Pro 11:18-21 | KD | STEP | Man consists of body and soul. In regard to both, benevolence brings its reward, and hatred its punishment. The godless acquires deceptive gain; But he that soweth righteousness, a true reward. Jerome makes 18b an independent clause, for he translates it as if the word were written וּלזרע; the Syr. and Targ. also, as if אמתּו שׂכרו (his fidelity is his reward). But according to the text as it stands, עשׂה extends its regimen to both parts of the verse; to make is here equivalent to, to work out, to acquire, περιποιεῖσθαι, as ; , etc. The labour of the godless has selfishness as its motive, and what he acquires by his labour is therefore “delusive gain,” - it is no blessing, it profits him not ( ), and it brings him no advantage ( ). He, on the contrary, acquires truth, i.e. , a truly profitable and enduring reward, who sows right-doing, or better: good-doing, by which we also, as the biblical moral in צדקה, think principally of well-doing, unselfish activity and self-sacrificing love. Hos 10:12 speaks of sowing which has only צדקה as the norm; and how צדקה is understood is seen from the parallel use of חסד [piety]. The “true reward” is just the harvest by which the sowing of the good seed of noble benevolent actions is rewarded.

‏ Proverbs 11:18-21

Man consists of body and soul. In regard to both, benevolence brings its reward, and hatred its punishment.

The godless acquires deceptive gain;

But he that soweth righteousness, a true reward.

Jerome makes 18b an independent clause, for he translates it as if the word were written וּלזרע; the Syr. and Targ. also, as if אמתּו שׂכרו (his fidelity is his reward). But according to the text as it stands, עשׂה extends its regimen to both parts of the verse; to make is here equivalent to, to work out, to acquire, περιποιεῖσθαι, as Gen 31:1; Jer 17:1, etc. The labour of the godless has selfishness as its motive, and what he acquires by his labour is therefore “delusive gain,” - it is no blessing, it profits him not (Pro 10:2), and it brings him no advantage (Pro 10:16). He, on the contrary, acquires truth, i.e., a truly profitable and enduring reward, who sows right-doing, or better: good-doing, by which we also, as the biblical moral in צדקה, think principally of well-doing, unselfish activity and self-sacrificing love. Hos 10:12 speaks of sowing which has only צדקה as the norm; and how צדקה is understood is seen from the parallel use of חסד [piety]. The “true reward” is just the harvest by which the sowing of the good seed of noble benevolent actions is rewarded. Pro 11:19 19 Genuine righteousness reaches to life, And he who pursues evil does it to his death.

The lxx translate υἱὸς δίκαιος, and the Syrian follows this unwarrantable quid pro quo; the Bible uses the phrase בן־עולה and the like, but not בן־צדקה. The Graec. Venet. (translating οὕτω) deprives the distich of its supposed independence. The Targ. renders כּן with the following ו as correlates, sic ... uti; but כן in comparative proverbs stands naturally in the second, and not in the first place (vid., p. 10). Without doubt כן is here a noun. It appears to have a personal sense, according to the parallel וּמרדּף, on which account Elster explains it: he who is firm, stedfast in righteousness, and Zöckler: he who holds fast to righteousness; but כן cannot mean “holding fast,” nor does מכונן; - “fast” does not at all agree with the meaning of the word, it means upright, and in the ethical sense genuine; thus Ewald better: “he who is of genuine righteousness,” but “genuine in (of) righteousness” is a tautological connection of ideas. Therefore we must regard כן as a substantival neuter, but neither the rectum of Cocceius nor the firmum of Schultens furnishes a naturally expressed suitable thought. Or is כּן a substantive in the sense of 2 Kings 7:31? The word denotes the pedestal, the pillar, the standing-place; but what can the basis refer to here (Euchel)? Rather read “aim” (Oetinger) or “direction” (Löwenstein); but כן does not take its meaning from the Hiph. הכין. One might almost assume that the Chokma-language makes כּן, taliter, a substantive, and has begun to use it in the sense of qualitas (like the post-bibl. איכוּת), so that it is to be explained: the quality of righteousness tendeth to life. But must we lose ourselves in conjectures or in modifications of the text (Hitzig, כּנּס, as a banner), in order to gain a meaning from the word, which already has a meaning? We say דּבּר כּן, to speak right (Num 27:7), and עשׂות כּן, to do right (Ecc 8:10); in both cases כּן means standing = consisting, stedfast, right, recte. The contrast is לא־כן, 2Ki 7:9, which is also once used as a substantive, Isa 16:6 : the unrighteousness of his words. So here כן is used as a substantive connected in the genitive, but not so that it denotes the right holding, retaining of righteousness, but its right quality - שׁל־צדקה אמתּה, as Rashi explains it, i.e., as we understand it: genuineness, or genuine showing of righteousness, which is not mere appearance without reality. That כּנים denotes such people as seek to appear not otherwise than what they truly are, is in favour of this interpretation. Such genuine righteousness as follows the impulse of the heart, and out of the fulness of the heart does good, has life as its result (Pro 19:23), an inwardly happy and externally a prosperous life; on the other hand, he who wilfully pursues evil, and finds in it satisfaction, brings death upon himself: he does it to his death, or if we make (which is also possible) רדּף the subject: it tends to his death. Thus in other words: Love is life; hatred destroys life. Pro 11:20

The following proverbs are especially directed, as connected with this כן, against the contradiction of the external appearance and of the masked internal nature. 20 An abomination to Jahve are the crookedly dishonest of heart, And they who are of honest walk are his delight.

We read, Pro 2:15; Pro 8:8, עקּשׁ (the form of the transgressions); but here, where the “crookedness” is transferred to the heart, we require another word, which renders the idea of falseness, the contrary of directness, lying in it, without any mixture of the fundamental conception flexuosus or tortuosus. תּמימי דרך are not only those whose walk is externally without offence and blameless, but, in conformity with the contrast, those whose manner of conduct proceeds from a disposition that is pure, free from deception and concealment. Jerome, et voluntas ejus in iis qui qimpliciter ambulant. But the word is not bit|mymy; they the upright are themselves His רצון (Pro 11:1) delight: He regards them, and only them, with satisfaction. Pro 11:21 21 Assuredly the hand to it the wicked remaineth not unpunished, But the seed of the righteous is delivered.

The lxx render here, as Pro 16:5, where the יד ליד repeats itself, χειρὶ χεῖρας ἐμβαλὼν ἀδίκως, which is not to be understood, as Evagrius supposes, of one that can be bribed, but only of a violent person; the Syr. and Targ. have the same reference; but the subject is certainly רע, and a governing word, as נשׂא (2Sa 20:21), is wanting, to say nothing of the fact that the phrase “one hand against the other” would require the words to be יד ביד. Jerome and the Graec. Venet., without our being able, however, to see their meaning. The translation of the other Greek versions is not given. The Jewish interpreters offer nothing that is worthy, as e.g., Immanuel and Meîri explain it by “immediately,” which in the modern Hebr. would require מיּד, and besides is not here suitable. The Midrash connects with 21a the earnest warning that he who sins with the one hand and with the other does good, is nevertheless not free from punishment. Schultens has an explanation to give to the words which is worthy of examination: hand to hand, i.e., after the manner of an inheritance per posteros (Exo 20:5), resting his opinion on this, that Arab. yad (cf. יד, Isa 56:5) is used among other significations in that of authorizing an inheritance. Gesenius follows him, but only urging the idea of the sequence of time (cf. Pers. dest bedest, hand to hand = continuing after one another), and interprets יד ביד as Fleischer does: ab aetate in aetatem non (i.e., nullo unquam tempore futuro) erit impunis scelestus, sed posteri justorum salvi erunt. According to Böttcher, “hand to hand” is equivalent to from one hand to another, and this corresponds to the thought expressed in Plutarch’s de sera numinis vindicta: if not immediately, yet at last. We may refer in vindication of this to the fact that, as the Arab. lexicographers say, yad, used of the course of time, means the extension (madd) of time, and then a period of time. But for the idea expressed by nunquam, or neutiquam, or tandem aliquando, the language supplied to the poet a multitude of forms, and we do not see why he should have selected just this expression with its primary meaning alternatim not properly agreeing with the connection. Therefore we prefer with Ewald to regard יד ליד as a formula confirmation derived from the common speech of the people: hand to hand (ל as in לידי, Job 17:3), i.e., the hand for it I pledge it, guarantee it (Bertheau, Hitzig, Elster, Zöckler). But if 21a assures by the pledge of the hand, and as it were lays a wager to it, that the wicked shall not go unpunished, then the genitive in זרע צדּיקים is not that of dependence by origin, but, as Isa 65:23; Isa 1:4, the genitive of apposition, for זרע here, as דּור, Psa 24:6; Psa 112:2, denotes a oneness of like origin and of like kind, but with a preponderance of the latter. נמלט is the 3rd pret., which by the preceding fut. retains the reference to the future: the merited punishment comes on the wicked, but the generation of the righteous escapes the judgment. רּע has the ר dagheshed (Michlol 63d) according to the rule of the דחיק, according to which the consonant first sounded after the word terminating in an accented a or é is doubled, which is here, as at Pro 15:1, done with the ר.