Chapter XIII · (continued 2)

Sin is Satan’s snare to catch men to perdition. He that is in the power of it, and entangled therewith, is in great peril of perishing, being caught in a trap and held fast there, till either grace deliver him or death devour him. There is no safe treading but in the ways of God. Every step without it, though the length and breadth of the whole world, hath somewhat set in it to entangle us.—Dod.

Even in defect of liberal prescript, the spirit of the law will supply practical rules for keeping the heart and life. Dr. Payson says, “By the help of three rules I soon settle all my doubts—viz., to do nothing of which the lawfulness is questionable; to do nothing which indisposes for prayer, or interrupts communion with God; to go into no company, business, or situation in which the presence and blessing of God cannot conscientiously be asked and expected.”—Bridges.

The “law of the wise” can be nothing but the Book of God. . . . It is essentially life-giving. Its design is not to publish and confirm the sentence of death, but to show how death may be escaped. The declaration of the sentence of death is only intended to show the necessity, and to impress the importance and value of the tidings of life. Life is the end of Divine revelation.—Wardlaw.

main homiletics of verse 15.

A Bad Way and a Good Understanding.

I. Favour is here spoken of as a thing to be desired. It is desirable to have the favour of any man if thereby we can do him any good. It was desirable that Joseph should have Pharaoh’s favour, as he was thereby enabled to gain his ear and help him in his perplexity. The favour which Daniel obtained from Nebuchadnezzar enabled him to be a great blessing to that monarch. A man who is regarded by his fellow creatures with favour possesses a powerful instrument which he may use to do them good. On this account the favour of men is to be desired. It is also desirable to have the favour of good men as thereby we may get good. Good men are the only living representatives of God in the world, and next to the blessedness of having the favour of the parent is the blessedness of having that of His children. Therefore the favour of men is to be desired both for their sakes and for our own.

II. The instrument of obtaining favour. “Good understanding” or “good intelligence.” Man’s highest and truest intelligence springs from moral relation and sympathy with God. All intellectual intelligence is derived from Him, and this intelligence alone will often gain for men a large share of human favour. There are many men of great mental intelligence, who do not acknowledge the existence of God, who have won high places in the esteem of men. But these words refer to those who have been enlightened by the teaching of the Divine spirit, and are in sympathy with God and with His moral laws. Such men are not less intelligent concerning other matters, but more so. Other things being equal, a godly man’s purely intellectual powers are quickened by his godliness. If an ungodly man becomes a true servant of God, all the powers of his mind are thereby strengthened. Observation confirms this, and it is impossible that it should be otherwise. If a man cannot come into communion with a wiser man, without gaining in intelligence, how can he come into communion with the Fountain of all wisdom without becoming a more intelligent man in every sense of the word? What a capable man of business Joseph was. When quite a youth, and without any previous training, he became controller of the household of an Egyptian nobleman; and when only thirty was not only the first lord of Egypt, but showed himself fully equal to all the exigencies of his position. Whence did his “good understanding” proceed? Was it not from his moral relationship with the God of his fathers? “Can we find such an one as this is?” said the heathen king,—“a man in whom the Spirit of God is” (Gen. xli. 38). The possession of this “good understanding” in temporal and secular matters gives a man favour in the eyes of other men. The possession of spiritual intelligence gives him favour in the eyes of all the good. There is a relationship among all true members of the family of God, which is stronger and deeper than any merely human relationship. And this spiritual intelligence gives a man a moral power among all his fellow-men. They cannot withhold the testimony of their consciences, unless they are altogether hardened they must secretly, if not openly, give him their esteem and confidence. “Natural conscience,” says Trapp, “cannot but do homage to the image of God stamped upon the nature and works of the godly.”

III. The way of those who are destitute of this spiritual intelligence. All such men are “transgressors.” Their spiritual nature is dormant—they are without spiritual discernment. In scriptural phrase they are “blind” (Rev. iii. 17) and “dead” (Ephes. ii. 1). Their way is hard, however we use the word. (See Critical Notes.) 1. It is hard in the sense of being a well-trodden way. It has become hard by being much frequented—by being perpetually used. It has several elements of attraction. 2. Antiquity is on its side. It is an old way—it has been in use for ages. “No man,” says our Lord, “having drunk old wine, straight way desireth new” (Luke v. 39). Men are naturally conservative—naturally inclined to go as their fathers went. True it is that there is an older way—the way of the good (see Homiletics on chap. iv. 14–19, page 58), but still the way of the transgressor is very ancient. 3. Men’s natural inclination leads into that way. Men are led by their inclination, unless there is a stronger principle within them. We are born with a tendency to evil rather than to good—to walk after the devices of our own heart rather than according to the will of God. In most men “inclination is as strong as will,” and leads them to tread the “way of the transgressor.” 4. It is attractive because of the numbers who tread it. “Many there be which go in thereat” (Matt. vii. 13). Many men make that fact a city of refuge wherein to shelter themselves from the admonitions of conscience. “I only do as others do” is regarded by many men as an impregnable citadel wherein they can securely await the righteous judgments of God (See Homiletics on ch. i. 10–19, page 8, 2nd head). 5. It is hard and therefore desolate, unfruitful. The common highway that is trodden down by many feet is not the place in which to look for a golden harvest. The stony rock is not a soil whence flowers spring. Men do not expect to gather choice fruit on the desolate moorland. Neither can the way of the transgressor yield the flowers or the pleasant fruits of life. Thorns and nettles are there, but no golden harvest. The favour neither of God nor man is his portion. He can only reap as he has sown (See Homiletics on chap. xi. 18–20, page 223). 6. It is a hard way in the sense that it is a miserable way. Every act carries with it present judgment. Every action has its reaction of pleasure or of pain. Every step, therefore, in the way of transgression has its accompanying reproach of conscience. Then the way of sin is a way of self-deception. What is more painful than to be the subject of constant deception? We have just dwelt upon the heart-sickness of hope deferred (verse 12); the sinner is a constant victim of this malady. Nothing can be a more bitter experience than to stake our all upon a promise, and when the time comes for its fulfilment, to find that it was made only to be broken. Yet this is the experience of a transgressor of God’s law, not once or twice, but all through his life. It is his lot not only to deceive but to be deceived (2 Tim. iii. 13). He is ever promising himself, and is ever being promised by the master whom he serves, satisfaction as the result of his deeds, but he is always finding that the performance falls as far short of the promise as it did when the devil led our first parents into sin, by the promise “ye shall be as gods,” and performed it by making them slaves to himself. This is another ingredient in the hardness of the way. He is a slave to him who has deceived him. Many a man is fully alive to the deceptive nature of sin—to its utter powerlessness to give him real pleasure—and yet he goes on it. Why is this? He is bound by a chain which he finds it well nigh impossible to break. Evil habits, as well as good ones, grow stronger by exercise. Slavery is hard under any master, excepting under Him whose service is perfect freedom. How bitter, then, is slavery to one who has deceived us. Yet this is not the hardest part of the hard way. None who are thus victims of the great deceiver—none whom he has made his bond slaves but feel that they are so by their own consent. Each evil thought unchecked, each evil thought indulged, has forged a link in the chain. Their condition has been likened, by an old writer, to that of a man who has been busily at work in carrying stick after stick to make a pile of wood, and then finds that he has only been heaping up materials for a fire upon which he is to be burned.

IV. But though the way of transgressors is hard, it is not too hard. Its very hardness is intended to lead them to leave it. Because the end will be worse than the way, it is the tenderest mercy to make the way hard. It only tells him that he has taken the wrong road. The pain that he suffers is only the voice of God, saying, “Do thyself no harm.” When a mountain pass becomes so blocked with fallen rocks that every step is a misery, does it not admonish the traveller to turn back before he makes a fatal slip? When in the regions of eternal snow a man feels intense pain from the biting cold, and encounters at every step the corpse of one who has been frozen to death by persistently disregarding the voice of nature, is it not suicide to continue? Can he say he received no admonition? Is it not a sentinel with a drawn sword to turn back the unwary from the precipice? Even so is the hardness of the way of the transgressor.

outlines and suggestive comments.

For the most part the word translated “good understanding” corresponds with that which, in a deep ethical sense, we call fine culture, which shows men how to take the right side, and in all circumstances to take the right key, exercise a kindly, heart-winning influence, not merely to the benefit of its possessor, but such as removes a partition wall, and brings men closer to each other. The word translated “hard” denotes that which stretches itself far, and with reference to time, that which remains the same during the course of time. That which does not change in time, continuing the same, according to its nature, strong, firm, thus becomes the designation of the enduring and the solid, whose quality remains always the same. The fundamental idea of remaining like itself, continuing, passes over into the idea of the firm, the hard, and, at the same time, of the uncultivated and the uncultivatable. The way of transgressors, or of the treacherous, i.e., the manner in which they transact with men, is stiff, as hard as stone, repulsive; they follow selfish views, never placing themselves in sympathy with the condition of their neighbour; they are without the tenderness which is connected with fine culture; they remain destitute of feeling in things which, as we say, would soften a stone.—Delitzsch.

Many seek favour as the gift of others which it is in their own power to give themselves. For, get a good understanding, whereby to understand well what thou goest about, and how to go about it. It is true, as Tertullian speaketh, now and then it falls out, that in a great tempest wherein sea and heaven are confounded, the haven is attained by a happy error; and now and then, in darkness, the way of entrance and going out is found by a blind happiness. But this is a favour which has no holdfast—it is a good understanding that giveth favour.—Jermin.

Is not the way of transgressors pleasant in prospect, although it ends in death? No; sin barters away future safety but does not secure present peace in return. Things are not always what they seem. The pleasures of sin are not only limited in their duration, they are lies even while they last. . . . The race is torture and the goal perdition. . . . But the right way is not a soft and silky path for the foot of man to tread upon; and, if one thing happens to all in the journey of life, what advantage have the good? Much every way, and specifically thus: The hardness which disciples experience in following their Lord is righteousness rubbing on their remaining lusts, and so wasting their deformities away; whereas the hardness of a transgressor’s way is a carnal mind in its impotent enmity dashing itself against the bosses of the Almighty’s buckler. . . . As the pains of cure differ from the pains of killing, so differs the salutary straitness which presses the entrance at the gates of life, from the hardness which hurts transgressors as they flee from God.—Arnot.

Sin, as of its nature, sinks always lower under bond (ver. 13), and must, therefore, de jure, be “perpetual” (see Miller’s rendering, in Critical Notes). For, strange enough, the man without “good intelligence,” i.e., the best kind of knowledge, neglects to act on what knowledge he has. The worst man has knowledge enough to save him—that is (to expound an averment which is only in one sense true), God’s goodness is such that if a man would use the light he had, he would start from that point, and be helped into the kingdom.—Miller.

Different senses have been affixed to these words—1. “Good understanding showeth favour to others”—i.e., is mild and conciliatory, while the “way of transgressors is hard, unyielding, stern.” 2. “Ingenuous manners procure favour; but rugged is the path of the artful”—i.e., exposing him to incessant difficulties, while open dealing makes a man’s way plain before him. 3. More probably the meaning in both parts of the verse terminates on the person’s self. Intelligent and sound judgment, by fitting a man to be a wise and useful counsellor, procures him favour. On the contrary, the “way of transgressors,” like “Bypath Meadow” in the Pilgrim’s Progress, presents at its entrance all that is tempting to allure into it, but supplies no real enjoyment to the traveller in it at last.—Wardlaw.

Wicked men live under a hard taskmaster. “I was held before conversion,” said Augustine, “not with an iron chain, but with the obstinacy of my own will.” The philosophical infidel bears the same testimony. “I began to fancy myself in a most deplorable condition, environed with the deepest darkness on every side” (Essays, I. 458). Voltaire, judging of course from his own heart, pronounces, “In man is more wretchedness than in all other animals put together. Man loves life, yet knows he must die.” “I wish,” continues the wretched witness for his master, “I had never been born.” The worldly infidel adds his seal to the record. Colonel Gardiner declared, that in his course of wickedness he had often envied the existence of a dog.—Bridges.

The hardness of the transgressor’s way. I. A truth to be confirmed. It is hard to themselves—to others, to their families, their friends, to society. II. A dispensation to be approved. It illustrates the mingled justice and mercy of God, who has made the way to hell difficult. The hardness of the way of sin is often the means of stopping sinners in their course. The sufferings of the wicked operate as a check and preservative to the righteous. III. A warning to be enforced. Take care how you take the first step. Be anxious, if you have entered the road, to retrace your step. Remember that the hardness of the way is nothing like the bitterness of the end.—S. Thodey.

main homiletics of verse 16.

Dealing with Knowledge.

For a definition of prudence see Homiletics on chap. viii. 12, 13, page 109. Carrying out the thought that prudence is wisdom applied to practice, we remark,

I. That a prudent man deals, or acts with knowledge from a sense of responsibility. 1. In commercial life. No prudent man will engage in any business transaction without first making himself thoroughly acquainted with it in all its bearings. He will, if possible, look far into the future and weigh probabilities and calculate results, so as to secure himself from ultimate loss. He will not deal with the matter at all unless he understands it. This we conceive is “dealing with knowledge.” And it is the course pursued by every prudent man of business from a sense of responsibility. He feels that he has obligations to fulfil to others and a character to maintain, and therefore he thinks before he acts. A man who values his life at all will not deliberately walk over a precipice, and a prudent man will not go very near the edge, he will know what is the safe distance at which he may walk without even risking the possibility of a false step. 2. As a teacher or leader of others. A man who undertakes the guidance of his fellow-creatures in any way, is especially bound to “deal with knowledge.” If he is a teacher of youth, and is a prudent man, he will make it his business to know his pupils, to become acquainted with the best methods of imparting instruction and developing their mental and moral powers. He feels that they are in his hands very much as clay in the hands of the potter, and that it depends very much upon him whether they become vessels of honour or dishonour, and this invests all his dealings with them with a deep sense of responsibility. So with the statesman, the Christian teacher, or any other man who finds himself entrusted with influence over his fellows. Prudence is almost as necessary as goodness and right intentions. A man may have abundance of wealth at his disposal whereby to accomplish some desired end. But if he does not know how to use it, he may as surely miss his aim as if he were poor. So a man may have much spiritual wealth and an earnest desire to use it for the good of others, but if he is not a prudent man—if he neglects to acquire a knowledge of the how, and the when, and the where to do it, he may not only fail to realise his desire, but may cause his good to be evil spoken of. And the principle applies to every good man, however limited his sphere or humble his position. It is the special trade of a good man to do good, but he may greatly injure his trade by neglecting to “deal with knowledge.” “What king,” says our Lord, “going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?” (Luke xiv. 31). It is implied that this man has a sense of the importance of the undertaking upon which he is about to embark, that he duly estimates the possible loss or gain which may result from it. He may serve as an illustration of what is meant by a prudent man “dealing with knowledge” in any and every step of life, whether it be apparently great or small, weighty or trivial. For there are no little things in human life—the greatest issues often hang upon what men ignorantly call trifles.

II. A fool by rash and inconsiderate conduct “layeth open” or “publishes” his folly. It is implied by contrasting him with the prudent man who “deals with knowledge” that he deals without it, that he leaps before he looks and walks in the dark when he might avail himself of a light to guide him. Such conduct arises from a lack of the sense of responsibility. He does not consider what is involved in his failure, how much misery may thus be entailed on himself and others. Every man who does not weigh results proves himself thereby to be a fool.

outlines and suggestive comments.

He that is wise will not be doing or dealing in anything unless he know what it is wherein he dealeth, and unless he deal so as he knoweth that he should. He knoweth that a man is known by his dealing. He knoweth that others look on his dealing, and therefore he looketh so to it as that they may know him to be wise by it. But a fool will be dealing, although by dealing he uncover his nakedness. The shame of his folly shall be spread abroad as wide as his dealings are heard of.—Jermin.

Observes circumstances, and deports himself with discretion; thrusts not himself into unnecessary dangers; carves not a piece of his heart but to those he is well assured of. See an instance of this prudence in Ezra, chap. viii. 22; in Nehemiah, chap. ii. 5. He calls it not the place of God’s worship—such an expression might have disgusted the heathen king—but the place of his father’s sepulchres. In Christ, when He was tried for His life; in Paul, who lived two years at Ephesus, and spake not much against the worship of their great goddess Diana (Acts xxiii. 6, and xix. 10).—Trapp.

Fools might be esteemed half-wise if they had sense enough to keep their folly to themselves.—Lawson.

Wide is the sphere for trading with this responsible talent. In the family economy (Judges xiii. 8–12; chap. xiv. 1; xxxi. 27). In the church; in a wise accommodation to circumstances (Gal. ii. 2); in the conviction of gainsayers (Tit. i. 9); in forbearing with the prejudices of the weak (Acts xv. 22–29); in the exercise of Christian admonition (Rom. xv. 14).—Bridges.

main homiletics of verse 17.

A Social Link.

I. An important link in human society—a messenger. This link may or may not be important in himself. He may belong to the highest or to the lowest stratum of human life. He may be a princely ambassador, or he may be a telegraph boy. The link which holds two bodies together may be of great intrinsic value. It may be of wrought gold, and much skill may have been expended on its workmanship; but what it is in itself is not of so much importance as what it is as a link. Its beauty and costliness will not avail much if it gives way when it is subject to strain, and thereby causes loss and vexation to its owner. The link that holds the cable to the anchor is not in itself worth much; but when it holds an ironclad off a rocky coast, there hangs upon it half a million of money, and the sorrow or joy of many human hearts for years to come. Untold loss or gain depend upon whether that ring of iron can bear the strain or not. So it is with a messenger. He may be a person of great intellectual powers, and of great social importance, or he may not have either. But he is always of value in his relative position. Like the link in a cable, he always holds in his keeping more than he is. He may be the bearer of the secrets of one who has hanging upon his will an army of many thousands, and a nation of as many millions may be interested in the message which he bears. Whether he be a prince or peasant is of no importance in comparison with the fact that he bears a message.

II. The one all-important qualification in a messenger—faithfulness. No greater praise can be given to a man than to say that he is faithful, yet nothing less will make him worth anything in human life. All men’s hopes for time and eternity rest upon the faithfulness of God. This is the sheet-anchor of humanity that He is “a faithful Creator” (1 Pet. iv. 19). That He is faithful that promised (Heb. x. 23). It is for faithfulness, not for success, that He gives the “well done” (Matt. xxv. 21), to His servants. In a messenger it is the one thing needful, and its importance is increased in proportion to what hangs upon his message. Life or death may depend upon it, and often not the fate of an individual merely, but the destiny of a nation. An unfaithful messenger “falleth into mischief himself.” He who betrays his trust injures himself. He goes down in the moral scale. He loses his reputation, and is not trusted again. If the link in the cable gives way, it is itself broken. But this is not all, not the worst. He is the cause of mischief falling upon others. How true is this in social life. A message, coloured in its delivery, to gratify some selfish purpose, may divide men who would have been friends, if it had not been for the third person. And its omission, through carelessness, may bring about a like mischief. And it is also true in national relationships. The ambassador, who is entrusted to express a nation’s will, may be a fruitful source of mischief if he is negligent or unwary when war and peace hang in the balance. Millions of hearts may be made sad by an under or over statement of facts. “But a faithful messenger is health,” or “healing.” He is health in himself. A faithful messenger, apart from his official or representative character, is an embodiment of moral health, and when he is entrusted to make peace where there has been war, he is “healing.” He may be only a counsellor of peace between individual men who have been at strife, or he may be the bearer of terms of peace between hostile nations. But, whether in the one case or the other, the faithful discharge of his duties will bring healing: for all real peace must be founded on a truthful statement of facts. This verse is especially true of an ambassador of Christ. He who is truly sent of God will be faithful in the delivery of his message, and will thus bring healing to many. He will “not walk in craftiness, nor handle the Word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commend himself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” And so he will be the means of bringing moral health (2 Cor. iv. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 11).

outlines and suggestive comments.

Every man is a “messenger,” and has an errand, and that is as a witness for God (chap. xiv. 25). The word for “messenger” is the word for “angel.” How soon did the wicked angel fall, when he became of no use? and men, how long do they tolerate a false messenger? The soul sent out by the Almighty, if wicked, shall fall; but a soul that is “faithful” is needed, and will hold its place.—Miller.

A wicked messenger hath no sooner a business committed unto him than he falleth into mischief, by betraying the trust reposed in him, and therefore justly doth mischief fall on him. He that is a faithful ambassador is, indeed, the ambassador of truth itself. He, being sent, hath healing under his wings, whereby he giveth soundness and health unto his business, whereby he giveth soundness and health to those that employed him. The proverbial sense is, That the good or bad success of a business proceedeth much from the goodness or badness of him that is employed in it.—Jermin.

How much more then, wicked ministers, those “messengers of the churches” (2 Cor. viii. 23) that do the Lord’s work negligently (Jer. xlviii. 10), that corrupt His message (2 Cor. ii. 17). Who is blind but my servant, or deaf as my messenger? (Isa. xlii. 19).—Trapp.

While the wicked messenger prepares misfortune for himself, as well as for his master, the faithful makes good even his lord’s mistakes.—Von Gerlach.

main homiletics of verse 18.

The way to Honour.

I. Man needs instruction because his natural intuitions are not enough to meet the needs of human life. The instinct of the animal is enough to enable it to fulfil its destiny. Its limited powers find sufficient guidance in the use of the faculties which are born with it. But it is not so with man. If, as some philosophers suppose, a man comes into the world without any ideas, if he receives everything from the outside world, instruction is so much the more needed, but even if he does bring with him a small stock of knowledge, experience shows us that the amount is very small, and he needs instruction for body, soul, and spirit from the first day of his dawning intellect to the last of his probationary life.

II. Instruction is to be obtained. Somebody will teach him either directly or indirectly. He will learn much from observation and much from direct teaching. The word here, as in chap. xii. 1, includes the idea of correction. This forms an inevitable part of man’s instruction in matters relating both to his bodily and spiritual life. God has provided for man’s instruction in relation to his spiritual needs. It is within the reach of all men in a Christian nation (See Isa. lv. 1–3.)

III. If he refuses what he needs, he will have what he does not desire. He will have poverty. This is a calamity when self-inflicted. Whatever is the outcome of sin must be a calamity. If a man refuses to submit to the correction and instruction of others in connection with matters relative to every-day life, he shuts himself up to his own ignorance and shuts out all possibility of advancing in any profession or calling. Therefore he must be poor in worldly wealth. And it is pre-eminently true of him who refuses the disciplinary instruction of God. Such a man must be poor in a spiritual sense throughout eternity. And this will bring shame. Shame is always the result of sin. There is no shame in being poor in material things when poverty is the outcome of righteousness, but there is shame in poverty which is the result of neglected opportunities. What is the root of this rejection of instruction? Is it not pride? (See Homiletics on chap. xi. 2, page 193; also on chap. xii. 1, page 246.)

IV. Reproof is instruction. This is implied here, and in many other passages in this book where the words are used interchangeably. A man who reproves us gives us information about ourselves. He lets us know how we appear in the eyes of others. This ought to be valued by us. We are too partial to see our own defects, therefore we ought to be glad when they are pointed out to us by another.

V. Taking reproof in a spirit of humility is the only road to honour. In the long run, men will give honour where honour is due. They will give their esteem, and respect, and confidence to men who, from moral or intellectual eminence, deserve it. And, as we have seen, this height can be reached only by those who are willing to be taught both by God and by man.

outlines and suggestive comments.

Poverty is in itself a want; but no misery unless shame be joined with it. Shame is in itself a misery; but much greater if joined with poverty, which hath no means to shelter or cover it. Now both are to him that refuseth instruction. For, indeed, instruction is a glorious treasure, offered and opened to him who hath need of it; and, therefore, to refuse it, what can be but poverty and shame? And, though it be the too common fault of those that are great, either in riches or honour, to despise reproof, yet the most honor, the truest riches, are to those that embrace it. St. Bernard, therefore, writing unto a great person, but deserving reproof, saith “Charity hath forced me to reproof thee, which grieveth with thee, although thou be not grieved, and which pitieth thee, although thou pitieth not thyself, and therefore it doth lament the more, because thou dost not lament, who art to be lamented; therefore doth it pity thee the more, because thou dost not pity thyself, who art in so pitiful a condition.”—Jermin.

main homiletics of verse 19.

In common with most commentators we regard the first clause of this verse as embodying the same thought as that expressed in the last clause of verse 12. We will therefore consider the last clause only.

The Abomination of the Fool.

This verse pourtrays a man whose character is most unnatural.

1. He is unnatural because he belies his origin. What should we say if we saw the son of a king taking delight in the society and in the pastimes of the most degraded men? Or if we saw a man finding his enjoyment in herding with the beasts of the field? We should judge that they had lost all sense of their high origin. The sinner who is in love with evil gives the lie to the historic fact that God made man in His own image.

2. He is unnatural, because he burdens himself unnecessarily. In other matters men are not wont to carry heavier burdens than they are obliged. They do not generally desire an increase of their load. They are content with what is allotted to them. The burdens of life that must be borne are numerous and heavy enough for men to bear, yet this moral fool must weigh himself down with the evil that he need not bear—the evil consequences of evil deeds. He prefers to carry about with him the burden of his guilt, and all its accompanying evils. As we saw in verse 15, his way is hard, yet he pursues it. In the face of God’s expressed desire (Isa. lv. 7), that he should be rid of his burden, and although it weighs him to the earth “it is an abomination to the fool to depart from evil.”

3. He is unnatural, because he is an unnecessary burden on the heart of humanity. He burdens the hearts of God’s children. They sigh over him, because he is bad, and refuses to be better. They are weighed down with a sense of his present sad condition, and the retribution that awaits him. He is a burden to those who are less wicked than he, because he prevents their being better, and he adds to the burden of those who are as bad as himself, because he increases their guilt by yielding to their temptations.

outlines and suggestive comments.

The sentence that fulfilled desire does good to the soul appears commonplace; but it is comprehensive enough on the ground of Heb. xi. to cheer even a dying person, and conceals the ethically significant truth that the blessedness of vision is measured by the degree and the longing of faith. But its application in its pairing with the last clause of the verse give it quite another aspect. On this account, because the desire of the soul is pleasant in its fulfilment, fools abhor the renouncing of evil, for their desire is directed to that which is morally blameworthy, and the endeavour, which they closely and constantly adhere to, is to reach the attainment of this design.—Delitzsch.

A canon of interpretation in Proverbs is, In antithetical clauses an opposite member is often suppressed in one clause and has to be supplied from the opposition of the other member in the corresponding clause (Gataker). Thus, here, the desire of the wise or good being accomplished by their departing from evil is sweet to their soul, but as it is an abomination to fools to depart from evil, their desire being not accomplished is not sweet, nay, “it maketh the heart sick” (ver. 12). Cf. Psa. cxlv. 19: “The Lord will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him.” As the wise desire the possession of the true good, and by departing from evil attain to it, so that it is “sweet to the soul,” so fools desire the possession of what is good and “sweet to the soul,” but shall have bitter and everlasting grief. Just as if there were two patients, both desiring health; the one avoiding forbidden foods, and using the prescribed drugs, would recover health, to his joy; the other, disliking the remedies, and indulging his appetite, would fail to recover and would die (Gejer). The reason why fools abominate to depart from evil is because evil is sweet to them.—Fausset.

I have three interpretations of this verse. 1. Solomon has been thought to express the sentiment that the final attainment and enjoyment of a desired good abundantly compensates for all the self-denial and difficulty endured in waiting for it. This is a truth of practical importance, holding out as it does encouragement to perseverance. And it is a truth which holds with unfailing certainty, in regard to spiritual blessings. But the fool cannot be persuaded to deny himself the gratification of the passing moment, even for the sake of the best and highest blessings and hopes. 2. Some render, “It is sweet to the soul to enjoy what we love; therefore it is an abomination” etc. Here the reason or principle is assigned, from which it arises that fools will not depart from evil. Their enjoyment is in it. They feel that there are pleasures in sin. These pleasures they love. And, as these pleasures arise from sin, sin is what they like; sin is sweet, and they will indulge their present propensities, for the sake of the present pleasure they yield. 3. “Desire,” subdued, restrained, or overcome “is sweet to the soul; but it is an abomination,” etc. According to this translation the former clause expresses the inward satisfaction arising from the successful curbing and subjugation of any sinful desire—any evil propensity. This forms a fine and striking antithesis to the second clause. While the good man can hardly enjoy a greater satisfaction than is imparted by the exercise of self-control, and the overcoming of any powerful and imperative desire that has tempted and endangered his virtue; on the contrary, to the ungodly, the exercise of self-restraint is irksome, the denial of any sinful propensity is misery. They “draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart-rope.” The character is portrayed with great spirit in the tenth Psalm.—Wardlaw.

A desire that has sprung up is sweet to the Soul. (See rendering in Critical Notes.) A sinner can get on comparatively well when a pious “desire” has been once enkindled. What is said of the lips of the strange woman dropping honey (chap. v. 3) is true also in this case. The soul is so near to the sinner that if there is anything sweet to it it is easy to follow it on. The soul once converted and conceiving its first desire will follow it afterward. And, therefore, the Psalmist begs us to “taste and see” (Ps. xxxiv. 8), that we may have this first desire. But the unconverted man finds it loathsome to take the first step. His desires that have “come to be,” are of another nature. How can a man will when unwilling? “It is the first step which costs.”—Miller.

main homiletics of verse 20.

Companionship, Constructive or Destructive.

We have here:—

I. Habit, assimilation, and transformation. 1. Habit. A habit is formed by the constant repetition of an act. Walking is the constant repetition of an act. The child first gets courage to take a single step, that step leads to another, and by degrees he acquires the habit of walking. To walk with wise men is to have habitual intercourse with them, either through reading their written thoughts or by immediate contact with their living selves. As bodily walking is only acquired by practice, so it is in soul-walking—in mental and spiritual communion. It is at first difficult for the uninitiated to master the arguments of the wise and grasp the truths which they utter. But the power to do so comes by making the effort. If the wise men are morally wise, it may not be so easy to apprehend Divine truth as they do with their keener spiritual perceptions. But constant intercourse and communion enable one to do so. The religious faculty—the conscience—is thus developed. 2. Assimilation. The law of assimilation is in operation within us and around us in the world of matter. The plant drinks in the moisture and chemical elements of the earth, and they are assimilated to itself and come forth in bud, and flower, and fruit. Man eats vegetable and animal food and it becomes flesh and bone. The man who walks with wiser men than himself imbibes their thought, and those thoughts become part of himself. As the health of the body depends upon the kind of food which it assimilates and its power of assimilation, so the health of the mind depends upon the character of the thoughts which it receives and its power of making them its own. 3. Transformation. It is implied that those here represented as walking are, when they begin their walk, comparatively ignorant. But a constant reception and assimilation of the wisdom of others, whether it be intellectual or moral wisdom, will in time transform the pupil into a teacher—the student into a master. The ignorant becomes in time a wise man. The strong animal life nourishes the weaker—the new born—life until the weak child becomes as strong as the parent. So in mind and soul life. Hence the constant repetition in this book of exhortations to receive instruction. The assimilating and transforming power of intercourse with the Fountain of all Wisdom by the reception of the Divine thought is thus set forth by Paul:—“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. iii. 18).

II. That if our companionship is not a constructive influence, it will be destructive. It is implied that human beings will have companionship of some kind—that if a man does not “walk with wise men,” he will be “the companion of fools.” 1. Companionship in early life the outcome of necessity. A child of foolish parents cannot help being “the companion of fools.” This is the sad portion of millions, and it is the destruction of millions in the sense that it is the cause of their missing the great end of life—to glorify and enjoy God. 2. But there is a companionship of choice. When a human being comes to years of maturity he chooses his companions. He cannot always choose his associates, for then “he must needs go out of the world.” And there is no necessity that those with whom duty compels him to associate should exert any evil influence upon his character. But “companion” evidently means him with whom he communes—a man whose society he chooses. And if this society is not morally good, a man begins to deteriorate from the first moment that he enters it. His choice of it is an indication of some moral flaw in his character, and is a strong presumption that he does not intend or desire to resist its destructive influence. If a sound apple is placed beside one that has begun to decay, nothing is needed to complete the work of destruction in both, but that they should remain in contact. An utter missing of all that makes life worth having—that which our Lord calls the “loss of the soul”—is the portion of every man who does not continually grow in moral wisdom. For there is no standing still. Neglect is ruin in most material things. The house that is not constantly repaired will be ruined by the constant action of the elements. A man is surrounded on all sides by adverse moral influences, and if he only neglects to grow he will die. And to grow he must “walk with the wise.”

illustration.

The following statement was made to a Wesleyan minister by a young man under sentence of death: “I am the child of pious parents, who were connected with the Wesleyan body. At the age of 16, through their instrumentality, and under the preaching of the Gospel, I became the subject of religious impressions. These, in the course of time, were effaced; but I still continued to read the Bible and respect the Sabbath. One Lord’s Day I went to hear a celebrated minister deliver a discourse on ‘Prophecy.’ As I was returning I expressed to an acquaintance who I met my admiration of the sermon. He replied that no doubt Mr. —— was a superior orator, and it would afford him great pleasure to hear him discuss on any subject having a true claim upon the attention of a rational being; but that such was not the case with religion. A conversation followed, which led him to invite me to his house, to hear his reasons for disbelieving the Bible. There I met others, of a kindred spirit, and from that moment they were my principal, because my favourite, associates. I soon adopted all their opinions as my own, and used every effort in my power to diffuse our common views. I could at this moment almost say the bitterness of death is passed, if I were sure that no one had become an infidel through me. But I have too much reason to fear that many have. Before this time I had married a very respectable young woman, and had entered into business. I was, however, brought to ruin by my own folly and extravagance, and went to America. There, my principles not fully satisfying me, I read Watson’s Apology for the Bible, and similar works, and again avowed myself a believer in the Word of God. It was my bitter lot, however, soon to see that it is much more easy to renounce the principles of error than to cease from those evil practices of which they are the productive sources. It will not be wondered that, even after I had disavowed the creed of an infidel, I was confirmed in the habits of infidelity, and was still, on returning to my native land, ready to perpetrate any deed of darkness which the fury of passion might prompt, or the straits of poverty suggest. The act for which I may soon be suspended on the gallows is the final consummation of a wilful disbelief in the inspired record.” The minister continues, “I was often with him, and found him to possess an extensive acquaintance with the Scriptures, and a considerable knowledge of our religious poets. As the person at whom he fired, though severely wounded, was not killed, he seemed to the last to expect a reprieve. The governor of the gaol entered his cell half-an-hour before the time which had been fixed for his execution, saying, ‘I have a communication from the Secretary of State.’ A smile of hope played for a moment round his pallid face, but it seemed only as if to give the gloom of despair the opportunity of coming in deeper and more terrible shadows over his features, for the governor instantly added, ‘but there is nothing said respecting you—you must therefore die.’ We were again alone, and pacing his cell he said, with deep emotion, ‘It is then a fact that I must suffer the extreme penalty of the law. In a few minutes I shall be in eternity, my wife will be a widow, and my children will be fatherless, bearing part of my reproach, notwithstanding they had no part in my guilt.’ On his way to the place of execution we passed through the turnkey‘s room. Seeing a lad seated in a distant corner, he went to him, and said, ‘Look at me, and learn never to stand in the way of the ungodly, nor sit in the seat of the scorner of truth.’ ”—Evangelist.

outlines and suggestive comments.

The influence of society upon man is great, and was intended to be great. As the natural world is held together by the influence of matter upon matter by the law of gravitation, so the moral world is held together by the influence of mind upon mind. We are made to attract and to be attracted, to influence and to be influenced, to instruct and to be instructed. But this power of mind over mind is not a neutral power, it is necessarily great for evil and for good. Paul says that “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” There is nothing to be expected from evil companions but an increase of sin, and an increase of punishment. The best is a briar, the most upright sharper than a thorn-hedge, which will rob us of our fleece, if they do not pierce our skin. Most likely they will do both.—S. Thodey.

The literal meaning of the word rahah, from which “companion” comes, is to feed; boon-companions, who feed together (chap. xxix. 3). There is a play upon like Hebrew sounds, in “companion” and “destroyed,” roheh and roang. The Greek Theognis says, “Thou shalt learn good from the good; but if thou wilt associate with the bad, thou shalt lose even the mind thou hast.” Seneca says, “The road is long by precept; it is short and effectual by example.” What one sees makes more impression than what one hears. As bad air injures the strongest health, so association with the bad injures the strongest mind.—Fausset.

What you learn from bad habits and from bad society you will never forget, and it will be a lasting pang to you. I tell you in all sincerity, not as in the excitement of speech, but as I would confess and have confessed before God, that I would give my right hand to-night if I could forget that which I have learned in evil society; if I could tear from my remembrance the scenes which I have witnessed, the transactions which have taken place before me.—J. B. Gough.

In the neighbourhood of Swansea, for miles round, no vegetation exists, owing to the smoke from the large copper-works there: even so, exposure to the influence of bad companions prevents man from growing and flourishing in the Divine life.—T. Jones.

It is not left to us to determine whether there shall be any influence; only, what that influence shall be. Joash, while he walked with his wise guardian, was wise. But when, after his guardian’s death, he became “a companion of fools,” he was “destroyed” (2 Chron. xxiv.). . . . The first warning to sinners just plucked out of the fire, was—“Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts ii. 40).—Bridges.

We shall never get the good “desire” (ver. 19) if we keep out among the wicked. In heathen lands all are “fools,” and therefore all do badly. In Christian lands piety is in circles and in families, and moves in lines. The mutual influences are immense. A noble way to be “wise,” is to go boldly among the good, confess Christ, and ask their prayers and influence.—Miller.

It is better—safer, I am sure it is—to ride alone than to have a thief’s company; and such is a wicked man, who will rob thee of precious time, if he do thee no more mischief. The Nazarites, who might drink no wine, were also forbidden to eat grapes, of which wine is made. So we must not only avoid sin itself, but also the causes and occasions thereof, amongst which bad company (the lime-twigs of the devil) is the chiefest, especially to catch those natures which are most swayed by others.—Fuller.

Many scriptural illustrations press for notice. The family of Lot, suffering from the fearful contamination of Sodom; Rehoboam, following the counsel of his young companions in preference to that of the experienced counsellors of his father, and losing thereby five-sixths of his kingdom; Jehoshaphat, associating with Ahab “helping the ungodly, and loving them that hated the Lord” (2 Chron. xvii., xix. 1, 2), wrath, therefore, coming upon him from Jehovah.—Wardlaw.

It is not talking with the wise, but walking with the wise that will make you wise. It is not your commending and praising of the wise, but your walking with the wise that will make you wise. It is not your taking a few turns with the wise that will make you wise, but your walking with the wise that will make you wise. There is no getting much good by them that are good but by making them your ordinary and constant companions. Ah, friends! you should do as Joseph in Egypt, of whom the Scripture saith—Psa. cv. 22—(according to the Hebrew phrase) that he tied the princes of Pharaoh’s court about his heart. If ever you would gain by the saints, you must bind them upon your souls. The Jews have a proverb that two dry sticks put to a green one will kindle it. The best way to be in a flame Godward, Christward, heavenward, and holinessward, is to be among the dry sticks, the kindle-coals, the saints; for as live coals kindle those that are dead, so lively Christians will heat and enliven those that are dead.—Brooks.

Character affected by intercourse. He that walks with religious men will become religious. Walking signifies a continued course of conduct. To walk with religious men is not to mingle with them occasionally, or to unite with them in performing some of the more public duties of religion. Ahithophel, who died as a fool dieth, walked with David to the house of God in company. It is not to live in a pious family, for a person may do this without making its members his associates. Nor does uniting with religious men in promoting some of the great objects which the Christian world is now pursuing, necessarily prove that we walk with them, for this may be done from a wrong motive. To walk with them is to choose them for our associates, our fellow travellers in the journey of life; and this implies an agreement with them in our views and objects of pursuit. Can two walk together, says the prophet, except they be agreed? In order that two persons may walk together they must be agreed, first, as to the place to which they will go, and secondly, they must agree in opinion as to the way that leads to that place. If they disagree on either point they will soon separate. Every religious man is travelling towards heaven, and all who would walk with them must make heaven the object of their pursuit. The only way to heaven is Jesus Christ, and all who walk with religious persons must at least assent to this truth although they may not immediately and cordially embrace it. He who perseveres in this course will become religious. 1. The simple fact that he chooses such associates proves that he is already the subject of religious impressions—that the Spirit of God is striving with him. 2. He will see and hear many things which powerfully tend to increase and perpetuate his serious impressions. He moves in a circle where God, the soul, and salvation are regarded as of supreme importance—where religion is presented to him—not as a cold abstraction, but living in the persons of its disciples. 3. No one will continue to walk with religious persons after his serious impressions are effaced, and it is presumed that no one who continued to be the subject of religious impressions for any length of time ever failed to become religious. It is true persons may be seriously affected, occasionally, and perhaps for years together, and at different seasons may associate much with religious characters without becoming religious; but such persons cannot be said to walk with good men in the sense of the text; for their religious impressions are often effected for a considerable time, and long intervals of carelessness succeed, during which they, in a measure, forsake religious society.—Payson.

It is not for us to let our hearts have their own way in the selection of companions. On that choice depend interests too great to be safely left to chance. The issue to be decided is not what herd you shall graze with a few years before your spirit returns to the dust; but what moral element you shall move in during the few and evil days of your life, till your spirit returns to God who gave it. I like this companion; he fascinates me; I cannot want him; an enforced separation would be like tearing myself asunder. Well, if that companion’s heart be godless, and his steps already slipping backward and downward, why not tear yourself asunder? The act will be painful, no doubt, but “skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.”—Arnot.

He that comes where sweet spices and ointments are stirring, doth carry away some of the sweet savour, though he think not of it; so holiness is such an elixir as by contraction (if there be any disposition of goodness in the same metal), it will render it of the property.—Trapp.

All sorts of companions are market men, and they usually traffic together, when they meet together, whether they be good or bad, the wares being commonly precious or vile, according to the dispositions of the persons who utter them.—Dod.

It is not said, he that sitteth still with the wise, for both sitting still, neither doth the one teach nor the other learn. But he that when a wise man walketh in the ways of wisdom, walketh also with him by following his example and steps, he it is that shall be wise. To be with the wise, and not in their ways of wisdom, is to be out of the way for getting any good by them. Be therefore with them so as that their wisdom may be with thee.—Jermin.

No person that is an enemy to God can be a friend to man. He that has already proved himself ungrateful to the Author of every blessing will not scruple, when it will serve his turn, to shake off a fellow-worm like himself. He may render you instrumental to his own purposes, but he will never benefit you.—Bishop Coleridge.

main homiletics of verse 21.

Pursuit and Repayment.

I. Evil pursues sinners because sinners pursue evil. The huntsman who pursues the hare in the direction of a precipice is pursuing a course which, if continued, must be followed by evil. It is an evil thing for him to follow such a trifle at such a risk. There is evil before him in the form of the precipice, and evil will follow if he continues to pursue his present course. Should he try his strength against the law of gravitation by leaping over the precipice, he will find that law will exact its penalty. There are but two things that will prevent evil from pursuing him, either he must desist from his present course or a great law of nature must be suspended. The first alternative rests with himself, the second does not. He will find that this “battle is to the strong,” and that “the race is to the swift,” even to the mighty law which holds together the material universe. So with sinners against the moral law. “Evil be to him who evil thinks” is a wish that is always fulfilled. It is a law in constant operation. The consequence of pursuing evil in the form of evil thinking is evil thinking, the consequence of evil feeling is evil feeling, the consequence of evil doing is evil doing, for it is the tendency of evil to repeat itself, and this in itself is a punishment. Peter speaks of sinners who “cannot cease from sin” (2 Pet. ii. 14). They have sinned until they have bound themselves in fetters of sinful habit. Evil, in this sense, pursues them, and will pursue them so long as they pursue it. Then there is, of course, the positive retribution, which both in time and beyond time visits pursuers of evil. Of this we have several times treated.

II. Good men are repaid with good because their characters are righteous. The law of repayment runs through nature. He who sows seed is repaid by a harvest. All her forces—rain, sunlight, heat and cold—combine to give back to the husbandman that which he has entrusted to her care. And she repays of the same kind, wheat for the sowing of wheat, thistles for the planting of thistles. She also repays with liberal interest. One head of thistledown scattered over a field will reproduce a hundred heads in a few months. One grain of corn will produce an ear of thirty or forty grains. The law in the kingdom of nature is also the law of the kingdom of grace. Evil sown, as we have just seen under another metaphor, necessitates a reaping of evil. Good sown endures a reaping of good. And grace is not behind nature in liberal repayment. He who sows handfuls shall reap armfuls. He that goes forth with the seed basket returns with sheaves (Ps. cxxvi. 6). The one “corn of wheat bears much fruit” (John xii. 24). This repayment begins in time, and extends beyond it. Righteousness as well as sin is its own present reward, and is the present first fruits. But the righteous man must wait for the “resurrection of the just” for the abundant harvest.

outlines and suggestive comments.

“Evil” is rapacious in its gains. Each inch “evil” holds. It never lets back any advance. It is versatile to tempt, and ruins with many instruments while the good, however, have just the opposite lot. They gain by every advance. Each act that is holy in their lives is rewarded by better acts and higher holiness on through their whole probation,—nay, eternally! The pit is bottomless. But evil never ceases to hound sinners and make them worse.—Miller.

The reprobation here is very striking. “Evil pursueth sinners.” It follows them every step. It keeps pace with the progress of time. Each moment it comes nearer. Silent and unperceived it tracks them through their whole course. Insensibly it gains upon them; and at last—it may be suddenly and when least expected—it seizes and destroys them.—Wardlaw.

Not the smallest good, even “a cup of cold water to a disciple” (Matt. x. 42), or honour shown to his servants (Matt. x. 41; 1 Kings xvii. 16–23) shall “lose its reward” (Heb. vi. 10). And if a single act is thus remembered much more “a course, a flight held out to the end” (2 Tim. iv. 7, 8). How manifestly is this the constitution of grace; that when perfect obedience can claim no recompense (Luke xvii. 10), such unworthy, such defiled work should be so honoured with an infinite overwhelming acceptance.—Bridges.

To be out of the hands of evil is not to be free from it; for it still pursueth sinners, and it ceaseth not until it be gotten to the place where they are. . . . For, as St. Augustine saith, that God doth not forthwith avenge sinners is His patience, not His negligence. Wherefore it is to be feared lest by how much He stays the longer that we may repent, by so much He will punish us the more, if that we will not amend.—Jermin.

Caius—Agrippa having suffered imprisonment for wishing him emperor—when he came afterwards to the empire, the first thing he did was to prefer Agrippa, and give him a chain of gold as heavy as the chain of iron that was on him in prison. Those that lose anything for God He seals them a bill of exchange of a double return.—Trapp.

main homiletics of verse 22.

An Inheritance Incorruptible.

I. A good man has always spiritual inheritance to leave his children. He has always his own holy character and example. And this is often of great service to them in a material point of view. Men who have obtained fame in the world leave their children the inheritance of a famous name, which is often a fortune in itself. The son or daughter of a famous man can command positions of worldly advantage which are closed against the children of obscure parents. But while a famous father can leave his fame as an inheritance to his children he cannot ensure to them the possession of the genius by which he gained it. Talent is not hereditary, and it often happens that a very gifted father has very common-place children. But moral worth—a godly character—is an inheritance that not only makes a son respected in the world for his father’s sake, but is very likely to make him also a partaker of the same godliness. A good man’s character is not hereditary, but it is very apt to propagate other characters of the same kind. This inheritance of a good man is an incorruptible inheritance. No inheritance of lands or money are entirely out of reach of the changes and chances of human life, but the example, and the memory, and the blessings which have come from a godly parentage, make an inheritance which, like the heavenly one, “fadeth not away.” It is the best possible safeguard that a father can leave his children against the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil. The remembrance of what belief in the Gospel did for a holy father has saved many a son for drifting on the quicksands of infidelity. There have been times in the history of many a child of godly parents, when such an anchor has been the only one which has held them from “making shipwreck of faith” (1 Tim. i. 19). The character of a good man is such an indisputable fact, and is so entirely unexplainable on any other ground than that of the existence of a supernatural and Divine power, that it constitutes an unanswerable argument for the truth of revelation. And so with every other form of evil that assails men. The inheritance which Christ has left to his disciples—to His spiritual children—is His character. This has produced and reproduced its own kind through all the ages since His sojourn upon earth. This has held them to the faith in the dark days of persecution. And when the infidel himself has come face to face with it, even he has been compelled to acknowledge the intrinsic worth of the children’s portion. This holy life, lived among sinful men, has been the “unsearchable riches” (Ephes. iii. 8) of one Christian generation after another, for more than eighteen centuries, and it is by virtue of this inheritance that good men have been enabled to transmit to their posterity their own godly lives and examples.

II. A good man may have a material as well as a moral inheritance to bequeath. He may possess both character and substance. But the fact that a man is good is no guarantee that he will have any worldly wealth to leave behind him. If Lord Bacon’s assertion be correct, that “Prosperity is the blessing of the Old Testament, and adversity the blessing of the New,” he is quite as likely to die poor as rich. Still there is often a blessing of some amount of material riches given to honest labour, and probably there are far more godly men in proportion to their number, who acquire some inheritance to leave behind them, than there are godless men. (See on verse 11, etc.)

III. Good men sometimes inherit wealth which has been gathered by bad men. It is not a universal rule, but it may be oftener fulfilled than we are aware of. It may be inherited by generations of wicked men and at last come into the hands of a just one. That it should be so is seen to be a wise and good law of providence. 1. Because a good man will make a far better use of “the mammon of unrighteousness.” He will use it to minister to both the bodily and spiritual needs of his fellow-creatures as well as his own. 2. Because the laid-up wealth of the wicked has often been obtained by defrauding the good. God does not always cause it to be repaid to the identical persons who were thus defrauded, but He may often cause it to be restored to identical characters. This proverb must be taken to assert the straightforward motion of the wheels of providence, although by reason of their “great height” (Ezek. i. 18),—their vast circumference—they take a long time to go round.

outlines and suggestive comments.

The usurer lightly begets blind children that cannot see to keep what their father left them. But when the father is gone to hell for gathering, the son often follows for scattering. But God is just.—T. Adams.

That the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just appears to have been a prominent feature of the Old Dispensation (chap. xxviii. 8; Job xxvii. 16, 17), and it will be openly renewed in the latter-day glory of the Church (Isa. lxi. 6).—Bridges.

This is the direct promise of heaven (Psa. ciii. 17; Prov. xxii. 6). That it ever fails, must be by palpable neglect. A man may be saved himself, and lose his children; but the Bible speaks of this as the parent’s fault (1 Sam. iii. 13; Prov. xiii. 24), and brands it as the great curse upon the earth (Mal. iv. 6). While the sinner not only cannot send down his wealth, but cannot himself possess it. It is a curse to him. It will be used for the saints (Matt. xxv. 28).—Miller.

It is quite clear that in this and other passages an inheritance is regarded as a good, and that no blame is attached to “the good man” who leaves it to his children. The principle expressed in the latter clause is the same as that laid down by the apostle, “All things are yours,” and, among other things, “the world.” That may most truly be called mine, from which I derive the greatest possible benefit it can be made to yield. It would be strange, indeed, were I to wish anything else, or anything more. . . . The wicked man calls his wealth his own. But it is God’s. God is the friend of His children, and holds that property, like everything else, for their good; so that it is theirs by being His.—Wardlaw.

Personal goodness profiteth for posterity. God gives not to His servants some small annuity for life only, as great men used to do, but “keepeth mercy for thousands” of generations “of them that fear Him.” The opposite is not perpetually and universally true of every wicked person, . . . but, together with their lands, they bequeath their children their sins and punishments, which is far worse than that legacy of leprosy that Joab left his issue (2 Sam. iii. 29).—Trapp.

An expression of trust like that in Eccles. ii. 26, that in the long run the anomalies of the world are rendered even.—Plumptre.

main homiletics of verse 23.

Land and Its Tillers.

I. That untilled land (see Critical Notes) possesses a latent power to produce food. There are many things in nature in which there exists a latent power to minister to man’s needs; but his hand must be put forth to arouse the sleeping power. There is heat in coal to warm him, but he must kindle the coal before it will put it forth. So in the earth, there are stores of life-giving power wrapped up in its bosom, but the hand of man must till it before it will yield him food. And it will yield food to the poor man as well as to the rich; his hard toil will be rewarded by receiving bread for his labour.

II. That though much food is to be got out of the land by the poor man, yet more is to be got out of it by the rich. This is implied in the contrast, though it is not directly expressed.—(See Fausset’s Note in the Comments.) The poor man cannot spend so much upon his land as the rich man can. He can give little beside hard labour, while the man who possesses wealth can call in every appliance to increase the fruitfulness of the land. It is well known that the more liberally a land is farmed the more abundant will be the crop.

III. Yet want of judgment—i.e., a sense of justice, often leads a rich man to neglect to cultivate his land so as to increase its power of yielding food. All landowners are responsible to God for a right use of His earth. Holding in their hands, as they do, the power of making food abundant or scarce, they have much for which to give an account to Him whose stewards they are. When they turn into hunting-grounds and parks for their own exclusive use acres of land which, if cultivated, would yield much food, and thus lighten the burdens of their poorer fellow-creatures, they “destroy it for want of judgment,” or “justice.”

outlines and suggestive comments.

By the rule of interpretation by the contrast of opposites, and by supplying the wanting member in one clause from its opposite expressed in the other clause, the sense is, “But there is food (wealth) possessed by rich men that is destroyed for want of honesty in its acquisition and its employment.” The poor man’s (honest) labour forms the contrast to the rich man’s “want of justice” in his acquisitions. The newly tilled land of the poor forms the contrast to the rich man’s possessions held for some time.—Fausset.

What is the practical or extended application? If talents lie inactive, or if their activity is not wisely directed, a rich harvest is destroyed for want of judgment. The same ruin flows from a neglect of religious advantages. The harvest of grace withers into a famine. Slothful professor! rouse thyself to till the ground; else thou wilt starve for want of food. Then let thy roused energy be directed by a sound judgment; for want of which, the fruits of industry, temporal, intellectual, and spiritual, will run to waste.—Bridges.

There seems an interesting connection between the former verse and this. Talk of inheritances! says the poor man, with his scanty means and daily hard toil; we have no inheritance, either from our fathers, or for our children: all is homely with us, and likely to remain so. Well, says Solomon, the poor man is not without his consolations, even of a temporal nature, “much food is in the tillage of the poor.” The maxim is not to be confined to the one kind of labour specified, but extends equally to all the different modes in which the poor make their daily bread. The poor peasant, who cultivates his plot industriously and by “the sweat of his brow,” will, through the Divine blessing, procure thereby an ample supply of food for himself and his family, and industry and tidy economy will make the cottage fireside and table snug and comfortable, and its lowly tenants will enjoy plenty, though in a plain and homely form. On the other hand, how often in the case of those who obtain inheritances may the poor see the saying verified, “There is that is destroyed for want of judgment.” By prodigality, by bad management, they waste their fortunes. Their lands are extensive, but unproductive; or if productive, the product is mis-spent and squandered; it goes, no one can tell how. To such persons the homely comfort of the poor is a just object of envy; far more, in many cases, than the wealth of the rich is to the poor.—Wardlaw.

The proverbial sense is, that a little is made much by God’s blessing and pains, and that much is made little by wickedness and carelessness.—Jermin.

main homiletics of verse 24.

The Child and the Rod.

I. Pain is a necessary instrument in human training. The rod is to be included in the means of education. Some natures need an experience of pain to quicken their mental capabilities. Sometimes children are like untilled land (see ver. 23), they have large capabilities lying dormant, which will not awaken unless they are subjected to severe discipline and punished for their shortcomings. And what is necessary in intellectual training is also necessary in moral training. Children must be made to feel that pain is the outcome of transgression, and evil habits must if possible be crushed while in the bud. They can be overcome then at the expense of far less suffering than when they have taken firmer hold, and the pain is as nothing compared with that which the habits themselves will inflict if they are allowed to go on through life and enthrall the soul entirely. A thorn which has but just entered the skin can be extracted with a very small amount of suffering, even by an unskilful hand; if left for a few days it may produce a festering wound; if not extracted at all, it may end in mortification. The fear of suffering is also a great preventive of sin. The Great Father of men uses it as an instrument to dissuade men from breaking His laws. He warns them, over and over again, of the suffering which they will bring upon themselves if they disobey His commands and their experience of the suffering that has followed sin in the past often leads them to avoid it in the future. And what is effectual in the training of men is effectual also with children. They will often avoid the repetition of an act which they know has brought them punishment before and will do so again. This fear of pain is not the highest motive for abstinence from wrong-doing, but in both the child and the man it may be the foundation of an upbuilding of character which shall by-and-by go on growing in goodness without this instrumentality.

II. That infliction of pain is compatible with the highest love, and is often a token of it. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that God scourges His children whenever He sees that they need it. And yet they have become His children only by the exercise of His own Infinite love. But we know that He chastens not for His pleasure, but for our profit (Heb. xii. 10); that He has love and wisdom enough to see the “far-off interest of tears.” So it is the father or mother, who truly loves his or her child, who is willing to undergo the present suffering of inflicting pain in order to ensure a future blessing to their children. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for your iniquities” (Amos iii. 2). What is true of the Divine parent is true also of the human. It follows—

III. That the neglect of chastisement is a proof of the want of real love. “He that spareth his rod hateth his son.” What should we think of a father who would see his child bleed to death rather than bind up the wound, because in so doing he would inflict some present bodily pain upon the child, and some mental suffering upon himself? Or of the physician who would not use the knife to stop the progress of mortal disease because the patient shrinks from the incision, and he himself is averse to the sight of blood? We should say they were destroyers of life which had been entrusted to them to preserve. But what shall we say of a parent who is so fond of his child that he cannot inflict pain upon him now for deeds that, if repeated until they become habits, will ruin him for time and for eternity? Such sickly sentimentalism in a parent makes him unworthy of his name, and turns him who should have been his child’s highest earthly blessing into his direst curse. Many inmates of our gaols are there because they have been the victims of this so-called love; and when God sums up their misdeeds a large portion of the guilt will fall elsewhere than on the child cursed by such a parent.

outlines and suggestive comments.

Fond parents think it love (that spares the rod), but Divine wisdom calls it hatred.—John Howe.

The discipline of our children must commence with self-discipline. Nature teaches us to love them much. But we want a controlling principle to teach us to love them wisely. The indulgence of our children has its root in self-indulgence.—Bridges.

The phrase “betimes,” or “early in the morning,” admonisheth parents to procure the means of their children’s welfare before all other matters; and, as it were, as soon as they rise out of their beds. The Lord be merciful to us for the neglect of this duty; for if we have any worldly business to do we go first about that, and then teach and instruct our children at our leisure. O reckless carelessness about the chiefest matters! Oh that as we use to feed our children in the morning so we could once be brought to instruct them also betimes.—Muffet.

Justice must be observed in the correction of children. 1. That there is a fault committed. 2. That the fault so committed deserveth punishment. 3. That the punishment do not exceed the quality of the fault, which will otherwise seem to rage and revenge rather than to chastise for amendment.—Spencer.

To spare the rod in the first clause being opposed to chastening in the second, by the rod must be meant not only that particular instrument of punishment, but everything besides that may prove the means of our correction and amendment. And by chastisement is here intended every means of correction, every means of effecting what we intend by chastening, whether it be reproof, restraint of liberty, disappointment of our children’s wills, or corporal punishment. By loving and hating is not here meant the exerting actually those passions in the heart, for then the text would be untrue, but the acting agreeably to the reason, and not the blindness of those passions; the producing such effects as are in God’s account, and in wise men’s too, and in our own when freed from partial prejudices; the consequences and fruits of love and hatred acting regularly, such as are commonly esteemed the effects of those two causes, whether they indeed proceed from them or no. For if we are to reckon of love or hatred by the effects, then it is easy to discern when parents hate their children, namely, when, through neglect or fondness, they permit them to enter on a course of ruin, and so let them fall into such miseries as the utmost hatred of their inveterate enemies could neither wish nor make them greater, whatever love there may be at the bottom. A mother is as much a murderess who stifles her child in a bed of roses as she that does it with a pillow-bear (pillow-case). The end and mischief is as great, though the means and instrument be not the same.—Bishop Fleetwood.

He that spareth the rod from his son maketh him to be his rod, wherewith he whips himself, and wherewith God whips both of them. It is better thy son should feel thy rod than thou feel the sorrow of his wicked life. And do not hate him in not correcting of him, lest he hate thee by thy not correcting of him, and God shew His hatred against both by His wrath upon you.—Jermin.

The Koh-i-noor diamond, when it came into the Queen’s possession, was a mis-shapen lump. It was very desirable to get its corners cut off and all its sides reduced to symmetry; but no unskilful hand was permitted to touch it. Men of science were summoned to consider its nature and capabilities. They examined the form of its crystals and the consistency of its parts. They considered the direction of the grain, and the side on which it would bear a pressure. With their instructions, the jewel was placed in the hands of an experienced lapidary, and by long, patient, careful labour, its sides were ground down to the desired proportions. The gem was hard, and needed a heavy pressure; the gem was precious, and every precaution was taken which science and skill could suggest to get it polished into shape without cracking it in the process. The effort was successful. The hard diamond was rubbed down into forms of beauty, and yet sustained no damage by the greatness of the pressure to which it was subjected. “Jewels, bright jewels,” in the form of little children, are the heritage which God gives to every parent. They are unshapely and need to be polished; they are brittle and so liable to be permanently injured by the pressure; but they are stones of peculiar preciousness, and if they were successfully polished they would shine as stars for ever and ever, giving off, from their undimming edge, more brilliantly than other creatures can, the glory which they get from the Sun of Righteousness. Those who possess these diamonds in the rough should neither strike them unskilfully nor let them be uncut. . . . Prayer and pains must go together in this difficult work. Lay the whole case before our Father in heaven; this will take the hardness out of the correction, without diminishing its strength.—Arnot.

Correction is a kind of cure, saith the philosopher (Arist. Ethic. lib. ii.), the likeliest way to save the child’s soul; where, yet, saith Bernard, it is the care of the child that is charged upon the parent, not the cure, that is God’s work alone.—Trapp.

In order to form the minds of children, the first thing to be done is to conquer the will. To inform the understanding is a work of time, and must, with children, proceed by slow degrees, as they are able to bear it; but the subjecting of the will must be done at once, and the sooner the better; for, by neglecting timely correction, they will contract a stubbornness and obstinacy which are hardly ever conquered, and not without using such severity as would be as painful to me as to the child. I insist upon the conquering of the will betimes, because this is the only strong and rational foundation of a religious education, without which both precept and example will be ineffectual. But when this is thoroughly done, a child is capable of being governed by the wisdom and piety of its parents till its own understanding comes to maturity, and the principles of religion have taken root in the mind.—Mrs. S. Wesley.

It is his rod that must be used, the rod of a parent, not the rod of a servant.—Henry.

main homiletics of verse 25.

Want and Satisfaction.

I. The limited truth of the assertion in relation both to the righteous and the wicked. Read in the light of personal experience, and in the light of history, it is found true, and is found not true in the case of the righteous. Elijah ate to satisfaction beside the brook Cherith, while many of his idolatrous countrymen suffered want. But Paul was often in hunger (2 Cor. xi. 27), while Nero lived in luxury. Christians have died from hunger, and others have had all their bodily wants supplied all their lives, and sometimes by most remarkable providential interpositions. Godliness is often profitable in this sense for the “life that now is” (1 Tim. iv. 8), but not always, and wickedness often brings a man literally to the condition of the prodigal when he would “fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat;” but many a wicked man, like him of the parable (Luke xvi. 19), have “fared sumptuously every day” from their cradle to their grave. To take our text as absolutely true of material food would be to contradict the testimony of Scripture itself.

II. Its absolute truth in relation to both characters. 1. That wickedness gives a man no real satisfaction is a fact of experience. Men have testified over and over again that while they lived in sin they knew nothing of real heart-satisfaction and rest, and have borne witness to the words of St. Augustine, who spoke from experience when he said, “Thou hast made us for thyself, and the heart is restless till it finds rest in Thee.” A man who feeds upon unwholesome food is always in want, because that upon which he feeds is not suited to meet the demands of his physical frame, so it is with the soul of a godless man. 2. The history of the world testifies that it is so. The unrest of the ungodly is the explanation of much of the ambition, of many of the selfish schemes of some men, as well as the voluntary asceticism, the self-imposed sufferings of others. The key to both is that they have spent “money for that which is not bread, and their labour for that which satisfieth not” (Isa. lv. 2). The teaching of Christ confirms it. Want was the condition of the prodigal; he wanted the bread which his father’s home and table alone could supply. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you” (John vi. 53). On this subject see Dr. Arnot’s remarks on verse 12 in the comments on that verse. 3. That there is satisfaction in sainthood is declared by Christ, and testified to be true by all His followers. The bread upon which a renewed man feeds is the Divine Word—the thoughts of God in the abstract, and the personal thought or word Jesus Christ. “As the living Father hath sent Me and I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me shall live by Me” (John vi. 57). And life is but another word for satisfaction. “He that believeth on Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” (John vii. 38). Millions of men and women in all circumstances, both poor and rich in worldly wealth, have set their “seal that God is true” (John iii. 33) when He invites men to “hearken diligently unto Him, and eat that which is good, and let their souls delight themselves in fatness” (Isa. lv. 2).

outlines and suggestive comments.

One of the confidences of the wicked is that he, at least, has his pleasure in this world. The inspired Solomon denies it. He himself has left us an experience (Eccles. i). The righteous man seeks righteousness and peace, and these things do satisfy him. He seeks them, not as the world does, under a mistake, but for what they really are. He seeks them more and more as he knows them better, and shall be seeking them and enjoying them though eternal ages. “But the wicked,” even in his “belly,” wants. His delights, even of the more carnal sort, are not to be directly gazed at. If they are, they vanish. He cannot trust himself to theorise over any solid pleasures. So hollow are they that he would not live over again the history of the past, and so poor that he grows tired of enjoying them.—Miller.

Have he more or less, he hath that which satisfies him. Nature is content with little, grace with less. If Jacob may have but “bread to eat and raiment to put on” it sufficeth him; and this he dare be bold to promise himself. Beg his bread he hopes he shall not, but if he should, he can say with Luther (who made many a meal of a broiled herring) “Let us be content to fare hard here: have we not the bread that came down from heaven?”—Trapp.

To have to eat is the common mercy of God, who openeth His hand and feedeth all things living. To have enough to eat is a great mercy in itself, and greater than man’s nature, which hath never enough of sinning anyway deserveth; but to be satisfied with that which is enough is a peculiar property bestowed on the righteous. The belly of the wicked wanting enough to eat in some degree is punished for feeding too greedily on the husks of sin. Wanting all food is more hardly punished, and it may be for the hardness of their hearts in resisting all instruction; but that it shall want though it have enough, this is a severe punishment of wickedness, though thought to be the least. The wise man doth not speak of the want of the mouth of the wicked as showing that the mouth should have sufficient, and yet the belly be punished with want in not being satisfied.—Jermin.

homiletic treatment of the chapter as a whole.

“The true Christian education of children.” (1) Its basis: God’s Word (vers. 1, 13, 14); (2) Its means: Love and strictness in inculcating God’s Word (vers. 1, 18, 24); (3) Its aim: Guidance of the youth to the promotion of his temporal and eternal welfare (vers. 2 sq. 16 sq.)—Lange’s Commentary.