Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 18:20 - 18:20

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 18:20 - 18:20


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

With Pro 18:19, the series of proverbs which began with that of the flatterer closes. The catchword אח, which occurred at its commencement, 9b, is repeated at its close, and serves also as a landmark of the group following Pro 18:20-24. The proverb of the breach of friendship and of contentions is followed by one of the reaction of the use of the tongue on the man himself.

Pro 18:20

20 Of the fruit which a man's mouth bringeth is his heart satisfied;

By the revenue of his lips is he filled.

He will taste in rich measure of the consequences not merely of the good (Pro 12:14, cf. Pro 13:2), but of whatever he has spoken. This is an oxymoron like Mat 15:11, that not that which goeth into the mouth, but that which cometh out of it, defileth a man. As at Joh 4:34 the conduct of a man, so here his words are called his βρῶμα. Not merely the conduct (Pro 1:31; Isa 3:10), but also the words are fruit-bringing; and not only do others taste of the fruit of the words as of the actions of a man, whether they be good or bad, but above all he himself does so, both in this life and in that which is to come.

Pro 18:21

21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue;

And whoever loveth it shall eat its fruit.

The hand, יָד, is so common a metaphor for power, that as here a hand is attributed to the tongue, so e.g., Isa 47:14 to the flame, and Psa 49:16 to Hades. Death and life is the great alternative which is placed, Deu 30:15, before man. According as he uses his tongue, he falls under the power of death or attains to life. All interpreters attribute, 21b, וְאֹֽהֲבֶיהָ to the tongue: qui eam (linguam) amant vescentur (יֹאכַל, distrib. sing., as Pro 3:18, Pro 3:35, etc.) fructu ejus. But “to love the tongue” is a strange and obscure expression. He loves the tongue, says Hitzig, who loves to babble. Euchel: he who guards it carefully, or: he who takes care of it, i.e., who applies himself to right discourse. Combining both, Zöckler: who uses it much, as εὐλογῶν or κακολογῶν. The lxx translates, οἱ κρατοῦντες αὐτῆς, i.e., אֹֽחֲזֶיהָ; but אחז means prehendere and tenere, not cohibere, and the tongue kept in restraint brings forth indeed no bad fruit, but it brings no fruit at all. Why thus? Does the suffix of ואהביה, perhaps like Pro 8:17, Chethı̂b, refer to wisdom, which, it is true, is not named, but which lies everywhere before the poet's mind? At Pro 14:3 we ventured to make חכמה the subject of 3b. Then 21b would be as a miniature of Pro 8:17-21. Or is ואהביה a mutilation of וְאֹהֵב יְהֹוָה: and he who loves Jahve (Psa 97:10) enjoys its (the tongue's) fruit?

Pro 18:22

22 Whatso hath found a wife hath found a good thing,

And hath obtained favour from Jahve.

As ואהביה, 21b, reminds us of Pro 8:17, so here not only 22b, but also 22a harmonizes with Pro 8:35 (cf. Pro 12:2). A wife is such as she ought to be, as Pro 18:14, אישׁ, a man is such as he ought to be; the lxx, Syr., Targ., and Vulgate supply bonam, but “gnomic brevity and force disdains such enervating adjectives, and cautious limitations of the idea” (Fl.). Besides, אשׁה טובה in old Hebr. would mean a well-favoured rather than a good-dispositioned wife, which later idea is otherwise expressed, Pro 19:14; Pro 31:10. The Venet. rightly has γυναῖκα, and Luther ein Ehefraw, for it is a married woman that is meant. The first מָצָא is perf. hypotheticum, Gesen. §126, Anm. 1. On the other hand, Ecc 7:26, “I found, מוֹצֶא אֲנִי, more bitter than death the woman,” etc.; wherefore, when in Palestine one married a wife, the question was wont to be asked: או מוצא מצא, has he married happily (after מצא of the book of Proverbs) or unhappily (after מוצא of Ecclesiastes) (Jebamoth 63b)?

(Note: Cf. Gendlau's Sprichwörter u. Redensarten deutsch-jüdischer Vorzeit (1860), p. 235.)

The lxx adds a distich to Pro 18:22, “He that putteth away a good wife putteth away happiness; and he that keepeth an adulteress, is foolish and ungodly.” He who constructed this proverb [added by the lxx] has been guided by מצא to מוֹצִיא (Ezr 10:3); elsewhere ἐκβάλλειν (γυναῖκα), Gal 4:30, Sir. 28:15, is the translation of גֵּרֵשׁ. The Syr. has adopted the half of that distich, and Jerome the whole of it. On the other hand, Pro 18:23, Pro 18:24, and Pro 19:1-2, are wanting in the lxx. The translation which is found in some Codd. is that of Theodotion (vid., Lagarde).

Pro 18:23

23 The poor uttereth suppliant entreaties;

And the rich answereth rudenesses.

The oriental proverbial poetry furnishes many parallels to this. It delights in the description of the contrast between a suppliant poor man and the proud and avaricious rich man; vid., e.g., Samachschari's Goldene Halsbänder, No. 58. תַּֽחֲנוּנִים, according to its meaning, refers to the Hithpa. הִתְחַנֵּן, misericordiam alicujus pro se imploravit; cf. the old vulgar “barmen,” i.e., to seek to move others to Erbarmen [compassion] (רחמים). עַזּוֹת, dura, from עז (synon. קָשֶׁה), hard, fast, of bodies, and figuratively of an unbending, hard, haughty disposition, and thence of words of such a nature (Fl.). Both nouns are accus. of the object, as Job 40:27, תחנונים with the parallel רַכּוֹת. The proverb expresses a fact of experience as a consolation to the poor to whom, if a rich man insults him, nothing unusual occurs, and as a warning to the rich that he may not permit himself to be divested of humanity by mammon. A hard wedge to a hard clod; but whoever, as the Scripture saith, grindeth the poor by hard stubborn-hearted conduct, and grindeth his bashful face (Isa 3:15), challenges unmerciful judgment against himself; for the merciful, only they shall obtain mercy, αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθήσονται (Mat 5:7).

Pro 18:24

24 A man of many friends cometh off a loser;

But there is a friend more faithful than a brother.

Jerome translates the commencing word by vir, but the Syr., Targ. by אִית, which is adopted by Hitzig, Böttcher, and others. But will a German poet use in one line “itzt” [same as jetzt = now], and in the next “jetzt”? and could the Hebrew poet prefer to יֵשׁ its rarer, and her especially not altogether unambiguous form אִישׁ (cf. to the contrary, Ecc 7:15)? We write אִישׁ, because the Masora comprehends this passage, with 2Sa 14:19; Mic 6:10, as the סבירין יֵשׁ 'ג, i.e., as the three, where one ought to expect ישׁ, and is thus exposed to the danger of falling into error in writing and reading; but erroneously אִשׁ is found in all these three places in the Masora magna of the Venetian Bible of 1526; elsewhere the Masora has the defectiva scriptio with like meaning only in those two other passages. While אִישׁ = יֵשׁ, or properly יִשׁ, with equal possibility of אִשׁ,

(Note: One sees from this interchange how softly the י was uttered; cf. Wellhausen's Text der B. Samuel (1871) (Preface). Kimchi remarks that we say אֶקְטֹל for אִקְטֹל, because we would otherwise confound it with יִקְטֹל.)

and it makes no material difference in the meaning of 24a whether we explain: there are friends who serve to bring one to loss: or a man of many friends comes to loss, - the inf. with לְ is used in substantival clauses as the expression of the most manifold relations, Gesen. §132, Anm. 1 (cf. at Hab 1:17), here in both cases it denotes the end, as e.g., Psa 92:8, to which it hastens with many friends, or with the man of many friends. It is true that אִישׁ (like בַּעַל) is almost always connected only with genitives of things; but as one says אישׁ אלהים: a man belongs to God, so may one also say אִישׁ רֵעִים: a man belongs to many friends; the common language of the people may thus have named a man, to whom, because he has no definite and decided character, the rule that one knows a man by his friends is not applicable, a so-called every-man's-friend, or all-the-world's-friend. Theodotion translates ἀνὴρ ἑταιριῶν τοῦ ἑταιρεύσασθαι; and thus also the Syr., Targ., and Jerome render (and among the moderns, Hitzig) הִתְרֹעֵעַ as reflexive in the sense of to cherish social intercourse; but this reflexive is הִתְרָעָה, Pro 22:24. That הִתְרוֹעֵעַ is either Hithpa. of רוּעַ, to exult, Psa 60:10; 65:14, according to which the Venet. translates (contrary to Kimchi) ὥστε ἀλαλάζειν: such an one can exult, but which is not true, since, according to 24b, a true friend outweighs the many; or it is Hithpa. of רָעַע, to be wicked, sinful (Fl.: sibi perniciem paraturus est); or, which we prefer, warranted by Isa 24:19, of רָעַע, to become brittle (Böttcher and others) - which not only gives a good sense, but also a similar alliteration with רֵעִים, as Pro 3:29; Pro 13:20. In contradistinction to רֵעַ, which is a general, and, according to the usage of the language (e.g., 17b), a familiar idea, the true friend is called, in the antithetical parallel member, אֹהֵב (Pro 27:6); and after Pro 17:17, דָּבֵק מֵאָח, one who remains true in misfortune. To have such an one is better than to have many of the so-called friends; and, as appears from the contrast, to him who is so fortunate as to have one such friend, there comes a blessing and safety. Immanuel has given the right explanation: “A man who sets himself to gain many friends comes finally to be a loser (סופו לְהִשָּׁבֵר), for he squanders his means, and is impoverished in favour of others.” And Schultens: At est amicus agglutinatus prae fratre. Rarum et carum esse genus insinuatur, ac proinde intimam illam amicitiam, quae conglutinet compingatque corda, non per multos spargendam, sed circumspecte et ferme cum uno tantum ineundam. Thus closes this group of proverbs with the praise of friendship deepened into spiritual brotherhood, as the preceding, Pro 18:19, with a warning against the destruction of such a relation by a breach of trust not to be made good again.