Matthew Henry on Proverbs 28:16
Two things are here intimated to be the causes of the mal-administration of princes: - 1. The love of money, that root of all evil; for hating covetousness here stands opposed to oppression, according to Moses's character of good magistrates, men fearing God and hating covetousness (Exo 18:21), not only not being covetous, but hating it, and shaking the hands from the holding of bribes. A ruler that is covetous will neither do justly nor love mercy, but the people under him shall be bought and sold. 2. Want of consideration: He that hates covetousness shall prolong his government and peace, shall be happy in the affections of his people and the blessing of his God. It is as much the interest…
Read the whole note in the consoleJamieson-Fausset-Brown on Proverbs 28:16
The prince . . . understanding--that is, He does not perceive that oppression jeopards his success. Covetousness often produces oppression, hence the contrast.
John Gill on Proverbs 28:16
The prince that wanteth understanding is also a great oppressor,.... Or, "much in oppressions" (o); he multiplies them, and abounds in them; he distresses his subjects in a variety of ways and methods he uses to extort money from them by which he shows his want of understanding: he is a wise prince that uses gentle methods, and gains the affections of his people, and who cheerfully supports his crown and government with honour and glory; but he is a foolish prince that uses them with rigour. It may be rendered, "and a prince that wanteth understanding, and is much", or "abounds, in oppressions"; in laying heavy burdens and taxes on his people, in an arbitrary manner; "shall shorten, and not…
Read the whole note in the consoleKeil & Delitzsch on Proverbs 28:16
Another proverb of the king:
O prince devoid of understanding and rich in oppression!
He that hateth unrighteous gain continueth long.
The old interpreters from the lxx interpret מעשׁקּות רבו as pred. (as also Fleischer: princeps qui intelligentiae habet parum idem oppressionis exercet multum); but why did not the author use the word הוּא or והוּא instead of this ambiguous inconvenient ו? Hitzig regards the first term as a nominative absolute, which does not assume a suffix in the second line. But examples such as 27a, Pro 27:7, are altogether of a different sort; there occurs a reference that is in reality latent, and only finds not expression; the clause following the nominative is related…
