On the subject of verse 11 see on chap. [x. 19–21], page 168.
main homiletics of verse 12.
A Moral Cancer in a King’s Court.
I. A man in authority should be a discerner of character. The man whose bodily sight is defective is not fit to be entrusted with the destinies of others in any case in which clear vision is needed. A purblind seaman would not be the man to stand upon the bridge of a vessel and direct its movements, nor would a general unable to distinguish friends from foes be a safe person to whom to entrust the guidance of an army in the field. And a man is manifestly in the wrong place if he is a ruler over others and is not a discerner of character.
II. A man in authority should be the possessor of a character. A ruler may be a good man himself and yet be imposed upon by others, but as a rule a lover of truth is a discerner of truth, and an honest man will detect the false ring of the liar’s words. But if a man is himself a liar, he will instinctively shrink from contact with true men, and true men will not care to hold intercourse with him, or to serve him, and so he must necessarily gather round him servants who are like himself. Such processes of attraction and repulsion are always going on in the world, in all departments of government, in the family, in the factory, and in the court. The servants are generally what the master is, and the courtiers reflect the character of the monarch.
III. It is therefore indispensable to the moral purity of any community that its head be first a good man and then an able man. Moral excellence is before all other things needful, but it is not the only thing needful. A good man is not always a keen discerner of character, although his goodness will strengthen his power of discernment, but he who rules men should possess in an uncommon degree the power of reading them as well as that of setting them a good example in his own life.
outlines and suggestive comments.
He that carrieth Satan in his ear is no less blameworthy than he which carrieth him in his tongue. Untruths are cherished and fostered, as it were, by those who are too light of belief. But this credulity is especially to be shunned by rulers in church, commonwealth, or private families; for all the inferiors commonly follow the example of the superiors. . . . It may indeed sometimes fall out that an Obadiah may lurk in Ahab’s court, but this is rare, and commonly the sway goeth another way. Who were Saul’s courtiers but Doeg and such backbiters?—Muffett.
How wise was David’s determination—both as the sovereign of his people and the ruler of his house—to discountenance lies, and uphold the cause of faithful men! (Ps. ci. 2–7).—Bridges.
It is natural, when we think of Solomon’s own situation as king of Israel, to expect to find some of his maxims of proverbial wisdom bearing special reference to the character and conduct of men in power. And so it is. When, moreover, we think of the wisdom with which, at the outset of his reign, and at his own earnest request, he was divinely endowed, we as naturally anticipate a correspondence between the maxims and the character. Nor are we disappointed. The maxims are not those of the selfishness of power,—not those of arbitrary despotism or the sovereignty of royal will; nor are they those of an artful, intriguing, Machiavellian policy. They are sound and liberal, and based on the great principle of the public good being the end of all government—the principle that kings reign, not for themselves, but for their people; while, in all their administration, they ought to be swayed and regulated by the laws of an authority higher than their own, by a regard to the Will of God as their rule, and the Glory of God, to which all else must ever be subordinate, as their supreme aim. But we must not forget, that the Book of Proverbs forms part of the canon of Inspired Scripture; that it does not contain, therefore, the mere dictates of human wisdom, how extraordinary soever that wisdom was; that “a greater than Solomon is here.”—Wardlaw.