outlines and suggestive comments.
“When a brother is revolted away, it is from a city of strength; and contentions are like the bars of a citadel.” The whole meaning is, that one“brother,” “revoltedaway” from another, is“revolted from a city of strength,”that being what one is to all the rest. In other words, brothers are a shelter to brothers, and quarrels lock up that resort. . . . Notice, that a brother is not only a commoner defence, but a “citadel;” and a “bar” to that keep shuts a man out of his best earthly dependence. It is a fine adage, even for this world . . . but when applied to our Great Brother, and to our God and King, it is one of the noblest of inspired texts. He who offends our Brother Prince shuts a high tower (Psa. xviii. 2). He who quarrels with our Surety snaps to the lock of a citadel; and then, alas, it shall be, just as the wild rush of embittered enemies should have roused him to enter in.—Miller.
The sweeter the wine the sharper the vinegar; accordingly, the greater the love implanted by nature, the morebitter the hate when this love is violated.—Zeltner.
Thematter of factis here stated—and there are natural enough reasons to account for it. More is justly expected from a brother than from a stranger—more of affection, gratitude, kindly treatment, fidelity, and trustworthiness. When such expectations are disappointed, the wound in the spirit is proportionately deeper, and more difficult of healing—the breach wider, and harder of being made up. Besides, the slower a person is to take offence—the longer he forbears—the more he forgives—the more difficult it is fairly to overcome the yearnings of affection, and break the bonds of brotherhood—the more inveterate may the spirit of resentment be; the more sullen and distant the alienation, when it is actually produced.—Warren.
Whether it be a brother by race, place, or grace; those oft that loved most dearly, if once the devil cast his club between them, hate most deadly. . . . As for brethren by profession, and that of the true religion too, among Protestants, you shall meet with many divisions, and those prosecuted with a great deal of bitterness. No war breaks out sooner, or lasts longer, than that among divines, or that about a sacrament; a sacrament of love, a communion, and yet the occasion, by accident, of much dissension.—Trapp.
The original word here used is a brother revolting or departing by disloyalty; or else a brother offended by disloyal departing. For such ought to be the command of love between brethren, that he that breaks it is a disloyal rebel unto it. And surely they that need to be firmly tied, because, being divided, they are so hardly joined. For as that which being whole is most strongly united, being broken is farthest from being made whole; and as a stick of hard wax, being broken, may more easily be conjoined than a stick of hard wood, so are the divisions of brethren more hardly composed than the contentions of others.—Jermin.
main homiletics of verses20and21.
The Power of the Little Member.
Solomon again and again reverts to the mighty influences for good and evil which flow from the use of the tongue—that “little member” upon which such great issues often depend. He here notices—
I. The power of words over the man who utters them.He declares that the state of the inward man—its rest or unrest, its gladness or its gloom—depends very much upon the use that is made of the tongue. A little thought and observation will convince us that this is true. Beginning with the familiar intercourse of every-day life, how true it is that the utterance of kindly words of sympathy, and advice and warning, have a tendency to make sunshine in the heart of him who utters them, while censorious, hasty, harsh words embitter and darken the spirit of their author. Going beyond these to utterances which have a wider influence, the proverb is no less true. The painter that has conceived a picture in his mind, and then, seeing it upon canvas, thinks of the many eyes who will gaze upon it with interest, and of those who perchance will be elevated and instructed by it, feels a satisfaction in the thought that it owes its existence to him—that without the working of his brain and hand it would not have been. “He is filled with the increase” of his skilful hand. So the man whose words are listened to and waited for by other men—whether he be the skilful barrister, or the powerful statesman, or the preacher of the Gospel, has a satisfaction in being able to put forth his conceptions as to give to his fellow-men new ideas—to show them things in a light in which they might never have seenthem but for this power which he possesses. He has joy in being the originator of fresh and living thoughts, and in being able by clothing them in words to impart them to others. But upon the moral quality of the “fruit of his mouth” will depend the length and depth of his satisfaction. The single power to influence men by speech will gratify for the moment—but if the increase of the lips is to be an abiding source of contentment there must be a consciousness that the power has been used to benefit mankind in some way or other—that the skilful pleading has been on the side of right, that the powerful logic has been used to expose the false and to defend the true, or the brilliant oratory has had for its aim the moral enlightenment and strengthening of the listeners. If it be not so, the fruit of man’s mouth will be like the roll given to the apocalyptic seer, “in the mouth as sweet as honey,” but afterwards “bitter” (Rev. x. 10). How sad must be the reflections of those who have possessed this God-given power for good or ill when they have had to look back upon its misuse.
II. The power of words over those who hear them.The tongue in its mighty influence is a king having the power of life and death. No other member of the human body can lay claim to such wide-spread and regal authority. The eye can influence men, but not so powerfully as the tongue, nor can its influence reach so many at once. The hand can strike down the body of a single foe, or two or three at once. But the tongue can reach a thousand hearts at one time, and make men its slaves, not in twos and threes but in masses. As it sways the affections and takes a man’s will captive, it wields the power of life and death not over the body of the man but over the man himself. The tongue of the tempter can drag its victims down, body and soul, to hell, while the tongue which is touched with a living coal from off the altar of God can be the means of persuading men to be reconciled to their Heavenly Father, and so of making them partakers of eternal life. Seeing, then, what issues of life and death are dependent upon this king, it is manifest that men should keep him in absolute control; if so much depends upon his action he ought to be under the strictest supervision. If one member of the body politic, by the position which he holds and the ability which he possesses, is able to exercise a very powerful influence in the kingdom for weal or for woe, men watch him narrowly and jealously to see how he uses his power, and if they are anxious for the well-being of the State they endeavour to restrain him when he is going wrong and stimulate him when he is using his influence for the right. So ought every man to watch and guard his own tongue; seeing that life, and death are in its power, he ought to bring all his words to the bar of conscience and try them there, severely condemning them if they have not been such as would minister life to the hearers, and remembering that his Master has said,“By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned”(Matt. xii. 37).
outlines and suggestive comments.
If a man were possessed of a field exceedingly productive, either of good fruits or of noisome and poisonous herbs, according to the cultivation bestowed on it, what pains would he use to clear it of every weed, and to have it sown with good grain! and yet, when the harvest is come, he may take his choice whether he will eat of the product or not. Such a field is the tongue of man, with this difference, that a man is obliged to eat the fruit of it, although it should be worse than hemlock. What care, then, should we use to pluck from our hearts every root of bitterness, and to have them furnished with knowledge and prudence, that our discourse may be good, to the use of edifying!—Lawson.
There is a sense in which we mayunderstand the language, even taking the former clause of the twentieth verseliterally—“A man’sbellyshall be satisfied with the fruit of his mouth.” You may smile and say, A man cannot live upon words! Very true. But the way in which a man uses his lips and his tongue, as the organs of speech, may contribute not a little to his getting, or his failing to get, “the meat that perisheth.” I mean not that any of you should, in the slightest degree, try to work your way in life by words of flattery; but when a man’s general conversation is such as to procure for him a character of discretion, courtesy, gratitude, straightforward integrity, and trustworthiness, this may surely contribute, eminently and directly, to the temporal sustenance and comfort of the man himself and his family: while an opposite style of intercourse may tend to penury and starvation. A man may, in various ways, make his “lips” the instrument of either want on the one hand, or plenty on the other.—Wardlaw.
Our understanding of verse 20 is, that as the outward wants of a man are satisfied by his daily acts, so he himself is, and that simplyashis acts, or because of the intimate sympathy between the man and what he does. This thought is still clearer in the verse that follows:—“Death and life are in the power (literally thehand) of the tongue.” There can be no doubt that men’s conduct (for tongue is but the leading instrument of it) determinesdeathorlife,yet, in spite of the adventurous hazard, theirloveto it (or literally,just as they love this or that sort of tongue), they shall eat its fruit, and incur, of course, fearful responsibilities.—Miller.
main homiletics of verse22.
A Twofold Good.
I. Polygamy cannot be recommended by those who have practised it.A thousand counterfeit coins, even if they pass as genuine for a time, are nothing worth in comparison with one real golden sovereign. Both may bear the image and superscription of the king, but the one is an insult to the name it bears while the other has a right to be imprinted with the royal name. The author of this proverb was a polygamist—his great experience qualified him to give an opinion upon the subject—but we do not here find him dwelling upon the satisfaction of the harem, but upon the blessedness of awife.He was fully conscious of the fact that a real partner of his life—one woman to be a help-meet for him according to the Divine intention—would have added much more to his real welfare than the thousand counterfeits to whom it was an insult to God to give the name of wives. More than once he bears testimony to the blessedness of marriage in the true sense of the word, but we never find him praising the practice which was so great a curse to his own life. In this proverb he indirectly condemns himself and warns others by his own example. A vessel that has gone to pieces upon the rocks may still be used to prevent others from sharing her fate. The broken timbers may serve to light a beacon fire which may warn other vessels to take another course. Polygamy was the rock upon which Solomon shipwrecked his social happiness and much more (1 Kings xi. 3), and he seems here and elsewhere to warn his descendants not to follow in his footsteps in this respect and conform to the custom of the heathen monarchs by whom they were surrounded.
II. Monogamy brings a double portion—a good thing and the Divine favour.The favour of a good parent is a thing prized highly by a dutiful child, and enhances the value of every other blessing. The favour of a good king is in itself a fortune which few men would despise. The favour of God is a fortunefor a period which extends beyond that named in the marriage vow, it is a fortune which no creature can afford to despise, and a blessing which those who know Him prize before all things in earth or heaven. When a man enters into the marriage relation according to the Divine intention—making a woman his wife in the true sense of the word—he not only adds to his own comfort and consults his own interest, but he does that which is pleasing to God—he takes a step upon which he can fearlessly ask for the Divine blessing.
outlines and suggestive comments.
“Findeth” implies therarityof the thing obtained (Eccles. vii. 27, 28), and the need of circumspection in the search. Blind passion is not to make the selection at random.—Fausset.
The married who is truly Christian knows that, even though sometimes things are badly matched, still his marriage relation is well pleasing to God as His creation and ordinance, and what he therein does or endures, passes as done or suffered for God.—Luther.
There is a secular and a spiritual in every proverb. These two are not apart, but flow easily into each other. Secularly, a wife is the highest treasure. It is a vapid distinction to say a good wife, and the Bible many a time hurries on without any such distinction (comp. ch. iv. 3). A bad “wife” is no“wife”at all. A wife is the holiest of all relations; in the world the most powerful for good. . . . A good marriage is a means of grace, . . . of course any relation that is near and potent is covered by the passage.—Miller.
I shall always endeavour to make choice of such a woman for my spouse who hath first made choice of Christ as a spouse for herself; that none may be made one flesh with me who is not made one spirit with Christ my Saviour. For I look upon the image of Christ as the best mark of beauty I can behold in her, and the grace of God as the best portion I can receive with her.—Bp. Reynolds.
main homiletics of verse23.
The Rich and Poor.
This proverb treats of a twofold aspect of human life which furnishes a strong proof of the fallen condition of human nature. There is, probably, no part of this earth—teeming although it is with riches enough to satisfy the needs of every living thing—in which those are not to be found who have to struggle hard for their daily bread, and who even then come off with but a scanty share. Poverty seems as universal as disease and death, and must be referred to the same source. For those who know anything of the character of God, know that it was not a part of his original intention that men should be placed in such circumstances; and when they look abroad upon their fellow-creatures, they see that all the poverty of the poor can be traced to wrong-doing on the part of men—to the selfishness of some, and to the indolence and vice of others. It is quite certain that, when God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven, the miserable poverty which now surrounds us on every side will cease to exist. Solomon here sets forth—
I. One of the many evils of poverty.He has before mentioned some of its advantages (see chap.xiii. 8, page 300), but the evil of the text is a very real and common one. A poor man has not only a very small share of the material comforts of life, but even for these he is often compelled to sue as for a favour. Even if he is an honest and able man, he may be so dependent upon the capricesof the wealthy as to have to entreat their help and patronage before he can use his powers to his own advantage. Such a state of things is often felt to be hard and is undoubtedly so, and unless a poor man is noble and self-respecting, it has a tendency to make him cringing and servile—to dispose him to barter his conscience and his rights in order to satisfy his bodily needs. We know there have been many noble exceptions to this rule—that there have been hundreds of poor men who have preferred starvation to a forfeiture of any part of their God-given inheritance—but the temptation of the poor man in this direction is often very strong by reason of his great necessity.
II. One of the many temptations of wealth.It would be a difficult matter, and perhaps an impossible one, to enumerate all the respective moral advantages of poverty and riches, and strike the true balance between them. There can be no doubt that each has its peculiar temptations (see chap.xxx. 7–9), and that one of the sins to which the rich man is most liable is that of inconsiderateness of the claims of his poor brother, and even of insolence towards him. It is a universal tendency of fallen humanity to look exclusively on his own things and not on the things of others, and the wealth of the rich man enables him to indulge this tendency to its utmost. And men are prone to go even beyond this—the children of the same common Father often take delight in making their poor brethren feel their dependence on them, and instead of giving sympathy and help freely and after a brotherly fashion, they withhold the first entirely, and if they give the latter they do it coldly and even contemptuously. That this is by no means the rule we have many proofs, but that the tendency is strong we know not only from observation but from the frequent warnings against it in the Word of God. The Apostle James charges even the professed followers of Christ with having “despised the poor” (Jas. ii. 6).
outlines and suggestive comments.
The angels smile at the way the sinner cavils. He reverses what the proverb pronounces natural. For He who is supremelyrichis meek and tender, and he who is profoundly poor is loud in his reproach!—Miller.
The languages of several countries are not so different as of the poor and rich man in one and the same country, and a stranger of another land is not such a foreigner as in the same land a poor man standing at the door of the rich. The one when he speaketh is not understood by the ear, the other when he speaketh is not understood by the heart: the words of the one are not apprehended, the wants of the other are not apprehended; the one is heard, but not conceived; the other is conceived, but not heard. When two talk in diverse languages they are known to be men of diverse countries; but when the poor and rich talk together, so different is their speech that one would hardly think them to be both men, and of the same nature. The one speaks as if he had hardly breath to bring forth his words, the other speaketh with such a strong breath that the harshness of it giveth an ill scent a great way off.—Jermin.
main homiletics of verse24.
The Obligations of Friendship.
It will be seen from theCritical Notesthat most modern critics translate the first clause of this verse very differently from the rendering in our Bibles. Some expositors, however, adhere to the old translation, and we therefore look at it—
I. As expressing a need of human nature.It matters not in which condition man is found, whether in riches or in poverty, whether ignorant and rude or highly civilized and educated, he needs the friendship of one or more of his fellow creatures. The special good-will of some who can feel with him and for him in all the vicissitudes of life is indispensable to his happiness. Among all the gifts which an Almighty Father has given to His children, there is perhaps none, after His Own gracious favour, which is so necessary to their welfare or is so productive of joy as this gift of friendship. Men cannot live a life of isolation and know anything of the enjoyment of life. We cannot conceive of even perfect creatures living such a life—we know the angels and redeemed saints derive much of their bliss from the friendship of each other, and how much more does man in his present imperfect state need it. And the need can be supplied even in this selfish world. Men have been, and still are, able to find among their fellows those who are worthy of the name of friend. True it is that there is much that is called friendship that is unworthy of the name, but as we do not reject the real coin because there are base imitations of it, so we must not permit the counterfeit of friendship to shake our confidence in the real thing.
II. As setting forth an indispensable condition of making and keeping friends.If a man desires to know the sweets of real friendship he must be prepared to be himself a real friend. The selfish and morose man who will not deny himself for another’s good, or who cannot rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep, cannot expect others to deny themselves for him and to sympathise with his joy and sorrow. If there is to be a genuine friendship there must be mutual confidence and a mutual recognition of excellencies, for if the trust and admiration is on one side only the fire will soon burn out for want of fuel. There are men whose love cannot be extinguished by coldness and distrust, but they are few and far between, and the wise man’s words hold good as a general rule that “a man that hath friends must show himself friendly.” (The latter clause of this verse was treated in Homiletics on chap.xvii. 17–18, page 518.)
outlines and suggestive comments.
A man of friends is apt to be broken all to pieces.(This is Miller’s rendering only.) The significance of the whole is that a man ofwide acquaintanceis apt tobreak.Human friendships cost. In the strife to appear well, in the time it takes, in the industries they scatter, in the hospitalities they provoke, and in the securityships they engender, broadening our socialities will try every one of us well. It is not so with heavenly friendships. All spiritual communisms bless.—Miller.
Solomon delivers a warning against the vainglorious passion of aspiring to an universal acquaintance and an empty popularity, such as was courted by his brother Absalom, which will bring with it no support in adversity, but will ruin a man by pride and rashness and prodigal expenditure.—Wordsworth.
Summary of the Chapter.—That the chapter before us treats mainly of the virtues of social life, of sociability, affability, love of friends, compassion, etc., appears not merely from its initial and closing sentences, the first of which is directed against misanthropic selfishness, the latter against thoughtless and inconstant universal friendship, or seeming friendship, but also from the various rebukes which it contains of a contentious, quarrelsome, and partisan disposition,e.g.,verses 5, 6, 8, 17–21. But in addition, most of the propositions that seem to be more remote may be brought under this general category of love to neighbours as the sum and basis of all social virtues; so especially the testimoniesagainst wild, foolish talking (verses 2, 7, 13, comp. 4 and 15); that against bold impiety, proud dispositions and hardness of heart against the poor (vers. 3, 12, 23); that against slothfulness in the duties of one’s calling, foolish confidence in earthly riches, and want of true moral courage and confidence in God (vers. 9–11; comp. 14). Nay, even the commendation of a large liberality as a means of gaining for one’s self favour and influence in human society (ver. 16), and likewise the praise of an excellent mistress of a family, are quite closely connected with this main subject of the chapter, which admonishes to love towards one’s fellow-men; they only show the many-sided completeness with which the theme is here treated.—Lange’s Commentary.
Critical Notes.—1.Delitzsch translates the last clause,“Than one with perverse lips, and so a fool.”2. Sinneth,literally “goeth astray.” Delitzsch reads the last clause,“He who hasteneth with the legs after it goeth astray.”3. Perverteth,rather “overtures,” “ruins.”5. Speaketh lies,rather“whose breath is lies.”6. The prince,rather “the noble or generous man.” It seems to refer to one of rank, who is also of a benevolent disposition.“Entreat the favour,”literally“stroke the face.”7. He pursueth them,&c. This clause is variously rendered. Zöckler reads,“He seeketh words(of friendship),and there are none;”Delitzsch,“Seeking after words which are vain;”Miller,“As one snatching at words, they come to stand towards him;”Maurer and others,“He pursueth after(the fulfilment of the)words(of their past promises to him),and these(promises)are not(made good).”8. Wisdom.Literallyheart.9. Speaketh lies,“whose breath is lies.”10. Delight.Most commentators translate this word“luxury.”Miller, however, as will be seen fromhis comment, retains the reading of the English version.11. Discretion,or“intelligence.”13. Calamity.The word so translated is in the plural form, so as to express the continuance of the trouble.16.Miller reads the verse“He that guards the commandment guards himself; in scattering his ways he dies.”(Seehis comment.) Hitzig’s rendering of the last clause agrees with Miller’s.18. Let not thy soul spare for his crying.The translations of most expositors here differ widely from the Authorised Version. Gortius, Maurer, Delitzsch, Zöckler, etc., read,“Let not thy soul rise to kill him,” “Go not too far to kill him,”etc., all understanding the precept to be directed against excessive severity. Cartwright renders it “Let not thy soul spare him,to his destruction.”20. Latter end,ratherafterwards.22. The desire of a man,&c. Rather“A man’s delight(or glory)is his beneficence,”orA man’s kindness is what makes him desirableor,is a desirable adornment.24. In his bosom,rather,in the dish.This is of course a hyperbolic expression to set forth the inactivity of the slothful man. “Athenæus,” says Fausset, “describes (ch. xii. 27) the slothful man as waiting until the roasted and seasoned thrushes fly into his mouth begging to be devoured.”27. Cease my son,&c. “That causeth” are not in the original and the instruction spoken of may therefore be evil or good. “Two conceptions are possible: 1. The instruction is that of wisdom itself, and therefore a good wholesome discipline that leads to life; then the words can be only ironical, presenting under the appearance of a discussion from discipline in wisdom a very urgent counsel to hear and receive it (so Ewald, Bertheau, Elster). 2. The instruction is evil and perverted, described in clause 2 as one that causes departure from the words of wisdom. Then the admonition is seriously intended” (Zöckler, in Lange’s Commentary). On Zöckler’s first interpretation Dr. Aiken remarks, “To call this ‘irony’ seems to us a misnomer. Cease to hear instruction only to despise it. What can be more direct or literally pertinent?” Delitzsch says, “The proverb is a dissuasive from hypocrisy, a warning against the self-deception of which Jas. i. 22–24 speaks, against heightening one’s own condemnation, which is the case of that servant who knows his lord’s will and does it not (Luke xii. 47).”
main homiletics of verse1.
The Better Part.
I. A reference to an unexplained mystery of human life.It is here implied, though it is not directly expressed, that the fool who is perverse in his lips—who sets himself in speech and action against the moral law of the universe—isnot so poor a man as he who walks in integrity. (We have before had this latter character before us. See Homiletics on chap.xi. 3, page 196.) It seems as strange that power and influence should be so often given to those who know least how to put them to a good use, as it would be to see a parent put a knife into the hand of a child who is incapable of using it, yet it is a sight which meets us on every hand, and a mystery which has presented itself to the minds of thinking men in all ages. Solomon had met with such instances in his day—he had seen the godly and upright walking in the shade and treading the bye-paths of life, while the perverse and foolish man was basking in the sunlight of worldly prosperity in the highways of society.
II. An assertion, that, notwithstanding contrary appearances, the better portion is with the better man.It is not, after all, what a man’s portion is, but how he uses it, that makes his life a blessing or a curse. A man who walks in integrity makes the righteous law of his God the rule of his life, and this keeping of the Divine commandments brings with it a reward (Psa. xix. 11) of which the rebellious fool knows nothing. He knows how to use his more limited opportunities and influence to the best advantage—how to put out his small capital so as to obtain the best interest upon it—how to trade with his five talents so as to make them other five, and so he is daily laying up a treasure which is better than all the fame and wealth that belongs to this world, for it is the riches of a righteous character by which he is raised himself to a higher spiritual level, and by which he is able to make the world better than he found it.
outlines and suggestive comments.
Integrity is itself a life, and a whole enjoyment, and better, therefore, than worldly interests which are nothing of the kind. Walking is an eastern figure, and we have failed to substitute it by a western one. Awayin the East means a man’s total course.Walking,therefore, means his total life or being.Better is a poor man, etc.,refers, therefore, to a man not living in his money, nor indeed, in his horses or in his hounds, notliving inhis integrity, butwalkingin it,i.e.,spending his whole time in it, staying in that way; of course, taking his pleasure in it (seeverse 22). We have before seen thatspeechmeanswhole conduct.The mouth, in those days, was the great implement of action. It is so still. The commonest labourer bargains out and orders out half his living by his mouth. “Perverse” or “crooked” in speech means speaking (i.e.acting) athwart of what we ourselves know in many particulars; first, athwart all moral truth; second, athwart deep personal conviction; third, athwart all personal interest (as our text implies). A Christian talks straight, because he speaks (acts) coincidentally with all of these. A sinner is crooked of lip, because he says what he does not think, and traverses for his lusts all the best principles of his moral nature.—Miller.
main homiletics of verses2and3.
Ignorance Leading to Sin.
I. The soul of man cannot be absolutely without knowledge.There is some knowledge which comes to the soul without any effort on the part of the man, which he has but to live to acquire, just as he has but to open his eyes to see. He is conscious of his own existence—of his personal identity as apart from all the beings and things by which he is surrounded, and of his capability of suffering and enjoyment, of hope and despair. And because of the light within him he cannot be altogether ignorant of the difference between right and wrong, betweentruth and falsehood. But his necessary knowledge extends to beings and things outside of himself. He knows without any effort much about the men and things which surround him, and the visible things of creation make it impossible that he should be altogether ignorant of the existence of the invisible God and Creator. So the apostle argues in Rom. i. 20.
II. There is a knowledge which it is good to be without.There is a knowledge which human nature in its original dignity and sinlessness did not possess, the absence of this experimental knowledge was an essential element of its blessedness. The ignorance of evil was a blessed ignorance in which man’s Creator would have kept him but for his own wilfulness, and the knowledge of which brought him misery. It is the blessedness of the unfallen spirits who have kept their first estate, that although they are conscious of the existence of evil in the universe, they have no experimental knowledge of it, and this ignorance constitutes the blessedness of the ever-blessed God Himself. Those sons of men who, because they are, and ever have been, in perfect health, know nothing experimentally of bodily pain or weakness, find it very good to be without this knowledge, and how much more good it is to be without a knowledge of soul disease and spiritual suffering.
III. But there is an acquired knowledge which is indispensable to a man’s well-being.Intellectual knowledge of some kind is necessary to prevent a man from being a shame to himself and a cumberer of the land. The well-being of the community depends upon one man’s knowing some one thing that another man does not know; no man can know all things or even many things; no man, however great his knowledge, has enough of it to make him independent of the knowledge of others, but every man ought to have such a thorough knowledge of some facts and truths as to enable him to minister first to some of his own daily needs and to contribute something to the well-being of his fellow creatures. Some men must have theoretical knowledge, and others must know how to reduce theories to practice—the knowledge of the one is useless without the knowledge of the other. It behoves some men to investigate the history of the past, and to use this knowledge they so acquire for the good of the present generation, but while they are doing this it is indispensable that others should acquire a knowledge of things as they are at present, and should utilise their knowledge for the attainment of other ends which are quite as good. But intellectual knowledge of some kind is also necessary for the well-being of the mind itself. Man’s mind can no more feed upon itself and be healthy than his body can feed upon itself and live. As the body needs to receive matter into itself to nourish and sustain it, so the mind needs to receive ideas upon which to feed and by which to grow. Without such a reception the intellectual part of a man remains undeveloped, and he is very far from the creature, intellectually considered, that God intended him to be. But there is a kind of knowledge even more needful for man to possess than that which will merely enlarge his mind or promote his temporal well-being. If his existence is to be really blest he must know things which relate to his spiritual well-being—he must be acquainted with the will of God concerning him, both in relation to the life that now is and to that which is to come. It is a calamity to be ignorant of things which fit a man to make the best of the present life, but it is a far greater calamity to be without that knowledge which fits a man for a blessed life beyond death. No man who possesses the revealed Word of God in the Scriptures need be without this most blessed and indispensable knowledge—everyone who thirsts for it may drink of this living water, and every hungry soul may eat of this bread and learn what are the thoughts of God concerning him, and what are the Divine purposes concerning his present and his future (Isa. lv. 1–7). And to be without this knowledge is indeed “not good,” for it prevents the soul from recovering its lost and original dignity. A knowledge of the glorious God in the face of Jesus Christ isthe means by which we are delivered from the penalty and power of sin, and more than recover the position lost by man’s fall. Ignorance here is indeed a fatal ignorance in those who have the knowledge within their reach; it is not good for any human soul to be without this knowledge, and it is most soul-destroying to those who have only to seek it in order to find it.
IV. Some of the evil consequences which flow from ignorance in general and from ignorance of God in particular.1.Ignorance leads to hasty action, and consequently often to wrong action.For, “he that hasteth with his feet sinneth,” and “the foolishness of man perverteth his way.” In common and every-day life we find that the most ignorant people are the least cautious, and act with the least reflection. Knowledge teaches men to think before they act, for it makes men more alive to the importance of their actions. A child will play with gunpowder with as little hesitation as he would with common dust, but a man would not do so, because he knows what would be the consequences if it ignited. A man who has never been in a coalmine, and who was ignorant of the dangers of fire-damp, would be very likely to descend the shaft and enter hastily into the gloomy passages without first testing the state of the air, but a miner would not do so, because he knows more about the matter. He would advance cautiously, and ascertain what was before him before he ventured far. So people who are ignorant of the mind and will of God as revealed in His Word act without much thought as to the consequences of their actions—they enter upon a road at the impulse of a passing fancy, without asking themselves whither it leads—they decide upon a certain course of action without thought of the consequence. And such a hasting with the feet is always a perversion of a man’s way, a wandering from the right path, for a fallen man does not forsake the evil and choose the good by instinct but by effort founded upon reflection. 2.Spiritual ignorance leads to rebellion against God.It is only a man who does not know God, who “frets against the Lord.” A child because he is ignorant of his father’s motives will fret against the wise and kind restrictions which the father places around him. So men wilfully ignorant that whenever God says “Thou shalt not” He is only saying “Do thyself no harm,” chafe and fret against His moral laws. They will not set themselves to obtain that knowledge of God which the Gospel reveals and consequently they look at all His commands through a cloud of ignorance which makes them grievous and heavy instead of easy and light. And there are many mysteries connected with God’s government that will tend to make men’s hearts fretful and discontented if they remain in ignorance of His character. There are many problems in connection with man’s present life which he cannot solve—many apparent contradictions, and much which looks like injustice on the part of Him who rules the world, and every soul who does not know God as He is revealed in His Son will, when he thinks on these things, is likely to be led to harbour rebellious thoughts against Him. When we consider the evil which flows from ignorance of God we can better understand how it is that “the knowledge of the Lord” is so often used in Scripture as synonymous with all that can bless and elevate mankind (see Isa. xi. 9, etc.).
outlines and suggestive comments.
We should desire first the enlightening of the eyes and then the strengthening of the feet. Hence “Make me to understand the way of Thy precepts,” and then, “I will run the way of Thy commandments” (Psa. cxix. 27, 32). He that would sail safely must get a good pilot before good rowers. Swift horses, without a skilful waggoner, endangers more. He that labours for feet before he has eyes, takes a preposterous course; for, of the two thelame is more likely to come to his journey’s end than the blind. . . . Hence we see that there is more hope of a vicious person that hath a good understanding, than of an utterly dark and blind soul, though he walks upon zealous feet. . . .Learn to know God.“How shall we believe on Him we have not known?” (Rom. x. 14). Knowledge is not so much slighted here, as it will be wished hereafter. The rich man in hell desires to have his brethren taught (Luke xvi. 28). Sure if he were alive again, he would hire them a preacher. “The people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea iv. 6). If we see a proper man cast away at the sessions for anon legit,with pity we conclude he might have been saved, if he could have read. At that general and last assizes, when Christ shall “come in flaming fire,” woe be to them that “know not God” (2 Thess. i. 8). For “He will pour out His fury upon the heathen, that know Him not, and upon the families that call not on His name” (Jer. x. 25). . . . In Prov. ix. 18, the new guest at the fatal banquet is described by his ignorance. “He knoweth not” what company is in the house, “that the dead are there.” It is the devil’s policy, when he would rob and ransack the house of our conscience, like a thief to put out the candle of our knowledge; that we might neither discern his purposes, nor decline his mischiefs. . . . Indeed ignorance may make a sin a less sin, but not no sin. “I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief,” says the apostle (1 Tim. i. 13). The sins of them that know are more heinous than the sins of them that know not. But if thou hadst no other sin, thy ignorance is enough to condemn thee, for thou art bound to know. They that will not know the Lord, the Lord will not know them.—T. Adams.
The most innocent of all faults might seem ignorance. The only sin (when philosophically stated) is ignorance. The “chains” that confine the lost (2 Pet. ii. 4) are “darkness.” The charge that overtakes the saved is light (2 Cor. iv. 6). The graces that adorn the Christian all flow from a new intelligence. Our text is literally exact. If the man “has no knowledge,” and that of a deep spiritual sort, his “life is no good;” that is, it possesses none, and is itself a horrid evil. And yet the concluding clause largely relieves the difficulty. The man, knowing there was something wrong, ought to pause, and grope about for the light, just as all would in a dark cavern. Instead of that he rushes darkly on. Here, the inspired finger is put upon the precise mistake. We are warned that we are in blindness. Why not hesitate, then, and cast about us? We push on, knowing we are in the dark. This is the photograph of the impenitent. . . . And yet, the wise man says, he ignores this point of wilfulness, and in his heart is angry with the Almighty. He “perverteth,” orsubverteth“his way,” that is, totallyupsetsand ruins, so that it is no way at all. Nothing could describe more truly the sinner’s path, because it does not reach even the ends that he himself relied on. Death arrives, too, to wreck it totally. And though he has resisted the most winning arts to draw him unto Christ, yet, at each sad defeat, “his heart is angry against Jehovah.”—Miller.
Verse 2. Haste, as opposed to sloth, is the energy of Divine grace (Psa. cxix. 60; Luke xix. 6). Here, as opposed to consideration,acting hastilyis sin. This impatience is the genuine exercise of self-will, not taking time to inquire; not “waiting for the counsel of the Lord.” Godly Joshua offended here (Josh. ix. 14, 15). Saul’s impatience cost him his kingdom (1 Sam. xiii. 12). David’shastewas the occasion of gross injustice (2 Sam. xvi. 3, 4).—Bridges.
Religion a sentiment and a science.I know of no attack on Christianity more artfully made than that which is attempted when a distinction is attempted to be drawn between religion and theology. . . . Let us see what the value of religion is, when itis separated from theology. We are told that religion is a sentiment, a temper, a state of mind. Theology is a science, a pursuit, a study . . . and it is asserted and insinuated that it may be well with the soul, although it be destitute of spiritual knowledge. . . . But we, who are called Christians, by the very name we bear, imply that more than devotional sentiment is necessary to make a religious man. . . . You must accept Jesus as the only Saviour if you would escape perdition, and how can you accept Him unless you know Him? Nay, further, how can you accept Him unless you know yourself? . . . There are many other things which we ought to know and believe, to our soul’s health and comfort; but . . . the soul that is without knowledge of this, the great Christian scheme, the Divine plan of salvation, is only nominally and by courtesy a Christian soul. . . . Except as hearing upon these truths, the religious sentiment is a luxury and nothing more. . . . It is not the theoreticaldistinctionbetween the sentiment and the science that we censure, but their separation and divorce.—Dean Hook.
Verse 3. Such wasthe foolishnessof Adam! First heperverted his way;then he charged upon God its bitter fruit. “God, making him upright,” made him happy. Had he been ruled by his will, he would have continued so. But, “seeking out his own inventions” (Eccles. vii. 29), he made himself miserable. As the author of his own misery, it was reasonable that he should fret against himself, but such was his pride and baseness, thathis heart fretted against the Lord,as if He, and not himself, was responsible (Gen. iii. 6–12). This his first-born, when his own sin had brought “punishment” on him,fretted,as if “it were greater than he could bear” (Ib. iv. 8–13). This has beenthe foolishnessof Adam’s children ever since God has linked together moral and penal evil, sin and sorrow. The fool rushes into the sin and most unreasonablyfretsfor the sorrow; as if he could “gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles” (Matt. vii. 16). He charges his crosses, not on his own perverseness, but on the injustice of God (Ezek. xviii. 25). But God is clear from all the blame (James i. 13, 14): He had shown the better; man chooses the worse. He had warned by His Word and by conscience. Man, deaf to the warning, plunges into the misery; and, while “eating the fruit of his own ways,”his heart frets against the Lord.“It is hard to have passions, and to be punished for indulging them. I could not help it. Why did He not give me grace to avoid it?” (See Jer. vii. 10). Such is the pride and blasphemy of an unhumbled spirit. The malefactor blames the judge for his righteous sentence (Isa. viii. 21, 22; Rev. xvi. 9–11, 21).—Bridges.
This was the case in Greece as well as in Judea; for Homer observed that “men lay those evils upon the gods, which they have incurred through their own folly and perverseness.”. . . This is often the case with regard—1.To men’s health.By intemperance . . . indolence . . . or too close application to business . . . or unruly passions, they injure their frame . . . and then censure the providence of God. 2.To their circumstances in life.. . . Men complain that providence frowns on them . . . when they have chosen a wrong profession, despising the advice of others . . . or when they have brought themselves into straits by their own negligence. 3.To their relations in life.They complain of being unequally yoked . . . when they chose by the sight of the eye, or the vanity and lusts of the heart. . . . They complain that their children are undutiful . . . when they have neglected their government. 4.To their religious concerns.They complain that they want inward peace when . . . they neglect the appointed means of grace . . . and that God giveth Satan power over them when by neglect they tempt the tempter.—Job Orton.
For Homiletics on the main thought of verse 4 see on chapterxiv. 20, page 370.
suggestive comment.
They are friends to the wealth, not the wealthy. They regard notqualis sis,butquantus—not how thou art, but how great. . . . These flatter a rich man, as we feed beasts, till he be fat, and then fall on him. . . . These friends love not thy soul’s good, but thy body’s goods.—T. Adams.
main homiletics of verses5and9.
The End of a False Tongue.
We have before had proverbs dealing with the evil of lying (see Homiletics on chap.xii. 17–19,xiv. 25, pages 274 and 379), and the constant recurrence of the subject, together with the repetition of the verses here, shows us the vast importance which the inspired writer attached to truth, and the many and great evils which flow from a disregard of it. Again and again he holds up the liar to view as a monster of iniquity, and seeks, both by the threatening of the retribution which awaits it and by the misery which it causes to others, to deter men from yielding to this sin. If we consider what mischief a false man can do, we shall not be surprised at the prominence which the wise man gives to this subject (seech. xii. 17–19, 22, page 274). But the most dangerous element of the lying tongue is the fact that in nine cases out of ten no human tribunal can bring to justice, and perhaps few human tribunals would care to do so. “The world,” says Dr. David Thomas (“Practical Philosopher,” page 414) “abounds in falsehood. Lies swarm in every department of life. They are in the market, on the hustings, in courts of justice, in the senate house, in the sanctuaries of religion; and they crowd the very pages of modern literature. They infest the social atmosphere. Men on all hands live in fiction and by fiction.” If we allow that this picture is a true one, and alas! we cannot deny that it is, we can see that the evil is one with which no human hand can deal. A tiger may come down from a neighbouring forest and enter the city, and spread terror and dismay all round, and even kill a dozen of its inhabitants. But he is a tangible creature, he can be faced and attacked with weapons which can pierce his skin and make him powerless to do any further mischief. But into the same city may enter upon the summer wind impalpable particles of matter charged with a poison which may slay not ten men but ten thousand, and no weapon that has ever been forged by human hand can slay these destroyers. The plague will keep numbering its victims until the poison has spent itself or until a pure and healthful breeze scatters the deadly atmosphere. So with lying in comparison with more palpable and gross crimes. The thief can be caught and imprisoned, the murderer is generally traced and hanged; but the sin of lying so permeates the whole social atmosphere that nothing but the diffusion of heavenly truth can rid the world of the poison. But the liar, however he escapes some forms of retribution, “shall not go unpunished.” 1.He shall be self-punished.His own conscience will be his judge and executioner in one. The fear of discovery here will generally haunt him as a shadow does the substance, but if this ghost is laid there will be times, however hardened he may be, when that witness for truth that is within him will scourge him in the present and fill him with forebodings concerning the future. 2.Men will punish him by not believing him when he speaks the truth.In proportion as a man’s veracity is doubted will be the suspicion with which his word is received. He may tell the truth on two occasions out of three, but if his falsehood on the third is found out, his truth-telling on the first and second will not avail him much. It is a terrible thingto live always in an atmosphere of distrust, but it is one of the punishments of a liar. 3.God will punish him after he leaves this world.Concerning him and some other great transgressors it is written that—“they shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death”(Rev. xxi. 8). Whatever may be the precise meaning of these terrible words, we know that they were spoken by one whose every word was“true and faithful”(see verse 5 of the same chapter), and they are but an intensified form of the last clause of our texts—“He that speaketh lies shall perish.”
outlines and suggestive comments.
Falsehood is like fire in stubble. It likewise turns all around it into its own substance for a moment—one crackling, blazing moment, and then dies. And all its contents are scattered in the wind without place or evidence of their existence, as viewless as the wind which scatters them.—Coleridge.
“He whose breath is lies shall be lost.”Breathmeans the inborn and natural impulse. The root of the verb translated“shall perish,” means to lose oneself by wandering about.The cognate Arabic means toflee away wild in the desert.The spirit, therefore, that habitually breathes out falsities, and so acts constitutionally athwart of what is true, is best described by keeping to the original; that is, instead of perishing in the broader and vaguer way, hewanders off and is lostin the wilderness of his own deceptions.—Miller.
The thief doth only send one to the devil; the adulterer, two; the slanderer hurteth three—himself, the person of whom, the person to whom he tells the lie.—T. Adams.
main homiletics of verses6and7.
The Proofs of Human Selfishness.
I. The servile regard which men pay to rank and wealth.A prince is a man in whose hand there is power to advance the material interests of other men, and this makes him a loadstone to the godless man whatever his character may be. As the magnet will attract all the steel dust within its reach, so the prince is a magnet which attracts all the self-seeking and the worldly who can by any possibility obtain any favour from him. To gain that favour they will fawn upon him and flatter him, and will stoop even to become supplicants at his feet. Let him be one of the most contemptible of human creatures, there will not be wanting those who may be in many respects his superiors who will serve him from hope of advancing their own interests. We know that this is not universally the case—that there have been noble men in all ages who would scorn to entreat the favour of any man, simply because he was a man of power; but Solomon here speaks of the rule and not of the exception, and the fact that it is so testifies to the self-seeking which is the characteristic of men in general.
II. The treatment which the poor man often receives from his more wealthy kinsfolk.The proverb implies that those who hate him and pass him by with disdain are richer than himself, and therefore not only bound to pity his poverty but able to lighten his burden. But the same selfishness which draws men to the rich causes them to shun the poor in general, and especially their poor relations, for they feel conscious that these latter have a stronger claim upon them than those who are not so related. And even if the poor man does not need the help of his richer brethren he will often find himself unrecognised by them, simply because he occupies a lower social station. He has nothing to give them in the way of material good—his favour is worth nothing in the wayof promoting their worldly interests—the very fact that he is poor and yet is more or less nearly connected by family ties is supposed to dim the lustre of their greatness, and they therefore cherish towards him a positive dislike which they manifest by avoiding his society as much as possible, and by receiving all his advances towards friendship with coolness and disdain. If we had no other proof of the depth to which man has fallen since God created him in His own image, the regard which men pay, not to what a manis,but to what hehas,would be one sad enough. (See also Homiletics on chap.xiv. 20,page 370.)
outlines and suggestive comments.
Princes need not pride themselves in the homage that is paid to them, for their favour is sought by men, not so much out of regard to their persons, as from a regard to their power. Kindness and liberality have a greater influence for gaining the hearts of men, than dignity of station. There are many that seek the ruler’s favour, but every man loves him that is generous. When power and generosity meet in the same person, he becomes an object of universal esteem, like Marcus Antoninus, who was lamented by every man when he was dead, as if the glory of the Roman empire had died with him.
How inexcusable are we, if we do not love God with all our hearts. His gifts to us are past number, and all the gifts of men to us are the fruits of His bounty, conveyed by the ministry of those whose hearts are disposed by His providence to kindness. “I have seen thy face,” said Jacob to Esau, “as the face of God.” His brother’s favour he knew to be a fruit of the mercy of Him with whom he spake and prevailed at Bethel.—Lawson.
For Homiletics on verses 8 and 9 see verses2and5of this chapter, also on chaptersviii. 36andix. 12, pages 121 and 124.
main homiletics of verse10.
Incongruities.
I. Where there is wealth or exalted station their ought to be correspondent qualifications.(For the real signification of the word translated “delight” seeCritical Notes.) If a man is rich he ought to be wise, and if he is powerful he ought to have been instructed how to use his power well. A fool is useless in any condition of life, but a fool who is the possessor of a fortune is a power for evil. We must understand the word “servant” here to mean an ignorant and incapable man—one who, though able to serve, has no ability to rule. A man may be very well fitted to perform the duties of a common seaman, but if he is ignorant of the laws of navigation it would be a great misfortune for both himself and the rest of the crew if he were to be appointed to the captain’s post. If he had remained before the mast he might have done good service, but when he is promoted to a higher rank he is only an instrument of mischief. Of the two incongruities dealt with in the proverb this last is the most fruitful of evil. It is a lamentable thing when great riches come into the possession of a fool who does not know how to use his wealth either for his own or his neighbour’s good, and it may be productive of positive harm both to himself and others. Instances are not at all uncommon, and most men have met with them, in which a man in a very humble station, and destitute of true and spiritual wisdom, inherits suddenly a large fortune. In the majority of such cases the inheritance is a curse rather than a blessing, for the inheritor has no idea how to use it so as to promote his own real welfare. His higher nature has never been developed, consequently he has no spiritual or intellectual desires to gratify, and all he can do with his wealth is to minister to his appetites and gratify his passions, whichhe often does in a most unseemly way, and to an extent which makes him a worse man when he is rich than he was when he was poor. But this misuse of wealth is not so great a misfortune as the misuse of power. The evil effects of the first will be confined within comparatively narrow limits, but those of the latter are widespread. When a man is neither a prince by birth or by nature, and yet is in a position which gives him power over men who are either or both, there is a great disproportion in the moral fitness of things which generally brings much social and national trouble. For if a man’s only title to rule is that of birth, it is better for those whom he rules than if he had none at all. If he is an incapable man himself he may be the descendant of greater men, although they cannot reverence him for what he is. But when he has not even this small claim on their obedience, the unseemliness is so great that national anarchy, and consequently much individual suffering, is the almost certain result.
II. Either of these incongruities present a deep mystery in the Divine government.When we consider what a great power for good as well as for evil is wrapped up in wealth, the providence appears to us dark which often gives it to the moral fool and leaves the wise man destitute. But when we find a weak man apparently holding in his hands the destinies of many stronger and nobler men—a “servant” ruling over “princes”—the providence seems darker still. But there are two sources whence we can draw comfort. We can look forward to that “time of restitution of all things” (Acts iii. 21) when all these manifest inconsistencies shall be done away with, and we can assure ourselves that “things are not what they seem”—that the wisdom of the wise man is a greater power for good than the wealth of the rich, and that, after all, the choice of the ruler is in the hand of those whom he rules, and that if the latter are “princes” they will not long suffer themselves to be ruled by one who is “a servant.”
outlines and suggestive comments.
1. In its secular form this truth is obvious. 2. In its higher but intermediate form, it means that an ungodly sinner, here called“a stupid man,”on his way to death and judgment, is so shockingly off in all interests of his being, that“delight”is a mockery; it is anything but suited to his state. And to have him stand, as he often does, superior to Christians, overawing Christian life, and repressing Christian eminence of character, is indeed aservant ruling a prince;and it is as good an instance as could be met, of something that does notsuit,or as the original has it, does notsit well.3. But Solomon would carry it a story higher. He means to continue his pursuit of theimpenitent.He means to tell them that theirdelight,in itself considered, would notsit well;that to reward a fool would bring dishonour upon government; and to release the outlaw from his bonds would really be to elect the slave to a post higher than the“princes.”—Miller.
With all the preference here expressed for virtuous poverty, the seemliness of rank, and the violence done by the upstart rule of the lower over the higher, are not overlooked.—Chalmers.
Abundance of wealth, dainty fare, and pastime or recreation, is not meet for a vain and wicked person. For, first of all, he rather deserveth correction than recreation; secondly, he abuseth all his delights and possessions to his own hurt, being drunken with his vanities; last of all, he is so puffed upon and corrupted by prosperity, that he oppresseth his neighbours. . . . But if a light vanity beseem not a vain person, then authority, which carrieth with it a weight of glory, less beseemeth a vile person, who is of a servile disposition and condition, especially thatrule which is exercised over noble personages.—Muffet.
Judge, then, how horrible it is that men should set the devil or his two angels, the world and the flesh, on the throne, while they place God on the footstool; or that in this commonwealth of man, reason, which is the queen or princess over the better powers and graces of the soul, should stoop to so base a slave as sensual lust.—T. Adams.
The reason is, because a wise man is master of his delight, a fool is servant unto it. And delight never doth well but where it is commanded, never doth so ill as where it is commander. . . . The command of delight is like the ruling of a servant over princes; and as he is foolish in ruling, so it is the quality of a fool to give the ruling of his heart unto delight.—Jermin.
main homiletics of verses11and12.
Two Kings.
I. The man who exercises despotic power over the destinies of his fellow creatures.The similitudes by which Solomon describes the power that is sometimes lodged in a kingly hand are very strong, and were more true in his day than they are in ours. The wrath of a despot is like the roaring of a lion because it is an indication of the destructive power that lies behind it. That roar is not an empty sound, for everyone who hears it knows that the savage beast can do more than roar—that he can tear in pieces the unfortunate victim of his wrath. If he could only roar men would listen unmoved, but they tremble because they know that his anger can find an outlet in a more terrible manner. There are men whose wrath, although it is fierce, does not fill its objects with any alarm—they know that the man’s anger can only find an outlet in words and that he is impotent to do them harm. But there are those whose anger can work terrible evil to its victims, and who have such forces at their command that a man may well fear to incur their wrath. There have been despots in the world to incur whose displeasure was like awaking the fury of a wild beast, and whose manner of repaying those who had offended them was more brutal than human. But men in such a position have as much power to bless as to curse. If they choose to exercise their prerogative in a kindly manner they can exercise an influence as reviving and as cheering as that of “the dew upon the grass.” Such an one can elevate his subjects both socially and morally by the enactment of wise laws, and in this sense can make a wilderness rejoice and blossom as the rose. Perhaps, however, the proverb more directly refers to the power of the king to exalt and promote his favourites—those who either by chance or by devotion to his interests become objects of his especial regard. If such men are poor the king’s favour can effect as great a transformation in their circumstances as the dew will upon a field scorched by the sun, and so long as that favour continues they are as continually and as liberally nourished as the grass is watered by the daily dew.
II. The man who can curb his anger and pardon an offence.Solomon was a king whose power was not inaptly described by the twelfth verse, but he had too much spiritual enlightenment to conceive that there was any true glory in it alone. He gives the palm to the man who can “rule his spirit,” and who can “pass over a transgression,” especially if that man has great power in his hand to visit the offender with punishment. If it is the glory of a man with limited influence to pardon an offender, it is much more glorious for a king to do so, because his wrath is able to exercise itself without being called to an account. This thought may be applied to the King of kings, to the Omnipotent Ruler of the universe. When Moses besought Him to show him His glory,“He said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee,”and that name was,“The Lord, the Lord Godmerciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,”(Exod. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 6). For Homiletics on the same subject see on chap.xiv. 29, page 386, and on chap.xvi. 32, page 497.
outlines and suggestive comments.
If men, as they grow more sensible, forgive easier, and it is theirhonourorgloryto “pass over an offence,” the implication is that thus it must be with the All-Wise. Complaint is foolish, for eternity will reveal that the Almighty took no pleasure in punishing us.“The commonest man,”literally “a man,” buta manunder the title which, all through this book, as in Isaiah ii. 9, distinguishes itself from another title, which meansa man of the better sort.This gives two points of heightened emphasis:—First, even the commonest man thinks it well to forgive. How much more the Almighty! And, second, even the commonest man, whenintelligent,forgives the easier: how much more theGreat Intelligence?He who best understands His honour would not be likely to inflict punishment, unless where it was impossible that there should be a final escape (ver. 5).—Miller.
The monarch of the forest is a just comparison to the monarch of the land. “The lion hath roared; who will not fear?” The rocks and hills echo the terrific cry. The whole race of the animals of the forest are driven to flight, or petrified to the spot. Such isthe king’s wrathin a land of despotism; reigning without law, above law, his will his only law; an awful picture of cruelty, tyranny, and caprice! Unlimited power is too much for proud human nature to bear, except with special grace from above.—Bridges.
Discretion is a buckler made of a cold, hard, smooth metal, and that which giveth the true temper to the metal isdelay.For in all the ways of discretion delay holdeth it by the hand, it judgeth not without delay, it worketh not without delay, it is not angry without delay. The fiery darts that are thrown against it kindle not this metal hastily, the strokes of wrong and injury bruise not this metal easily; the apprehensions of a moved spirit fasten not easily upon it, the fury that assaulteth it slips off by a mild smoothness from it.—Jermin.
The only legitimate anger is a holy emotion directed against an unholy thing. Sin, and not our neighbour, must be its object. Zeal for righteousness, and not our own pride, must be its distinguishing character. The exercise of anger, although not necessarily sinful, is exceedingly difficult and dangerous. . . . Thus it comes about, that although anger be not in its own nature and in all cases sinful, the best practical rule of life is to repress it, as if it were. The Holy might use it against sin in the world, if the Holy were here, but it seems too sharp a weapon for our handling. . . . The best practical rule for the treatment of anger against persons is to defer it. Its nature presses for instant vengeance, and the appetite should be starved. A wise man may indeed experience the heat, but he will do nothing till he cools again. When your clothes outside are on fire you wrap yourself in a blanket, if you can, and so smother the flame; in like manner, when your heart within has caught the fire of anger, your first business is to get the flame extinguished. . . . To pass over a transgression is a man’s “glory.” . . . This is a note in unison with the Sermon on the Mount, and therefore at variance with most of our modern codes of honour. It has often been remarked that the Bible proves itself Divine by the knowledge of man which it displays; but perhaps its opposition to the main currents of a human heart are as clear a mark of its heavenly origin as its discovery of what these currents are.—Arnot.