Do we answer the arguments of fools or not? How are Proverbs 26:4-5 to be understood?

wisdom is knowing when to apply the principle - there will be times when you should reply and there are other times when you shouldn't reply. Those who are wise will know what and when to do it. So seek after wisdom and learn from the wise - if you walk with the wise - you will become wise. learn to Love wisdom. (Student of Dr Willem VanGemeren, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School).

The two verses are in apparent contradiction. The sages explain that one should not be drawn into vain arguments with a fool in worldly or inconsequential matters. However, if he disputes or errs regarding the Torah, it is essential that he be corrected..

So in light of this, it is not a contradiction. You just have to understand when you answer a fool, and when you shun him, least you too may look like a fool.

Here is the simplest answer I've ever heard to this question.

• Question: How should I respond to people who say (insert name of book here) is irrational and unreasonable, and therefore worthless; because it contains contradictions?

• Answer: See Proverbs 26:4-5

In other words, this very item both poses and answers the question recursively.

Proverbs has much to say about fools. They despise wisdom (Proverbs 1:7, 22, 10:21, 23:9); they are right in their own eyes (Proverbs 12:15); they are deceitful (Proverbs 14:8) and scornful (Proverbs 10:23, 14:9). The wise are also given instruction on how to deal with fools in Proverbs. Instructing a fool is pointless because his speech is full of foolishness (Proverbs 15:2, 14) and he does not want wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 18:2).

The futility of trying to impart wisdom to a fool is the basis of Proverbs 26:4-5, which tell us how to answer a fool. These seemingly contradictory verses are actually a common form of parallelism found in the Old Testament, where one idea builds upon another. Verse 4 warns against arguing with a fool on his own terms, lest we stoop to his level and become as foolish as he is. Because he despises wisdom and correction, the fool will not listen to wise reason and will try to draw us into his type of argument, whether it is by using deceit, scoffing at our wisdom, or becoming angry and abusive. If we allow him to draw us into this type of discourse, we are answering him “according to his folly” in the sense of becoming like him.

The phrase “according to his folly” in verse 5, on the other hand, tells us that there are times when a fool has to be addressed so that his foolishness will not go unchallenged. In this sense answering him according to his folly means to expose the foolishness of his words, rebuking him on the basis of his folly so he will see the idiocy of his words and reasoning. Our “answer” in this case is to be one of reproof, showing him the truth so he might see the foolishness of his words in the light of reason. Even though he will most likely despise and reject the wisdom offered to him, we are to make the attempt, both for the sake of the truth which is always to be declared, and for the sake of those listening, that they may see the difference between wisdom and folly and be instructed.

Whether we use the principle of verse 4 and deal with a fool by ignoring him, or obey verse 5 and reprove a fool depends on the situation. In matters of insignificance, it’s probably better to disregard him. In more important areas, such as when a fool denies the existence of God (Psalm 14:1), verse 5 tells us to respond to his foolishness with words of rebuke and instruction. To let a fool speak his nonsense without reproof encourages him to remain wise in his own eyes and possibly gives credibility to his folly in the eyes of others.

In short, in negligible issues we should just ignore fools, but in issues that matter, they must be dealt with so that credence will not be given to what they say.

I think Keil's, Commentary on the Old Testament has it right. I summarize them as this: You should NOT recognize the foolish assumptions of a fool. You should NOT answer as though his questions or statements were reasonable, that would be debasing your own self and your own mind. Rather you SHOULD answer a fool as is due to according to his folly. You should answer a fool with a full rejection of his foolish assumptions and assertions. If you do not rebuke him in this way he may think his foolish ideas are wise.

I don't know Hebrew, so I can't offer a whole lot of guidance here, but it seems the apparent contradiction could be a result of different language paradigms.

It is interesting that the Hebrew texts for the verses seem to use the same word for "fool" and "not a fool".

The grammatical structure and conjugation is baffling to me, but according to the Blue Letter Bible:

Proverbs 26:4 reads as follows: אַל־תַּעַן כְּסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתֹּו פֶּֽן־תִּשְׁוֶה־לֹּו גַם־אָֽתָּה׃

where:

• ענה - Answer
• כסיל - not a fool
• אולת - according to his folly
• שוה - lest thou also be like unto him

Proverbs 26:5 reads as follows: עֲנֵה כְסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתֹּו פֶּן־יִהְיֶה חָכָם בְּעֵינָֽיו׃

where

• ענה - Answer
• כסיל - a fool
• אולת - according to his folly
• חכם - lest he be wise
• עין - to his own conceit

I think Mike's answer is a good one. The Proverbs provide wise topical advice using a pithy and often symmetrical or somewhat poetic format. The two verses together seem to be warning that it's not wise to stoop to a fool's level while answering his folly, but that it's also not wise to let a fool's folly go totally unchecked. It seems to utilize a bit of equivocation in what it means to answer him "according to his folly" (i.e. identify his bad assumptions or conclusions and try to correct them, but don't be baited into arguing foolishly yourself)