Proverbi 26:7 Commento

Note, 1. It is too common a thing for honour to be given to fools, who are utterly unworthy of it and unfit for it. Bad men, who have neither wit nor grace, are sometimes preferred by princes, and applauded and cried up by the people. Folly is set in great dignity, as Solomon observed, Ecc 10:6. 2. It is very absurd and unbecoming when it is so. It is an incongruous as snow in summer, and as great a disorder in the commonwealth as that is in the course of nature and in the seasons of the year; nay, it is as injurious as rain in harvest, which hinders the labourers and spoils the fruits of the earth when they are ready to be gathered. When bad men are in power they commonly abuse their power, in discouraging virtue, and giving countenance to wickedness, for want of wisdom to discern it and grace to detest it.

As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest,.... Which were very undesirable and unseasonable, yea, very hurtful to the fruits of the earth; and a great obstruction to the labourers in the harvest, and a hinderance to the gathering of it in; and were very rare and uncommon in Judea; it was even a miracle for thunder and rain to be in wheat harvest, Sa1 12:17; so honour is not seemly for a fool: for a wicked man; such should not be favoured by kings, and set in high places of honour and trust; "folly set in great dignity", or foolish and bad men set in honourable places, are as unsuitable and inconvenient as snow and rain in summer and harvest, and should be as rare as they; and they are as hurtful and pernicious, since they discourage virtue and encourage vice, and hinder the prosperity of the commonwealth; such vile persons are contemned in the eyes of good men, and are disregarded of God; he will not give, theft, glory here nor hereafter; the wise shall inherit it, but shame shall be the promotion of fools, Pro 3:35; see Ecc 10:6.

The legs of the lame are not equal,.... Or as "the lifting up the legs by one that is lame" (m), to dance to a pipe or violin, is very unseemly, and does but the more expose his infirmity, and can give no pleasure to others, but causes derision and contempt; so is a parable in the mouth of fools; an apophthegm, or sententious expression of his own, which he delivers out as a wise saying, but is lame and halts; it is not consistent with itself, but like the legs of a lame man, one higher than the other: or one of the proverbs of this book, or rather any passage of Scripture, in the mouth of a wicked man; or any religious discourse of his is very unsuitable, since his life and conversation do not agree with it; it is as disagreeable to hear such a man talk of religious affairs as it is to see a lame man dance; or whose legs imitate buckets at a well, where one goes up and another down, as Gussetius (n) interprets the word. (m) "elevatio crurum a claudo facta", Gejerus, Michaelis. (n) "Femora claudi imitantur situlas", Gussetius, p. 188. "situlas agunt crura ex claudio", Schultens; "instar binarum sitularum in puteo alternatium adscendentium ac descendentium", Gejerus.

Lame in his feet and drinking iniquity, etc. It may happen that any wise person sends a fool on a mission, not knowing that he is a fool; yet he does not lose the glory of his wisdom, since he believed in the good from the unknown, which he had heard. But he who knowingly sends a heretic to preach to the people is lame in his feet and drinks iniquity, because he has lost both the outward walk of good work and the inner sense, being drunk on foolishness.

(Pro. 26:1-28) The incongruities of nature illustrate also those of the moral world. The fool's unworthiness is also implied (Pro 17:7; Pro 19:10).

legs . . . equal--or, "take away the legs," or "the legs . . . are weak." In any case the idea is that they are the occasion of an awkwardness, such as the fool shows in using a parable or proverb (see Introduction; Pro 17:7).

7 The hanging down of the legs of a lame man; And a proverb in a fool's mouth. With reference to the obscure דּליוּ, the following views have been maintained: - (1) The form as punctuated appears directly as an imperative. Thus the lxx translate, the original text of which is here: ἀφελοῦ πορείαν κυλλῶν (conj. Lagarde's) καὶ παροιμίαν ἐκ στόματος ἀφρόνων, which the Syr. (with its imitator, the Targ.) has rendered positively: "If thou canst give the power of (sound) going to the lame, then wilt thou also receive (prudent) words from the mouth of a fool." Since Kimchi, דּליוּ has been regarded by many as the softening of the Imp. Piel דּדּוּ, according to which the Venet. translates: ἐπάρατε κνήμας χωλοῦ; and Bertheau and Zckler explain: always take away his legs from the lame, since they are in reality useless to him, just as a proverb in the mouth of the fool is useless - something that without loss might be never there." But why did not the poet write הרימוּ, or הסירוּ, or קחוּ, or the like? דּלּי, to carry away, to dispense with, is Syriac (Targ. Jer. I, under Deu 32:50), but not Hebrew. And how meaningless is this expression! A lame man would withstand a surgeon (as he would a murderer) who would amputate his legs; for lame legs are certainly better than none, especially since there is a great distinction between a lame man (פּדּח, from פּסח, luxare; cf. (Arab.) fasaḥ, laxare, vid., Schultens) who halts or goes on crutches (Sa2 3:29), and one who is maimed (paralytic), who needs to be carried. It comes to this, that by this rendering of 7a one must, as a consequence, with the lxx, regard וּמשׁל [and a proverb] as object. accus. parallel to שׁקים [legs]; but "to draw a proverb from one's mouth" is, after Pro 20:5, something quite different from to tear a proverb away from him, besides which, one cannot see how it is to be caught. Rather one would prefer: attollite crura claudi (ut incedat, et nihil promovebitis); but the מן of מפּסּח does not accord with this, and 7b does not connect itself with it. But the explanation: "take away the legs from a lame man who has none, at least none to use, and a proverb in the mouth of fools, when there is none," is shattered against the "leg-taking-away," which can only be used perhaps of frogs' legs. (2) Symmachus translates: ἐξέλιπον κνῆμαι ἀπὸ χωλοῦ; and Chajg explains דּליוּ as 3 pret. Kal, to which Kimchi adds the remark, that he appears to have found דּליוּ, which indeed is noted by Norzi and J. H. Michaelis as a variant. But the Masoretic reading is דּליוּ, and this, after Gesenius and Bttcher (who in this, without any reason, sees an Ephraimitic form of uttering the word), is a softened variation from דּדּוּ. Only it is a pity that this softening, while it is supported by alius = ἄλλος, folium = φύλλον, faillir = fallere, and the like, has yet not a single Hebrew or Semitic example in its favour. (3) Therefore Ewald finds, "all things considered," that it is best to read דּליוּ, "the legs are too loose for the lame man to use them." But, with Dietrich, we cannot concur in this, nor in the more appropriate translation: "the legs of the lame hang down loose," to say nothing of the clearly impossible: "high are the legs of the lame (one higher than the other)," and that because this form גּליוּ for גּליוּ also occurs without pause, Psa 57:2; Psa 73:2; Psa 122:6; Isa 21:12; but although thus, as at Psa 36:9; Psa 68:32, at the beginning of a clause, yet always only in connection, never at the beginning of an address. (4) It has also been attempted to interpret דּליוּ as abstr., e.g., Euchel: "he learns from a cripple to dance, who seeks to learn proverbs from the mouth of a fool." דּליוּ שׁקים must mean the lifting up of the legs = springing and dancing. Accordingly Luther translates: "As dancing to a cripple, So does it become a fool to speak of wisdom." The thought is agreeable, and according to fact; but these words to not mean dancing, but much rather, as the Arabic shows (vid., Schultens at Pro 20:5, and on the passage before us), a limping, waddling walk, like that of ducks, after the manner of a well-bucket dangling to and fro. And דּליוּ, after the form מלכוּ, would be an unheard-of Aramaism. For forms such as שׂחוּ, swimming, and שׁלוּ, security, Psa 30:7, on which C. B. Michaelis and others rest, cannot be compared, since they are modified from sachw, ṣalw, while in דּליוּ the ending must be, and besides the Aramaic דּליוּ must in st. constr. be דּליוּוּת. Since none of these explanations are grammatically satisfactory, and besides דּליוּ = דּללוּ = דּדּוּ gives a parallel member which is heterogeneous and not conformable to the nature of an emblematical proverb, we read דּלּוּי after the forms צפּוּי, שׁקּוּי (cf. חבּוּק, Pro 6:10; Pro 24:33), and this signifies loose, hanging down, from דּלה, to hang at length and loosely down, or transitively: to hang, particularly of the hanging down at length of the bucket-rope, and of the bucket itself, to draw water from the well. The מן is similar to that of Job 28:4, only that here the connecting of the hanging down, and of that from which it hangs down, is clear. Were we to express the purely nominally expressed emblematical proverb in the form of a comparative one, it would thus stand as Fleischer translates it: ut laxa et flaccida dependent (torpent) crura a claudo, sic sententia in ore stultorum (sc. torpet h. e. inutilis est). The fool can as little make use of an intelligent proverb, or moral maxim (dictum sententiosum), as a lame man can of his feet; the word, which in itself is full of thought, and excellent, becomes halting, lame, and loose in his mouth (Schultens: deformiter claudicat); it has, as spoken and applied by him, neither hand nor foot. Strangely, yet without missing the point, Jerome: quomodo pulcras frustra habet claudus tibias, sic indecens est in ore stultorum parabola. The lame man possibly has limbs that appear sound; but when he seeks to walk, they fail to do him service - so a bon-mot comes forth awkwardly when the fool seeks to make use of it. Hitzig's conjecture: as leaping of the legs on the part of a lame man..., Bttcher has already shown sufficient reasons for rejecting; leaping on the part of any one, for the leaping of any one, were a court style familiar to no poet.