The expression “the man” (הָאִישׁ, haʾîš) is a deliberately indirect designation of the woman’s husband. Although אִישׁ (ʾîš) can mean simply “man,” its definite form, together with “his house” (בְּבֵיתוֹ, bĕbêtô), identifies the particular man whose home is in view: the husband of the adulterous woman. Hebrew can use “the man” in such a relational setting where English ordinarily supplies “husband.” The woman avoids the covenantal and personal term by which he might properly be named, reducing him rhetorically to an absent obstacle rather than acknowledging him as her husband. The clause is introduced by כִּי (kî, “for”), which supplies the alleged basis for her invitation and assurance. “The man is not in his house” is reinforced by the Qal perfect הָלַךְ (hālak, “he has gone”) and the phrase בְּדֶרֶךְ מֵרָחוֹק (bĕderek mērāḥôq), literally, “on a journey from afar” or “on a distant journey.” The point is not merely that he has stepped out, but that his absence is extended and seemingly removes the prospect of immediate discovery. Verse 20 develops the same calculated assurance by specifying that he has taken money and will return only at an appointed time. Thus the woman’s circumlocution serves the seduction: it suppresses the husband’s rightful claim and presents adultery as an opportunity protected by his distance.

The imperative “Give” (תֵּן, tēn) has no expressed object, but the immediately preceding contrast supplies it: the wise person is to be given correction or rebuke, whereas the scoffer rejects and retaliates against it (vv. 7–8). Verse 8 has already commanded, “Reprove a wise man, and he will love you”; verse 9 restates and intensifies that principle. The point is not that material gifts make a wise man wiser, but that instruction—including corrective instruction—is profitably entrusted to one whose heart has been formed by wisdom. The second colon makes the intended sense explicit through the Hiphil imperative הוֹדַע (hôdaʿ), “make known” or “inform.” The righteous person, parallel to the wise person, receives disclosed truth and “adds learning” (יֹוסֶף לֶקַח, yôsēp leqaḥ). Leqaḥ denotes received instruction or acquired teaching, not mere information. The imperfect verbs יֶחְכַּם (yeḥkam, “he will become wiser”) and יֹוסֶף (yôsēp, “he will add”) express the characteristic consequence: genuine wisdom remains teachable and therefore grows. “Wise” and “righteous” are not presented as two unrelated groups, but as complementary moral and intellectual descriptions of the receptive disciple; in Proverbs, fear of the Lord produces both ethical rectitude and a willingness to receive further instruction.

The expression “the ruin of the wicked” most naturally denotes the calamity that overtakes the wicked, not devastation inflicted by them upon the righteous. The construct phrase שֹׁאַת רְשָׁעִים (shoʾat reshaʿim) uses “wicked” as the possessive or objective genitive: it is the ruin belonging to, or appointed for, the wicked. The feminine singular verb תָבֹא (tābōʾ, Qal imperfect, “it comes”) agrees with שֹׁאַת, confirming that the devastation itself is the event in view: “when it comes.” This sense accords with the surrounding instruction. The wise son is not to fear sudden dread (פַּחַד פִּתְאֹם, paḥad pitʾōm), nor to be alarmed when the divine moral order manifests itself in judgment upon the wicked. Verse 26 immediately grounds such freedom from fear in the Lord’s protective presence: he is the confidence of the righteous and keeps their foot from capture. The proverb does not deny that the righteous may witness sudden disasters or even suffer amid historical judgments; rather, it distinguishes their secure relation to the Lord from the ultimate overthrow of those who oppose his wisdom. The phrase therefore carries an implicitly judicial force, consistent with Proverbs’ recurrent contrast between the enduring security of the righteous and the eventual collapse of the wicked.

The singular צַדִּיק (ṣaddîq, “righteous person”) and the plural רְשָׁעִים (rešāʿîm, “wicked persons”) are not chiefly a numerical statement about how many righteous or wicked people exist. The proverb employs the singular generically: “the righteous” represents the individual characterized by righteousness, while the plural denotes the wicked as a recognizable company or class. Proverbs regularly alternates singular and plural forms in such generalizing maxims, and no doctrine concerning the relative number of the righteous and wicked should be drawn from this grammatical variation alone. Nevertheless, the wording suits the proverb’s moral contrast. The righteous person possesses a זֵכֶר (zēker), a memorial or enduring recollection, that is לִבְרָכָה (liberākâ), literally “for blessing”—that is, his remembered life evokes grateful and favorable remembrance. By contrast, the “name” (שֵׁם, šēm) of the wicked, their public identity and reputation, is said to rot. The imperfect יִרְקָב (yirqāb, Qal imperfect third masculine singular of rāqab, “rot, decay”) agrees with the singular subject “name,” not with the plural “wicked.” The image is therefore not merely that wicked individuals die, but that the reputation attached to their wickedness undergoes corruption and disappearance. The singular righteous person may also sharpen the proverb’s individual moral focus: one person’s righteousness can leave a blessed memorial, whereas the plural wicked are treated as a class whose names share the same destiny of decay. Yet the parallelism does not isolate one exemplary righteous man over against many wicked men. It states the customary moral order developed throughout Proverbs 10: righteousness yields an honored remembrance, while wickedness finally destroys the name by which its practitioners seek to establish themselves.

The expression “those who send you” designates human persons who have entrusted the learner with a task and expect a dependable report in return. The final clause, לְהָשִׁיב אֲמָרִים אֱמֶת לְשֹׁלְחֶיךָ (lehashib ʾamarim ʾemet lesholeḥeka), states the practical aim of instruction: the pupil is to “return words of truth” to his senders. שֹׁלְחֶיךָ (sholeḥeka) is a Qal masculine plural participle in construct with the second masculine singular suffix, literally “those sending you.” Its plural form makes a direct reference to God unlikely, notwithstanding the broader biblical conviction that God commissions his servants. The phrase need not identify a particular office, though it readily fits the social world of scribal, administrative, and courtly instruction, in which a trained man might be sent to inquire, negotiate, or communicate on another’s behalf. More generally, it concerns those—parents, superiors, patrons, or other responsible authorities—who send the young man and require an accurate answer. Wisdom in this section is therefore not presented as private intellectual possession. The preceding infinitive, “to make you know” (lehodiaʿaka, Hiphil infinitive construct of יָדַע, yadaʿ), leads to the further purpose, “to return”: instruction produces trustworthy speech in accountable service. The double use of אֱמֶת (ʾemet), “truth” or “faithfulness,” is significant. The pupil is taught “the certainty of words of truth” and is thereby equipped to give back “words of truth.” The second phrase includes not only factual accuracy but fidelity and reliability; the answer rendered to one’s senders must correspond to the dependable instruction received. Thus the verse closes the introduction to Proverbs 22:17–21 by portraying wisdom as truth received and truth faithfully transmitted.

The second colon means that the poor person is ordinarily spared the threatening demands and intimidations to which wealth exposes its possessor; it does not portray the poor as impervious to deserved moral correction. Although גְּעָרָה (geʿārâ) commonly denotes a rebuke or stern reprimand, its force here is more specifically a menacing rebuke, hence “threat” in many translations. The Qal perfect לֹא שָׁמַע (lōʾ šāmaʿ, “does not hear”) expresses a customary reality: the poor man does not receive such a threatening address because he lacks the resources that make him a profitable target. The first colon supplies the social setting. “A ransom for a man’s life” (כֹּפֶר נֶפֶשׁ־אִישׁ, kōper nepeš-ʾîš) is a payment made to preserve a person from danger or penalty, and “his wealth” may serve as that ransom. Wealth can therefore deliver its owner when he is threatened, sued, extorted, or otherwise placed in jeopardy. Yet the same wealth attracts the danger from which it may later purchase relief. By contrast, the poor person has no substantial property to seize or payment to demand, and thus does not hear the rebuke that functions as an ultimatum. The saying is not an absolute denial that poor persons suffer oppression, nor is it a commendation of poverty as such. It is a compressed observation about wealth’s double edge: riches can be a means of rescue, but they also make their possessor conspicuous and vulnerable to coercion. Rendering geʿārâ merely as “rebuke” can obscure this antithetical logic, while “threat” appropriately conveys the practical force of a severe rebuke directed at one believed able to pay.

The expression denotes not merely a neutral posture adopted in sleep but the deliberate cessation of labor characteristic of the sluggard. חִבּוּק יָדַיִם (ḥibbûq yādayim), literally “a clasping/folding of hands,” presents the hands—the instruments of work—as drawn together and rendered inactive. English versions that speak of “folding the hands” or “folding the arms” seek to convey this conventional picture of idleness; “hands” is the precise Hebrew term, with יָדַיִם (yādayim) in its dual form. The noun חִבּוּק (ḥibbûq), derived from the verb “to embrace” or “clasp,” therefore carries the sense of drawing the hands together rather than applying them to productive activity. The preposition לְ with the Qal infinitive construct לִשְׁכָּב (liškāb, “to lie down”) most immediately expresses the purpose or result of the hand-folding: it is a folding of the hands in order to remain in repose. Yet the phrase also completes the whole threefold portrayal: a little sleep, a little slumber, and a little withdrawal from work, all serving the desire to stay abed. The repeated מְעַט (meʿaṭ, “a little”) mimics the sluggard’s minimizing speech. No large or openly settled abandonment of duty is claimed; each delay is represented as insignificant. In the immediate context, however, this apparently modest accumulation contrasts with the ant’s provident labor (vv. 6–8) and leads directly to poverty’s sudden arrival (v. 11). The proverb does not condemn sleep as such, but exposes sleep and bodily ease when they become the pretext for persistent neglect of one’s appointed labor.

The LORD, not the enemies, is the subject of יַשְׁלִם (yashlim, Hiphil imperfect 3ms of שׁלם, shalam). The clause therefore means that when the LORD is pleased with a man’s conduct, he causes even that man’s enemies to live peaceably with him. The singular verb naturally resumes the explicit singular subject, יהוה (YHWH), in the preceding infinitival clause: “in/when the LORD’s taking pleasure in the ways of a man.” The plural אֹיְבָיו (ʾoyevayw, “his enemies”) is consequently the object of the Hiphil, while אִתּוֹ (ʾitto, “with him”) identifies the person with whom peace is established. The Hiphil of שׁלם commonly has a causative sense: to make complete, repay, or bring into a state of peace. In this context, marked by the preposition “with him,” the sense is not that the enemies compensate the righteous man, but that the LORD brings about reconciliation or the cessation of hostility. Translations such as “he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” preserve the Hebrew syntax more exactly than renderings that make the enemies themselves the grammatical subject. The saying does not teach that every godly person will experience uninterrupted external tranquility. Proverbs states the LORD’s ordinary moral government, and elsewhere recognizes that the righteous may suffer enduring opposition. Its claim is that hostile human relations remain under divine rule: the LORD can restrain enmity, convert opposition into peaceful relations, or otherwise ensure that enemies cannot finally overturn the one whose ways please him. The emphasis falls upon the LORD’s sovereign agency rather than upon a mechanical reward earned by outwardly correct conduct.

The Masoretic Text should be retained: the repetition of וֶאֱוִיל שְׂפָתַיִם יִלָּבֵט (weʾewil sepatayim yillabet), “and a fool of lips will come to ruin,” is most naturally read as an intentional recurrence of a proverb already stated in v. 8, not as a demonstrable scribal duplication. The expression אֱוִיל שְׂפָתַיִם designates a fool marked by his speech, and יִלָּבֵט is a Niphal imperfect, describing the fool’s own downfall: he will be ruined or brought down. It does not primarily mean that he causes ruin to others, though his destructive speech doubtless contributes to the outcome. The Septuagint supplies a substantially different second colon, commending open rebuke as producing peace. That reading forms an appealing antithesis to the covert, harmful eye-wink of the first colon, and it may preserve either an ancient interpretive development or a divergent Hebrew textual tradition. Yet the Greek wording is sufficiently unlike the Masoretic Hebrew that it cannot securely establish a specific original Hebrew text in its place. The Hebrew tradition represented by the Masoretic Text therefore remains the proper basis for exposition. Within the received form of the proverb, the repeated line functions as a refrain. Verse 8 contrasts the teachable wise person with the ruin-bound verbal fool; v. 10 returns to that same end after describing the person who communicates harm through a covert gesture. The two cola need not identify the same individual or establish a strict antithesis. Rather, they place side by side concealed malicious signaling, which gives grief to others, and unrestrained foolish speech, which finally brings its speaker to ruin. The recurrence reinforces the section’s sustained concern with the moral consequences of communication, whether secretive or verbal.

The participle נְלוֹזִים (nĕlōzîm), Niphal masculine plural participle of לוּז (lûz), does not portray the wicked as innocent persons passively misdirected by another. Although the Niphal stem can express passive action, it frequently carries a middle or stative force. Here it denotes persons who have turned aside, who are warped or devious in their established course. The masculine plural participle resumes the human referent supplied by the preceding description of evildoers (vv. 12–14): their paths are crooked, and they themselves are characterized as perverse within those paths. The two expressions are closely parallel but not merely repetitive. אָרְחוֹתֵיהֶם (ʾorḥôtêhem, "their paths") are called עִקְּשִׁים (ʿiqqĕšîm, "crooked, twisted"), while their מַעְגְּלוֹת (maʿgĕlôt, "tracks," the worn courses in which they move) are the sphere in which their deviousness is displayed. The imagery therefore describes moral deviation rather than geographical difficulty: these men have abandoned the upright paths (v. 13), delight in evil (v. 14), and habitually pursue a course bent away from the order and fear of the LORD. The same moral sense of לוז appears elsewhere in Proverbs, where the "perverse" person stands opposed to the upright and is an abomination to the LORD (3:32).

The negative particle אַל (ʾal) in “take my discipline and not silver” expresses preference, not an absolute prohibition of silver. The imperative קְחוּ (qeḥû, Qal imperative masculine plural of לָקַח, "take") governs the contrast: the hearers are summoned to receive Wisdom’s מוּסָרִי (mûsārî, "my discipline/instruction"), rather than to make silver the object of their decisive pursuit. English versions appropriately supply “rather than” or “instead of,” since Hebrew can coordinate the positive command and negative alternative with waw (wĕ-) plus אַל. The second colon makes the intended comparison explicit through מִן (min, "than/from"): “knowledge [is preferable] to refined gold.” This is therefore a statement of relative worth and governing allegiance, not a denial that silver and gold have legitimate use. Proverbs elsewhere recognizes material goods as gifts that may accompany wisdom (3:16; 8:18, 21), while repeatedly denying that riches can equal, purchase, or replace it (3:14–15; 16:16; 23:4–5). The “discipline” belongs to personified Wisdom, whose instruction includes correction as well as teaching; מוּסָר (mûsār) commonly denotes formative discipline, including reproof that trains a person in the fear of the Lord. “Knowledge” in the parallel line is thus not mere information but the Godward discernment that Wisdom imparts. The Niphal participle נִבְחָר (nibḥār, "chosen," hence “choice” or “refined”) intensifies the value of the gold, so that even gold of the finest quality remains inferior to Wisdom’s instruction.

The clause does not prescribe unceasing literal reading so much as it demands that paternal wisdom remain continually before the son’s attentive awareness and be inwardly retained. The verb יַלִּיזוּ (yallîzû), a Hiphil jussive of לוּז (lûz), denotes turning aside, slipping away, or departing. With אַל (ʾal), the negative jussive expresses a prohibition: the words are not to be allowed to move away “from before” the son’s eyes. The plural pronoun in שָׁמְרֵם (šomrēm, “keep them”) reaches back to the father’s “words” and “sayings” in v. 20, especially the masculine plural “my words,” and treats the instruction as a body of wisdom to be guarded. “Eyes” commonly represent directed attention and conscious consideration, not merely the physical act of seeing. The saying therefore envisions instruction held plainly in view, rather than neglected or displaced by rival counsel. The second colon intensifies and completes the first: the material kept before the eyes must also be kept “in the midst of the heart.” In Proverbs, the לֵבָב (lēbāb, “heart”) is the center of thought, deliberation, desire, and moral resolve, not simply the seat of emotion. The parallel thus moves from sustained attentiveness to deep internal custody. Wisdom is neither transient information nor an external rule; it is to be preserved at the governing center of the person, from which the conduct described in the following verses proceeds.

The verse contrasts the ruin produced by the absence of prudent human guidance with the safety ordinarily secured through a plurality of competent advisers; it does not identify the counselors in the second colon as divine. The Hebrew reads uteshuʿah berob yoʿets, literally, “but deliverance/safety is in an abundance of counselor.” Although yoʿets is a Qal active participle singular from yaʿats (“to advise”), the singular functions collectively after rob (“abundance, multitude”): safety is found where counsel is supplied by many advisers. English versions appropriately render the sense with a plural, “many counselors” or “an abundance of counselors.” The added adjective “divine” has no lexical basis in the Hebrew text. The first term, taḥbulot, denotes skilled guidance, especially strategic planning; its underlying imagery may be connected with the handling of ropes or steering in navigation. Its plural form conveys well-considered plans rather than mere casual opinions. Thus a people (ʿam) “falls” (yippal, Qal imperfect) when it lacks such direction, whereas teshuʿah can denote rescue, victory, or preservation in the face of danger. Proverbs is not thereby teaching that human counsel displaces the Lord’s sovereignty. Elsewhere it insists that the Lord establishes the outcome and that human plans stand only under his purpose (Prov. 16:9; 19:21; 21:31). Rather, this proverb identifies the ordinary means by which God grants communal preservation: wise deliberation informed by multiple qualified counselors, in contrast to leaderless or self-willed action.

Proverbs 31:29 most naturally supplies the substance of the husband’s praise announced in v. 28. The preceding clause states that “her husband also” praises her (יַהַלְלָהּ, *yehalelah*, Piel imperfect with a third-feminine-singular suffix), and v. 29 immediately shifts to direct second-person feminine address: “but you” (וְאַתְּ, *weʾatt*) “have ascended above all of them.” Although biblical Hebrew ordinarily does not mark quotation with punctuation, the movement from the narrator’s third-person description in v. 28 to the husband’s second-person address in v. 29 strongly indicates that these are his words. The verse thus gives literary expression to the marital praise that belongs among the woman’s household honors. “Many daughters” (רַבּוֹת בָּנוֹת, *rabbôt bānôt*) is an idiomatic designation for many women, not a reference to the woman’s literal daughters. They have “done valiantly” or “acted worthily” (עָשׂוּ חָיִל, *ʿāśû ḥayil*), using the same term *ḥayil* that characterizes the wife in v. 10. The husband does not deny the genuine excellence of other women; rather, by the Qal perfect עָלִית (*ʿālît*), “you have risen,” he declares that this wife has surpassed them all. The comparison climaxes the poem’s portrait of the אֵשֶׁת־חַיִל (*ʾēšet-ḥayil*), whose industry, wisdom, generosity, and fear of the Lord establish the grounds for the honor voiced by her household.

“A soul of blessing” denotes a person characterized by blessing others, not merely a person who has received blessing. The construct phrase נֶפֶשׁ־בְּרָכָה (nepeš-berāḵâ) uses נֶפֶשׁ in its common Hebrew sense of the whole person or life, rather than an immaterial component of humanity. The genitive “of blessing” is qualitative: this is a person whose disposition and conduct are beneficent, liberal, and life-giving. The parallel participle מַרְוֶה (marweh), a Hiphil active participle of רוה (rāwâ), confirms this sense, identifying the person as one who gives drink or refreshment to others. The consequence is expressed through deliberately reciprocal imagery. תְדֻשָּׁן (teduššan), a Pual imperfect feminine singular agreeing with נֶפֶשׁ, means “will be made fat” or, idiomatically, “will be abundantly supplied” and prosper. In the second colon, יוֹרֶא (yôrēʾ), a Hophal imperfect from ירה (yārâ) in the sense of watering or soaking, means “will himself be watered.” The proverb therefore does not teach that generosity purchases divine favor, nor does it reduce blessing to material increase. It states the moral order upheld by the Lord: the one whose life becomes a channel of blessing is not finally impoverished by such liberality but is himself replenished. The agricultural image of watering preserves the central point: refreshment bestowed upon others returns, under God’s providential government, to the giver.

Proverbs 3:2 presents long life and peace as the proper and ordinary outcome of receiving and retaining the father’s instruction; it is not a mechanical guarantee that every individual righteous person will be spared premature death or affliction. The plural Hiphil imperfect יוֹסִיפוּ (yosipu, “they will add”) takes the instruction and commandments of v. 1 as its subject. Such teaching adds “length of days,” “years of life,” and “peace” to its hearer because wisdom directs life away from many paths that lead to ruin and places the obedient person within the sphere of God’s favor. The language is deliberately covenantal. “Length of days” recalls the promise attached to honoring parents (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16) and the Deuteronomic association of fearing the Lord and keeping his commands with prolonged life in the land (Deut 6:2; 30:19–20). שָׁלוֹם (shalom) denotes more than the absence of conflict: it includes wholeness, welfare, and settled well-being under God’s blessing. The three expressions are therefore not three unrelated rewards, but a comprehensive description of a life preserved and prospered by the Lord. Yet Proverbs itself refuses to turn this principle into an absolute rule of retribution. The righteous may suffer, and wisdom must reckon with realities not resolved by immediate outward outcomes (cf. Prov 15:16–17; 16:8; 24:16). The imperfect form expresses what wisdom ordinarily yields under God’s moral government, while the wider canon makes clear that the final and unqualified fulfillment of life and peace belongs to the Lord’s ultimate judgment and redemption. The proverb consequently states a true divine pattern, grounded in covenant blessing, without denying God’s sovereign freedom or the presence of righteous suffering.

The phrase מִכָּל־מִשְׁמָר (mikkol-mišmār) most naturally assigns the guarding of the heart supreme priority: “more than every other guard,” or “above all that is guarded, guard your heart.” The preposition מִן (min, “from, than”) can introduce a comparison, and the imperative נְצֹר (neṣor, Qal imperative masculine singular of נצר, “guard, preserve”) governs “your heart” as the object requiring this exceptional vigilance. The rendering “with all diligence” expresses a legitimate implication of the command, since what is guarded above all else will be guarded diligently; yet it obscures the comparative force of the Hebrew. The father is not merely urging careful inwardness but ranking the heart above other objects of protection. In Proverbs, the לֵב (lēb, “heart”) is the inner center of understanding, moral deliberation, desire, and resolve, rather than merely the seat of emotion. This emphasis accords with the surrounding exhortation: the son must retain the father’s words (4:20–22), put away crooked speech (4:24), direct his eyes straight ahead (4:25), and establish a straight path for his feet (4:26–27). These outward organs and actions are treated as expressions of the inward moral center. The reason clause, “for from it are the outgoings of life,” confirms this priority. תּוֹצְאוֹת (tôṣāʾôt), “outgoings, issues, sources,” depicts life as proceeding from the heart; the heart is the fountainhead from which a person’s course and conduct emerge. The verse therefore concerns the preservation of the inner person from the corrupting influences that issue in a disordered life, not the guarding of physical health in isolation.

In this context מְחֻקָּק (meḥuqqāq) is best understood substantivally as “that which has been decreed,” that is, the established legal ordinance or decree, rather than as “the lawgiver.” The form is a Pual passive participle from חקק (ḥāqaq), “to inscribe” and hence “to enact” or “decree.” Its passive force points naturally to a thing decreed. Thus the warning is that wine may cause the king to forget the legal norms by which he is obligated to judge. The following clause confirms this sense: intoxication may cause him to “alter” (Piel of שׁנה, šānâ) the judgment or legal claim (dîn) of “all the sons of affliction,” an idiom denoting those marked by poverty, misery, or oppression. Forgetting the decree and perverting the afflicted person’s case are parallel effects of impaired royal judgment. Although the consonants could be associated with the related noun for a ruler or lawgiver, the Masoretic vocalization and the judicial parallelism favor “what has been decreed.” The concern is not principally that the king might fail to remember a particular legislator, but that he might abandon the fixed standard of justice and thereby distort the rights of the vulnerable.

The proverb does not treat joy, wine, and oil as intrinsically evil; it identifies ruinous devotion to pleasurable and costly enjoyments as the path to poverty. The repeated participle אֹהֵב (ʾōhēb, “one loving”) gives the saying its emphasis: the subject is characterized by settled affection for “joy” (שִׂמְחָה, śimḥâ) and, more concretely, for wine and oil. “Joy” here is not the covenantal gladness commended elsewhere in Scripture, but festal pleasure as an object of consuming pursuit. Wine and oil were ordinary gifts of God, yet fine wine and perfumed or cosmetic oil could also signify the expenses of banqueting and luxury. The saying therefore addresses indulgent expenditure, not the lawful use of created goods. The opening phrase אִישׁ מַחְסוֹר (ʾîš maḥsôr) is most naturally rendered “a man of poverty” or “a man of want,” describing the outcome or identifying condition of the pleasure-lover. The final clause, לֹא יַעֲשִׁיר (lōʾ yaʿăšîr), uses the Hiphil imperfect of עשר (ʿšr), “to make rich” or “become wealthy”; it states the expected result with proverbial force: such a person will not attain wealth. Proverbs 21:20 supplies the immediate contrast, where the wise preserve desirable treasure and oil while the fool consumes them. The thought is also developed in Proverbs 23:20–21, where habitual association with drunkenness and excessive feasting leads to poverty. Thus the verse concerns not ascetic rejection of enjoyment but the moral and economic folly of making luxurious pleasure the governing love.

Verse 17 supplies an a fortiori comparison: even a bird will not ordinarily be caught by a net openly spread before its eyes, whereas the violent conspirators of verses 10–16 rush into a scheme whose deadly outcome should be evident. The proverb does not shift attention to the intended victims of the gang; rather, it exposes the gang’s own irrationality. Though they propose to ambush the innocent secretly (vv. 11–12), their enterprise is, in fact, an ambush against themselves (v. 18). Their apparent cunning is therefore less sensible than the instinctive caution of a bird. The clause is literally, “For in vain is the net spread in the eyes of every possessor of wing.” מְזֹרָה (mezorah) is a Pual feminine singular participle from זרה (zarah), “to scatter” or “spread,” agreeing with רֶשֶׁת (reshet), “net”; its passive sense leaves the human trapper unstated. חִנָּם (ḥinnam), “for nothing” or “in vain,” means that openly laying the net does not achieve the trapper’s purpose, since the bird sees the danger. “Every owner of wing” (kol-baʿal kanaph) is an idiomatic designation for any bird, emphasizing the universal instinct of winged creatures to avoid a visible snare. The comparison is sharpened by the following verses. The sinners invite the youth to conceal violence, yet their own feet run toward evil and shed blood (vv. 15–16); indeed, they lie in wait for their own blood (v. 18). The net is therefore not primarily a symbol of the father’s warning, as though the warning itself were a trap, but an observation from hunting that interprets the moral situation. The warning has made the end of their path plain: unjust gain takes the life of those who possess it (v. 19). The band’s self-destruction is consequently presented as a more culpable folly than the bird’s failure to enter a plainly visible net.