Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 14:14 - 14:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
There follows a series of proverbs which treat of the wicked and the good, and of the relation between the foolish and the wise:
14 He that is of a perverse heart is satisfied with his own ways;
And a good man from himself.
We first determine the subject conception. סוּג לֵב (one turning aside τῆς καρδίας or τὴν καρδίαν) is one whose heart is perverted, נָסוֹג, turned away, viz., from God, Psa 44:19. The Book of Proverbs contains besides of this verb only the name of dross (recedanea) derived from it; סוּג, separated, drawn away, is such a half passive as סוּר, Isa 49:21, שׁוּב, Mic 2:8, etc. (Olsh. §245a). Regarding אִישׁ טוֹב, vid., at Pro 12:2, cf. Pro 13:22 : a man is so called whose manner of thought and of action has as its impulse and motive self-sacrificing love. When it is said of the former that he is satisfied with his own ways, viz., those which with heart turned away from God he enters upon, the meaning is not that they give him peace or bring satisfaction to him (Löwenstein), but we see from Pro 1:31; Pro 18:20, that this is meant recompensatively: he gets, enjoys the reward of his wandering in estrangement from God. It is now without doubt seen that 14b expresses that wherein the benevolent man finds his reward. We will therefore not explain (after Pro 4:15, cf. Num 16:26; 2Sa 19:10): the good man turns himself away from him, or the good man stands over him (as Jerome, Venet., after Ecc 5:7); - this rendering gives no contrast, or at least a halting one. The מן of מֵעָלָיו must be parallel with that of מִדְּרָכָיו. From the lxx, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν διανοημάτων αὐτοῦ, the Syr. rightly: from the fruit (religiousness) of his soul; the Targ.: from his fruit. Buxtorf, against Cappellus, has already perceived that here no other phrase but the explanation of מעליו by ex eo quod penes se est lies at the foundation. We could, after Pro 7:14, also explain: from that which he perceives as his obligation (duty); yet that other explanation lies proportionally nearer, but yet no so that we refer the suffix to the backslider of 14a: in it (his fate) the good man is satisfied, for this contrast also halts, the thought is not in the spirit of the Book of Proverbs (for Pro 29:16 does not justify it); and in how totally different a connection of thought מֵעָלָיו is used in the Book of Proverbs, is shown by Pro 24:17; but generally the Scripture does not use שׂבע of such satisfaction, it has, as in 14a, also in 14b, the recompensative sense, according to the fundamental principle, ὃ ἐὰν σπείρῃ ἄνθρωπος τοῦτο καὶ θερίσει (Gal 6:7). The suffix refers back to the subject, as we say: רוּחִי עָלַי, נַפְשִׁי עָלַי (Psychol. p. 152). But considerations of an opposite kind also suggest themselves. Everywhere else מעל refers not to that which a man has within himself, but that which he carries without; and also that מֵעָלָיו can be used in the sense of מִשֶּׁעָלָיו, no evidence can be adduced: it must be admitted to be possible, since the writer of the Chronicles (2Ch 1:4) ventures to use בַֽהֶכִין. Is מעליו thus used substantively: by his leaves (Aben Ezra and others)? If one compares Pro 11:28 with Psa 1:3, this explanation is not absurd; but why then did not the poet rather use מִפִּרְיוֹ? We come finally to the result, that ומעליו, although it admits a connected interpretation, is an error of transcription. But the correction is not וּמֵעַלָּיו (Elster) nor וּמֵעֲלָלָיו (Cappellus), for עַלִּים and עֲלָלִים, deeds, are words which do not exist; nor is it וּמִפְּעָלָיו (Bertheau) nor וּמִגְּמֻלָיו (Ewald), but וּמִמַּֽעֲלָלָיו (which Cappellus regarded, but erroneously, as the lxx phrase); for (1) throughout almost the whole O.T., from Jdg 2:19 to Zec 1:18, דרכים and מעללים are interchangeable words, and indeed almost an inseparable pair, cf. particularly Jer 17:10; and (2) when Isaiah (Isa 3:10) says, אמרו צדיק כי־טוב כִּי־פְרִי מַֽעַלְלֵיהֶם יֹאכֵלוּ, this almost sounds like a prophetical paraphrase of the second line of the proverb, which besides by this emendation gains a more rhythmical sound and a more suitable compass.
(Note: As here an ל too few is written, so at Isa 32:1 (ולשׂרים) and Psa 74:14 (לציים) one too many.)