Proverbs 28:16

“The prince that wanteth understanding [is] also a great oppressor, etc.] Or, “much in oppressions”f785; 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…”

“The prince . . . understanding--that is, He does not perceive that oppression jeopards his success. Covetousness often produces oppression, hence the contrast.”

“Oppressor - The tyranny of a prince, is a manifest sign of folly. Prolong - By God's favour, the peace and satisfaction of his own mind, and the hearty love of his people. Proverbs 28:17”

“prince: Kg1 12:10, Kg1 12:14; Neh 5:15; Ecc 4:1; Isa 3:12; Amo 4:1 he that: Exo 18:21; Isa 33:15, Isa 33:16; Jer 22:15-17 Proverbs 28:17”

“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…”