Do Proverbs 26:4 and 26:5 contradict? How can both verses be true?

But verses 4 and 5 are strikingly instructive save for those who know not to look for a guidance which is above appearances, and guides according to the realities in eyes that see where man cannot. To man's mind it is a contradiction; and no wonder, for he eschews a divine Master, who owns one that may be called to act rightly but provides a standard like Himself, and deals with the senseless in apparent inconsistency. In one case he leaves folly without notice, as it deserves; in another he exposes it, if he may convince even a fool of his folly, or caution another too easily imposed on, a thing not uncommon in this world.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." The connection here with the previous verse is evident. A fool will argue for the sake of ridicule, with no real reasonableness. It is a mistake therefore to lower oneself to the same unwholesome level of argument. Heated words are likely to betray a believer into the use of the same unsound argument and ridicule. Thus we make ourselves like the one whom we so resent! A fool's objections ought to find us most careful to weigh our answers well. 2 Timothy 2:2.3 is directly to the point here: "Foolish and unlearned (or unsubject) questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."

Yet there is a delicate balance to be observed here, and there follows what appears on the surface a contradiction, though it is of course no such thing: "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."While mere argument on the same basis is to be avoided, yet it may be most necessary that a fool should be answered in such a way that his argument will be exposed as folly, without any resorting to argument, as Titus 1:9 implies. "that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort, and to convince (or refute) the gainsayers." The wisdom of the Lord Jesus inanswering contentious men illustrates this beautifully. Rather than merely answering their cunning questions, he answered the men. Consider Luke 10:25-37 and Matthew 22:15-22. There could then be no argument: they were silenced.

Bearing this in mind we can see how verses 4 and 5 together are written in the manner of Solomon's proverbs. Recall how in the Proverbs the truth is often condensed by setting two opposites in contrast in a way that teaches four things and not merely two. Read for example Proverbs 10:21. Here we learn two things directly:

The lawyer accordingly asks Him as a teacher, what he is to do "to inherit life eternal." The poor broken-hearted jailer at Philippi asked a far different question, and one more befitting a sinner — what he should do to be saved. The lawyer was not in earnest; he was a mere theorist. It was a subject for a discourse or argument. There was no real concern about his soul, no sense of his own condition or of what God is. "What shall I do to inherit life eternal?"267a The Lord answers him, "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" because, when he took this ground of doing something to inherit eternal life, he had betaken himself really to the law. Thus the Lord in His wisdom answers the fool according to his folly. A fool thinks he can keep the law, and that this is the way to inherit eternal life. The Lord accordingly says, "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" because he is going to convict him of the utter futility of all efforts on that ground. "But he, answering, said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thine understanding." That is, the whole man must love the Lord our God inwardly as well as outwardly, "and thy neighbour as thyself." This was excellent as a statement of duty: nothing could be better;268 but how had he done it? and what hope was there for his soul on any such footing as this? If he took the ground of doing something to inherit eternal life, this must be the way. He was wrong in the very starting-point of his soul, wrong in what he thought about this great concernment, because he was wrong about God; and indeed he that is wrong about himself must be wrong about God. The great fundamental difference of a soul taught of God is this, that, conscious of his own sinfulness, he looks to God and to His way of being delivered out of it; whereas a mere natural man in general hopes to be able to do something himself for God, so as to put Him under a kind of obligation of giving eternal life. Human thought always denies God's grace, as it denies its own sinfulness and need of grace. However, the answer was all right on that ground, and the Lord says to him to this effect, "Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." But he was dead. Now, the law never deals with the man as dead, and therefore in Old Testament times there never was such a thing brought out as moral death. We never find a hint that this was known in the law or even the prophets. But in the Gospels and Epistles man is treated as dead and as wanting eternal life, which the Son of God alone can give; and He gives it, not by law but by grace — two totally opposite principles. Therefore it is by faith that it might be by grace: whereas the law appeals to that human ability of which man is proud. He deems himself competent to do the will of God and thus to live. The Lord answered him, "This do, and thou shalt live," but there is where he was wrong. He could not do it, and on that ground therefore he could not live. He was dead, though he did not know it himself, morally dead while he lived. "With." The reading generally approved the first time is ἐξ ("from"); afterwards, ἐν, which Blass has throughout, as D; but this editor, after D and Γ, omits "with all thine understanding." The last words are vouched for by the other copies.

Every step, every word and every action of the Lord Jesus was marked by the Spirit of wisdom and understanding; but there were occasions when these precious features were manifest to all, as when the spies of the chief priests and scribes sought to entangle Him with the question, "Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?" (Luke 20:22); and when the crafty Sadducees posed their question about the resurrection of the dead. The Spirit of understanding is seen in His discerning the thoughts and motives of His questioners, and the Spirit of wisdom in His replies that silenced them. Those who received the answer concerning the tribute "marvelled at His answer, and held their peace"; the multitude that heard Him silence the Sadducees "were astonished at His doctrine" (Matt. 22:33).

"Now David had said, Surely in vain have I kept all that this fellow has in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that pertained to him; and he has requited me evil for good." This was terrible! And David was rashly taking himself out of the place of dependence — the only happy, the only holy place. Nor was it on behalf of the congregation of the Lord. No, it was to avenge himself on one who had treated him badly. Sad mistake! Happy was it for him, that there was an Abigail in the house of Nabal who was about to be used of God to keep him from answering a fool according to his folly. This was just what the enemy desired. Nabal's selfishness was used by Satan to ensnare David, and Abigail was the Lord's instrument to deliver him.

There is today a great deal of speculation around us about things of which the scriptures speak very plainly, a great deal of boast, bluster, and pretension, concerning the scientific discoveries of the learned. We are being constantly reminded (if we would only pay attention) of the inaccuracies of the sacred writings, and of how many doctrines contained therein have been exploded; and perhaps we see through the hypocritical reasonings of these men, or perhaps we do not, but we have not been left upon earth merely to write books to prove to the world how stupid wickedness always is, we can do this better by our lives than by our words. It may be all well enough sometimes to answer a fool according to his folly, but generally it is best not to pursue these dupes of Satan into the morasses of darkness and error, where their rebellion against the true light has led them; our business is to keep the fortress of our own souls well guarded and to do this successfully we need to detect the enemy when he appears, and we can do this only by the test given us by the holy Spirit, a test which is all sufficient, and that test is CHRIST.

Is God then bound to this and nothing else? He must be, on the blindly suicidal principle of man self-righteous yet unrighteous, who in his hurry to blame God forgets that it would be to his own helpless ruin. But God, though He can justly answer a fool according to his folly, may not in His grace. He has resources in Himself on which to fall back.

"It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory," etc. (1.) Still bent on boasting in his weakness (2 Cor. 11:30), he continues his apology, but in an altered tone. In comparing himself with others, he had been meeting his adversaries on their own ground, and answering the fool according to his folly; but he is now consciously approaching a topic which admits of no such treatment. To the various kinds of trial already enumerated, and the honour resulting from them, other men, and possibly some even of the false apostles, might advance a partial claim; but what remains to be told of Paul's experience is peculiar to himself. He does not say," Let us come to visions," etc., but "I will come." It was inexpedient for him to boast, and be a witness to himself. He will now go boldly into another sphere, and speak of visions and revelations of the Lord. If the magicians could do so with their enchantments, let them follow if they dare.

Eleven times we meet the word fool in this chapter. Three different words are used in the Hebrew for fool. The first is "avil" which signifies weakness. The second word "kesil" occurs nearly fifty times, means fat or dense. The third word is the Hebrew "nabal," which is derived from the verb to fade, or to wither; it means a vulgar, bad man who has given himself over to wickedness. The natural man in his condition, his darkened mind, his sinfulness answers to much that is said about the fool in this book. As snow in summer and rain at harvest time are quite impossible in Palestine, so is honor for a fool. A fool may utter a curse, as they often do, and wish something evil, but being causeless, it will not be fulfilled. The fool needs correction, the stripes for his back, he deserves no answer, and if he is answered it must be according to his folly. The foolish questions mentioned in the New Testament may well be considered here (Titus 3:9). The tenth verse is doubtful in its translation. A better suggested rendering is the following: