Although traditionally this word is translated “happy” (cf. KJV, ASV, NAB, NRSV, NLT), such a translation can be misleading because the word means far more than that. It describes the heavenly bliss that comes from knowing one is right with God and following God’s precepts. The “blessed” could be at odds with the world ( Ps 1:1-3 ).


Heb “and the one who trusts in the Lord – blessed is he.”


Heb “wise of heart” (so NRSV).


Heb “to the wise of heart it will be called discerning.” This means that the wise of heart, those who make wise decisions (“heart” being the metonymy), will gain a reputation of being the discerning ones.


Heb “sweetness of lips.” The term “lips” is a metonymy of cause, meaning what is said. It is a genitive of specification. The idea of “sweetness” must be gracious and friendly words. The teaching will be well-received because it is both delightful and persuasive (cf. NIV “pleasant words promote instruction”).


Heb “teaching” or “receptivity”; KJV “learning”; NIV “instruction.”


The Hebrew noun שֵׂכֵל ( sekhel , “prudence; insight”; cf. KJV, NASB, NIV “understanding”; NAB, CEV “good sense”) is related to the verb that means “to have insight; to give attention to; to act circumspectly [or, prudently],” as well as “to prosper; to have success.” These words all describe the kind of wise action that will be successful.


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied for the sake of clarity.


Heb “fountain of life.” The point of the metaphor is that like a fountain this wisdom will be a constant provision for living in this world.


Heb “the discipline of fools [is] folly.” The “discipline” ( מוּסָר , musar ) in this proverb is essentially a requital for sin (hence “punishment,” so NIV, NCV, NRSV); discipline which is intended to correct is normally rejected and despised by fools. So the line is saying that there is very little that can be done for or with the fool (cf. NLT “discipline is wasted on fools”).


Or “mind” (cf. NCV, NRSV, NLT).


Heb “makes wise his mouth,” with “mouth” being a metonymy of cause for what is said: “speech.”


Heb “to his lips.” The term “lips” functions as a metonymy of cause for what is said.


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.


Heb “There is a way that is right before a man [to the face of a man].”


Heb “the ways of death” (so KJV, ASV). This construct phrase features a genitive of destiny: “ways that lead to [or, end in] death.”This proverb is identical to 14:12 .


Heb “soul.” The term נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) here means “appetite,” functioning as a metonymy; the “inner soul” of a person representing his appetite (BDB 660 s.v. 5 a; see, e.g., Pss 63:6; 107:9 ; Prov 13:25; 16:24; 27:7 ; Isa 56:11; 58:10 ; Jer 50:19 ; Ezek 7:19 ). This is suggested by the parallelism with “hunger.”


Heb “labors for him” (so NAB).


Heb “his mouth” (so KJV, NAB). The term “mouth” is a metonymy for hunger or eating. The idea of the proverb is clear – the need to eat drives people to work.


The LXX has apparently misread פִּיהוּ ( pihu ) and inserted the idea of “ruin” for the laborer: “he drives away ruin.” This influenced the Syriac to some degree; however, its first clause understood “suffering” instead of “labor”: “the person who causes suffering suffers.” sn This theme is taught elsewhere (e.g., Eccl 6:7 ; Eph 4:28; 6:7 ; 2 Thess 3:10-12 ).


Heb “a man of belial.” This phrase means “wicked scoundrel.” Some translate “worthless” (so ASV, NASB, CEV), but the phrase includes deep depravity and wickedness (C. H. Toy, Proverbs [ICC], 125-26).


Heb “digs up” (so NASB). The “wicked scoundrel” finds out about evil and brings it to the surface ( Prov 26:27 ; Jer 18:20 ). What he digs up he spreads by speech.


Heb “on his lips” (so NAB) The term “lips” is a metonymy of cause. To say that “evil” is on his lips means that he talks about the evil he has dug up.


Heb “a man of perverse things”; NAB “an intriguer.” This refers to someone who destroys lives. The parallelism suggests that he is a “slanderer” or “gossip” – one who whispers and murmurs ( 18:8; 26:20, 22 ).


The term אַלּוּף (’ aluf ) refers to a “friend” or “an intimate associate.” The word has other possible translations, including “tame” or “docile” when used of animals. Rashi, a Jewish scholar who lived a.d. 1040-1105, took it in the later sense of “prince,” saying that such speech alienates the Prince, namely God. But that is a forced interpretation of the line.


Heb “man of violence.” He influences his friends toward violence. The term חָמָס ( khamas , “violence”) often refers to sins against society, social injustices, and crimes.


The verb in the first colon is the Piel imperfect, and the form in the second is the Hiphil perfect; the first is a habitual imperfect, and the second a gnomic perfect. The first verb, “to persuade, seduce, entice,” is the metonymy of cause; the second verb, “to lead,” is the metonymy of effect, the two together forming the whole process.


Heb “not good” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV); NLT “a harmful path.” The expression “a way that is not good” is an example of tapeinosis – a deliberate understatement for the sake of emphasis: It is terrible. This refers to crime and violence. The understatement is used to warn people away from villains and to remind them to follow a good path.


The conjunction “and” does not appear in the Hebrew but is implied by the synonymous parallelism.


The participle קֹרֵץ ( qorets ) indicates that the person involved is pinching, compressing, or biting his lips (cf. NIV “purses his lips”).


The verb is a Piel perfect; it means “complete, finish, bring to an end.” The two cola may form the whole process: The first line has “to devise” evil, and the second has “he completes” evil. BDB, however, classifies this use of the Piel as “to accomplish in thought” meaning “to determine” something (BDB 478 s.v. כָּלָה 1f). In that case the two lines would have synonymous ideas, i.e., using facial expressions to plan evil actions.


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied for the sake of clarity.


Heb “it is found” (so NASB) or “it will be found.”


One who is “slow to anger” is a patient person (cf. NAB, NIV, NLT). This is explained further in the parallel line by the description of “one who rules his spirit” ( וּמֹשֵׁל בְּרוּחוֹ , umoshel bÿrukho ), meaning “controls his temper.” This means the person has the emotions under control and will not “fly off the handle” quickly.


Heb “who rules his spirit” (so NASB).


The phrase “is better than” does not appear in this line in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the parallelism.


Heb “the lot is cast.” Because the ancient practice of “casting lots” is unfamiliar to many modern readers, the imagery has been updated to “throwing dice.” sn The proverb concerns the practice of seeking divine leading through casting lots. For a similar lesson, see Amenemope (18, 19:16-17 , in ANET 423).


Heb “all its decision.”


The phrase “a dry piece of bread” is like bread without butter, a morsel of bread not dipped in vinegar mix (e.g., Ruth 2:14 ). It represents here a simple, humble meal.


Heb “and quietness in it”; the construction functions as a circumstantial clause: “in which there is quietness” or “with quietness.” sn The Hebrew word means “quietness” or “ease.” It represents a place where there can be carefree ease because of the sense of peace and security. The Greek rendering suggests that those translators read it as “peace.” Even if the fare is poor, this kind of setting is to be preferred.


The house is described as being full of “sacrifices of strife” ( זִבְחֵי־רִיב , zivkhi-riv ). The use of “sacrifices” suggests a connection with the temple (as in 7:14 ) in which the people may have made their sacrifices and had a large amount meat left over. It is also possible that the reference is simply to a sumptuous meal ( Deut 12:15 ; Isa 34:6 ; Ezek 39:17 ). It would be rare for Israelites to eat meat apart from festivals, however. In the construction the genitive could be classified as a genitive of effect, the feast in general “bringing about strife,” or it could simply be an attributive genitive, “a feast characterized by strife.” Abundance often brings deterioration of moral and ethical standards as well as an increase in envy and strife.


Heb “son.”


The form מֵבִישׁ ( mevish ) is a Hiphil participle, modifying בֵן ( ben ). This original heir would then be one who caused shame or disgrace to the family, probably by showing a complete lack of wisdom in the choices he made.


Heb “in the midst of the brothers”; NIV “as one of the brothers.”


The term “refining” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the parallelism; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.


Heb “and.” Most English versions treat this as an adversative (“but”).


The Hiphil participle מֵרַע ( mera ’) indicates one who is a doer of evil. The line affirms that a person of this nature will eagerly listen to evil talk – it is part of his nature.


Heb “to the lip of evil”; ASV, NAB, NASB, NRSV “wicked lips.” The term “lip” is a metonymy of cause for speech (what is said); the term “evil” is an attributive genitive. The same will be true in the parallel line where the expression “to the tongue of destruction” (NASB “a destructive tongue”) means things that are said that destroy others.


The verb מֵזִין ( mezin ) is from זִין ( zir , “to feed”); therefore, the suggested emendation is to take it from אֹזֶן (’ ozen , “ear”) as a denominative verb, “to give ear; to listen to.” Two Hebrew mss have this variant.


Heb “children of children [sons of sons].”


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.


The noun תִּפְאָרָת ( tif ’ arat ) means “beauty; glory” (BDB 802 s.v.). In this passage “glory” seems to be identified with “glorying; boasting”; so a rendering that children are proud of their parents would be in order. Thus, “glory of children” would be a subjective genitive, the glorying that children do.”


The LXX has inserted: “To the faithful belongs the whole world of wealth, but to the unfaithful not an obulus.” It was apparently some popular sentiment at the time. tn Heb “their fathers.”


The word יֶתֶר ( yeter ) could be rendered either “arrogant” (cf. NIV) or “excellent” (cf. KJV, NASB; NLT “eloquent”) because the basic idea of the word is “remainder; excess,” from the verb “be left over.” It describes “lofty” speech (arrogant or excellent) that is not suited for the fool. The Greek version, using pista , seems to support the idea of “excellent,” and makes a contrast: “words that are excellent do not fit a fool.” The idea of arrogance (NIV) fits if it is taken in the sense of lofty, heightened, or excessive language.


“a lip of excess.” The term “lip” is a metonymy for what is said.


Heb “speech of falsehood”; NRSV “false speech.”


The phrase “works like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied for the sake of clarity.


Heb “a stone of favors”; NAB, NRSV “a magic stone.” The term שֹׁחַד ( shokhad , “bribe”) could be simply translated as “a gift”; but the second half of the verse says that the one who offers it is successful. At best it could be a gift that opens doors; at worst it is a bribe. The word שֹׁחַד is never used of a disinterested gift, so there is always something of the bribe in it (e.g., Ps 15:5 ; Isa 1:23 ). Here it is “a stone that brings favor,” the genitive being the effect or the result of the gift. In other words, it has magical properties and “works like a charm.”


Heb “in the eyes of its owner.”


Heb “in all that he turns”; NASB, NIV “wherever he turns.”


Heb “covers” (so NASB); NIV “covers over.” How people respond to the faults of others reveals whether or not they have love. The contrast is between one who “covers” (forgives, cf. NCV, NRSV) the fault of a friend and one who repeats news about it. The former promotes love because he cares about the person; the latter divides friends.


Heb “goes in deeper” (cf. NASB, NRSV). The verb נָחֵת ( nakhet ) “to go down; to descend” with the preposition בְּ ( bet ) means “to descend into; to make an impression on” someone.


The form is the Hiphil infinitive of נָכָה ( nakhah ) with the comparative מִן , min . The word “fool” then would be an objective genitive – more than blows to/on a fool.


The parallelism seems to be formal, with the idea simply continuing to the second line; the conjunction is therefore translated to reflect this. However, the proverb could be interpreted as antithetical just as easily.


Heb “Let a man meet” (so NASB); NLT “It is safer to meet.” The infinitive absolute פָּגוֹשׁ ( pagosh , “to meet”) functions as a jussive of advice. The bear meeting a man is less dangerous than a fool in his folly. It could be worded as a “better” saying, but that formula is not found here.


The second colon begins with וְאַל ( vÿ ’ al ), “and not.” This negative usually appears with volitives, so the fuller expression of the parallel line would be “and let not a fool in his folly [meet someone].”


The words “to meet” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied by the parallelism and are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.


The sentence begins with the participle מֵשִׁיב ( meshiv , “the one who repays”). The whole first colon may be taken as an independent nominative absolute, with the formal sentence to follow. Some English versions have made the first colon a condition by supplying “if” (NAB, NIV, TEV, NLT).


The verb מוּשׁ ( mush ) means “to depart; to remove.” The Kethib is a Hiphil, which would yield a meaning of “to take away”; so the Qere , which is the Qal, makes more sense in the line.


Heb “the beginning of a quarrel”; TEV, CEV “The start of an argument.”


The verse simply begins with “letting out water.” This phrase is a metaphor, but most English versions have made it a simile (supplying “like” or “as”). R. N. Whybray takes it literally and makes it the subject of the clause: “stealing water starts a quarrel” ( Proverbs [CBC], 100). However, the verb more likely means “to let out, set free” and not “to steal,” for which there are clearer words. sn The image involves a small leak in a container or cistern that starts to spurt out water. The problem will get worse if it is not stopped. Strife is like that. tc The LXX has “The outpouring of words is the beginning of strife.” This would make it a warning against thoughtless talk.


The temporal clause is formed with the prepositional “before,” the infinitive construct, and the following subjective genitive. The verb גָּלַע ( gala ’) means “to expose; to lay bare,” and in the Hitpael “to disclose oneself; to break out.”


Heb “he who justifies the wicked and and he who condemns the righteous” (so NASB). The first colon uses two Hiphil participles, מַצְדִּיק ( matsdiq ) and מַרְשִׁיעַ ( marshia ’). The first means “to declare righteous” (a declarative Hiphil), and the second means “to make wicked [or, guilty]” or “to condemn” (i.e., “to declare guilty”). To declare someone righteous who is a guilty criminal, or to condemn someone who is innocent, are both abominations for the Righteous Judge of the whole earth.


Heb “an abomination of the Lord .”


Heb “why this?” The term זֶּה ( zeh ) is an enclitic use of the demonstrative pronoun for emphasis: “why ever ” would this happen?


Heb “there is no heart”; NASB “he has no (+ common TEV) sense”; NLT “has no heart for wisdom.”


Heb “a brother.”


Heb “is born for adversity.” This is not referring to sibling rivalry but to the loyalty a brother shows during times of calamity. This is not to say that a brother only shows loyalty when there is trouble, nor that he always does in these times (e.g., 18:19, 24; 19:7; 27:10 ). The true friend is the same as a brotherly relation – in times of greatest need the loyal love is displayed.


Heb “heart”; KJV, ASV “a man void of understanding”; NIV “a man lacking in judgment.”


The phrase “in pledge” is supplied for the sake of clarification.


The line uses the participle עֹרֵב (’ orev ) with its cognate accusative עֲרֻבָּה (’ arubah ), “who pledges a pledge.”


Heb “the one who loves transgression the one who loves a quarrel.” There is some ambiguity in the first line. The meaning would not differ greatly if either were taken as the subject; but the parallelism suggests that the proverb is about a quarrelsome and arrogant person who loves sin and invites destruction.


Some have taken this second line literally and interpreted it to mean he has built a pretentious house. Probably it is meant to be figurative: The gate is the mouth (the figure would be hypocatastasis) and so to make it high is to say lofty things – he brags too much (e.g., 1 Sam 2:3 ; Prov 18:12; 29:23 ); cf. NCV, TEV, NLT. C. H. Toy ( Proverbs [ICC], 348) wishes to emend פִּתְחוֹ ( pitkho , “his gate”) to פִּיו ( piv , “his mouth”), but that is unnecessary since the idea can be obtained by interpretation.


The verse parallels two descriptions of the wicked person: “crooked/perverse of heart” (genitive of specification), and “turned away in his tongue” (deceitful). The first phrase describes twisted intentions. The second, using the Niphal participle (“one turned away”) with “tongue,” the metonymy of cause, describes one who has turned away from speaking truth. Cf. NLT “the twisted tongue tumbles into trouble.”


The phrase “does not find good” is a figure (tapeinosis) meaning, “will experience calamity.” The wicked person can expect trouble ahead.


Heb “tongue”; NIV “whose tongue is deceitful.”


The form simply means “bears” or “gives birth to,” but since it is masculine it could be rendered “fathers” (cf. NASB “he who begets a fool”; NIV “To have a fool for a son”). The form for “fool” is masculine, but the proverb is not limited only to male children (cf. NCV “It is sad to have a foolish child”).


The phrase “does so” is supplied for the sake of clarification.


The word “healing” is a hapax legomenon ; some have suggested changes, such as to Arabic jihatu (“face”) or to גְּוִיָּה ( gÿviah , “body”) as in the Syriac and Tg . Prov 17:22 , but the MT makes sense as it is and should be retained. tn Heb “it causes good a healing.” This means it promotes healing.


The form לְהַטּוֹת ( lÿhattot ) is the Hiphil infinitive construct of נָטָה ( natah ), meaning “to thrust away,” i.e., to “pervert.” This purpose clause clarifies that the receiving of the “gift” is for evil intent.


The verse begins with אֶת־פְּנֵי מֵבִין (’ et-pÿni mevin ), “before the discerning” or “the face of the discerning.” The particle אֶת here is simply drawing emphasis to the predicate ( IBHS 182-83 §10.3.2b). Cf. NIV “A discerning man keeps wisdom in view.”


The term “run” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied for the sake of clarification.


Heb “to the one who bore him.” Because the participle is feminine singular in Hebrew, this has been translated as “the mother who bore him.” sn The proverb is similar to v. 21, 10:1, and 15:20 .


Heb “not good.” This is an example of tapeinosis – an understatement that implies the worst-case scenario: “it is terrible.”


The verb עָנַשׁ , here a Qal infinitive construct, properly means “to fine” (cf. NAB, NRSV, NLT) but is taken here to mean “to punish” in general. The infinitive functions as the subject of the clause.


The form is the Hiphil infinitive construct from נָכָה ( nakhah , “to strike; to smite”). It may well refer to public beatings, so “flog” is used in the translation, since “strike” could refer to an individual’s action and “beat” could be taken to refer to competition.


Heb “[is] against uprightness.” The expression may be rendered “contrary to what is right.” sn The two lines could be synonymous parallelism; but the second part is being used to show how wrong the first act would be – punishing the righteous makes about as much sense as beating an official of the court for doing what is just.


Heb “the one knowing knowledge.” The cognate accusative underscores the meaning of the participle – this is a truly knowledgeable person.


Heb “cool of spirit.” This genitive of specification describes one who is “calm” (so NCV, TEV, CEV) or “even-tempered” (so NIV, NLT); he is composed.


The imperfect tense here denotes possibility: One who holds his tongue [may be considered] discerning.


The Niphal participle is used in the declarative/estimative sense with stative verbs: “to be discerning” (Qal) becomes “to be declared discerning” (Niphal). The proverb is teaching that silence is one evidence of wisdom, and that even a fool can thereby appear wise. D. Kidner says that a fool who takes this advice is no longer a complete fool ( Proverbs [TOTC], 127). He does not, of course, become wise – he just hides his folly.


The Niphal participle functions substantively and has a reflexive nuance: “one who has separated himself” (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB). He is not merely anti-social; he is a problem for society since he will defy sound judgment. The Mishnah uses the verse to teach the necessity of being part of a community because people have social responsibilities and need each other ( m. Avot 2:4).


The MT has “seeks [his own] desire[s].” The translation in the LXX represents a Hebrew Vorlage of לְתֹאֲנָה ( lÿto ’ anah ) instead of לְתַאֲוָה ( lÿta ’ avah ); this could be translated “seeks his own occasion,” that is, “his own pretext” (C. H. Toy, Proverbs [ICC], 354; cf. NAB). The MT makes sense as it stands and the emendation is not really necessary.


Heb “breaks out”; NRSV “showing contempt for”; NLT “snarling at.” This individual breaks out in contention against sound judgment. He is in opposition to society (e.g., Prov 17:14; 20:3 ).


The Hitpael infinitive construct בְּהִתְגַּלּוֹת ( bÿhitgalot ) functions nominally as the object of the preposition. The term means “reveal, uncover, betray.” So the fool takes pleasure “in uncovering” his heart.


Heb “his heart.” This is a metonymy meaning “what is on his mind” (cf. NAB “displaying what he thinks”; NRSV “expressing personal opinion”). This kind of person is in love with his own ideas and enjoys spewing them out (W. McKane, Proverbs [OTL], 515). It is the kind of person who would ask a question, not to learn, but to show everyone how clever he is (cf. TEV).


The MT has “a wicked [person].” Many commentators emend the text to רֶשַׁע ( resha ’, “wickedness”) which makes better parallelism with “shame” (W. McKane, Proverbs [OTL], 521; R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes [AB], 112; C. H. Toy, Proverbs [ICC], 355; cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV). However, there is no external evidence for this emendation.


The term “comes” does not appear in the Hebrew but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and smoothness.


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.


There is debate about the nature of the parallelism between lines 4a and 4b. The major options are: (1) synonymous parallelism, (2) antithetical parallelism (e.g., NAB, NIV, NCV) or (3) formal parallelism. Normally a vav ( ו ) would begin an antithetical clause; the structure and the ideas suggest that the second colon continues the idea of the first half, but in a parallel way rather than as additional predicates. The metaphors used in the proverb elsewhere describe the wise.


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied for the sake of clarity.


Heb “not good.” This is a figure known as tapeinosis, a deliberate understatement to emphasize a worst-case scenario: “it is terrible!”


The idiom “lifting up the face of” ( שְׂאֵת פְּנֵי , sÿ ’ et pÿne ) means “to show partiality” in decisions (e.g., Deut 10:17 ; Mal 2:9 ); cf. CEV, NLT “to favor.” The verbal form is the Qal infinitive construct from נָשָׂא ( nasa ’), which functions as the subject of the clause.


Or “the guilty,” since in the second colon “righteous” can also be understood in contrast as “innocent” (cf. NRSV, TEV, NLT).


Heb “to turn aside” (so ASV); NASB “to thrust aside.” The second half of the verse may illustrate this reprehensible action. The Hiphil infinitive construct לְהַטּוֹת ( lÿhatot ) may serve either (1) as result, “showing partiality… so that the righteous are turned away,” or (2) as epexegetical infinitive, “showing partiality… by turning the righteous away.” The second is preferred in the translation. Depriving the innocent of their rights is a perversion of justice.


Heb “calls for.” This is personification: What the fool says “calls for” a beating or flogging. The fool deserves punishment, but does not actually request it.


Heb “blows.” This would probably be physical beatings, either administered by the father or by society (e.g., also 19:25 ; Ps 141:5 ; cf. NAB, NIV, TEV, NLT). Today, however, “a beating” could be associated with violent criminal assault, whereas the context suggests punishment. Therefore “a flogging” is used in the translation, since that term is normally associated with disciplinary action.


Heb “his soul” (so KJV, NASB, NIV). sn What a fool says can ruin him. Calamity and misfortune can come to a person who makes known his lack of wisdom by what he says. It may be that his words incite anger, or merely reveal stupidity; in either case, he is in trouble.


Or “slanderer”; KJV, NAB “talebearer”; ASV, NRSV “whisperer.”


The word כְּמִתְלַהֲמִים ( kÿmitlahamim ) occurs only here. It is related to a cognate verb meaning “to swallow greedily.” Earlier English versions took it from a Hebrew root הָלַם ( halam , see the word לְמַהֲלֻמוֹת [ lÿmahalumot ] in v. 6 ) meaning “wounds” (so KJV). But the translation of “choice morsels” fits the idea of gossip better.


Heb “they go down [into] the innermost parts of the belly”; NASB “of the body.” sn When the choice morsels of gossip are received, they go down like delicious food – into the innermost being. R. N. Whybray says, “There is a flaw in human nature that assures slander will be listened to” ( Proverbs [CBC], 105).


Heb “Also, the one who.” Many commentators and a number of English versions omit the word “also.”


The form מִתְרַפֶּה ( mitrappeh ) is the Hitpael participle, “showing oneself slack.” The verb means “to sink; to relax,” and in the causative stem “to let drop” the hands. This is the lazy person who does not even try to work.


Heb “possessor of destruction.” This idiom means “destroyer” (so ASV); KJV “a great waster”; NRSV “a vandal.”


Heb “a tower of strength,” with “strength” regarded as attributive by most English versions. The metaphor “strong tower” indicates that God is a secure refuge. The figure is qualified in the second colon.


Heb “is high” or “is inaccessible.” This military-type expression stresses the effect of the trust – security, being out of danger (see HALOT 1305 s.v. שׂגב ). Other scriptures will supply the ways that God actually protects people who trust him.


Heb “city of his strength”; NIV “fortified city.” This term refers to their place of refuge, what they look to for security and protection in time of trouble.


The MT reads בְּמַשְׂכִּיתוֹ ( bÿmaskito , “in his imaginations”). The LXX, Tg . Prov 18:11 , and the Latin reflect בִּמְשֻׂכָּתוֹ ( bimsukato , “like a fence [or, high wall]”) that is, wealth provides protection. The MT reading, on the other hand, suggests that this security is only in the mind. tn The proverb is an observation saying, reporting a common assumption without commenting on it. The juxtaposition with the last verse is a loud criticism of this misguided faith. The final word בְּמַשְׂכִּיתוֹ (“in his imaginations”) indicates that one’s wealth is a futile place of refuge.


Heb “[is] before honor”; cf. CEV “humility leads to honor.”


Heb “returns a word”; KJV “He that answereth a matter.”


Heb “it is folly to him and shame.” The verse uses formal parallelism, with the second colon simply completing the thought of the first.


Heb “the spirit of a man.” Because the verb of this clause is a masculine form, some have translated this line as “with spirit a man sustains,” but that is an unnecessary change.


Heb “discerning heart.” The term “heart” is a synecdoche of part (= heart) for the whole (= person); cf. TEV, NLT “intelligent people.” By paralleling “heart” and “ear” the proverb stresses the full acquisition of knowledge. The “ear” listens to instruction, and the heart considers what is heard to acquire knowledge.


Heb “the ear of the wise.” The term “ear” is a synecdoche of part (= ear) for the whole (= person): “wise person.” sn The wise continually seek more knowledge. D. Kidner says, “Those who know most know best how little they know” ( Proverbs [TOTC], 129).


Heb “in his legal case”; NAB “who pleads his case first.”


The term “seems” does not appear in the Hebrew but is supplied in the translation for the sake of smoothness (cf. KJV “seemeth”).


Heb “his neighbor”; NRSV “the other.”


Heb “comes and.” The Kethib is the imperfect יָבֹא ( yavo ’), and the Qere is the conjunction with the participle/perfect tense form וּבָא ( uva ’). The latter is reflected in most of the ancient versions. There is not an appreciable difference in the translations, except for the use of the conjunction.


Heb “casting the lot.” Because modern readers are not familiar with the ancient practice of casting lots, the image of the coin toss to decide an issue has been employed in the translation (cf. CEV “drawing straws”). Although the casting of lots is often compared to throwing dice, the translation “throwing dice ends disputes” in this context could be misunderstood to mean “participating in a game of dice ends disputes.”


The verb יַשְׁבִּית ( yashbit ) is the Hiphil imperfect from שָׁבַת ( shavat ), meaning “to cause to cease; to bring to an end; to end”; cf. NIV “settles disputes.” The assumption behind this practice and this saying is that providence played the determining role in the casting of lots. If both parties accepted this, then the issue could be resolved.


Heb “makes a separation” or “decides.” In the book of Proverbs this verb often has a negative connotation, such as separating close friends (e.g., 16:9 ). But here it has a positive nuance: Opponents are “separated” by settling the issue.


The word is the adjective, “mighty” (so KJV, NAB, NASB) used here substantivally as the object of the preposition.


Heb “brother,” but this is not limited to actual siblings (cf. NRSV “an ally”; CEV, NLT “friend”).


The Niphal participle from פָּשַׁע ( pasha ’) modifies “brother”: a brother transgressed, offended, sinned against.


The LXX has a clear antithetical proverb here: “A brother helped is like a stronghold, but disputes are like bars of a citadel.” Accordingly, the editors of BHS propose מוֹשִׁיעַ ( moshia ’) instead of נִפְשָׁע ( nifsha ’, so also the other versions and the RSV). But since both lines use the comparison with a citadel (fortified/barred), the antithesis is problematic. tn The phrase “is harder to reach” is supplied in the translation on the basis of the comparative מִן ( min ). It is difficult to get into a fortified city; it is more difficult to reach an offended brother.


Heb “bars,” but this could be understood to mean “taverns,” so “barred gates” is employed in the translation.


Heb “his midst.” This is rendered “his stomach” because of the use of שָׂבַע ( sava ’, “to be satisfied; to be sated; to be filled”), which is usually used with food (cf. KJV, ASV “belly”). sn Productive speech is not just satisfying – it meets the basic needs of life. There is a practical return for beneficial words.


Heb “in the hand of.”


The referent of “it” must be the tongue, i.e., what the tongue says (= “its use”). So those who enjoy talking, indulging in it, must “eat” its fruit, whether good or bad. The expression “eating the fruit” is an implied comparison; it means accept the consequences of loving to talk (cf. TEV).


The verb מָצָא ( matsa ’, translated “finds”) is used twice in the first colon. It is paralleled by the verb פּוּק ( puq , translated “receives”) in the second colon, which carries the same nuance as the preceding verbs. The first perfect tense verb might function in a hypothetical or conditional sense: “If a man finds…then he finds.” But taken as a principle the nuances of the verbs would be gnomic or characteristic.


Heb “good.” The term טוֹב ( tov , “good; enjoyable; fortune”) might be an allusion to Gen 2:18 , which affirms that it is not good for man to be alone. The word describes that which is pleasing to God, beneficial for life, and abundantly enjoyable.


Heb “what is pleasant.” The noun רָצוֹן ( ratson , “what is pleasing”) is often interpreted in a religious-theological sense here: “receives favor from the Lord ” (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV). However, this term is probably referring to the pleasure that a person enjoys in marriage, so it should be understood in a nonreligious, marital sense: “pleasure” (e.g., Esth 1:8 ; HALOT 1282 s.v. 1 ); cf. CEV “she is a gift from the Lord.” sn The parallelism is formal; the second line of the verse continues the first but explains it further: Finding a spouse, one receives a pleasurable gift from God.


The LXX adds this embellishment to complete the thought: “Whoever puts away a good wife puts away good, and whoever keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly.”


Heb “speaks supplications”; NIV “pleads for mercy.” The poor man has to ask for help because he has no choice (cf. CEV). The Hebrew term תַּחֲנוּן ( takhanun ) is a “supplication for favor” (related to the verb חָנַן [ khanan ], “to be gracious; to show favor”). So the poor man speaks, but what he speaks is a request for favor.


The construction is “a man of friends” (cf. NASB) meaning a man who has friends (a genitive of the thing possessed). C. H. Toy, however, suggests reading יֵשׁ ( yesh ) instead of אִישׁ (’ ish ), along with some of the Greek mss , the Syriac, and Tg . Prov 18:24 . It would then say “there are friends” who are unreliable ( Proverbs [ICC], 366); cf. NLT. However, the MT should be retained here.


The text simply has לְהִתְרֹעֵעַ ( lÿhitro ’ ea ’), which means “for being crushed” or “to be shattered” (but not “to show oneself friendly” as in the KJV). What can be made of the sentence is that “a man who has [many] friends [may have them] for being crushed” – the infinitive giving the result (i.e., “with the result that he may be crushed by them”).


Heb “lips.” The term “lips” is a metonymy for what one says with his lips. The expression “perverse in his lips” refers to speech that is morally perverted. Some medieval Hebrew mss, the Syriac, and Tg . Prov 19:1 have “his ways” rather than “his lips” (e.g., Prov 28:6 ); cf. NAB.


The Syriac and Tg . Prov 19:1 read “rich” instead of MT “fool.” This makes tighter antithetical parallelism than MT and is followed by NAB. However, the MT makes sense as it stands; this is an example of metonymical parallelism. The MT reading is also supported by the LXX. The Hebrew construction uses וְהוּא ( vÿhu ’), “and he [is],” before “fool.” This may be rendered “one who is perverse while a fool” or “a fool at the same time.”


Heb “not good.” This is a figure known as tapeinosis (a deliberate understatement to emphasize a worst-case scenario): “it is dangerous!”


The interpretation of this line depends largely on the meaning of נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) which has a broad range of meanings: (1) the breathing substance of man, (2) living being, (3) life, (4) person, (5) seat of the appetites, (6) seat of emotions and passions, (7) activities of intellect, emotion and will, (8) moral character, etc. (BDB 659-61 s.v.). In light of the synonymous parallelism, the most likely nuance here is “zeal, passion” ( HALOT 713 s.v. 8 ). NIV takes the word in the sense of “vitality” and “drive” – “it is not good to have zeal without knowledge” (cf. NCV, TEV, and NLT which are all similar).


Heb “he who is hasty with his feet.” The verb אוּץ (’ uts ) means “to be pressed; to press; to make haste.” The verb is followed by the preposition בְּ ( bet ) which indicates that with which one hastens – his feet. The word “feet” is a synecdoche of part for the whole person – body and mind working together (cf. NLT “a person who moves too quickly”).


Heb “misses the goal.” The participle חוֹטֵא ( khote ’) can be translated “sins” (cf. KJV, ASV), but in this context it refers only to actions without knowledge, which could lead to sin, or could lead simply to making poor choices (cf. NAB “blunders”; NASB “errs”; NCV “might make a mistake”). sn The basic meaning of the verb is “to miss a goal or the way.” D. Kidner says, “How negative is the achievement of a man who wants tangible and quick rewards” – he will miss the way ( Proverbs [TOTC], 132).


Heb “the folly of a man.”


The verb סָלַף ( salaf ) normally means “to twist; to pervert; to overturn,” but in this context it means “to subvert” (BDB 701 s.v.); cf. ASV “subverteth.” sn J. H. Greenstone comments: “Man’s own failures are the result of his own folly and should not be attributed to God” ( Proverbs , 201).


The clause begins with vav on the nonverb phrase “against the Lord .” While clause structure and word order is less compelling in a book like Proverbs, this fits well as a circumstantial clause indicating concession.


The Niphal imperfect probably should be taken in the passive sense (the poor person is deserted by his “friend,” cf. NAB, NIV) rather than as a direct middle (the poor person deserted his friend).


Heb “a witness of lies.” This expression is an attributive genitive: “a lying witness” (cf. CEV “dishonest witnesses”). This is paralleled by “the one who pours out lies.”


Heb “breathes out”; NAB “utters”; NIV “pours out.”


Heb “will not escape” (so NAB, NASB); NIV “will not go free.” Here “punishment” is implied, and has been supplied in the translation for clarity. sn This proverb is a general statement, because on occasion there are false witnesses who go unpunished in this life (e.g., Prov 6:19; 14:5, 25; 19:9 ). The Talmud affirms, “False witnesses are contemptible even to those who hire them” ( b. Sanhedrin 29b).


The verb יְחַלּוּ ( yÿkhalu ) is a Piel imperfect of חָלָה ( khalah ) meaning “to seek favor; to entreat favor; to mollify; to appease”; cf. NIV “curry favor.” It literally means “making the face of someone sweet or pleasant,” as in stroking the face. To “entreat the favor” of someone is to induce him to show favor; the action aims at receiving gifts, benefits, or any other kind of success. sn The Hebrew verb translated “entreat the favor” is often used to express prayer when God is the one whose favor is being sought; here it is the prince who can grant requests.


Heb “the face of a generous man”; ASV “the liberal man.” The term “face” is a synecdoche of part (= face) for the whole (= person).


Heb “a man of gifts.” This could be (1) attributive genitive: a man characterized by giving gifts or (2) objective genitive: a man who gives gifts ( IBHS 146 §9.5.2b).


Heb “brothers,” but not limited only to male siblings in this context.


Heb “hate him.” The verb שָׂנֵא ( sane ’) may be nuanced “reject” here (metonymy of effect, cf. CEV). The kind of “dislike” or “hatred” family members show to a poor relative is to have nothing to do with him (NIV “is shunned”). If relatives do this, how much more will the poor person’s friends do so.


The direct object “them” does not appear in the Hebrew but is supplied in the translation for the sake of smoothness.


Heb “not they.” The last line of the verse is problematic. The preceding two lines are loosely synonymous in their parallelism, but the third adds something like: “he pursues [them with] words, but they [do] not [respond].” Some simply say it is a corrupt remnant of a separate proverb and beyond restoration. The basic idea does make sense, though. The idea of his family and friends rejecting the poor person reveals how superficial they are, and how they make themselves scarce. Since they are far off, he has to look for them “with words” (adverbial accusative), that is, “send word” for help. But they “are nowhere to be found” (so NIV). The LXX reads “will not be delivered” in place of “not they” – clearly an attempt to make sense out of the cryptic phrase, and, in the process, showing evidence for that text.


Heb “heart.” Most English versions translate as “wisdom,” but cf. NAB “intelligence.” This refers to a mind that works (e.g., Prov 7:7; 9:4 ).


Heb “his own soul.” The expression “loves his soul” means that he is paying attention to his needs or taking care of his life (cf. NAB “is his own best friend”). This expression works with its parallel to provide the whole idea: “loving the soul” is the metonymy of the cause for prospering, and “prospering” is the metonymy of the effect (of loving).


Heb “finds good” (similar KJV, NASB); NCV “will succeed.” The MT reads לִמְצֹא ( limtso ’), a Qal infinitive construct. The LXX (as well as the other major early versions) renders it as a future, which reflects a Vorlage of יִמְצָא ( yimtsa ’). The infinitive is used here in a modal sense, meaning “is destined to” or “is certain of” finding good in life.


The form נָאוֶה ( na ’ veh ) is an adjective meaning “seemly; comely” in the older English versions like KJV, ASV, “fitting” in more recent ones (e.g., NASB, NIV, NRSV). The verbal root נוֹה only occurs in the Pilel stem; but it also has the basic meaning of “being fitting; being comely.” In this sentence the form is a predicate adjective.


Or “prudence,” the successful use of wisdom in discretion. Cf. NAB, NRSV, NLT “good sense.”


The Hiphil perfect of אָרַךְ (’ arakh , “to be long”) means “to make long; to prolong.” Patience and slowness to anger lead to forgiveness of sins.


Heb “to pass over” (so KJV, ASV); NCV, TEV “ignore.” The infinitive construct עֲבֹר (’ avor ) functions as the formal subject of the sentence. This clause provides the cause, whereas the former gave the effect – if one can pass over an offense there will be no anger. sn W. McKane says, “The virtue which is indicated here is more than a forgiving temper; it includes also the ability to shrug off insults and the absence of a brooding hypersensitivity…. It contains elements of toughness and self-discipline; it is the capacity to stifle a hot, emotional rejoinder and to sleep on an insult” ( Proverbs [OTL], 530).


Heb “is a roaring like a lion.”


Heb “a foolish son” (so KJV, NAB, NIV, CEV); NRSV “a stupid child.”


Heb “the contentions of a wife” (so KJV, NASB); NAB “the nagging of a wife.” The genitive could be interpreted (1) as genitive of source or subjective genitive – she is quarreling; or (2) it could be a genitive of specification, making the word “contentions” a modifier, as in the present translation.


Heb “is a constant dripping.” The term “like” does not appear in the Hebrew but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity. The metaphor pictures water dropping (perhaps rain through the roof, cf. NRSV, CEV) in a continuous flow: It is annoying and irritating (e.g., Prov 27:15-16 ).


The LXX makes this moralistic statement for 13b: “vows paid out of hire of a harlot are not pure.” It is not based on the MT and attempts to reconstruct a text using this have been unsuccessful.


Heb “inheritance of fathers” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).


Heb “causes to fall” or “casts”; NAB “plunges…into.”


Or “complete inactivity”; the word תַּרְדֵּמָה ( tardemah ) can refer to a physical “deep sleep” (e.g., Gen 2:21 ; Jonah 1:5, 6 ); but it can also be used figuratively for complete inactivity, as other words for “sleep” can. Here it refers to lethargy or debility and morbidness.


The expression וְנֶפֶשׁ רְמִיָּה ( vÿnefesh rÿmiyyah ) can be translated “the soul of deceit” or “the soul of slackness.” There are two identical feminine nouns, one from the verb “beguile,” and the other from a cognate Arabic root “grow loose.” The second is more likely here in view of the parallelism (cf. NIV “a shiftless man”; NAB “the sluggard”). One who is slack, that is, idle, will go hungry.


The verb שָׁמַר ( shamar ) is repeated twice in this line but with two different senses, creating a polysemantic wordplay: “he who obeys/keeps ( ֹֹשׁמֵר , shomer ) the commandment safeguards/keeps ( שֹׁמֵר , shomer ) his life.”


The Kethib is יָוְמֻת ( yavmut ), “will be put to death,” while the Qere reads יָמוּת ( yamut , “will die”). The Qere is the preferred reading and is followed by most English versions.


The form מַלְוֵה ( malveh ) is the Hiphil participle from לָוָה ( lavah ) in construct; it means “to cause to borrow; to lend.” The expression here is “lender of the Lord .” The person who helps the poor becomes the creditor of God.


Heb “he.” The referent of the 3rd person masculine singular pronoun is “the Lord ” in the preceding line, which has been supplied here in the translation for clarity.


Heb “and his good deed will repay him.” The word גְּמֻלוֹ ( gÿmulo ) could be (1) the subject or (2) part of a double accusative of the verb. Understanding it as part of the double accusative makes better sense, for then the subject of the verb is God. How “his deed” could repay him is not immediately obvious.


The translation understands כִּי ( ki ) as causal. Some prefer to take כִּי as temporal and translate, “while there is hope” (so KJV, NASB, NCV, NRSV, NLT), meaning that discipline should be administered when the child is young and easily guided. In the causal reading of כִּי , the idea seems to be that children should be disciplined because change is possible due to their youth and the fact that they are not set in their ways.


The expression “do not lift up your soul/life” to his death may mean (1) “do not set your heart” on his death (cf. ASV, NAB, NASB, NRSV), or it may mean (2) “do not be a willing partner” (cf. NIV). The parent is to discipline a child, but he is not to take it to the extreme and destroy or kill the child.


The second colon of the verse is very difficult, and there have been many proposals as to its meaning: (1) “If you save [your enemy], you will add [good to yourself]”; (2) “If you save [your son by chastening], you may continue [chastisement and so educate him]”; (3) “If you deliver [him by paying the fine for him once], you will have to do it again”; (4) “If you save [him this time], you will have to increase [the punishment later on].” All interpretations have to supply a considerable amount of material (indicated by brackets). Many English versions are similar to (3).


The proverb is one continuous thought, but the second half of the verse provides the purpose for the imperatives of the first half.


The imperfect tense has the nuance of a final imperfect in a purpose clause, and so is translated “that you may become wise” (cf. NAB, NRSV).


Heb “become wise in your latter end” (cf. KJV, ASV) which could obviously be misunderstood.


Heb “in the heart of a man” (cf. NAB, NIV). Here “heart” is used for the seat of thoughts, plans, and reasoning, so the translation uses “mind.” In contemporary English “heart” is more often associated with the seat of emotion than with the seat of planning and reasoning.


Heb “but the counsel of the Lord , it will stand.” The construction draws attention to the “counsel of the Lord ”; it is an independent nominative absolute, and the resumptive independent pronoun is the formal subject of the verb.


The antithetical parallelism pairs “counsel” with “plans.” “Counsel of the Lord ” ( עֲצַת יְהוָה , ’ atsat yehvah ) is literally “advice” or “counsel” with the connotation of “plan” in this context (cf. NIV, NRSV, NLT “purpose”; NCV “plan”; TEV “the Lord’s will”). sn The point of the proverb is that the human being with many plans is uncertain, but the Lord with a sure plan gives correct counsel.


Heb “the desire of a man” (so KJV). The noun in construct is תַּאֲוַת ( ta ’ avat ), “desire [of].” Here it refers to “the desire of a man [= person].” Two problems surface here, the connotation of the word and the kind of genitive. “Desire” can also be translated “lust,” and so J. H. Greenstone has “The lust of a man is his shame” ( Proverbs , 208). But the sentence is more likely positive in view of the more common uses of the words. “Man” could be a genitive of possession or subjective genitive – the man desires loyal love. It could also be an objective genitive, meaning “what is desired for a man.” The first would be the more natural in the proverb, which is showing that loyal love is better than wealth.


Heb “[is] his loyal love”; NIV “unfailing love”; NRSV “loyalty.”


Heb “the fear of the Lord .” This expression features an objective genitive: “fearing the Lord .”


The term “leads” does not appear in the Hebrew but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and style.


Here “life” is probably a metonymy of subject for “blessings and prosperity in life.” The plural form often covers a person’s “lifetime.”


The subject of this verb is probably the one who fears the Lord and enjoys life. So the proverb uses synthetic parallelism; the second half tells what this life is like – it is an abiding contentment that is not threatened by calamity (cf. NCV “unbothered by trouble”).


Heb “he will not be visited” (so KJV, ASV). The verb פָּקַד ( paqad ) is often translated “visit.” It describes intervention that will change the destiny. If God “visits” it means he intervenes to bless or to curse. To be “visited by trouble” means that calamity will interfere with the course of life and change the direction or the destiny. Therefore this is not referring to a minor trouble that one might briefly experience. A life in the Lord cannot be disrupted by such major catastrophes that would alter one’s destiny.


Heb “buries” (so many English versions); KJV “hideth”; NAB “loses.”


The Hiphil imperfect תַּכֶּה ( takeh ) is followed by another imperfect. It could be rendered: “strike a scorner [imperfect of instruction] and a simpleton will become prudent.” But the first of the parallel verbs can also be subordinated to the second as a temporal or conditional clause. Some English versions translate “beat” (NAB “if you beat an arrogant man”), but this could be understood to refer to competition rather than physical punishment. Therefore “flog” has been used in the translation, since it is normally associated with punishment or discipline.


The second half begins with הוֹכִיחַ ( hokhiakh ), the Hiphil infinitive construct. This parallels the imperfect tense beginning the first half; it forms a temporal or conditional clause as well, so that the main verb is “he will understand.” sn The discerning person will learn from verbal rebukes. The contrast is caught in a wordplay in the Midrash: “For the wise a hint [ r’mizo ], for the fool a fist [ kurmezo ]” ( Mishle 22:6).


The construction joins the Piel participle מְשַׁדֶּד ( mÿshaded , “one who robs”) with the Hiphil imperfect יַבְרִיחַ ( yavriakh , “causes to flee” = chases away). The imperfect given a progressive imperfect nuance matches the timeless description of the participle as a substantive.


The more generic “child” does not fit the activities described in this verse and so “son” is retained in the translation. In the ancient world a “son” was more likely than a daughter to behave as stated. Such behavior may reflect the son wanting to take over his father’s lands prematurely.


Heb “Stop listening…!” The infinitive construct לִשְׁמֹעַ ( lishmoa ’) functions as the direct object of the imperative: “stop heeding [or, listening to].” Of course in this proverb which shows the consequences of doing so, this is irony. The sage is instructing not to stop. The conditional protasis construction does not appear in the Hebrew but is supplied in the translation.


The second line has an infinitive construct לִשְׁגוֹת ( lishgot ), meaning “to stray; to go astray; to err.” It indicates the result of the instruction – stop listening, and as a result you will go astray. The LXX took it differently: “A son who ceases to attend to discipline is likely to stray from words of knowledge.” RSV sees the final clause as the purpose of the instructions to be avoided: “do not listen to instructions to err.”


Heb “a witness who is worthless and wicked” ( עֵד בְּלִיַּעַל , ’ ed beliyya ’ al ). Cf. KJV “an ungodly witness”; NAB “an unprincipled witness”; NCV “an evil witness”; NASB “a rascally witness.” sn These are crooked or corrupt witnesses who willfully distort the facts and make a mockery of the whole legal process.


The parallel line says the mouth of the wicked “gulps down” or “swallows” ( יְבַלַּע , yÿvala ’) iniquity. The verb does not seem to fit the line (or the proverb) very well. Some have emended the text to יַבִּיעַ ( yavia ’, “gushes”) as in 15:28 (cf. NAB “pours out”). Driver followed an Arabic balaga to get “enunciates,” which works well with the idea of a false witness (W. McKane, Proverbs [OTL], 529). As it stands, however, the line indicates that in what he says the wicked person accepts evil – and that could describe a false witness.


Some (cf. NAB) suggest emending the MT’s “judgments” (from שָׁפַט , shafat ) to “rods” (from שָׁבַט , shavat ); however, this is not necessary if the term in the MT is interpreted figuratively. The LXX “scourges” might reflect a different Vorlage , but it also could have been an interpretive translation from the same text. “Judgments” is a metonymy of cause and refers to the punishment that the scoffer is to receive.


The two participles לֵץ ( lets , “mocker”) and הֹמֶה ( homeh , “brawler”) are substantives; they function as predicates in the sentence. Excessive use of intoxicants excites the drinker to boisterous behavior and aggressive attitudes – it turns them into mockers and brawlers.


Heb “the terror of a king” (so ASV, NASB); The term “terror” is a metonymy of effect for cause: the anger of a king that causes terror among the people. The term “king” functions as a possessive genitive: “a king’s anger” (cf. NIV “A king’s wrath”; NLT “The king’s fury”).


The verb מִתְעַבְּרוֹ ( mit ’ abbÿro ) is problematic; in the MT the form is the Hitpael participle with a pronominal suffix, which is unusual, for the direct object of this verb usually takes a preposition first: “is angry with.” The LXX rendered it “angers [or, irritates].”


Heb “man.”


Heb “cessation” ( שֶׁבֶת , shevet ); NAB “to shun strife”; NRSV “refrain from strife.” sn One cannot avoid conflict altogether; but the proverb is instructing that at the first sign of conflict the honorable thing to do is to find a way to end it.


Heb “breaks out.” The Hitpael of the verb גָּלַע ( gala ’, “to expose; to lay bare”) means “to break out; to disclose oneself,” and so the idea of flaring up in a quarrel is clear. But there are also cognate connections to the idea of “showing the teeth; snarling” and so quarreling viciously.


Heb “in the autumn”; ASV “by reason of the winter.” The noun means “autumn, harvest time.” The right time for planting was after the harvest and the rainy season of autumn and winter began.


The Piel of the verb שָׁאַל ( sha ’ al , “to ask”) means “to beg” or “to inquire carefully.” At the harvest time he looks for produce but there is none. The Piel might suggest, however, that because he did not plant, or did not do it at the right time, he is reduced to begging and will have nothing (cf. KJV, ASV; NASB “he begs during the harvest”).


The phrase “for the crop” does not appear in the Hebrew but is implied; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.


Heb “in the heart of a man”; NRSV “in the human mind.”


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied for the sake of clarity.


Heb “a man of understanding”; TEV “someone with insight”; NLT “the wise.”


Heb “many a man calls/proclaims a man of his loyal love.” The Syriac and Tg . Prov 20:6 render the verb as passive: “many are called kind.” Other suggestions include: “most men meet people who will do them occasional kindnesses” (RSV); “many men profess friendship” (C. H. Toy, Proverbs [ICC], 384); “many men invite only the one who has shown them kindness.” The simplest interpretation in this context is “many proclaim [themselves to be] a kind person (= a loyal friend).” The contrast is between many who claim to be loyal friends and the one who actually proves to be faithful.


The shift to the expression “a man of faithfulness[es]” in the second line indicates that of all those who claim to show faithful love, it is rare to find one who is truly reliable (as the word אֱמוּנִים [’ emunim ] indicates clearly); cf. NAB, NRSV “one worthy of trust.”


Heb “walks in his integrity” (so NASB); cf. NIV “leads a blameless life.” The Hitpael participle of הָלַךְ ( halakh ) means “to walk about; to walk to and fro.” The idiom of walking representing living is intensified here in this stem. This verbal stem is used in scripture to describe people “walking with” God.


The infinitive construct is דִּין ; it indicates purpose, “to judge” (so NIV, NCV) even though it does not have the preposition with it.


The second line uses the image of winnowing (cf. NIV, NRSV) to state that the king’s judgment removes evil from the realm. The verb form is מִזָרֶה ( mÿzareh ), the Piel participle. It has been translated “to sift; to winnow; to scatter” and “to separate” – i.e., separate out evil from the land. The text is saying that a just government roots out evil (cf. NAB “dispels all evil”), but few governments have been consistently just.


The verb form זִכִּיתִי ( zikkiti ) is the Piel perfect of זָכָה ( zakhah , “to be clear; to be clean; to be pure”). The verb has the idea of “be clear, justified, acquitted.” In this stem it is causative: “I have made my heart clean” (so NRSV) or “kept my heart pure” (so NIV). This would be claiming that all decisions and motives were faultless.


The construction simply uses repetition to express different kinds of weights and measures: “a stone and a stone, an ephah and an ephah.”


Heb “an abomination of the Lord .” The phrase features a subjective genitive: “the Lord abhors.” sn Behind this proverb is the image of the dishonest merchant who has different sets of weights and measures which are used to cheat customers. The Lord hates dishonesty in business transactions.


The second line uses two imperatives in a sequence (without the vav [ ו ]): “open your eyes” and then (or, in order that) you will “be satisfied.”


Heb “bread” (so KJV, ASV, NRSV), although the term often serves in a generic sense for food in general.


Heb “[It is] bad, [it is] bad.” Since “bad” can be understood in some modern contexts as a descriptive adjective meaning “good,” the translation uses “worthless” instead – the real point of the prospective buyer’s exclamation.


The Hitpael imperfect of הָלַל ( halal ) means “to praise” – to talk in glowing terms, excitedly. In this stem it means “to praise oneself; to boast.”


The verse is usually taken as antithetical parallelism: There may be gold and rubies but the true gem is knowledge. However, C. H. Toy arranges it differently: “store of gold and wealth of corals and precious vessels – all are wise lips” ( Proverbs [ICC], 388). But this uses the gems as metaphors for wise speech, and does not stress the contrast between wealth and wisdom.


Heb “lips of knowledge.” The term “lips” is a metonymy for speaking, and “knowledge” could be either an attributive genitive or objective genitive: “knowledgeable lips.” Lips that impart knowledge are the true jewel to be sought.


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.


Heb “his garment.”


The Kethib has the masculine plural form, נָכְרִים ( nakhrim ), suggesting a reading “strangers.” But the Qere has the feminine form נָכְרִיָּה ( nakhriyyah ), “strange woman” or “another man’s wife” (e.g., 27:13 ). The parallelism would suggest “strangers” is the correct reading, although theories have been put forward for the interpretation of “strange woman” (see below). sn The one for whom the pledge is taken is called “a stranger” and “foreign.” These two words do not necessarily mean that the individual or individuals are non-Israelite – just outside the community and not well known.


M. Dahood argues that the cloak was taken in pledge for a harlot (cf. NIV “a wayward woman”). Two sins would then be committed: taking a cloak and going to a prostitute (“To Pawn One’s Cloak,” Bib 42 [1961]: 359-66; also Snijders, “The Meaning of זָר ,” 85-86). In the MT the almost identical proverb in 27:13 has a feminine singular form here.


Heb “bread of deceit” (so KJV, NAB). This refers to food gained through dishonest means. The term “bread” is a synecdoche of specific for general, referring to anything obtained by fraud, including food.


Heb “a man.”


The noun form is plural, but the verb is singular, suggesting either an abstract plural or a collective plural is being used here.


The clause begins with vav ( ו ) on “with guidance.” But the clause has an imperative for its main verb. One could take the imperfect tense in the first colon as an imperfect of injunction, and then this clause would be also instructional. But the imperfect tense is a Niphal, and so it is better to take the first colon as the foundational clause and the second colon as the consequence (cf. NAB): If that is true, then you should do this.


The form is the Hitpael imperfect (of prohibition or instruction) from עָרַב (’ arav ). BDB 786-88 lists six roots with these radicals. The first means “to mix,” but only occurs in derivatives. BDB 786 lists this form under the second root, which means “to take on a pledge; to exchange.” The Hitpael is then defined as “to exchange pledges; to have fellowship with [or, share].” The proverb is warning people to have nothing to do with gossips.


The verb פֹּתֶה ( poteh ) is a homonym, related to I פָּתָה ( patah , “to be naive; to be foolish”; HALOT 984-85 s.v. I פתה ) or II פָּתָה (“to open [the lips]; to chatter”; HALOT 985 s.v. II פתה ). So the phrase וּלְפֹתֶה שְׂפָתָיו may be understood either (1) as HALOT 985 s.v. II פתה suggests, “one opens his lips” = he is always talking/gossiping, or (2) as BDB suggests, “one who is foolish as to his lips” (he lacks wisdom in what he says; see BDB 834 s.v. פָּתָה 1, noted in HALOT 984 s.v. I פתה 1). The term “lips” is a metonymy of cause for what is said: gossip. If such a person is willing to talk about others, he will be willing to talk about you, so it is best to avoid him altogether.


The form is the Piel participle of קָלַל ( qalal ), which means “to be light”; in the Piel stem it means “to take lightly; to treat as worthless; to treat contemptuously; to curse.” Under the Mosaic law such treatment of parents brought a death penalty ( Exod 21:17 ; Lev 20:9 ; Deut 27:16 ).


“His lamp” is a figure known as hypocatastasis (an implied comparison) meaning “his life.” Cf. NLT “the lamp of your life”; TEV “your life will end like a lamp.” sn For the lamp to be extinguished would mean death (e.g., 13:9 ) and possibly also the removal of posterity (R. N. Whybray, Proverbs [CBC], 115).


The Kethib , followed by the LXX, Syriac, and Latin, has בְּאִישׁוֹן ( bÿ ’ ishon ), “in the pupil of the eye darkness,” the dark spot of the eye. But the Qere has בֶּאֱשׁוּן ( be ’ eshun ), probably to be rendered “pitch” or “blackest,” although the form occurs nowhere else. The meaning with either reading is approximately the same – deep darkness, which adds vividly to the figure of the lamp being snuffed out. This individual’s destruction will be total and final.


The Kethib reads מְבֻחֶלֶת ( mÿbukhelet ), “gotten by greed” (based on a cognate Syriac verb, “to be greedy”); but the Qere is מְבֹהֶלֶת ( mÿvohelet ), “gotten hastily [or, quickly].” A large number of mss and the ancient versions read with the Qere (cf. KJV, ASV “gotten hastily”; NAB “gained hastily”; NIV “quickly gained”; NRSV “quickly acquired”). sn If the inheritance is obtained quickly, it could mean prematurely (e.g., Luke 15:12 ) or cruelly ( Prov 19:26 ). The inheritance is gained without labor or without preparation.


The form is the Pual imperfect, “will not be blessed,” suggesting that divine justice is at work. sn The Hebrew verb means “enriched, made fruitful, prospered.” Whatever the inheritance was, it will not reach its full potential or even remain permanent.


Heb “in its end”; KJV, ASV “the end thereof.”


The verse is directly instructive; it begins with the negated jussive in the first colon, and follows with the imperative in the second. It warns that the righteous should not take vengeance on the wicked, for only God can do that.


The form is the Piel cohortative of resolve – “I am determined to pay back.” The verb שָׁלֵם ( shalem ) means “to be complete; to be sound.” In this stem, however, it can mean “to make complete; to make good; to requite; to recompense” (KJV, ASV). The idea is “getting even” by paying back someone for the evil done.


After the imperative, the jussive is subordinated in a purpose or result clause: “wait for the Lord so that he may deliver you.” The verb יֹשַׁע ( yosha ’) means “to save (KJV, ASV, NASB); to deliver (NIV); to give victory”; in this context it means “deliver from the evil done to you,” and so “vindicate” is an appropriate connotation. Cf. NCV “he will make things right.”


Heb “an abomination of the Lord .” This expression features a subjective genitive: “the Lord abhors.”


Heb “not good.” This is a figure known as tapeinosis – a deliberate understatement to emphasize a worst-case scenario: “it is wicked!” (e.g., 11:1; 20:10 ).


Heb “the steps of a man”; but “man” is the noun גֶּבֶר ( gever , in pause), indicating an important, powerful person. BDB 149-50 s.v. suggests it is used of men in their role of defending women and children; if that can be validated, then a translation of “man” would be appropriate here. But the line seems to have a wider, more general application. The “steps” represent (by implied comparison) the course of life (cf. NLT “the road we travel”).


Heb “from the Lord ”; NRSV “ordered by the Lord”; NIV “directed by the Lord.” sn To say that one’s steps are ordained by the Lord means that one’s course of actions, one’s whole life, is divinely prepared and sovereignly superintended (e.g., Gen 50:26 ; Prov 3:6 ). Ironically, man is not actually in control of his own steps.


The verse uses an independent nominative absolute to point up the contrast between the mortal and the immortal: “and man, how can he understand his way?” The verb in the sentence would then be classified as a potential imperfect; and the whole question rhetorical. It is affirming that humans cannot understand very much at all about their lives.


Heb “his way.” The referent of the third masculine singular pronoun is unclear, so the word “own” was supplied in the translation to clarify that the referent is the human individual, not the Lord.


Heb “a man.”


The verb is from לוּע ( lu ’) or לָעַע ( la ’ a ’); it means “to talk wildly” (not to be confused with the homonym “to swallow”). It occurs here and in Job 6:3 . sn This refers to speaking rashly in dedicating something to the sanctuary by calling it “Holy.”


Heb “reflect on.” The person is to consider the vows before making them, to ensure that they can be fulfilled. Too many people make their vow or promise without thinking, and then later worry about how they will fulfill their vows.


Heb “the vows” (so NASB); CEV “promises.”


Heb “winnows” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV). The sage draws on the process of winnowing to explain how the king uncovers and removes wickedness. The verb from which the participle מְזָרֶה ( mÿzareh ) is derived means “to separate; to winnow; to scatter”; the implied comparison means that the king will separate good people from bad people like wheat is separated from chaff. The image of winnowing is also used in divine judgment. The second line of the verse uses a detail of the process to make the point. Driving a wheel over the wheat represents the threshing process; the sharp iron wheels of the cart would easily serve the purpose (e.g., Isa 28:27-28 ).


The king has the wisdom/ability to destroy evil from his kingdom. See also D. W. Thomas, “ Proverbs 20:26 ,” JTS 15 (1964): 155-56.


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied for the sake of clarity.


The “lamp” is the metaphor in the line; it signifies that the human spirit functions as a conscience, enabling people to know and please God, and directing them in choices that will be life-giving. E. Loewenstamm unnecessarily reads נִיר ( nir , “to plow”) instead of נֵר ( ner , “lamp”) to say that God plows and examines the soul (“Remarks on Proverbs 17:12 and 20:27 ,” VT 37 [1967]: 233). The NIV supplies a verb (“searches”) from the second half of the verse, changing the emphasis somewhat.


Heb “all the chambers of the belly.” This means “the inner parts of the body” (BDB 293 s.v. חֶדֶר ); cf. NASB “the innermost parts of his being.”


The first line uses two Hebrew words, חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת ( khesed ve ’ emet , “loyal love and truth”), to tell where security lies. The first word is the covenant term for “loyal love; loving-kindness; mercy”; and the second is “truth” in the sense of what is reliable and dependable. The two words often are joined together to form a hendiadys: “faithful love.” That a hendiadys is intended here is confirmed by the fact that the second line uses only the critical word חֶסֶד .


The Hebrew term תִּפְאֶרֶת ( tif ’ eret ) means “beauty; glory”; in a context like this it means “honor” in the sense of glorying or boasting (BDB 802 s.v. 3 .b).


The Hebrew term הֲדַר ( hadar ), the noun in construct, means “splendor; honor; ornament.” The latter sense is used here, since grey hair is like a crown on the head.


The verb מָרַק ( maraq ) means “to polish; to scour”; in the Hiphil it means “to cleanse away,” but it is only attested here, and that in the Kethib reading of תַּמְרִיק ( tamriq ). The Qere has תַּמְרוּק ( tamruq , “are a means of cleansing”). The LXX has “blows and contusions fall on evil men, and stripes penetrate their inner beings”; the Latin has “the bruise of a wound cleanses away evil things.” C. H. Toy suggests emending the text to read “stripes cleanse the body, and blows the inward parts” or “cosmetics purify the body, and blows the soul” ( Proverbs [ICC], 397). Cf. CEV “can knock all of the evil out of you.”


The term “cleanse” does not appear in this line but is supplied in the translation in the light of the parallelism.


“Channels of water” ( פַּלְגֵי , palge ) is an adverbial accusative, functioning as a figure of comparison – “like channels of water.” Cf. NAB “Like a stream”; NIV “watercourse”; NRSV, NLT “a stream of water.” sn The farmer channels irrigation ditches where he wants them, where they will do the most good; so does the Lord with the king. No king is supreme; the Lord rules.


Heb “in his own eyes.” The term “eyes” is a metonymy for estimation, opinion, evaluation.


Heb “weighs” (so NASB, NIV, NRSV); NLT “examines”; NCV, TEV “judges.”


Heb “the hearts.” The term לֵב ( lev , “heart”) is used as a metonymy of association for thoughts and motives (BDB 660-61 s.v. 6-7 ). Even though people think they know themselves, the Lord evaluates motives as well (e.g., Prov 16:2 ).


The Niphal participle בָּחַר ( bakhar , “to choose”) means “choice to the Lord ” or “chosen of the Lord ,” meaning “acceptable to the Lord ”; cf. TEV “pleases the Lord more.”


Heb “the tillage [ נִר , nir ] of the wicked is sin” (so NAB). The subject picks up the subjects of the first half of the verse, indicating they are equal – the tillage consists of the arrogance and pride. The word “tillage” is figurative, of course, signifying that the agricultural product (the point of the comparison) of the wicked is sin. The relationship between the ideas is then problematic. Are pride and arrogance what the wicked produce? Some (ASV, NASB, NIV, NRSV) have followed the LXX and Tg . Prov 21:4 to read “lamp” instead ( נֵר , ner ), but that does not solve the difficulty of the relationship between the expressions. It does, however, say that the life ( = lamp), which is arrogance and pride, is sin.


The word “diligent” is an adjective used substantivally. The related verb means “to cut, sharpen, decide”; so the adjective describes one who is “sharp” – one who acts decisively. The word “hasty” has the idea of being pressed or pressured into quick actions. So the text contrasts calculated expeditiousness with unproductive haste. C. H. Toy does not like this contrast, and so proposes changing the latter to “lazy” ( Proverbs [ICC], 399), but W. McKane rightly criticizes that as unnecessarily forming a pedestrian antithesis ( Proverbs [OTL], 550).


The term “lead” is supplied in the translation.


The Hebrew noun translated “plenty” comes from the verb יָתַר ( yatar ), which means “to remain over.” So the calculated diligence will lead to abundance, prosperity.


Heb “lack; need; thing needed”; NRSV “to want.”


The first word of the verse is the noun meaning “doing, deed, work.” The BHS editors suggest reading with the LXX an active participle – “the one who makes” (cf. NAB “He who makes”). The second word means “treasure,” from the verb “lay up, store up.” It is an objective genitive here.


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied for the sake of clarity.


The Hebrew הֶבֶל נִדָּף ( hevel nidaf ) is properly “a driven vapor” (“driven” = the Niphal participle). The point of the metaphor is that the ill-gotten gains will vanish into thin air. The LXX has “pursues” (as if reading רֹדֵף , rodef ); cf. NAB “chasing a bubble over deadly snares.”


The Hebrew has “seekers of death,” meaning “[they that seek them] are seekers of death,” or that the fortune is “a fleeting vapor for those who seek death.” The sense is not readily apparent. The Greek and the Latin versions have “snares of death”; the form מוֹקְשֵׁי ( moqÿshe ) was read instead of מְבַקְשֵׁי ( mÿvaqshe ). This reading does not make a more credible metaphor, and one must explain the loss of the letter ב ( bet ) in the textual variant. It is, however, slightly easier to interpret in the verse, and is followed by a number of English versions (e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). But whether the easier reading is the correct one in this case would be difficult to prove.


The “violence” ( שֹׁד , shod ) drags away the wicked, probably either to do more sin or to their punishment. “Violence” here is either personified, or it is a metonymy of cause, meaning “the outcome of their violence” drags them away.


Heb “violence of the wicked.” This is a subjective genitive: “violence which the wicked do.”


The second colon of the verse is the causal clause, explaining why they are dragged away. They are not passive victims of their circumstances or their crimes. They choose to persist in their violence and so it destroys them.


Heb “they refuse to do justice” (so ASV); NASB “refuse to act with justice.”


The first line of the proverb is difficult. Since וָזָר ( vazar ) occurs only here it has been given much attention. The translation of “guilty” is drawn from an Arabic cognate meaning “to bear a burden” and so “to be sin laden” or “guilty” (cf. NASB, NIV, NCV, NRSV, NLT). G. R. Driver prefers to read the line as “a man crooked of ways is false [ zar ]” (“Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs,” Bib 32 [1951]: 185). C. H. Toy adopts the meaning of “proud” ( Proverbs [ICC], 400). Whatever the reading, “guilty” or “proud” or “false,” the idea is that such people are devious. Bad people are underhanded; good people are aboveboard (C. H. Toy, Proverbs [ICC], 400). Another way to analyze the line is to read it with the definition “strange, stranger”: “The way of a man and a stranger is perverse.” But this is unclear, and would form no satisfactory contrast to 8b. Another suggestion is “the way of (usual) man is changeable and strange, but the pure fellow leads a straight and even course” (J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs , 244); cf. NLT “the innocent travel a straight road.”


The form הֲפַכְפַּךְ ( hafakhfakh ) is an adjective with an intensified meaning due to the duplication of the second and third radicals; it means “very devious; crooked” (from the verb “to overturn”).


If this translation stands, then the construction is formed with an independent nominative absolute, resumed by the suffixed noun as the formal subject. It draws attention to the “pure” or “innocent” person in contrast to the previously mentioned wicked.


English versions which translate the Hebrew term as “roof” here sometimes produce amusing images for modern readers: TEV “Better to live on the roof”; CEV “It’s better to stay outside on the roof of your house.” sn The reference is probably to a small room that would be built on the flat housetop primarily for guests (e.g., 1 Kgs 17:19 ; 2 Kgs 4:10 ). It would be cramped and lonely – but peaceful in avoiding strife.


The “house of company” has received numerous interpretations. The word “company” or “companionship” would qualify “house” as a place to be shared. The BHS editors propose “spacious house,” which would call for a transposition of letters (cf. NAB “a roomy house”; NLT “a lovely home”). Such an emendation makes good sense, but has no external support.


Heb “a wife of contentions”; KJV “a brawling woman”; TEV, CEV “a nagging wife.” The Greek version has no reference to a quarrelsome wife, but instead mentions justice in a common house.


Heb “soul.” The Hebrew text uses נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh , traditionally, “soul”) as the formal subject of the sentence – “the soul of a wicked man desires.” This term has at its core the idea of appetites, and so its use here underscores that the cravings are deep-seated (BDB 660 s.v. 5 ), and the translation “appetite” reflects this.


The form יֻחַן ( yukhan ) is a Hophal imperfect from חָנַן ( khanan ); it means “to be shown mercy” – here negated to mean “he will not be shown mercy.” The person who lives to satisfy his own craving for evil will not be interested in meeting the needs of others.


Heb “in the instructing of the wise.” The construction uses the Hiphil infinitive construct הַשְׂכִּיל ( haskil ) with a preposition to form a temporal clause (= “when”). The word “wise” ( חָכָם , khakham ) after it is the subjective genitive. The preposition לְ ( lamed ) on the form is probably dittography from the ending of the infinitive.


In the book of Proverbs, the Hebrew term צַּדִּיק ( ysadiq ) normally refers to a human being, and that is a possible translation here (cf. KJV, ASV, NAB), although it would have to refer to a righteous person who was a judge or a ruler with the right to destroy the wicked. Many commentators and English versions simply interpret this as a reference to God (cf. NIV, NRSV, TEV, NLT).


The form מַשְׂכִּיל ( maskil ) is now used with the meaning “to consider; to give attention to; to ponder.” It is the careful scrutiny that is given to the household of the wicked before judgment is poured out on them.


Heb “house.” This term probably means “household” here – the family. One way to read the line is that the righteous judge (human or divine) takes into consideration the wicked person’s family before judging the wicked person. The other – and more plausible – interpretation is that the judge considers the household of the wicked and then on the basis of what was observed judges them.


Heb “to evil” (i.e., catastrophe); cf. NLT “to disaster.”


The word כָּפָה ( kafah ) occurs only here; it means “to subdue,” but in New Hebrew it means “to overturn; to compel.” The BHS editors suggest a change to כָּבָה ( kavah ), “to be quenched,” based on Symmachus and Tg . Prov 21:14 , but there is no substantial improvement in the text’s meaning with such a change.


Heb “a bribe in the bosom” (so NASB). This refers to a gift hidden in the folds of the garment, i.e., given secretly (cf. NIV “a bribe concealed in the cloak”).


The repetition of the term “subdues” in the second line is supplied in the translation.


The LXX offers a moralizing translation not too closely tied to the MT: “he who withholds a gift stirs up violent wrath.”


The Qal infinitive construct עֲשׂוֹת (’ asot ) functions as the subject of the sentence.


The term “brings” is supplied in the translation; many English versions supply a simple copula (“is”).


The text uses “man” as the subject and the active participle תּוֹעֶה ( to ’ eh ) as the predicate. The image of “wandering off the path” signifies leaving a life of knowledge, prudence, and discipline.


Or “prudence”; KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV “understanding”; NLT “common sense.”


Heb “will remain” or “will rest.” The Hebrew word נוּחַ ( nuakh ) does not here carry any of the connotations of comforting repose in death that the righteous enjoy; it simply means “to remain; to reside; to dwell.” The choice of this verb might have an ironic twist to it, reminding the wicked what might have been.


The phrase “will be” is supplied in the translation.


Heb “a man of poverty”; NRSV “will suffer want.”


The term “become” is supplied in the translation.


Or “treacherous” (so ASV, NASB, NLT); NIV “the unfaithful.”


The Hebrew form שֶׁבֶת ( shevet ) is the infinitive construct of יָשַׁב ( yashav ), functioning as the subject of the sentence.


The Hebrew noun כַּעַס ( ka ’ as ) means “vexation; anger.” The woman is not only characterized by a quarrelsome spirit, but also anger – she is easily vexed (cf. NAB “vexatious”; NASB “vexing”; ASV, NRSV “fretful”). The translation “easily-provoked” conveys this idea well.


The mention of “olive oil” ( שֶׁמֶן , shemen ) is problematic in the line – how can a fool devour it? Several attempts have been made to alleviate the problem. The NIV interprets “treasure” as “choice food,” so that food and oil would make more sense being swallowed. C. H. Toy ( Proverbs [ICC], 406) suggests dropping “oil” altogether based on the reading in the LXX, but the Greek is too general for any support: It has “precious treasure will rest on the mouth of the sage.” W. McKane wants to change “oil” to an Arabic word “expensive” to read “desirable and rare wealth” ( Proverbs [OTL], 552), but this idea does not match the metaphor any better. The figure of “devouring” in the second line simply means the fool uses up whatever he has.


Heb “a fool of a man.”


Heb “he swallows it.” The imagery compares swallowing food with consuming one’s substance. The fool does not prepare for the future.


Heb “The wise [one/man].”


The Qal perfect tense of עָלָה (’ alah ) functions in a potential nuance. Wisdom can be more effectual than physical strength.


This part could also be translated “keeps himself” (so NIV), for נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh ) often simply means “the whole person.” The participle שֹׁמֵר ( shomer ) is repeated from the first line in the parallelism – to guard what is said is to guard against difficulty.


The word זֵד ( zed , “proud”) comes from the verb זִיד ( zid , “to boil up; to seethe; to act proudly [or, presumptuously].” Just as water boiling up in a pot will boil over, so the presumptuous person “oversteps” the boundaries.


The word יָהִיר ( yahir ) means “haughty,” that is, to be or show oneself to be presumptuous or arrogant.


Heb “proud haughty scorner his name” (KJV similar). There are several ways that the line could be translated: (1) “Proud, arrogant – his name is scoffer” or (2) “A proud person, an arrogant person – ‘Scoffer’ is his name.” BDB 267 s.v. זֵד suggests, “A presumptuous man, [who is] haughty, scoffer is his name.”


Heb “does.” The Qal active participle “does” serves as the main verb, and the subject is “proud person” in the first line.


The expression בְּעֶבְרַת זָדוֹן ( be ’ evrat zadon ) means “in the overflow of insolence.” The genitive specifies what the overflow is; the proud deal in an overflow of pride. Cf. NIV “overweening pride”; NLT “boundless arrogance.” sn The portrait in this proverb is not merely of one who is self-sufficient, but one who is insolent, scornful, and arrogant.


Heb “the desire of the sluggard” (so ASV, NASB). This phrase features a subject genitive: “what the sluggard desires.” The term תַּאֲוַת ( ta ’ avat , “desire; craving”) is a metonymy of cause. The craving itself will not destroy the sluggard, but what will destroy him is what the craving causes him to do or not to do. The lazy come to ruin because they desire the easy way out.


The verb תְּמִיתֶנּוּ ( tÿmitennu ) is the Hiphil imperfect with a suffix: “will kill him.” It is probably used hyperbolically here for coming to ruin (cf. NLT), although it could include physical death.


The construction uses the Hitpael perfect tense הִתְאַוָּה ( hit ’ avvah ) followed by the cognate accusative תַאֲוָה ( ta ’ avah ). It describes one who is consumed with craving for more. The verse has been placed with the preceding because of the literary connection with “desire/craving.”


Heb “the sacrifice of the wicked” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). This is a subjective genitive. The foundational clause states that ritual acts of worship brought by the wicked (thus a subjective genitive) are detestable to God. The “wicked” refers here to people who are not members of the covenant (no faith) and are not following after righteousness (no acceptable works). But often they participate in sanctuary ritual, which amounts to hypocrisy.


The noun זִמָּה ( zimmah ) means “plan; device; wickedness”; here it indicates that the person is coming to the ritual with “sinful purpose.” Some commentators suggest that this would mean he comes with the sacrifice as a bribe to pacify his conscience for a crime committed, over which he has little remorse or intent to cease (cf. NLT “with ulterior motives”). In this view, people in ancient Israel came to think that sacrifices could be given for any reason without genuine submission to God.


Heb “a witness of lies,” an attributive genitive.


The Hebrew verb translated “will perish” ( יֹאבֵד , yo ’ bed ) could mean that the false witness will die, either by the hand of God or by the community. But it also could be taken in the sense that the false testimony will be destroyed. This would mean that “false witness” would be a metonymy of cause – what he says will perish (cf. NCV “will be forgotten”).


Heb “but a man who listens speaks forever.” The first part of it may mean (1) a true witness, one who reports what he actually hears. But it may also refer to (2) someone who listens to the false testimony given by the false witness. The NIV follows the suggestion of a homonym for the Hebrew word with the meaning “will perish/be destroyed”: “will be destroyed forever.” This suggests a synonymous pair of ideas rather than a contrast. Others accept antithetical parallelism. C. H. Toy suggested an idea like “be established” to contrast with “will perish” ( Proverbs [ICC], 411). W. McKane suggested it meant the truthful witness “will speak to the end” without being put down ( Proverbs [OTL], 556). It is simpler to interpret the words that are here in the sense of a contrast. The idea of speaking forever/to the end would then be hyperbolic.


Heb “a wicked man.”


Heb “he hardens his face.” To make the face firm or hard means to show boldness (BDB 738 s.v. עָזַז Hiph); cf. NRSV “put on a bold face.”


The “upright” is an independent nominative absolute; the pronoun becomes the formal (emphatic) subject of the verb.


The Kethib is the imperfect of כּוּן ( kun ), “he establishes.” This reading has the support of the Syriac, Latin, and Tg . Prov 21:29 , and is followed by ASV. The Qere is the imperfect tense of בִּין ( bin ), “he understands; he discerns.” It has the support of the LXX and is followed by NIV, NCV, NRSV, NLT. The difficulty is that both make good sense in the passage and both have support. The contrast is between the wicked who shows a bold face (reflecting a hardened heart) and the upright who either gives thought to his ways (or solidifies his ways). The sense of the Qere may form a slightly better contrast, one between the outer appearance of boldness and the inner discernment of action.


The form לְנֶגֶד ( lÿneged ) means “against; over against; in opposition to.” The line indicates they cannot in reality be in opposition, for human wisdom is nothing in comparison to the wisdom of God (J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs , 232).


Heb “of the Lord .” The victory being “of the Lord ” means that it is accomplished by him. Ultimate success comes from the Lord and not from human efforts. The faithful have acknowledged this down through the ages, even though they have been responsible and have prepared for the wars. Without this belief there would have been no prayer on the eve of battle (e.g., Ps 20:7 and 33:17 ).


Heb “a name.” The idea of the name being “good” is implied; it has the connotation here of a reputation (cf. TEV, CEV, NLT).


“To be chosen rather than” is a translation of the Niphal participle with the comparative degree taken into consideration. Cf. CEV “worth much more than.”


Heb “favor of goodness.” This is a somewhat difficult expression. Some English versions render the phrase “favor is better than silver or gold” (so NASB, NRSV) making it parallel to the first colon. But if “good” is retained as an attributive modifier, then it would mean one was well thought of, or one had engaging qualities (cf. ASV “loving favor; NLT “high esteem”). This fits with the idea of the reputation in the first colon, for a good name would bring with it the favor of others.


The form of the verb is the Niphal perfect of פָּגַשׁ ( pagash ); it means “to meet together [or, each other]” (cf. KJV, ASV). The point is that rich and poor live side by side in this life, but they are both part of God’s creation (cf. NAB, NASB “have a common bond”). Some commentators have taken this to mean that they should live together because they are part of God’s creation; but the verb form will not sustain that meaning.


Heb “all.” The Lord is sovereign over both groups, that is, he has had the final say whether a person is rich or poor. People would do well to treat all people with respect, for God can as easily reduce the rich to poverty as raise up the poor to wealth.


Heb “evil,” a term that is broad enough to include (1) “sin” as well as (2) any form of “danger” (NIV, NCV, NRSV, NLT) or “trouble” (TEV, CEV). The second option is more likely what is meant here: The naive simpleton does not see the danger to be avoided and so suffers for it.


Heb “go on”; the word “right” is supplied in the translation to clarify the meaning: The naive person, oblivious to impending danger, meets it head on (cf. TEV “will walk right into it”).


The verb עָנַשׁ (’ anash ) means “to fine” specifically. In the Niphal stem it means “to be fined,” or more generally, “to be punished.” In this line the punishment is the consequence of blundering into trouble – they will pay for it.


The Hebrew term עֵקֶב (’ eqev , “reward”) is related to the term meaning “heel”; it refers to the consequences or the reward that follows (akin to the English expression “on the heels of”).


“Humility” is used here in the religious sense of “piety”; it is appropriately joined with “the fear of the Lord .” Some commentators, however, make “the fear of the Lord ” the first in the series of rewards for humility, but that arrangement is less likely here.


Heb “the fear of the Lord .” This is an objective genitive; the Lord is the object of the fear.


Because MT reading צִנִּים ( tsinnim , “thorns”) does not make a very good match with “traps,” it has created some difficulty for interpreters. The word “thorns” may be obscure, but it is supported by the LXX (“prickly plants”) and an apparent cognate “thorns” in Num 33:55 and Josh 23:13 . But some (including the editors of BHS ) suggest changing it to צַמִּים ( tsammim , “traps” changing a נ [ nun ] to a מ [ mem ]). But BDB 855 s.v. צַמִּים acknowledges that this word is a doubtful word, attested only a couple of times in Job (e.g., 18:9 ). W. McKane traces a development from the idea of צֵן ( tsen , “basket; trap”) to support this change ( Proverbs [OTL], 565). The present translation (like many other English versions) has retained “thorns,” even though the parallelism with “traps” is not very good; as the harder reading it is preferred. The variant readings have little textual or philological support, and simplify the line. sn “Thorns and snares” represent the dangers and threats to life. They would be implied comparisons (hypocatastasis): As a path strewn with thorns and traps, life for the wicked will be filled with dangers and difficulties.


The verb חָנַךְ ( khanakh ) means “to train up; to dedicate” (BDB 335 s.v.; HALOT 334 s.v. חנך ). The verb is used elsewhere to refer to dedicating a house ( Deut 20:5 ; 1 Kgs 8:63 ; 2 Chr 7:5 ). The related noun חֲנֻכָה ( khanukhah ) means “dedication; consecration” (BDB 335 s.v.; HALOT 334 s.v.), and is used in reference to the dedication or consecration of altars ( Num 7:10 ; 2 Chr 7:9 ), the temple ( Ps 30:1 ), and town walls ( Neh 12:27 ). The related adjective חָנִיךְ ( khanikh ) describes “trained, tried, experienced” men (BDB 335 s.v.; Gen 14:14 ). In the related cognate languages the verb has similar meanings: Aramaic “to train,” Ethiopic “to initiate,” and Arabic IV “to learn; to make experienced” ( HALOT 334 s.v.). This proverb pictures a child who is dedicated by parents to the Lord and morally trained to follow him. On the other hand, a popular expositional approach suggests that it means “to motivate.” This view is based on a cognate Arabic root II which (among many other things) refers to the practice of rubbing the palate of a newborn child with date juice or olive oil to motivate the child to suck. While this makes an interesting sermon illustration, it is highly unlikely that this concept was behind this Hebrew verb. The Arabic meaning is late and secondary – the Arabic term did not have this meaning until nearly a millennium after this proverb was written.


The term נַעַר ( na ’ ar ) is traditionally translated “child” here (so almost all English versions), but might mean “youth.” The noun can refer to a broad range of ages (see BDB 654-55 s.v.; HALOT 707 s.v.): infant ( Exod 2:6 ), weaned child ( 1 Sam 1:24 ), young child ( Jer 1:6 ), lad ( Gen 22:12 ), adolescent ( Gen 37:2 ), or young man of marriageable age ( Gen 34:19 ). The context focuses on the child’s young, formative years. The Talmud says this would be up to the age of twenty-four.


The expression in Hebrew is עַל־פִּי דַּרְכּוֹ (’ al-pi darko ), which can be rendered “according to his way”; NEB “Start a boy on the right road.” The expression “his way” is “the way he should go”; it reflects the point the book of Proverbs is making that there is a standard of life to which he must attain. Saadia, a Jewish scholar who lived a.d. 882-942, first suggested that this could mean the child should be trained according to his inclination or bent of mind. This may have some merit in practice, but it is not likely what the proverb had in mind. In the book of Proverbs there are only two ways that a person can go, the way of the wise or righteousness, and the way of the fool. One takes training, and the other does not. Ralbag, in fact, offered a satirical interpretation: “Train a child according to his evil inclinations (let him have his will) and he will continue in his evil way throughout life” (J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs , 234). C. H. Toy says the expression means “in accordance with the manner of life to which he is destined ( Proverbs [ICC], 415). W. McKane says, “There is only one right way – the way of life – and the educational discipline which directs young men along this way is uniform” ( Proverbs [OTL], 564). This phrase does not describe the concept perpetuated by a modern psychological interpretation of the verse: Train a child according to his personality trait.


Or “slave” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV, TEV, CEV). This may refer to the practice in Israel of people selling themselves into slavery to pay off debts ( Exod 21:2-7 ).


There is a variant reading in the LXX; instead of “the rod of his wrath” it reads “the punishment of his deeds.” C. H. Toy wishes to emend שֵׁבֶט ( shevet ) to שֶׁבֶר ( shever ), “the produce of his work” ( Proverbs [ICC], 416). But the Hebrew text is not obscure, and שֶׁבֶר does not exactly mean “produce.” The expression “rod of his wrath” may not follow the imagery of 8a very closely, but it is nonetheless understandable. The “rod” is a symbol of power; “wrath” is a metonymy of cause indicating what wrath will do, and an objective genitive. The expression signifies that in reaping trouble for his sins this person will no longer be able to unleash his fury on others. The LXX adds: “A man who is cheerful and a giver God blesses” (e.g., 2 Cor 9:7 ).


Heb “good of eye.” This expression is an attributed genitive meaning “bountiful of eye” (cf. KJV, ASV “He that hath a bountiful eye”). This is the opposite of the “evil eye” which is covetous and wicked. The “eye” is a metonymy representing looking well to people’s needs. So this refers to the generous person (cf. NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT).


The form יְבֹרָךְ ( yÿvorakh ) is a Pual imperfect (here in pause) from בָּרַךְ ( barakh ); the word means “blessed” in the sense of “enriched,” implying there is a practical reward for being generous to the poor.


The LXX freely adds “when he sits in council ( ἐν συνεδρίῳ , ejn sunedriw ), he insults everyone.” The MT does not suggest that the setting is in a court of law; so the LXX addition is highly unlikely.


Heb “grace of his lips” (so KJV, ASV). The “lips” are a metonymy of cause representing what is said; it also functions as a genitive of specification. sn This individual is gracious or kind in what he says; thus the verse is commending honest intentions and gracious words.


The syntax of the line is somewhat difficult, because “grace of his lips” seems to be intruding on the point of the verse with little explanation. Therefore the LXX rendered it “The Lord loves the pure in heart; all who are blameless in their ways are acceptable to him.” This has very little correspondence with the Hebrew; nevertheless commentators attempt to reconstruct the verse using it, and the NAB follows the first clause of the LXX here. Some have suggested taking “king” as the subject of the whole verse (“the king loves…”), but this is forced.


There is a slight difficulty in that the abstract noun “knowledge” is used nowhere else in the book of Proverbs with the word “watch.” C. H. Toy ( Proverbs [ICC], 418) wants to make a major change to read “The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,” but there is no support for this and it reduces the line to a common idea. D. W. Thomas suggests changing the word “knowledge” to “lawsuit” based on an Arabic cognate (“A Note on דַּעַת in Proverbs 22:12 ,” JTS 14 [1963]: 93-94).