Proverbs 3:27 — How This Verse Has Been Interpreted

The Verse

Text (KJV): "Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it."

Immediate context: This verse appears in Proverbs 3:21-35, a unit contrasting the security of wisdom with the fate of the wicked. It sits between two other prohibitions (v. 28 on delaying promises, v. 29 on plotting harm) and precedes warnings about envying violent people (v. 31). The speaker is the father/sage addressing "my son" throughout chapters 1-9.

Why context creates options: The verse's position in a wisdom collection (not law code) creates debate over whether "due" implies strict legal obligation or broader moral debt, and whether the command functions as absolute moral law or situational wisdom.

Interpretive Fault Lines

1. Scope of "Good"

Pole A (Comprehensive): All forms of assistance—material, emotional, spiritual—fall under "good"
Pole B (Material-Specific): Limited to tangible resources (money, food, labor)
Why the split exists: The Hebrew term טוֹב (tov) ranges from moral goodness to practical benefit. Proverbs uses it for both abstract virtue (15:23) and concrete goods (24:25).
What hangs on it: Comprehensive readings generate infinite obligation; material readings set boundaries but risk evading non-monetary duties.

2. "To Whom It Is Due" — Legal vs. Moral Debt

Pole A (Legal Entitlement): "Due" (בְּעָלָיו, be'alav—"its owners/masters") means strict right—wages owed, property borrowed, contractual obligation
Pole B (Moral Desert): "Due" includes moral deservingness—anyone in need whom you could help has a claim on your resources
Why the split exists: be'alav literally means "its masters," implying ownership rights, but Proverbs elsewhere uses "righteous" language (11:25, 14:31) suggesting broader moral claims
What hangs on it: Legal readings limit duty to explicit agreements; moral readings expand it to general need, potentially collapsing distinction between justice and charity.

3. "Power of Thine Hand" — Capacity Threshold

Pole A (Any Surplus): If you have resources beyond immediate need, you have "power" to give
Pole B (No Risk to Self): "Power" requires that giving won't jeopardize your own security or obligations
Why the split exists: The phrase לְאֵל יָדְךָ (le'el yadkha) can mean "it is in the power of your hand" (ability) or "it belongs to God's power in your hand" (stewardship), creating ambiguity about whose resources are at stake
What hangs on it: Surplus readings demand redistribution of wealth; no-risk readings allow retaining most assets for personal security.

4. Genre: Command vs. Consequence Description

Pole A (Imperative Duty): Withholding good violates moral law regardless of outcome
Pole B (Pragmatic Wisdom): The verse describes what wise people do to avoid social consequences, not an absolute duty
Why the split exists: Proverbs mixes apodictic commands with observational wisdom; this verse's form is imperative, but its context (wisdom literature) and content (social relations) suggest pragmatic concern
What hangs on it: Duty readings make withholding sinful; wisdom readings make it imprudent but not inherently wrong if consequences can be avoided.

5. Temporal Scope: Immediate vs. Eventually

Pole A (Immediate Action): "When it is in the power of thine hand" means the moment you have resources, delay is prohibited
Pole B (Reasonable Timing): The verse prohibits permanent withholding, not prudent delay to ensure wise giving
Why the split exists: Verse 28's follow-up ("Say not... Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give") explicitly addresses delay, creating debate whether v. 27 already includes timing or v. 28 adds a separate concern
What hangs on it: Immediate readings ban even one-day delays; eventual readings allow planning and verification before giving.

The Core Tension

The central question is whether this verse establishes a duty of redistribution or merely prohibits theft/fraud. Readings that interpret "to whom it is due" as strict legal entitlement limit the command to honoring explicit agreements (paying workers, returning borrowed goods), making it equivalent to "do not steal." Readings that see "due" as moral deservingness transform the verse into a positive obligation to assist anyone you could help, effectively erasing the boundary between justice and charity.

Competing readings survive because the text can be squared with both: be'alav ("its owners") points toward legal claims, but Proverbs' broader theology of the poor as God's concern (14:31, 19:17) and warnings against hoarding (11:24-26) point toward expansive obligation. One reading wins only if interpreters settle whether wisdom literature can impose duties beyond strict justice—a question Proverbs never explicitly answers.

What would need to be true: If Proverbs elsewhere unambiguously distinguished "what is owed" from "what is generous," or if the term be'alav appeared in legal contexts with narrow technical meaning, one reading could prevail. Instead, the book blurs the line (e.g., 21:13—refusing to hear the poor's cry brings consequences, suggesting their need creates a claim), leaving the tension unresolved.

Key Terms & Translation Fractures

Hebrew: אַל־תִּמְנַע (al-timna) — "Withhold not"

Semantic range: Restrain, hold back, deny, refuse
Translation options:
- "Withhold not" (KJV, ASV): neutral on motive
- "Do not withhold" (ESV, NASB): emphasizes active refusal
- "Do not deny" (NIV 1984): suggests request has been made
Interpretive significance: "Deny" implies someone has asked, limiting scope to responsive giving; "withhold" can apply even without request, expanding to proactive duty.

Hebrew: בְּעָלָיו (be'alav) — "Them to whom it is due"

Literal: "Its owners" or "its masters" (plural construct of בַּעַל, ba'al—owner, master, husband)
Translation options:
- "Them to whom it is due" (KJV): implies desert without specifying grounds
- "Those who deserve it" (NIV): emphasizes moral merit
- "Its owners" (Young's Literal): preserves legal ownership language
Grammatical feature: The suffix on be'alav refers to "the good" (טוֹב, tov), not to people directly—literally "the owners of the good," creating ambiguity whether "owners" means legal possessors or rightful recipients.
Interpretive significance: Legal ownership readings limit "due" to contracted debts; moral desert readings expand to anyone who would benefit. LXX translates εὖ ποιεῖν (eu poiein, "to do good"), using τὸν δεόμενον (ton deomenon, "the one in need") in v. 28, suggesting Greek translators saw need itself as creating claims.

Hebrew: לְאֵל יָדְךָ (le'el yadkha) — "In the power of thine hand"

Semantic range: אֵל (el) means "power, strength, god"; יָד (yad) means "hand"
Translation options:
- "When it is in the power of your hand" (KJV, ESV): emphasizes capacity
- "When it is in your power to act" (NIV): abstracts from physical hand
- "When you have it in your power" (NRSV): neutral on source of power
Theological dimension: Some rabbinic readings take אֵל (el) as divine name, yielding "when it is to the God of your hand"—i.e., resources belong to God, merely pass through your hand. This reading supports redistribution theology. Most modern translators treat אֵל as "power" (standard phrase elsewhere: Genesis 31:29, Deuteronomy 28:32, Nehemiah 5:5), avoiding theological freight.
Interpretive significance: If "power" means any surplus, duty extends broadly; if it means no harm to self, duty has strict limits.

What remains genuinely ambiguous:

The relationship between legal and moral senses of "due" cannot be resolved from this verse alone. Be'alav's literal sense ("owners") favors legal claims, but Proverbs' use of similar language for the poor's moral claims (19:17—lending to the LORD when helping the poor) means the term carries moral freight the grammar alone doesn't determine.

Competing Readings

Reading 1: Anti-Theft Principle

Claim: The verse prohibits withholding what legally belongs to another—wages earned, property borrowed, debts owed.
Key proponents: Charles Bridges (1846), Derek Kidner (1964), Tremper Longman III (2006)
Emphasizes: Be'alav as "owners" in legal sense; parallel with Leviticus 19:13 ("The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night"); verse 28's concern with timely payment
Downplays: Proverbs' broader concern for the poor (14:31, 19:17); verses 27-31 as a unit on social relations, not just contractual ones
Handles fault lines by:
- Scope: Material goods owed by contract
- Legal vs. moral: Strict legal entitlement only
- Capacity: If contracted, must fulfill regardless of personal cost
- Genre: Imperative duty (justice is absolute)
- Temporal: Immediate (v. 28 reinforces)
Cannot adequately explain: Why Proverbs elsewhere treats refusal to help the needy as sin against God (17:5, 21:13), not mere imprudence; why this verse sits in wisdom literature rather than law code if it's simply theft prohibition
Conflicts with: Reading 2 (Redistribution Ethic) at the boundary of legal vs. moral debt—if need creates obligation, "due" can't be limited to contracts.

Reading 2: Redistribution Ethic

Claim: The verse mandates giving to anyone in need whom you have capacity to help, making poverty itself a claim on your resources.
Key proponents: Gustavo Gutiérrez (liberation theology, 1971), Bruce Waltke (2004—though cautious), Nicholas Wolterstorff (2008)
Emphasizes: Proverbs' theology of the poor (14:31—oppressing the poor reproaches God; 19:17—giving to the poor is lending to God); the verse's position in a unit on social ethics, not commercial law; be'alav's moral sense ("rightful recipients")
Downplays: Be'alav's legal nuance ("owners"); the absence of explicit "poor" or "needy" in v. 27 itself; Proverbs' simultaneous affirmation of wealth as blessing (10:22)
Handles fault lines by:
- Scope: All forms of good (material and non-material)
- Legal vs. moral: Moral desert—need creates entitlement
- Capacity: Any surplus beyond security
- Genre: Imperative duty (not just pragmatic)
- Temporal: Immediate action required
Cannot adequately explain: Why Proverbs distinguishes "righteous" from "generous" (11:25 commends generosity separately from justice); why v. 27 uses be'alav (ownership language) rather than terms for "poor" (אֶבְיוֹן, רָשׁ) if need is the criterion
Conflicts with: Reading 1 (Anti-Theft) on what creates obligation—contracts vs. need; Reading 3 (Prudent Stewardship) on whether all surplus must be given.

Reading 3: Prudent Stewardship

Claim: The verse prohibits hoarding resources beyond reasonable security needs but allows retaining wealth for wise investment, family provision, and future uncertainties.
Key proponents: William McKane (1970), Roland Murphy (1998), Ellen Davis (2009)
Emphasizes: "Power of thine hand" as discretionary capacity after securing obligations; Proverbs' commendation of diligence and savings (6:6-8, 21:5); wisdom literature's genre as situational guidance, not absolute law
Downplays: Prophetic critiques of wealth accumulation (Amos 5:11-12, Isaiah 5:8); v. 27's imperative form (suggests duty, not mere advice)
Handles fault lines by:
- Scope: Material goods
- Legal vs. moral: Legal entitlement plus prudential moral claims
- Capacity: No risk to family security or future provision
- Genre: Wisdom advice (absolute hoarding is foolish, not sinful)
- Temporal: Reasonable timing allowed for verification and planning
Cannot adequately explain: Why prophets condemn those who "add house to house" (Isaiah 5:8) if retaining wealth for security is permissible; why v. 27 uses imperative (אַל, al—strong prohibition) if it's merely pragmatic advice
Conflicts with: Reading 2 (Redistribution) on capacity threshold—surplus vs. security; Reading 4 (Social Harmony) on whether duty is intrinsic or instrumental.

Reading 4: Social Harmony Maintenance

Claim: The verse counsels against behaviors that destabilize community trust, warning that withholding expected help damages reputation and social standing.
Key proponents: Leo Perdue (2000), Raymond Van Leeuwen (1997), William Brown (1996)
Emphasizes: Proverbs as training for social success; verses 29-31 as warnings about antagonizing neighbors; ancient Near Eastern reciprocity norms (helping community members maintains alliance networks)
Downplays: Prophetic concern with justice regardless of consequence; v. 27's framing as duty to persons, not strategy for social capital
Handles fault lines by:
- Scope: Whatever community expects (culturally variable)
- Legal vs. moral: Socially expected help
- Capacity: If refusal damages reputation
- Genre: Pragmatic wisdom (avoiding social cost)
- Temporal: Immediate if delay causes offense
Cannot adequately explain: Why Proverbs frames this as duty to "them to whom it is due" (person-oriented) rather than "lest your neighbor curse you" (consequence-oriented); why the verse precedes rather than follows vv. 29-31 if social strategy is the point
Conflicts with: Reading 1 (Anti-Theft) and Reading 2 (Redistribution) on whether duty exists apart from consequences—intrinsic obligation vs. instrumental prudence.

Harmonization Strategies

Strategy 1: Concentric Circles of Obligation

How it works: The verse sets a minimum (legal debts) that all readings agree on, with broader obligations (moral desert, social expectations) layered outward depending on capacity and relationship proximity.
Which Fault Lines it addresses: Legal vs. Moral Debt (both are included at different levels); Capacity (threshold rises with distance from inner circle)
Which readings rely on it: Combines Reading 1 (contracts), Reading 3 (family provision), Reading 2 (poor beyond family)
What it cannot resolve: Whether outer circles are true obligations or supererogatory generosity. If they're obligatory, Reading 2 wins; if optional, Reading 3 wins. The circles model describes behavior without settling the normative question.

Strategy 2: Occasion-Based Threshold

How it works: "Due" varies by context—wages are due after work (legal), help is due to neighbors in crisis (social), assistance is due to the vulnerable (moral). No single standard applies across all relationships.
Which Fault Lines it addresses: Legal vs. Moral Debt (both contexts exist); Genre (wisdom tailors duty to situation)
Which readings rely on it: Reading 3 (Prudent Stewardship), Reading 4 (Social Harmony)
What it cannot resolve: Who decides which context applies. If the poor's need always triggers moral context, Reading 2 wins. If agents have discretion, Reading 3 wins. The strategy defers rather than solves the conflict.

Strategy 3: Dual-Covenant Framework (Christian Specific)

How it works: Old Covenant focused on justice within Israel (legal debts); New Covenant expands obligation to universal neighbor-love (Luke 10:25-37). Proverbs 3:27 functions differently in each covenant.
Which Fault Lines it addresses: Scope (expanded in New Covenant); Audience Boundary (ethnic Israel vs. all humanity)
Which readings rely on it: Some Christian readings combine Old Covenant Reading 1 (legal) with New Covenant Reading 2 (redistribution)
What it cannot resolve: Whether Jesus intensified existing obligations or introduced new ones. If Old Testament already included moral debt to the poor (Deuteronomy 15:7-11, Proverbs 14:31), the covenantal shift doesn't explain Proverbs 3:27's scope.

Strategy 4: Prophetic-Wisdom Genre Distinction

How it works: Prophets impose absolute justice demands; wisdom offers prudential guidance. Proverbs 3:27, as wisdom, doesn't bind like prophetic oracle but advises what generally fosters flourishing.
Which Fault Lines it addresses: Genre (wisdom as advice, not law); Legal vs. Moral (advice can commend beyond strict duty)
Which readings rely on it: Reading 3 (Stewardship), Reading 4 (Social Harmony)
What it cannot resolve: Proverbs itself sometimes speaks in absolute terms ("the LORD detests" [11:1], "the righteous" vs. "the wicked"), blurring the wisdom/law boundary. If some wisdom sayings impose duties, why not this one?

Non-Harmonizing Option: Canon-Voice Conflict

Proponents: Brevard Childs (canonical criticism), James Sanders
Argument: The canon intentionally preserves tensions. Proverbs' emphasis on diligence and savings (10:4-5, 13:11) sits alongside prophetic condemnations of wealth (Amos 6:4-7). Both voices remain authoritative; neither fully resolves the other. Proverbs 3:27 reflects wisdom's concern for social cohesion without adopting prophetic redistribution theology.
What it preserves: The unresolved question of wealth ethics across Scripture. Readers must inhabit the tension rather than eliminate it.

Tradition-Specific Profiles

Jewish Rabbinic Tradition

Distinctive emphasis: Halakhic precision about when debt is "due." Mishnah Bava Metzia 9:11-12 specifies exact times wages are owed, treating v. 27 as legal standard. Tzedakah (charity) is separate category, drawn from Deuteronomy 15:7-11, not Proverbs 3:27.
Named anchor: Talmud Bavli, Bava Metzia 110b-111a; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Malveh v'Loveh 11:1
How it differs from: Christian Redistribution readings (Reading 2)—rabbinic tradition distinguishes justice (דִּין, din) from mercy (חֶסֶד, chesed); Proverbs 3:27 falls under justice, limited to contracted obligations. Tzedakah is duty but derives from other texts.
Unresolved tension: Whether delayed payment (holding wages overnight) violates v. 27 or only v. 28. Talmudic debate centers on whether one prohibition or two are at issue.

Catholic Social Teaching

Distinctive emphasis: Universal destination of goods—private property is legitimate but subordinate to everyone's right to benefit from creation. Proverbs 3:27 supports "preferential option for the poor": surplus wealth is "due" to the needy by moral, not just legal, right.
Named anchor: Rerum Novarum (Leo XIII, 1891), §22; Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II, 1965), §69; Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), §2446
How it differs from: Protestant Prudent Stewardship (Reading 3)—Catholic teaching frames surplus wealth as held in trust for the common good, not discretionary. Protestantism (especially Reformed) emphasizes stewardship with greater personal discretion.
Unresolved tension: How to define "surplus." Catechism affirms right to private property for security (§2402-2406) but also duty to give from surplus (§2446). Where the line falls remains pastorally disputed.

Reformed Protestant Tradition

Distinctive emphasis: Stewardship before God—resources are entrusted for wise use, including charity, but also investment, family provision, and supporting gospel ministry. Proverbs 3:27 prohibits hoarding and fraud but doesn't mandate redistribution.
Named anchor: John Calvin, Commentary on Proverbs (1563); Westminster Larger Catechism (1648), Q&A 141-142 (duties of 8th commandment include generosity but distinguish it from justice)
How it differs from: Catholic Social Teaching—Reformed theology resists subordinating property rights to communal claims, emphasizing individual discernment before God. Against Reading 2 (Redistribution), Reformed readings stress Proverbs' commendation of wealth from diligence (10:4).
Unresolved tension: Whether stewardship includes obligation to the poor beyond contracts. Some Reformed theologians (e.g., Nicholas Wolterstorff, adapting Reformed tradition toward justice-based obligation) argue Proverbs 14:31 and 19:17 show the poor have claims beyond charity, but this remains minority within tradition.

Liberation Theology (Christian, Latin American)

Distinctive emphasis: Structural sin—withholding good is not just individual failure but participation in systems that concentrate wealth. Proverbs 3:27's "to whom it is due" includes those impoverished by exploitation, making restitution (not charity) the proper response.
Named anchor: Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation (1971), ch. 13; Medellín Conference (1968), "Justice" document; Enrique Dussel, Ethics and Community (1974)
How it differs from: Catholic and Protestant readings (both assume individual agents deciding to give or withhold)—liberation theology reads "withhold not" as indictment of systems that prevent goods from reaching the poor. The verse addresses macro-economic injustice, not personal charity decisions.
Unresolved tension: Whether Proverbs—as wisdom for individual moral formation—can bear the weight of structural analysis. Critics argue liberation readings import concerns from prophets (Amos, Micah) into Proverbs, which focuses on personal agency.

Eastern Orthodox Tradition

Distinctive emphasis: Ascetic detachment—wealth is spiritually dangerous. Proverbs 3:27 warns against the soul-deadening effect of hoarding. "Due" includes not just legal claims but what others need for salvation (material help facilitates spiritual flourishing).
Named anchor: John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 10:4 (on wealth as common property); Basil of Caesarea, Homily 6 ("To the Rich"); The Ladder of Divine Ascent (John Climacus, 7th c.), Step 17 on avarice
How it differs from: Western (Catholic/Protestant) traditions, which focus on justice or stewardship—Orthodox readings emphasize theosis (deification): withholding good stunts your spiritual growth, not just wrongs the neighbor. The verse is about the giver's soul more than recipient's need.
Unresolved tension: If wealth is inherently dangerous, why does Proverbs commend it as reward for diligence (10:22, 22:4)? Orthodox tradition distinguishes righteous wealth (honestly gained, generously shared) from avaricious wealth, but Proverbs 3:27's application to the righteous wealthy is debated.

Reading vs. Usage

Textual reading (Careful Interpretation)

Interpreters situate v. 27 within Proverbs' social ethics: the verse prohibits at minimum the withholding of legal debts (wages, borrowed property), and likely extends to timely fulfillment of promises (v. 28) and non-exploitation of neighbors (vv. 29-31). Whether it mandates broader redistribution depends on how one reads be'alav (legal owners vs. moral claimants) and "power of thine hand" (any surplus vs. no risk to security). Careful readers note the verse doesn't specify "the poor" or "the needy," leaving scope ambiguous, and recognize that wisdom literature counsels rather than commands in the legal sense.

Popular usage (Contemporary Function)

The verse frequently appears in:

Fundraising appeals: "When it is in your power to do good, don't hold back—give today!" The appeal assumes capacity to give ("power of thine hand") without addressing whether donors have genuine surplus or are sacrificing security.
Workplace ethics: Employers cite v. 27-28 to justify timely payment, but rarely apply it to wage levels (whether wages are "due" only if contracted, or whether living wage is "due" regardless of agreement).
Anti-hoarding rhetoric: Progressive Christians invoke v. 27 against wealth inequality, implying all surplus is "due" to the poor. The argument skips the debate over what "due" means and whether the verse addresses systemic or individual ethics.

What gets lost

The ambiguity of "due": Popular usage assumes need creates entitlement (Reading 2) without acknowledging the text can support narrower legal readings (Reading 1).
Genre considerations: The verse is treated as universal moral law, flattening wisdom literature's situational, prudential character.
Capacity limits: "Power of thine hand" is read as "if you have anything," ignoring interpretive tradition's debate over whether the phrase requires surplus beyond security.

What gets added

Urgency: Modern usage often treats delay as withholding (citing v. 28), but v. 27 doesn't specify immediacy—that's v. 28's contribution. Conflating them intensifies obligation beyond what v. 27 alone demands.
Emotional obligation: Appeals invoke guilt ("people are suffering and you're not helping"), importing motivational rhetoric foreign to Proverbs' tone. The verse states duty without emotional manipulation.

Why the distortion persists

Expanding "due" to include all need serves fundraising and advocacy effectively—it transforms charity (optional) into justice (required), increasing response. But the move is argumentatively necessary: if Proverbs 3:27 only prohibits theft/fraud (Reading 1), it doesn't ground redistribution politics. Progressive appeals need moral debt readings (Reading 2), so they assume rather than argue for that interpretation. Conservative usage does the inverse, assuming legal-only readings to protect property rights. Both sides need their reading to be obvious, so they present it as such, suppressing the text's ambiguity.

Reception History

Patristic Era (2nd-5th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: How Christians should relate to wealth in a church mixing rich and poor. Early church faced economic stratification and needed ethics for wealthy converts.
How it was deployed: Chrysostom and Basil used Proverbs 3:27 to argue wealth beyond need is "due" to the poor—not charity but justice. Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew 35): "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs."
Named anchor: John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 10:4; Basil of Caesarea, Homily 6 ("To the Rich"); Ambrose of Milan, De Nabuthe (On Naboth)
Legacy: Established precedent for moral debt reading (Reading 2) in Christian tradition. Influenced medieval theology and modern Catholic social teaching. However, this reading competed with Augustine's emphasis on ordered loves and stewardship (City of God 19.17), creating tension between obligation and discretion that persists.

Medieval Period (12th-15th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Scholastic theology debated extent of property rights and almsgiving obligations. Rise of commerce created new questions about just pricing and usury.
How it was deployed: Thomas Aquinas synthesized Patristic concern for poor with Aristotelian property ethics. Used Proverbs 3:27 to argue extreme need creates duty (Summa Theologiae II-II Q66 A7: in dire need, taking another's goods is not theft because need restores common destination of goods). But ordinary poverty doesn't nullify property rights—almsgiving is duty but donors retain discretion over amount and recipients.
Named anchor: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II Q32 (on almsgiving), Q66 (on theft and property)
Legacy: Established "extreme need" exception that Catholic social teaching retains. But Aquinas's allowance for discretion (Q32 A9: not obligated to give to every request) preserved space for Reading 3 (Stewardship), tempering Patristic Reading 2.

Reformation Era (16th-17th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Protestant reformers rejected medieval church's intermediary role in charity (alms to church distribute). Needed theology of direct individual giving.
How it was deployed: Calvin's commentary on Proverbs 3:27 treats it as prohibition on withholding legal debts and deceitful delay, not mandate for universal redistribution. He frames generosity as fruit of godliness but distinguishes it from justice. Westminster standards likewise emphasize stewardship over redistribution.
Named anchor: John Calvin, Commentary on Proverbs 3:27 (1563); Westminster Larger Catechism Q141-142 (1648)
Legacy: Reformed tradition's emphasis on individual stewardship, distinguishing justice (legal debts) from charity (generosity), became dominant in Protestant ethics. This reading (aligns with Reading 1 and Reading 3) set Protestantism apart from Catholic moral debt framework, contributing to differing political economic stances (Catholic support for welfare states vs. Protestant market preference).

Modern Period (20th-21st centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Global wealth inequality, decolonization, and liberation movements raised questions about systemic injustice. Biblical ethics needed to address macro-economic structures, not just individual behavior.
How it was deployed: Liberation theologians (Gutiérrez, Sobrino) read Proverbs 3:27 as indictment of systems that concentrate wealth. "Withhold not" addresses policies and economies, not just personal decisions. Verse became proof-text for redistribution politics.
Named anchor: Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation (1971); Latin American bishops, Medellín Conference (1968); Enrique Dussel, Ethics and Community (1974)
Legacy: Expanded hermeneutical scope from individual to structural sin. Influenced Catholic social teaching post-Vatican II and Protestant social gospel movements. However, critics (e.g., Michael Novak, Will Capitalism Survive?, 1979) argued this imported Marxist categories foreign to Proverbs' focus on personal agency, intensifying debate over whether the verse can bear structural interpretation.

Open Interpretive Questions

Does "to whom it is due" include anyone you could help, or only those with specific claims (legal, relational, contractual)? Be'alav's literal meaning ("owners") suggests specific claims, but Proverbs' theology of the poor (14:31, 19:17) suggests need creates claims. How far does "ownership" extend?
If "power of thine hand" means capacity, does any surplus beyond immediate need count as capacity, or only surplus beyond reasonable security provision for family? The phrase doesn't specify. Does prudent saving for future uncertainties fulfill or violate v. 27?
Does the verse impose absolute duty regardless of consequences, or is it pragmatic wisdom about maintaining social trust? The imperative form (אַל) suggests duty, but wisdom genre and context suggest pragmatic concern. Can wisdom impose categorical obligations?
How does v. 27 relate to v. 28? Are they separate prohibitions (withholding vs. delaying), or does v. 28 specify the type of withholding v. 27 bans? If separate, does v. 27 allow prudent delay for verification? If v. 28 specifies v. 27, the verse primarily addresses timing.
Does Proverbs distinguish justice from charity, or does it treat generous help as obligatory justice? Other passages (11:24-26, 14:31, 19:17, 21:13) blur the line, suggesting the book doesn't maintain the sharp distinction later theology imposes. If so, attempts to limit v. 27 to legal debts may import categories foreign to Proverbs.
Can the verse address systemic economic injustice, or only individual ethical behavior? Liberation theology reads "withhold not" as indictment of wealth-concentrating systems. But Proverbs addresses individuals ("my son"), not policies. Is structural reading legitimate extension or category mistake?
Does v. 27 apply differently depending on relationship proximity (family, neighbor, stranger)? The text doesn't specify. Do concentric circles of obligation (Reading 3's strategy) reflect biblical ethics or impose external framework?
If someone has contractual right to payment but obtained the contract through exploitation (e.g., starvation wages), is paying the contract fulfilling v. 27 or violating it? Legal readings (Reading 1) say yes, paying the contract is sufficient. Moral readings (Reading 2) say the wage itself is withholding "due" compensation. The verse doesn't address unjust contracts.
Is generosity beyond legal obligation supererogatory (praiseworthy but not required) or mandatory? Catholic tradition treats it as mandatory (from surplus); Protestant tradition leans supererogatory (commended but discretionary). Proverbs doesn't explicitly settle this.
How does v. 27 interact with Proverbs' commendation of wealth as blessing (10:22, 22:4)? If retaining wealth for security is prudent (Reading 3), how much retention is wise vs. hoarding? The book doesn't draw the line.

Reading Matrix

Reading	Scope	Legal vs. Moral	Capacity	Genre	Temporal
Anti-Theft	Material goods owed by contract	Legal entitlement only	Must fulfill regardless of cost	Imperative duty	Immediate
Redistribution Ethic	All forms of good	Moral desert—need creates entitlement	Any surplus beyond security	Imperative duty	Immediate
Prudent Stewardship	Material goods	Legal entitlement + prudential moral claims	No risk to family security	Wisdom advice	Reasonable timing allowed
Social Harmony	Whatever community expects	Socially expected help	If refusal damages reputation	Pragmatic wisdom	Immediate if delay offends

Agreement vs. Disagreement

Broad agreement exists on:

The verse prohibits at minimum withholding legal debts—wages earned, property borrowed, money owed by contract.
The prohibition applies when the agent has capacity ("power of thine hand"), not when fulfilling the obligation would cause harm to self.
Verse 28 reinforces concern with timely action, treating delay as a form of withholding.
The verse operates within Proverbs' broader social ethic, where treatment of others affects one's own flourishing (vv. 29-35).

Disagreement persists on:

Whether "to whom it is due" extends beyond legal debts to moral deservingness (anyone you could help).
Whether "power of thine hand" means any surplus or only surplus beyond reasonable security provision.
Whether the verse imposes categorical duty or offers prudential wisdom.
Whether the verse addresses only individual behavior or also systemic/structural injustice.
How much discretion agents have in deciding when and to whom to give.
Whether generosity beyond legal obligation is mandatory (justice) or supererogatory (commendable charity).

Related Verses

Same unit / immediate context:

Proverbs 3:28 — Directly follows, prohibiting delay: "Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee." Interpreters debate whether v. 28 specifies v. 27's concern (making v. 27 about timing) or adds a second prohibition (making v. 27 about withholding and v. 28 about delaying).
Proverbs 3:29 — Prohibits plotting harm against neighbors. Part of the same ethical unit (vv. 27-31) contrasting righteous and wicked social behavior.
Proverbs 3:31 — Warns against envying violent oppressors. Closes the unit by contrasting security of the righteous with God's curse on the wicked.

Tension-creating parallels:

Proverbs 11:24-26 — "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty... He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him." Uses same root מנע (mana, "withhold") as 3:27, suggesting hoarding beyond security is condemned. Complicates Reading 3 (Stewardship), which allows significant retention.
Proverbs 21:13 — "Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard." Implies refusing to help the poor brings divine judgment, suggesting need creates obligation. Supports Reading 2 (Redistribution), challenges Reading 1 (legal-only) if the poor haven't contracted with you.
Proverbs 28:27 — "He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse." Again suggests duty to the poor beyond legal debts. Closing eyes = active avoidance, implying visibility creates obligation.

Harmonization targets:

Leviticus 19:13 — "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning." Clearest legal parallel—prohibits withholding wages. Reading 1 (Anti-Theft) treats Proverbs 3:27 as restatement of this law; Reading 2 (Redistribution) sees Leviticus as minimum standard, with Proverbs extending obligation further.
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 — "If there be among you a poor man... thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him." Commands lending to the poor. If this is obligatory, Proverbs 3:27's "due" likely includes need-based claims (Reading 2). If Deuteronomy addresses specific covenant relationship, it may not extend to Proverbs' general readership.
Matthew 5:42 — "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." Jesus' teaching appears to radicalize obligation beyond Proverbs. Christian interpreters debate whether Matthew 5:42 intensifies existing Old Testament duty (making Proverbs 3:27 already expansive) or introduces new kingdom ethic (making Proverbs 3:27 narrower in original context).
Luke 10:30-37 (Good Samaritan) — Defines "neighbor" as anyone in need you encounter, not just legal/ethnic kin. If this interprets "to whom it is due," Reading 2 (Redistribution) wins. If it's distinctively New Covenant expansion, Proverbs 3:27's original scope may be narrower.
James 5:4 — "Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth." New Testament echo of withholding wages. Treats it as serious sin ("fraud"), aligning with Reading 1's minimum (legal debts) but doesn't settle whether Proverbs 3:27 extends further.

Generation Notes

Fault Lines identified: 5
Competing Readings: 4
Sections with tension closure: 11/11