Amsal 11:3

11:3 The integrity of the upright guides them, ¹ 

but the crookedness of the unfaithful destroys them. ² 

Amsal 15:6

15:6 In the house ³  of the righteous is abundant wealth, ⁴ 

but the income of the wicked brings trouble. ⁵ 

Amsal 18:21

18:21 Death and life are in the power ⁶  of the tongue, ⁷ 

and those who love its use ⁸  will eat its fruit.

Amsal 21:7

21:7 The violence ⁹  done by the wicked ¹⁰  will drag them away

because ¹¹  they refuse to do what is right. ¹² 

Amsal 24:31

24:31 I saw ¹³  that thorns had grown up all over it,

the ground ¹⁴  was covered with weeds,

and its stone wall was broken down.

Amsal 28:3

28:3 A poor person ¹⁵  who oppresses the weak

is like ¹⁶  a driving rain without food. ¹⁷ 

Amsal 28:24

28:24 The one who robs ¹⁸  his father and mother and says, “There is no transgression,”

is a companion ¹⁹  to the one ²⁰  who destroys.

Amsal 29:4

29:4 A king brings stability ²¹  to a land ²²  by justice,

but one who exacts tribute ²³  tears it down.

[11:3]  ¹ sn This contrasts two lifestyles, affirming the value of integrity. The upright live with integrity – blamelessness – and that integrity leads them in success and happiness. Those who use treachery will be destroyed by it.

[11:3]  ² tc The form is a Kethib/Qere reading. The Qere יְשָׁדֵּם (yÿshadem) is an imperfect tense with the pronominal suffix. The Kethib וְשַׁדָּם (vÿshadam) is a perfect tense with a vav prefixed and a pronominal suffix. The Qere is supported by the versions.

[15:6]  ³ tn The term בֵּית (bet, “house”) functions as an adverbial accusative of location.

[15:6]  ⁴ sn The Hebrew noun חֹסֶן (khosen) means “wealth; treasure.” Prosperity is the reward for righteousness. This is true only in so far as a proverb can be carried in its application, allowing for exceptions. The Greek text for this verse has no reference for wealth, but talks about amassing righteousness.

[15:6]  ⁵ tn Heb “will be troubled.” The function of the Niphal participle may be understood in two ways: (1) substantival use: abstract noun meaning “disturbance, calamity” (BDB 747 s.v. עָכַר) or passive noun meaning “thing troubled,” or (2) verbal use: “will be troubled” (HALOT 824 s.v. עכר nif).

[18:21]  ⁶ tn Heb “in the hand of.”

[18:21]  ⁷ sn What people say can lead to life or death. The Midrash on Psalms shows one way the tongue [what is said] can cause death: “The evil tongue slays three, the slanderer, the slandered, and the listener” (Midrash Tehillim 52:2). See J. G. Williams, “The Power of Form: A Study of Biblical Proverbs,” Semeia 17 (1980): 35-38.

[18:21]  ⁸ tn The referent of “it” must be the tongue, i.e., what the tongue says (= “its use”). So those who enjoy talking, indulging in it, must “eat” its fruit, whether good or bad. The expression “eating the fruit” is an implied comparison; it means accept the consequences of loving to talk (cf. TEV).

[21:7]  ⁹ tn The “violence” (שֹׁד, shod) drags away the wicked, probably either to do more sin or to their punishment. “Violence” here is either personified, or it is a metonymy of cause, meaning “the outcome of their violence” drags them away.

[21:7]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “violence of the wicked.” This is a subjective genitive: “violence which the wicked do.”

[21:7]  ¹¹ tn The second colon of the verse is the causal clause, explaining why they are dragged away. They are not passive victims of their circumstances or their crimes. They choose to persist in their violence and so it destroys them.

[21:7]  ¹² tn Heb “they refuse to do justice” (so ASV); NASB “refuse to act with justice.”

[24:31]  ¹³ tn The Hebrew term וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh, traditionally “and, lo” [KJV, ASV]) is a deictic particle that calls attention to what comes next. “And look” is too abrupt here; “I saw” calls attention to the field that was noticed.

[24:31]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “its face” (so KJV, ASV).

[28:3]  ¹⁵ tc The MT reads “a poor man,” גֶּבֶר רָשׁ (gever rash); cf. KJV, NASB, NLT. The problem is that the poor in the book of Proverbs is not an oppressor and does not have the power to be such. So commentators assume the word is incorrect. By a slight change to רָשָׁע (rasha’) the reading becomes “a wicked ruler” [Heb “a wicked mighty man”]. There is no textual support for this change. The LXX, however, reads, “A courageous man oppresses the poor with impieties.” If “a poor man” is retained, then the oppression would include betrayal – one would expect a poor man to have sympathy for others who are impoverished, but in fact that is not the case. It is a sad commentary on human nature that the truly oppressed people can also be oppressed by other poor people.

[28:3]  ¹⁶ tn The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.

[28:3]  ¹⁷ sn “Food” is a metonymy of effect here. The picture is of the driving rain that should cause crops to grow so that food can be produced – but does not (some English versions assume the crops are destroyed instead, e.g., NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT). The point the proverb is making is that a show of strength may not produce anything except ruin.

[28:24]  ¹⁸ sn While the expression is general enough to cover any kind of robbery, the point seems to be that because it can be rationalized it may refer to prematurely trying to gain control of the family property through some form of pressure and in the process reducing the parents’ possessions and standing in the community. The culprit could claim what he does is not wrong because the estate would be his anyway.

[28:24]  ¹⁹ sn The metaphor of “companion” here means that a person who would do this is just like the criminally destructive person. It is as if they were working together, for the results are the same.

[28:24]  ²⁰ tn Heb “man who destroys” (so NASB); TEV “no better than a common thief.”

[29:4]  ²¹ tn The form is the Hiphil imperfect of the verb עָמַד (’amad, “to stand”), hence, “to cause to stand.” It means that the king makes the nation “stand firm,” with “standing firm” being a figure for strength, security, and stability. Cf. NCV “makes his country (the nation CEV) strong.”

[29:4]  ²² tn Or “country.” This term functions as a metonymy of subject for the people in the land.

[29:4]  ²³ tn The Hebrew text reads אִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת (’ish tÿrumot, “a man of offerings”), which could refer to a man who “receives gifts” or “gives gifts.” Because of its destructive nature on the country, here the phrase must mean that he receives or “exacts” the money (cf. NRSV “makes heavy exactions”). This seems to go beyond the ordinary taxation for two reasons: (1) this ruler is a “man of offerings,” indicating that it is in his nature to do this, and (2) it tears down the country. The word “offerings” has been taken to refer to gifts or bribes (cf. NASB, NIV, CEV, NLT), but the word itself suggests more the idea of tribute or taxes that are demanded; this Hebrew word was used in Leviticus for offerings given to the priests, and in Ezek 45:16 for taxes. The point seems to be that this ruler or administrator is breaking the backs of the people with heavy taxes or tribute (e.g., 1 Sam 8:11-18), and this causes division and strife.