It seems best to follow the Vulgate in taking the last clause as a separate maxim, He who pursues words, nought are they; i. e., the fair speeches and promises of help come to nothing. A various reading in the Hebrew gives, "he pursues after words, and these he shall have" - i. e., these, and nothing else.

This and other like maxims do not in reality cast scorn and shame on a state which Christ has pronounced "blessed." Side by side with them is Proverbs 19:1, setting forth the honor of an upright poverty. But as there is an honorable poverty, so there is one which is altogether inglorious, caused by sloth and folly, leading to shame and ignominy, and it is well that the man who wishes to live rightly should avoid this. The teaching of Christ is, of course, higher than that of the Book of Proverbs, being based upon a fuller revelation of the divine will, pointing to a higher end and a nobler standard of duty, and transcending the common motives and common facts of life.

Do hate him - They shun him as they do the person they hate. They neither hate him positively, nor love him: they disregard him; they will have nothing to do with him. שנא sana signifies not only to hate, but to show a less degree of love to one than another. So Jacob loved Rachel, but hated Leah - showed her less affection than he did to Rachel.

All the brethren of the poor do hate him,.... They despise him on account of his poverty; they neglect him, and do not take care of him; they reckon him a reproach unto them, and do not choose to own him; all which may be interpreted an hatred of him;

how much more do his friends go far from him? or "his friend", every one of his friends; or "his neighbour" (l): for if his brethren, who are his own flesh and blood, show so much disrespect unto him; much more will those who are only his neighbours, or were in friendship with him while in prosperity; these wilt stand at a distance from him, and not come near him, now he is poor and in distress; see Job 19:13;

he pursueth them with words; yet they are wanting to him; or, "they are not" (m); he presses them with earnest entreaties to relieve him; he urges their own words and promises, and fetches arguments from them, and uses them as far as they will go; but all signifies nothing; his own words and petitions are to no purpose; and their words and promises are all smoke and vapour, vain and empty. Some understand this, as Gersom, not of the poor man that follows vain words (n) and empty promises, and buoys himself up with them that such an one and such an one has promised to be his friend, of which nothing comes; but of the friend that separates from the poor man, and pursues him with words of accusation, charging it on him as hit own fault that he is poor; which accusations are not true. This is one of the fifteen places observed by the Masoretes, in which it is written "not", and read "to him": both may be retained, and read, "they are not to him" (o); not profitable to him; either his own words, his petitions; or the words of others, their promises.

(l) "amicus ejus", Vatablus; "ominis amicus", Cocceius; i.e. "quisque amicorum ejus", Michaelis. (m) "non sunt ii", Junius & Tremillius; "et non sunt, Mercerus. (n) "Nihil illa", Cocceius, Schultens. (o) Vid. Amamae Antibarb. Bibl. l. 3. p. 742.

7ab. We thus first confine our attention to these two lines -

All the brethren of the poor hate him;

How much more do his friends withdraw themselves from him?

Regarding אף כּי, quanto magis, vid., at Proverbs 11:31; Proverbs 15:11; Proverbs 17:7. In a similar connection Proverbs 14:20 spake of hatred, i.e., the cooling of love, and the manifesting of this coldness. The brethren who thus show themselves here, unlike the friend who has become a brother, according to Proverbs 17:17, are brothers-german, including kindred by blood relation. כּל has Mercha, and is thus without the Makkeph, as at Psalm 35:10 (vid., the Masora in Baer's Liber Psalmorum, 1861, p. 133). Kimchi (Michlol 205a), Norzi, and others think that cāl (with קמץ רחב) is to be read as at Isaiah 40:12, where כּלו is a verb. But that is incorrect. The case is the same as with את, Proverbs 3:12; Psalm 47:5; Psalm 60:2. As here ě with Mercha remains, so ǒ with Mercha in that twice occurring כּלו; that which is exceptional is this, that the accentuated כל is written thus twice, not as the usual כּל, but as כּל with the Makkeph. The ground of the exception lies, as with other peculiarities, in the special character of metrical accentuation; the Mercha represents the place of the Makkeph, and ā thus remains in the unchanged force of a Kametz-Chatuph. The plur. רחקוּ does not stamp מרעהוּ as the defectively written plur.; the suffix ēhu is always sing., and the sing. is thus, like הרע, 6b, meant collectively, or better: generally (in the sense of kind), which is the linguistic usage of these two words, 1 Samuel 30:26; Job 42:10. But it is worthy of notice that the Masoretic form here is not מרעהוּ, but mמרעהוּ, with Sheva. The Masora adds to it the remark לית, and accordingly the word is thus written with Sheva by Kimchi (Michlol 202a and Lex. under the word רעה), in Codd., and older editions. The Venet., translating by ἀπὸ τοῦ φίλου αὐτοῦ, has not noticed that. But how? Does the punctuation מרעהו mean that the word is here to be derived from מרע, maleficus? Thus understood, it does not harmonize with the line of thought. From this it is much more seen that the punctuation of the inflected מרע, amicus, fluctuates. This word מרע is a formation so difficult of comprehension, that one might almost, with Olshausen, 210; Bttcher, 794; and Lagarde, regard the מ as the partitive מן, like the French des amis (cf. Eurip. Med. 560: πένητα φεύγει πᾶς τις ἐκποδὼν φίλος), or: something of friend, a piece of friend, while Ewald and others regard it as possible that מרע is abbreviated from מרעה. The punctuation, since it treats the Tsere in מרעהו, 4b

(Note: In vol. i. p. 266, we have acknowledged מרעהו, from מרע, friend, only for Proverbs 19:7, but at Proverbs 19:4 we have also found amicus ejus more probable than ab amico suo ( equals מן רעהו).) and elsewhere, as unchangeable, and here in מרעהו as changeable, affords proof that in it also the manner of the formation of the word was incomprehensible.

Seeking after words which are vain.

7c. If now this line belongs to this proverb, then מרדּף must be used of the poor, and לא־המּה, or לו־המּה (vid., regarding the 15 Kers, לּו for לא, at Psalm 100:3), must be the attributively nearer designation of the אמרים. The meaning of the Kerı̂ would be: he (the poor man) hunts after mere words, which - but no actions corresponding to them - are for a portion to him. This is doubtful, for the principal matter, that which is not a portion to him, remains unexpressed, and the לו־המּה eht [to him they belong] affords only the service of guarding one against understanding by the אמרים the proper words of the poor. This service is not in the same way afforded by לא המּה they are not; but this expression characterizes the words as vain, so that it is to be interpreted according to such parallels as Hosea 12:2 : words which are not, i.e., which have nothing in reality corresponding to them, verba nihili, i.e., the empty assurances and promises of his brethren and friends (Fl.). The old translators all

(Note: Lagarde erroneously calls Theodotion's ῥήσεις οὐκ αὐτῷ a translation of the Kerı̂; οὐκ is, however, לא, and instead of αὐτῷ the expression αὐτῶν, which is the translation of המה, is also found.)

read לא, and the Syr. and Targ. translate not badly: מלּוי לא שׁריר; Symmachus, ῥήσεσιν ἀνυπάρκτοις. The expression is not to be rejected: לא היה sometimes means to come to לא, i.e., to nothing, Job 6:21; Ezekiel 21:32, cf. Isaiah 15:6; and לא הוּא, he is not equals has no reality, Jeremiah 5:12, אמרים לא־המה, may thus mean words which are nothing (vain). But how can it be said of the poor whom everything forsakes, that one dismisses him with words behind which there is nothing, and now also that he pursues such words? The former supposes always a sympathy, though it be a feigned one, which is excluded by שׂנאהוּ [they hate him] and רחקוּ [withdraw themselves]; and the latter, spoken of the poor, would be unnatural, for his purposed endeavour goes not out after empty talk, but after real assistance. So 7c: pursuing after words which (are) nothing, although in itself not falling under critical suspicion, yet only of necessity is connected with this proverb regarding the poor. The lxx, however, has not merely one, but even four lines, and thus two proverbs following 7b. The former of these distichs is: Ἔννοια ἀγαθὴ τοῖς εἰδόσιν αὐτὴν ἐγγιεῖ, ἀνὴρ δὲ φρόνιμος εὑρήσει αὐτήν; it is translated from the Hebr. (ἔννοια ἀγαθή, Proverbs 5:2 equals מזמּות), but it has a meaning complete in itself, and thus has nothing to do with the fragment 7c. The second distich is: Ὁ πολλὰ κακοποιῶν τελεσιουργεῖ κακίαν, ὃ δὲ ἐρεθίζει λόγους οὐ σωθήσεται. This ὃς δὲ ἐρεθίζει λόγους is, without doubt, a translation of מרדף אמרים (7c); λόγους is probably a corruption of λόγοις (thus the Complut.), not, he who pursueth words, but he who incites by words, as Homer (Il. iv. 5f.) uses the expression ἐρεθιζέμεν ἐπέεσσι. The concluding words, οὐ σωθήσεται, are a repetition of the Heb. לא ימלט (cf. lxx 19:5 with 28:26), perhaps only a conjectural emendation of the unintelligible לא המה. Thus we have before us in that ὁ πολλὰ κακοποιῶν, κ.τ.λ., the line lost from the Heb. text; but it is difficult to restore it to the Heb. We have attempted it, vol. i, p. 15. Supposing that the lxx had before them לא המה, then the proverb is -

"He that hath many friends is rewarded with evil,

Hunting after words which are nothing;"

i.e., since this his courting the friendship of as many as possible is a hunting after words which have nothing after them and come to nothing.

All the brethren of the poor do hate him: how much more do his friends go far from him? he pursueth them {a} with words, yet they are lacking to him.

(a) To have comfort from them.

19:7 Brethren - His nearest relations. Hate - Despise and shun him. Pursueth - Earnestly imploring their pity.

19:3. Men run into troubles by their own folly, and then fret at the appointments of God. 4. Here we may see how strong is men's love of money. 5. Those that tell lies in discourse, are in a fair way to be guilty of bearing false-witness. 6. We are without excuse 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 fruits of his bounty. 7. Christ was left by all his disciples; but the Father was with him. It encourages our faith that he had so large an experience of the sorrows of poverty. 8. Those only love their souls aright that get true wisdom. 9. Lying is a damning, destroying sin. 10. A man that has not wisdom and grace, has no right or title to true joy. It is very unseemly for one who is a servant to sin, to oppress God's free-men.