EXPLANATORY NOTES AND QUAINT SAYINGS (3)

Verse 3.—“He that backbiteth not with his tongue.” The Hebrew word רָגַל signifieth to play the spy, and by a metaphor to backbite or slander, for backbiters and whisperers, after the manner of spies, go up and down dissembling their malice, that they may espy the faults and defects of others, whereof they may make a malicious relation to such as will give ear to their slanders. So that backbiting is a malicious defamation of a man behind his back.... And that the citizen of heaven doth and ought to abhor from backbiting, the horrible wickedness of this sin doth evince. For first, Lev. xix. 16, where it is straightly forbidden, the “tale-bearer” is compared to a pedlar: “Thou shalt not walk about with tales and slanders, as it were a pedlar among thy people.” So much רָכִיל signifieth. For as the pedlar having bought his wares of some one or more goeth about from house to house that he may sell the same to others; so backbiters and tale-bearers, gathering together tales and rumours, as it were wares, go from one to another, that such wares as either themselves have invented, or have gathered by report, they may utter in the absence of their neighbour to his infamy and disgrace. Likewise Psalm l. 20, it is condemned as a notable crime, which God will not suffer to go unpunished; Ezek. xxii. 9, it is reckoned among the abominations of Jerusalem, for which destruction is denounced against it; and Rom. i. 29, 30, among the crimes of the heathen, given over unto a reprobate sense, this is placed: they were “whisperers and backbiters.”—George Downame.

Verse 3.—“He that backbiteth not.” He that is guilty of backbiting, that speaks evil of another behind his back, if that which he speaks be false, is guilty of lying, which is prejudicial to salvation. If that which he speaks be true, yet he is void of charity in seeking to defame another. For as Solomon observes, “Love covereth all sins.” Prov. x. 12. Where there is love and charity, there will be a covering and concealing of men’s sins as much as may be. Now, where charity is wanting, their salvation is not to be expected. 1 Cor. xiii. 1, etc.; 1 John iii. 14,15.—Christopher Cartwright, 1602-1658.

Verse 3.—“Backbiteth not.” This crime is a conjugation of evils, and is productive of infinite mischiefs; it undermines peace, and saps the foundation of friendship; it destroys families, and rends in pieces the very heart and vitals of charity; it makes an evil man party, and witness, and judge, and executioner of the innocent.—Bishop Taylor.

Verse 3.—“Backbiteth.” The scorpion hurteth none but such as he toucheth with the tip of his tail; and the crocodile and basilisk slay none but such as either the force of their sight, or strength of their breath reacheth. The viper woundeth none but such as it biteth; the venomous herbs or roots kill none but such as taste, or handle, or smell them, and so come near unto them; but the poison of slanderous tongues is much more rank and deadly; for that hurteth and slayeth, woundeth and killeth, not only near, but afar off; not only at hand, but by distance of place removed; not only at home, but abroad, not only in our own nation but in foreign countries; and spareth neither quick nor dead.—Richard Turnbull.

Verse 3.—“Backbiteth.” The word here used comes from a root signifying foot, and denotes a person who goes about from house to house, speaking things he should not (1 Tim. v. 13); and a word from this root signifies spies; and the phrase here may point at persons who creep into houses, pry into the secrets of families, divulge them, and oftentimes represent them in a false light. Such are ranked among the worst of men, and are very unfit to be in the society of saints, or in a church of Christ. See Rom. i. 30.—John Gill.

Verse 3.—“Nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.” The saints of God must not be too light of hearing, much less of believing all tales, rumours, and reports of their brethren; and charity requireth that we do not only stop and stay them, but that we examine them before we believe them. Saul, the king, too light of belief in this point, believed the slanderous and false reports of David’s enemies, who put into Saul’s head that David imagined evil against him. Yea, David himself showed his great infirmity in that, that without due examination and proof of the matter, he believed the false report of Ziba against Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan; of whom to David the king, persecuted by Absalom his son, Ziba reported falsely, that he should say, “This day shall the house of Israel restore unto me the kingdom of my father.” The example of whose infirmity in Scripture reproved, must not we follow; but let us rather embrace the truth of that heavenly doctrine which, through God’s Spirit, here he preacheth, that we believe not false reports against our neighbours.—Richard Turnbull.

Verse 3.—Despise not thy neighbour, but think thyself as bad a sinner, and that the like defects may befall thee. If thou canst not excuse his doing, excuse his intent which may be good; or if the deed be evil, think it was done of ignorance; if thou canst no way excuse him, think some great temptation befell him, and that thou shouldst be worse if the like temptation befell thee; and give God thanks that the like as yet hath not befallen thee. Despise not a man being a sinner, for though he be evil to-day, he may turn to-morrow.—Williams Perkins, 1558-1602.

Verses 3, 4, 5.—They that cry down moral honesty, cry down that which is a great part of religion, my duty towards God, and my duty towards man. What care I to see a man run after a sermon, if he cozens and cheats as soon as he comes home? On the other side, morality must not be without religion, for if so, it may change as I see convenience. Religion must govern it. He that has not religion to govern his morality, is not a dram better than my mastiff-dog; so long as you stroke him, and please him, and do not pinch him, he will play with you as finely as may be, he is a very good moral mastiff; but if you hurt him, he will fly in your face, and tear out your throat.—John Seldon, 1584-1654.

Verse 4.—“In whose eyes a vile person is contemned,” etc. When wicked Jehoram, king of Israel, came to Eliseus, the prophet, to ask counsel of the Lord, and to entreat for waters, having in company Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, being virtuous; the prophet showeth his contempt to the one being wicked, and his reverence to the other, being godly, faithful and virtuous, said, “As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee.” 2 Kings iii. 14. Thus was the wicked vile in his sight; thus did he not flatter the ungodly. In like manner godly Mordecai, the Jew, having Haman the ambitious and proud Agagite in contempt, would in no wise bow the knee unto him in sign of honour, as the rest of the people did; for which cause he was extremely hated, menaced and molested of proud and wicked Haman. To wink at their wickedness, to uphold them in their iniquity, to fawn upon them and flatter them, to praise them when they deserve just reproof, is, as it were, an honouring of them; to which, as to a most grievous sin, the prophet denounceth a most bitter curse: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah v. 20.—Richard Turnbull.

Verse 4.—“In whose eyes a vile person is contemned.” To contemn the wicked and honour the godly, are opposite the one to the other. But the former may seem not to be sufficiently beseeming to a godly man. For why should he contemn or despise others, who is commanded by all means to care for the credit of others, as we heard even now? Nay, a godly man, letting others go, ought to search into himself, and to accuse himself, but not to judge of others. But this saying of the prophet is to be understood rather of the faults than of the person. As every man therefore is to be loved, so are the faults of every man to be hated of the godly. For so is God himself, whom we desire to be like unto, that we might dwell with him, affected and disposed. For why? he hateth no man, nay, he hateth nothing at all in this whole universal world, but only sin. For he is the author and preserver of all things that be; and therefore doth good and wisheth well to all; only of sin he is not the author, but the free and unconstrained will of man and Satan. Notwithstanding God doth so greatly hate sin, that by reason thereof he doth sometimes neglect and forsake men, yea, and have them in contempt. So then a godly man hateth no man, nor contemneth any; but yet notwithstanding he disliketh sin in sinful men, and that he sticketh not to let them perceive either by reproving them, or shunning their company, or by doing of some other thing, whereby they may know they are misliked of good men for their enormities, and see themselves to be contemned of others for their wicked and ungodly life. A good man therefore must not flatter the ungodly in their ungracious attempts, but must freely declare that he disalloweth their course and conversation.—Peter Baro.

Verse 4.—“In whose eyes a vile person is contemned.” Augustine, as Posidonius writeth, showing what hatred he had to tale-bearers and false reporters of others, had two verses written over his table; by translation these:—

Verse 4.—“In whose eyes a vile person is contemned.” The burgess of the New Jerusalem, reprobos reprobat, et probos probat; he cannot flatter any man, nor fancy such as in whom he findeth not aliquid Christi, something of the image of God. A golden Colosse stuffed with rubbish, he cannot stoop to, “But he honoureth them that fear the Lord,” as the only earthly angels, though never so mean and despicable in the world’s eye. Mr. Fox, being asked whether he remembered not such a poor servant of God who had received succour from him in time of trouble? answered “I remember him well; I tell you, I forget the lords and ladies, to remember such.”—John Trapp.

Verse 4.—“He honoureth them that fear the Lord.” Though the godly some way or other be injurious unto us, we ought nevertheless to honour and not to despise them. So Joseph did Mary, though he supposed her to have dealt injuriously with him; and she had done so, indeed, if it had been with her as he imagined. Calvin’s resolution concerning Luther was very admirable in this respect. They differed much about the presence of Christ in the sacrament; and Luther being of a vehement spirit, wrote bitterly against those that did hold otherwise in that point than himself did. This enforced some, who were more nearly concerned in the business, to prepare to answer Luther; which Calvin understanding, and fearing lest they, being provoked by Luther’s tartness, should deal with him in the like kind, he wrote unto Bullinger, a prime man among them, persuading and exhorting him to carry the business so as to show all due respect unto Luther, considering what worth and excellency there was in him, however he had demeaned himself in that particular. And he adds, that he often used to say, that although Luther should call him devil, yet he would do him that honour to acknowledge him a choice servant of God.—Christopher Cartwright.

Verse 4.—“He honoureth them that fear the Lord.” I have read of one that said, If he should meet a preacher and an angel together, he would first salute the preacher and then the angel.—Charles Bradbury’s “Cabinet of Jewels,” 1785.

Verse 4.—“He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.”

Verse 5.—The Puritanic divines are almost all of them against the taking of any interest upon money, and go the length of saying that one penny per cent. per annum will shut a man out of heaven if persisted in. It appeared to me to be useless to quote opinions in which I cannot agree, especially as this would occupy space better employed. The demanding of excessive and grinding interest is a sin to be detested; the taking of the usual and current interest in a commercial country is not contrary to the law of love. The Jews were not engaged in commerce, and to lend money even at the lowest interest to their fellow farmers in times of poverty would have been usurious; but they might lend to strangers, who would usually be occupied in commerce, because in the commercial world, money is a fruitful thing, and the lender has a right to a part of its products; a loan to enable a non-trader to live over a season of want is quite another matter.—C. H. S.