Proverbs 22:16

“He that oppresseth the poor to increase his [riches], etc.] By taking away from them the little they have; by keeping back their hire, defrauding them of the just wages of their labours; or by usury and extortion, or any other unjust method, whereby they distress the poor, and enrich themselves; [and] he that giveth to the rich [shall] surely [come] to want: that gives to those that are richer than he; or that are in greater power and authority, that they may protect him in the possession of his ill gotten riches; yet, after all, it shall not thrive and prosper with him, it will all issue in poverty and want: or, as the Vulgate Latin version renders it, “he shall give to one more rich, and…”

“These two vices pertain to the same selfish feeling. Both are deservedly odious to God and incur punishment.”

“Better, He who oppresses the poor for his own profit gives. (i. e., will, in the common course of things, be compelled to give) to a rich man, and that only to his own loss. Ill-gotten gains do not prosper, and only expose the oppressor to extortion and violence in his turn. return to 'Top of Page'”

“That giveth - That prodigally casts away his estate upon those who do not need it. Proverbs 22:17”

“22:16 A person . . . gets ahead by hard work, not by exploiting the poor or bribing the rich (cp. 22:29).”

“that oppresseth: Pro 22:22, Pro 22:23, Pro 14:31, Pro 28:3; Job 20:19-29; Psa 12:5; Mic 2:2, Mic 2:3; Zac 7:9-14; Jam 2:13, Jam 5:1-5 he that giveth: Luk 6:33-35, Luk 14:12-14, Luk 16:24 Proverbs 22:17”

“16 Whosoever oppresseth the lowly, it is gain to him; Whosoever giveth to the rich, it is only loss. It is before all clear that להרבּות and למחסור, as at Pro 21:5, למותר and למחסור, are contrasted words, and form the conclusions to the participles used, with the force of hypothetical antecedents. Jerome recognises this: qui calumniatur pauperem, ut augeat divitias suas, dabit ipse ditiori et egebit. So Rashi, who by עשׁיר thinks on heathen potentates. Proportionally better Euchel, referring עשׁק and נתן, not to one person, but to two classes of men: he who oppresses the poor to enrich himself, and is liberal toward the rich, falls under want. The antithetic distich thus becomes an integral…”