16 Whosoever oppresseth the lowly, it is gain to him;
Whosoever giveth to the rich, it is only loss.
It is before all clear that להרבּות and למחסור, as at Pro 21:5, למותר and למחסור, are contrasted words, and form the conclusions to the participles used, with the force of hypothetical antecedents. Jerome recognises this: qui calumniatur pauperem, ut augeat divitias suas, dabit ipse ditiori et egebit. So Rashi, who by עשׁיר thinks on heathen potentates. Proportionally better Euchel, referring עשׁק and נתן, not to one person, but to two classes of men: he who oppresses the poor to enrich himself, and is liberal toward the rich, falls under want. The antithetic distich thus becomes an integral one - the antithesis manifestly intended is not brought out. This may be said also against Bertheau, who too ingeniously explains: He who oppresses the poor to enrich himself gives to a rich man, i.e., to himself, the enriched, only to want, i.e., only to lose again that which he gained unrighteously. Ralbag is on the right track, for he suggests the explanation: he who oppresses the poor, does it to his gain, for he thereby impels him to a more energetic exercise of his strength; he who gives to the rich man does it to his own loss, because the rich man does not thank him for it, and still continues to look down on him. But if one refers לּו to the poor, then it lies nearer to interpret אך למחסור of the rich: he who gives presents to the rich only thereby promotes his sleepy indolence, and so much the more robs him of activity (Elster); for that which one gives to him is only swallowed up in the whirlpool of his extravagance (Zckler). Thus Hitzig also explains, who remarks, under 17a: "Oppression produces reaction, awakens energy, and thus God on the whole overrules events" (Exo 1:12). Similarly also Ewald, who thinks on a mercenary, unrighteous rich man: God finally lifts up the oppressed poor man; the rich man always becoming richer, on the contrary, is "punished for all his wickedness only more and more." But with all these explanations there is too much read between the lines. Since אך למחדור (Pro 11:24; Pro 21:5) refers back to the subject: himself to mere loss, so also will it be here; and the lxx, Symmachus, Jerome (cf. also the Syr. auget malum suum) are right when they also refer לו, not to the poor man, but to the oppressor of the poor. We explain: he who extorts from the poor enriches himself thereby; but he who gives to the rich has nothing, and less than nothing, thereby - he robs himself, has no thanks, only brings himself by many gifts lower and lower down. In the first case at least, 17a, the result corresponds to the intention; but in this latter case, 17b, one gains only bitter disappointment. |