Pro 20:7-8 | KD | STEP | He who in his innocence walketh as one upright, Blessed are his children after him! We may not take the first line as a separate clause with צדּיק, as subject (Van Dyk, Elster) or predicate (Targ.); for, thus rendered, it does not appropriately fall in as parallel to the second line, because containing nothing of promise, and the second line would then strike in at least not so unconnectedly (cf. on the contrary, ; ). We have before us a substantival clause, of which the first line is the complex subject. But Jerome, the Venet ., and Luther erroneously: the just man walking in his innocence; this placing first of the adj. is in opposition to the Hebr. syntax. We must, if the whole is to be interpreted as nom., regard צדיק as permutative: one walking in his innocence, a righteous one. But, without doubt, tsedek is the accus. of the manner; in the manner of one righteous, or in apposition: as one righteous; cf. with Mic 2:7. Thus Hitzig rightly also refers to these two passages, and Ewald also refers to ; Pro 24:15. To walk in his innocence as a righteous man, is equivalent to always to do that which is right, without laying claim to any distinction or making any boast on that account; for thereby one only follows the impulse and the direction of his heart, which shows itself and can show itself not otherwise than in unreserved devotion to God and to that which is good. The children after him are not the children after his death ( ); but, according to , cf. , those who follow his example, and thus those who come after him; for already in the lifetime of such an one, the benediction begins to have its fulfilment in his children.

‏ Proverbs 20:7-8

Pro 20:7 7 He who in his innocence walketh as one upright, Blessed are his children after him!

We may not take the first line as a separate clause with צדּיק, as subject (Van Dyk, Elster) or predicate (Targ.); for, thus rendered, it does not appropriately fall in as parallel to the second line, because containing nothing of promise, and the second line would then strike in at least not so unconnectedly (cf. on the contrary, Pro 10:9; Pro 14:25). We have before us a substantival clause, of which the first line is the complex subject. But Jerome, the Venet., and Luther erroneously: the just man walking in his innocence; this placing first of the adj. is in opposition to the Hebr. syntax. We must, if the whole is to be interpreted as nom., regard צדיק as permutative: one walking in his innocence, a righteous one. But, without doubt, tsedek is the accus. of the manner; in the manner of one righteous, or in apposition: as one righteous; cf. Job 31:26 with Mic 2:7. Thus Hitzig rightly also refers to these two passages, and Ewald also refers to Pro 22:11; Pro 24:15. To walk in his innocence as a righteous man, is equivalent to always to do that which is right, without laying claim to any distinction or making any boast on that account; for thereby one only follows the impulse and the direction of his heart, which shows itself and can show itself not otherwise than in unreserved devotion to God and to that which is good. The children after him are not the children after his death (Gen 24:67); but, according to Deu 4:40, cf. Job 21:21, those who follow his example, and thus those who come after him; for already in the lifetime of such an one, the benediction begins to have its fulfilment in his children. Pro 20:8

The following group begins with a royal proverb, which expresses what a king does with his eyes. Two proverbs, of the seeing eye and the necessary opening of the eyes, close it. 8 A king sitting on the seat of justice, Scattereth asunder all evil with his eyes.

Excellently the Venet. ἐπὶ θρόνου δίκης, for כּסּא־דין is the name of the seat of rectitude (the tribunal), as the “throne of grace,” Heb. 4:17, is the name of the capporeth as the seat of mercy; the seat of the judge is merely called כסא; on the other hand, כסא־דין is the contrast of כּסּא הוּות fo, Psa 94:20 : the seat from which the decision that is in conformity with what is right (cf. e.g., Jer 5:28) goes forth, and where it is sought. As little here as at Pro 20:26 is there need for a characterizing adj. to melek; but the lxx hits the meaning for it, understands such to דין: ὅταν βασιλεὺς δίκαιος καθίσῃ ἐπὶ θρόνου. By the “eyes” are we then to understand those of the mind: he sifts, dignoscit, with the eyes of the mind all that is evil, i.e., distinguishes it subjectively from that which is not evil? Thus Hitzig by a comparison of Psa 11:4; Psa 139:3 (where Jerome has eventilasti, the Vulg. investigasti). Scarcely correctly, for it lies nearer to think on the eyes in the king’s head (vid., Pro 16:15); in that case: to winnow (to sift) means to separate the good and the bad, but first mediately: to exclude the bad; finally, Pro 20:26 leads to the conclusion that מזרה is to be understood, not of a subjective, but of an actual scattering, or separating, or driving away. Thus the penetrating, fear-inspiring eyes of the king are meant, as Immanuel explains: בראיית עיניו מבריחם מפניו ומפזר אותם בכל פיאה. But in this explanation the personal rendering of כּל־רע is incorrect; for mezareh, meant of the driving asunder of persons, requires as its object a plur. (cf. 26a). Col-ra is understood as neut. like Pro 5:14. Before the look of a king to whom it belongs to execute righteousness and justice (Isa 16:5), nothing evil stands; criminal acts and devices seen through, and so also judged by these eyes, are broken up and scattered to all the winds, along with the danger that thereby threatened the community. It is the command: “put away the evil” (Deu 13:6 [5]), which the king carries into effect by the powerful influence of his look. With col-ra there is connected the thought that in the presence of the heavenly King no one is wholly free from sin.