Proverbs 26:1-9

INTRODUCTION

Many of the proverbs in chapter 26 share the basic form of a simile. Sometimes, as in verse 1, the simile is explicit in the Hebrew text (“like snow in summer” is a literal translation); at other times, the simile is not explicit in Hebrew but is implied in the structure of the verse (v. 7). The specific verses we are examining are framed by references to things that are “unfitting.” Honor is explicitly inappropriate to the fool (v. 1), and though the word “fitting” is not used in verse 9, the implication that a proverb or parable in the mouth of a fool is badly placed. “Fittingness” is an aesthetic criterion, and these verses indicate Solomon’s pervasive assumption that the life of wisdom is a life lived skillfully and artfully. Folly is not only wrong and immoral, but it lacks craftsmanship; it is like dissonant music, like a disproportionate painting or a badly designed building. Folly is an eyesore.

PROVERBS 26:1

Snow is not mentioned a lot in the Bible, and when it is, the color is often emphasized. Lepers are “snow white” (Exodus 4:6; Numbers 12:10) and David wants his sins to be washed away so that he becomes whiter than snow – cleansed like the leper whose leprosy covers his whole body (Psalm 51:1; cf. Isaiah 1:18). Here, the emphasis is not on color but on the timing of snowfall. Snow during harvest is appropriate and refreshing (25:13) but snow during summer doesn’t fit. Neither does rain in harvest. Both are annoyances; neither is where it should be.

Solomon’s word “fitting” is an important theme in the wisdom literature. It never appears in the Torah, but becomes a description of the saints and of the bride in the period of the monarchy. Praise is “fitting” or “beautiful” (Psalm 33:1; 147:1), and the bride celebrated in Solomon’s song is also described as comely (Song 1:5; 2:14; 4:3; 6:4). In Proverbs the word is always used negatively to describe the things that are not fitting for a fool (cf. 17:7; 19:10). While the word means “beauty,” the constructions in Proverbs indicate that beauty is not a quality so much of individual things or persons, but a quality of things in relation to one another. Something is beautiful, fitting, lovely “to” or “for” something else.

This is especially clear in 26:1. Honor or glory ( kabod ) is beautiful in itself. Glory is associated with beauty in the Hebrew Bible. Glory can mean wealth (Genesis 31:1) or describe the high regard and respect that comes from others (Genesis 45:13). Applied to Yahweh, it means both the visible radiance of His appearance, and the reputation that He gains by acting on behalf of Israel (cf. Exodus 16:7, 10; 24:16-17; Psalm 66:2). The basic meaning is “heavy,” and the heaviness can come from the appearance of something or from the weight of its reputation. The Lord’s glorious appearance is beautiful, enthralling, awesome; He is beautiful in His glory.

Yet, Solomon says, even honor, glory, beauty that is inappropriately bestowed is displeasing. The honor in view in 26:1 seems to be the honor of reputation, the honor of high position, or the honor of respect. Fools don’t deserve to be honored, and when they are, the effect is repugnant rather than attractive. As throughout Proverbs, wisdom means not only doing the right thing, but doing it at the right time to the right people in the right way.

PROVERBS 26:2

Verse 2 also describes something that is “unfitting.” It is another explicit simile, comparing a bird that doesn’t find a place to land to curses that don’t have cause. Solomon is not saying curses are in themselves evil or wrong. Yahweh threatens to curse Israel for her unfaithfulness, and does curse them with defeat and exile. Jesus utters curses to His enemies (Luke 6), and Paul pronounces the curse of anathema on the teachers who are seducing the Galatians away from the gospel.

The problem with the curses that Solomon mentions here is that they are “causeless.” Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the word is used in economic contexts to mean “for nothing”; a slave who has served for six years goes free in the seventh “for nothing” (Proverbs 21:2). Other times, it describes actions that are done without sufficient motivation; Abigail warns David that he would shed blood without cause if he carries out his plan to destroy Nabal (1 Samuel 25:31). In Proverbs 26:1, the curse is uttered, but the person who is cursed has done nothing to deserve it. Maybe he’s cut in front of you on the highway, or made a sales call during dinner, or insulted you at a dinner party. You’re tempted to raise your finger and pronounce a curse. That is a causeless curse. Curses can be real and powerful; they are not simply prayers and wishes but performative actions, like Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree. Because they are powerful, they should be pronounced only for great cause.

What happens to the unfitting curse? They are like wandering birds and flitting swallows. (The NASB translation makes the first word more specific than it is; the first noun is a general word for “birds” or “small bird,” and the second is, according to tradition Jewish commentators, specifically the swallow. The first noun is tzippor , the root for the name of Moses’ wife.) A bird who wanders and flies around without finding rest will eventually return to the place he started, like the wandering dove sent out from the ark. So a curse without cause will come back on the speaker’s head. Don’t speak hastily; your words may go flying only to boomerang back to you.

PROVERBS 26:3

Verse 3 describes something that is fitting. The Hebrew is verse terse: “Whip for the horse, bridle for the ass, rod for the back of fools.” It’s as if these tools were made specifically for these creatures. If you happen along a whip, you should go looking for a horse; if you’ve got a rod, it’s in your hand to beat a fool.

Curiously, though “bridles” are used to direct animals, the Old Testament never uses the word literally. It always uses it to describe the direction and control of human beings who act like asses. When Sennacherib’s officials insult Israel and Yahweh, Yahweh says that He will hook the Assyrians’ nose and put a bridle in their mouth and force them back home (1 Kings 19:28; Isaiah 37:29). It is an ironic threat, because these are precisely the kinds of things Assyrians would do to their captives. The only other place the word “bridle” appears is Psalm 32:9, which warns us not to be like horse or donkeys that have to be controlled by bridles and whips. Some people are like beasts, and they need to be taken in hand and treated firmly, lest they do damage to themselves and others.

The word “rod” is used first to describe the sceptre of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10), and when it is used to describe a rod used for discipline it still carries this royal connotation. Parents rule their childr
en by deploying the “sceptre” of the rod, masters rule slaves in the same way, and Solomon tells us that fools need to be controlled in the same manner. Moses effectly rules Egypt with his rod, taking over the scepter from the putative ruler, Pharaoh, and Aaron’s budding rod is a sign of his priestly authority in Israel. The same word is the main word for “tribe” in the Old Testament (Genesis 49:16, 28), but even when used in this sense, the other meaning of the word is hovering in the background. Dan is a “tribe” of Israel because he is one of Israel’s “scepters.” The twelve tribes are twelve kings, twelve rods in the hand of Yahweh.

We sometimes think that external discipline with the rod doesn’t really help. What’s needed is a change of heart that starts from the inside. It’s true that fools need a change of heart, but Solomon tells us that the rod is an effective means for making that change (cf. 22:15). We really can make a horse go where we want with a whip, and a donkey turns when we pull on the reins. We can direct a fool by the rod/scepter we take to his back, and through the rod on his back we might actually reach the heart.

PROVERBS 26:4-5

These verses famously contradict one another. Of course, they don’t really. Even if we didn’t believe the Bible was inspired, we’d still want to give Solomon a bit of credit. If he places two proverbs next to one another that appear to say exactly the opposite, we should assume he noticed that and expected us to notice too. Proverbs is full of riddles, knots that need to be untied. This is one of them.

Verse 4 warns against responding to a fool in kind. By answering the fool according to his folly, we become equivalent to the fool. “Answer” here includes verbal answers, but is broader. It refers to any kind of response, whether on word or action. A fool insults us, and we insult him back; he mocks us, we mock him; he threatens us, we threaten him. that is “answering the fool according to his folly.” That example makes it clear how we become like the fool. Importantly, this refusal to respond eye-for-eye to the folly of the fool gives us precisely the kind of ethical stance that the New Testament gives us. The New Testament roots its exhortations in the specific example of Jesus, but Jesus is the wisdom of God who follows the wisdom of Proverbs: When insulted, he does not respond; when abused, he does not rail (cf. Romans 12; 1 Peter 2).

Verse 5, though, undermines this exhortation. The NASB softens the contrast by adding some explanatory words: “Answer a fool as his folly deserves.” The Hebrew is more sharply contradictory; it uses precisely the same phrase as verse 4, the sole difference being the deletion of “not”: “Answer the fool according to his folly.” This doesn’t mean that we act foolishly toward the fool, tit for tat. It might mean, in an apologetic situation, that we show the fool just how foolish he is. But the context for the Proverb is action and life rather than apologetic debate. One way to answer a fool according to his folly is by following the exhortation of verse 3 – by putting a rod/scepter to his back.

The goal of addressing the fool according to his folly is to rebuke his own estimation of himself. Fools have a high opinion of themselves; they judge themselves wise. They need to be shown that their behavior is not wise, and one of the ways to do that is to ensure that their folly gets the response it deserves – rebuke and discipline. Yahweh does this constantly to Israel, giving Israel to her folly as a way to liberate her from folly.

PROVERBS 26:6

The translation of this verse is difficult. The NASB translates the first line as if there were two different comparisons being made: One who sends words by a fool is like one who “cuts off his feet” and and one who “drinks violence.” It is cleaner to translate the first line as a single phrase: “One who cuts off his own feet drinks violence/damage, so the one who sends words by the hand of a fool.” Cutting off your feet has obvious effects on your mobility and agility, and is damaging to life. If you have no feet you can’t move, can’t get things done. So the one who sends a message by a fool might as well hamstring himself.

“Feet” is often a euphemism for sexual organs, and it’s possible that this is the meaning in this verse. The image is not of a man who removes his feet, but a man who castrates himself.

“Drinking violence” is a striking image, used also in Proverbs 4:17, where wickedness and violence are like an infernal sacrament for evil men. They get pleasure out of violence, and find that violence gets them charged up, in the same way that wine is pleasant to a normal person. Drinking the wine of violence may also suggest that they will drink down the wrath of Yahweh. There is an eye-for-eye discipline here. Those who drink violence every Saturday night for kicks will be forced to drain the dregs of Yahweh’s cup of wrath.

26:6, though, seems extreme. How is sending words through a fool similar to drinking violence? It may be that the sender will have to suffer violence because of his messenger, but the first line of the proverb suggests that the damage is self-inflicted. If I send a message and the messenger is an idiot, how does that make me evil? The answer seems to be that the sender is responsible for the character of his messenger, his representative. Remember that Proverbs is largely addressed to a prince who will grow up to be king. The messenger in view is a royal messenger; if he is a fool, who speaks too much or returns harsh answers or insults or rages, he is going to cause the king harm. And the king should know better. He needs to know what kind of person represents him. If he doesn’t, and if he sends out someone who does more harm than good, he might as well cut off his “feet.”

PROVERBS 26:7-9

These proverbs all share a similar structure and theme. In the NASB, they are all constructed as similes. Only verse 8 is an explicit simile in the Hebrew. But they all depend on comparisons. The common theme, which we met at the beginning of the chapter, is unfittingness.

Proverbs in the mouths of fools are inappropriate; they “fail” like the legs of a lame man. The proverb may be perfectly sound in itself, but it loses its soundness by coming out of the mouth of a fool. It can’t get up and walk; it can’t do what proverbs are designed to do, which is to give wisdom, any more than a lame man’s legs can help him walk. Wisdom depends not only on the abstracted content of what’s said and taught; we have seen that it also depends on timing. But here we see that it also depends on the source. Wisdom will have its effect only if it is spoken by the right person at the right time in the right manner.

Verse 8 returns to the point of verse 1, about the inappropriateness of honor to a fool. Verse 1 says only that it is unfitting. Verse 8 says that it is dangerous. Put a fool in a high position, give him honor and reputat
ion, make him a mouthpiece, and you’ll be ducking slingstones before long. We don’t have to look far to see this proverb in action. Just watch the Oscars, a show that majors in giving a platform of honor to fools.

Thorns are the result of the curse (Genesis 3), and throughout the Bible thorns represent evil men, men who do damage just by being. A fool who utters a proverb is taking a thorn in hand; he is hurting himself. He speaks about wisdom and condemns folly, but in condemning folly he is condemning himself. But he doesn’t even notice that it’s happening. A drunkard will get into a bar fight, and then wonder the next morning why there’s a gash in his head; a fool will take up a proverb, and then wonder why his hand is bleeding.