Each interpretation is tenable grammatically. (1) He whom men despise, or who is “lowly” in his own eyes (the word is used by David himself, 1 Sam xviii. 23), the trader, the peasant, if he has a slave, i.e., if he is one step above absolute poverty, and has someone to supply his wants, is better off than the man who boasts of rank or descent, and has nothing to eat. Respectable mediocrity is better than boastful poverty. (2) He who, though despised, is a servant to himself, i.e. supplies his own wants, is better than the arrogant and helpless.—Plumptre.
Some do think it more miserable to be known to be miserable than to be so, and are more grieved to be disesteemed for it than to be pinched by it, wherefore they will feed the eyes of others with a show of plenty, although they have not bread to feed themselves. But he is better who, disesteeming the esteem of others and being servant to himself, does get his own bread, and is contented with it. For as he is servant, so is he master also; and howbeit he serveth, yet it is at his own pleasure. And this is his comfort, that while he serveth himself he hath to serve his need and occasions, when he that honoureth himself is fain at last to live by others. Or else take the meaning thus: the ambitious itch of many is so great, and so disquieteth their hearts, that they can lack anything, even bread itself, rather than honour and preferment; so that when they are swollen big in greatness and dignity they are even starved in their estate, and have not of their own the next meal to feed themselves. But better is he, especially if he be a good man, who—having to keep himself and a servant—doth keep within his means; and though he be despised by them that overlook him, yet he looks upon himself with thanks to God that it is so well with him. And, indeed, how can this man but be better than the other, when his servant is better than the other is. For as Chyrsostom speaketh, it cannot be but that he who is the slave of glory should be servant of all, yea, more vile than all other servants. For there is no servant commanded to do such base things as the love of glory commandeth him.—Jermin.
The son of Sirach, who may well be called an interpreter of this book of the Proverbs, hath a very like saying to this where he speaketh thus, “Better is he that worketh and aboundeth with all things, than he that boasteth himself, and wanteth bread” (Ecclus. x. 27).—Muffet.
When men are such slaves to the opinion of the world, they rebel against Him who makes no mistake in His allotments and often appoints a descent from worldly elevation as a profitable discipline (Jas. i. 10, 11; Dan. iv. 32–37). Yet it is hard, even for the Christian, as Bunyan reminds us, “to go down the valley of humiliation and catch no slip by the way.” We need our Master’s unworldly elevated spirit (John vi. 15) to make as safe descent. . . . “Let our moderation be known unto all men,” under the constraining recollection, “The Lord is at hand” (Phil. iv. 5). How will the dazzling glory of man’s esteem fade away before the glory of His appearing!—Bridges.
Paul travelling on foot, and living on the wages of a tent-maker, was more respectable than the pretended successor of his brother apostle, with a triple crown upon his head.—Lawson.
main homiletics of verse 10.
Care for Animals and Cruelty to Men.
Even the animal is benefited by being related to a righteous man.
I. The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast. 1. Because of the entire dependence of the creature upon him. Animals which are the property of man are entirely at his mercy. They have no power to change a bad master for a good one—no voice to utter their complaints—no means of getting redress for their wrongs. All these considerations tend to make a good man care for them, for the righteous man’s sympathies are always drawn out in proportion to the need of the object. And with regard to the animal creation, it may be that the present life is the only opportunity a man may have of showing kindness to them. If, on the other hand, animals live in another world, it may be all the better for men to treat them well here. 2. Because of his dependence upon his beast. Men are very largely indebted to animals for the sustaining of their life—it would be very difficult for the work of the world to be carried on without their help; man would certainly have to labour much harder if they had it not. Therefore, the righteous man feels that he is paying a debt when he “regards the life of his beast.” 3. Because the animal is an object of Divine care. The Bible has many references to the brute creation, and many passages which show that “God regardeth the life of the beast.” Christ tells us that not a sparrow falls to the ground without His Father’s notice, and God has given special commands with reference to the care of dumb creatures. “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” (Duet. xxv. 4). Seeing, then, that “God doth care for oxen,” a righteous man will do likewise. 4. Because of the lessons that may be learned from the animal creation. God often sends man to learn of them (see Isa. i. 3; Jer. viii. 7), and much suggestive teaching may be got from observation of their dispositions and habits. It would be ingratitude not to repay them with considerate care.
II. The wicked man is cruel. Wickedness is, in its nature, destitute of kindliness. The sea is by nature salt, and its saltiness makes it unfit to sustain human life. The father of wickedness is a cruel being—his only aim is to increase the misery of the universe. All his children have partaken more or less of his character since the first human murderer killed his brother. It is said here that even his acts of mercy are cruel. History gives many instances of men whose so-called acts of mercy were only refined cruelties. It follows that if wicked men are cruel to their fellow-creatures—to men and women of their own flesh and blood, they will be even more indifferent to the welfare of creatures below man.