Proverbs 25:28

25:28 Like a city that is broken down and without a wall,

so is a person who cannot control his temper. ¹ 

Proverbs 6:7

6:7 It has no commander,

overseer, or ²  ruler,

Proverbs 30:27

30:27 locusts have no king,

but they all go forward by ranks; ³ 

Proverbs 7:19

7:19 For my husband ⁴  is not at home; ⁵ 

he has gone on a journey of some distance.

Proverbs 8:8

8:8 All the words of my mouth are righteous; ⁶ 

there is nothing in them twisted ⁷  or crooked.

Proverbs 21:30

21:30 There is no wisdom and there is no understanding,

and there is no counsel against ⁸  the Lord. ⁹ 

Proverbs 22:27

22:27 If you do not have enough to pay,

your bed ¹⁰  will be taken ¹¹  right out from under you! ¹² 

Proverbs 25:3

25:3 As the heaven is high ¹³  and the earth is deep

so the hearts of kings are unsearchable. ¹⁴ 

Proverbs 25:14

25:14 Like cloudy skies and wind that produce no rain, ¹⁵ 

so is the one who boasts ¹⁶  of a gift not given. ¹⁷ 

Proverbs 28:27

28:27 The one who gives to the poor will not lack, ¹⁸ 

but whoever shuts his eyes to them ¹⁹  will receive ²⁰  many curses. ²¹ 

Proverbs 17:16

17:16 Of what ²²  use is money in the hand of a fool, ²³ 

since he has no intention ²⁴  of acquiring wisdom? ²⁵ 

Proverbs 28:24

28:24 The one who robs ²⁶  his father and mother and says, “There is no transgression,”

is a companion ²⁷  to the one ²⁸  who destroys.

[25:28]  ¹ tn Heb “whose spirit lacks restraint” (ASV similar). A person whose spirit (רוּחַ, ruakh) “lacks restraint” is one who is given to outbursts of passion, who lacks self-control (cf. NIV, NRSV, CEV, NLT). This person has no natural defenses but reveals his true nature all the time. The proverb is stating that without self-control a person is vulnerable, like a city without defenses.

[6:7]  ² tn The conjunction vav (ו) here has the classification of alternative, “or” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 71, §433).

[30:27]  ³ sn The Hebrew term means “divided”; they go forward in orderly divisions, or ranks (C. H. Toy, Proverbs [ICC], 535). Joel 1:4 describes their order and uses it as a picture of a coming invasion (e.g., Joel 2:7, 8). Therefore the wisdom of the locust is in their order and cooperation.

[7:19]  ⁴ tn Heb “the man.” The LXX interpreted it as “my husband,” taking the article to be used as a possessive. Many English versions do the same.

[7:19]  ⁵ tn Heb “in his house.”

[8:8]  ⁵ tn The phrase could be rendered with an understood ellipsis: “all the words of my mouth [are said] in righteousness”; or the preposition could be interpreted as a beth essentiae: “all the words of my mouth are righteousness.”

[8:8]  ⁶ sn The verb פָּתַל (patal) means “to twist.” In the Niphal it means “to wrestle” (to twist oneself). It was used in Gen 30:8 for the naming of Naphtali, with the motivation for the name from this verb: “with great struggling.” Here it describes speech that is twisted. It is a synonym for the next word, which means “twisted; crooked; perverse.”

[21:30]  ⁶ tn The form לְנֶגֶד (lÿneged) means “against; over against; in opposition to.” The line indicates they cannot in reality be in opposition, for human wisdom is nothing in comparison to the wisdom of God (J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs, 232).

[21:30]  ⁷ sn The verse uses a single sentence to state that all wisdom, understanding, and advice must be in conformity to the will of God to be successful. It states it negatively – these things cannot be in defiance of God (e.g., Job 5:12-13; Isa 40:13-14).

[22:27]  ⁷ tn The “bed” may be a metonymy of adjunct, meaning the garment that covers the bed (e.g., Exod 22:26). At any rate, it represents the individual’s last possession (like the English expression “the shirt off his back”).

[22:27]  ⁸ tn Heb “If you cannot pay, why should he take the bed from under you?” This rhetorical question is used to affirm the statement. The rhetorical interrogative לָמָּה (lamah, “why?”) appears in MT but not in the ancient versions; it may be in the Hebrew text by dittography.

[22:27]  ⁹ sn The third saying deals with rash vows: If people foolishly pledge what they have, they could lose everything (e.g., 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18; 20:16; there is no Egyptian parallel).

[25:3]  ⁸ tn Heb “heavens for height and earth for depth.” The proverb is clearly intending the first line to be an illustration of the second – it is almost emblematic parallelism.

[25:3]  ⁹ sn The proverb is affirming a simple fact: The king’s plans and decisions are beyond the comprehension of the common people. While the king would make many things clear to the people, there are other things that are “above their heads” or “too deep for them.” They are unsearchable because of his superior wisdom, his caprice, or his need for secrecy. Inscrutability is sometimes necessary to keep a firm grip on power.

[25:14]  ⁹ sn The emblem now is one of clouds and winds that would be expected to produce rain; they gain attention and raise people’s expectations but prove to be disappointing when no rain is forthcoming, and hence could be thought of as deceitful.

[25:14]  ¹⁰ tn The form מִתְהַלֵּל (mithallel) is the Hitpael participle of the well-known word for “praise”; but in this stem it means “to praise oneself” or “to boast.” The description of “windbag” seems appropriate in this context.

[25:14]  ¹¹ tn Heb “a gift of falsehood.” This would mean that the individual brags about giving a gift, when there is no gift.

[28:27]  ¹⁰ sn The generous individual will be rewarded. He will not lack nor miss what he has given away to the poor.

[28:27]  ¹¹ tn Heb “hides his eyes”; “to them” is supplied in the translation to indicate the link with the poor in the preceding line. Hiding or closing the eyes is a metonymy of cause or of adjunct, indicating a decision not to look on and thereby help the poor. It could also be taken as an implied comparison, i.e., not helping the poor is like closing the eyes to them.

[28:27]  ¹² tn The term “receives” is not in the Hebrew text but is implied, and is supplied in the translation.

[28:27]  ¹³ sn The text does not specify the nature or the source of the curses. It is natural to think that they would be given by the poor who are being mistreated and ignored. Far from being praised for their contributions to society, selfish, stingy people will be reviled for their heartless indifference.

[17:16]  ¹¹ tn Heb “why this?” The term זֶּה (zeh) is an enclitic use of the demonstrative pronoun for emphasis: “why ever” would this happen?

[17:16]  ¹² sn The sense seems to be “What good is money” since what the fool needs cannot be bought? The verse is a rhetorical question stating that money would be wasted on a fool.

[17:16]  ¹³ tn Heb “there is no heart”; NASB “he has no (+ common TEV) sense”; NLT “has no heart for wisdom.”

[17:16]  ¹⁴ sn W. McKane envisions a situation where the fool comes to a sage with a fee in hand, supposing that he can acquire a career as a sage, and this gives rise to the biting comment here: Why does the fool have money in his hands? To buy wisdom when he has no brains? (Proverbs [OTL], 505).

[28:24]  ¹² 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]  ¹³ 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]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “man who destroys” (so NASB); TEV “no better than a common thief.”