Ordspråksboken 12:27 Kommentar

We are here taught to try whether we have grace or no by enquiring how we stand affected to the means of grace. 1. Those that have grace and love it will delight in all the instructions that are given them by way of counsel; admonition, or reproof, by the word or providence of God; they will value a good education, and think it not a hardship, but a happiness, to be under a strict and prudent discipline. Those that love a faithful ministry, that value it, and sit under it with pleasure, make it to appear that they love knowledge. 2. Those show themselves not only void of grace, but void of common sense, that take it as an affront to be told of their faults, and an imposition upon their liberty to be put in mind of their duty: He that hates reproof is not only foolish, but brutish, like the horse and the mule that have no understanding, or the ox that kicks against the goad. Those that desire to live in loose families and societies, where they may be under no check, that stifle the convictions of their own consciences, and count those their enemies that tell them the truth, are the brutish here meant.

Here is, 1. That which may make us hate slothfulness and deceit, for the word here, as before, signifies both: The slothful deceitful man has roast meat, but that which he roasts is not what he himself took in hunting, no, it is what others took pains for, and he lives upon the fruit of their labours, like the drones in the hive. Or, if slothful deceitful men have taken any thing by hunting (as sportsmen are seldom men of business), yet they do not roast it when they have taken it; they have no comfort in the enjoyment of it; perhaps God in his providence cuts them short of it. 2. That which may make us in love with industry and honesty, that the substance of a diligent man, though it be not great perhaps, is yet precious. It comes from the blessing of God; he has comfort in it; it does him good, and his family. It is his own daily bread, not bread out of other people's mouths, and therefore he sees God gives it to him in answer to his prayer.

Whose loveth instruction loveth knowledge,.... That loves the instruction of Wisdom, or Christ, Pro 4:13; the means of instruction, the Scriptures, which are profitable for instruction in righteousness, and are written for our learning; the Gospel, which instructs into the person, office, and grace of Christ; the ministers of the word, who are so many instructors in Christ; and even the rod of afflictions, by which men are taught their duty, and the will of God: and these are to be loved; and he that loves them clearly shows that he loves knowledge; since the means of instruction, making use of them, and getting instruction by them, are attended with labour, trouble, and difficulty; which a man would not choose, had he not a love unto and a desire after knowledge, and an increase of it; as the knowledge of God, of Christ, and of his truths. Aben Ezra inverts the words; "he that loves knowledge loves instruction;'' but the sense is much the same; but he that hateth reproof is brutish; or a "beast" (k): as the man that is willing to be instructed, in order to gain knowledge, shows himself to be a wise and understanding man; so he that hates the reproof the word of God gives, or the ministers of it, or God by them, appears to be no better than a brute, than the horse or mule that want understanding: so the man of sin hates the Scriptures, the Gospel, and the ministers of it, and the reproofs and convictions they give of his idolatry, superstition, and will worship; nor does he care that his doctrines and practices should be brought to this test, or that the people should have knowledge of them; but keeps them from them, and sets up his own infallibility as the rule of judgment; and it is one character of his followers, that they "receive not the love of the truth", Th2 2:10; and both he and they are represented by a beast, Rev 13:1; and are more brutish than any man; see Pro 5:11. (k) "instar bruti indocilis est", Michaelis.

The slothful man roasteth not that which he took in hunting,.... Because he takes none. The slothful man takes no pains to get anything for a livelihood, by hunting or otherwise; and though he loves to live well, and eat roast meat, yet what he roasts is not what he has got himself, but what another has laboured for. It is observed (o) that fowlers burn the wings of birds taken by them, that they may not fly away; to which the allusion may be. Or, "the deceitful" (p) man, as it may be rendered; though he may get much in a fraudulent way, yet it does not prosper with him, he does not enjoy it; it is taken away from him before he can partake of it, or receive any comfort from it, or advantage by it; just as a man that has took anything in hunting, he cannot keep it; it is taken away from him, perhaps by a dog or some man, before he can roast it, and make it fit for eating. Ben Melech, from Joseph Kimchi, observes, that fowlers, when they catch fowls, burn the top of their wings, that they may not fly away at once; and they do not cut their wings off, that they may be left, and appear beautiful to them that buy them: but the slothful or deceitful man does not let the fowl remain in his hands till he burns it; for before that it flies out of his hands, and it is lost to him; which is figuratively to be understood of riches and wealth, gathered by violence and deceit, and lost suddenly. What is ill gotten does not spend well; it does not last long, it is presently gone; there is no true enjoyment of it. Or he will not shut it up within lattices (q) and reserve it, but spend it directly; see Sol 2:9; but the substance of a diligent man is precious; what is gotten by industry and diligence, and in an honest way, is valuable; it comes with a blessing; there is comfort in the enjoyment of it, and it continues. Some render it, "the substance of a precious man is gold" (r); so the Targum, "the substance of a man is precious gold;'' and to the same purpose the Vulgate Latin version: a diligent man grows rich; and what he gets spends well, and his substance is daily increasing. (o) Vid. Schindler. Lexic. col. 653. (p) "vir dolosus", Pagninus, Mercerus, Gejerus, Michaelis; "fraudulentus", Montanus. (q) Vid. Stockium, p. 388. (r) "substantia hominis pretiosi est aurum", De Dieu, so some in Mercerus; "substantia hominis praestantis est aurum", Gussetius, p. 255.

The fraudulent one will not gain profit, etc. For money acquired by fraud adds more harm to the soul than profit to the chest. And he who knows how to dispense his own substance for the Lord, will receive celestial gifts as a reward for the earthly ones.

(Pro. 12:1-28) loveth knowledge--as the fruit of instruction or training (Pro 1:2). hateth reproof-- (Pro 10:17). brutish--stupid, regardless of his own welfare (Psa 49:10; Psa 73:22).

(Compare Pro 12:24). took in hunting--or, "his venison." He does not improve his advantages. the substance . . . precious--or, "the wealth of a man of honor is being diligent," or "diligence." precious--literally, "honor" (Ecc 10:1).

27 The slothful pursues not his prey; But a precious possession of a man is diligence. The lxx, Syr., Targ., and Jerome render יחרך in the sense of obtaining or catching, but the verbal stem חרך nowhere has this meaning. When Fleischer remarks, חרך, ἅπ. λεγ., probably like לכד, properly to entangle in a noose, a net, he supports his opinion by reference to חרכּים, which signifies lattice-windows, properly, woven or knitted like a net. But חרך, whence this חרכים, appears to be equivalent to the Arab. kharḳ, fissura, so that the plur. gives the idea of a manifoldly divided (lattice-like, trellis-formed) window. The Jewish lexicographers (Menahem, Abulwald, Parchon, also Juda b. Koreish) all aim at that which is in accord with the meaning of the Aram. חרך, to singe, to roast (= Arab. ḥark): the slothful roasteth not his prey, whether (as Frst presents it) because he is too lazy to hunt for it (Berth.), or because when he has it he prepares it not for enjoyment (Ewald). But to roast is צלה, not דרך, which is used only of singeing, e.g., the hair, and roasting, e.g., ears of corn, but not of the roasting of flesh, for which reason Joseph Kimchi (vid., Kimchi's Lex.) understands צידו of wild fowls, and יחרך of the singeing of the tips of the wings, so that they cannot fly away, according to which the Venet. translates οὐ μενεῖ ... ἡ θήρα αὐτοῦ. Thus the Arab. must often help to a right interpretation of the ἅπ. λεγ.. Schultens is right: Verbum ḥarak, חרך, apud Arabes est movere, ciere, excitare, κινεῖν generatim, et speciatim excitare praedam e cubili, κινεῖν τήν θήραν. The Lat. agitare, used of the frightening up and driving forth of wild beasts, corresponds with the idea here, as e.g., used by Ovid, Metam. x. 538, of Diana: Aut pronos lepores aue celsum in cornua cervum Aut agitat damas. Thus יחרך together with צידו gains the meaning of hunting, and generally of catching the prey. רמיּה is here incarnate slothfulness, and thus without ellipse equivalent to אישׁ רמיה. That in the contrasted clause חרוץ does not mean ἀποτόμως, decreed (Lwenstein), nor gold (Targ., Jerome, Venet.), nor that which is excellent (Syr.), is manifest from this contrast as well as from Pro 10:4; Pro 12:24. The clause has from its sequence of words something striking about it. The lxx placed the words in a difference order: κτῆμα δὲ τίμιον ἀνὴρ καθαρὸς (חלוץ in the sense of Arab. khâlaṣ). But besides this transposition, two others have been tried: הון אדם חרוץ יקר, the possession of an industrious man is precious, and הון יקר אדם חרוץ, a precious possession is that (supply הון) of an industrious man. But the traditional arrangement of the words gives a better meaning than these modifications. It is not, however, to be explained, with Ewald and Bertheau: a precious treasure of a man is one who is industrious, for why should the industrious man be thought of as a worker for another and not for himself? Another explanation advanced by Kimchi: a valuable possession to men is industry, has the twofold advantage that it is according to the existing sequence of the words, and presents a more intelligible thought. But can חרוּץ have the meaning of חריצוּת (the being industrious)? Hitzig reads חרוץ, to make haste (to be industrious). This is unnecessary, for we have here a case similar to Pro 10:17, where שׁמר for שׁומר is to be expected: a precious possession of a man is it that, or when, he is industrious, חרוּץ briefly for היותו חרוּץ rof yl. The accentuation fluctuates between והון־אדם יקר (so e.g., Cod. 1294), according to which the Targum translates, and והון־אדם יקר, which, according to our explanation, is to be preferred.