—another example of the joining of proverbs by ‘catchword’-bonding.

A good number of sayings in the collection deal with the subject of wealth, and specifically, the contrast between riches and poverty. These teachings have a wide range of emphasis and orientation—practical, ethical, and theological. Quite often in the Wisdom literature, riches are seen as a blessing (from God) upon the righteous; yet there is an equally strong tendency in the Tradition to identify the righteous with the poor and oppressed in society, and the wicked with the wealthy (the implication being that their wealth was obtained by wicked or unjust means). The former is the orientation of the proverbs here.
There have been a number of useful studies on the subject of wealth/poverty in the Wisdom literature (and particularly in Proverbs); see, for example: R. N. Whybray, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement series 1 (Sheffield Academic Press: 1990); Harold C. Washington, Wealth and Poverty in the Instruction of Amenemope and the Hebrew Proverbs, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertations series 142 (Scholars Press: 1994); Timothy J. Sandoval, The Discourse of Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs (Brill: 2005).

Within the framework of vv. 15-22, there is also a sequence of four proverbs (vv. 18-21) dealing with a person’s speech (and its effect), as characteristic of the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked, respectively. This is a recurrent theme throughout chapter 10 (vv. 8-32), as we have already seen.

It should be noted that other commentators (e.g., Heim, pp. 119ff; Meinhold, pp. 173ff) consider vv. 12-18 (or 13-17) to represent the relevant proverb-grouping (such as it can be determined). This is a valid approach; cf. the treatment of vv. 12 and 18 (with their thematic emphasis on hatred) as the framing proverbs for the cluster, just as I have outlined vv. 15 and 22 in my analysis here. Along with vv. 12-18, Heim regards the prior vv. 6-11 and the following vv. 19-22 as distinct proverb-groupings.

Verse 15

“(The) wealth of a rich (man is the) city of his strength,
(but the) ruin of (the) poor (is) their poverty.”

As noted above, verses 15 and 22 each involve sayings regarding wealth/riches. Here, the nouns /oh (“wealth”, denoting ability, sufficiency, or “means”) and the substantive adjective ryv!u* (“rich [person]”) are used. They are contrasted with the noun vyr@ (“poverty”) and the adjective lD^ (“poor”, lit. “small, little, thin”, sometimes in the sense of “insignificant”). The wealth of a rich person is described as a (walled) city or town that gives him protection and strength (“his strength”); by contrast, the poverty of a poor person is described as a “ruin” (i.e., a city/town that is only ruins). The noun hT*j!m=, which was used in the prior verse 14, denotes something that is “broken (to pieces)”; the –m preformative noun can be understood as locative, viz., a place/site that is broken to pieces (i.e., a ruin).

Structurally, this couplet is distinct, in that it has both a formal parallelistic and chiastic structure; I have sought to preserve the chiasm in the translation above:

    • “Wealth of
      • a rich (man)
        • city of his strength
        • ruin of
      • (the) poor
    • their poverty”

There is apparently little ethical import to this proverb; it seems simply to make the practical observation that wealth gives strength and protection to a rich person (cf. 13:8; 14:20; 19:4; 22:7), while the poverty of the poor is like a ruin (that gives no protection, and thus leaves them vulnerable). The matching proverb (v. 22) at the close of this grouping offers an ethical (and theological) dimension that is otherwise lacking here. At the same time, the socio-economic orientation established here in v. 15 may be seen as providing a backdrop for the teachings that follow in vv. 16-21 (cf. Washington, pp. 196-202; van Leeuwen, pp. 31-3; Schipper, p. 376). Compare the similar proverb in 18:11, which adds a warning against trusting in riches.

Verse 16

“(The) work of (the) righteous (leads) to life,
(while the) output of (the) wicked (leads) to sin.”

Against the setting of v. 15, one can understand the wealth/riches mentioned in that proverb in connection with the work/labor (hL*u%P=) performed by the righteous. The righteous are honest and diligent in their work (cf. verses 2-5), and this leads to blessing (in the form of material wealth and support) from God (cf. verse 22). This blessing, in turn, allows for a long and prosperous life—viz., it “(leads) to life [<yY]j^l=]”. The promise may be viewed in terms of the regular exhortation in the lectures of chapters 1-9 that following the path and teachings of Wisdom leads to life (3:2, 16, 18, 22; 4:10, 13, 22-23; 6:23; 8:35; 9:11; cf. also 2:19; 5:6).

Waltke (p. 450) argues that the prefixed l preposition, most naturally understood here in its directional sense or as indicated goal/purpose/result (i.e., “to life”, “to sin”), should instead be read as emphatic (“[is] surely life/sin”). This seems unlikely.

The reference to a person’s labor includes what is produced by that work. This is expressed in the second line by the noun ha*b%T= which denotes something that “comes forth” (i.e., produce, output). It can also mean that which “comes in” (i.e., income, revenue), even as hL*u%P= in line 1 can connote the wages one receives for work that is performed (cf. the occurrences of this usage cited by Schipper, p. 376). In any case, for the wicked, their work/labor results in sin (which, in turn, leads to death). This, too, is in keeping with the lectures of chapters 1-9, which emphasize that the paths of folly and wickedness lead to death (1:19; 2:19; 5:5-6, 11; 7:23, 27; 8:36).

Cf. a similar life/death contrast in the proverb of 11:19.

Verse 17

“A pathway to life (is the one) guarding instruction,
but (the one) abandoning a rebuke leads (people) astray.”

Verses 16 and 17 are joined together by the common expression <yY]j^l= (“to life”). The main difference between the two proverbs is that, in v. 16, the wise/righteous person gains life for him/herself, while, here in v. 17, the implication is that he/she serves as an avenue for others to obtain life. In this regard, the familiar path/walking motif, that occurs so often throughout chapters 1-9, functions somewhat differently here. Instead of the emphasis being on the wise/righteous ones walking (and remaining) on the path that leads to life, they themselves become the pathway to life (for others). They function as the very path of Wisdom primarily through the things that they say (i.e., their wise words and teaching); this becomes clear from the speech-emphasis in the following proverbs (vv. 18-21).

If the wise/righteous person helps to lead others on the pathway toward life, the opposite is true of the wicked/foolish ones—they cause people to go astray (vb hu*T*, Hiphil) from the right path. Having gone astray themselves (by “leaving behind”, vb bz~u*, the teachings of Wisdom), the wicked cause others to do the same. Cf. 7:25 for an earlier occurrence of hu*T* in this Wisdom-context; note also the similar occurrences in Psalm 119:110, 176, and here in subsequent proverbs (12:26; 14:22; 21:16).

The noun rs*Wm is a regular Wisdom-term that occurred frequently (13 times) in chapters 1-9. It has the basic meaning of “instruction”, but often in the specific sense of “discipline, correction”; the parallel here with hj*k@oT (“rebuke, reproof”) clearly indicates an emphasis on discipline/correction. The foolish/wicked person is unwilling to accept discipline and correction (and the benefits that come thereby), but instead “leaves it behind” (i.e., abandons, ignores, or neglects it). By contrast, the wise/righteous person closely “guards” such instruction. The verb rm^v* (“guard”), along with the similar rx^n` (“keep watch [over]”), occurs quite often in this Wisdom-context (rmv 16 times in chapters 1-9); for earlier use of bz~u* (“leave behind”, i.e., “abandon”), cf. 2:13, 17; 3:3; 4:2, 6; 9:6. The participles (of both rm^v* and bz~u*) indicate regular/characteristic behavior for both the wise and foolish ones, respectively.

Waltke (p. 465) regards verse 17 as the beginning of an entirely new section (10:17-11:31) within the collection.

Verse 18

“(The one) covering hatred (with) lips of deceit,
and bringing forth (an evil) word—he (is) a fool!”

Verse 18 is the first of a sequence of four proverbs dealing with a person’s speech. In the context of v. 17, the implication is that the wise/righteous lead people toward life primarily through the things they say; so also, the foolish/wicked ones lead people astray (and toward death) through their words.

This initial proverb has a curious structure, in that it appears to lack the expected (and regular) contrast between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked person. Instead, the focus is entirely on the speech of the foolish/wicked ones. Waltke (p. 466) is presumably correct in viewing the couplet as an example of poetic enjambment, whereby the thought expressed in the first line continues partway through the second. On the phrasing in the second line, with the emphatic declaration “he (is) a fool”, cf. the similar formulation in 28:26.

The fool (or foolish/stupid person, lys!K=) is characterized by two principal kinds of behavior (with their speech): (a) deceitfully “covering hatred”; and (b) “bringing forth an (evil) word”. The first indicates that, by their speech, the wicked hide their malicious intent (viz., their intent to harm others); cf. 2:16; 5:3; 6:24; 7:5, 10. In the second instance, they outwardly express their wickedness by an evil word (hB*D!). This noun, which occurs only nine times in the Scriptures (cf. also in 25:10), denotes something spoken (vb bb^D* II), but often in the sense of a formal report, typically with negative or hostile implications; it can be used specifically in a legal-judicial context for a lawsuit, charge/complaint, or accusation made against someone. Here, it could imply a false or slanderous accusation.

The focus on speech here utilizes the regular motif of the lips (hp*c*, dual), with the specific expression “lips of deceit [rq#v#]”; cf. on the possible distinctive nuances of rq#v# in this context, cf. Fox, p. 521.

Verse 19

“In a multitude of words, a breach will not be lacking,
while (the one) holding back his lips shows insight.”

Following the description of characteristic speech-behavior of one who is foolish/wicked (v. 18), the typical contrast (between wise/righteous and foolish/wicked) is restored in this next proverb, but in a rather subtle and oblique way: viz., the foolish person is characterized by talkativeness (“multitude of words”), while the wise person is more guarded and restrained in his/her speech (“holding back his lips”). The verbal adjective lyK!c=m^ (vb lk^c*, Hiphil) basically means “showing insight/discernment” (cf. earlier in v. 5, and also the verb in 1:3); that is, the wise person demonstrates discernment through his/her restrained and prudent speech.
Verses 18 and 19 are joined together by: (a) the similarity between the roots bbd and rbd, both of which mean “speak”; and (b) the common use of the noun hp*c* (dual), “lips”. 

By contrast, a foolish person is more inclined to be ‘loose-lipped’ and talkative, and, as a result, is likely to cause different kinds of “breaches” (lit., “a breach will not be lacking”). The noun uv^P# fundamentally means a “breach (of faith/trust)”, something which can disrupt or destroy the relationship between individuals (cf. 10:12; 12:13; 17:9, 19; 19:11; 29:22). Here the concept should probably be widened to include various breaches of decorum, manners, and good sense. By saying foolish things, a person is liable to offend people (in various ways or degrees).

The basic sentiment expressed in this proverb is quite practical and appears in various forms throughout the broader Wisdom Tradition; see, for example, the simple bit of advice in the Egyptian text Papyrus Beatty IV 4.7, “Do not speak words in excess” (Fox, p. 522).

Verse 20

“(Like) choice silver (is the) tongue of (the) righteous,
(but the) heart of (the) wicked (is) of little (worth).”

The contrast between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked, with regard to their speech (vv. 18-19), is brought out more clearly in these next two proverbs. As in v. 18, a connection between one’s outwardly spoken words (here, “tongue”) and inward intention (“heart”) is made—viz., with the tongue a person expresses what is in the heart. The speech (and also the heart) of the righteous is as pure and valuable as “choice silver”; by contrast, that of the wicked is worth but little. The comparison with silver ([s#K#) implicitly emphasizes the wise character of the righteous person’s words, given traditional description of Wisdom as being more valuable than ‘silver and gold’, etc. (2:4; 3:14; 8:10, 19; 16:16; 22:1; cf. also Psalm 12:6; 119:72).

Verse 21

“(The) lips of (the) righteous lead many to pasture,
while (the) foolish (one)s die by th(eir) lack of heart!”

This last of the four speech-proverbs (vv. 18-21) resembles v. 17 (see above) in its emphasis on the wise/righteous person as a source of wisdom for others. What was to be inferred in v. 17 is made explicit here: the righteous lead people onto the path of Wisdom (leading to life) through their words (“lips”). By contrast, the foolish/wicked ones do not help lead others to life—indeed, they do not even find life themselves; rather, they die because of their “lack of heart” (i.e., lack of sense), cf. 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13. On the paths of folly and wickedness leading to death, cf. above (on v. 16). Cf. Hosea 4:6 for the specific idea of people perishing because of a lack of knowledge/sense.
The proverbs of vv. 20 and 21 are joined together by the shared similar expression “tongue/lips of the righteous”.

The thematic motif of the righteous leading people toward life is expressed here by the traditional herding image (vb hu*r* I)—viz., the righteous guide people just as the herder guides his flock/herd, tending it, leading it to pasture for grazing, etc., so that its life might be sustained and preserved. Cf. Jeremiah 3:15; but note the very different use of the verb hu*r* (as a characteristic of the foolish/wicked ones) in Prov 15:14.

Here, the noun lyw]a$ is used for the idea of a “foolish” person (i.e., “fool”), whereas lyc!K= was used in v. 18. This noun properly means someone who is “thick”, in the sense of “dull, stupid, foolish”; viz., “lacking sense” (lit., “lacking heart”). Such a person is not, per se, wicked (cf. the context of chapter 9); he/she might still have the chance to receive instruction and learn to be wise, but, if such teaching is rejected or ignored (cf. verse 17), then the foolish one will proceed ever more firmly down paths of folly and wickedness (that ultimately lead to death).

As Waltke notes (p. 466), the prefixed B= preposition in the second line is causal— “by [i.e., because of] a lack of sense”.

Verse 22

“(The) blessing of YHWH—it (is what) makes (one) rich,
and grievous toil does not add (anything along) with it!”

The final proverb of this grouping reprises the thematic emphasis of the initial saying in v. 15 (see above)—regarding the wealth/riches that a person might obtain. The focus in v. 15a was the “rich (person)” (ryv!u*), while here in v. 22 the related verb rv^u* (Hiphil, “make rich”) is used. In the earlier proverb, there was no specific mention of how the rich person obtained his wealth; here, the matter is explained, particularly with regard to the wise and righteous one: viz., it comes as part of God’s blessing to him (cf. 3:9-10, 16; 8:18; 22:4). The pronoun in the first line is emphatic, emphasizing how it is God’s blessing that makes one rich. This same emphasis is also found in the second line, in the concluding prepositional expression HM*u! (“[along] with it”), the feminine suffix referring back to the feminine noun hk*r*B= (“blessing”) at the beginning of the verse. Not even the most grievous (i.e., painful and worrisome) toil (bx#u#) can add any wealth for the righteous beyond what YHWH’s blessing effectively provides.

This proverb could be taken to imply that no work is required by the righteous person. However, it is clear from other sayings that a characteristic of the wise and righteous person is diligent work (cf. verses 4-5, 16)—indeed, such honest hard work is part of the individual’s righteous character and conduct that YHWH blesses; in this regard, cf. the different evaluation of bx#u# (i.e., hard/painful toil) in 14:23. On material wealth as one of the covenant blessings promised by YHWH for the righteous/faithful ones, cf. Deut 8:18; 27:4-6. It is implied at numerous points in the historical-narrative and Wisdom traditions (e.g., Gen 24:35; 26:12; Job 1:1-3). For the synergistic emphasis on honest work coupled with Divine blessing as the source of riches, cf. the comparable wisdom-sayings in the Egyptian Instruction of Ptahhotep (Lichtheim, 1.66; Fox, p. 523):

“Property does not come of itself.
It is (the gods’) decree for the one they love.
As for abundance, he gathered it for himself.
It is the God who made him capable,
and he guards him while he sleeps.”
(lines 181-5)

Schipper (p. 379) also cites the following lines from the Egyptian Demotic Instruction in Papyrus Insinger:

“Through care, the wise person acquires wealth from few possessions.
[It is the god] who gives riches; it is the wise person who secures (it).
[The] god [gives] possessions in order to test the heart.”

Comparison has also been made with the teaching at the beginning of Psalm 127 (cf. Schipper, p. 141, citing earlier observations by F. Delitzsch; cf. Fuhs, p. 186; Meinhold, p. 179; Fox, p. 523f):

“If YHWH does not build (the) house,
(those) building it labor on it in vain.
If YHWH does not guard the city,
(the one) guarding watches in vain.
(It is) a vain thing for you
to rise, loading up (early),
(then) to sit, following (late).
(So you are) eating the bread of pains—
(yet) truly He gives to His beloved sleep.”
(vv. 1-2, cf. my earlier notes on these verses)

On the use of a blessing-proverb to climax a grouping (such as here in vv. 15-22), compare the position of vv. 6-7 in relation to vv. 1-5 (discussed in a prior study).

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18A (Yale University Press: 2000). 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 “Washington” are to Harold C. Washington, Wealth and Poverty in the Instruction of Amenemope and the Hebrew Proverbs, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertations series 142 (Scholars Press: 1994).
    • Those marked “van Leeuwen” are to Raymond C. van Leeuwen, “Wealth and Poverty: System and Contradiction in Proverbs”, Hebrew Studies 33 (1992), pp. 25-36.

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 10:8-14

Proverbs 10:8-14

In the previous study, the grouping of proverbs in vv. 1-5 was noted, marked by its demonstrable chiastic structure. According to my division of the chapter, this unit is capped by the two blessing-proverbs of vv. 6-7 to form an introductory section (to the collection of chapters 10-15ff) akin to the prologue of chapters 1-9 (1:1-7). The remaining proverbs of chapter 10 are arranged in less clearly defined or discernable groupings, though they are dominated thematically by an emphasis on a person’s speech (with the motif of the “mouth / lips” occurring in a significant number of the sayings). I recognize verses 8-14 as a loose proverb-grouping, framed by the parallel sayings in verses 8 and 14 which feature the warning that the “lips” of the foolish will bring them to ruin. However, other commentators (e.g., Schipper, Heim [pp. 113, 117-9]) prefer to treat verses 6-11 as a distinct grouping (with a comparable pair of parallel sayings [in vv. 6 and 11] that frame the cluster). This is an equally valid way of dividing the text. The method of grouping the proverbs of chapter 10, such as may have been employed by the author/editor of the collection, appears to have been loose enough to allow for various approaches of delineation.

Verse 8

“(The one) wise of heart receives directives,
while (the one) foolish of lips is thrown down.”

As in vv. 1-7, the couplets of vv. 8-14 (and throughout chapter 10) feature a fundamental contrast between the wise/righteous and the foolish/wicked. Here the regular adjectives (as substantives) <k*j* (“wise”) and lyw]a$ I (“dull, foolish”, lit. “thick”) are used for this contrast. Interestingly, the point of the contrast is not presented in a precise formal parallelism; rather, it is varied here in a couplet of different ways. First, it is the “lips” (i.e., outward speech) of the foolish person that are set in parallel with the “heart” (i.e., inward thought/intention) of the wise. The expression “wise of/in heart” similarly occurs in other proverbs (e.g., 11:29; 16:21; cf. also 16:23; 18:15; 23:15, 19); for the equivalent of “foolish of lips” (i.e., one who speaks folly and/or in a foolish manner), cf. 13:3; 18:6-7, also the idea of lying/deceitful or wicked lips, 12:22; 17:4; 24:2, 28. The one who says foolish things (or speaks foolishly) will likely come to say evil/wicked things (cf. Qoh 10:13-14). Foolish/wicked speech reflects a foolish/wicked heart (24:2; 26:23-24, etc.); in the same way, the one who is “wise in heart” will speak wisdom.

There is also variation in the way that the characteristic behavior of the wise (“receiving directives”) is here contrasted with the result/effect of the foolish person’s behavior (esp. his/her speech). In a Wisdom-context, the noun hw`x=m! (“directive, command”) refers to the teachings of Wisdom (such as the instruction and discipline given by one’s parents); cf. the use of hw`x=m! earlier in chapters 1-9 (2:1; 3:1; 4:4; 6:20, 23; 7:1-2). To “receive” (or “take [in]”, vb. jq^l*) such teaching means that the wise person accepts it and assimilates it (in the “heart”) so that it becomes part of his/her regular and habitual behavior. The implication (which is clear from the message of the lectures and poems throughout chaps. 1-9) is that the foolish person does not receive/accept the teachings of Wisdom, but rather rejects, neglects, and/or ignores them. The result is that such a person is “thrown down” (vb fb^l*, Niphal, also in v. 10). This verb is quite rare in the Scriptures, occurring elsewhere only in Hos 4:14 (cf. also 1QHa 2:19; 4:7). Its apparent meaning (“press down”) can be discerned by the cognates in Arabic (labaṭa “throw to the ground”, labiṭa “trample”) and Syriac; cf. HALOT, p. 517. The basic sense is rightly captured by the general translation “go/come to ruin”, matching the parallel in v. 14 (see below). On the references and occurrences of fbl in Rabbinic Hebrew, see the note by Fox, p. 516.

Verse 9

“(The one) walking in completeness walks secure,
but (the one) twisting his paths will be known.”

In this proverb, the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked person is contrasted by use of the path/walking idiom so common in Wisdom literature (and which features so prominently throughout chapters 1-9). The path of Wisdom is straight, and the wise/righteous person walks the path straight (without bending off or turning aside); by contrast, the paths of folly/wickedness are crooked. Here, this aspect of ‘crookedness’ is expressed by the verb vq^u* (“twist”), cf. 28:18; Job 9:20; also Mic 3:9; Isa 59:8; used as a substantive participle, the verb characterizes the behavior of the wicked/foolish ones (viz., they “twist” and make crooked their paths). The characteristic of the righteous, on the other hand, is “straightness”, expressed here by the noun <T) (“completeness”, 2:7), cf. the adjective <T* (“complete”) and the verb <m^T* (“be complete”). To be “complete”, in an ethical-religious sense, connotes acting and speaking in an upright manner, with honesty, faithfulness, and personal integrity; the exact expression here is “in the completeness”, which should probably be taken as a shorthand for “in the completeness of the path”, i.e., walking completely straight (staying on the straight path).

The result of such faithfulness is that the wise/righteous person will walk “(in) security” (jf^B#), i.e., “secure” (cf. 1:33). His feet will not stumble, nor will he fall cf. 3:23; 4:26); instead, God will watch over such a person, providing him with protection. The proper parallel for contrast was already given in v. 8b (see above)—viz., the wicked person will be “thrown down” (cf. 28:18). Here, the parallel term is a passive (Niphal) of the verb ud^y` (“know”, i.e., “be known”). Probably the sense is that the wicked, through their falling and being “thrown down” (that is, by God, in judgment), will have their true nature and identity become known (cf. Jer 28:9; Sirach 12:8; Fox, p. 517).

However, a number of commentators, unsatisfied by the parallelism of the couplet, would emend the MT from u^d@W`y! (“will be known”) to u^ory@ (“will experience evil”, “will suffer harm”, cf. 11:15; 13:20), presumably as a result of metathesis and scribal confusion (between the letters r and d), as noted by Waltke (p. 449). On this basis, such a modest emendation of the text would not be objectionable, though it is perhaps not necessary.

Note the alliteration between the two phrases of the line, creating a fine poetic balance (cf. Schipper, p. 372):

    • <T)B^ El@oh (hôlēk batōm)— “(the one) walking in completeness”
    • jf^B@ El#y@ (yēlek bēṭaḥ)— “walks (in) security”
Verse 10

“(The one) winking (his) eye gives (people) grief,
[and (the one) foolish of lips is thrown down].”

The MT of this proverb is rather peculiar, as it is lacking the expected contrast between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked. Moreover, the second line is identical with that of v. 8 (just two verses prior). All of this makes the second line of the MT here highly suspect, with the strong likelihood that it is the result of scribal error (dittography). It is probable that the LXX and Syriac (Peshitta) preserve something like the Hebrew original, which Fox (p. 517, Textual Commentary, p. 176f [so also a number of earlier commentators, cf. Heim, p. 115]) suggests might be reconstructed as <wlv hcuy jykwmhw (or something similar), so that the couplet would then read:

“(The one) winking (his) eye gives (people) grief,
while the (one) giving a rebuke makes peace.”

It seems rather reckless, however, simply to replace the received text (to the extent of an entire stich) with a hypothetical reconstruction of the Hebrew, even if it has the support of the Versions. Unfortunately, the Qumran scrolls are of no help in resolving the difficulty, since very little of Proverbs survives (and nothing of chapter 10). I have retained the MT, while marking off the second line with square brackets to indicate the possibility (even likelihood) that it is not original. The duplication of the second line (from v. 8b) is not as problematic as the lack of the expected contrast in the couplet, since we see similar duplications elsewhere in the collection (cf., for example, v. 6b / 11b, or 26:7b / 9b).
Yet, as Meinhold (p. 163) and Heim (p. 115) note, there are other non-contrastive couplets in the collection (including in chapter 10, cf. vv. 18, 22, 26), so the lack of a contrast in the MT version of the couplet cannot be used to make a decisive judgment against its originality.

As for the first line, the action of “winking” (or “squinting”, vb Jr^q*) one’s eyes is suggestive of troublemaking and deceit (cf. 6:13f; 16:30; Sir 27:22), characteristic of the wicked; cf. the discussion by Heim, pp. 115f. The LXX makes this clear by adding “with deceit” (meta\ do/lou). The idiom of “giving/causing grief” occurred earlier in verse 1, though with the noun hg`WT (“[cause for] worry, concern” [often the sense of “sorrow, grief”]), rather than tb#X#u^ (“pain, hurt, grief”, cf. also 15:13; Job 9:28; Ps 16:4; 147:3).

Verse 11

“A wellspring of life (is the) mouth of (the) righteous,
but (the) mouth of (the) wicked covers violence.”

This proverb has the central position in the grouping of vv. 8-14; it makes for a precise contrast between the “mouth” of the righteous (cf. verse 31; Ps 37:30) and the wicked, respectively. As with the “lips” in v. 8b, here the “mouth” represents a person’s speech. For the righteous, their speech (“mouth”) is a source of life, utilizing a traditional expression (<yY]j^ roqm=) that occurs a number of times elsewhere in Proverbs (13:14; 14:27; 16:22); cf. also Psalm 36:10[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. Wisdom is implicitly being described by the image of life-giving water, with the mouth of the 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).

By contrast, the mouth of the wicked “covers up” lawlessness and violence (sm*j*), which leads to death; cf. on v. 6b in the previous study. For a comparison between vv. 6b and 11b, cf. Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 218-23.

There is a chiastic structure to this couplet (which is fitting for its position as the central proverb of vv. 8-14):

    • “A wellspring of life (is)
      • (the) mouth of (the) righteous,
      • but (the) mouth of (the) wicked
    • covers violence.”
Verse 12

“Hatred awakens (many kinds of) conflicts,
while love covers over all breeches (of trust).”

The same verb hs*K* (“cover”) is used here (in the second line) as in v. 11b, as an example of the kind of ‘catchword’ bonding method by which certain proverbs were joined together. In v. 11, the verb was used in a negative sense (viz., covering up [i.e., hiding/concealing] violence) as a characteristic of the wicked; here, by contrast, it has a positive sense, as a characteristic of the righteous. The love shown by the righteous can “cover” —in the sense of forgiving and ‘healing’ —all kinds of instances where the faith/trust between individuals has been broken (i.e., disruptions of the bond of friendship, etc.); this is the primary significance of the noun uv^P# (“breech [of faith/trust]”), which can also apply to a person’s relationship with God (thus referring to sins and religious transgressions). A similar conjunction of terms—hs*K*, uv^P#, hb*h&a^—occurs in 17:9, though with a different message; cf. Schipper, p. 374.
Verse 12b line is apparently quoted by the New Testament authors in both James 5:20 and 1 Peter 4:18, but not according to the LXX Greek.

The hatred characteristically shown by the wicked (in contrast to the love shown by the righteous) has entirely the opposite effect—that is, it stirs up conflicts (<yn]d*m=), rather than resolving them. The verb rWu II (“stir [up]”) properly (and typically) refers to stirring someone out of sleep (i.e., waking them up). This is the only instance of the verb in Proverbs, though it occurs with some frequency in the Psalms and Job, as well as (famously) in the Song of Songs (2:7, et al.).

As with v. 11, the couplet in verse 12 has a chiastic structure (which for the sake of poetic clarity I did not reproduce in the translation above):

    • Hatred
      • awakens
        • (many kinds of) conflicts,
        • while over all breeches
      • covers
    • love.”
Verse 13

“On (the) lips of (the) discerning is found wisdom,
but a rod (is) for (the) back of (the one) lacking heart.”

In this proverb, the contrastive parallel is presented in a rather creative and oblique way, viz.:

    • wisdom is on the lips of the one who is discerning (i.e., wise)
    • a rod is on the back of the one who lacks discernment (lit., “heart”), i.e., who is foolish

That is, a “rod” (of discipline/punishment) is applied to the back of the foolish (cf. 19:29b; 26:3b); such a person can still be corrected and learn wisdom, though, if he/she neglects the discipline and instruction, that person will come to be among the wicked. In this regard, cf. the context of chapter 9, and the specific use of the idiomatic expression “lacking of heart” (bl@ rs^j&) in 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16 (and further in v. 21; 11:12; 12:9, 11; 15:21, etc.). In English idiom, we would say “lacking sense”.

The offbeat parallel between “lips” and “heart”, reflecting the outward expression (speech) and inward state (thought/intention), respectively, also featured in verse 8 (see above), but in reverse order. Both outward and inward aspects are implicitly in view (for both the righteous and the wicked). On one’s “lips” (i.e., words/speech) functioning as a rod (of discipline/punishment, etc.), cf. 14:3; Isa 11:4.
Indeed, the LXX seems to understand the lips of the wise as the “rod” that strikes the foolish: “The (one) who brings forth wisdom out of his lips strikes with a rod (the) man without heart”. 

On the prominent mention of disciplining a young man (with the rod) in Near Eastern Wisdom tradition, cf. the Egyptian examples cited by Schipper, p. 374f.

Verse 14

“(Those who are) wise hide away knowledge,
while (the) mouth of a fool (is) near to ruin!”

As noted above, this proverb is parallel to the couplet in v. 8, the two proverbs providing a framing inclusio for the grouping of vv. 8-14. The image of the wise “hiding/storing away” (vb /p^x*) knowledge is parallel to their “taking in” instruction (lit. “directives”) in v. 8a. Cf. the similar use of the verb /p^x* (in the sense of hiding/storing away treasures) in chapters 1-9 (1:11, 18; 2:1, 7; 7:1). The second lines of vv. 8 and 14 are also parallel:

    • “(the one) foolish of lips is thrown down”
    • “(the) mouth of a fool (brings him) near (to) being broken”

The expression hb*r)q= hT*j=m! is difficult to translate. The noun hT*j!m= denotes a “shattering, breaking”, while the addition of the modifying adjective borq* (“near”) suggests the meaning “near (to) breaking”, or, passive, “near (to) being broken”. The noun can be understood more abstractly in the sense of “ruin, destruction”, which seems to apply to the Wisdom-context here in Proverbs (cf. v. 29; 13:3; 14:28; 18:7; also Psalm 89:41[40]). For poetic concision, I have translated hT*j!m= here as “ruin”.
The figurative meaning of “terror” (i.e., being psychologically or emotionally “broken/shattered”), while apparently attested elsewhere in Scripture (21:15; Isa 54:14; Jer 17:17; 48:39), is inappropriate to the context here (contra Waltke, p. 449).

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18A (Yale University Press: 2000). 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).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 6:1-19 (Part 2)

Instructional Interlude: Proverbs 6:1-19 (continued)

The opposite of the path of wisdom and righteousness is folly and wickedness. These two terminal aspects represent a continuum, reflected by the sequential and progressive structure of Prov 6:1-19 (cf. the outline in Part 1). The first two instructions (vv. 1-5, 6-11, discussed in Part 1) involve folly, while the last two (vv. 12-15, 16-19) deal with wickedness. Those who neglect or abandon the path of Wisdom become involved in folly, which, in turn, can lead to wickedness.

Third Instruction: Verses 12-15
Verse 12

“A person of worthlessness, a man of trouble,
(goes) walking (with) a twisting of (the) mouth,”

The figure portrayed in this instruction—the “worthless man” —is, in many ways, parallel to the “lazy man” of vv. 6-11. A joining connection between the two sections is present with the verb El^h* (“walk”), which occurs (as a participle) both here in v. 12 and in the prior v. 11. This is an example of the ‘catchword-bonding’ that the author utilizes to create a unifying structure for the instructions of vv. 1-19; cf. the discussion in Part 1. In spite of the strong negative connotations of the nouns lu^Y~l!B= (“worthlessness”) and /w#a* (“trouble”), the person characterized in this third instruction is not the outright and thoroughly wicked individual of the fourth instruction (see below). Like the lazy man of the second instruction, the worthless man is moving along (“walking”) on the path of wickedness—and he is significantly further along on that path than the lazy man is. The lazy person avoids/neglects proper conduct, while the worthless person is a “man of trouble” who is getting involved in improper and harmful behavior.

The exact meaning and derivation of the noun lu^Y~l!B= continues to be debated, but the general consensus is that it represents a compound of yl!B= (“without, lacking”) + lu^y~ (“worth, usefulness”, cf. the verb /u^y`, “profit, benefit”), and thus means “worthlessness, uselessness”. The noun occurs 27 times in the Scriptures, most commonly in the idiomatic expression lu^Y~l!B= yn!B= (“sons of worthlessness”), referring to a broad category of ne’er-do-well types—layabouts, malcontents, boors, scoundrels, trouble-makers, as well as more serious evil-doers. The terminology is part of an older line of historical tradition and is relatively rare in the Psalms and Wisdom texts, occurring three times in Proverbs (cf. also 16:27; 19:28) and once in Job (34:18). Cf. HALOT, p. 133f, and the study by D. Winton Thomas (“Bly‘l in the Old Testament”, in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of R. P. Casey, ed. J. N. Birdsall and R. W. Thomson [Herder: 1963], pp. 11-19).

The noun /w#a* also has a relatively wide range of meaning; the basic denotation is “trouble”, indicating various kinds (and degrees) of trouble that a person can bring to him/herself and to others. It carries the specific connotative meanings of “disaster”, “injustice”, “falsehood and deceit”, “nothingness/uselessness”, etc.; cf. HALOT, p. 22. It can imply a looming or impending disaster—an aspect of meaning that relates to the idea of the “worthless man” moving headlong on the path to wickedness. The verb El^h* (“walk”), the participle of which can imply regular/habitual behavior, is obviously connected to the wider path/walking motif.

V. 12b begins a descriptive sequence of visible gestures that reflect the character and conduct of the “worthless man” / “man of trouble”. The first is that he goes about with a twisting (or twistedness) of the mouth. This refers to a physical distortion of the mouth (creating a harsh and ugly look), but also to crookedness and perversion of speech (cf. 19:1). Both aspects reflect a devious, deceptive, and/or malicious character. The idea of twistedness (tWvQ=u!) echoes the thematic emphasis on the crookedness of the path of folly/wickedness (with its bends, twists, and turns), contrary to the straight path of wisdom/righteousness.

Verse 13

“squinting with his eyes,
rubbing with his feet,
pointing with his fingers;”

The sequence of gestures (from v. 12b) continues with this verse, consisting of three short parallel lines. Again, the use of the participle indicates regular/habitual behavior. The verb Jr^q) means “pinch off”, but here the motion with the eyes presumably matches the pinching motion of fingers, that is, the eyes are “squinting” (cf. Fox, p. 220). The verb ll^m* (IV) means “rub, scrape”, though there is probably also a double-meaning allusion to ll^m* (III), “speak, announce”. Similarly, the verb hr*y` means “point, show (the direction)”, but also can be used in the sense of “direct, guide, instruct”.

In the first and second lines, the Kethib (so also the LXX) has singular noun forms (i.e., “eye”, “foot”), while the Qere reads plural/dual (“eyes”, “feet”); I am following the Qere.

Verse 14

“(with) turnings in his heart,
plowing evil all (the) time,
(many a) conflict he sends forth!”

The climax of the sequence in v. 14 is expressed by another terse tricolon (cf. the note by Schipper, p. 218). While verse 13 described visible signs and gestures that reveal the person’s negative underlying character, here the orientation is reversed—viz., the inner crookedness of his heart results in creating trouble (conflicts/disputes) outward (“he sends out/forth [vb jl^v*]”); cf. also v. 19 below. The verbal root Ep^h* means “turn (over)”, which relates to the motif of “plowing” (vb vr^j*), i.e., turning over the ground (in a figurative sense), but also to the broader theme of crookedness (viz., the twists and turns away from the straight path). The noun hk*WPh=T^ (plur. “turn[ing]s”) is almost exclusive to the book of Proverbs (cf. also 2:12, 14; 8:13; 10:31-32; 16:28, 30; 23:33), with the only other Scriptural occurrence being in Deut 32:20.

The heart of the “worthless man” is constantly turning (away from righteousness), but is also “turning over” (i.e., ‘plowing’) the ground by devising different kinds of evil. The evil things that the person devises then take outward manifestation—in the form of contentious trouble-making. The noun /odm* (or /d*m=, /y`d=m!) has the basic meaning “argument” (from the verbal root /yD!) but occurs often in the more negative sense of “contention, dispute”; cf. also in v. 19 (below).
The Kethib apparently reads the noun /odm* (or possibly /d*m= [reflecting Aramaic influence]), while the Qere has the more common Hebrew term /y`d=m!; the Kethib form of the plural is more likely to be original, whether vocalized as <yn]d)m= (= <yn]odm=) or <yn]d*m=. Cf. Fox Textual Commentary, p. 133; Schipper, p. 218.

Verses 13-14 resemble the proverbs of 16:28, 30 in the main collection.

Verse 15

“Upon this, suddenly disaster for him shall come!
Instantly, he shall be broken—and with no healing!”

The suddenness of the ruin/destruction of the worthless person is itself expressed here abruptly, producing a sharp and dramatic climax to the instruction. Without even realizing it, this person has become immersed in wickedness (cf. the fourth instruction, below) and, at some point, will suddenly experience disaster (dya@)—the product of God’s judgment upon him. Cf. the warning given by Wisdom in 1:26-27ff. And, when destruction does come upon the wicked, there will be no possible remedy or restoration.
The prepositional expression /K@ lu^ (“upon this…”) indicates cause/result; it can be translated more naturally in English as “because of this…” or “for this (reason)…”. 

Note the assonance of the adverbs <a)t=P! and ut^P#, both of which have comparable meanings— “suddenly”, “immediately, instantly”.

Verse 15 has resemblances to 24:22a; 29:1b of the main collection.

Fourth Instruction: Verses 16-19
Verse 16

“Six (things) they (are that) YHWH hates,
and seven (thing)s abhorrent to His soul:”

The figure of the “worthless man” and “man of trouble” in the prior instruction was proceeding firmly on the wrong path, his character being conformed to the ways of wickedness, his heart and mind occupied with evil thoughts and plans; however, he is not yet thoroughly wicked in his behavior. By contrast, such wicked conduct is described here in the fourth instruction. The evil thoughts of the heart (v. 14) now give way to evil actions. Because they are thoroughly wicked and evil, the things described are hated (vb an@c*) and abhorred (but) by God. The noun hb*u@oT denotes something that is “abhorrent” (i.e., disgusting, repulsive), usually in an ethical-religious sense; it occurs frequently (117 times) in the Scriptures, including 20 times in the book of Proverbs.
The Kethib has a plural form twbuwt, while the Qere reads the singular (tb^u&oT); cf. Schipper, p. 218; Fox Textual Commentary, p. 134f. 

The framing numerical/listing device of six + seven (cf. Job 5:19) utilizes a formula-pattern (which can involve different numbers) that occurs frequently in Wisdom texts, including a number of times in Proverbs (30:15-16, 18-19, 21-23, 24-28, 29-31; see also Qoh 11:2; Sirach 23:16; 25:7; 26:5, 28; 50:25), and in the Psalms (62:12-13 [11-12]) and Prophets (Isa 17:6; Amos 1:3-13; 2:1-6; Mic 5:4[5]). In fact, it is an ancient literary-poetic device, examples of which can be found, e.g., in the Ugaritic epic/mythic texts.
On the general formula-pattern itself, see the article by W. M. W. Roth, “The Numerical Sequence x / x + 1 in the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum [VT] 12 (1962), pp. 300–311.

Seven actual items are listed in vv. 17-19.

Verse 17

“eyes being lifted high, a tongue (that is) false,
and hands pouring out blood (that is) clean;

The first five of the seven “abhorrent things”, listed in vv. 17-18 (three in v. 17), are all indicated by a particular part of the body—eyes, tongue, hands, heart, feet.

Eyes that are “lifted high” designate a prideful and haughty attitude, with a sense of self-importance that tends to denigrate others and fails to show the proper honor and reverence to God; cf. 8:13; 16:5; 21:4; Ps 101:5, etc. In some ways, it reflects an attitude that leads a person naturally into more serious sins.

The tongue that is false refers to a person speaking evil words and/or in a wicked manner. The idiom covers a range of behavior—lying, deceit, slander, giving false witness/testimony, swearing falsely, boasting, etc.—and can be used with the motif of the lips/mouth as well as the tongue. Cf. 12:22; 17:7; Ps 31:19[18]; 120:2, etc.

The hands “pouring out [vb Ep^v*] blood” represent all manner of physical violence (spec. in a criminal context), even that which does not result in actual bloodshed. Such violence is most evil and abhorrent when it is committed against someone who is innocent—lit. “clean/clear” (yq!n`), that is, of any guilt that would be deserving of violence.  Cf. Deut 19:10; Isa 1:15, etc.; the wording here in vv. 17-18 particularly resembles Isa 59:3, 7. The LXX translation clarifies that the blood belongs to someone who is innocent (i.e., clear of guilt); the translation “blood of a right(eous one)” (ai!ma dikai/ou) reflects a rendering of the Hebrew as a construct expression “blood of a clean/clear [i.e., innocent] (person)”.

Verse 18

“a heart devising plans for trouble,
feet hurrying to run to(ward) evil;”

The motif of the heart devising wicked and harmful plans already occurred in verse 14 (see above) with regard to the “worthless man” / “man of trouble”; it is also characteristic of the thoroughly wicked person. The same noun /w#a* (“trouble”) is used here that designated the “man of trouble” (v. 12). Also, the same verb vr^j* from v. 14 occurs here; it was translated “plow” (lit., dig/cut a groove) in v. 14, but here it is rendered in the more figurative/abstract sense of “devise”. That fact that this orientation of the heart characterized the “worthless man” just as well as the fully wicked person suggests that it is typical of many/most human beings, as was stated in Gen 6:5 (cf. Romans 3:10ff).

The image of the feet “hurrying” (vb rh^m*) toward evil relates clearly to the wider path/walking idiom that features as a key thematic Wisdom-motif throughout chapters 1-9. It thus relates, generally and comprehensively, to a wide range of habitual action by the wicked. The idiomatic aspect of “hurrying toward” indicates both a disposition for evil and an eager willingness to carry out evil actions. Cf. earlier in 1:16, and the close wording in Isa 59:7f, cited by Paul as part of his catena (Scripture-chain) description of universal human wickedness (3:10-18, v. 15).

Verse 19

“(one who) breathes lies, a false witness,
and (one) sending forth conflicts between brothers!”

The two expressions in line 1 together constitute a single “abhorrent thing” (the sixth of the seven). They summarize the first two items (v. 17a), applied properly as a fundamental (and defining) characteristic of the entire person. The wicked individual is one who regularly speaks (and acts) falsely—the emphasis here being on wickedness in speech. Two distinct manifestations of this false speaking are delineated: (i) telling lies (<yb!z`K=), and (ii) giving false witness (rq#v* du@). The verb j^WP (“blow, breathe out”) tends to indicate a hostile action and attitude (associated, e.g., with blowing/fanning a fire [29:8], as well as angry snorting [Ps 10:5; Ezek 21:36]); however, the same verb (sometimes recognized as a second root j^WP II, cf. HALOT, p. 917; Waltke, p. 328) can also mean “(give) witness” (cf. Ugaritic ypḥ and the noun j^p@y`, Ps 27:12), as in 14:5 and Hab 2:3, and so its use is quite appropriate here. See the note by Fox, p. 223f.

The noun /odm* (here /d*m=) also occurred in verse 14 (see above), describing how the “worthless man”, through his inclination toward evil, ultimate causes trouble (“conflict, contention, dispute, strife, quarrelling”) for others. So also the thoroughly wicked person—he “sends forth” (vb jl^v*) such conflicts among people, even “between brothers”. The wicked person is the source of many disputes and troubles; stemming from his own perverted heart (within), the evil is effectively sent outward to affect (and afflict) people around him.
Schipper (p. 234; cf. Meinhold, p. 115) cites an interesting parallel in the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope (15.20ff) identifying deceit and false witness as something that the deity hates/abhors: “Do not cheat a man… / The god abhors it; / Do not bear witness with false words, / So as to brush aside a man by your tongue” (cf. Lichtheim, II, p. 119).

On the points of similarity between vv. 12-19 (as a whole) and 16:27-30, see Fox, pp. 224-5.

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18A (Yale University Press: 2000). 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 “Lichtheim, II” are to Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume II: The New Kingdom (University of California Press: 1976).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 52 (Part 1)

Psalm 52

Dead Sea MSS: 4QPsc (vv. 5-11 [3-9])

This Psalm, like the prior Psalm 51, is part of the so-called ‘Elohist’ Psalter (cf. below), and is also a Davidic Psalm, being attributed in the superscription to David. The historical setting assigned (v. 2) is, however, rather puzzling, referring to events narrated in 1 Samuel 21:8 and 22:6ff. There is little about that narrative background that would apply to the thoughts expressed in the Psalm.

The heading designates Psalm 52 as a lyK!c=m^; the prior Psalms 32, 42, 44, and 45 were similarly described. The precise meaning of this term remains uncertain, but it is presumably derived from the root lk^c* which characteristically occurs in the Hiphil stem (= lyK!c=h!). The root fundamentally indicates the use of reason and intelligence—i.e., wisdom, understanding, prudence, etc. As a poetic or musical term, it could refer to a harmonious composition, a work of great skill and artistry (or requiring skill to perform), a poem/song used for instruction, or something else entirely.

Metrically, the Psalm generally follows a 3+2 couplet format, though here in the first part a 3-beat (3+3) couplet is actually more common.

In terms of a poetic and thematic structure, I am inclined to divide the composition into two parts. The first part (vv. 3-7 [1-5]) contains a polemic diatribe directed at the wicked with their false and deceitful profession of trust in God; this part concludes, it would seem, with an imprecation against the wicked (see below on v. 7). The second part (vv. 8-11 [6-9]) declares the fate of the wicked, and also presents a familiar contrast between the wicked and the righteous—those who are truly faithful to YHWH. The Psalmist, of course, counts himself among the righteous.

Wisdom themes tend to dominate, centered around the contrast between the righteous and the wicked (and their fates). There are also prayer elements in the Psalm, related to the covenant appeal setting that we find in many of the compositions. By emphasizing the faithlessness and deceit of the wicked, the Psalmist uses this point of contrast to affirm his own loyalty to YHWH.

An interesting rhetorical aspect to this Psalm is the juxtaposition of the terms la@ and <yh!l)a$ as Divine titles. la@ (°E~l) occurs in the first part of the Psalm, in connection with the wicked, while <yh!l)a$ (°E_lœhîm) occurs in the second part, connected with the righteous. As an ‘Elohist’ Psalm, many commentators believe that the Divine name hwhy (YHWH) was used in the original composition, but was later replaced by the title <yh!l)a$. This would mean that, originally, the Divine names la@ and hwhy were juxtaposed. There are two ways of explaining the specific association of the title la@ with the wicked here:

    • The wicked have, at best, a nominal and superficial faith in ‘God’ (used as a general designation), rather than a true faith in YHWH and covenant loyalty to Him.
    • The false character of the religion of the wicked is indicated by its association with the Creator El (as understood by the Canaanites), in contrast with a true faith in El-YHWH, the God of Israel.

Israelites and Judeans, having become increasingly familiar with Canaanite religion and culture over the centuries, must have been aware of certain clear differences between the Canaanite conception of the Creator El and the Israelite understanding of El-Yahweh. Interestingly, however, there is scarcely a trace of this sense of conflict in the Old Testament. For the most part, YHWH was identified simply with the Creator (El), and the title la@, though relatively rare, almost always refers to the God of Israel. Here, in Psalm 52, we have one of the only instances in the Old Testament where the title is used in a negative context, being contrasted with the name YHWH (here as Elohim).

For readers who might be new to these studies, a brief explanation of the titles El (la@) and Elohim (<yh!l)a$) may be helpful. The word la@ is a fundamental (and primitive) Semitic term for deity. While the precise meaning and derivation is not entirely certain, the basic meaning would seem to be something like “mighty” —as a divine title, “Mighty (One)”. The plural of la@ is <yl!a@, “mighty (one)s”, but this is only rarely used in the Old Testament; much more common is the plural form <yh!l)a$, which is an expanded form to match the triconsonantal pattern of words (i.e., hla instead of la) that is more common in Classical Hebrew. As a divine title, <yh!l)a$ would literally mean “Mighty (One)s”, rendered generally as “Gods” (or “gods”); however, as applied to El-Yahweh, in an Israelite monotheistic context, the plural form is best understood as an intensive (or possibly comprehensive) plural—i.e., “Mightiest (One)”. For more on this, cf. my earlier studies on the names El and Elohim.

Verses 3-7 [1-5]

Verse 3 [1]

“(For) what do you give shout with evil, O strong (one),
(you) ‘loyal’ of (the) Mighty (One), all the day planning disasters?”

The polemic begins with a sarcastic tone, describing the wicked person by the descriptive titles “strong (one)” (roBG]) and “good [i.e. loyal] (one) of °E~l.” As indicated above, I translate the name la@ (°E~l) according to its fundamental meaning, “Mighty (One)”, which is loosely parallel in meaning here to roBG] (“strong [one]”). However, la@ refers to God, to the Creator Deity (El-Yahweh). I tentatively follow Dahood (p. 13) in vocalizing dsj (MT ds#j#) as dys!j& (spelled defectively). The expression la@ ds!j& means “loyal one of El”, which may have a double-meaning here: (1) it is used in a sarcastic sense for the false religious devotion of the wicked, and/or (2) the loyalty of the wicked corresponds to the corrupt/idolatrous understanding of the Creator God by the Canaanites (El vs. YHWH).

Part of the “shout” (vb ll^h*) given by the wicked likely involves a boast regarding his own religious profession of faith and loyalty to God. The actions of the wicked belie his/her supposed faith and prove it to be false. It is made “with evil” (hu*r*B=), probably best understood as “with evil (intent)”. Whatever the wicked person may say or claim, he/she intends to bring about disastrous things. The noun hW`h^, here in the plural, literally means “(down)fall”. The verb bv^j* reveals the true intention of the wicked, the planning/plotting of evil.

With some reluctance, I have included the first two words of v. 4 [2] as part of the opening couplet (cf. Dahood, p. 12-3), yielding a 4-beat (4+4) bicolon.

Verse 4 [2]

“Your tongue, like a sharpened razor,
is (busy) working treachery.”

With this second couplet, the normative 3-beat (here 3+2) meter of the Psalm begins. The deceitfulness and false religious confession of the wicked person is described more pointedly here, with the image of a tongue that is sharp like a razor (ru^T^). With his speech, the wicked person is working deceit and treachery. The noun hY`m!r= (“deceit”) can carry the stronger meaning of “treachery” —that is, against the covenant, showing disloyalty to YHWH and intending evil against the righteous.

Verse 5 [3]

“You love (what is) evil more than (the) good,
falsehood more than speaking (what is) right.”
Selah

This couplet well-summarizes the character of the wicked, and also, implicitly, establishes the contrast between the righteous and the wicked. The comparative use of the preposition /m! (“from”) essentially has to be translated in English as “more than”. The noun rq#v# (“[acting] false, falsehood, deceit”) is contrasted with speaking “(what is) right” (qd#x#), a specific manifestation of the more general contrast between “evil” (ur*) and “good” (bof). Again the focus is on the speech of the wicked, with the relation between what is actually spoken (which may seem good) and the underlying intent (which is evil). That is why the deceitfulness of the wicked continues to be emphasized.

Verse 6 [4]

“You love all (those) words devouring (the truth),
(with your) tongue of treachery!”

The deceitfulness and treachery (hm*r=m!) of the wicked person’s speaking is here colorfully summarized as “all words of devouring” (ul^B# yr@b=D!-lK*). The root ul^B* (I) refers to a mouth that opens up and swallows something. This language is often used in Biblical poetry, applied to the ravenous mouth (and appetite) of Death, and this same allusion is probably also intended here. The deceit of the wicked person leads to death—both for his victims, but also, more importantly, for himself. The immediate point of reference, however, is probably to the idea of the wicked person’s mouth/speech ‘devouring’ all truth and rightness.

Verse 7 [5]

“(So) also (the) Mighty (One) will bring you down to the end,
He will take hold of you and tear you away from your tent,
and will (up)root you from (the) land of (the) living.”
Selah

This first part of the Psalm concludes with a dramatic declaration, in a three-beat (3+3+3) tricolon, of the fate of the wicked. The death of the wicked was already alluded to in v. 6 [4] (cf. above), but here it is described clearly and graphically. Such references in Old Testament poetry tend to have a double-meaning: both the ordinary sense of physical death, and the idea of a death that is permanent and final (with no hope of a blessed afterlife).

The initial particle <G~, “(so) also”, allows the Psalmist to express the idea that the fate of the wicked person (in death) will correspond to his/her wicked conduct (in life). Just as, through deceitful words, the wicked would “swallow (down)” what is right, so also, in the end, God will “bring (them) down” (vb Jt^n`) to the realm of Death. The two-fold aspect of death, noted above, is expressed through the final two lines:

    • The ordinary aspect of death—i.e., being torn away from one’s “tent” (home and, figuratively, one’s body)
    • The second/final aspect of death—being torn up (lit. uprooted) from the “land of the living”, from the possibility of any future life.

Gunkel (Die Psalmen [1926], p. 230) claimed that the imperfect verb forms here in v. 7 are not simple declarative statements about what will happen, but are precative—expressing a wish for something to happen (cf. also Dahood, p. 14). There are many such imprecatory sections in the Psalms, which essentially serve as curse-formulas; following this sense, the force of the translation would be: “May (the) Mighty (One) bring you down…[etc].” Such a curse-formula would be fitting to the polemic of the Psalm, and would make for an appropriate conclusion to the first part.

The reference to the “Mighty (One),” °E~l (la@), matches the earlier reference in v. 3 [1] (cf. above), thus framing the first part of the Psalm. The first occurrence of la@ seems to been intended to highlight the false religious confession of the wicked; however, in terms of the judgment rendered against the wicked, here la@ functions in a manner consistent with the true God (YHWH). To be sure, in Israelite religious thought, la@ and hwhy are different names for the same God, though, as noted above, la@ is the more general title, used throughout the Semitic world, and could also apply to a false/distorted view of God (as with the Canaanite conception of the Creator El).

The first part of the Psalm closes with a Selah (hl*s#) pause-marker. However, the presence of the marker itself really cannot be used to determine the structure of the Psalm (note the earlier occurrence of the marker after v. 5 [3]). In any case, the precise purpose and significance of these markers remains uncertain, other than that they relate to the performing tradition of the Psalms, and seem to indicate a musical pause or (possibly) a shift in tone or key, etc. They do not appear to have been applied consistently, nor is it particularly likely that they have been consistently preserved in the text as it has come down to us.

References above marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms II: 51-100, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 17 (1968).

 

The Law in the Letter of James (Part 2)

James 2:14-26

This is the famous treatise of James on “faith and works”, which I have discussed at length in a recent study (on the Reformation-principle of justification by faith). Commentators continue to debate the relationship between James’ view on “faith and works” and that of Paul. As was discussed in the aforementioned study, Paul, especially in Galatians and Romans, consistently uses the term “works” (e&rga) as a shorthand for “works of the Law” (e&rga no/mou; for the corresponding expression in Hebrew, cf. the Qumran text 4QMMT). By this is expression is meant the dutiful performance or observance of the regulations laid out in the Torah. In the James treatise, however, it is clear that the author does not use the term e&rga in this Pauline sense.

The context of 2:14-26 demonstrates that “works” refer primarily to charitable acts on behalf of God’s people (believers) in their time of need (vv. 15-16, 25). Thus e&rga here does not refer to the Old Testament Law (Torah), except insofar as such acts of care and compassion represent a fulfillment of the “love command”. While it is not certain that the treatise depends on the previous section (vv. 1-13), there is reason to think that the reference to the “love command” in verse 8 informs the discussion in vv. 14-26 as well.

In other words, by acting with love toward believers (“brothers” and “sisters”) in need, we are fulfilling the Law, as it is embodied in the (single) “love command”. James does seem to share—with Paul and the Johannine writings—the understanding that the Law, for believers, is effectively summarized (and embodied) by the command to love. For more on this, cf. the special note on the expression “the royal law” in 2:8.

James 3:13-17

Following the instruction on ‘taming the tongue’ in 3:1-12, the author turns from the tongue (speech) to the heart—that is, the underlying intention (and impulse) that leads to the things we say and do. In this regard, it is worth considering how James views the means by which one controls the tongue (i.e., how one speaks). The motifs of the bit/bridle used to control a horse, or the rudder that steers a ship, are traditional, and can be found in a wide range of Greco-Roman philosophical and wisdom texts. It is especially common in Stoic authors, and is perhaps best exemplified by Philo of Alexandria (a Jewish contemporary of James); see, for example, his lengthy statement in On the Special Laws III.223ff (for other references, cf. Dibelius-Greeven, pp. 186-190).

According to this line of philosophical argument, it is the mind, or reason, the highest part of the soul, that is able to curb the lower passions and base impulses. For James, and from the early Christian standpoint, it is the soul (and mind) that is conformed to the Divine Wisdom, as represented especially by the teaching and example of Jesus. In verses 13ff, the author contrasts the Wisdom “from above” (a&nwqen) with the ‘wisdom’ that is earthly (“upon the earth,” e)pi/geio$). The heavenly, spiritual Wisdom is characterized by gentleness and humility (prau+/th$, etc), and the speech and conduct of believers should demonstrate such Wisdom. A person’s “works” (actions) will come naturally out of a habitual behavior that is imbued with the Wisdom of God. The term for this ‘habitual behavior’ is a)nastrofh/, which literally means “turn up,” i.e., turn/move about. The true believer will live and move in accordance with God’s wisdom.

The main point, in terms of our study here, is that the guidance is internal (coming from within the person), rather than governed through external means (i.e., laws/regulations that are imposed from without). Though the Spirit is not specifically mentioned in this context, there are general parallels with the contrast, between heavenly and earthly wisdom in vv. 13-17, and Paul’s famous treatment of the “fruit of the Spirit” (vs. the “works of the flesh”) in Gal 5:16-24. For James, the locus of this ethical conflict is in the heart (v. 14), though there is certainly still a place for external teaching (especially that which reflects Jesus’ teaching) in helping Christians develop a pattern habitual thought and behavior that is guided by Wisdom.

James 4:7-10

The author’s ethical instruction continues, along much the same lines, in the next section (4:1-12). The righteous (believers) are contrasted with those who remain rooted in the world and follow the worldly passions. The key verb is e)piqume/w, which means to have one’s impulse (qu/mo$) upon (e)pi/) something; in English idiom, we would say, ‘have one’s heart set upon’ something. The worldly (= ‘earthly,’ cf. above) impulses are directed toward various kinds of sensual pleasure (h(donh/), which, when unchecked, ultimately leads to sinful and violent behavior.

Again, the source of this conflict is within the person. Here, instead of the term “heart” (kardi/a), the word pneu=ma (“spirit”) is used (v. 5). This is not a specific reference to the Holy Spirit, but to the traditional philosophical idea of the ‘higher part’ of the soul; or, framed in more dualistic terms, it is the good part (the “good spirit”) that is in conflict with the “evil spirit”. It was instilled by God as pure and good, but is attacked, and can be corrupted, by the impulse toward sin and evil.

James goes no further than this traditional idiom, and no systematic treatment of the soul, the effect of sin, and what is changed for believers in Christ, is offered here. Even the exhortation that follows in verses 7-10 is traditional in orientation, and is framed in general religious terms that would be accepted by Jews and Christians alike. Two verbal imperatives introduce the instruction in verse 7: u(pota/ssw (“be under order”) and a)nqi/sthmi (“stand against”). The first verb indicates the believer’s relationship to God: to be (or put onself) under order to God—which may be explained as the order of things as God has arranged it. The second verb refers to the opposite: the believer’s relationship to the Devil. This exhortation to “stand against” the Devil is also found in 1 Peter 5:5.

For Israelites and Jews, the primary way that one puts himself/herself under order to God (vb u(pota/ssw) is by faithfully observing all that God commanded in the regulations, etc, of the Torah. James, like many early Christians, has clearly generalized and internalized (or spiritualized) this dynamic. One is to “come near” to God, and thereby cleanse (vb kaqari/zw) and make oneself holy (i.e. pure, vb a(gni/zw). The wording in verse 8b likely alludes to Psalm 24:4, combining the idea of clean hands (action/behavior) and a pure heart (intention/thought/desire).

The adjective “two-souled” (di/yuxo$) is parallel with “sinner” (a(martw/lo$), and characterizes the wicked worldly ones as those whose own (good) spirit is influenced (and corrupted by) the evil spirit. This also suggests a person who is of “two minds”, with a tendency to upright, but also to sinful, thought and behavior. In the Testament of Asher (3:1) this is described as “having the face of goodness and the face of wickedness”; the terminology is part of a traditional Jewish ethical instruction that was inherited by early Christians (cf. Dibelius-Greeven, pp. 226-7).

James 4:11-12

The answer for Christians, with regard to how they/we are to respond in the face of such ethical conflict, again has an inward focus. This begins in verse 9 with the exhortation to mourn and weep, suggesting an attitude of repentance. The wording is similar to Jesus’ Woe in the Lukan Beatitudes (6:21, 25), in which case it derives from an original message of judgment (against the wicked). But this simply reflects the ‘reversal of fortune’ motif in such ethical instruction: i.e., the one who mourns now will rejoice in the end (and vice versa). In other words, the righteous person who mourns for his/her sin and suffering now will not come to mourn in the final Judgment.

Along with this attitude of repentance, the believer should have a spirit (and mind) of lowness (tapeino/$) and humility “in the sight of the Lord”. The teaching in verse 10 is proverbial, and may reflect the saying of Jesus in Matt 23:12 par.

A more direct command is given in verses 11-12, along with a shift back to the theme of the tongue (i.e., our speech/speaking). Clearly, the tendency to speak evil reflects a conflict (and corruption) in the heart. The specific verb used here is katalale/w, “speak against,” or “speak down (on)”. While the proper meaning is general—that is, speaking evil against someone (in any manner)—it can also have the more technical sense of slandering someone. It is typically included as part of traditional sin/vice lists (cf. 1 Peter 2:1-2, 12), and is especially significant as being representative of the (non-violent) evil that can be directed against another person.

It is this representative character of “speaking evil” that explains the author’s comments that follow in vv. 11-12. James treats this sin as a particularly egregious attack against the Law itself. Let us see how he phrases the matter:

“You must not speak against one another, brothers. The (one) speaking against a brother, and (thus) judging his brother, speaks against (the) Law and judges (the) Law; but if you judge (the) Law, you are not a doer of (the) Law, but a judge.” (verse 11)

By speaking against another person, one speaks against the Law, which essentially means that such a person brings judgment against the Law, putting himself/herself in the role of a judge. But since God is the source of the Law, such a person essentially puts himself/herself as judge in place of God—which would be the height of wickedness. While this certainly involves a bit of rhetorical hyperbole by the author, the basic point is clear enough, and generally follows the early Christian tendency to epitomize the entire Law in the command to love one’s neighbor (Lev 19:18). We see a similar general principle expressed in the Testament of Gad 4:1f, where sin against another person (summarized as “hatred”) is especially egregious, since

“…it works lawlessness even against the Lord Himself. For it will not hear the words of His commandments concerning the loving of one’s neighbour, and it sins against God.” (Dibelius-Greeven, pp. 228-9; transl. Charles)

The fact that this situation described by James involves speaking evil against another believer (“brother”) strongly indicates that the term “law” (no/mo$) here refers specifically (and especially) to the “love command” —that is, the Law as it now applies to believers in Christ (cf. the earlier note on 2:8). The final warning in verse 12 reinforces how serious a matter such “evil speaking” is.

James 4:17

One final verse should be considered, at least briefly, in our study. It is the maxim given by the author in 4:17:

“Therefore (the one) having seen (what is) fine [i.e. good] to do, and (yet) does not do (it), it is sin for him.”

It ties the idea of sin to the failure to perform certain actions. This could well be seen as reflecting a traditional Jewish understanding of the Torah regulations as binding (obligatory) requirements. A failure to perform (or observe) any of these requirements represented a fundamental sin, and a violation of the covenant that had to be rectified (through ritual means). As we have seen, such a view of the Torah does not appear to be in view for the James (and the Jewish Christians to whom he is writing). However, is it possible that he still has in mind a certain set of obligatory commands, involving things that must be done?

Most of the ‘commands’ and exhortations provided by the author are framed as negative prohibitions (“do not…,” “you must not…”), and these tend to relate in some way to teachings of Jesus, such as those recorded in the Sermon on the Mount (on the parallels between James and the Sermon on the Mount, cf. the list in Part 1). A good example of this is the prohibition against swearing oaths in 5:12, which almost certainly represents a version of Jesus’ saying in Matt 5:34ff, also recorded separately in other early Christian writings (e.g., Justin, First Apology 16.5).

As far as positive actions are concerned, these are more or less subsumed under the “love command”, called the “royal law” in 2:8, and properly represents the Law of Christ, the perfect “law of freedom” (1:25). As I have noted, the letter of James shares with other early Christians the emphasis on the “love command” as an embodiment (for believers) of the entire Old Testament Law. While this effectively reduces the Torah regulations to a single command, it involves a principle that relates to virtually every area of the believer’s life.

Where James differs from other New Testament authors, is in his tendency to preserve the context of the love-principle, within the teaching of Jesus—which he frequently quotes or makes allusion to (without necessarily stating that it comes from Jesus), in a manner that Paul, for example, does not. He essentially treats these as authoritative teachings, but as part of a wider ethical and religious instruction that is to be internalized, until it becomes an integral and habitual part of one’s thought and action. While James (and his audience) may have possessed an authoritative collection of sayings, similar to the Sermon on the Mount (of which there are numerous parallels and allusions in the letter), there is no indication that these were thought of as anything like a law-code that would take the place of the Torah. The work known as the “Teaching [of the Twelve Apostles]” (Didache), in its early chapters, comes closer to that kind of treatment of Jesus’ teachings, but I do not find it present in the letter of James.

References marked “Dibelius-Greeven” above are to Martin Dibelius, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, revised by Heinrich Greeven, translated by Michael A. Williams. Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1975).