Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 21:11 - 21:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
11 When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise;
And when insight is imparted to a wise man, he receives knowledge.
The thought is the same as at Pro 19:25. The mocker at religion and virtue is incorrigible, punishment avails him nothing, but yet it is not lost; for as a warning example it teaches the simple, who might otherwise be easily drawn into the same frivolity. On the other hand, the wise man needs no punishment, but only strengthening and furtherance: if “instruction” is imparted to him, he embraces it, makes it his own דַּעַת; for, being accessible to better insight, he gains more and more knowledge. De Dieu, Bertheau, and Zöckler make “the simple” the subject also in 11b: and if a wise man prospers, he (the simple) gains knowledge. But הִשְׂכִּיל לְ, used thus impersonally, is unheard of; wherefore Hitzig erases the לְ before חָכָם erofeb לְ eh: if a wise man has prosperity. But השׂכיל does not properly mean to have prosperity, but only mediately: to act with insight, and on that account with success. The thought that the simple, on the one side, by the merited punishment of the mocker; on the other, by the intelligent prosperous conduct of the wise, comes to reflection, to reason, may indeed be entertained, but the traditional form of the proverb does not need any correction. הִשְׂכִּיל may be used not only transitively: to gain insight, Gen 3:6; Psa 2:10, and elsewhere, but also causatively: to make intelligent, with the accus. following, Pro 16:23; Psa 32:8, or: to offer, present insight, as here with the dat.-obj. following (cf. Pro 17:26). Instead of בָּֽעֲנָשׁ־, the Kametz of which is false, Codd. and good Edd. have, rightly, בַּענשׁ־. Hitzig, making “the wise” the subject to בהשׂכיל (and accordingly “the scorner” would be the subject in 11a), as a correct consequence reads בֵּעָנֵשׁ = בְּהֵעָנֵשׁ. For us, with that first correction, this second one also fails. “Both infinitivi constr.,” Fleischer remarks, “are to be taken passively; for the Semitic infin., even of transitive form, as it has no designation of gender, time, and person, is an indeterminate modus, even in regard to the generis verbi (Act. and Pass.).”
(Note: The Arab. National Grammarians, it is true, view the matter otherwise. When ḳatlu zydn, the putting to death of Zeid, is used in the sense of Zeid's becoming dead, according to their view the fâ'l (the gen. subjecti) is omitted; the full expression would be ḳatlu 'amrn zaydnâ. Since now 'amrn is omitted, zaydn has in the gen. form taken the place of the fâ'l, but this gen. is the representative of the acc. objecti. Without thus going round about, we say: it is the gen. objecti.)
To this proverb with u-behaskil there is connected the one that follows, beginning with maskil.