Answer not a fool, or answer a fool?

Question

Proverbs 26:4 (KJV) says,

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

The very next verse, verse 5, says,

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

To answer or not to answer?

This seeming contradiction has me scratching my head. I wonder if this is a translation issue. I've looked it up in the YLT and a handful of other translations and they all say the same thing.

The Brenton Septuagint adds "Yet" to the beginning of verse 5, which might mean something, but I'm not sure what.

I'm very interested in seeing if someone has some insight into this quandary.

Answer 1

I think the thing which is causing you to see a contradiction is the use of the imperative. Rephrase using conditionals:

If you answer a fool according to his folly, you risk becoming like him.
If you refrain from answering a fool according to his folly, he may become wise in his own conceit.

and the problem disappears. Instead you're left with a complementing couplet which can be summed up as "You can't win in an interaction with a fool".

As to why the imperative is used: I don't have data, but a quick skim suggests that conditionals are fairly rare in Proverbs. As a working hypothesis I would propose that the preference for the imperative is a rhetorical device which (quite reasonably) was considered appropriate for giving advice.

Answer 2

The contradiction is intended, and rhetorical—and present in the Hebrew. However, there may be a slight play on the use of the preposition כ which means "according to, like" as in "according to his folly." If taken to mean "in the way he is foolish," it could refer to not being like him, "lest you become even as he is." But if taken in the "in his folly" sense, it could mean, "while he might be foolish [don't be foolish yourself]." Either way, the thrust is that answering him "according to his folly" is, by definition, foolishness, and makes you a fool; but that, on the other hand, answering him prevents him from thinking his foolishness valid, inasmuch as it goes not go unchallenged.

Rhetoric like this is helpful to show that there is both a downside and a benefit from the thing mentioned, and to prevent one being remembered without the other (running away with half the story), and it is implied that prudential judgement will judge which is more appropriate for the situation.

Answer 3

Answer Not A Fool, or Answer A Fool?

Proverbs 26:4-5 Amplified Bible (AMP)

4 "Do not answer [nor pretend to agree with the frivolous comments of] a [closed-minded] fool according to his folly, Otherwise you, even you, will be like him."

5 "Answer [and correct the erroneous concepts of] a fool according to his folly, Otherwise he will be wise in his own eyes [if he thinks you agree with him]."

To answer or not to answer? Yes by all means answer the fool, but how?

There is no contradiction ,the verses simply differentiate the correct and incorrect ways to answer a foolish person, in verse four it warns that you should not answer the stupid person according to his foolishness, that is using , ridicule, with fits of rage, scorn, or resorting to demeaning language or arguments, and so forth. For if you do so, you will lower yourself to his level and you are like him.

In verse five by all means answer the foolish person , using the power of reasoning to expose his erroneous concepts and conclusions as being ridiculous . In this way you will expose his stupid ways, which will act as a discouragement to him in continuance of his foolishness. This will serve as a rebuke and therefore he will not feel wise in his own eyes.

Answer 4

"Too many cooks spoil the broth" or "It takes many hands to make light work [ make hard work easier ]" - which one is true? More people is good or bad?

Both are true, and the invitation into tension is also an invitation into wisdom and relationship. Rather than black and white answers, we're encourage to see that many issues have multiple perspectives and knowing what the right answer is can be contextual so that having insight from God helps us to apply the right answer.

Answer 5

Example. The fool says, “Can God make a rock so big/heavy that even he can’t lift it?” If you answer according to the fool, you say, “No, He can’t!” Which then puts him on the offense of saying, “Then He is not God, because God can do anything!” Or if you say that, “Yes God can do this.” Then, he can claim God is not strong enough to lift the rock, which means he is not God!” These are answering according to a fool and you are made to look foolish as well.

But, if you tell the fooling person that the statement that he has made goes against the very nature of God, for He would not perform something foolish to begin with, then you are answering the fool to reveal him as a fool for asking such a foolish question to begin with.

Answer 6

Answer, Don't Answer Dr, Jason Lisle, a credentialed Astrophysicist, and apologetic lecturer, has derived an excellent answer to this apparent contradiction. Which turns out not to be a contradiction!

Answer not a fool according to his folly... (Proverbs 26:4)

That is, don't try to answer a critic (of Christianity) accepting his premises...his statements...his presumptions. If you get sucked into accepting them uncritically you will be trapped into following him down his path to his conclusions. Once you say you believe his foundational beliefs, you are obligated to accept their deductions/implications. You will belike unto him. You will be as erroneous as he is.

So never accept an invitation to debate based on his premises; that is, with his stipulations. Obviously, the secular atheist has a whole set of premises that are contradictory to the theistic worldview. They are incompatible, and one must not give in to accepting any of them...and hope to come to a legitimate conclusion (debate victory).

Answer a fool according to his folly...(Proverbs 26:5)

If, however, a secularist persists on debating only with his premises, then force him to take his argument down to its logical conclusion. Since his premises are faulty (unsubstantiated, illogical, or fallacious), then when taken to their logical conclusion, they will be seen to be absurd! Force the fool to continue on down the path until he self-destructs! Until his position loses its credibility...in the real world of reason and logic!

He then can not consider himself wise in his own estimation ("conceit", KJV)! He will recognize his foolishness. He is trapped by his own premises. Q.E.D.