outlines and suggestive comments.
What a diligent man gains becomes, in his hands, precious by the use he makes of it. It is the means of further increase. And his substance becomes “precious” to others as well as to himself. It is industriously, profitably, benevolently used. In this lies the true value of a man’s substance;—not in the acquisition, but in the use.—Wardlaw.
By translating remiyah the deceitful, instead of the slothful man, which appears to be the genuine meaning of the word, we may obtain a good sense, as the Vulgate has done. “The deceitful man shall not find gain, but the substance of a (just) man shall be the price of gold.” But our version, allowing remiyah to be translated fraudulent, gives the best sense. “The fraudulent man roasteth not that which he took in hunting,” the justice of God snatching from him what he had acquired unrighteously. Coverdale translates “A dis-creatfull man schal fynde no vauntage: but he that is content with what he hath, is more worth than golde.”—A. Clarke.
The substance of a diligent man is great in value, whatsoever it be in quantity, as a small boxful of pearls is more worth than mountains of pebbles. The house of the righteous hath much treasure. He is without that care in getting, fear in keeping, grief in losing—those three fell vultures that feed continually on the heart of the rich worldling, and dis-sweeten all his comforts. Jabal, that dwelt in tents, and tended the herds, had Jubal to his brother, the father of music. Jabal and Jubal, diligence and complacence, good husbandry and well-contenting sufficiency, dwell usually together.—Trapp.
Is not this a graphical picture of the slothful professor? He will take up religion under strong excitement. He begins a new course, and perhaps makes some advance in it. But, “having no root in himself,” his good frames and resolutions wither away (Matt. xiii. 20, 21). The continued exertion required, the violence that must be done to his deep-rooted habits, the difficulties in his new path, the invitations to present ease, all hang as a weight upon his efforts. . . . No present blessing can be enjoyed without grasping something beyond (Phil. iii. 12–14). Godliness without energy loses its full reward (2 John 8).—Bridges.
The impenitent, who wait for something to turn up, are the same type of lazy people as love hunting and fishing better than more regular labour. The wise man goes to the root and says, There are no such hunting gains in the spiritual world. He goes further. He seems to remind his reader that character is all that will be left for a man at the last. He seems to imply that man will bring home from his hunt nothing but “his laziness,” and would ask whether one can “roast” that like a quail or a duck. And though we start at such horrible absurdity, yet it brings out in keen light a very different possibility for diligence. Diligence can be roasted. It earns for us an eternal heaven, and yet, for all it gets, it is itself our richest dainty. “One cannot roast laziness as something he has taken in the chase; but a precious treasure of a man is a diligent one.” It is tantalizing to come so near other and important renderings. Many see very plausibly a meaning like this: “The slothful man roasteth not that which he took in hunting” (so far the English version), meaning that he is wasteful, and suffers what he has actually now to run to loss; “but the substance of a common man” (making the distinction as in verse 14) “is precious” (that is, made account of, and kept) “by a man of diligence.” A sinner throws away treasures; a saint values the very smallest. This would be a fine sense if the verse before meant that the “saint gains from his neighbour.” Per contra, though, there are difficulties. “The slothful man” (E.V.) in the Hebrew is the “sloth” or “laziness” itself. And the word is feminine, and must be the object rather than the subject of the verb. The meaning is, that sloth cannot be roasted and eaten, but diligence can.—Miller.
main homiletics of verse 28.
The Way of Life.
I. There is a way of righteousness in the world. 1. This fact is universally recognised. Men regard each other as moral and responsible beings. The doctrine of necessity will not do for every-day life. In all positions and conditions, man is met with the assumption that there is a “way of righteousness,” and his fellow-men deal with him accordingly. Man could not be held accountable for his actions if a right way of life did not exist, in which it was possible for him to walk. 2. This fact is confirmed by conscience. Bad actions are followed by remorse, and good deeds bring gladness to the soul. If there were no way of righteousness, how could this be the case? 3. It is revealed to us by God. The Bible sets forth two paths, in one of which man must walk, it foretells a day in which God will judge men, and will hold them guilty who have refused to walk in the way of righteousness after it has been made known to them. Where there is no way of righteousness there can be no transgression, and, consequently, no penalty.
II. The way of life implies—1. A beginning. All ways or paths have a starting-point, all methods or plans of life date from point of time. 2. An object in view. If men walk in a certain road it is presumed that they have some purpose in view. 3. An end or goal. So the way of righteousness. Its beginning is “repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ;” the object at which it aims by “patient continuance in well-doing” is “glory, and honour, and immortality;” its end is “eternal life” (Acts xx. 21; Rom. ii. 7), for “in the pathway thereof is no death, or immortality” (On this subject see also homiletics on chap. [iv. 18].)