▼sn “Honor” in this passage probably means respect, external recognition of worth, accolades, advancement to high position, etc. All of these would be out of place with a fool; so the sage is warning against elevating or acclaiming those who are worthless. See also J. A. Emerton, “Notes on Some Passages in the Book of Proverbs,” VT 15 (1965): 271-79.

▼sn The first twelve verses of this chapter, Prov 26:1-12, are sometimes called “the Book of Fools” because they deal with the actions of fools.

▼tn Heb “causeless curse” (KJV similar) describes an undeserved curse (cf. NIV, NRSV). The Hebrew word translated “causeless” is the adverb from חָנַן (khanan); it means “without cause; gratuitous.”

▼sn This proverb is saying that a curse that is uttered will be powerless if that curse is undeserved. It was commonly believed in the ancient world that blessings and curses had power in themselves, that once spoken they were effectual. But scripture makes it clear that the power of a blessing or a curse depends on the power of the one behind it (e.g., Num 22:38; 23:8). A curse would only take effect if the one who declared it had the authority to do so, and he would only do that if the curse was deserved.

▼tc The MT has the negative with the verb “to enter; to come” to mean “will not come” (לֹא תָבֹא, loʾ tavoʾ). This is interpreted to mean “will not come to rest” or “will not come home.” Some commentators have taken the Qere reading of לוֹ (lo) instead, and read it as “will come home to him.” This is also a little difficult, but it gives the idea that an undeserved curse will come [back] to him [who gave it]. Just as a bird will fly around and eventually come home, so will the undeserved curse return on the one who gave it. This is plausible, but there is no referent for the suffix, making it syntactically difficult.

▼sn A fool must be disciplined by force like an animal—there is no reasoning. The fool is as difficult to manage as the donkey or horse.

▼sn One should not answer a fool’s foolish questions in line with the fool’s mode of reasoning (J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs, 274).

▼sn The person who descends to the level of a fool to argue with him only looks like a fool as well.

▼tc The editors of BHS suggest that the preposition in v. 5 should be ב (bet) which looks similar to the כ (kaf) in v. 4 but has a different meaning. The result would be that v. 4 says “do not answer a fool in conformity with his folly,” while the v. 5 might read “answer a fool in opposition to his folly.” In a practical sense this would mean that v. 4 speaks of not answering a fool at the level of his folly, perhaps thereby giving it validity, while v. 5 speaks of responding to a fool in opposition to his folly. Yet a similar meaning may be arrived at by maintaining כ (kaf) in each verse but reading different nuances based on the second half of each verse.

▼sn The apparent contradiction with the last verse has troubled commentators for some time. One approach is to assume the different proverbs apply in different settings. The Rabbis solved it by saying that v. 4 referred to secular things, but v. 5 referred to sacred or religious controversies. Another view is to ignore the fool in negligible issues, but to deal with the fool in significant matters, lest credence be given to what he says (W. G. Plaut, Proverbs, 266). Another approach is that the two proverbs present principles that must be held in tension at the same time. The second half of each verse advises, by reference to outcome, what is fitting or unsuited in making a response. (See B. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs [NICOT], 348-350.) Also consider the example of Paul, who talked like a “fool” to correct the foolish ideas of the Corinthians (2 Cor 11:16-17; 12:11).

▼tn Heb “in his own eyes” (so NAB, NASB, NIV).

▼sn Sending a messenger on a mission is like having another pair of feet. But if the messenger is a fool, this proverb says, not only does the sender not have an extra pair of feet—he cuts off the pair he has. It would not be simply that the message did not get through; it would get through incorrectly and be a setback! The other simile uses “violence,” a term for violent social wrongs and injustice. The metaphorical idea of “drinking” violence means suffering violence—it is one’s portion. So sending a fool on a mission will have injurious consequences.

▼tn The participle could be taken as the subject of the sentence: “the one who sends…cuts off…and drinks.”

▼sn The consequence is given in the first line and the cause in the second. It would be better not to send a message at all than to use a fool as messenger.

▼tn The line does not start with the comparative preposition כ(kaf) “like,” but the proverb clearly invites comparison between the two lines.

▼tn Heb “thighs dangle from the lame.” The verb is דַּלְיוּ (dalyu), from דָּלָה (dalah) or דָּלַל (dalal) biforms which mean “to hang down” and possibly by extension “to let down/lower/be low” and “to draw [water]” i.e., lowering a bucket into a well and drawing it up. We might imagine paralyzed legs either as “dangling” or “pulled up” to a stable position where a person sits, both indicating the uselessness of the legs—they are there but cannot be used. Since the verb must function in both halves of the verse, “dangling” is the most likely picture. Luther gave the verse a fanciful but memorable rendering: “Like dancing to a cripple, so is a proverb in the mouth of the fool.”

▼tn Because of the analogy within the verse, indicated in translation by supplying “like,” the conjunction vav has been translated “so.”

▼sn As C. H. Toy puts it, the fool is a “proverb-monger” (Proverbs [ICC], 474); he handles an aphorism about as well as a lame man can walk. The fool does not understand, has not implemented, and cannot explain the proverb. It is useless to him even though he repeats it.

▼tn The verb has been supplied from the first colon because of the convention of ellipsis and double duty (omitting a word in one line which is understood to apply from another line).

▼tn The translation “like tying a stone in a sling” seems to make the most sense, even though the word for “sling” occurs only here.

▼sn The point is that only someone who does not know how a sling works would do such a stupid thing (R. N. Whybray, Proverbs [CBC], 152). So to honor a fool would be absurd; it would be counterproductive, for he would still be a fool.

▼tn The line does not start with the comparative preposition כ (kaf) “like,” but the proverb clearly invites comparison between the two lines.

▼sn The picture is one of seizing a thornbush and having the thorn pierce the hand (עָלָה בְיַד־, ʿalah veyad). A drunk does not know how to handle a thornbush because he cannot control his movements and so gets hurt (W. McKane, Proverbs [OTL], 599). C. H. Toy suggests that this rather means a half-crazy drunken man brandishing a stick (Proverbs [ICC], 475). In this regard cf. NLT “a thornbush brandished by a drunkard.”

▼tn Because of the analogy within the verse, indicated in translation by supplying “like,” the conjunction vav has been translated “so.”

▼tn The verb has been supplied from the first colon because of the convention of ellipsis and double duty (omitting a word in one line which is understood to apply from another line).

▼sn A fool can read or speak a proverb but will be intellectually and spiritually unable to handle it; he will misapply it or misuse it in some way. In doing so he will reveal more of his folly. It is painful to hear fools try to use proverbs.

▼tn The line does not start with the comparative preposition כ (kaf) “like,” but the proverb clearly invites comparison between the two lines.

▼tn Or “An archer is one who wounds anyone; And the employer of a fool is (particularly) the employer of those just passing by.” This translation understands the participles substantivally rather than verbally. In a battle, archers are not initially taking aim to hit an individual bull’s eye. They shoot as a group high in the air at the approaching enemy forces, who then find themselves in a hail of dangerous arrows. The individual archer is indiscriminate. When someone hires whoever is passing by, indiscriminately, that employer is more likely to end up with an incompetent or foolish employee. The words in the line have several possible meanings, making it difficult and often considered textually defective. The first line has רַב מְחוֹלֵל־כֹּל (rav mekholel kol). The first word, רַב (rav), can mean “archer,” “master,” or “much.” The verb מְחוֹלֵל (mekholel) can mean “to wound” or “to bring forth.” The possibilities are: “a master performs [or, produces] all,” “a master injures all,” “an archer wounds all,” or “much produces all.” The line probably should be stating something negative, so the idea of an archer injuring or wounding people [at random] is preferable. An undisciplined hireling will have the same effect as an archer shooting at anything and everything (cf. NLT “an archer who shoots recklessly”).

▼tn Because of the analogy within the verse, indicated in translation by supplying “like,” the conjunction vav has been translated “so.”

▼tn The participle שֹׂכֵר (shokher) is rendered here according to its normal meaning “hires” or “pays wages to.” Other suggestions include “one who rewards a fool” (derived from the idea of wages) and “one who stops a fool” (from a similar word).

▼sn The simile is graphic and debasing (cf. 2 Peter 2:22).

▼sn The point is clear: Fools repeat their disgusting mistakes, or to put it another way, whenever we repeat our disgusting mistakes we are fools. The proverb is affirming that no matter how many times a fool is warned, he never learns.

▼tn Most translations render the verse as a question (“Have you seen…?” so KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB) while sometimes this construction is turned into a conditional sentence. But the Hebrew has a perfect verb form (רָאִיתָ; raʾita), expecting past time, without an interrogative or conditional marker. See the note at Prov 26:16.

▼tn Heb “in his own eyes” (so ESV, NASB, NIV84).

▼sn Previous passages in the book of Proverbs all but deny the possibility of hope for the fool. So this proverb is saying there is absolutely no hope for the self-conceited person, and there might be a slight hope for the fool—he may yet figure out that he really is a fool.