Proverbs 30 commentary

Agur speaks of himself as wanting a righteousness, and having done very foolishly. And it becomes us all to have low thoughts of ourselves. He speaks of himself as wanting revelation to guide him in the ways of truth and wisdom. The more enlightened people are, the more they lament their ignorance; the more they pray for clearer, still clearer discoveries of God, and his rich grace in Christ Jesus. In verse 4, there is a prophetic notice of Him who came down from heaven to be our Instructor and Saviour, and then ascended into heaven to be our Advocate. The Messiah is here spoken of as a Person distinct from the Father, but his name as yet secret. The great Redeemer, in the glories of his providence and grace, cannot be found out to perfection. Had it not been for Christ, the foundations of the earth had sunk under the load of the curse upon the ground, for man's sin. Who, and what is the mighty One that doeth all this? There is not the least ground to suspect anything wanting in the word of God; adding to his words opens the way to errors and corruptions.

Agur wisely prayed for a middle state, that he might be kept at a distance from temptations; he asked daily bread suited to his station, his family, and his real good. There is a remarkable similarity between this prayer and several clauses of the Lord's prayer. If we are removed from vanity and lies; if we are interested in the pardoning love of Christ, and have him for our portion; if we walk with God, then we shall have all we can ask or think, as to spiritual things. When we consider how those who have abundance are prone to abuse the gift, and what it is to suffer want, Agur's prayer will ever be found a wise one, though seldom offered. Food convenient; what is so for one, may not be so for another; but we may be sure that our heavenly Father will supply all our need, and not suffer us to want anything good for us; and why should we wish for more?

Slander not a servant to his master, accuse him not in small matters, to make mischief.

In every age there are monsters of ingratitude who ill-treat their parents. Many persuade themselves they are holy persons, whose hearts are full of sin, and who practise secret wickedness. There are others whose lofty pride is manifest. There have also been cruel monsters in every age.

Cruelty and covetousness are two daughters of the horseleech, that still cry, “Give, give,” and they are continually uneasy to themselves. Four things never are satisfied, to which these devourers are compared. Those are never rich that are always coveting. And many who have come to a bad end, have owned that their wicked courses began by despising their parents' authority.

Four things cannot be fully known. The kingdom of nature is full of marvels. The fourth is a mystery of iniquity; the cursed arts by which a vile seducer gains the affections of a female; and the arts which a vile woman uses to conceal her wickedness.

Four sorts of persons are very troublesome. Men of low origin and base spirit, who, getting authority, become tyrants. Foolish and violent men indulging in excesses. A woman of a contentious spirit and vicious habits. A servant who has obtained undue influence. Let those whom Providence has advanced from low beginnings, carefully watch against that sin which most easily besets them.

Four things that are little, are yet to be admired. There are those who are poor in the world, and of small account, yet wise for their souls and another world.

We may learn from animals to go well; also to keep our temper under all provocations. We must keep the evil thought in our minds from breaking out into evil speeches. We must not stir up the passions of others. Let nothing be said or done with violence, but every thing with softness and calmness. Alas, how often have we done foolishly in rising up against the Lord our King! Let us humble ourselves before him. And having found peace with Him, let us follow peace with all men.

CHAPTER 30

Pr 30:1-33.

1. This is the title of this chapter (see Introduction).

the prophecy--literally, "the burden" (compare Is 13:1; Zec 9:1), used for any divine instruction; not necessarily a prediction, which was only a kind of prophecy (1Ch 15:27, "a song"). Prophets were inspired men, who spoke for God to man, or for man to God (Ge 20:7; Ex 7:14, 15, 16). Such, also, were the New Testament prophets. In a general sense, Gad, Nathan, and others were such, who were divine teachers, though we do not learn that they ever predicted.

the man spake--literally, "the saying of the man"; an expression used to denote any solemn and important announcement (compare 2Sa 23:1; Psa 36:1; 110:1; Is 1:24, &c.). Ithiel and Ucal were perhaps pupils.

2-4. brutish--stupid, a strong term to denote his lowly self-estimation; or he may speak of such as his natural condition, as contrasted with God's all-seeing comprehensive knowledge and almighty power. The questions of this clause emphatically deny the attributes mentioned to be those of any creature, thus impressively strengthening the implied reference of the former to God (compare De 30:12-14; Is 40:12; Ep 4:8).

5. (Compare Psa 12:6; 119:140).

6. Add ... words--implying that his sole reliance was on God's all-sufficient teaching.

reprove thee--or, "convict thee"--and so the falsehood will appear.

7-9. A prayer for exemption from wickedness, and the extremes of poverty and riches, the two things mentioned. Contentment is implied as desired.

10. Accuse not--Slander not (Psa 10:7).

curse ... guilty--lest, however lowly, he be exasperated to turn on thee, and your guilt be made to appear.

11-14. Four kinds of hateful persons--(1) graceless children, (2) hypocrites, (3) the proud, (4) cruel oppressors (compare on Pr 30:14; Psa 14:4; 52:2)--are now illustrated; (1) Pr 30:15, 16, the insatiability of prodigal children and their fate; (2) Pr 30:17, hypocrisy, or the concealment of real character; (3 and 4) Pr 30:18-20, various examples of pride and oppression.

15-16. horse leech--supposed by some to be the vampire (a fabulous creature), as being literally insatiable; but the other subjects mentioned must be taken as this, comparatively insatiable. The use of a fabulous creature agreeably to popular notions is not inconsistent with inspiration.

There are three ... yea, four--(Compare Pr 6:16).

17. The eye--for the person, with reference to the use of the organ to express mockery and contempt, and also as that by which punishment is received.

the ravens ... eagles ... eat--either as dying unnaturally, or being left unburied, or both.

18-20. Hypocrisy is illustrated by four examples of the concealment of all methods or traces of action, and a pertinent example of double dealing in actual vice is added, that is, the adulterous woman.

21-23. Pride and cruelty, the undue exaltation of those unfit to hold power, produce those vices which disquiet society (compare Pr 19:10; 28:3).

24-31. These verses provide two classes of apt illustrations of various aspects of the moral world, which the reader is left to apply. By the first (Pr 30:25-28), diligence and providence are commended; the success of these insignificant animals being due to their instinctive sagacity and activity, rather than strength. The other class (Pr 30:30, 31) provides similes for whatever is majestic or comely, uniting efficiency with gracefulness.

32. As none can hope, successfully, to resist such a king, suppress even the thought of an attempt.

lay ... hand upon thy mouth--"lay" is well supplied (Jud 18:19; Job 29:9; 40:4).

33. That is, strife--or other ills, as surely arise from devising evil as natural effects from natural causes.

The words of Agur the son of Jakeh - The words Agur, Jakeh, Ithiel, and Ucal, have been considered by some as proper names: by others, as descriptive characters. With some, Agur is Solomon; and Jakeh, David; and Ithiel and Ural are epithets of Christ.

The Vulgate translates, Verba congregantis filii vomentis: visio, quam locutus est sir, cum quo est Deus, et qui Deo secum morante confortatus, ait. "The words of the collector, the son of the vomiter: the vision of the man who has God with him, and who is fortified by God dwelling with him, saith."

Coverdale makes the following words a title to the chapter: "The wordes of Agur the sonne of Jake. "The prophecie of a true faithfull man, whom God hath helped; whom God hath comforted and nourished."

The whole might be thus translated, keeping near to the letter: - "The words of the epistle of the obedient son." Or, "The words of the collector, the son of Jakeh. The parable which הגבר haggeber, the strong man, the hero, spake unto him who is God with me; to him who is God with me, even the strong God."

The visioun that a man spake with whiche is God, and that God with him, wonyng confortid. - Old MS. Bible.

From this introduction, from the names here used, and from the style of the book, it appears evident that Solomon was not the author of this chapter; and that it was designed to be distinguished from his work by this very preface, which specifically distinguishes it from the preceding work. Nor can the words in Pro 30:2, Pro 30:3, Pro 30:8, Pro 30:9, be at all applied to Solomon: they suit no part of Solomon's life, nor of his circumstances. We must, therefore, consider it an appendix or supplement to the preceding collection; something in the manner of that part which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, had collected. As to mysteries here, many have been found by them who sought for nothing else; but they are all, in my view of the subject, hazarded and precarious. I believe Agur, Jakeh, Ithiel, and Ural, to be the names of persons who did exist, but of whom we know nothing but what is here mentioned. Agur seems to have been a public teacher, and Ithiel and Ucal to have been his scholars; and what he delivers to them was done by prophesy. It was what the prophets generally term משא massa, an Oracle, something immediately delivered by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of man.

Surely I am more brutish - These words can in no sense, nor by any mode of speech, be true of Solomon: for while he was the wisest of men, he could not have said that he was more brutish than any man, and had not the understanding of a man. It is saying nothing to the purpose, to say he was so independently of the Divine teaching. Had he put this in, even by innuendo, it might be legitimate: but he does not; nor is it by fair implication to be understood. Solomon is not supposed to have written the Proverbs after he fell from God. Then indeed he might have said he had been more brutish than any man. But Agur might have used these words with strict propriety, for aught we know; for it is very probable that he was a rustic, without education, and without any human help, as was the prophet Amos; and that all that he knew now was by the inspiration of the Almighty, independently of which he was rustic and uneducated.

I neither learned wisdom - I have never been a scholar in any of those schools of the wise men, nor have the knowledge of the holy, קדשים kedoshim, of the saints or holy persons.

The Septuagint give this a different turn: yeov dedidace me sofian, kai gnwsin agiwn egnwka; "God hath taught me wisdom, and the knowledge of the saints I have known."

This may refer to the patriarchs, prophets, or holy men, that lived before the days of Solomon. That is, the translators might have had these in view.

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? - Calmet paraphrases this passage thus: "Who hath descended, etc. In order to show the truth of what he was about to say, he observes: I have not the science of the saints; for how could I have acquired it? Who is he who could attain to that? Who has ascended to heaven to learn that science, and who has descended in order to publish it? Is the science of salvation one of those things that can be apprehended only by study? Is it not a pure gift of the goodness of God? Moses, after having shown to the people the will of God, said to them: 'This commandment which I command thee this day is not hidden from thee; neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?' Deu 30:11, Deu 30:12. The person whose words we are here examining speaks a knowledge more sublime than that contained in the simple laws of the Lord, common to all the people of Israel. He speaks of the sublime science of the designs of God, of his ways, and of his secrets; and in this sense he affirms he has no knowledge."

Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? - It is as difficult for a mortal man to acquire this Divine science by his own reason and strength, as to collect the winds in his fists. And who can command the spirit of prophecy, so that he can have it whensoever he pleases?

What is his name? - Show me the nature of this Supreme Being. Point out his eternity, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence; comprehend and describe him, if thou canst.

What is his son's name - Some copies of the Septuagint have η τι ονομα τοις τικνοιο αυτου; "Or the name of his sons;" meaning, I suppose, the holy angels, called his saints or holy ones, Pro 30:3.

The Arabic has, What is his name? and what is the name of his father? him who begat him. But the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, read as the Hebrew.

Many are of opinion that Agur refers here to the first and second persons of the everblessed Trinity. It may be so; but who would venture to rest the proof of that most glorious doctrine upon such a text, to say nothing of the obscure author? The doctrine is true, sublimely true; but many doctrines have suffered in controversy, by improper texts being urged in their favor. Every lover of God and truth should be very choice in his selections, when he comes forward in behalf of the more mysterious doctrines of the Bible. Quote nothing that is not clear: advance nothing that does not tell. When we are obliged to spend a world of critical labor, in order to establish the sense of a text which we intend to allege in favor of the doctrine we wish to support, we may rest assured that we are going the wrong way to work. Those who indiscriminately amass every text of Scripture they think bears upon the subject they defend, give their adversaries great advantage against them. I see many a sacred doctrine suffering through the bad judgment of its friends every day. The Godhead of Christ, salvation by faith, the great atoning sacrifice, and other essential doctrines of this class, are all suffering in this way. My heart says, with deep concern,

Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis,

Tempus eget.

When truth is assailed by all kinds of weapons, handled by the most powerful foes, injudicious defenders may be ranked among its enemies. To such we may innocently say, "Keep your cabins; you do assist the storm."

Every word of God is pure - כל אמרת אלוה צרופה col imrath eloah tseruphah, "Every oracle of God is purified." A metaphor taken from the purifying of metals. Every thing that God has pronounced, every inspiration which the prophets have received, is pure, without mixture of error, without dross. Whatever trials it may be exposed to, it is always like gold: it bears the fire, and comes out with the same lustre, the same purity, and the same weight.

He is a shield unto them - And this oracle among the rest. "He is the defense of all them that put their trust in him." לכל lechol, to all, is added here by nineteen of Kennicott's and De Rossi's MSS.; for instead of לחסים lachosim, to the trusters, they read לכל החוסים lechol hachosim, "to Every One of them that trust." Where the preposition and adjective are not only added, but the noun is written more full, and more emphatic: but a translation cannot well express it without paraphrase.

Add not thou unto his words - You can no more increase their value by any addition, than you can that of gold by adding any other metal to it. Take care that you do not any thing that this word forbids, nor leave undone any thing that it commands: for this is adding and diminishing in Scripture phrase.

Lest he reprove thee - Lest he try thy word by fire, as his has been tried; and it appear that, far from abiding the test, the fire shows thine to be reprobate silver; and so thou be found a falsifier of God's word, and a liar.

How amply has this been fulfilled in the case of the Romish Church! It has added all the gross stuff in the Apocrypha, besides innumerable legends and traditions, to the word of God! They have been tried by the refiner's fire. And this Church has been reproved, and found to be a liar, in attempting to filiate on the most holy God spurious writings discreditable to his nature.

Two things have I required of thee - These two petitions are mentioned in the next verse; and he wishes to have them answered before he should die. That is, he wishes the answer now, that he may live the rest of his life in the state he describes.

Remove far from me vanity and lies -

1. שוא shav, all false shows, all false appearances of happiness, every vain expectation. Let me not set my heart on any thing that is not solid, true, durable, and eternal.

2. Lies, דבר כזב debar cazab, all words of deception, empty pretensions, false promises, uncertain dependences, and words that Fail; promises which, when they become due, are like bad bills; they are dishonored because they are found to be forged, or the drawer insolvent.

From the import of the original, I am satisfied that Agur prays against idolatry, false religion, and false worship of every kind. שוא shau is used for an idol, a false god. Jer 18:15 : "My people have forsaken me; they have burnt incense to Vanity;" לשוא lashshav, "to an Idol." Psa 31:6 : "I have hated them that regard lying Vanities;" הבלי שוא habley shave, "vain Idols." See also Hos 12:11; Jon 2:8. And כזב cazab, a thing that fails or deceives, may well apply to the vain pretensions, false promises, and deceptive religious rites of idolatry. So Jer 15:18 : "Wilt thou be unto me as a liar," כמו אכזב kemo achzob, like the false, failing promises of the false gods; "and as waters that fail;" לא נאמנו lo neemanu, that are not faithful; not like the true God, whose promises never fail. According to this view of the subject, Agur prays,

1. That he may be preserved from idolatry.

2. That he may put no confidence in any words but those pure words of God that never fail them that trust in him.

Give me neither poverty nor riches - Here are three requests:

1. Give me not poverty. The reason is added: Lest, being poor, I shall get into a covetous spirit, and, impelled by want, distrust my Maker, and take my neighbour's property; and, in order to excuse, hide, or vindicate my conduct, I take the name of my God in vain; תפשתי taphasti, "I catch at the name of God." Or, by swearing falsely, endeavor to make myself pass for innocent. Forswere the name of my God - Old MS. Bible. Coverdale, "deny or apostatize from him."

2. Give me not riches. For which petition he gives a reason also: Lest I be full, and addict myself to luxurious living, pamper the flesh and starve the soul, and so deny thee, the Fountain of goodness; and, if called on to resort to first principles, I say, Who is Jehovah! Why should I acknowledge, why should I serve him? And thus cast aside all religion, and all moral obligation.

3. The third request is, Feed me with food convenient for me, הטריפני לחם חקי hatripheni leechem chukki; the meaning of which is, "give me as prey my statute allowance of bread," i.e., my daily bread, a sufficient portion for each day. There is an allusion made to hunting: "Direct so by thy good providence, that I may each day find sufficient portion to subsist on, as a hunter in the forest prays that he may have good speed." It is the province of a preacher to show the importance and utility of such a prayer, and dilate the circumstances, and expand the reasons, after the commentator has shown the literal sense.

Accuse not a servant - Do not bring a false accusation against a servant, lest thou be found guilty of the falsehood, and he curse thee for having traduced his character, and in his turn traduce thine. In general, do not meddle with other people's servants.

There is a generation - There are such persons in the world. In this and the three following verses the wise man points out four grand evils that prevailed in his time.

The first, Those who not only did not honor, but who evil-treated, their parents.

The second, Those who were self-righteous, supposing themselves pure, and were not so.

The third, Those who were full of vanity, pride, and insolence.

The fourth, The greedy, cruel, and oppressive, and, especially, oppressive to the poor.

The horseleech hath two daughters, crying, Give, give - "This horseleech," says Calmet, "is Covetousness, and her two daughters are Avarice and Ambition. They never say, It is enough; they are never satisfied; they are never contented."

Many explanations have been given of this verse; but as all the versions agree in render ing עלוקה alukah the horseleech or blood-sucker, the general meaning collected has been, "There are persons so excessively covetous and greedy, that they will scarcely let any live but themselves; and when they lay hold of any thing by which they may profit, they never let go their hold till they have extracted the last portion of good from it." Horace has well expressed this disposition, and by the same emblem, applied to a poor poet, who seizes on and extracts all he can from an author of repute, and obliges all to hear him read his wretched verses.

Quem vero arripuit, tenet, occiditque legendo,

Non missura cutem, nisi plena cruoris,

Hirudo. De arte poet., ver. 475. "But if he seize you, then the torture dread;

He fastens on you till he reads you dead;

And like a leech, voracious of his food,

Quits not his cruel hold till gorged with blood."

Francis.

The word אלוקה alukah, which we here translate horseleech, is read in no other part of the Bible. May it not, like Agur, Jakeh, Ithiel, and Ucal, be a proper name, belonging to some well-known woman of his acquaintance, and well known to the public, who had two daughters notorious for their covetousness and lechery? And at first view the following verse may be thought to confirm this supposition: "There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough." The grave, the barren womb the earth, the fire. What an astonishing simiiarity there is between this and the following institute, taken from the Code of Hindoo Laws, chapter 20, sec. i., p. 203. "A woman is never satisfied with the copulation of man, no more than a fire is satisfied with burning fuel; or the main ocean is with receiving the rivers; or death, with the dying of men and animals." You can no more satisfy these two daughters of Alukah than you can the grave, etc.

Some of the rabbins have thought that alukah signifies destiny, or the necessity of dying, which they say has two daughters, Eden and Gehenna, paradise and hell. The former has never enough of righteous souls; the latter, of the wicked. Similar to them is the opinion of Bochart, who thinks alukah means destiny, and the two daughters, the grave and hell; into the first of which the body descends after death, and into the second, the soul.

The Septuagint gives it a curious turn, by connecting the fifteenth with the sixteenth verse: Τῃ Βδελλῃ θυγατερες ησαν αγαπησει αγαπωμεναι, και αἱ τρεις αὑται ουκ ενεπιμπλασαν αυτην, και ἡ τεταρτη ουκ ηρκεσθη ειπειν· Ἱκανον; "The horseleech had three well-beloved daughters; and these three were not able to satisfy her desire: and the fourth was not satisfied, so as to say, It is enough."

After all, I think my own conjecture the most probable. Alukah is a proper name, and the two daughters were of the description I have mentioned.

The eye that mocketh at his father - This seems to be spoken against those who curse their father, and do not bless their mother, Pro 30:11.

The ravens of the valley - Those which frequent the places where dead carcasses and offal are most likely to be found. The raven, the crow, the rook, the daw, the carrion crow, and the Cornish chough, appear to be all of the same genus. Some of them live on pulse and insects; others, the raven in particular, live on carrion.

The young eagles shall eat it - The mother eagle shall scoop out such an eye, and carry it to the nest to feed her young. Many of the disobedient to parents have come to an untimely end, and, in the field of battle, where many a profligate has fallen, and upon gibbets, have actually become the prey of ravenous birds.

The way of an eagle - I borrow, with thanks, the very sensible note of the Rev. Mr. Holden on this passage. "The particle כן ken plainly shows that Pro 30:19 and Pro 30:20 are to be taken in connection; consequently, it is a comparison between the way of an adulterous woman, and the way of the things here described. "The adulterous woman goes about in search of her deluded victim, like as the eagle takes its flight into the air to spy out its prey. She uses every species of blandishment and insinuation to allure and beguile, as the serpent employs its windings and sinuous motions to pass along the rocks; she pursues a course surrounded with danger, as a ship in the midst of the sea is continually exposed to the fury of the tempest, and the hazard of shipwreck; and she tries every means, and exercises all her sagacity, to prevent the discovery of her illicit enjoyments, as a man attempts to conceal his clandestine intercourse with a maid. Such is the conduct of a lewd woman, marked by specious dissimulation and traitorous blandishment; she eateth and wipeth her mouth-she indulges her adulterous lust, yet artfully endeavors to conceal it, and with unblushing countenance asserts her innocence, exclaiming, I have done no wickedness."

Chaucer's January and May is an excellent comment on such wiles and protestations.

The way of a man with a maid - בעלמה bealmah with or in a maid; but one of De Rossi's MSS. has בעלמיו bealmaiv, in his youth; and with this the Septuagint, ev neothti, the Vulgate, in adolescentia, the Syriac and the Arabic agree; and so also my own MS. Bible: - The weie of a man in his waxing youthe. Dr. Kennicott, in a sermon preached at Onsford, 1765, p. 46, has defended the reading of the versions, corroborating it by two MSS., one in the Harleian, and the other in the Bodleian library, besides that mentioned by De Rossi. See De Rossi's Var. Lect. Certainly the way of a man in his youth contains too many intricacies for human wisdom to explore. He only who searches the heart knows fully its various corrupt principles, and their productions. The common reading may refer to the formation of a child in the womb. But some have understood it of the immaculate conception. See my note on Mat 1:23 (note), where the subject is largely considered.

If we take the four things which Agur says were too wonderful for him, in their obvious sense, there is little difficulty in them.

1. The passage which a bird makes through the air;

2. That which is made by a serpent on a rock; and,

3. That made by a ship through the sea, are such as cannot be ascertained: for who can possibly show the track in which either of them has passed?

And as to the fourth, if it refer to the suspected incontinence of one reputed a virgin, the signs are so equivocal, as to be absolutely unascertainable. The existence of the hymen has been denied by the ablest anatomists; and the signs of continence or incontinence, except in the most recent cases, are such as neither man nor woman can swear to, even to the present day; and they were certainly not less difficult to Agur and his contemporaries. I shall carry this matter no farther.

For three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear - This is another enigma. Four things insupportable to men. 1. A slave, when he becomes ruler. 2. An overfed fool. 3. An ill-tempered woman, when mistress of a family. And, 4. A servant maid, when the rule of the house is committed to her.

1. A slave, when he comes to bear rule, is an unprincipled tyrant. It has been often observed both in America and in the West Indies, when it was judged necessary to arm some of the most confidential slaves, that no regiments were used so cruelly in the drill, etc., as those black regiments that had black officers.

2. The overfed fool. The intellectually weak man, who has every thing at his command, has generally manners which none can bear; and, if a favourite with his master, he is insupportable to all others.

3. An ill-tempered woman, when she gets embarrassed with domestic cares, is beyond bearing.

4. A servant maid, when, either through the death of the mistress, or the sin of the husband, she is in fact exalted to be head over the family, is so insolent and impudent, as to be hateful to every one, and execrated by all.

There be four things - Of which it is said, they are very little but very wise. 1. The ants. 2. The rabbits. 3. The locusts. 4. The spider.

1. The ants show their wisdom by preparing their meat in the summer, seeking for it and storing it when it may be had; not for winter consumption, for they sleep all that time; but for autumn and spring. See the note on Pro 6:6 (note). The ants are a people; they have their houses, towns, cities, public roads, etc. I have seen several of these, both of the brown and large black ant.

2. The rabbits act curiously enough in the construction of their burrows; but the word שפן shaphan probably does not here mean the animal we call coney or rabbit. It is most likely that this is what Dr. Shaw calls the Daman - Israel; a creature very like a rabbit, but never burrowing in the ground, but dwelling in clefts and holes of rocks.

3. The locusts. These surprising animals we have already met with and described. Though they have no leader, yet they go forth by troops, some miles in circumference, when they take wing.

4. The spider. This is a singularly curious animal, both in the manner of constructing her house, her nets, and taking her prey. But the habits, etc., of these and such like must be sought in works on natural history.

There be three things which go well - Here is another set of emblems; four things which walk beautifully and with majesty. 1. The lion. 2. The greyhound. 3. The he-goat. And, 4. A king.

1. Nothing can be more majestic than the walk of the lion. It is deliberate, equal, firm, and in every respect becoming the king of the forest.

2. The greyhound. זרזיר מתנים zarzir mothnayim, the girt in the loins; but what this beast is we do not distinctly know. It is most likely that this was the greyhound, which in the East are remarkably fine, and very fleet. Scarcely any thing can be conceived to go with greater fleetness, in full chase, than a greyhound with its prey in view: it seems to swim over the earth.

3. The goat, תיש tayish. This is generally allowed to be the he-goat; and how he walks, and what state he assumes, in the presence of his part of the flock, every one knows, who has at all noticed this animal. The ram also, which some suppose to be intended, is both fierce and majestic at the head of the sheep.

4. And a king, against whom there is no risi,nv up. That is, a king whose court, counsels, and troops, are so firmly united to him, as to render all hopes of successful conspiracy against him utterly vain. He walks boldly and majestically about, being safe in the affections of his people. But the Hebrew is singular; it makes but two words; and these are they, ומלך אלקום umelech Alkum, "and King Alkum." It is a doubt whether this may not be a proper name, as Agur abounds in them; see Ithiel, Ucal, and probably Alukah, Pro 30:15. But it is said, "We know nothing of a king named Alkum." True; nor do we know any thing of Agur, Ithiel, Ucal, to say nothing of Alukah. And this might have been some remarkable chieftain, who carried his victories wherever he went, and was remarkably fortunate. If, however, we separate the word into אל al, "not," and קום kum, "he arose," we may make the interpretation above given.

If thou hast done foolishly - And who has not, at one time or other of his life?

Lay thine hand upon thy mouth - Like the leper; and cry to God, Unclean! unclean! and keep silence to all besides. God will blot out thy offense, and neither the world nor the Church ever know it, for he is merciful; and man is rarely able to pass by a sin committed by his fellows, especially if it be one to which himself is by nature not liable or inclined.

And the wringing - Who hugeli snytith drawith out blood. - Old MS. Bible. This is well expressed in homely phrase. The Septuagint have, "draw the milk, and you may have butter; if you press the nostrils you may bring out blood; and if you draw out your discourse to a great length, you may have strife and contention." Avoid, therefore, all strong excitements and irritations. Coverdale's translation of this verse is very simple: "Whoso chyrneth mylck maketh butter; he that rubbeth his nose maketh it blede; and he that causeth wrath bryngeth forth strife."

Jakeh - Who lived either in Solomon's time, or rather afterwards, and was famous in his generation for wisdom and piety. The prophecy - The prophetical instruction; for as the prophets were public preachers as well as foretellers of things to come, so their sermons, no less than their predictions, are commonly called their prophecies. And Ucal - Two friends and co - temporaries of Agur, who desired his instructions.

Surely - This he utters from a modest and humble apprehension of his own ignorance.

I neither learned - I have not been taught in the schools of wisdom. Of the holy - Of the holy prophets. I have not such Divine inspirations as prophets strictly so called have received.

Who - What mere man? None at all. Ascended - To learn the mind of God who dwells there. Descended - To teach men below what he had learned above. No man can fully know and teach us these things unless he hath been in heaven, and sent down from thence to the earth for that end. In his fists - To hold them in, or let them out at his pleasure? And none but he who made and governs all creatures, can know and teach these things. The waters - Those above the clouds, and those below, the sea which God keeps as it were within doors, and the water which he shuts up in the bowels of the earth. The earth - The whole earth from one end to another, which God upholdeth in the air, by the word of his power. If - If thou thinkest there be any man who can do these things, produce his name; or if he be dead, the name of any of his posterity.

Pure - You must not expect the full knowledge of Divine mysteries from me, nor from any man, but from the word of God.

Vanity - All vanity of heart and life; a vain conversation, or a love of the vain things of this world. Lies - All falsehood and deceit in my words and carriage. Convenient - Moderate and suitable both to my natural necessities, and to that condition of life in which thou hast put me.

Deny thee - By trusting to riches, which is a denial of God, and by unthankfulness for, and abuse of his mercies. Who is the Lord - That I should serve him. Lest I take - Use false oaths either to vindicate myself when I am suspected, or to gratify others, as poor men frequently do.

Accuse not - Without sufficient cause: for otherwise, in some cases this may be a duty. Curse thee - Desire God to punish thee. Guilty - By God, who is ready to plead the cause of the afflicted.

A generation - A sort of men.

Not washed - Who imagine they are truly religious, when they live in a course of wickedness.

Devour - Extortioners, and cruel oppressors.

The horse - leach - An insatiable creature, sucking blood 'till it is ready to burst. Two daughters - The following things resemble the horse - leach in its insatiableness; nothing being more ordinary than to call those persons or things the sons or daughters of those whose examples they imitate. Three - Though he begins with two, yet he proceeds from thence to three, and four, all which are said to be the daughters of the horse - leach.

The eye - He that scorneth or derideth his parents, tho' it be but with a look or gesture, and much more when he breaks out into opprobrious words and actions.

Wonderful - The way whereof I cannot trace.

Such is - So secret and undiscernible. Eateth - The bread of deceit in secret.

Four - Which are intolerable in human societies.

A servant - For such an one is commonly ignorant, and therefore commits many errors; he is poor, and therefore insatiable, he is proud and imperious, and usually injurious and cruel. A fool - A conceited fool. When - When he abounds in wealth.

An odious - Proud, and perverse. Married - For then she displays all those ill humours, which before, she concealed. Is heir - Which great and sudden change transports her beside herself, and makes her insufferably proud and scornful.

Bands - Several companies, in exact order.

Hands - With her legs, which he calls hands, because they serve her for the same use, to do her work, to weave her web, and to catch gnats or flies. Palaces - Is not only in poor cottages, but many times in palaces also.

An he - goat - Which marches in the head of the flock in a grave and stately manner, conducting them with great courage and resolution, and being ready to fight for them, either with beasts or men that oppose him. A king - Heb. a king and his people with him, a king when he hath the hearts and hands of his people going along with him in his undertakings.

Thought - Designed any injury against thy neighbour. Lay thine hand - Do not open thy mouth to excuse it, but repent of it, and do so no more.

The forcing - The stirring up of wrath, either in a man's self towards others, by giving way to passion; or in others by reproaches, or any other provocations. Bringeth forth - Is the cause of many quarrels.

1 THe words of Agur the son of Jakeh , even the prophecy : the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal .

A Person so called as appears from the designation of his own and his Fathers Name, who lived either in Solomon's time, or rather afterwards▪ and was famous in his Generation for Wisdom, and Prety, and Prophecy, and therefore his Proverbs were thought fit to be added to those of Solomon either by those men of Hezekiah, mentioned Ch. 25. 1. or by some other. But that this should be meant of Solomon may easily be supposed, but cannot be proved, nor is it probable, as being contrary both to the Style of the whole Chapter, and to the matter of some part of it, as v. 7, 8, 9. which agrees not to Solomon, and to the Laws of good Interpretation, one of which is that all words should be taken in their most natural and proper sence, when there is no evidence, nor necessity of understanding them improperly and figuratively, which is the present case.

The Prophetical instruction; for as the Prophets were publick Preachers as well as Foretellers of things to come, so their Sermons, no less than their Predictions, are commonly called their Prophesies.

Two Friends or Disciples, and contemporaries of Agur, called by those Names, who having a great and just opinion of his Wisdom, desired his instructions. Others, concerning Ithiel and Ucal; which they understand of Christ called Ithiel, which signifies God with me, and answers to Immanuel, which is God with us, and Ucal, which signifies power or prevalency. But if he had meant this of Christ, why should he design him by such obscure and ambiguous Names, as if he would not be understood? Why did he not call him by the Name of Shilo or Messiah, or some other Scripture Title belonging and ascribed to him? Besides, this Interpretation agrees not with the contents of this Chapter, wherein there is onely a short and occasional mention of Christ, but the Chapter consists in a manner wholly of counsels and Sentences of a quite other kind.

2 Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man .

You come to me with a great opinion of my Wisdom, and you expect that I should inform and instruct you in all things, yea even in the greatest Mysteries: but you are much mistaken in me; I am as ignorant and foolish as other men generally are, yea more than many others. Which he utters either 1. from a deep sense of the common corruption of humane Nature, and of the blindness of mens Minds in things concerning God and their own duty, and of the necessity of instruction from God's Word and of illumination from his Spirit, without which they can never understand these matters. Or 2. from a modest and humble apprehension of his own ignorance, which hath extorted such like expressions even from Heathen Philosophers; whence Pythagoras rejected the Title of a wise Man when it was ascribed to him; and Socrates, though reputed the wisest Man of his Age, professed that he knew nothing but this that he knew nothing.

Marginal references: Or, a great Man. Ch. 8, 4.; Or, a mean Man.

3 I neither learned wisdom , nor have the knowledge of the holy .

I have not been taught in the Schools of Wisdom, as the Sons of Prophets were, but must own my self to be an unlearned Man, as the Prophet Amos was, Amos 7. 14, 15. Or, I have not learned it, neither by my own understanding and study, nor by the help of other men.

Either 1. of the holy Angels, who are called Holy by way of eminency, as Deut. 33. 2. Iob 15. 15. Dan. 4. 13, 17, 23. & 8. 13. But it was vain to deny that Angelical knowledg to be in him, which no Man imagined to be in him, and which was not in Adam in the state of Innocency. Or 2. of the holy Prophets. So the sense is, I have not such Divine inspirations as Prophets strictly so called have received, whereby I should be enabled to know or explain those great Mysteries wherein you desire information from me. Or 3. of Holy things, of the mind and will of God concerning Man's Salvation, and the way which leads to it. Not that he denieth that he had any knowledge of these things, but onely a full and comprehensive and perfect knowledge, which they falsly supposed to be in him.

Marginal references: Heb. know.

4 Who hath ascended up into heaven , or descended ? who hath gathered the wind in his fists ? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth ? what is his name, and what is his sons name, if thou canst tell ?

What meer man? None at all; and therefore I may truly say that I have not that which no Mortal Man ever yet had.

There to learn the mind of God who dwells there, and that Wisdom which is from above.

Or rather, and descended, to teach men below what he had learned above. The meaning of the Place is, No man can fully know and teach us these things unless he hath been in Heaven, and sent down from thence to the Earth to that end. Whence our Saviour Christ justly applies these words to himself, Ioh. 3. 13. and appropriates this work of declaring God's nature and will to men to himself upon this account, that he alone was in his Fathers bosom, Ioh. 1. 18.

To hold them in, or let them out, and rule them at his pleasure? Where is there a Man that can do this? And none but he who made and governs all the Creatures, can know and teach these things.

Those above in the Clouds; and those below, the Sea which God keeps as it were within Doors, and in a Garment, and Swadling-band, as it is expressed, Iob 38. 8, 9. and the Waters which he shuts up in the Bowels of the Earth.

The whole Earth from one end to another, which God upholdeth in the Air by the Word of his Power, and secureth from the rage of the Sea, by the Banks and Shores wherewith he hath begirt it for that purpose.

The sense is, Either 1. Seeing it is apparent that no Man hath this Power, and consequently this Knowledge, but that this is the Prerogative of the Great God, declare, if thou art able, his Name, i. e. his Nature and Perfections, and the eternal Generation, and the Perfections of his Son. Or rather 2. if thou thinkest there be any such Man who can do these things, I challenge thee to produce his Name, or, if he be long since dead and gone out of the World, the Name of any of his Posterity that can assure us that their Progenitor was such a Person. Which because thou canst not do, I must conclude that none can thoroughly understand this matter, but the blessed God and his Son Christ, and they to whom God shall reveal them by Christ.

Marginal references: Joh. 3. 13.; Heb. and descended.; Job 38. 4, &c. Ps. 104. 3. &c. Isa. 40. 12, &c.

5 Every word of God is pure : he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him .

And therefore you, Ithiel and Ucal, must not expect the full knowledge of Divine Mysteries from me, nor from any Man, but from the Word of God, which is a certain rule both of your belief and practice, because every part and parcel of it is Holy, and True and Good, and there is not the least mixture of falshood and folly in it, as there is in all the words and writings of men.

Which supposeth their knowledge of him by his word, Psal. 9. 10. and contains their reliance upon his Promises joined with Obedience to his Commands.

Marginal references: Ps. 12. 6. & 18. 3[illegible: 1+ letters]. & 19. 8. & 119. [illegible: 1 word].; Heb. [illegible: 1 word].

6 Add thou not unto his words , lest he reprove thee , and thou be found a liar.

And as the Word of God is pure, do not thou corrupt or abuse it, by adding to it thine own or other mens inventions and opinions, and delivering or receiving of them in the Name and as the Words of God. He here forbids onely adding to it, not diminishing from it, which yet is equally forbidden, Deut. 4. 2. & 12. 32. because the Israelites then and always were, and others are more prone to add than to diminish, because it is more easy to add under colour of interpreting, and because it is more agreeable to the humour of Mankind which is much delighted with its own inventions, as the experience of all Ages sheweth.

By words or deeds, by discovering thy folly and bringing thee to deserved shame and punishment.

Marginal references: Rev. 22. 18. 19.

7 Two things have I required of thee, deny me them not before I die .

I do earnestly and especially desire.

Heb. Withhold them not from me before I die, i. e. whilst I live, as things of great and continual necessity for thy honour and service, and my own good.

Marginal references: Heb. with, hold not from me.

8 Remove far from me vanity and lies : give me neither poverty nor riches, feed me with food convenient for me :

From my Heart, and from the course of my Life. This is the first of Agurs Petitions.

Either 1. all vain and false Opinions concerning God or the things of God, all unbelief, Idolatry, or misbelief. Or 2. all vanity of Heart and Life, a vain conversation, an affectation of the vain things of this World, as Riches, Pleasures or Honours, the bewitching power and sad effects whereof he had observed in others, and feared in himself, as the following request implies.

All falshood and deceit in my words and carriage towards God or men.

This is his second request, which may seem to have some reference to the former, Poverty being commonly the occasion and temptation to the sin of Lying, and Riches being the great occasions and inticements to vanity. Thus as his first Petition was against the sins themselves, so this latter is against the occasions of them,

moderate and suitable both to my Natural necessities, and to that estate and condition of Life in which thou hast put me, and to that work and service which thou hast for me to do. And this mediocrity of Estate is so amiable that it hath been oft desired by wise Heathens as more eligible than a state of the greatest plenty and glory.

Marginal references: Matt. 6. 11.; Heb. of my allowance.

9 Lest I be full, and deny thee , and say, who is the LORD ? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain .

By trusting to Riches, which is a denial of God, Iob 31. 24—28. by unthankfulness for, and abuse of his mercies, and by rebellion against him, and divers other courses and common practices of rich men, whereby God is denied in truth, and in works, even when he is owned in words, and in shew.

That I should obey or serve him. I do not need him, I can live of my own without him. Lest by degrees I should arrive at down right Atheism or infidelity, which is most incident to rich and great men, as is manifest from Experience.

Use false Oaths either to vindicate my self when I am suspected or accused of Theft, and my Oath is required according to the Law, Exod. 22. 8—11. or to gratifie others for filthy lucre, as poor men frequently do.

Marginal references: Deut. 8. 12. & 32. 15. Hos. 13. 6.; Heb. bely thee.

10 Accuse not a servant unto his Master, lest he curse thee , and thou be found guilty .

To wit, maliciously, rashly, or without just and sufficient cause: for otherwise in some cases this may be not only lawful, but a duty, as when a servant lives wickedly, or robs his Master, or the like.

Whose condition is in itself mean and miserable, and therefore thou shouldst not make it worse without great and apparent necessity.

Desire God to curse and punish thee, which, though it may be sinful in him, yet being deserved by thee, thou hast reason to fear and expect.

By God, who is ready to plead the Cause of the afflicted, and upon strict search shall find thee guilty, and punish thee accordingly.

Marginal references: Heb. hurt [illegible: 1 word] with thy [illegible: 1 word].

11 There is a generation that curseth their father , and doth not bless their mother.

A sort of men, abominable both to God and men; which is implied concerning these and the following kinds of sinners, v. 12, 13, 14.

And Mother too, as it follows; ungrateful and unnatural monsters.

12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness .

Who not only pretend to others, but conceit within themselves that they are truly religious persons, when they live in a course of wickedness.

13. There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eye-lids are lifted up .

Who are proud and insolent, advancing themselves, and despising all others in comparison of themselves, and shewing the Pride of their Hearts in their countenances and carriages.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 6. 17.

14 There is a generation whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw-teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

Extortioners, and cruel oppressors, who grind the Faces of the poor.

Marginal references: Joh 29. 17. [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1+ letters]2. 2. [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word]. 4. [illegible: 1 word]. 12. 18.

15 The horse-leach hath two daughters , crying, Give, give : There are three things that are never satisfied , yea, four things say not , It is enough.

An insatiable Creature, sucking blood till it be ready to burst.

Which are either 1. The two forks into which her Tongue is divided, and wherewith she sucks: But those who have more accurately observed and described the frame of that Creature, tell us that they have no Tongue, and that they suck either by three little teeth, or several parts of the mouth gathered and compressed together. Or rather 2. The following things, which resemble the Horse-leach in its insatiableness, nothing being more ordinary than to call those persons or things the Sons or Daughters of those whose examples they imitate. And whereas it is objected, that they are not only two, but three, yea, four, as is said in the next clause, the Answer is easie, that though he begin with two, yet he proceeds from thence to three, and four, all which are said to be the Daughters of the Horse-leach, if the words be rendred commodiously, and as they are in the Hebrew, as we shall presently see.

Never filled, and always craving, and ready to receive more and more.

Or, yea (which may be understood in this, as it is in our Translation of the next clause) they (to wit, the Daughters of the Horseleach) are three.

Which is added partly to explain the former clause, give, give, and to shew the cause of that excessive desire of more, because they were not contented with what they had; and partly to give the reason why he calls them the Daughters of the Horseleech.

Or, yea, they (the daughters forementioned) are four, which say not.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. wealth.

16 The grave, and the barren womb , the earth that is not filled with water, and the fire that saith not, It is enough.

For as the Israelitish Women did generally and vehemently desire many Children, for diverse reasons elsewhere mentioned, so those who were barren amongst them, were most eager in those desires, as we see in Rachel, Gen. 30. 1. and as in all other cases, persons most prize and thirst after those good things which they want.

Which when it is dry thirsts for rain, and in a litte time sucks up great quantities of water, and gapes for more.

Which continually burns as long as there is any combustible matter left for it.

Marginal references: Heb. hell. [illegible: 1 word]. 27. 20. [illegible: 1 word] 2. 5.

17 The eye that mocketh at his father , and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out , and the young eagle shall eat it.

He that scorneth or derideth his Parents, though it be but with a look or gesture, and much more when he breaks out into opprobrious words and Actions.

He shall die an unnatural, and untimely, and ignominious death, and after death shall lie unburied, and so be exposed to the Birds, and Beasts of Prey, and amongst others, to the Crows, or Ravens, who use to feed upon dead carkasses and particularly to pick out their eyes, as is noted by all sorts of Writers; of which see my Latin Synopsis. He saith, the ravens of the valley, either because they most delight in valleys, or with a particular respect unto that valley near Ierusalem, which was called the valley of dead bodies, Jer. 31. 40. from the Carkasses cast out there, to which therefore the Ravens resorted in great numbers according to their manner: Or, as others render, the ravens of the brooks, because they are of an hot and dry temper, and therefore delight in places adjacent to the brooks of Water.

Which also preyeth upon dead Carkasses, and especially upon their eyes, as the Ravens do, the reason being the same in both, whether it be the softness of that part which makes it more easie to them to take, or from the pleasant taste of it.

Marginal references: Or, the [illegible: 1 word].

18 There be three things which are too wonderful for me , yea, four which I know not:

The way whereof I cannot trace or find out.

19 The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock , the way of a ship in the midst of the sea , and the way of a man with a maid .

Either 1. The manner of her flight, which is exceeding high, and swift, and strong. Or rather 2. The way or part of the air through which she passeth, without leaving any print or sign in it, which though it be true of all birds, yet is here attributed to the Eagle, of whom this is more true, because she flies out of sight, where neither her body, nor any sign of it, can be discerned.

Where she leaves no impression, nor slime, nor token where she was, as she doth in softer bodies, and as Birds leave their Feathers there:

Which though at present it make a furrow, yet is speedily closed again.

Either 1. The various Methods and Artifices which young Men use to entice or persuade young Virgins, either to honest Love and Marriage, or to unlawful Lust and uncleanness. Or rather 2. The impure conversation of a man with one who go[illegible: 1+ letters]th under the name of a maid, but is not so in truth, which is managed with so much secrecy and cunning, that it can very hardly be discovered. Which exposition agrees best with the foregoing similitudes referred to it, and with the following verse.

Marginal references: Heb. heart.

20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman ; she eateth , and wipeth her mouth , and saith, I have done no wickedness .

So secret and undiscernable.

Of her who though she be called and accounted a Maid, yet in truth is an adulteress, not a common strumpet, for of such the following words are not true, but one that secretly lives in the sin of Adultery or Fornication.

To wit, the bread of deceit in secret, by which is understood the act of filthiness, Prov. 9. 17. & 20. 17, which such persons do as greedily desire, and as delightfully feed upon, as hungry persons do upon bread. Thus chastly doth the Holy Ghost express the most filthy actions to teach us to avoid all immodest and obscene speeches as well as actions.

As a child doth when it hath eaten some forbidden food, and would not be discovered.

Denies the fact, and avoweth her innocency.

21 For three things the Earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear :

Either 1. The earth itself trembleth and is moved, so it is an Hyperbole. Or rather 2. The Inhabitants of the Earth. They do by their insolence and impudence cause great and dreadful disturbances in the places where they live.

Which are intolerable in humane societies.

22 For a servant when he reigneth , and a fool when he is filled with meat ;

When he is advanced to great Power and Dignity; for such an one is ignorant and unfit for his place, and therefore commits many errours, he is poor, and therefore an insatiable oppressor, according to Prov. 28. 3. he is proud and imperious, and being maligned and hated by others, he is provoked to hate them, and to be injurious and cruel to them.

A conceited and wilful fool, or an obstinately wicked man.

Either 1. When he is glutted with meat or drink, which dulls mens Reason, and heats their Blood, and stirs them up to many insolencies. Or rather 2. When he abounds in Wealth, which in that case is like a Sword in a mad mans hand, being an instrument and occasion of innumerable wickednesses and mischiefs, as appears from common experience.

Marginal references: Ch. 19. 10▪ Eccl. 10. 7.

23 For an odious woman when she is married , and an handmaid that is heir to her mistress .

Proud, and perverse, and full of hateful and offensive qualities.

For then she displayeth, and exerciseth all those ill humours, which before for her own ends she concealed, then she is puffed up, and imperious, and becomes intollerable to her own Family, and to her Relations and Neighbours.

That possesseth her Estate, either by the gift of her Mistress, into whose Favour she had insinuated her self by her cunning and officious carriage: or rather by the marriage of her Master, which great and sudden change transports her beside her self, and makes her insufferably proud, and scornful, and injurious to all that converse with her.

24 There be four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise .

Comparatively to other brute Creatures. They act very wisely and providently, not from any reason which they have, but by the direction of divine Providence, which secretly guides them to do those things for their own preservation which are most agreeable to the rules of Wisdom. The design of this observation is either 1. To commend Wisdom to us, and to teach us to imitate the Providence of these Creatures, as we are provoked to imitate their diligence, Prov. 6. 6. Or 2. To keep us from being proudly conceited of our own Wisdom, because we are either equalled or exceeded therein by the unreasonable Creatures in the wise conduct of their affairs. Or 3. To direct us to whom to resort for Wisdom when we want and desire it, even to that God who is able to inspire Wisdom even into the brute Creatures.

Marginal references: Heb. wise, made wise.

25 The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer .

Which title is oft given to the unreasonable Creatures both in Scripture, as Ioel 1. 6. & 2. 2. and in Homer, and Virgil and divers other Authors.

Of which see on Prov. 6. 6, 7, 8.

Marginal references: Ch. 6. 6, &c.

26 The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks .

In rocky ground, or in the holes of Rocks for their safety, against their too potent Enemies.

Marginal references: Ps. 104. 18.

27 The locusts have no king , yet go they forth all of them by bands .

To rule and order them.

In great numbers, and in several companies, and in exact order, as is observed in Scripture, as Iudg. 6. 5. & 7. 12. Ioel. 1. 7. & 2. 7. and by other Writers.

Marginal references: Heb. gathered together.

28 The spider taketh hold with her hands , and is in kings palaces .

Of the thread which she spins out of her own bowels.

With her Legs which he calls Hands, because they serve her for the same purpose, to do her work, to weave her web, and to catch Gnats or Flies, &c.

Is not only in poor Cottages, but many times in Palaces also, where she makes a shift to keep her abode, notwithstanding all the care and pains which is taken to sweep and cleanse it.

29 There be three things which go well, yea, four are comely in going :

That walk decently, and with great alacrity and courage; which are here commended to us to imitate in the management of our affairs.

30 A lion which is strongest among beasts, and turneth not away for any .

He doth not flee from his pursuers, whether Men or Beasts, but walketh away with a slow and Majestick pace, as is observed by Aristotle, and many others.

31 A grey-hound , an he-goat also, and a king, against whom there is no rising up .

Called in Hebrew, girt in the loins, either because its loins are slender, and as it were girt up into a little compass, and right or well trussed up: or because of its great agility and swiftness, for the girding of the loins was used for expedition in going or working. Or, as it is rendred by others, an Horse, to wit, a War▪horse, having his Armour girt about him, and marching to the battle, which he doth with great Majesty and Courage, as God himself observes at large, Iob 39. 19, &c.

Which marcheth in the head of the flock in grave and stately manner, conducting them with great courage and resolution, and being ready to fight for them, either with beasts or men that oppose him. Whence great Captains are oft compared to he-goats, as Isa. 14. 9. Ier. 50. 8. Dan. 8. 5, 21. Zech. 10. 3.

A mighty and victorious King, whose power none can withstand, who therefore goeth hither and thither, and proceedeth in his affairs with invincible Courage and Majesty. But this place, with the variation of one Hebrew point, reading ammo for immo, may be rendred, as a very learned man observes, a King and his People with him, a King when he hath the Hearts and Hands of his People going along with him in his undertakings.

Marginal references: Or, Horse.; Heb. girt in the loins.

32 If thou hast done foolishly in lifting up thy self , or if thou hast thought evil , lay thine hand upon thy mouth .

Either 1. By Rebellion or Sedition against the King last mentioned. Or 2. By Anger or Wrath, of which he speaks in the next verse. But this Verse hath no necessary dependance either upon the foregoing or following Verse. Or 3. Through thy Pride, which makes men carry themselves very foolishly, and scornfully, and injuriously, and is the root of contention, as was observed, Prov. 13. 10.

i. e. Designed any mischief or injury against thy Neighbour.

To wit, to shut it: Be silent, as this Phrase is used, Iob 21. 5. & 29. 9. Restrain thy self, do not speak one word, much less do any thing tending to the accomplishment of it: Do not open thy mouth to justifie or excuse it, but silently and seriously consider the evil of it, and repent of it, and do so no more.

Marginal references: Job 21. 5. & 40. 4.

33 Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife .

The stirring up of Wrath, either 1. In a mans self towards others, by giving way to Passion, or by fixing his thoughts upon those things which may enflame it. Or 2. In others by repreaches, injuries, or any other provocations.

Is the cause of many quarrels, and much mischief among men.

Pro 30:1

The title of this first appendix, according to the text lying before us, is: “The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, the utterance.”

This title of the following collection of proverbs is limited by Olewejored; and המּשּׂא, separated from the author’s name by Rebia, is interpreted as a second inscription, standing on one line with דּברי, as particularizing that first. The old synagogue tradition which, on the ground of the general title Pro 1:1, regarded the whole Book of Proverbs as the work of Solomon, interpreted the words, “Agur the son of Jakeh,” as an allegorical designation of Solomon, who appropriated the words of the Tôra to the king, Deu 17:17, and again rejected them, for he said: God is with me, and I shall not do it (viz., take many wives, without thereby suffering injury), Schemôth rabba, c. 6. The translation of Jerome: Verba congregantis filii Vomentis, is the echo of this Jewish interpretation. One would suppose that if “Agur” were Solomon’s name, “Jakeh” must be that of David; but another interpretation in Midrash Mishle renders בן (“son”) as the designation of the bearer of a quality, and sees in “Agur” one who girded (אגר = חגר) his loins for wisdom; and in “son of Jakeh” one free from sin (חטא ועון נקי מכל). In the Middle Ages this mode of interpretation, which is historically and linguistically absurd, first began to prevail; for then the view was expressed by several (Aben Ezra, and Meîri the Spaniard) that Agur ben Jakeh was a wise man of the time of Solomon. That of Solomon’s time, they thence conclude (blind to Pro 25:1) that Solomon collected together these proverbs of the otherwise unknown wise man. In truth, the age of the man must remain undecided; and at all events, the time of Hezekiah is the fixed period from which, where possible, it is to be sought. The name “Agur” means the gathered (Pro 6:8; Pro 10:5), or, after the predominant meaning of the Arab. âjar, the bribed, mercede conductum; also the collector (cf. יקוּשׁ, fowler); or the word might mean, perhaps, industrious in collecting (cf. 'alwaḳ, attached to, and other examples in Mühlau, p. 36). Regarding בּן = binj (usual in בּן־נּוּן), and its relation to the Arab. ibn, vid., Genesis, p. 555. The name Jakeh is more transparent. The noun יקהה, Pro 30:17; Gen 49:10, means the obedient, from the verb יקהּ; but, formed from this verbal stem, the form of the word would be יקהּ (not יקה). The form יקה is the participial adj. from יקה, like יפה from יפה; and the Arab. waḳay, corresponding to this יקה, viii. ittaḳay, to be on one’s guard, particularly before God; the usual word fore piety regarded as εὐλάβεια. Mühlau (p. 37) rightly sees in the proper names Eltekeh [Jos 19:44] and Eltekon [Jos 15:59] the secondary verbal stem תּקה, which, like e.g., תּוה (תּאה), תּאב, עתד, has originated from the reflexive, which in these proper names, supposing that אל is subj., means to take under protection; not: to give heed = cavere. All these meanings are closely connected. In all these three forms - יקהּ, יקה, תּקה - the verb is a synonym of שׁמר; so that יקה denotesAccording to the Lex. 'Gezerî (from the Mesopotamian town of 'Geziret ibn 'Amr), the word wakihon is, in the Mesopotamian language, “the overseer of the house in which is the cross of the Christians;” and accordingly, in Muhammed’s letter to the Christians of Negran, after they became subject to him, “a monk shall not be removed from his monastery, nor a presbyter from his presbyterate, (waḳâhtah) wala watah wakahyttah” (this will be the correct phrase), “nor an overseer from his office.” The verbal stem waḳ-ah (יקהּ) is, as it appears, Northern Semitic; the South Arabian lexicographer Neshwan ignores it (Wetzstein in Mühlau). the pious, either as taking care, εὐλαβής, or as keeping, i.e., observing, viz., that which is commanded by God.

In consequence of the accentuation, המשּׂא is the second designation of this string of proverbs, and is parallel with דברי. But that is absolutely impossible. משּׂא (from נשׂא, to raise, viz., the voice, to begin to express) denotes the utterance, and according to the usage of the words before us, the divine utterance, the message of God revealed to the prophet and announced by him, for the most part, if not always (vid., at Isa 13:1), the message of God as the avenger. Accordingly Jewish interpreters (e.g., Meîri and Arama) remark that משׂא designates what follows, as דבר נבוּאיּי, i.e., an utterance of the prophetic spirit. But, on the other hand, what follows begins with the confession of human weakness and short-sightedness; and, moreover, we read proverbs not of a divine but altogether of a human and even of a decaying spiritual stamp, besides distinguished from the Solomonic proverbs by this, that the I of the poet, which remains in the background, here comes to the front. This משׂא of prophetic utterances does not at all harmonize with the following string of proverbs. It does not so harmonize on this account, because one theme does not run through these proverbs which the sing. משׂא requires. It comes to this, that משׂא never occurs by itself in the sense of a divine, a solemn utterance, without having some more clearly defining addition, though it should be only a demonstrative הזּה (Isa 14:28). But what author, whether poet or prophet, would give to his work the title of משׂא, which in itself means everything, and thus nothing! And now: the utterance - what can the article at all mean here? This question has remained unanswered by every interpreter. Ewald also sees himself constrained to clothe the naked word; he does it by reading together המשׂא נאם, and translating the “sublime saying which he spoke.” But apart from the consideration that Jer 23:31 proves nothing for the use of this use of נאם, the form (הגבר) נאם is supported by 2Sa 23:1 (cf. Pro 30:5 with 2Sa 22:31); and besides, the omission of the אשׁר, and in addition of the relative pronoun (נאמו), would be an inaccuracy not at all to be expected on the brow of this gnomology (vid., Hitzig). If we leave the altogether unsuspected נאם undisturbed, המשׂא will be a nearer definition of the name of the author. The Midrash has a right suspicion, for it takes together Hamassa and Agur ben Jakeh, and explains: of Agur the son of Jakeh, who took upon himself the yoke of the most blessed. The Graecus Venetus comes nearer what is correct, for it translates: λόγοι Ἀγούρου υἱέως Ἰακέως τοῦ Μασάου. We connect Pro 31:1, where למוּאל מלך, “Lemuel (the) king,” is a linguistic impossibility, and thus, according to the accentuation lying before us, מלך משּׂא also are to be connected together; thus it appears that משׂא must be the name of a country and a people. It was Hitzig who first made this Columbus-egg to stand. But this is the case only so far as he recognised in למואל מלך משׂא a Lemuel, the king of Massa, and recognised this Massa also in Pro 30:1 (vid., his dissertation: Das Königreich Massa [the kingdom of Massa], in Zeller’s Theolog. Jahrbb. 1844, and his Comm.), viz., the Israelitish Massa named in Gen 25:14 (= 1Ch 1:30) along with Dumah and Tema. But he proceeds in a hair-splitting way, and with ingenious hypothesis, without any valid foundation. That this Dumah is the Dumat el-jendel (cf. under Isa 21:11) lying in the north of Nejed, near the southern frontiers of Syria, the name and the founding of which is referred by the Arabians to Dûm the son of Ishmael, must be regarded as possible, and consequently Massa is certainly to be sought in Northern Arabia. But if, on the ground of 1Ch 4:42., he finds there a Simeonitic kingdom, and finds its origin in this, that the tribe of Simeon originally belonging to the ten tribes, and thus coming from the north settled in the south of Judah, and from thence in the days of Hezekiah, fleeing before the Assyrians, were driven farther and farther in a south-east direction towards Northern Arabia; on the contrary, it has been shown by Graf (The Tribe of Simeon, a contribution to the history of Israel, 1866) that Simeon never settled in the north of the Holy Land, and according to existing evidences extended their settlement from Negeb partly into the Idumean highlands, but not into the highlands of North Arabia. Hitzig thinks that there are found traces of the Massa of Agur and Lemuel in the Jewish townCf. Blau’s Arab. im sechsten Jahrh. in the Deutsch. Morgl. Zeits. xxxiii. 590, and also p. 573 of the same, regarding a family of proselytes among the Jews in Taima. of טילמאס, of Benjamin of Tudela, lying three days’ journey from Chebar, and in the proper name (Arab.) Malsā (smooth), which is given to a rock between Tema and Wady el-Kora (vid., Kosegarten’s Chestom. p. 143); but how notched his ingenuity here is need scarcely be shown. By means of more cautious combinations Mühlau has placed the residence of Agur and Lemuel in the Hauran mountain range, near which there is a Dumah, likewise a Têmâ; and in the name of the town Mismîje, lying in the Lejâ, is probably found the Mishma which is named along with Massa, Gen 25:14; and from this that is related in 1Ch 5:9., 1Ch 5:18-22, of warlike expeditions on the part of the tribes lying on the east of the Jordan against the Hagarenes and their allies Jetur, Nephish, and Nodab,Mühlau combines Nodab with Nudêbe to the south-east of Bosra; Blau (Deut. Morg. Zeit. xxv. 566), with the Ναβδαῖοι of Eupolemos named along with the Ναβατοῖοι. The Kamûs has Nadab as the name of a tribe. it is with certainty concluded that in the Hauran, and in the wilderness which stretches behind the Euphrates towards it, Israelitish tribes have had their abode, whose territory had been early seized by the trans-Jordanic tribes, and was held “until the captivity,” 1Ch 5:22, i.e., till the Assyrian deportation. This designation of time is almost as unfavourable to Mühlau’s theory of a Massa in the Hauran, inhabited by Israelitish tribes from the other side, as the expression “to Mount Seir” (1Ch 4:42) is to Hitzig’s North Arabian Massa inhabited by Simeonites. We must leave it undecided whether Dumah and Têmâ, which the Toledoth of Ismael name in the neighbourhood of Massa, are the east Hauran districts now existing; or as Blau (Deut. Morgl. Zeit. xxv. 539), with Hitzig, supposes, North Arabian districts (cf. Genesis. p. 377, 4th ed.).Dozy (Israeliten in Mecca, p. 89f.) connects Massa with Mansâh, a pretended old name of Mecca. “Be it as it may, the contents and the language of this difficult piece almost necessarily point to a region bordering on the Syro-Arabian waste. Ziegler’s view (Neue Uebers. der Denksprüche Salomo's, 1791, p. 29), that Lemuel was probably an emir of an Arabian tribe in the east of Jordan, and that a wise Hebrew translated those proverbs of the emir into Hebrew, is certainly untenable, but does not depart so far from the end as may appear at the first glance” (Mühlau).These German quotations with the name of Mühlau are taken from the additions to his book, which he placed at my disposal.

If the text-punctuation lying before us rests on the false supposition that Massa, Pro 30:1; Pro 31:1, is a generic name, and not a proper name, then certainly the question arises whether משׂא should not be used instead of משּׂא, much more משׂא, which is suggested as possible in the article “Sprüche,” in Herzog’s Encycl. xiv. 694. Were משׁא, Gen 10:30, the region Μεσήνη, on the northern border of the Persian Gulf, in which Apamea lay, then it might be said in favour of this, that as the histories of Muhammed and of Benjamin of Tudela prove the existence of an old Jewish occupation of North Arabia, but without anything being heard of a משּׂא, the Talmud bears testimonyVid., Neubauer’s Le Géographie du Talmud, pp. 325, 329, 382. to a Jewish occupation of Mesene, and particularly of Apamea; and by the mother of Lemuel, the king of Mesha, one may thinkDerenbourg’s Essai sur l'Hist. et la Géog. de la Palestine, i. p. 224. of Helena, celebrated in Jewish writings, queen of Adiabene, the mother of Monabaz and Izates. But the identity of the Mesha of the catalogue of nations with Μεσήνη is uncertain, and the Jewish population of that place dates at least from the time of the Sassanides to the period of the Babylonian exile. We therefore hold by the Ishmaelite Massa, whether North Arabian or Hauranian; but we by no means subscribe Mühlau’s non possumus non negare, Agurum et Lemuëlem proseytos e paganis, non Israelitas fuisse. The religion of the tribes descended from Abraham, so far as it had not degenerated, was not to be regarded as idolatrous. It was the religion which exists to the present day among the great Ishmaelite tribes of the Syrian desert as the true tradition of their fathers under the name of Dîn Ibrâhîm (Abraham’s religion); which, as from Wetzstein, we have noted in the Commentary on Job (p. 387 and elsewhere), continues along with Mosaism among the nomadic tribes of the wilderness; which shortly before the appearance of Christianity in the country beyond the Jordan, produced doctrines coming into contact with the teachings of the gospel; which at that very time, according to historic evidences (e.g., Mêjâsinî’s chronicles of the Ka'be), was dominant even in the towns of Higâz; and in the second century after Christ, was for the first time during the repeated migration of the South Arabians again oppressed by Greek idolatry, and was confined to the wilderness; which gave the mightiest impulse to the rise of Islam, and furnished its best component part; and which towards the end of the last century, in the country of Neged, pressed to a reform of Islam, and had as a result the Wahabite doctrine. If we except Pro 30:5., the proverbs of Agur and Lemuel contain nothing which may not be conceived from a non-Israelitish standpoint on which the author of the Book of Job placed himself. Even Job 30:5. is not there (cf. Job 6:10; Job 23:12) without parallels. When one compares Deu 4:2; Deu 13:1, and 2Sa 22:31 = Psa 18:31 (from which Pro 30:5 of the proverbs of Agur is derived, with the change of יהוה into אלוהּ), Agur certainly appears as one intimately acquainted with the revealed religion of Israel, and with their literature. But must we take the two Massites therefore, with Hitzig, Mühlau, and Zöckler, as born Israelites? Since the Bible history knows no Israelitish king outside of the Holy Land, we regard it as more probable that King Lemuel and his countryman Agur were Ishmaelites who had raised themselves above the religion of Abraham, and recognised the religion of Israel as its completion.

If we now return to the words of Pro 30:1, Hitzig makes Agur Lemuel’s brother, for he vocalizes אגוּר בּן־יקההּ משּׂא, i.e., Agur the son of her whom Massa obeys. Ripa and Björck of Sweden, and Stuart of America, adopt this view. But supposing that יקהּ is connected with the accusative of him who is obeyed, בן, as the representative of such an attributive clause, as of its virtual genitive, is elsewhere without example; and besides, it is unadvisable to explain away the proper name יקה, which speaks for itself. There are two other possibilities of comprehending המּשּׁא, without the change, or with the change of a single letter. Wetzstein, on Pro 31:1, has said regarding Mühlau’s translation “King of Massa:” “I would more cautiously translate, 'King of the Massans,' since this interpretation is unobjectionable; while, on the contrary, this is not terra Massa, nor urbs Massa. It is true that the inhabitants of Massa were not pure nomads, after 30 and 31, but probably, like the other tribes of Israel, they were half nomads, who possessed no great land as exclusive property, and whose chief place did not perhaps bear their name. The latter may then have been as rare in ancient times as it is in the present day. Neither the Sammar, the Harb, the Muntefik, nor other half nomads whom I know in the southern parts of the Syrian desert, have any place which bears their name. So also, it appears, the people of Uz (עוץ), which we were constrained to think of as a dominant, firmly-settled race, since it had so great a husbandman as Job, possessed no קרית עוּץ. Only in certain cases, where a tribe resided for many centuries in and around a place, does the name of this tribe appear to have remained attached to it. Thus from גוּף דּוּמה, 'the low-country of the Dumahns,' or קרית דּוּמה, 'the city of Dumahns,' as also from קרית תּימא, 'the city of the Temans,' gradually there arose (probably not till the decline and fall of this tribe) a city of Dumah, a haven of Midian, and the like, so that the primary meaning of the name came to be lost.” It is clear that, from the existence of an Ishmaelite tribe משּׂא, there does not necessarily follow a similar name given to a region. The conj. ממּשּׂא, for המשּׂא (vid., Herzog’s Encycl. xiv. 702), has this against it, that although it is good Heb., it directly leads to this conclusion (e.g., 2Sa 23:20, 2Sa 23:29, cf. 1Ki 17:1). Less objectionable is Bunsen’s and Böttcher’s המּשּׂאי. But perhaps המשׂא may also have the same signification; far rather at least this than that which Malbim, after השּׂר המשּׂא, 1Ch 15:27, introduced with the lxx ἄρχων τῶν ᾠδῶν: “We ought then to compare 2Sa 23:24, דודו בּית לחם, a connection in which, after the analogy of such Arabic connections as ḳaysu'aylana, Kais of the tribe of 'Ailân (Ibn Coteiba, 13 and 83), or Ma'nu Ṭayyin, Ma'n of the tribe of Tay, i.e., Ma'n belonging to this tribe, as distinguished from other men and families of this name (Schol. Hamasae 144. 3), בית לחם is thought of as genit”In 'העם וגו, Jer 8:5, 'ירושׁ is though of as genit., although it may be also nom., after the scheme of apposition instead of annexion. That it is genit., cf. Philippi’s St. Const. pp. 192-195. (Mühlau). That בית לחם (instead of בּית הלּחמי) is easily changed, with Thenius and Wellhausen, after 1Ch 11:26, into מבּית לחם, and in itself it is not altogether homogeneous, because without the article. Yet it may be supposed that instead of משׂא, on account of the appelat. of the proper name (the lifting up, elatio), the word המשׂא might be also employed. And since בן־יקה, along with אגור, forms, as it were, one compositum, and does not at all destroyWe say, in Arab., without any anomaly, e.g., Alı̂ju-bnu-Muḥammadin Tajjiïn, i.e., the Ali son of Muhammed, of the tribe (from the tribe) of Tay; cf. Jos 3:11; Isa 28:1; Isa 63:11; and Deu 3:13. the regulating force of אגור, the expression is certainly, after the Arabic usus loq., to be thus explained: The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, of the tribe (the country) of Massa.

The second line of this verse, as it is punctuated, is to be rendered:

The saying of the man to Ithîel, to Ithîel and Uchal, not Ukkal; for, since Athias and van der Hooght, the incorrect form ואכּל has become current. J. H. Michaelis has the right form of the word ואכל. Thus, with כ raphatum, it is to be read after the Masora, for it adds to this word the remark לית וחסר, and counts it among the forty-eight words sometimes written defectively without ו (vid., this list in the Masora finalis, 27b, Col); and since it only remarks the absence of the letter lengthening the word where no dagesh follows the vocal, it thus supposes that the כ has no dagesh, as it is also found in Codd. (also Jaman.) written with the Raphe. לאיתיאל is doubly accentuated; the Tarcha represents the Metheg, after the rule Thorath Emeth, p. 11. The ל after נאם is, in the sense of the punctuation, the same dat. as in לאדני, Psa 110:1, and has an apparent right in him who asks כּי תדע in the 4th verse. Ithîel and Uchal must be, after an old opinion, sons, or disciples, or contemporaries, of Agur. Thus, e.g., Gesenius, in his Lex. under איתיאל, where as yet his reference to Neh 11:7 is wanting. איתיאל is rendered by Jefet and other Karaites, “there is a God” = איתי אל; but it is perhaps equivalent to אתּי אל, “God is with me;” as for אתּי rof sa ”;e, the form איתי is also found. אכל (אכל) nowhere occurs as a proper name; but in the region of proper names, everything, or almost everything, is possible.Vid., Wetzstein’s Inschriften aus den Trachonen und dem Haurangebirge (1864), p. 336f.

Ewald sees in 1b-14 a dialogue: in Pro 30:2-4 the הגּבר, i.e., as the word appears to him, the rich, haughty mocker, who has worn out his life, speaks; and in Pro 30:5-14 the “Mitmirgott” [= God with me], or, more fully, “Mitmirgott-sobinichstark” [= God with me, so am I strong], i.e., the pious, humble man answers. “The whole,” he remarks, “is nothing but poetical; and it is poetical also that this discourse of mockery is called an elevated strain.” But (1) גּבר is a harmless word; and in נאם הגּבר, Num 24:3, Num 24:15; 2Sa 23:1, it is a solemn, earnest one; (2) a proper name, consisting of two clauses connected by Vav, no matter whether it be an actual or a symbolical name, is not capable of being authenticated; Ewald, §274b, recognises in 'גּדּלתּי וגו, 1Ch 25:4, the naming, not of one son of Heman, but of two; and (3) it would be a very forced, inferior poetry if the poet placed one half of the name in one line, and then, as if constrained to take a new breath, gave the other half of it in a second line. But, on the other hand, that איתיאל and אכל are the names of two different persons, to whom the address of the man is directed, is attested by the, in this case aimless, anadiplosis, the here unpoetical parallelism with reservation. The repetition, as Fleischer remarks, of the name Ithîel, which may rank with Uchal, as the son or disciple of Agur, has probably its reason only as this, that one placed a second more extended phrase simply along with the shorter. The case is different; but Fleischer’s supposition, that the poet himself cannot have thus written, is correct. We must not strike out either of the two לאיתיאל; but the supposed proper names must be changed as to their vocalization into a declaratory clause. A principal argument lies in Pro 30:2, beginning with כּי: this כי supposes a clause which it established; for, with right, Mühlau maintains that כי, in the affirmative sense, which, by means of aposiopesis, proceeds from the confirmative, may open the conclusion and enter as confirmatory into the middle of the discourse (e.g., Isa 32:13), but cannot stand abruptly at the commencement of a discourse (cf. under Isa 15:1 and Isa 7:9). But if we now ask how it is to be vocalized, there comes at the same time into the sphere of investigation the striking phrase נאם הגּבר. This phrase all the Greek interpreters attest by their rendering, τάδε λέγει ὁ ἀνήρ (Venet. φησὶν ἀνήρ); besides, this is to be brought forward from the wilderness of the old attempts at a translation, that the feeling of the translators strives against the recognition in ואכל of a second personal name: the Peshito omits it; the Targ. translates it, after the Midrash, by ואוּכל (I may do it); as Theodotion, καὶ δυνήσομαι, which is probably also meant by the καὶ συνήσομαι (from συνείναι, to be acquainted with) of the Venet.; the lxx with καὶ παύομαι; and Aquila, καὶ τέλεσον (both from the verb כלה). As an objection to נאם הגבר is this, that it is so bald without being followed, as at Num 24:3, Num 24:15; 2Sa 23:1, with the attributive description of the man. Luther was determined thereby to translate: discourse of the man Leithiel.... And why could not לאיתיאל be a proper-name connection like שׁאלתּיאל (שׁלתּיאל)? Interpreted in the sense of “I am troubled concerning God,” is might be a symbolical name of the φιλόσοφος, as of one who strives after the knowledge of divine things with all his strength. But (1) לאה, with the accus. obj., is not established, and one is rather inclined to think of a name such as כּליתיאל, after Psa 84:3; (2) moreover, לאיתיאל cannot be at one time a personal name, and at another time a declarative sentence - one must both times transform it into לאיתי אל; but אל has to be taken as a vocative, not as accus., as is done by J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, Bunsen, Zöckler, and others, thus: I have wearied myself, O God!... The nakedness of הגבר is accordingly not covered by the first Leithiel. Mühlau, in his work, seeks to introduce המשׂא changed into ממשׂא: “The man from Massa,” and prefers to interpret הגבר generically:Thus, viz., that הגבר denotes, not the man as he ought to be, but the man as he usually is (the article, as the Arabic grammarians say, “not for the exhaustion of the characteristic marks of the genus,” but for the expression of “the quality mâhîje of the genus”). “proverb (confession) of the man (i.e., the man must confess): I have wearied myself, O God!...” Nothing else in reality remains. The article may also be retrospective: the man just now named, whose “words” are announced, viz., Agur. But why was not the expression נאם אגור then used? Because it is not poetical to say: “the (previously named) man.” On the other hand, what follows applies so that one may understand, under הגבר, any man you choose. There are certainly among men more than too many who inquire not after God (Psa 14:2.). But there are also not wanting those who feel sorrowfully the distance between them and God. Agur introduces such a man as speaking, for he generalizes his own experience. Psa 36:2 (vid., under this passage) shows that a proper name does not necessarily follow נאם. With נאם הגבר Agur then introduces what the man has to confess - viz. a man earnestly devoted to God; for with נאם the ideas of that which comes from the heart and the solemnly earnest are connected. If Agur so far generalizes his own experience, the passionate anadiplosis does not disturb this. After long contemplation of the man, he must finally confess: I have troubled myself, O God! I have troubled myself, O God!... That the trouble was directed toward God is perhaps denoted by the alliteration of לאיתי with אל. But what now, further? ואכל is read as ואכל, ואכל, ואכל, ואכל, ואכל, and it has also been read as ואכל. The reading ואכל no one advocates; this that follows says the direct contrary, et potui (pollui). Geiger (Urschrift, p. 61) supports the reading ואכל, for he renders it interrogatively: “I wearied myself in vain about God, I wearied myself in vain about God; why should I be able to do it?” But since one may twist any affirmative clause in this way, and from a yes make a no, one should only, in cases of extreme necessity, consent to such a question in the absence of an interrogative word. Böttcher’s לאיתי אל, I have wearied myself out in vain, is not Hebrew. But at any rate the expression might be אל־אכל, if only the Vav did not stand between the words! If one might transpose the letters, then we might gain ולא אכל, according to which the lxx translates: οὐ δυνήσομαι. At all events, this despairing as to the consequence of further trouble, “I shall be able to do nothing (shall bring it to nothing),” would be better than ואכל (and I shall withdraw - become faint), for which, besides, ואכלה should be used (cf. Pro 22:8 with Job 33:21). One expects, after לאיתי, the expression of that which is the consequence of earnest and long-continued endeavour. Accordingly Hitzig reads ואכל, and I have become dull - suitable to the sense, but unsatisfactory on this account, because כּלל, in the sense of the Arab. kall, hebescere, is foreign to the Heb. usus loq. Thus ואכל will be a fut. consec. of כלה. J. D. Michaelis, and finally Böttcher, read it as fut. consec. Piel ואכל or ואכל (vid., regarding this form in pause under Pro 25:9), “and I have made an end;” but it is not appropriate to the inquirer here complaining, when dissatisfaction with his results had determined him to abandon his research, and let himself be no more troubled. We therefore prefer to read with Dahler, and, finally, with Mühlau and Zöckler, ואכל, and I have withdrawn. The form understood by Hitzig as a pausal form is, in the unchangeableness of its vocals, as accordant with rule as those of יחד, Pro 27:17, which lengthen the a of their first syllables in pause. And if Hitzig objects that too much is said, for one of such meditation does not depart, we answer, that if the inquiry of the man who speaks here has completed itself by the longing of his spirit and his soul (Psa 84:3; Psa 143:7), he might also say of himself, in person, כליתי or ואכל. An inquiry proceeding not merely from intellectual, but, before all, from practical necessity, is meant - the doubled לאיתי means that he applied thereto the whole strength of his inner and his outer man; and ואכל, that he nevertheless did not reach his end, but wearied himself in vain. By this explanation which we give to 1a, no change of its accents is required; but 1b has to be written: נאם הגּבר לאיתי אל לאיתי אל ואכלThe Munach is the transformation of Mugrash, and this sequence of accents - Tarcha, Munach, Silluk - remains the same, whether we regard אל as the accusative or as the vocative.

Pro 30:2-3

The כי now following confirms the fruitlessness of the long zealous search: 2 For I am without reason for a man,    And a man’s understanding I have not. 3 And I have not learned wisdom,    That I may possess the knowledge of the All-Holy.

He who cannot come to any fixed state of consecration, inasmuch as he is always driven more and more back from the goal he aims at, thereby brings guilt upon himself as a sinner so great, that every other man stands above him, and he is deep under them all. So here Agur finds the reason why in divine things he has failed to attain unto satisfying intelligence, not in the ignorance and inability common to all men - he appears to himself as not a man at all, but as an irrational beast, and he misses in himself the understanding which a man properly might have and ought to have. The מן of מאישׁ is not the partitive, like Isa 44:11, not the usual comparative: than any one (Böttcher), which ought to be expressed by מכּל־אישׁ, but it is the negative, as Isa 52:14; Fleischer: rudior ego sum quam ut homo appeller, or: brutus ego, hominis non similis. Regarding בּער, vid., under Pro 12:1.According to the Arab. בעיר is not a beast as grazing, but as dropping stercus (ba'r, camel’s or sheep’s droppings); to the R. בר, Mühlau rightly gives the meanings of separating, whence are derived the meanings of grazing as well as of removing (cleansing) (cf. Pers. thak karadn, to make clean = to make clean house, tabula rasa).

Pro 30:3 now says that he went into no school of wisdom, and for that reason in his wrestling after knowledge could attain to nothing, because the necessary conditions to this were wanting to him. But then the question arises: Why this complaint? He must first go to school in order to obtain, according to the word “To him who hath is given,” that for which he strove. Thus למדתּי refers to learning in the midst of wrestling; but למד, spiritually understood, signifies the acquiring of a kennens [knowledge] or könnens [knowledge = ability]: he has not brought it out from the deep point of his condition of knowledge to make wisdom his own, so that he cannot adjudge to himself knowledge of the all-holy God (for this knowledge is the kernel and the star of true wisdom). If we read 3b לא אדע, this would be synchronistic, nesciebam, with למדתי standing on the same line. On the contrary, the positive אדע subordinates itself to ולא־למדתי, as the Arab. fâa' lama, in the sense of (ita) ut scirem scientiam Sanctissimi, thus of a conclusion, like Lam 1:19, a clause expressive of the intention, Ewald, §347a. קדשׁים is, as at Pro 9:10, the name of God in a superlative sense, like the Arab. el-kuddûs.

Pro 30:4 4 Who hath ascended to the heavens and descended?    Who hath grasped the wind in his fists?    Who hath bound up the waters in a garment?    Who hath set right all the ends of the earth?    What is his name, and what his son’s name, if thou knowest?

The first question here, 'מי וגו, is limited by Pazer; עלה־שׁמים has Metheg in the third syllable before the tone. The second question is at least shut off by Pazer, but, contrary to the rule, that Pazer does not repeat itself in a verse; Cod. Erfurt. 2, and several older editions, have for בחפניו more correctly בחפניו with Rebia. So much for the interpunction. חפנים are properly not the two fists, for the fist - that is, the hand gathered into a ball, pugnus - is called אגרף; while, on the contrary, חפן (in all the three dialects) denotes the palm of the hand, vola (vid., Lev 16:12); yet here the hands are represented after they have seized the thing as shut, and thus certainly as fists. The dual points to the dualism of the streams of air produced by the disturbance of the equilibrium; he who rules this movement has, as it were, the north or east wind in one first, and the south or west wind in the other, to let it forth according to his pleasure from this prison (Isa 24:22). The third question is explained by Job 26:8; the שׂמלה (from שׂמל, comprehendere) is a figure of the clouds which contain the upper waters, as Job 38:37, the bottles of heaven. “All the ends of the earth” are as at five other places, e.g., Psa 22:28, the most distant, most remote parts of the earth; the setting up of all these most remote boundaries (margines) of the earth is equivalent to the making fast and forming the limits to which the earth extends (Psa 74:17), the determining of the compass of the earth and the form of its figures. כּי תדע is in symphony with Job 38:5, cf. Job 38:18. The question is here formed as it is there, when Jahve brings home to the consciousness of Job human weakness and ignorance. But there are here two possible significations of the fourfold question. Either it aims at the answer: No man, but a Being highly exalted above all creatures, so that the question מה־שּׁמו [what his name?] refers to the name of this Being. Or the question is primarily meant of men: What man has the ability? - if there is one, then name him! In both cases מי עלה is not meant, after Pro 24:28, in the modal sense, quis ascenderit, but as the following ויּרד requires, in the nearest indicative sense, quis ascendit. But the choice between these two possible interpretations is very difficult. The first question is historical: Who has gone to heaven and (as a consequence, then) come down from it again? It lies nearest thus to interpret it according to the consecutio temporum. By this interpretation, and this representation of the going up before the descending again, the interrogator does not appear to think of God, but in contrast to himself, to whom the divine is transcendent, of some other man of whom the contrary is true. Is there at all, he asks, a man who can comprehend and penetrate by his power and his knowledge the heavens and the earth, the air and the water, i.e., the nature and the inner condition of the visible and invisible world, the quantity and extent of the elements, and the like? Name to me this man, if thou knowest one, by his name, and designate him to me exactly by his family - I would turn to him to learn from him what I have hitherto striven in vain to find. But there is not such an one. Thus: as I fell myself limited in my knowledge, so there is not at all any man who can claim limitless können and kennen ability and knowledge. Thus casually Aben Ezra explains, and also Rashi, Arama, and others, but without holding fast to this in its purity; for in the interpretation of the question, “Who hath ascended?” the reference to Moses is mixed up with it, after the Midrash and Sohar (Parasha, ויקהל, to Exo 35:1), to pass by other obscurities and difficulties introduced. Among the moderns, this explanation, according to which all aims at the answer, “there is no man to whom this appertains,” has no exponent worth naming. And, indeed, as favourable as is the quis ascendit in coelos ac rursus descendit, so unfavourable is the quis constituit omnes terminos terrae, for this question appears not as implying that it asks after the man who has accomplished this; but the thought, according to all appearance, underlies it, that such an one must be a being without an equal, after whose name inquiry is made. One will then have to judge עלה and וירד after Gen 28:12; the ascending and descending are compared to our German “auf und neider” up and down, for which we do not use the phrase “nieder und auf,” and is the expression of free, expanded, unrestrained presence in both regions; perhaps, since וירד is historical, as Psa 18:10, the speaker has the traditional origin of the creation in mind, according to which the earth arose into being earlier than the starry heavens above. Thus the four questions refer (as e.g., also Isa 40:12) to Him who has done and who does all that, to Him who is not Himself to be comprehended as His works are, and as He shows Himself in the greatness and wonderfulness of these, must be exalted above them all, and mysterious. If the inhabitant of the earth looks up to the blue heavens streaming in the golden sunlight, or sown with the stars of night; if he considers the interchange of the seasons, and feels the sudden rising of the wind; if he sees the upper waters clothed in fleecy clouds, and yet held fast within them floating over him; if he lets his eye sweep the horizon all around him to the ends of the earth, built up upon nothing in the open world-space (Job 26:7): the conclusion comes to him that he has before him in the whole the work of an everywhere present Being, of an all-wise omnipotent Worker - it is the Being whom he has just named as אל, the absolute Power, and as the קדשׁים, exalted above all created beings, with their troubles and limitations; but this knowledge gained viâ causalitatis, viâ eminentiae, and viâ negationis, does not satisfy yet his spirit, and does not bring him so near to this Being as is to him a personal necessity, so that if he can in some measure answer the fourfold מי, yet there always presses upon him the question מה־שׁמו, what is his name, i.e., the name which dissolves the secret of this Being above all beings, and unfolds the mystery of the wonder above all wonders. That this Being must be a person the fourfold מי presupposes; but the question, “What is his name?” expresses the longing to know the name of this supernatural personality, not any kind of name which is given to him by men, but the name which covers him, which is the appropriate personal immediate expression of his being. The further question, “And what the name of his son?” denotes, according to Hitzig, that the inquirer strives after an adequate knowledge, such as one may have of a human being. But he would not have ventured this question if he did not suppose that God was not a monas unity who was without manifoldness in Himself. The lxx translates: ἣ τί ὄνομα τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτοῦ (בּנו), perhaps not without the influence of the old synagogue reference testified to in the Midrash and Sohar of בנו to Israel, God’s first-born; but this interpretation is opposed to the spirit of this חידה (intricate speech, enigma). Also in general the interrogator cannot seek to know what man stands in this relation of a son to the Creator of all things, for that would be an ethical question which does not accord with this metaphysical one. Geier has combined this ומה־שׁם־בנו with viii.; and that the interrogator, if he meant the חכמה, ought to have used the phrase ומה־שׁם־בּתּו, says nothing against this, for also in אמון, Pro 8:30, whether it means foster-child or artifex, workmaster, the feminine determination disappears. Not Ewald alone finds here the idea of the Logos, as the first-born Son of God, revealing itself, on which at a later time the Palestinian doctrine of מימרא דיהוה imprinted itself in Alexandria;Vid., Apologetik (1869), p. 432ff. but also J. D. Michaelis felt himself constrained to recognise here the N.T. doctrine of the Son of God announcing itself from afar. And why might not this be possible? The Rig-Veda contains two similar questions, x. 81, 4: “Which was the primeval forest, or what the tree from which one framed the heavens and the earth? Surely, ye wise men, ye ought in your souls to make inquiry whereon he stood when he raised the wind!” And i. 164, 4: “Who has seen the first-born? Where was the life, the blood, the soul of the world? Who came thither to ask this from any one who knew it?”Cited by Lyra in Beweis des Glaubens Jahrg. 1869, p. 230. The second of these passages is thus translated by Wilson (Rig-Veda-Sanhitá, London, 1854, vol. ii. p. 127): “Who has seen the primeval (being) at the time of his being born? What is that endowed with substance which the unsubstantial sustains? From earth are the breath and blood, but where is the soul? Who may repair to the sage to ask this?”

Jewish interpreters also interpret בנו of the causa media of the creation of the world. Arama, in his work עקדת יצחק, sect. xvi., suggests that by בנו we are to understand the primordial element, as the Sankhya-philosophy understands by the first-born there in the Rig, the Prakṛiti, i.e., the primeval material. R. Levi b. Gerson (Ralbag) comes nearer to the truth when he explains בנו as meaning the cause caused by the supreme cause, in other words: the principium principaiatum of the creation of the world. We say: the inquirer meant the demiurgic might which went forth from God, and which waited on the Son of God as a servant in the creation of the world; the same might which in chap. 8 is called Wisdom, and is described as God’s beloved Son. But with the name after which inquiry is made, the relation is as with the “more excellent name than the angels,” Heb 1:4.The Comm. there remarks: It is the heavenly whole name of the highly exalted One, the שׁם המפורשׁ, nomen explicitum, which here on this side has entered into no human heart, and can be uttered by no human tongue, the ὄνομα ὁ οὑδεὶς οῖδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ αὐτός, Rev 19:12.

It is manifestly not the name בן, since the inquiry is made after the name of the בן; but the same is the case also with the name חכמה, or, since this does not harmonize, according to its grammatical gender, with the form of the question, the name דבר (מימר); but it is the name which belongs to the first and only-begotten Son of God, not merely according to creative analogies, but according to His true being. The inquirer would know God, the creator of the world, and His Son, the mediator in the creation of the world, according to their natures. If thou knowest, says he, turning himself to man, his equal, what the essential names of both are, tell them to me! But who can name them! The nature of the Godhead is hidden, as from the inquirer, so from every one else. On this side of eternity it is beyond the reach of human knowledge.

The solemn confession introduced by נאם is now closed. Ewald sees herein the discourse of a sceptical mocker at religion; and Elster, the discourse of a meditating doubter; in Pro 30:5, and on, the answer ought then to follow, which is given to one thus speaking: his withdrawal from the standpoint of faith in the revelation of God, and the challenge to subordinate his own speculative thinking to the authority of the word of God. But this interpretation of the statement depends on the symbolical rendering of the supposed personal names איתיאל and אכל, and, besides, the dialogue is indicated by nothing; the beginning of the answer ought to have been marked, like the beginning of that to which it is a reply. The confession, 1b-4, is not that of a man who does not find himself in the right condition, but such as one who is thirsting after God must renounce: the thought of a man does not penetrate to the essence of God (Job 11:7-9); even the ways of God remain inscrutable to man (Sir. 18:3; Rom 11:33); the Godhead remains, for our thought, in immeasurable height and depth; and though a relative knowledge of God is possible, yet the dogmatic thesis, Deum quidem cognoscimus, sed non comprehendimus, i.e., non perfecte cognoscimus quia est infinitus,Vid., Luthardt’s Kimpendium der Dogmatik, §27. even over against the positive revelation, remains unchanged. Thus nothing is wanting to make Pro 30:1-4 a complete whole; and what follows does not belong to that section as an organic part of it.

Pro 30:5-6 5 Every word of Eloah is pure;    A shield is He for those who hide themselves in Him. 6 Add thou not to His words,    Lest He convict thee and thou becomest a liar.

Although the tetrastich is an independent proverb, yet it is connected to the foregoing Neûm [utterance, Pro 30:1]. The more limited a man is in his knowledge of God - viz. in that which presents itself to him lumine naturae, - so much the more thankful must he be that God has revealed Himself in history, and so much the more firmly has he to hold fast by the pure word of the divine revelation. In the dependent relation of Pro 30:5 to Psa 18:31 (2Sa 22:31), and of Pro 30:6 to Deu 4:2, there is no doubt the self-testimony of God given to Israel, and recorded in the book of the Tôra, is here meant. כּל־אמרת is to be judged after πᾶσα γραφή, 2Ti 3:16, not: every declaration of God, wherever promulgated, but: every declaration within the revelation lying before us. The primary passage Psa 18:31 has not כל here, but, instead of it, לכל החסים, and instead of אמרת אלוהּ it has יהוה 'אם; his change of the name of Jahve is also not favourable to the opinion that Pro 30:5. is a part of the Neûm, viz., that it is the answer thereto. The proverb in this contains traces of the Book of Job, with which in many respects that Neûm harmonizes; in the Book of Job, אלוהּ (with שׁדּי) is the prevailing name of God; whereas in the Book of Proverbs it occurs only in the passage before us. Mühlau, p. 41, notes it as an Arabism. צרף (Arab. ṣaraf, to turn, to change) is the usual word for the changing process of smelting; צרוּף signifies solid, pure, i.e., purified by separating: God’s word is, without exception, like pure, massive gold. Regarding חסה, to hide oneself, vid., under Psa 2:12;: God is a shield for those who make Him, as revealed in His word, their refuge. The part. חסה occurs, according to the Masora, three times written defectively, - Pro 14:32; 2Sa 22:31; Neh 1:7; in the passage before us it is to be written לחוסים; the proverbs of Agur and Lemuel have frequently the plena scriptio of the part. act. Kal, as well as of the fut. Kal, common to the Book of Job (vid., Mühlau, p. 65).

In 6a, after Aben Ezra’s Moznajim 2b (11b of Heidenheim’s edition), and Zachoth 53a (cf. Lipmann’s ed.), and other witnesses (vid., Norzi), t sp (the ף with dagesh) is to be written, - the Cod. Jaman. and others defect. without ו, - not tôsf; for, since תּוסף (Exo 10:28) is yet further abbreviated in this way, it necessarily losesThat both Shevas in tôsp are quiesc., vid., Kimchi, Michlol 155 a b, who is finally decided as to this. That the word should be read tôspe'al is the opinion of Chagûg in הנוח 'ס (regarding the quiesc. letters), p. 6 of the Ed. by Dukes-Ewald. the aspiration of the tenuis, as in ילדתּ (= ילדת). The words of God are the announcements of His holy will, measured by His wisdom; they are then to be accepted as they are, and to be recognised and obeyed. He who adds anything to them, either by an overstraining of them or by repressing them, will not escape the righteous judgment of God: God will convict him of falsifying His word (הוכיח, Psa 50:21; only here with ב of the obj.), and expose him as a liar - viz. by the dispensations which unmask the falsifier as such, and make manifest the falsehood of his doctrines as dangerous to souls and destructive to society. An example of this is found in the kingdom of Israel, in the destruction of which the curse of the human institution of its state religion, set up by Jeroboam, had no little share. Also the Jewish traditional law, although in itself necessary for the carrying over of the law into the praxis of private and public life, falls under the Deuteron. prohibition - which the poet here repeats - so far as it claimed for itself the same divine authority as that of the written law, and so far as it hindered obedience to the law - by the straining-at-a-gnat policy - and was hostile to piety. Or, to adduce an example of an addition more dogmatic than legal, what a fearful impulse was given to fleshly security by that overstraining of the promises in Gen 17, which were connected with circumcision by the tradition, “the circumcised come not into hell,” or by the overstraining of the prerogative attributed by Paul, Rom 9:4., to his people according to the Scriptures, in the principle, “All Israelites have a part in the future world!” Regarding the accentuation of the perf. consec. after פּן, vid., at Psa 28:1. The penultima accent is always in pausa (cf. Pro 30:9 and Pro 30:10).

Pro 30:7-9

In what now follows, the key-note struck in Pro 30:1 is continued. There follows a prayer to be kept in the truth, and to be preserved in the middle state, between poverty and riches. It is a Mashal-ode, vid., vol. i. p. 12. By the first prayer, “vanity and lies keep far from me,” it is connected with the warning of Pro 30:6. 7 Two things I entreat from Thee,    Refuse them not to me before I die. 8 Vanity and lies keep far away from me    Poverty and riches give me not:    Cause me to eat the bread which is allotted to me, 9 Lest in satiety I deny,    And say: Who is Jahve?    And lest, in becoming poor, I steal,    And profane the name of my God.

We begin with the settlement and explanation of the traditional punctuation. A monosyllable like שׁוא receives, if Legarmeh, always Mehuppach Legarmeh, while, on the contrary, the poly-syllable אשׂבּע has Asla Legarmeh. אל־תּתּן־לי, with double Makkeph and with Gaja in the third syllable before the tone (after the Metheg-Setzung, §28), is Ben-Asher's; whereas Ben-Naphtali prefers the punctuation אל־תּתּן לי (vid., Baer’s Genesis, p. 79, note 3). Also פּן־אשׂבּע has (cf. פּן־ישׁתּה, Pro 31:5) Makkeph, and on the antepenultima Gaja (vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 32). The perf. consec. וכחשׁתּי has on the ult. the disjunctive Zinnor (Sarka), which always stands over the final letter; but that the ult. is also to be accented, is shown by the counter-tone Metheg, which is to be given to the first syllable. Also ואמרתּי has in correct Codd., e.g., Cod. 1294, the correct ultima toning of a perf. consec.; Kimchi in the Michlol 6b, as well as Aben Ezra in both of his Grammars, quotes only וגנבתּי ותפשׂתּי as toned on the penult. That וגנבתּי cannot be otherwise toned on account of the pausal accent, has been already remarked under 6b; the word, besides, belongs to the סף''פתתין בא, i.e., to those which preserve their Pathach unlengthened by one of the greater disjunctives; the Athnach has certainly in the three so-called metrical books only the disjunctive form of the Zakeph of the prose books. So much as to the form of the text.

As to its artistic form, this prayer presents itself to us as the first of the numerical proverbs, under the “Words” of Agur, who delighted in this form of proverb. The numerical proverb is a brief discourse, having a didactic end complete in itself, which by means of numerals gives prominence to that which it seeks to bring forward. There are two kinds of these. The more simple form places in the first place only one numeral, which is the sum of that which is to be brought forth separately: the numerical proverb of one cipher; to this class belong, keeping out of view the above prayer, which if it did not commence a series of numerical proverbs does not deserve this technical name on account of the low ciphers: Pro 30:24-28, with the cipher 4; Sir. 25:1 and 2, with the cipher 3. Similar to the above prayer are Job 13:20., Isa 51:19; but these are not numerical proverbs, for they are not proverbs. The more artistic kind of numerical proverb has two ciphers: the two-ciphered numerical proverb we call the sharpened (pointed) proverb. Of such two-ciphered numerical proverbs the “words” of Agur contain four, and the whole Book of Proverbs, reckoning Pro 6:16-19, five - this ascending numerical character belongs to the popular saying, 2Ki 9:32; Job 33:29; Isa 16:6, and is found bearing the stamp of the artistic distich outside of the Book of Proverbs, Psa 62:12; Job 33:14; Job 40:5; Job 5:19, and particularly Amos 1:3-2:6. According to this scheme, the introduction of Agur’s prayer should be: אחת שׁאלתּי מאתּך וּשׁתּים אל־תּמנע ממּנּי בּטרם אמוּת and it could take this form, for the prayer expresses two requests, but dwells exclusively on the second. A twofold request he presents to God, these two things he wishes to be assured of on this side of death; for of these he stands in need, so as to be able when he dies to look back on the life he has spent, without the reproaches of an accusing conscience. The first thing he asks is that God would keep far from him vanity and lying words. שׁוא (= שׁוא, from שׁוא = שׁאה, to be waste, after the form מות) is either that which is confused, worthless, untrue, which comes to us from without (e.g., Job 31:5), or dissoluteness, hollowness, untruthfulness of disposition (e.g., Psa 26:4); it is not to be decided whether the suppliant is influenced by the conception thus from within or from without, since דבר־כּזב [a word of falsehood] may be said by himself as well as to him, a falsehood can intrude itself upon him. It is almost more probable that by שׁוא he thought of the misleading power of God-estranged, idolatrous thought and action; and by דבר־כזב, of lying words, with which he might be brought into sympathy, and by which he might ruin himself and others. The second petition is that God would give him neither poverty (ראשׁ, vid., Pro 10:4) nor riches, but grant him for his sustenance only the bread of the portion destined for him. The Hiph. הטריף (from טרף, to grind, viz., the bread with the teeth) means to giveThe Venet. translates, according to Villoison, θέρψον με; but the MS has, according to Gebhardt, θρέψον. anything, as טרף, with which, 31:15, נתן חק is parallel: to present a fixed piece, a definite portion of sustenance. חק, Gen 47:22, the portion assigned as nourishment; cf. Job 23:14 חקּי, the decree determined regarding me. Accordingly, חקּי לחם does not mean the bread appropriately measured out for me (like ἄρτος ἐπιούσιος, that which is required for οὐσία, subsistence), but the bread appropriate for me, determined for me according to the divine plan. Fleischer compares (Arab.) ratab and marsaum, which both in a similar way designate a fixed sustentation portion. And why does he wish to be neither poor nor rich? Because in both extremes lie moral dangers: in riches, the temptation to deny God (which 'כּחשׁ בּה signifies, in the later Heb. כּפר בּעקּר, to deny the fundamental truth; cf. (Arab.) kafar, unbelieving), whom one flowing in superabundance forgets, and of whom one in his self-indulgence desires to know nothing (Job 21:14-16; Job 22:16.); in poverty, the temptation is to steal and to blaspheme the name of God, viz., by murmuring and disputing, or even by words of blasphemy; for one who is in despair directs the outbreaks of his anger against God (Isa 8:21), and curses Him as the cause of His misfortune (Rev 16:11, Rev 16:21). The question of godless haughtiness, מי יהוח, the lxx improperly change into מי יראה, τίς με ὁρᾶ. Regarding נורשׁ, to grow poor, or rather, since only the fut. Niph. occurs in this sense, regarding יוּרשׁ, vid., at Pro 20:13.

That the author here, by blaspheming (grasping at) the name of God, especially thinks on that which the Tôra calls “cursing (קלּל) God,” and particularly “blaspheming the name of the Lord,” Lev 24:15-16, is to be concluded from the two following proverbs, which begin with the catchword קלל:

Pro 30:10 10 Calumniate not a servant with his master,      Lest he curse thee, and thou must atone for it.

Incorrectly Ewald: entice not a servant to slander against his master; and Hitzig: “Make not a servant tattle regarding his master.” It is true that the Poel לושׁן (to pierce with the tongue, linguâ petere) occurs twice in the sense of to calumniate; but that הלשׁין means nothing else, is attested by the post-bibl. Hebrew; the proverb regarding schismatics (בּרכּת המּינים) in the Jewish Schemone-Esre (prayer of the eighteen benedictions) began with ולמלשינים, “and to the calumniators” (delatoribus). Also in the Arab. âlsana signifies pertulit verba alicujus ad alterum, to make a babbler, rapporteur (Fleischer). That the word also here is not to be otherwise interpreted, is to be concluded from אל with the causative rendering. Rightly Symmachus, μὴ διαβάλῃς; Theodotion, μὴ καταλαλήσῃς; and according to the sense also, Jerome, ne accuses; the Venet. μὴ καταμηνύσῃς (give not him); on the contrary, Luther, verrate nicht [betray not], renders הלשׁין with the lxx, Syr. in the sense of the Aram. אשׁלם and the Arab. âslam (tradere, prodere). One should not secretly accuse (Psa 101:5) a servant with his master, and in that lies the character of slander (לשׁון הרע) when one puts suspicion upon him, or exaggerates the actual facts, and generally makes the person suspected - one thereby makes a man, whose lot in itself is not a happy one, at length and perhaps for ever unhappy, and thereby he brings a curse on himself. But it is no matter of indifference to be the object of the curse of a man whom one has unrighteously and unjustly overwhelmed in misery: such a curse is not without its influence, for it does not fruitlessly invoke the righteous retribution of God, and thus one has sorrowfully to atone for the wanton sins of the tongue (veaschāmta, for ve-aschamtá as it is would be without pause).

Pro 30:11-14

There now follows a Priamel,Cf. vol. i. p. 13. The name (from praeambulum) given to a peculiar form of popular gnomic poetry which prevailed in Germany from the 12th (e.g., the Meistersinger or Minstrel Sparvogel) to the 16th century, but was especially cultivated during the 14th and 15th centuries. Its peculiarity consisted in this, that after a series of antecedents or subjects, a briefly-expressed consequent or predicate was introduced as the epigrammatic point applicable to all these antecedents together. Vid., Erschenburg’s Denkmälern altdeutscher Dichtkinst, Bremen 1799. the first line of which is, by יקלל, connected with the יקללך of the preceding distich: 11 A generation that curseth their father,      And doth not bless their mother; 12 A generation pure in their own eyes,      And yet not washed from their filthiness; 13 A generation - how haughty their eyes,      And their eyelids lift themselves up; 14 A generation whose teeth are swords and their jaw teeth knives      To devour the poor from the earth and the needy from the midst of men.

Ewald translates: O generation! but that would have required the word, 13a, הדּור (Jer 2:31), and one would have expected to have found something mentioned which the generation addressed were to take heed to; but it is not so. But if “O generation!” should be equivalent to “O regarding the generation!” then הוי ought to have introduced the sentence. And if we translate, with Luther: There is a generation, etc., then ישׁ is supplied, which might drop out, but could not be omitted. The lxx inserts after ἔκγονον the word κακόν, and then renders what follows as pred. - a simple expedient, but worthless. The Venet. does not need this expedient, for it renders γενεὰ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ βλασφημέσει; but then the order of the words in 11a would have been דור יקלל אביו; and in 12a, after the manner of a subst. clause, דור טהור בעיניו הוא, one sees distinctly, from Pro 30:13 and Pro 30:14, that what follows דור is to be understood, not as a pred., but as an attributive clause. As little can we interpret Pro 30:14, with Löwenstein, as pred. of the three subj., “it is a generation whose teeth are swords;” that would at least have required the words דור הוא; but Pro 30:14 is not at all a judgment valid for all the three subjects. The Targ. and Jerome translate correctly, as we above;The Syr. begins 11a as if הוי were to be supplied. but by this rendering there are four subjects in the preamble, and the whole appears, since the common pred. is wanting, as a mutilated Priamel. Perhaps the author meant to say: it is such a generation that encompasses us; or: such is an abomination to Jahve; for דור is a Gesamtheit = totality, generation of men who are bound together by contemporary existence, or homogeneity, or by both, but always a totality; so that these Pro 30:11-14, might describe quatuor detestabilia genera hominum (C. B. Michaelis), and yet one generatio, which divide among themselves these four vices, of blackest ingratitude, loathsome self-righteousness, arrogant presumption, and unmerciful covetousness. Similar is the description given in the Mishna Sota ix. 14, of the character of the age in which the Messiah appeared. “The appearance of this age,” thus it concludes, “is like the appearance of a dog; a son is not ashamed before his father; to whom will we then look for help? To our Father in heaven!”Cf. also Ali b. Abi Tâleb’s dark description, beginning with hadha alzman (this age), Zur allg. Char. der arab. Poesie (1870), p. 54f.

The undutifulness of a child is here placed first. To curse one’s parents is, after Exo 21:17, cf. Pro 20:10, a crime worthy of death; “not to bless,” is here, per litoten, of the same force as קלּל to curse. The second characteristic, Pro 30:12, is wicked blindness as to one’s judgment of himself. The lxx coarsely, but not bad: τὴν δ ̓ ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἀπένιψεν. Of such darkness one says: sordes suas putat olere cinnama. רחץ is not the abbreviated part. (Stuart), as e.g., Exo 3:2, but the finite, as e.g., Hos 1:6.

In 13a the attributive clause forms itself, so as to express the astonishing height of arrogance, into an exclamation: a generation, how lofty are their eyes (cf. e.g., Pro 6:17, עינים רמות)! to which, as usual, it is simply added: and his eyelids (palpebrae) lift themselves up; in Lat., the lifting up of the eyebrow as an expression of haughtiness is described by elatum (superbum) supercilium.

The fourth characteristic is insatiable covetousness, which does not spare even the poor, and preys upon them, the helpless and the defenceless: they devour them as one eats bread, Psa 14:4. The teeth, as the instruments of eating, are compared to swords and knives, as at Psa 57:4 to spears and arrows. With שׁנּיו there is interchanged, as at Job 29:17; Jon 1:6, מתלּעתיו (not 'מת, as Norzi writes, contrary to Metheg-Setzung, §37, according to which Gaja, with the servant going before, is inadmissible), transposed from מלתּעתיו, Psa 58:7, from לתע, to strike, pierce, bite. The designation of place, מארץ, “from the earth” (which also, in pausa, is not modified into מארץ), and מאדם, “from the midst of men,” do not belong to the obj.: those who belong to the earth, to mankind (vid., Psa 10:18), for thus interpreted they would be useless; but to the word of action: from the earth, out from the midst of men away, so that they disappear from thence (Amo 8:4). By means of fine but cobweb combinations, Hitzig finds Amalek in this fourfold proverb. But it is a portrait of the times, like Psa 14:1-7, and certainly without any national stamp.

Pro 30:15-16

With the characteristic of insatiableness Pro 30:11-14 closes, and there follows an apophthegma de quatuor insatiabilibus quae ideo comparantur cum sanguisuga (C. B. Michaelis). We translate the text here as it lies before us: 15 The ‛Alûka hath two daughters: Give! Give!      Three of these are never satisfied;      Four say not: Enough! 16 The under-world and the closing of the womb;      The earth is not satisfied with water;      And the fire saith not: Enough!

We begin with Masoretic externalities. The first ב in הב is Beth minusculum; probably it had accidentally this diminutive form in the original MSS, to which the Midrash (cf. Sepher Taghin ed. Bargès, 1866, p. 47) has added absurd conceits. This first הב has Pasek after it, which in this case is servant to the Olewejored going before, according to the rule Thorath Emeth, p. 24, here, as at Psa 85:9, Mehuppach. The second הב, which of itself alone is the representative of Olewejored, has in Hutter, as in the Cod. Erfurt 2, and Cod. 2 of the Leipzig Public Library, the pausal punctuation הב (cf. קח, 1Sa 21:10), but which is not sufficiently attested. Instead of לא־אמרוּ, 15b, לא אמרוּ, and instead of לא־אמרה f, 16b, לא אמרה are to be written; the Zinnorith removes the Makkeph, according to Thorath Emeth, p. 9, Accentuationssystem, iv. §2. Instead of מים, 16a, only Jablonski, as Mühlau remarks, has מים; but incorrectly, since Athnach, after Olewejored, has no pausal force (vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 37). All that is without any weight as to the import of the words. But the punctuation affords some little service for the setting aside of a view of Rabbenu Tam (vid., Tosaphoth to Aboda zara 17a, and Erubin 19a), which has been lately advocated by Löwenstein. That view is, that ‛Alûka is the name of a wise man, not Solomon’s, because the Pesikta does not reckon this among the names of Solomon, nor yet a name of hell, because it is not, in the Gemara, numbered among the names of Gehinnom. Thus לעלוּקה would be a superscription, like לדוד and לשׁלמה, Psa 26:1; Psa 72:1, provided with Asla Legarmeh. But this is not possible, for the Asla Legarmeh, at Psa 26:1 and Psa 72:1, is the transformation of Olewejored, inadmissible on the first word of the verse (Accentuationssystem, xix. §1); but no Olewejored can follow such an Asla Legarmeh, which has the force of an Olewejored, as after this לעלוקה, which the accentuation then does not regard as the author’s name given as a superscription. עלוּקה is not the name of a person, and generally not a proper name, but a generic name of certain traditional signification. “One must drink no water” - says the Gemara Aboda zara 12b - “out of a river or pond, nor (immediately) with his mouth, nor by means of his hand; he who, nevertheless, does it, his blood comes on his own head, because of the danger. What danger? סכּנת עלוּקה,” i.e., the danger of swallowing a leech. The Aram. also designates a leech by עלוּקא (cf. e.g., Targ. Ps. 12:9: hence the godless walk about like the leech, which sucks the blood of men), and the Arab. by 'alaḳ (n. unit. 'alaḳat), as the word is also rendered here by the Aram. and Arab. translators. Accordingly, all the Greeks render it by βδέλλη; Jerome, by sanguisuga (Rashi, sangsue); also Luther’s Eigel is not the Igel erinaceus [hedgehog], but the Egel, i.e., as we now designate it, the Blutegel [leech], or (less correctly) Blutigel. עלוּקה is the fem. of the adj. עלוּק, attached to, which meaning, together with the whole verbal stem, the Arab. has preserved (vid., Mühlau’s Mittheilung des Art. 'aluka aus dem Kamus, p. 42).Nöldeke has remarked, with reference to Mühlau’s Monographie, that ‛aluḳa, in the sense of tenacious (tenax), is also found in Syr. (Geopon. xiii. 9, xli. 26), and that generally the stem עלק, to cleave, to adhere, is more common in Aram. than one would suppose. But this, however common in Arab., is by no means so in Syr.; and one may affirm that, among other Arabisms found in the Proverbs of Agur, the word ‛Alûka has decidedly an Arab. sound.

But if, now, the ‛Alûka is the leech,In Sanscrit the leech is called galaukas (masc.) or galaukâ (fem.), i.e., the inhabitant of the water (from gala, water, and ôkas, dwelling). Ewald regards this as a transformation of the Semitic name. which are then its two daughters, to which is here given the name הב הב, and which at the same time have this cry of desire in their mouths? Grotius and others understand, by the two daughters of the leech, the two branches of its tongue; more correctly: the double-membered overlip of its sucker. C. B. Michaelis thinks that the greedy cry, “Give! Give!” is personified: voces istae concipiuntur ut hirudinis filiae, quas ex se gignat et velut mater sobolem impense diligat. But since this does not satisfy, symbolical interpretations of ‛Aluka have been resorted to. The Talmud, Aboda zara 17a, regards it as a name of hell. In this sense it is used in the language of the Pijut (synagogue poetry).So says e.g., Salomo ha-Babli, in a Zulath of the first Chanukka-Sabbats (beginning אין צוּר חלף): יקדוּ כּהבהבי עלק, they burn like the flames of hell.

If ‛Alûka is hell, then fancy has the widest room for finding an answer to the question, What are the two daughters? The Talmud supposes that רשׁות (the worldly domination) and מינות (heresy) are meant. The Church-fathers also, understanding by ‛Alûka the power of the devil, expatiated in such interpretations. Of the same character are Calmet’s interpretation, that sanguisuga is a figure of the mala cupiditas, and its twin-daughters are avaritia and ambitio. The truth lying in all these is this, that here there must be some kind of symbol. But if the poet meant, by the two daughters of the ‛Alûka, two beings or things which he does not name, then he kept the best of his symbol to himself. And could he use ‛Alûka, this common name for the leech, without further intimation, in any kind of symbolical sense? The most of modern interpreters do nothing to promote the understanding of the word, for they suppose that ‛Alûka, from its nearest signification, denotes a demoniacal spirit of the character of a vampire, like the Dakinî of the Indians, which nourish themselves on human flesh; the ghouls of the Arabs and Persians, which inhabit graveyards, and kill and eat men, particularly wanderers in the desert; in regard to which it is to be remarked, that (Arab.) ‛awlaḳ is indeed a name for a demon, and that al‛aluwaḳ, according to the Kamus, is used in the sense of alghwal. Thus Dathe, Döderlein, Ziegler, Umbreit; thus also Hitzig, Ewald, and others. Mühlau, while he concurs in this understanding of the word, and now throwing open the question, Which, then, are the two daughters of the demoness ‛Alûka? finds no answer to it in the proverb itself, and therefore accepts of the view of Ewald, since 15b-16, taken by themselves, form a fully completed whole, that the line 'לעלוקה וגו is the beginning of a numerical proverb, the end of which is wanting. We acknowledge, because of the obscurity - not possibly aimed at by the author himself - in which the two daughters remain, the fragmentary characters of the proverb of the ‛Alûka; Stuart also does this, for he regards it as brought out of a connection in which it was intelligible - but we believe that the line 'שׁלושׁ וגו is an original formal part of this proverb. For the proverb forming, according to Mühlau’s judgment, a whole rounded off: שׁלושׁ הנה לא תשׂבענה ארבע לא אמרו הון שׁאול ועצר רחם ארץ לא שׂבעה מים ואשׁ לא אמרה הון contains a mark which makes the original combination of these five lines improbable. Always where the third is exceeded by the fourth, the step from the third to the fourth is taken by the connecting Vav: Pro 30:18, וארבע; Pro 30:21, ותחת ארבע; Pro 30:29, וארבעה. We therefore conclude that 'ארבע לא וגו is the original commencement of independent proverb. This proverb is:

Four things say not: Enough!

The under-world and the closing of the womb [i.e., unfruitful womb] -

The earth is not satisfied with water,

And the fire says not: Enough! a tetrastich more acceptable and appropriate than the Arab. proverb (Freytag, Provv. iii. p. 61, No. 347): “three things are not satisfied by three: the womb, and wood by fire, and the earth by rain;” and, on the other hand, it is remarkable to find it thus clothed in the Indian language,That not only natural productions, but also ideas and literary productions (words, proverbs, knowledge), were conveyed from the Indians to the Semites, and from the Semites to the Indians, on the great highways by sea and land, is a fact abundantly verified. There is not in this, however, any means of determining the situation of Massa. as given in the Hitopadesa (p. 67 of Lassen’s ed.), and in Pantschatantra, i. 153 (ed. of Kosegarten): nâgnis tṛpjati kâshṭhânân nâpagânân mahôdadhih nântakah sarvabhûtânân na punsân vâmalocanâh.

Fire is not sated with wood, nor the ocean with the streams,

Nor death with all the living, nor the beautiful-eyed with men.

As in the proverb of Agur the 4 falls into 2 + 2, so also in this Indian sloka. In both, fire and the realm of death (ântaka is death as the personified “end-maker”) correspond; and as there the womb and the earth, so here feminarium cupiditas and the ocean. The parallelizing of ארץ and רחם is after passages such as Psa 139:15; Job 1:21 (cf. also Pro 5:16; Num 24:7; Isa 48:1); that of שׁאול and אשׁ is to be judged ofThe parallelizing of רחם and שׁאול, Berachoth 15b, is not directly aimed at by the poet. after passages such as Deu 32:22, Isa 56:1-12 :24. That לא אמרו הון repeats itself in לא אמרה הון is now, as we render the proverb independently, much more satisfactory than if it began with 'שׁלושׁ וגו: it rounds itself off, for the end returns into the beginning. Regarding הון, vid., Pro 1:13. From הוּן, to be light, it signifies living lightly; ease, superabundance, in that which renders life light or easy. “Used accusatively, and as an exclamation, it is equivalent to plenty! enough! It is used in the same sense in the North African Arab. brrakat (spreading out, fulness). Wetzstein remarks that in Damascus lahôn i.e., hitherto, is used in the sense of ḥajah, enough; and that, accordingly, we may attempt to explain הון of our Heb. language in the sense of (Arab.) hawn haddah, i.e., here the end of it!” (Mühlau).

But what do we now make of the two remaining lines of the proverb of the ‛Alûka? The proverb also in this division of two lines is a fragment. Ewald completes it, for to the one line, of which, according to his view, the fragment consists, he adds two:

The bloodsucker has two daughters, “Hither! hither!”

Three saying, “Hither, hither, hither the blood,

The blood of the wicked child.”

A proverb of this kind may stand in the O.T. alone: it sounds as if quoted from Grimm’s Mährchen, and is a side-piece to Zappert’s altdeutsch. Schlummerliede. Cannot the mutilation of the proverb be rectified in a less violent way without any self-made addition? If this is the case, that in Pro 30:15 and Pro 30:16, which now form one proverb, there are two melted together, only the first of which lies before us in a confused form, then this phenomenon is explained by supposing that the proverb of the ‛Alûka originally stood in this form:

The ‛Alûka has two daughters: Give! give! -

The under-world and the closing of the womb;

There are three that are never satisfied.

Thus completed, this tristich presents itself as the original side-piece of the lost tetrastich, beginning with ארבע. One might suppose that if שׁאול and עצר רחם have to be regarded as the daughters of the ‛Alûka, which Hitzig and also Zöckler have recognised, then there exists no reason for dividing the one proverb into two. Yet the taking of them as separate is necessary, for this reason, because in the fourth, into which it expands, the ‛Alûka is altogether left out of account. But in the above tristich it is taken into account, as was to be expected, as the mother with her children. This, that sheol (שׁאול is for the most part fem.), and the womb (רחם = רחם, which is fem., Jer 20:17) to which conception is denied, are called, on account of their greediness, the daughters of the ‛Alûka, is to be understood in the same way as when a mountain height is called, Isa 5:1, a horn of the son of oil. In the Arab., which is inexhaustibly rich in such figurative names, a man is called “a son of the clay (limi);” a thief, “a son of the night;” a nettle, “the daughter of fire.” The under-world and a closed womb have the ‛Alûka nature; they are insatiable, like the leech. It is unnecessary to interpret, as Zöckler at last does, ‛Alûka as the name of a female demon, and the לילית, “daughters,” as her companions. It may be adduced in favour of this view that לעלוּקה is without the article, after the manner of a proper name. But is it really without the article? Such a doubtful case we had before us at Pro 27:23. As yet only Böttcher, §394, has entered on this difficulty of punctuation. We compare Gen 29:27, בּעבדה; 1Ki 12:32, לעגלים; 1Ch 13:7, בּעגלה; and consequently also Psa 146:7, לעשׁוּקים; thus the assimilating force of the Chateph appears here to have changed the syntactically required ל and בּ into ל and בּ. But also supposing that עלוּקה in לעלוּקה is treated as a proper name, this is explained from the circumstance that the leech is not meant here in the natural history sense of the word, but as embodied greediness, and is made a person, one individual being. Also the symbol of the two daughters is opposed to the mythological character of the ‛Alûka. The imper. הב, from יהב, occurs only here and at Dan 7:17 (= תּן), and in the bibl. Heb. only with the intentional āh, and in inflection forms. The insatiableness of sheol (Pro 27:20) is described by Isa; Isa 5:14; and Rachel, Gen 30:1, with her “Give me children,” is an example of the greediness of the “closed-up womb” (Gen 20:18). The womb of a childless wife is meant, which, because she would have children, the nuptiae never satisfy; or also of one who, because she does not fear to become pregnant, invites to her many men, and always burns anew with lust. “In Arab. 'aluwaḳ means not only one fast bound to her husband, but, according to Wetzstein, in the whole of Syria and Palestine, the prostitute, as well as the κίναιδοι, are called 'ulak (plur. 'alwak), because they obtrude themselves and hold fast to their victim” (Mühlau). In the third line, the three: the leech, hell, and the shut womb, are summarized: tira sunt quae non satiantur. Thus it is to be translated with Fleischer, not with Mühlau and others, tira haec non satiantur. “These three” is expressed in Heb. by שׁלשׁ־אלּה, Exo 21:11, or אלּה(ה) שׁלשׁת, 2Sa 21:22; הנּה (which, besides, does not signify haec, but illa) is here, taken correctly, the pred., and represents in general the verb of being (Isa 51:19), vid., at Pro 6:16. Zöckler finds the point of the proverb in the greediness of the unfruitful womb, and is of opinion that the poet purposely somewhat concealed this point, and gave to his proverb thereby the enhanced attraction of the ingenious. But the tetrastich 'אברע וגו shows that hell, which is compared to fire, and the unfruitful womb, to which the parched and thirsty earth is compared, were placed by the poet on one and the same line; it is otherwise with Pro 30:18-20, but where that point is nothing less than concealed.

Pro 30:17

The proverb of the ‛Alûka is the first of the proverbs founded on the figure of an animal among the “words” of Agur. It is now followed by another of a similar character: 17 An eye that mocketh at his father,      And despiseth obedience to his mother:      The ravens of the brook shall pluck it out,      And the young eagles shall eat it.

If “an eye,” and not “eyes,” are spoken of here, this is accounted for by the consideration that the duality of the organ falls back against the unity of the mental activity and mental expression which it serves (cf. Psychol. p. 234). As haughtiness reveals itself (Pro 30:13) in the action of the eyes, so is the eye also the mirror of humble subordination, and also of malicious scorn which refuses reverence and subjection to father and mother. As in German the verbs [verspotten, spotten, höhnen, hohnsprechen signifying to mock at or scorn may be used with the accus., genit., or dat., so also לעג [to deride] and בּוּז [to despise] may be connected at pleasure with either an accusative object or a dative object. Ben-Chajim, Athias, van der Hooght, and others write תּלעג; Jablonski, Michaelis, Löwenstein, תּלעג, Mühlau, with Norzi, accurately, תּלעג, with Munach, like תּבחר, Psa 65:5; the writing of Ben-AsherThe Gaja has its reason in the Zinnor that follows, and the Munach in the syllable beginning with a moveable Sheva; תּלעג with Scheva quiesc. must, according to rule, receive Mercha, vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 26. is תּלעג, with Gaja, Chateph, and Munach. The punctuation of ליקהת is more fluctuating. The word לקהת (e.g., Cod. Jaman.) may remain out of view, for the Dag. dirimens in ק stands here as firmly as at Gen 49:10, cf. Psa 45:10. But it is a question whether one has to write ליקּהת with Yod quiesc. (regarding this form of writing, preferred by Ben-Naphtali, the Psalmen-Comm. under Psa 45:10, in both Edd.; Luzzatto’s Gramm. §193; Baer’s Genesis, p. 84, note 2; and Heidenheim’s Pentateuch, with the text-crit. Comm. of Jekuthiël ha-Nakdans, under Gen 47:17; Gen 49:10), as it is found in Kimchi, Michlol 45a, and under יקה, and as also Norzi requires, or ליקּהת (as e.g., Cod. Erfurt 1), which appears to be the form adopted by Ben-Asher, for it is attestedKimchi is here no authority, for he contradicts himself regarding such word-forms. Thus, regarding ויללת, Jer 25:36, in Michlol 87b, and under ילל. The form also wavers between כּיתרון and כּיתרון, Ecc 2:13. The Cod. Jaman. has here the Jod always quiesc. as such by Jekuthiël under Gen 49:10, and also expressly as such by an old Masora-Cod. of the Erfurt Library. Löwenstein translates, “the weakness of the mother.” Thus after Rashi, who refers the word to קהה, to draw together, and explains it, Gen 49:10, “collection;” but in the passage before us, understands it of the wrinkles on the countenance of the aged mother. Nachmani (Ramban) goes still further, giving to the word, at Gen 49:10, everywhere the meaning of weakness and frailty. Aben Ezra also, and Gersuni (Ralbag), do not go beyond the meaning of a drawing together; and the lxx, with the Aram., who all translate the word by senectus, have also קהה in the sense of to become dull, infirm (certainly not the Aethiopic leheḳa, to become old, weak through old age). But Kimchi, whom the Venet. and LutherJerome translates, et qui despicit partum matris suae. To partus there separates itself to him here the signification expectatio, Gen 49:10, resting on a false combination with קוה. To think of pareo, parui, paritum (Mühlau), was not yet granted to him. follow, is informed by Abulwalîd, skilled in the Arab., of a better: יקהה (or יקּהה, cf. נצּרה, Psa 141:3) is the Arab. wakhat, obedience (vid., above יקה under 1a). If now it is said of such a haughty, insolent eye, that the ravens of the brook (cf. 1Ki 17:4) will pluck it out, and the בני־נשׁר eat it, they, the eagle’s children, the unchildlike human eye: it is only the description of the fate that is before such an one, to die a violent death, and to become a prey to the fowls of heaven (cf. e.g., Jer 16:3., and Passow’s Lex. under κόραξ); and if this threatening is not always thus literally fulfilled, yet one has not on that account to render the future optatively, with Hitzig; this is a false conclusion, from a too literal interpretation, for the threatening is only to be understood after its spirit, viz., that a fearful and a dishonourable end will come to such an one. Instead of יקּרוּה, as Mühlau reads from the Leipzig Cod., יקרוה, with Mercha (Athias and Nissel have it with Tarcha), is to be read, for a word between Olewejored and Athnach must always contain a conjunctive accent (Thorath Emeth, p. 51; Accentuationssystem, xviii. §9). ערבי־נחל is also irregular, and instead of it ערבי־נחל is to be written, for the reason given above under Pro 30:16 (מים).

Pro 30:18-20

The following proverb, again a numerical proverb, begins with the eagle, mentioned in the last line of the foregoing: 18 Three things lie beyond me,      And four I understand not: 19 The way of the eagle in the heavens,      The way of a serpent over a rock,      The way of a ship on the high sea,      And the way of a man with a maid. 20 Thus is the way of the adulterous woman:      She eateth and wipeth her mouth, and saith:      I have done no iniquity. נפלאוּ ממּנּי, as relative clause, like 15b (where Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion rightly: τρία δέ ἐστιν ἃ οὐ πλησθήσεται), is joined to שׁלשׁה המּה. On the other hand, ארבע (τέσσαρα, for with the Kerı̂, conforming to 18a, ארבּעה, τέσσαρας) has to be interpreted as object. accus. The introduction of four things that are not known is in expressions like Job 42:3; cf. Psa 139:6. The turning-point lies in the fourth; to that point the other three expressions gravitate, which have not an object in themselves, but are only as folie to the fourth. The articles wanting after הנּשׁר: they would be only the marks of the gender, and are therefore unnecessary; cf. under Pro 29:2. And while בּשּׁמים, in the heavens, and בלב־ים, in the sea, are the expressions used, עלי צוּר is used for on the rock, because here “on” is not at the same time “in,” “within,” as the eagle cleaves the air and the ship the waves. For this same reason the expression, “the way of a man בּעלמה,” is not to be understood of love unsought, suddenly taking possession of and captivating a man toward this or that maid, so that the principal thought of the proverb may be compared to the saying, “marriages are made in heaven;” but, as in Kidduschin 2b, with reference to this passage, is said coitus via appellatur. The ב refers to copula carnalis. But in what respect did his understanding not reach to this? “Wonderful,” thus Hitzig explains as the best interpreter of this opinion elsewhere (cf. Psychol. p. 115) propounded, “appeared to him the flying, and that how a large and thus heavy bird could raise itself so high in the air (Job 39:27); then how, over the smooth rock, which offers no hold, the serpent pushes itself along; finally, how the ship in the trackless waves, which present nothing to the eye as a guide, nevertheless finds its way. These three things have at the same time this in common, that they leave no trace of their pathway behind them. But of the fourth way that cannot be said; for the trace is left on the substrat, which the man דּרך, and it becomes manifest, possibly as pregnancy, keeping out of view that the עלמה may yet be בתולה. That which is wonderful is consequently only the coition itself, its mystical act and its incomprehensible consequences.” But does not this interpretation carry in itself its own refutation? To the three wonderful ways which leave no traces behind them, there cannot be compared a fourth, the consequences of which are not only not trackless, but, on the contrary, become manifest as proceeding from the act in an incomprehensible way. The point of comparison is either the wonderfulness of the event or the tracklessness of its consequences. But now “the way of a man בתולה” is altogether inappropriate to designate the wonderful event of the origin of a human being. How altogether differently the Chokma expresses itself on this matter is seen from Job 10:8-12; Ecc 11:5 (cf. Psychol. p. 210). That “way of a man with a maid” denotes only the act of coition, which physiologically differs in nothing from that of the lower animals, and which in itself, in the externality of its accomplishment, the poet cannot possibly call something transcendent. And why did he use the word בעלמה, and not rather בּנקבה [with a female] or בּאשּׁה [id.]? For this reason, because he meant the act of coition, not as a physiological event, but as a historical occurrence, as it takes place particularly in youth as the goal of love, not always reached in the divinely-appointed way. The point of comparison hence is not the secret of conception, but the tracelessness of the carnal intercourse. Now it is also clear why the way of the serpent עלי צור was in his eye: among grass, and still more in sand, the trace of the serpent’s path would perhaps be visible, but not on a hard stone, over which it has glided. And it is clear why it is said of the ship בלב־ים [in the heart of the sea]: while the ship is still in sight from the land, one knows the track it follows; but who can in the heart of the sea, i.e., on the high sea, say that here or there a ship has ploughed the water, since the water-furrows have long ago disappeared? Looking to the heavens, one cannot say that an eagle has passed there; to the rock, that a serpent has wound its way over it; to the high sea, that a ship has been steered through it; to the maid, that a man has had carnal intercourse with her. That the fact might appear on nearer investigation, although this will not always guide to a certain conclusion, is not kept in view; only the outward appearance is spoken of, the intentional concealment (Rashi) being in this case added thereto. Sins against the sixth [= seventh] commandment remain concealed from human knowledge, and are distinguished from others by this, that they shun human cognition (as the proverb says: אין אפיטרופוס לעריות, there is for sins of the flesh no ἐπίτροπος) - unchastity can mask itself, the marks of chastity are deceitful, here only the All-seeing Eye (עין ראה כּל, Aboth ii. 1) perceives that which is done. Yet it is not maintained that “the way of a man with a maid” refers exclusively to external intercourse; but altogether on this side the proverb gains ethical significance. Regarding עלמה (from עלם, pubes esse et caeundi cupidus, not from עלם, to conceal, and not, as Schultens derives it, from עלם, signare, to seal) as distinguished from בּתוּלה, vid., under Isa 7:14. The mark of maidenhood belongs to עלמה not in the same way as to בתולה (cf. Gen 24:43 with 16), but only the marks of puberty and youth; the wife אשּׁה (viz., אושׁת אישׁ) cannot as such be called עלמה. Ralbag’s gloss עלמה שׁהיא בעולה is incorrect, and in Arama’s explanation (Akeda, Abschn. 9): the time is not to be determined when the sexual love of the husband to his wife flames out, ought to have been ודרך אישׁ בּאשׁתּו ne. One has therefore to suppose that Pro 30:20 explains what is meant by “the way of a man with a maid” by a strong example (for “the adulterous woman” can mean only an old adulteress), there not inclusive, for the tracklessness of sins of the flesh in their consequences.

This 20th verse does not appear to have been an original part of the numerical proverb, but is an appendix thereto (Hitzig). If we assume that כּן points forwards: thus as follows is it with the... (Fleischer), then we should hold this verse as an independent cognate proverb; but where is there a proverb (except Pro 11:19) that begins with כּן? כן, which may mean eodem modo (for one does not say כּן גּם) as well as eo modo, here points backwards in the former sense. Instead of וּמחתה פּיה (not פּיה; for the attraction of that which follows, brought about by the retrogression of the tone of the first word, requires dageshing, Thorath Emeth, p. 30) the lxx has merely ἀπονιψαμένη, i.e., as Immanuel explains: מקנּחה עצמה, abstergens semet ipsam, with Grotius, who to tergens os suum adds the remark: σεμνολογία (honesta elocutio). But eating is just a figure, like the “secret bread,” Pro 9:17, and the wiping of the mouth belongs to this figure. This appendix, with its כן, confirms it, that the intention of the four ways refers to the tracklessness of the consequences.

Pro 30:21-23

It is now not at all necessary to rack one’s brains over the grounds or the reasons of the arrangement of the following proverb (vid., Hitzig). There are, up to this point, two numerical proverbs which begin with שׁתּים, Pro 30:7, and שׁתּי, Pro 30:15; after the cipher 2 there then, Pro 30:18, followed the cipher 3, which is now here continued: 21 Under three things doth the earth tremble,      And under four can it not stand: 22 Under a servant when he becomes king,      And a profligate when he has bread enough; 23 Under an unloved woman when she is married,      And a maid-servant when she becomes heiress to her mistress.

We cannot say here that the 4 falls into 3 + 1; but the four consists of four ones standing beside one another. ארץ is here without pausal change, although the Athnach here, as at Pro 30:24, where the modification of sound occurs, divides the verse into two; מארץ, 14b (cf. Psa 35:2), remains, on the other hand, correctly unchanged. The “earth” stands here, as frequently, instead of the inhabitants of the earth. It trembles when one of the four persons named above comes and gains free space for acting; it feels itself oppressed as by an insufferable burden (an expression similar to Amo 7:10); - the arrangement of society is shattered; an oppressive closeness of the air, as it were, settles over all minds. The first case is already designated, Pro 19:10, as improper: under a slave, when he comes to reign (quum rex fit); for suppose that such an one has reached the place of government, not by the murder of the king and by the robbery of the crown, but, as is possible in an elective monarchy, by means of the dominant party of the people, he will, as a rule, seek to indemnify himself in his present highness for his former lowliness, and in the measure of his rule show himself unable to rise above his servile habits, and to pass out of the limited circle of his earlier state. The second case is this: a נבל, one whose mind is perverted and whose conduct is profligate - in short, a low man (vid., Pro 17:17) - ישׂבּע־לחם (cf. Metheg-Setzung, §28), i.e., has enough to eat (cf. to the expression Pro 28:19; Jer 44:17); for this undeserved living without care and without want makes him only so much the more arrogant, and troublesome, and dangerous. The שׂנוּאה, in the second case, is not thought of as a spouse, and that, as in supposed polygamy, Gen 29:31; Deu 21:15-17, as fallen into disfavour, but who again comes to favour and honour (Dathe, Rosenmüller); for she can be שׂנואה without her own fault, and as such she is yet no גּרוּשׁה; and it is not to be perceived why the re-assumption of such an one should shatter social order. Rightly Hitzig, and, after his example, Zöckler: an unmarried lady, an old spinster, is meant, whom no one desired because she had nothing attractive, and was only repulsive (cf. Grimm, under Sir. 7:26b). If such an one, as כּי תבעל says, at length, however, finds her husband and enters into the married relation, then she carries her head so much the higher; for she gives vent to ill-humour, strengthened by long restraint, against her subordinates; then she richly requites her earlier and happily married companions for their depreciation of her, among whom she had to suffer, as able to find no one who would love her. In the last case it is asked whether כּי־תירשׁ is meant of inheriting as an heiress (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the Targ., Jerome, the Venet., and Luther), or supplanting (Euchel, Gesenius, Hitzig), i.e., an entering into the inheritance of the dead, or an entering into the place of a living mistress. Since ירשׁ, with the accus. of the person, Gen 15:3-4, signifies to be the heir of one, and only with the accus. of peoples and lands signifies, “to take into possession (to seize) by supplanting,” the former is to be preferred; the lxx (Syr.), ὅταν ἐκβάλῃ, appear to have read כּי־תגרשׁ. This גּרשׁ would certainly be, after Gen 21:10, a piece of the world turned upside down; but also the entering, as heiress, into the inheritance, makes the maid-servant the reverse of that which she was before, and brings with it the danger that the heiress, notwithstanding her want of culture and dignity, demean herself also as heiress of the rank. Although the old Israelitish law knew only intestate succession to an inheritance, yet there also the case might arise, that where there were no natural or legal heirs, the bequest of a wife of rank passed over to her servants and nurses.

Pro 30:24-28

Another proverb with the cipher 4, its first line terminating in ארץ: 24 Four are the little things of the earth,      And yet they are quick of wit - wise: 25 The ants - a people not strong,      And yet they prepare in summer their food; 26 Conies - a people not mighty,      And yet set their dwelling on the rocks; 27 No king have the locusts,      And yet they go forth in rank and file, all of them together; 28 The lizard thou canst catch with the hands,      And yet it is in the king’s palaces.

By the disjunctive accent, ארבּעה, in spite of the following word toned on the beginning, retains its ultima-toning, 18a; but here, by the conjunctive accent, the tone retrogrades to the penult., which does not elsewhere occur with this word. The connection קטנּי־ארץ is not superlat. (for it is impossible that the author could reckon the שׁפנים, conies, among the smallest of beasts), but, as in the expression נכבּדּי־ארץ, the honoured of the earth, Isa 23:8. In 24b, the lxx, Syr., Jerome, and Luther see in מ the comparative: σοφώτερα τῶν σοφῶν (מחכמים), but in this connection of words it could only be partitive (wise, reckoning among the wise); the part. Pual מחכּמים (Theodotion, the Venet. σεσοφισμένα) was in use after Psa 88:6, and signified, like בּשׁל מבשּׁל, Exo 12:9, boiled well; thus חכמים מחכמים, taught wit, wise, cunning, prudent (cf. Psa 64:7, a planned plan = a cunningly wrought out plan; Isa 28:16, and Vitringa thereto: grounded = firm, grounding), Ewald, §313c. The reckoning moves in the contrasts of littleness to power, and of greatness to prudence. The unfolding of the ארבעה [four] begins with the הנּמלים [the ants] and שׁפנּים [conies], subject conceptions with apposit. joined; 26a, at least in the indetermination of the subject, cannot be a declaration. Regarding the fut. consec. as the expression, not of a causal, but of a contrasted connection, vid., Ewald, §342, 1a. The ants are called עם, and they deserve this name, for they truly form communities with well-ordered economy; but, besides, the ancients took delight in speaking of the various classes of animals as peoples and states.Vid., Walter von der Vogelweide, edited by Lachmann, p. 8f.

That which is said, 25b, as also Pro 6:8, is not to be understood of stores laid up for the winter. For the ants are torpid for the most part in winter; but certainly the summer is their time for labour, when the labourers gather together food, and feed in a truly motherly way the helpless. שׁפן, translated arbitrarily in the Venet. by ἐχῖνοι, in the lxx by χοιρογρύλλιοι, by the Syr. and Targ. here and at Ps 104 by חגס, and by Jerome by lepusculus (cf. λαγίδιον), both of which names, here to be understood after a prevailing Jewish opinion, denote the CaninichenThe kaninchen as well as the klippdachs [cliff-badgers] may be meant, Lev 11:5 (Deu 14:7); neither of these belong to the bisulca, nor yet, it is true, to the ruminants, though to the ancients (as was the case also with hares) they seemed to do. The klippdach is still, in Egypt and Syria, regarded as unclean. (Luther), Latin cuniculus (κόνικλος), is not the kaninchen [rabbit], nor the marmot, χοιρογρύλλιος (C. B. Michaelis, Ziegler, and others); this is called in Arab. yarbuw'; but שׁפן is the wabr, which in South Arab. is called thufun, or rather thafan, viz., the klippdachs (hyrax syriacus), like the marmot, which lives in societies and dwells in the clefts of the mountains, e.g., at the Kedron, the Dead Sea, and at Sinai (vid., Knobel on Lev 11:5; cf. Brehm’s Thierleben, ii. p. 721ff., the Illustrirte Zeitung, 1868, Nr. 1290). The klippdachs are a weak little people, and yet with their weakness they unite the wisdom that they establish themselves among the rocks. The ants show their wisdom in the organization of labour, here in the arranging of inaccessible dwellings.

Pro 30:29-31

Another numerical proverb with the cipher 4 = 3 + 1: 29 Three things are of stately walk,      And four of stately going: 30 The lion, the hero among beasts,      And that turneth back before nothing; 31 The swift-loined, also the goat;      And a king with whom is the calling out of the host.

Regarding היטיב with inf. following (the segolated n. actionis צעד is of equal force with an inf.), vid., under Pro 15:2.In 29a, after Norzi, מיטיבי, and in 29b, מיטבי, is to be written, and this is required by the little Masora to 1Sa 25:31, the great, to Eze 33:33, and also the Erfurt little Masora to the passage before us.

The relation of the members of the sentence in 30a is like that in 25a and 26a: subj. and apposit., which there, as here, is continued in a verbal clause which appears to us as relative. It deserves to be here remarked that לישׁ, as the name for a lion, occurs only here and at Job 4:11, and in the description of the Sinai wilderness, Isa 30:6; in Arab. it is layth, Aram. לית, and belongs to the Arameo-Arab. dialect of this language; the lxx and Syr. translate it “the young lion;” the Venet. excellently, by the epic λῖς. בּבּהמה has the article only to denote the genus, viz., of the beasts, and particularly the four-footed beasts. What is said in 30b (cf. with the expression, Job 39:22) is described in Isa 30:4. The two other beasts which distinguish themselves by their stately going are in 31a only briefly named. But we are not in the condition of the readers of this Book of Proverbs, who needed only to hear the designation זרזיר מתנים at once to know what beast was meant. Certainly זרזיר, as the name for a beast, is not altogether unknown in the post-bibl. Heb. “In the days of Rabbi Chija (the great teacher who came from Babylon to the Academy of Sepphoris), as is narrated in Bereschith rabba, sect. 65, a zarzir flew to the land of Israel, and it was brought to him with the question whether it were eatable. Go, said he, place it on the roof! Then came an Egyptian raven and lighted down beside it. See, said Chija, it is unclean, for it belongs to the genus of the ravens, which is unclean (Lev 11:15). From this circumstance there arose the proverb: The raven goes to the zarzir because it belongs to his own tribe.”This “like draws to like” in the form: “not in vain goes the raven to the zarzir, it belongs just to its own tribe,” came to be often employed, Chullin 65a, Baba Kamma 92b. Plantavitius has it, Tendlau more at large, Sprichwörter, u.s.w., Nr. 577.

Also the Jer. Rosch ha-schane, Halacha 3: “It is the manner of the world that one seeks to assist his zarzir, and another his zarzir, to obtain the victory;” and Midrash Echa v. 1, according to which it is the custom of the world, that one who has a large and a little zarzir in his house, is wont to treat the little one sparingly, so that in the case of the large one being killed, he might not need to buy another. According to this, the zarzir is a pugnacious animal, which also the proverb Bereschith rabba, c. 75, confirms: two zarzir do not sleep on one board; and one makes use of his for contests like cock-fights. According to this, the זרזיר is a bird, and that of the species of the raven; after Rashi, the étourneau, the starling, which is confirmed by the Arab. zurzur (vulgar Arab. zarzur), the common name of starlings (cf. Syr. zarzizo, under zrz of Castelli). But for the passage before us, we cannot regard this as important, for why is the starling fully named זרזיר מתנים? To this question Kimchi has already remarked that he knows no answer for it. Only, perhaps, the grave magpie (corvus pica), strutting with upraised tail, might be called succinctus lumbos, if מתנים can at all be used here of a bird. At the earliest, this might possibly be used of a cock, which the later Heb. named directly גּבר, because of its manly demeanour; most old translators so understand it. The lxx translates, omitting the loins, by ἀλέκτωρ ἐμπεριπατῶν θηλείαις εὔψυχος, according to which the Syr. and Targ.: like the cock which struts about proudly among the hens;Regarding the Targum Text, vid., Levy under אבּכא and זרכּל. The expression דּמזדּרז (who is girded, and shows himself as such) is not unsuitable.

Aquila and Theodotion: ἀλέκτωρ (ἀλεκτρυὼν) νώτου; The Quinta: ἀλέκτωρ ὀσφύος; Jezome: gallus succinctus lumbos. Ṣarṣar (not ṣirṣir, as Hitzig vocalizes) is in Arab. a name for a cock, from ṣarṣara, to crow, an onomatopoeia. But the Heb. זרזיר, as the name of a bird, signifies, as the Talmud proves on the ground of that history, not a cock, but a bird of the raven order, whether a starling, a crow, or a magpie. And if this name of a corvinus is formed from the onomatopoeia זרזר, the weaker form of that (Arab.) ṣarṣar, then מתנים, which, for זרזיר, requires the verbal root זרז, to girdle, is not wholly appropriate; and how strangely would the three animals be mingled together, if between לישׁ and תישׁ, the two four-footed animals, a bird were placed! If, as is to be expected, the “Lendenumgürtete” [the one girded about the loins = זרזיר מתנים] be a four-footed animal, then it lies near, with C. B. Michaelis and Ziegler, after Ludolf'sLudolf gave, in his Hist. Aethiop. i. 10, and Commentarius, p. 150, only a description of the Zecora, without combining therewith זרזיר; but vid., Joh. Dietr. Winckler’s Theol. u. Philol. Abhand. i. (1755) p. 33ff.: “A nearer explanation of what is to be understood by זרזיר מתנים, Pro 30:31, along with a statement from a hitherto unpublished correspondence between the learned philologists Hiob Ludolf and Matthai Leydecker, a Reformed preacher in Batavia.” With Ludolf, Joh. Simonis also, in the Arcanum Formarum (1735), p. 687f., decides in favour of the zebra. example, to think of the zebra, the South African wild ass. But this animal lay beyond the sphere of the author’s observation, and perhaps also of his knowledge, and at the same time of that of the Israelitish readers of this Book of Proverbs; and the dark-brown cross stripes on a white ground, by which the zebra is distinguished, extend not merely to its limbs, but over the whole body, and particularly over the front of the body. It would be more tenable to think of the leopard, with its black round spots, or the tiger, with dark stripes; but the name זרזיר מתנים scarcely refers to the colour of the hair, since one has to understand it after the Aram. זרז חרציהּ = שׁנּס מתניו, 1Ki 18:46, or אחר חלציו, Job 38:3, and thus of an activity, i.e., strength and swiftness, depending on the condition of the loins. Those who, with Kimchi, think that the נמר [leopard] is thus named, ground their view, not on this, that it has rings or stripes round its legs, but on this, that it דק מתנים וחזק במתניו. But this beast has certainly its definite name; but a fundamental supposition entering into every attempt at an explanation is this, that זרזיר מתנים, as well as לישׁ and תישׁ, is the proper name of a beast, not a descriptive attribute. Therefore the opinion of Rosse, which Bochart has skilfully established in the Hierozoicon, does not recommend itself, for he only suggests, for choice, to understand the name, “the girded about the loins,” in the proper sense of straps and clasps around and on the loins (thus e.g., Gesenius, Fleischer, Hitzig), or of strength, in the sense of the Arab. habuwk, the firmly-bound = compact, or ṣamm alṣlab, the girded loin (thus e.g., Muntinghe). Schultens connects together both references: Utrumque jungas licet. That the by-name fits the horse, particularly the war-horse, is undeniable; one would have to refer it, with Mühlau, to the slender structure, the thin flanks, which are reckoned among the requisites of a beautiful horse.Vid., Ahlwardt, Chalef elahmar’s Qasside (1859), and the interpretation of the description of the horse contained therein, p. 210ff.

But if succinctus lumbos were a by-name of a horse, why did not the author at once say סוס זרזיר מתנים? We shall give the preference to the opinion, according to which the expression, “girt about the loins” = “with strong loins,” or “with slender limbs,” is not the by-name, but the proper name of the animal. This may be said of the hunting-hound, lévrier (according to which the Venet., incorrectly translating מתנים: λαγῳοκύων ψοιῶν),Thus reads Schleusner, Opusc. Crit. p. 318, and refers it to the horse: nam solebant equos figuris quibusdam notare et quasi sigillare. which Kimchi ranks in the first place. Luther, by his translation, Ein Wind = Windhund [greyhound], of good limbs, has given the right direction to this opinion. Melanchton, Lavater, Mercier, Geier, and others, follow him; and, among the moderns, so also do Ewald and Böttcher (also Bertheau and Stuart), which latter supposes that before זרזיר מתנים there originally stood כבל, which afterwards disappeared. But why should the greyhound not at once be called זרזיר מתנים? We call the smaller variety of this dog the Windspiel [greyhound]; and by this name we think on a hound, without saying Windspielhund. The name זרזיר מתנים (Symmachus excellently: περιεσφιγμένος, not περιεσφραγισμένος, τὴν ὀσφύν, i.e., strongly bound in the limbs) is fitted at once to suggest to us this almost restless, slender animal, with its high, thin, nimble limbs. The verbal stem זרר (Arab.) zarr, signifies to press together, to knit together; the reduplicative form זרזר, to bind firmly together, whence זרזיר, firmly bound together, referred to the limbs as designating a natural property (Ewald, §158a): of straight and easily-moveable legs.The Aram. זרז is shortened from זרזר, as כּרך from כּרכּר; the particip. adj. זריז signifies nimble, swift, eager, e.g., Pesachim 4a: “the zealous obey the commandment - as soon as possible hasten to fulfil it.”

The hunting-hound (salâki or salûki, i.e., coming from Seleucia) is celebrated by the Arab. poets as much as the hunting-horse.Vid., Ahlwardt, Chalef elahmar’s Qasside, p. 205f.

The name כּלב, though not superfluous, the author ought certainly to have avoided, because it does not sound well in the Heb. collocation of words.

There now follows תישׁ, a goat, and that not the ram (Jerome, Luther), which is called איל, but the he-goat, which bears this name, as Schultens has already recognised, from its pushing, as it is also called עתּוּד, as paratus ad pugnam; the two names appear to be only provincially different; שׂעיר, on the contrary, is the old he-goat, as shaggy; and צפיר also perhaps denotes it, as Schultens supposes, with twisted, i.e., curled hair (tortipilus). In Arab. tays denotes the he-goat as well as the roebuck and the gazelle, and that at full growth. The lxx (the Syr. and Targ., which is to be emended after the Syr.) is certainly right, for it understands the leading goat: καὶ τράγος ἡγούμενος αἰπολίου. The text, however, has not ותישׁ, but או תישׁ, ἢ τράγος (Aquila, Theodotion, Quinta, and the Venet.). Böttcher is astonished that Hitzig did not take hold of this או, and conjectures תּאו־תישׁ, which should mean a “gazelle-goat” (Mühlau: dorcas mas). But it is too bold to introduce here תּאו (תּוא), which is only twice named in the O.T., and תאו־תישׁ for תּאו זכר is not the Heb. style; and besides, the setting aside of או has a harsh asyndeton for its consequence, which bears evidence to the appearance that תאו and תישׁ are two different animals. And is the או then so objectionable? More wonderful still must Sol 2:9 appear to us. If the author enumerated the four of stately going on his fingers, he would certainly have said ותישׁ. By או he communicates to the hearer, setting before him another figure, how there in the Song Sulamith’s fancy passed from one object to another.

To the lion, the king of the animal world, the king אלקוּם עמּו corresponds. This אלקום Hitzig regards as mutilated from אלהים (which was both written and pronounced as אלקום by the Jews, so as to conceal the true sound of the name of God) - which is untenable, for this reason, that this religious conclusion [“A king with whom God is”] accords badly with the secular character of this proverb. Geiger (Urschrift, p. 62ff.) translates: “and King Alkimos corresponding to it (the lustful and daring goat)” - he makes the harmless proverb into a ludibrium from the time of the Maccabeo-Syrian war. The lxx, which the Syr. and Targ. follow, translates καὶ βασιλεὺς δημηγορῶν ἐν ἔθνει; it appears to have changed אלקום עמו into קם אל עמו (standing with his people and haranguing them), like the Quinta: καὶ βας. ἀναστὰς (ὃς ἀνέστη) ἐν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ. Ziegler and Böttcher also, reading עמּו and אל without any transposition, get ומלך אל־קוּם עמּו t, which the former translates: “a king with the presence of his people;” the latter, “a king with the setting up of his people,” - not accordant with the thought, for the king should be brought forward as מיטיב לכת. For the same reason, Kimchi’s explanation is not suitable: a king with whom is no resistance, i.e., against whom no one can rank himself (thus e.g., also Immanuel); or more specially, but not better: who has no successor of his race (according to which the Venet. ἀδιάδεκτος ξὺν ἑαυτῷ). Rather this explanation commends itself: a king with whom (i.e., in war with whom) is no resistance. Thus Jerome and Luther: against whom no one dare place himself; thus Rashi, Aben Ezra, Ralbag (שׁאין תקומה עמו), Ahron b. Josef (קום = ἀντίστασις), Arama, and others; thus also Schultens, Fleischer (adversus quem nemo consistere audet), Ewald, Bertheau, Elster, Stuart, and others. But this connection of אל with the infin. is not Heb.; and if the Chokma, xii. 28, has coined the expression אל־מות for the idea of “immortality,” then certainly it does not express the idea of resistlessness by so bold a quasi compositum. But this boldness is also there mitigated, for יהי is supplied after אל, which is not here practicable with קוּם, which is not a subst. like מות. Pocock in the Spec. historiae Arabum, and Castellus in the Lex. Heptaglotton (not Castellio, as the word is printed by Zöckler), have recognised in אלקום the Arab. âlkawm; Schultens gives the lxx the honour of this recognition, for he regards their translation as a paraphrase of ὁ δῆμος μετ ̓ αὐτοῦ. Bertheau thinks that it ought to be in Arab. kawmuhu, but אלקום עמו = âlkawhu ma'ahu is perfectly correct, âlkawhu is the summons or the Heerbann = arriere-ban;Wetzstein’s Ausgewählte Inschriften, p. 355: “The word ḳawm signifies people, not in the sense of populus, but in the sense of the Heb. קים (Job 24:7) = muḳawim abrajul, he who breaks with or against any one.” Incorrect in Gesenius-Dietrich’s Heb. Wörterbuch. in North Africa they speak in their language in the same sense of the Gums. This explanation of אלקום, from the Arab. Dachselt (rex cum satellitio suo), Diedrichs in his Arab.-Syr. Spicilegium (1777), Umbreit, Gesenius, and Vaihinger, have recognised, and Mühlau has anew confirmed it at length. Hitzig, on the contrary, remarks that if Agur wrote on Arab. territory, we could be contented with the Arab. appellative, but not with the article, which in words like אלגּבישׁ and אלמגּים is no longer of force as an art., but is an integ. component part of the word. We think that it is with אלקום exactly as with other words descriptive of lordship, and the many similar that have passed over into the Spanish language; the word is taken over along with the article, without requiring the Heb. listener to take the art. as such, although he certainly felt it better than we do, when we say “das Alkoran” [the Alcoran], “das Alcohol,” and the like. Blau also, in his Gesch. der Arab. Substantiv-Determ.,In the “Alt-arab. Sprachstudien,” Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. xxv. 539f. regards it as certain that Agur borrowed this אלקום from the idiom of the Arabians, among whom he lived, and heard it constantly spoken. By this explanation we first reach a correspondence between what is announced in lines first and second and line sixth. A king as such is certainly not “comely in going;” he can sit upon his throne, and especially as δημηγορῶν will he sit (Act 12:21) and not stand. But the majesty of his going shows itself when he marches at the head of those who have risen up at his summons to war. Then he is for the army what the תישׁ he-goat is for the flock. The או, preferred to ו, draws close together the רישׁ e and the king (cf. e.g., Isa 14:9).

Pro 30:32-33

Another proverb, the last of Agur’s “Words” which exhorts to thoughtful, discreet demeanour, here follows the proverb of self-conscious, grave deportment: 32 If thou art foolish in that thou exaltest thyself,      Or in devising, - put thy hand to thy mouth! 33 For the pressure on milk bringeth forth butter,      And pressure on the nose bringeth forth blood,      And pressure on sensibility bringeth forth altercation.

Löwenstein translates Pro 30:32 :

Art thou despicable, it is by boasting;

Art thou prudent, then hold thy hand on thy mouth.

But if זמם denotes reflection and deliberation, then נבל, as its opposite, denotes unreflecting, foolish conduct. Then בּהתנשּׂא ne by boasting is not to be regarded as a consequent (thus it happens by lifting thyself up; or: it is connected with boasting); by this construction also, אם־נבלתּ must be accented with Dechi, not with Tarcha. Otherwise Euchel:

Hast thou become offensive through pride,

Or seems it so to thee, - lay thy hand to thy mouth.

The thought is appropriate,Yet the Talmud, Nidda 27a, derives another moral rule from this proverb, for it interprets זמם in the sense of זמם = חסם, to tie up, to bridle, to shut up, but אם נבלת in the sense of “if thou hast made thyself despicable,” as Löwenstein has done. but נבלתּ for נבּלתּ is more than improbable; נבל, thus absolutely taken in an ethical connection, is certainly related to נבל, as כּסל, Jer 10:8, to כּסיל. The prevailing mode of explanation is adopted by Fleischer: si stulta arrogantia elatus fueris et si quid durius (in alios) mente conceperis, manum ori impone; i.e., if thou arrogantly, and with offensive words, wilt strive with others, then keep thyself back, and say not what thou hast in thy mind. But while מזמּה and מזמּות denote intrigues, Pro 14:17, as well as plans and considerations, זמם has never by itself alone the sense of meditari mala; at Psa 37:12, also with ל of the object at which the evil devices aim. Then for ואם ... אם (Arab. ân ... wân) there is the supposition of a correlative relation, as e.g., 1Ki 20:18; Ecc 11:3, by which at the same time זמּות is obviously thought of as a contrast to נבלתּ. This contrast excludesThe Arab. signification, to become proud, is a nüance of the primary signification, to hold erect - viz. the head - as when the rider draws up the head of a camel by means of the halter (Arab. zamam). for זמות not only the sense of mala moliri (thus e.g., also Mühlau), but also the sense of the Arab. zamm, superbire (Schultens). Hitzig has the right determination of the relation of the members of the sentence and the ideas: if thou art irrational in ebullition of temper and in thought - thy hand to thy mouth! But התנשּׂא has neither here nor elsewhere the meaning of התעבּר (to be out of oneself with anger); it signifies everywhere to elevate or exalt oneself, i.e., rightly or wrongly to make much of oneself. There are cases where a man, who raises himself above others, appears as a fool, and indeed acts foolishly; but there are also other cases, when the despised has a reason and an object for vindicating his superiority, his repute, his just claim: when, as we say, he places himself in his right position, and assumes importance; the poet here recommends, to the one as well as to the other, silence. The rule that silence is gold has its exceptions, but here also it is held valid as a rule. Luther and others interpret the perfecta as looking back: “hast thou become a fool and ascended too high and intended evil, then lay thy hand on thy mouth.” But the reason in Pro 30:33 does not accord with this rendering, for when that has been done, the occasion for hatred is already given; but the proverb designs to warn against the stirring up of hatred by the reclaiming of personal pretensions. The perfecta, therefore, are to be interpreted as at Deu 32:29; Job 9:15, as the expression of the abstract present; or better, as at Job 9:16, as the expression of the fut. exactum: if thou wouldest have acted foolishly, since thou walkest proudly, or if thou hadst (before) thought of it (Aquila, Theodotion: καὶ ἐὰν ἐννοηθῇς) - the hand on thy mouth, i.e., let it alone, be silent rather (expression as Pro 11:24; Jdg 18:19; Job 40:4). The Venet. best: εἴπερ ἐμώρανας ἐν τῷ ἐπαίρεσθαι καὶ εἴπερ ἐλογίσω, χεὶρ τῷ στόματι. When we have now interpreted התנשׂא, not of the rising up of anger, we do not also, with Hitzig, interpret the dual of the two snorting noses - viz. of the double anger, that of him who provokes to anger, and that of him who is made angry - but אפּים denotes the two nostrils of one and the same person, and, figuratively, snorting or anger. Pressure against the nose is designated ומיץ־אף, ἐκμύζησις (ἐκπίεσις) μυκτῆρος (write ומיץ־אף, with Metheg, with the long tone, after Metheg-Setzung, §11, 9, 12), and מיץ אפּים, ἐκμύζησις θυμοῦ (Theodotion), with reference to the proper meaning of אפים, pressure to anger, i.e., to the stirring up and strengthening of anger. The nose of him who raises himself up comes into view, in so far as, with such self-estimation, sneering, snuffling scorn (μυκτηρίζειν) easily connects itself; but this view of מתנשׂא is not here spoken of.

The Words of Agur.

1 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal, 2 Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man. 3 I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy. 4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Some make Agur to be not the name of this author, but his character; he was a collector (so it signifies), a gatherer, one that did not compose things himself, but collected the wise sayings and observations of others, made abstracts of the writings of others, which some think is the reason why he says (v. 3), "I have not learned wisdom myself, but have been a scribe, or amanuensis, to other wise and learned men." Note, We must not bury our talent, though it be but one, but, as we have received the gift, so minister the same, if it be but to collect what others have written. But we rather suppose it to be his name, which, no doubt, was well known then, though not mentioned elsewhere in scripture. Ithiel and Ucal are mentioned, either, 1. As the names of his pupils, whom he instructed, or who consulted him as an oracle, having a great opinion of his wisdom and goodness. Probably they wrote from him what he dictated, as Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah, and by their means it was preserved, as they were ready to attest it to be his, for it was spoken to them; they were two witnesses of it. Or, 2. As the subject of his discourse. Ithiel signifies God with me, the application of Immanuel, God with us. The word calls him God with us; faith appropriates this, and calls him "God with me, who loved me, and gave himself for me, and into union and communion with whom I am admitted." Ucal signifies the Mighty One, for it is upon one that is mighty that help is laid for us. Many good interpreters therefore apply this to the Messiah, for to him all the prophecies bear witness, and why not this then? It is what Agur spoke concerning Ithiel, even concerning Ithiel (that is the name on which the stress is laid) with us, Isa. vii. 14.

Three things the prophet here aims at:—

I. To abase himself. Before he makes confession of his faith he makes confession of his folly and the weakness and deficiency of reason, which make it so necessary that we be guided and governed by faith. Before he speaks concerning the Saviour he speaks of himself as needing a Saviour, and as nothing without him; we must go out of ourselves before we go into Jesus Christ. 1. He speaks of himself as wanting a righteousness, and having done foolishly, very foolishly. When he reflects upon himself he owns, Surely I am more brutish than any man. Every man has become brutish, Jer. x. 14. But he that knows his own heart knows so much more evil of himself than he does of any other that he cries out, "Surely I cannot but think that I am more brutish than any man; surely no man has such a corrupt deceitful heart as I have. I have acted as one that has not the understanding of Adam, as one that is wretchedly degenerated from the knowledge and righteousness in which man was at first created; nay, I have not the common sense and reason of a man, else I should not have done as I have done." Agur, when he was applied to by others as wiser than most, acknowledged himself more foolish than any. Whatever high opinion others may have of us, it becomes us to have low thoughts of ourselves. 2. He speaks of himself as wanting a revelation to guide him in the ways of truth and wisdom. He owns (v. 3) "I neither learned wisdom by any power of my own (the depths of it cannot be fathomed by my line and plummet) nor know I the knowledge of the holy ones, the angels, our first parents in innocency, nor of the holy things of God; I can get no insight into them, nor make any judgment of them, further than God is pleased to make them known to me." The natural man, the natural powers, perceive not, nay, they receive not, the things of the Spirit of God. Some suppose Agur to be asked, as Apollo's oracle was of old, Who was the wisest man? The answer is, He that is sensible of his own ignorance, especially in divine things. Hoc tantum scio, me nihil scire—All that I know is that I know nothing.

II. To advance Jesus Christ, and the Father in him (v. 4): Who ascended up into heaven, &c. 1. Some understand this of God and of his works, which are both incomparable and unsearchable. He challenges all mankind to give an account of the heavens above, of the winds, the waters, the earth: "Who can pretend to have ascended up to heaven, to take a view of the orbs above, and then to have descended, to give us a description of them? Who can pretend to have had the command of the winds, to have grasped them in his hand and managed them, as God does, or to have bound the waves of the sea with a swaddling band, as God has done? Who has established the ends of the earth, or can describe the strength of its foundations or the extent of its limits? Tell me what is the man's name who can undertake to vie with God or to be of his cabinet-council, or, if he be dead, what is his name to whom he has bequeathed this great secret." 2. Others refer it to Christ, to Ithiel and Ucal, the Son of God, for it is the Son's name, as well as the Father's, that is here enquired after, and a challenge given to any to vie with him. We must now exalt Christ as one revealed; they then magnified him as one concealed, as one they had heard something of but had very dark and defective ideas of. We have heard the fame of him with our ears, but cannot describe him (Job xxviii. 22); certainly it is God that has gathered the wind in his fists and bound the waters as in a garment; but what is his name? It is, I am that I am (Exod. iii. 14), a name to be adored, not to be understood. What is his Son's name, by whom he does all these things? The Old-Testament saints expected the Messiah to be the Son of the Blessed, and he is here spoken of as a person distinct from the Father, but his name as yet secret. Note, The great Redeemer, in the glories of his providence and grace, can neither be paralleled nor found out to perfection. (1.) The glories of the kingdom of his grace are unsearchable and unparalleled; for who besides has ascended into heaven and descended? Who besides is perfectly acquainted with both worlds, and has himself a free correspondence with both, and is therefore fit to settle a correspondence between them, as Mediator, as Jacob's ladder? He was in heaven in the Father's bosom (John i. 1, 18); thence he descended to take our nature upon him; and never was there such condescension. In that nature he again ascended (Eph. iv. 9), to receive the promised glories of his exalted state; and who besides has done this? Rom. x. 6. (2.) The glories of the kingdom of his providence are likewise unsearchable and unparalleled. The same that reconciles heaven and earth was the Creator of both and governs and disposes of all. His government of the three lower elements of air, water, and earth, is here particularized. [1.] The motions of the air are of his directing. Satan pretends to be the prince of the power of the air, but even there Christ has all power; he rebuked the winds and they obeyed him. [2.] The bounds of the water are of his appointing: He binds the waters as in a garment; hitherto they shall come, and no further, Job xxxviii. 9-11. [3.] The foundations of the earth are of his establishing. He founded it at first; he upholds it still. If Christ had not interposed, the foundations of the earth would have sunk under the load of the curse upon the ground, for man's sin. Who and what is the mighty He that does all this? We cannot find out God, nor the Son of God, unto perfection. Oh the depth of that knowledge!

III. To assure us of the truth of the word of God, and to recommend it to us, v. 5, 6. Agur's pupils expect to be instructed by him in the things of God. "Alas!" says he, "I cannot undertake to instruct you; go to the word of God; see what he has there revealed of himself, and of his mind and will; you need know no more than what that will teach you, and that you may rely upon as sure and sufficient. Every word of God is pure; there is not the least mixture of falsehood and corruption in it." The words of men are to be heard and read with jealousy and with allowance, but there is not the least ground to suspect any deficiency in the word of God; it is as silver purified seven times (Ps. xii. 6), without the least dross or alloy. Thy word is very pure, Ps. cxix. 140. 1. It is sure, and therefore we must trust to it and venture our souls upon it. God in his word, God in his promise, is a shield, a sure protection, to all those that put themselves under his protection and put their trust in him. The word of God, applied by faith, will make us easy in the midst of the greatest dangers, Ps. xlvi. 1, 2. 2. It is sufficient, and therefore we must not add to it (v. 6): Add thou not unto his words, because they are pure and perfect. This forbids the advancing of any thing, not only in contradiction to the word of God, but in competition with it; though it be under the plausible pretence of explaining it, yet, if it pretend to be of equal authority with it, it is adding to his words, which is not only a reproach to them as insufficient, but opens a door to all manner of errors and corruptions; for, that one absurdity being granted, that the word of any man, or company of men, is to be received with the same faith and veneration as the word of God, a thousand follow. We must be content with what God has thought fit to make known to us of his mind, and not covet to be wise above what is written; for, (1.) God will resent it as a heinous affront: "He will reprove thee, will reckon with thee as a traitor against his crown and dignity, and lay thee under the heavy doom of those that add to his words, or diminish from them," Deut. iv. 2; xii. 32. (2.) We shall run ourselves into endless mistakes: "Thou wilt be found a liar, a corrupter of the word of truth, a broacher of heresies, and guilty of the worst of forgeries, counterfeiting the broad seal of heaven, and pretending a divine mission and inspiration, when it is all a cheat. Men may be thus deceived, but God is not mocked."

The Prayer of Agur.

7 Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: 8 Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: 9 Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the Lord ? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.

After Agur's confession and creed, here follows his litany, where we may observe,

I. The preface to his prayer: Two things have I required (that is, requested) of thee, O God! Before we go to pray it is good to consider what we need, and what the things are which we have to ask of God.—What does our case require? What do our hearts desire? What would we that God should do for us?—that we may not have to seek for our petition and request when we should be presenting it. He begs, Deny me not before I die. In praying, we should think of dying, and pray accordingly. "Lord, give me pardon, and peace, and grace, before I die, before I go hence and be no more; for, if I be not renewed and sanctified before I die, the work will not be done after; if I do not prevail in prayer before I die, prayers afterwards will not prevail, no, not Lord, Lord. There is none of this wisdom or working in the grave. Deny me not thy grace, for, if thou do, I die, I perish; if thou be silent to me, I am like those that go down to the pit, Ps. xxviii. 1. Deny me not before I die; as long as I continue in the land of the living, let me continue under the conduct of thy grace and good providence."

II. The prayer itself. The two things he requires are grace sufficient and food convenient. 1. Grace sufficient for his soul: "Remove from me vanity and lies; deliver me from sin, from all corrupt principles, practices, and affections, from error and mistake, which are at the bottom of all sin, from the love of the world and the things of it, which are all vanity and a lie." Some understand it as a prayer for the pardon of sin, for, when God forgives sin, he removes it, he takes it away. Or, rather, it is a prayer of the same import with that, Lead us not into temptation. Nothing is more mischievous to us than sin, and therefore there is nothing which we should more earnestly pray against than that we may do no evil. 2. Food convenient for his body. Having prayed for the operations of divine grace, he here begs the favours of the divine Providence, but such as may tend to the good and not to the prejudice of the soul. (1.) He prays that of God's free gift he might receive a competent portion of the good things of this life: "Feed me with the bread of my allowance, such bread as thou thinkest fit to allow me." As to all the gifts of the divine Providence, we must refer ourselves to the divine wisdom. Or, "the bread that is fit for me, as a man, a master of a family, that which is agreeable to my rank and condition in the world." For as is the man so is his competency. Our Saviour seems to refer to this when he teaches us to pray, Give us this day our daily bread, as this seems to refer to Jacob's vow, in which he wished for no more than bread to eat and raiment to put on. Food convenient for us is what we ought to be content with, though we have not dainties, varieties, and superfluities—what is for necessity, though we have not for delight and ornament; and it is what we may in faith pray for and depend upon God for. (2.) He prays that he may be kept from every condition of life that would be a temptation to him. [1.] He prays against the extremes of abundance and want: Give me neither poverty nor riches. He does not hereby prescribe to God, nor pretend to teach him what condition he shall allot to him, nor does he pray against poverty or riches absolutely, as in themselves evil, for either of them, by the grace of God, may be sanctified and be a means of good to us; but, First, He hereby intends to express the value which wise and good men have for a middle state of life, and, with submission to the will of God, desires that that might be his state, neither great honour nor great contempt. We must learn how to manage both (as St. Paul, Phil. iv. 12), but rather wish to be always between both. Optimus pecuniæ modus qui nec in paupertatem cedit nec procul à paupertate discedit—The best condition is that which neither implies poverty nor yet recedes far from it. Seneca. Secondly, He hereby intimates a holy jealousy he had of himself, that he could not keep his ground against the temptations either of an afflicted or a prosperous condition. Others may preserve their integrity in either, but he is afraid of both, and therefore grace teaches him to pray against riches as much as nature against poverty; but the will of the Lord be done. [2.] He gives a pious reason for his prayer, v. 9. He does not say, "Lest I be rich, and cumbered with care, and envied by my neighbours, and eaten up with a multitude of servants, or, lest I be poor and trampled on, and forced to work hard and fare hard;" but, "Lest I be rich and sin, or poor and sin." Sin is that which a good man is afraid of in every condition and under every event; witness Nehemiah (ch. vi. 13), that I should be afraid, and do so, and sin. First, He dreads the temptations of a prosperous condition, and therefore even deprecates that: Lest I be full and deny thee (as Jeshurun, who waxed fat and kicked, and forsook God who made him, Deut. xxxii. 15), and say, as Pharaoh in his pride, Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice? Prosperity makes people proud and forgetful of God, as if they had no need of him and were therefore under no obligation to him. What can the Almighty do for them? Job xxii. 17. And therefore they will do nothing for him. Even good men are afraid of the worst sins, so deceitful do they think their own hearts to be; and they know that the greatest gains of the world will not balance the least guilt. Secondly, He dreads the temptations of a poor condition, and for that reason, and no other, deprecates that: Lest I be poor and steal. Poverty is a strong temptation to dishonesty, and such as many are overcome by, and they are ready to think it will be their excuse; but it will not bear them out at God's bar any more than at men's to say, "I stole because I was poor;" yet, if a man steal for the satisfying of his soul when he is hungry, it is a case of compassion (ch. vi. 30) and what even those that have some principles of honesty in them may be drawn to. But observe why Agur dreads this, not because he should endanger himself by it, "Lest I steal, and be hanged for it, whipped or put in the stocks, or sold for a bondman," as among the Jews poor thieves were, who had not wherewithal to make restitution; but lest he should dishonour God by it: "Lest I should steal, and take the name of my God in vain, that is, discredit my profession of religion by practices disagreeable to it." Or, "Lest I steal, and, when I am charged with it, forswear myself." He therefore dreads one sin, because it would draw on another, for the way of sin is downhill. Observe, He calls God his God, and therefore he is afraid of doing any thing to offend him because of the relation he stands in to him.

Four Wicked Generations.

10 Accuse not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty. 11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother. 12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. 13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up. 14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

Here is, I. A caution not to abuse other people's servants any more than our own, nor to make mischief between them and their masters, for it is an ill office, invidious, and what will make a man odious, v. 10. Consider, 1. It is an injury to the servant, whose poor condition makes him an object of pity, and therefore it is barbarous to add affliction to him that is afflicted: Hurt not a servant with thy tongue (so the margin reads it); for it argues a sordid disposition to smite any body secretly with the scourge of the tongue, especially a servant, who is not a match for us, and whom we should rather protect, if his master be severe with him, than exasperate him more. 2. "It will perhaps be an injury to thyself. If a servant be thus provoked, perhaps he will curse thee, will accuse thee and bring thee into trouble, or give thee an ill word and blemish thy reputation, or appeal to God against thee, and imprecate his wrath upon thee, who is the patron and protector of oppressed innocency."

II. An account, upon occasion of this caution, of some wicked generations of men, that are justly abominable to all that are virtuous and good. 1. Such as are abusive to their parents, give them bad language and wish them ill, call them bad names and actually injure them. There is a generation of such; young men of that black character commonly herd together, and irritate one another against their parents. A generation of vipers those are who curse their natural parents, or their magistrates, or their ministers, because they cannot endure the yoke; and those are near of kin to them who, though they have not yet arrived at such a pitch of wickedness as to curse their parents, yet do not bless them, cannot give them a good word, and will not pray for them. 2. Such as are conceited of themselves, and, under a show and pretence of sanctity, hide from others, and perhaps from themselves too, abundance of reigning wickedness in secret (v. 12); they are pure in their own eyes, as if they were in all respects such as they should be. They have a very good opinion of themselves and their own character, that they are not only righteous, but rich and increased with goods (Rev. iii. 17), and yet are not cleansed from their filthiness, the filthiness of their hearts, which they pretend to be the best part of them. They are, it may be, swept and garnished, but they are not washed, nor sanctified; as the Pharisees that within were full of all uncleanness, Matt. xxiii. 25, 26. 3. Such as are haughty and scornful to those about them, v. 13. He speaks of them with amazement at their intolerable pride and insolence: "Oh how lofty are their eyes! With what disdain do they look upon their neighbours, as not worthy to be set with the dogs of their flock! What a distance do they expect every body should keep; and, when they look upon themselves, how do they strut and vaunt like the peacock, thinking they make themselves illustrious when really they make themselves ridiculous!" There is a generation of such, on whom he that resists the proud will pour contempt. 4. Such as are cruel to the poor and barbarous to all that lie at their mercy (v. 14); their teeth are iron and steel, swords and knives, instruments of cruelty, with which they devour the poor with the greatest pleasure imaginable, and as greedily as hungry men cut their meat and eat it. God has so ordered it that the poor we shall always have with us, that they shall never cease out of the land; but there are those who, because they hate to relieve them, would, if they could, abolish them from the earth, from among men, especially God's poor. Some understand it of those who wound and ruin others by slanders and false accusations, and severe censures of their everlasting state; their tongues, and their teeth too (which are likewise organs of speech), are as swords and knives, Ps. lvii. 4.

Four Things Unsearchable.

15 The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give. There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough: 16 The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough. 17 The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.

He had spoken before of those that devoured the poor (v. 14), and had spoken of them last, as the worst of all the four generations there mentioned; now here he speaks of their insatiableness in doing this. The temper that puts them upon it is made up of cruelty and covetousness. Now those are two daughters of the horse-leech, its genuine offspring, that still cry, "Give, give, give more blood, give more money;" for the bloody are still blood-thirsty; being drunk with blood, they add thirst to their drunkenness, and will seek it yet again. Those also that love silver shall never be satisfied with silver. Thus, while from these two principles they are devouring the poor, they are continually uneasy to themselves, as David's enemies, Ps. lix. 14, 15. Now, for the further illustration of this,

I. He specifies four other things which are insatiable, to which those devourers are compared, which say not, It is enough, or It is wealth. Those are never rich that are always coveting. Now these four things that are always craving are, 1. The grave, into which multitudes fall, and yet still more will fall, and it swallows them all up, and returns none, Hell and destruction are never full, ch. xxvii. 20. When it comes to our turn we shall find the grave ready for us, Job xvii. 1. 2. The barren womb, which is impatient of its affliction in being barren, and cries, as Rachel did, Give me children. 3. The parched ground in time of drought (especially in those hot countries), which still soaks in the rain that comes in abundance upon it and in a little time wants more. 4. The fire, which, when it has consumed abundance of fuel, yet still devours all the combustible matter that is thrown into it. So insatiable are the corrupt desires of sinners, and so little satisfaction have they even in the gratification of them.

II. He adds a terrible threatening to disobedient children (v. 17), for warning to the first of those four wicked generations, that curse their parents (v. 11), and shows here,

1. Who they are that belong to that generation, not only those that curse their parents in heat and passion, but, (1.) Those that mock at them, though it be but with a scornful eye, looking with disdain upon them because of their bodily infirmities, or looking sour or dogged at them when they instruct or command, impatient at their checks and angry at them. God takes notice with what eye children look upon their parents, and will reckon for the leering look and the casts of the evil eye as well as for the bad language given them. (2.) Those that despise to obey them, that think it a thing below them to be dutiful to their parents, especially to the mother, they scorn to be controlled by her; and thus she that bore them in sorrow in greater sorrow bears their manners.

2. What their doom will be. Those that dishonour their parents shall be set up as monuments of God's vengeance; they shall be hanged in chains, as it were, for the birds of prey to pick out their eyes, those eyes with which they looked so scornfully on their good parents. The dead bodies of malefactors were not to hang all night, but before night the ravens would have picked out their eyes. If men do not punish undutiful children, God will, and will load those with the greatest infamy that conduct themselves haughtily towards their parents. Many who have come to an ignominious end have owned that the wicked courses that brought them to it began in a contempt of their parents' authority.

Four Things Little and Wise.

18 There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: 19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid. 20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness. 21 For three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear: 22 For a servant when he reigneth; and a fool when he is filled with meat; 23 For an odious woman when she is married; and an handmaid that is heir to her mistress.

Here is, I. An account of four things that are unsearchable, too wonderful to be fully known. And here,

1. The first three are natural things, and are only designed as comparisons for the illustration of the last. We cannot trace, (1.) An eagle in the air. Which way she has flown cannot be discovered either by the footstep or by the scent, as the way of a beast may upon ground; nor can we account for the wonderful swiftness of her flight, how soon she has gone beyond our ken. (2.) A serpent upon a rock. The way of a serpent in the sand we may find by the track, but not of a serpent upon the hard rock; nor can we describe how a serpent will, without feet, in a little time creep to the top of a rock. (3.) A ship in the midst of the sea. The leviathan indeed makes a path to shine after him, one would think the deep to be hoary (Job xli. 32), but a ship leaves no mark behind it, and sometimes it is so tossed upon the waves that one would wonder how it lives at sea and gains its point. The kingdom of nature is full of wonders, marvellous things which the God of nature does, past finding out.

2. The fourth is a mystery of iniquity, more unaccountable than any of these; it belongs to the depths of Satan, that deceitfulness and that desperate wickedness of the heart which none can know, Jer. xvii. 9. It is twofold:—(1.) The cursed arts which a vile adulterer has to debauch a maid, and to persuade her to yield to his wicked and abominable lust. This is what a wanton poet wrote a whole book of, long since, De arte amandi—On the art of love. By what pretensions and protestations of love, and all its powerful charms, promises of marriage, assurances of secresy and reward, is many an unwary virgin brought to sell her virtue, and honour, and peace, and soul, and all to a base traitor; for so all sinful lust is in the kingdom of love. The more artfully the temptation is managed the more watchful and resolute ought every pure heart to be against it. (2.) The cursed arts which a vile adulteress has to conceal her wickedness, especially from her husband, from whom she treacherously departs; so close are her intrigues with her lewd companions, and so craftily disguised, that it is as impossible to discover her as to track an eagle in the air. She eats the forbidden fruit, after the similitude of Adam's transgression, and then wipes her mouth, that it may not betray itself, and with a bold and impudent face says, I have done no wickedness. [1.] To the world she denies the fact, and is ready to swear it that she is as chaste and modest as any woman, and never did the wickedness she is suspected of. Those are the works of darkness which are industriously kept from coming to the light. [2.] To her own conscience (if she have any left) she denies the fault, and will not own that that great wickedness is any wickedness at all, but an innocent entertainment. See Hos. xii. 7, 8. Thus multitudes ruin their souls by calling evil good and out-facing their convictions with a self-justification.

II. An account of four things that are intolerable, that is, four sorts of persons that are very troublesome to the places where they live and the relations and companies they are in; the earth is disquieted for them, and groans under them as a burden it cannot bear, and they are all much alike:—1. A servant when he is advanced, and entrusted with power, who is, of all others, most insolent and imperious; witness Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, Neh. ii. 10. 2. A fool, a silly, rude, boisterous, vicious man, who when he has grown rich, and is partaking of the pleasures of the table, will disturb all the company with his extravagant talk and the affronts he will put upon those about him. 3. An ill-natured, cross-grained, woman, when she gets a husband, one who, having made herself odious by her pride and sourness, so that one would not have thought any body would ever love her, yet, if at last she be married, that honourable estate makes her more intolerably scornful and spiteful than ever. It is a pity that that which should sweeten the disposition should have a contrary effect. A gracious woman, when she is married, will be yet more obliging. 4. An old maid-servant that has prevailed with her mistress, by humouring her, and, as we say, getting the length of her foot, to leave her what she has, or is as dear to her as if she was to be her heir, such a one likewise will be intolerably proud and malicious, and think all too little that her mistress gives her, and herself wronged if any thing be left from her. Let those therefore whom Providence has advanced to honour from mean beginnings carefully watch against that sin which will most easily beset them, pride and haughtiness, which will in them, of all others, be most insufferable and inexcusable; and let them humble themselves with the remembrance of the rock out of which they were hewn.

Four Things Little and Wise.

24 There be four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise: 25 The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer; 26 The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks; 27 The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands; 28 The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.

I. Agur, having specified four things that seem great and yet are really contemptible, here specifies four things that are little and yet are very admirable, great in miniature, in which, as bishop Patrick observes, he teaches us several good lessons; as, 1. Not to admire bodily bulk, or beauty, or strength, nor to value persons or think the better of them for such advantages, but to judge of men by their wisdom and conduct, their industry and application to business, which are characters that deserve respect. 2. To admire the wisdom and power of the Creator in the smallest and most despicable animals, in an ant as much as in an elephant. 3. To blame ourselves who do not act so much for our own true interest as the meanest creatures do for theirs. 4. Not to despise the weak things of the world; there are those that are little upon the earth, poor in the world and of small account, and yet are exceedingly wise, wise for their souls and another world, and those are exceedingly wise, wiser than their neighbours. Margin, They are wise, made wise by the special instinct of nature. All that are wise to salvation are made wise by the grace of God.

II. Those he specifies are, 1. The ants, minute animals and very weak, and yet they are very industrious in gathering proper food, and have a strange sagacity to do it in the summer, the proper time. This is so great a piece of wisdom that we may learn of them to be wise for futurity, ch. vi. 6. When the ravening lions lack, and suffer hunger, the laborious ants have plenty, and know no want. 2. The conies, or, as some rather understand it, the Arabian mice, field mice, weak creatures, and very timorous, yet they have so much wisdom as to make their houses in the rocks, where they are well guarded, and their feebleness makes them take shelter in those natural fastnesses and fortifications. Sense of our own indigence and weakness should drive us to him that is a rock higher than we for shelter and support; there let us make our habitation. 3. The locusts; they are little also, and have no king, as the bees have, but they go forth all of them by bands, like an army in battle-array; and, observing such good order among themselves, it is not any inconvenience to them that they have no king. They are called God's great army (Joel ii. 25); for, when he pleases, he musters, he marshals them, and wages war by them, as he did upon Egypt. They go forth all of them gathered together (so the margin); sense of weakness should engage us to keep together, that we may strengthen the hands of one another. 4. The spider, an insect, but as great an instance of industry in our houses as the ants are in the field. Spiders are very ingenious in weaving their webs with a fineness and exactness such as no art can pretend to come near: They take hold with their hands, and spin a fine thread out of their own bowels, with a great deal of art; and they are not only in poor men's cottages, but in kings' palaces, notwithstanding all the care that is there taken to destroy them. Providence wonderfully keeps up those kinds of creatures, not only which men provide not for, but which every man's hand is against and seeks the destruction of. Those that will mind their business, and take hold of it with their hands, shall be in kings' palaces; sooner or later, they will get preferment, and may go on with it, notwithstanding the difficulties and discouragements they meet with. If one well-spun web be swept away, it is but making another.

Four Things Majestic and Stately.

29 There be three things which go well, yea, four are comely in going: 30 A lion which is strongest among beasts, and turneth not away for any; 31 A greyhound; an he goat also; and a king, against whom there is no rising up. 32 If thou hast done foolishly in lifting up thyself, or if thou hast thought evil, lay thine hand upon thy mouth. 33 Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife.

Here is, I. An enumeration of four things which are majestic and stately in their going, which look great:— 1. A lion, the king of beasts, because strongest among beasts. Among beasts it is strength that gives the pre-eminence, but it is a pity that it should do so among men, whose wisdom is their honour, not their strength and force. The lion turns not away, nor alters his pace, for fear of any pursuers, since he knows he is too hard for them. Herein the righteous are bold as a lion, that they turn not away from their duty for fear of any difficulty they meet with in it. 2. A greyhound that is girt in the loins and fit for running; or (as the margin reads it) a horse, which ought not to be omitted among the creatures that are comely in going, for so he is, especially when he is dressed up in his harness or trappings. 3. A he-goat, the comeliness of whose going is when he goes first and leads the flock. It is the comeliness of a Christian's going to go first in a good work and to lead others in the right way. 4. A king, who, when he appears in his majesty, is looked upon with reverence and awe, and all agree that there is no rising up against him; none can vie with him, none can contend with him, whoever does it, it is at his peril. And, if there is no rising up against an earthly prince, woe to him then that strives with his Maker. It is intended that we should learn courage and fortitude in all virtuous actions from the lion and not to turn away for any difficulty we meet with; from the greyhound we may learn quickness and despatch, from the he-goat the care of our family and those under our charge, and from a king to have our children in subjection with all gravity, and from them all to go well, and to order the steps of our conversation so as that we may not only be safe, but comely, in going.

II. A caution to us to keep our temper at all times and under all provocations, and to take heed of carrying our resentments too far upon any occasion, especially when there is a king in the case, against whom there is no rising up, when it is a ruler, or one much our superior, that is offended; nay, the rule is always the same.

1. We must bridle and suppress our own passion, and take shame to ourselves, whenever we are justly charged with a fault, and not insist upon our own innocency: If we have lifted up ourselves, either in a proud conceit of ourselves or a peevish opposition to those that are over us, if we have transgressed the laws of our place and station, we have therein done foolishly. Those that magnify themselves over others or against others, that are haughty and insolent, do but shame themselves and betray their own weakness. Nay, if we have but thought evil, if we are conscious to ourselves that we have harboured an ill design in our minds, or it has been suggested to us, we must lay our hand upon our mouth, that is, (1.) We must humble ourselves for what we have done amiss, and even lie in the dust before God, in sorrow for it, as Job did, when he repented of what he had said foolishly (ch. xl. 4, I will lay my hand upon my mouth), and as the convicted leper, who put a covering upon his upper lip. If we have done foolishly, we must not stand to it before men, but by silence own our guilt, which will be the best way of appeasing those we have offended. 2. We must keep the evil thought we have conceived in our minds from breaking out in any evil speeches. Do not give the evil thought an imprimatur—a license; allow it not to be published; but lay thy hand upon thy mouth; use a holy violence with thyself, if need be, and enjoin thyself silence; as Christ suffered not the evil spirits to speak. It is bad to think ill, but it is much worse to speak it, for that implies a consent to the evil thought and a willingness to infect others with it.

2. We must not irritate the passions of others. Some are so very provoking in their words and conduct that they even force wrath, they make those about them angry whether they will or no, and put those into a passion who are not only not inclined to it, but resolved against it. Now this forcing of wrath brings forth strife, and where that is there is confusion and every evil work. As the violent agitation of the cream fetches all the good out of the milk, and the hard wringing of the nose will extort blood from it, so this forcing of wrath wastes both the body and spirits of a man, and robs him of all the good that is in him. Or, as it is in the churning of milk and the wringing of the nose, that is done by force which otherwise would not be done, so the spirit is heated by degrees with strong passions; one angry word begets another, and that a third; one passionate debate makes work for another, and so it goes on till it ends at length in irreconcilable feuds. Let nothing therefore be said or done with violence, but every thing with softness and calmness.

CHAP. XXX. Verſ. 1. The words of Agur the ſon of Jakeh]

THe Vulgar renders it, Verba Congregantis filii Vomentis, taking theſe proper Names for appellatives: as if the Pen-man of this Chapter meant to tell us,Aelian. Hiſt. var. that he would here give us his ſacred Collectanies, or Miſcellanies, ſuch as he had taken up from the mouthes of wiſeſt men, who had vomited or caſt them up, in a like ſenſe as that Painter in Aelian drew Homer vomiting, and all the other Poets licking it up. This Agur (whether he lived in Salomon's days, or Hezekiah's) was an excellent man (as the word Gheber here uſed imports) Vir bonus & prudens, minus tamen clarus (as one ſaith of Jeſſe, Davids father) a godly wiſe man, though nothing be elſewhere ſpoken of him in Scripture. Some think, that being requeſted by Ithiel and Ucal, two of his Diſciples, to give them a leſſon, Socrates-like, he anſwered, Hoc unum ſcio, quod nihil ſcio. This one thing I know, that I know nothing: Surely I am more brutiſh than any man, ſc. of my ſelf, further than taught of God: for every man is a brute by his own underſtanding, as Jeremy hath it.Jer. 10. But I rather incline to thoſe that take Ithiel and Ucal for Chriſt; whoſe goodneſs and power (thoſe two pillars of a Chriſtians faith, as Jachin and Boaz were of Salomons Temple) is by theſe two names deciphered: and whom hee propounds as the matter of his Prophecy. Now becauſe ſenſe of miſery muſt precede ſenſe of mercy: neither can any be welcome to Chriſt, but the weary and heavie laden, therefore he firſt bewails his own brutiſhneſs (fetching it up as low as Adam fallen, verſ. 2. and aggravating it in that he had not yet acquired better abilities, verſ. 3.) Next hee flyes to Ithiel and Ucal by the force of a particular faith (Ithiel God with me, and Ucal God Almighty, through whom I can do all things.) This, this was the right ready way of coming to Chriſt: and him that thus cometh, hee will in no wiſe caſt out, Joh. 6.37. There is a good Interpreter that paralelling this text with Jer. 9.23, 24, reads it thus.Muffet. A gathering together of the words of Agur the Son of Jakeh; Let the excellent man ſay, Let God be with me, let God bee with me, and I ſhall prevail.

Verſ. 2. Surely I am more brutiſh than any man] Or, Surely I have been brutiſh ſince I was a man. See how this good man vilifies, yea nullifies himſelf to the utmoſt. This was true humility, that like true Balm ever ſinks to the bottom; when Hypocritical, as Oyl, ſwims on the top. Humilit as ab humo, becauſe it layes a man flat on the ground. Agur had ſeen Ithiel and Ʋcal; hence hee ſeeth ſo little by himſelf, Job 42.5. Now mine eyes have ſeen thee: wherefore I abhorre my ſelf &c. Woe is me for I am undone, ſaith Eſay, for mine eyes have ſeen the King the Lord of Hoſts, chap. 6.5. Hee that looks intently upon the Sun, hath his eyes dazeled: ſo he that beholds the infinite excellencies of God, conſiders the diſtance, cannot but be ſenſible of his own naughtineſs, nothingneſs. It is fit the foundation ſhould be laid deep, where the building is ſo high. Agurs humility was not more low, than his aymes lofty: Who hath aſcended up into heaven, &c. It is an high pitch that he flyes, for he knew well, that godlineſs as it begins in the right knowledge of our ſelves, ſo it ends in the right knowledge of God.

And have not the underſtanding of a man] Or, Neither is there in me the underſtanding that was in Adam. Man when hee came firſt out of Gods Mint,Tanta fuit Adami recens conditi ſtupiditas, ut major in infantes cadere non poſſit. Socin. ſhone moſt glorious in knowledge, righteouſneſs, and holineſs. Socinians feign him ſilly, and therein betray their own ſillineſs. He had a large meaſure of objective knowledge, both in Natural things, and Supernatural; which we have loſt in him, 1 Cor. 2.14. This we ſhould with Agur here ſit down and bewayl, as thoſe in Ezra did the burnt Temple, chap. 3.12.

Verſ. 3. I neither learned wiſdome] As he had it nor by nature,Nemo naſcitur artifex. ſo neither had he attained unto it by any pains or skill of his own. There is a ſpirit indeed in man (a reaſonable ſoul and a faculty of reaſoning) But the inſpiration of the Almighty giveth underſtanding, Job 32.8. Not that Agur neglected the means of knowledge, or put off the ſtudy of it (as Salomons fool, Prov. 24.7.) from a conceit of the impoſſibility of reaching to it. Neither yet was hee of their mind of whom Auſtine makes mention, that they caſt off the care of knowledge, becauſe knowledge puffeth up; and ſo would bee ignorant that they might be humble, and want knowledge that they might want pride. This was to doe as the Philoſopher that pluckt out his eyes, to avoyd the danger of uncleanneſs.In Apolog. Sed nihil aliud egit quàm quod fatuitatem ſuam urbi manifeſtam fecit, ſaith Tertullian, wherein he proclaimed his own folly to all the country. But holy Agur here aſſures us, that fleſh and bloud never revealed theſe high things that follow unto him, but as Paul was an Apoſtle, ſo was he a Prophet not of men, neither by man, but by Jeſus Chriſt and God the Father, Gal. 1.1. even the Father of light, Jam. 1.17. In Natures School nothing is to be learned concerning Ithiel and Ʋcal. Confeſſ. lib. 3. Saint Auguſtine though much taken with Cicero's Hortenſius, yet becauſe hee found not the name of Chriſt in it, hee could not ſo heartily affect it. The Philoſophers much magnifie the mind of man as full of Divine light and perſpicacy; when the truth tells us that it is Meus oblita Dei, vitiorumque oblita caeno.

There is nothing great in the earth but man, nothing in man but his mind: Si conſque ſcandis, caelum tranſcendis (ſaid Fav[illegible: 1 letter]rinus the Philoſopher) if you get up thither, you aſcend beyond heaven. But Agur had not ſo learned Chriſt. He talks of natural blindneſs and other evils born with him. Erras ſi tecum vitia naſci putes; ſupervenere, ingeſta ſunt. You are out Agur (ſaith Seneca) if you talk on that manner: blindneſs is not natural to you, but adventitious.Quia ſibi quiſque virtutem acquirit, [illegible: 3 letters]inem è ſapientibus unquam de ea gratias Deo egiſſe. Lib. 3. de nat. Deor. Deorum quidem munus eſt quod vivimus, &c. Sen. Agur bewails his loſs in Adam: This Natures eye never ſaw, and therefore heart never rued. Thoſe that were born in hell, knew none other heaven, as the Proverb is. Agur tells us here, that he never learned true wiſdom from any man, but muſt thank God for that meaſure thereof that hee had attained to. On the contrary, Tully tells us, that inaſmuch as every man acquires to himſelf that vertue that he hath, no wiſe man ever yet gave God thanks for it. And Seneca ſaith, It is of the gods that wee live, but of our ſelves that wee live well and honeſtly. How different are the Saints in Scripture from the worlds wiſards?

Nor have the knowledge of the holy] That is, of the Angels; as Dan. 4.13, 17. & 8.13. whom Jacob ſaw aſcending and deſcending (Gen. 28.12. compared with the next verſe of this Chapter, and with John 1.51.) Moſes made them looking intently into the Mercy Seat. Exod. 25.18, 19. Peter ſets them forth as ſtooping down to look wiſhtly and earneſtly into the Myſtery of Chriſt, [non-Latin text not transcribed]. 1 Pet. 1.12. which was hid from them till the diſcovery, and ever ſince, that they are great ſtudents in it, Epheſ. 3.10. But how ſhould Agur or any man elſe due cannot tell the form and the quinteſſence of things, that cannot enter into the depth of the Flower, or the Graſs he treads on, that cannot underſtand the nature and properties of ſo ſmall a Creature as an Ant or Bee, (Pliny tells of one that ſpent eight and fifty years in learning out the nature of the Bee, Lib. 11. cap. 9. and yet had not fully attained unto it) How is it poſſible, I ſay, that the wiſeſt Naturaliſt ſhould have the wit to enter into the deep things of God? Eye hath not ſeen, nor ear heard, &c. 1 Cor. 2.9.

Verſ. 4. Who hath aſcended up into heaven, or deſcended?] Who, but the Son of man which is in heaven, 1 Joh. 3.13? who, but the holy Angels upon that Son of man, the Ladder of life, Joh. 1.51? Who, but thoſe that have (in ſome meaſure) the knowledge of thoſe holy ones, verſ. 3. the knowledge of God in Chriſt, which is life eternal, Joh. 17.3. Heaven aforehand? Holy Agur holds it out to us here, that to know heavenly things, is to aſcend into heaven. Even Ariſtotle ſaith, that a little knowledge, (though but conjectural) about heavenly things, is to be preferred above much knowledge, though certain, about inferiour things:De [illegible: 2 letters]lo t[illegible: 1 letter]m. 99 and yet he knew no heaven beyond the moveable heavens, neither acknowledged any body, or time, or place, or vacuum there. The truth is, no natural knowledge can be had of the third heaven, nor any help by Human Arts: for it is neither aſpectable nor moveable. As no man hath ſeen God at any time, ſo, nor Heaven, the Throne of God: only the only begotten Son of God which is in the boſome of the Father, hee hath declared both him and Heaven, Joh. 1.18. as that, there are many Manſions, Crowns, Scepters, Kingdoms, Glories, Beauties, Angelical entertainments, beatifical Viſions, ſweeteſt varieties, felicities, eternities. And yet all this, or whatſoever more can be ſaid of Heavens happineſs, is not the one half (as ſhee ſaid of Salomons Magnificence) of what we ſhall finde in that City of Pearl. To expreſſe it, is as impoſſible, as to compaſs the Heavens with a ſpan, or contain the Ocean in a Nut-ſhel. Let there be continual aſcenſions thither in our hearts: let us lift up hearts and hands to God in the Heavens, and hee will ſhortly ſend his Chariots for us, as Joſeph did for his Father: fetch us riding upon the Clouds, convoy us by his Angels thorow the ayr, as thorow the enemies Country, and puts us into that Panegyris, that General Aſſembly, and ſolemn celebrity of holy and happy ſouls, Heb. 12.23. As in the mean ſpace, how ſhould we every day take a turn or two with Chriſt upon Mount Tabor? get up to the top of Piſgah with Moſes, and take a proſpect of Heaven? turn every ſolemnity into a School of Divinity? Say, as Fulgentius, when hee ſaw the Nobility of Rome ſit mounted in their bravery, Si talis eſt Roma terreſtris, qualis eſt Roma caeleſtis? If Rome bee ſuch a glorious place, what is Heaven? What Muſick may we think there is in Heaven, ſaid another good ſoul, when he ſate and heard a good Conſort of Muſick. This, this is the principal end, and moſt profitable uſe of all Creatures! Cum ſcalae nobis & alae fiant, when they become Ladders and Wings to us, to mount up to Heaven.

Who hath gathered the Wind in his fiſts, &c.] None but God the great Wonder-worker, the right Aeolus, that bringeth the winds out of his treaſures, Pſal. 135. and bids them at his pleaſure Peace and be ſtill. We read of a Whirlwind raiſed by the Devil, Job 1.19. and of a Tempeſt laid by the Magicians. Herodotus in Poly[illegible: 1 letter]nia. But it cannot bee ſaid, as 1 King. 19.11. that God was not in that Wind: for hee hath the royalty of all the Creatures, though hee ſuffer the Devil to play Rex ſometimes, for ends beſt known to himſelf.

Who hath bound the waters in a garment] Thoſe above the Firmament, in Clouds (thorow which they diſtill and drop down, as water would doe if bound up in a garment) thoſe below in Chanels and Bottles, as the Pſalmiſt hath it. Water is naturally above the earth, as the garment above the body: and would (but for the providence of God) prove as the ſhirt made for the murthering of Agamemnon, where the head had no iſſue out, &c. See my notes on Gen. 1.

What is his name] God is above all name (to ſpeak properly.) When Manoah enquires after his name, the anſwer is, 'Tis Wonderful: that is, I am called as I am called; but ſuch is thy weakneſs that it paſſeth thy conception: this Ocean will not be meaſured by thy Muſcle-ſhel. Multa nomina & lumina ſibi finxerunt Infideles. The Heathens had many names for their Dunghil-deities: but the Africans called an unknown God whom they worſhipped,Lib. de Iſid. & Oſirid. Amon, that is, Heus tu quis est? Heark, who art thou? as Plutarch relateth.

And what is his Sons name?] Chriſt hath many names in holy Scripture, as Iſa. 9.6, 7. So Jehovah our righteouſneſſe, Meſſiah the Prince, Dan. 9. whereunto anſwereth in the New-Teſtament, the Lord Chriſt: but who can declare his generation? Iſa. 53.8. whether that eternal generation, or that in the fulneſs of time, the myſtery whereof was beyond words? Our ſafeſt eloquence here will be our ſilence, our greateſt knowledge a learned ignorance. Only wee have here a clear teſtimony of the diſtinction of the Perſons; and that the Son is co-equal and con-ſubſtantial with the Father, ſith Hee is alſo (as the Father) above all name and notion.

If thou canſt tell] But ſo can none: No man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither doth any man know the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him, Matth. 11.27. The Son is ſo like the Father here, that if you know the one, yee cannot but know the other, Joh. 14.7, 8, 9. Milk is not ſo like milk. Non tam ovum ovo ſimile. He is the brightneſs of his Fathers glory, and the expreſs Image of his Perſon, Heb. 1.3. See the Note there. And if wee deſire a glaſs wherein to behold the face of God the Father, and of his Son, here is one held forth in the next verſe.

Verſ. 5. Every word of God is pure: Oda ſeptima Pind. tanta fuit admirationis apud Rhodios ut fuerit ſcripta in templo aure is literis, &c. Joh. Manl. loc. Com. 414. he is a ſhield] Albeit all the ſacred ſentences contain'd in this bleſſed book are pure, precious, and profitable, yet as one ſtar in Heaven out-ſhineth another, ſo doth one Proverb another, and this is among the reſt, velut inter ſtellas, luna minores, an eminent ſentence often recorded in Scripture, and far better worthy than ever Pindarus his ſeventh Ode was, to be written in letters of gold. Every word of God is pure, purer than gold tried in the fire, Rev. 3.17. purer than ſilver tried in a furnace, and ſeven times purified, Pſal. 12.6. Julian (therefore that odious Apoſtate) is not to be hearkened to, who ſaid, there was as good ſtuff in Phocillides, as in Salomon, in Pindarus his Odes, as in Davids Pſalms. Nor is that brawling dog Porphyry to be regarded, who blaſphemouſly accuſeth Daniel the Prophet, and Matthew the Evangeliſt,Spec. Europae. as writers of lies. Os durum! The Jeſuits (ſome of them) ſay little leſs of Saint Pauls Epiſtles; which they could wiſh by ſome means cenſured and reformed, as dangerous to be read, and ſavouring of hereſie in ſome places. Traditions they commonly account the touch-ſtone of doctrine, and foundation of faith; the Scriptures to be rather a Commonitorium (as Bellarmine calls it) a kind of ſtore-houſe for advice,Greg. in 3. Reg. then Cor & animam Dei, the heart and ſoul of God, as Gregory calls them, a Fortreſs againſt Errours,Firmamentum contra errores. Aug. in Johan. 1. Tract. 2. Poſſevin. Appar. ſac. verbo Pat. Antiq as Auguſtine. The Apoſtle calleth concupiſcence ſin; at non licet nobis ita loqui: but we may not call it ſo, ſaith Poſſevine the Jeſuit. The Author to the Hebrews ſaith, Marriage is honourable among all men: but the Rhemiſts on 1 Cor. 7.9. ſay, that the marriage of Prieſts is the worſt ſort of incontinency. Chriſt ſaith, the Sin againſt the Holy Ghoſt hath no remiſſion. Bellarmine ſaith, that it may be forgiven. The Council of Conſtance comes in with a non-obſtance againſt Chriſts inſtitution;Lib. 2. de Pae[illegible: 1 letter]it. cap. 16. Montan. in 1 Cor. 14. withholding the Cup from the People at the Sacrament. And a Pariſian Doctor tells us, that although the Apoſtle would have ſermons and ſervice celebrated in a known tongue, yet the Church for very good cauſe hath otherwiſe ordered it. Biſhop Bonners Chaplain called the Bible in ſcorn, his little pretty Gods book, and judged it worthy to be burnt, tanquam doctrina peregrina, as ſtrange doctrine. Gilford and Raynolds ſaid it contained ſome things prophane and apocryphal. Others have ſtiled it the mother of hereſie, and therefore not fit to be read by the common people, leſt they ſuck poyſon out of it. Prodigious blaſphemy! Of the purity and perennity of the holy Scriptures, See more in my True treaſure, pag. 85.139.

He is a ſhield to them that put their truſt in him] See Gen. 15.1. with the note, and Prov. 29.25.

Buxtorf. Tiberias.Verſ. 6. Adde thou not unto his words] As the Jews at this day do by their traditions, which they arrogantly call Maſhlamnutha, Completio, perfectio, becauſe they think that thereby the Law is compleated and perfected, as the Artemonites, Brightm. upon Rev. p. 292. (and after them the ſchool-men) corrupted the Scripture out of Aristotle and Theophraſtus, turning all into queſtions and quillets. As Mahomet joyned his Alfurta, his ſervice book, an horrible heap of all blaſphemies, to the three parts of holy Scripture (as he divides them) the Law, Pſalmes, and Goſpel: As the Papiſts adde their humane inventions, and unwritten verities, which they equallize unto, if not prefer before the book of God, as appears by that Heatheniſh decree of the Council of Trent. And when at the Council of Baſil, the Huſſites denied to receive any doctrine that could not be proved by Scripture;Jacob Revius hiſt. Pontif. p. 235. Cardinal Cuſan anſwered that Scriptures were not of the being of the Church, but of the well-being, and that they were to be expounded, according to the current rite of the Church; which if it change its mind, the judgement of God is alſo changed. Laſtly, ſuch adde to Gods Word, as wreſt it, and rack it, making it ſpeak that which it never thought: cauſing it to go two miles where it would go but one; gnawing and tawing it to their own purpoſes, as the Shoo-maker taws his upper-leather with his teeth. Tertullian calls Marcion the heretick, Mus Ponticus, of his arroding and gnawing the Scripture, to make it ſerviceable to his errours.

Leſt he reprove thee] Both verbally and penally; both with words and blows. Leſt he ſeverely puniſh thee, as one that addes to his will, or imbaſeth his coyn.

And thou be found a lier] As all Popiſh forgers and foyſters at this day are found to be. God hath ever raiſed up ſuch as have detected their impoſtures, and vindicated the purity and perfection of the ſacred Scriptures.

Verſ. 7. Two things have I required of thee] Two ſpecial requeſts he had among many: for our preſent condition is a condition of ſingular vanity and indigency; we get our living by begging; and are never without ſomewhat to bee required of God; never without out wants and aylments, and ſutes for ſupplies.

Deny me them not] See here both his familiarity with God in Prayer, and his importunity: for a lazie Sut[illegible: 1 letter]r beggs a denial: Agur therefore re-enforceth his requeſt: it was honeſt, elſe he would never have begun it: but being ſo, he is reſolved to follow it. So doth David with his one thing which hee did deſire, and he would deſire, Pſal. 27.4. he would never give it over. So Jacob would have a bleſſing, and therefore wraſtles with might and ſlight: and this he doth in the night and alone, and when God was leaving him, and upon one legge. He had a hard pull of it, and yet he prevailed. Let me goe, ſaith God: No, thou ſhalt not goe, ſaith Jacob, till I have my requeſt. It is not unlawful for us to be unmannerly in Prayer, to be importunate, and after a ſort impudent, [non-Latin text not transcribed] Luke 11.8. Propter improbitatem. Luke 18.8. Was not the Woman of Canaan ſo? Matth. 15.22. Shee came for a Cure, and a Cure ſhe would have: and had it too, with an high commendation of her heroical faith. Chriſt, he was no Penny-father, he had more bleſſings than one, even the abundance of Spirit for them that ask it. When poor men make requeſts to us, we uſually anſwer them as the Eccho doth the voyce, the anſwer cuts off half the Petition: if they ask us two things, we think we deal well if we grant them one. Few Naamans, that when you beg one talent, will force you to take two. But God heaps mercies upon his Suppliants: and blames them for their modeſty in asking. Hitherto you have asked me nothing. Nothing to what you might have done, and ſhould have had. Ask that your joy may be full. Thou ſhouldſt have ſmitten five or ſix times (ſaid the Prophet to the King of Iſrael, 2 King. 14, 18.19. that ſmote thrice only) then hadſt thou ſmitten Syria till thou hadſt conſumed it.

Before I dye] q. d. I intend to be a daily Suter for them whilſt I live: and when I dye, I ſhall have no more to doe in this kind. Every one as hee hath ſome ſpecial grace or gift above others, and as he is dogged with ſome ſpecial temptation or violent corruption, ſo he hath ſome great requeſt. And God holds him haply in hand about it all his life-long, that he may daily hear from him, and that a conſtant entercourſe may bee maintained. Thus it was with David, Pſal. 27.4. and with Paul, 2 Cor. 12.8, 9. In this caſe wee muſt reſolve to give God no reſt, never to ſtand before him, but ply this Petition: and yet take heed of preſcribing to him, of limiting the holy one of Iſrael: ſay with Luther, Fiat voluntas mea: Let my will be done: but then he ſweetly falls off, with Mea voluntas, Domine, quia tua. My will Lord, but becauſe it is, and no further than it is thy will too.

Verſ. 8. Remove farre from me vanity and lyes] i. e. All ſorts of ſins, thoſe lying vanities that promiſe much happineſs to thoſe that purſue them, but perform little enough: ſhame at the beſt, but uſually death, Rom. 6.21, 23. Free me both from the damning, and from the domineering power of ſin, both from the ſting and ſtaine of it, from the guilt and filth, from the crime and curſe, from the power and puniſhment. Let my perſon be juſtified, and my luſts mortified. Forgive me my treſpaſſes, and deliver me from evil.

Give me neither Poverty nor Riches] So that God muſt give to be poor as well as to be rich. He makes holes in the Money-bag, Hag. 1.6. and hee ſtops the ſecret iſſues and drains of expence, at which mens eſtates run out, they know not how nor when. Agur would have neither Poverty (for the many inconveniences and diſcomforts that attend it) nor yet riches, (for the many cares, cumbers, and other evils not a few that follow them) but a mediocrity, a competency, a ſufficiency without ſuperfluity. A ſtate too big (hee knew) is troubleſome, as well as a ſhooe too bigge for the foot. They ſay, it is not the great Cage that makes the Bird ſing: ſure we are, it is not the great eſtate that brings alwayes the inward joy, the cordial contentment. Glaſs keeps out wind and rain, but lets in the light, and is therefore uſeful in building. A moderate eſtate is neither ſo mean, as to expoſe a man to the injuries, nor ſo great, as to exclude a man from the influence of heaven. A ſtaff may help a Traveller, but a bundle of ſta[illegible: 1 letter]es may be a burden to him: ſo may too great an eſtate to a godly man.

Feed me with food convenient for me] Heb. with food of mine allowance, or which thou ſeeſt fit to allow me: ſo much as my demenſum comes to, the piece that thou haſt cut for me, the portion that belongs unto me, the bread of the day for the day; Give me daily bread, that I may in diem vivere, as Quintilian ſaith the Birds doe, the little Birds, that have their meat brought in every day by their Dams without defeatment. And hereunto the original here ſeems to allude. Pomponius Atticus thus defineth riches, Divitiae ſunt, ad legem naturae compoſita paupertas. Riches are ſuch a Poverty or Mediocrity, as hath enough for Natures uſes. If I may have but offam & aquam, a morſel of meat, a mouthful of water, and convenient cloathing, I ſhall not envie the richeſt Craeſus or Craſſus upon earth. See the notes on Matth. 6.11. and 1 Tim. 6.8.

Verſ. 9. Leſt I be full and deny thee, &c.] Fulneſs breeds forgetfulneſs, ſaturity ſecurity, Deut. 32.15. See the note there, and 1 Tim. 6.17. with the note; Every grain of riches hath a vermin of pride and ambition in it. A man may deſire them, as one deſires a ſhip to paſſe over the Sea, from one Country to another. But to many they prove hinderances to Heaven, remora's to religious practices. Many in their low eſtate could ſerve God, but now reſemble the Moon, which never ſuffers eclipſe but at her full; and that is by the earths interpoſition between the Sun and her ſelf. Even an Agur full fed may grow wanton, and bee dipping his fingers in the Devils ſauce: yea ſo farre may he forget himſelf, as to deny the Lord (or as the Hebrew hath it, belye him) diſgrace his houſe-keeping, and caſt a ſlur upon his work and wages by his ſhameful apoſtacy; yea (as Pharaoh-like) to ask, who is the Lord? as if ſuch were petty-gods within themſelves, and could by the help of their Mammon doe well enough without him. Salomons wealth did him more hurt than his wiſdome did him good, Eccleſ. 2. It was his abundance that drew out his ſpirits, and diſſolved him, and brought him to ſo low an ebbe in grace.

Or, leſt I be poor and ſteal] Neceſſity is an hard weapon; wee uſe to ſay, Hunger is an evil Counſellour; Neceſſitas durum telum. Fames maleſuada, audax paupertas. and Poverty is bold or daring, as Horace calls it. The baſer ſort of people in Swethland doe alwayes break the Sabbath, ſaying, that it is only for Gentlemen to keep that day. And the poorer ſort amongſt us (ſome of them I mean that have learned no better) hold theft in them, Petrilarceny at leaſt, a peccadillo, an excuſable evil; for either we muſt ſteal, ſay they, or ſtarve: the belly hath no ears, our poor children muſt not pine and periſh, &c. And truly men doe not deſpiſe (i. e. not ſo much deſpiſe) a Thief, if he ſteal to ſatisfie his ſoul when he is hungry, ſaith Salomon (Prov. 6.30.) in his argument that an Adulterer is worſe than a Thief: though a Thief be bad enough, ſhut out of Heaven, 1 Cor. 6.9. But if he ſteal for neceſſity ([non-Latin text not transcribed], ſaith the Greek Proverb, there is no remedy but a barking ſtomack muſt be quieted) men doe the more excuſe him,Job 36.21. à tanto, though not à toto. But God ſaith flat and plain, Thou ſhalt in no caſe ſteal. Let him that ſtole ſteal no more, but let him labour with his hands, and depend upon Gods Providence: let him preferre affliction before ſin, and rather dye than doe wickedly. But want is a ſore temptation, as Agur feared, and that good man felt, mentioned by Maſter Perkins, who being ready to ſtarve, ſtole a Lamb: and being about to eat of it with his poor Children, and (as his manner was afore-meat) to crave a bleſſing, durſt not doe it: but fell into a great perplexity of conſcience, acknowledged his fault to the Owner, and promiſed reſtitution; if ever able to make it.

And take the name of my God in vain] Hee ſaith not, leſt I being poor, ſteal and be fined, burnt in the hand, whipped, &c. No; but leſt I take thy name in vain; that is, cauſe thy name to ſtink among the ungodly, open their mouths, break down the banks of blaſphemy, by ſuch a baſe ſin committed by ſuch a forward Profeſſor. Good men take Gods Name in vain, no way ſo much, as by confuting and ſhaming their Profeſſion, by a ſcandalous converſation, ſuch as becometh not the Goſpel of Chriſt; Moreover, they count ſin to bee the greateſt ſmart in ſin; as being more ſenſible of the wound they therein give the glory of God, than of any perſonal puniſhment.

Verſ. 10. Accu[illegible: 1 letter]e not a ſervant unto his Maſter] Unleſs it be in an Ordinance, for the benefit of both. Much leſſe may we falſly accuſe Wives to their Huſbands (as Stephen Gardiner and other Court-paraſites did King Henry the eighth his Wives to him, of Adultery, Hereſie, Conſpiracy, &c.) Children to their Parents (as the Jeſuits, the Popes Bloud-hounds did Charls, eldeſt Son of Philip King of Spain, for ſuſpicion of Hereſie: whereupon he was murdered by the cruel Inquiſition) one friend to another, a ſin that David could not endure, Pſal. 101. and Chriſt the Son of David as deeply diſliked it in the Phariſees, thoſe make-bates, that by accuſing his Diſciples to him one while, and him to his Diſciples another while, ſought to make a breach in his Family, by ſetting off the one from the other.

Leſt he curſe thee, and thou be found guilty] Leſt to cry quittance with thee, he rip up thy faults, ſuch as it will be for thy ſhame, Et dici potuiſſe, & non potuiſſe r[illegible: 1 letter]f[illegible: 1 letter]lli.

He that ſpeaketh what he ſhould not, ſhall hear of what he would not. Put them in mind to ſpeak evil of no man, falſly and raſhly, without cauſe and neceſſity. And why? For we our ſelves alſo (even I, Paul, and thou Titus) were ſometimes fooliſh, diſobedient, &c. Tit. 3.1, 2, 3. and may haply hear of it to our ſhame and ſorrow, (if wee irritate others thereunto) by way of recrimination.

Verſ. 11. There is a generation that curſeth their father] An evil and an adulterous generation doubtleſs, a baſtardly brood, as were thoſe in the Goſpel: [non-Latin text not transcribed]. Mat. 12. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. Mat. 3. a generation of Vipers that make their way into the world by their Dammes death. Theſe monſters of men are doomed to deſtruction, Levit. 20. Hell gapes for them, as alſo it doth for ſuch as revile or denigrate their Maſters, Magiſtrates, Miniſters, Benefactours, Ancients. There is a certain Plant which our Herbaliſts call Herbam impiam, or wicked endweed, whoſe younger branches ſtill yeeld flowers to over-top the elder. Such weeds grow too rife abroad: It is an ill ſoyl that produceth them. But of this, before.

Verſ. 12. There are a generation that are pure, &c.] As the ancient Puritans the Novatians, Donatiſts, Cathariſts, Illuminates. Non habeo Domine cui ignoſcas, ſaid one Juſtitiary, I have done nothing Lord that needs thy pardon. Yee are thoſe that juſtifie your ſelves, ſaith Chriſt to the Phariſees. All theſe things have I done from my youth, what want I yet? ſaid one of them, that farre over-weened his own worth, and ra[illegible: 1 letter]ed himſelf above the market. In all my labours they ſhall finde none iniquity in me: (ſaith guilty Ephraim) that were ſin, Hoſ. 12.8. that were a foul buſineſſe to find iniquity in Ephraim, whoſe iniquities were (yet) grown over his head, as appears throughout that whole Prophecy. That Man of Sin the Pope, will needs be held ſinleſs, and ſundry of his Votaries ſay, they can ſupererrogate. And are there not amongſt us even amongſt us, ſuch Sinners before the Lord, that ſtand upon their Pantofles, and proudly ask, who can ſay, black is their eye? There is a generation of theſe, that is, a continual ſucceſſion of them. Such duſt-heaps you may finde in every corner.

And yet is not waſhed from their filthineſſe] Either of fleſh or ſpirit; 2 Cor. 7.1. they wallow in ſin like Swine, and welter in wickedneſſe, which is filth and bloud, Iſa. 4.4. the vomit of a Dog, 2 Pet. 2.22. the excrement of the Devil, the ſuperfluity or garbage of naughtineſſe, and the ſtinking filth of a peſtilent Ulcer, as the Greek words uſed by St. James, chap. 1.21. doe ſignifie. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. The whole world lyeth in wickedneſſe, 1 Joh. 5.19. as a Lubber in a Lake, as a Carcaſe in its ſlime. Nil mundum in mundo: and yet who ſo forward to boaſt or their good hearts to God-ward?

Verſ. 13. Oh how lofty are their eyes] The eyes are the ſeat of pride and diſdain, which peep out at theſe windows. The Hebrews have a ſaying, that a mans minde is ſooneſt ſeen in oculis, in loculis, in piculis, in his eyes, expences, cups. See chap. 6.17.

Verſ 14. There is a generation whoſe teeth, &c.] Theſe are ſycophants, and greedy gripers,Speed. of whom before, often, in this book. In the year 1235. there were ſpread through England certain Roman uſurers, called Caurſin[illegible: 1 letter] quaſi capientes urſi, devouring bears (quoth Paris) who had intangled the King, Nobles, and all that had to do with them. Theſe were called the Popes Merchants.

Sanguiſuga. Hirudo ab haerendo. Non miſſura cutem niſi plena cruoris hirudo. [non-Latin text not transcribed].Verſ. 15. The Horſe-leech hath two daughters] That is, two forks in her tongue, whereby ſhe firſt pricketh the fleſh, and then ſucketh the blood. Hereunto Salomon ſeemeth to reſemble thoſe cruel cormorants ſpoken of in the former verſe. By the horſe-leech ſome underſtand the devil, that great red Dragon, red with the blood of ſouls, which he hath ſucked and ſwallowed, 1 Pet. 5.8. (ſeeking whom he may let down his wide gullet, whiles he glut-gluts their blood, as the young Eaglets are ſaid to do (Joh. 39.30.) by a word made from the ſound.) By the horſe-leeches two daughters they underſtand, Covetouſneſs and Luxury: whom the devil hath long ſince eſpouſed to the Romiſh Clergy.Jegna legundum.

Cujus avaritiae totus non ſufficit orbis, Cujus luxuriae meretrix non ſufficit omnis.

Verſ. 16. The grave] Which in Hebrew hath its name of craving. It is a Sarcophagus, feeds on fleſh, and it as little appears as once in Pharaohs lean kine; or as in thoſe that having a flux, take in much, but are neither fuller nor fatter. The word here uſed, may be rendered Hell, called by the Latins, Infernus ab Inferendo, from the devils continual carrying in ſouls to that place of torment.

And the barren womb] Barren women are moſt deſirous of children, which yet are certain cares, but uncertain comforts. How impatient was Rachel? how importunate was Hannah? One hath well obſerved, that the barren women in Scripture had the beſt children, as being the fruit of their faith, and the product of their prayers. The Vulgar renders it, Os vulva, and Mercer Orificium matricis, referring it not to barren, but to incontinent women; ſuch as was Meſſala, and other inſariate punks, quarum libido non expletur virili ſemine vel coitu.

The earth that is not filled with water] That can never have enough at one time, to ſerve at all times. That is a ſtrange earth or country that Pliny ſpeaks of, ub ſiccit as dat lutum, imbres pulverem, where drought makes dirt, and rain cauſeth duſt. And yet ſo it is with us (ſaith a Divine.) The plentiful ſhowers of Gods bleſſings rained down upon us, are anſwered with the duſty barrenneſs of our lives. The ſweet dews of Hermon have made the hill of Sion more barren. Oh I how inexcuſable ſhall we be? &c.

And the fire that ſaith not, It is enough] Fire is known to be a great devourer, turning all combuſtibles into the ſame nature with it ſelf. How many ſtately Cities hath this untamable element turned into aſhes? It is an excellent obſervation of Herodotus, that the ſparks and cinders of Troy are purpoſely ſet before the eyes of all men, that they might be an example of this Rule; That great ſinnes bring great puniſhments from God upon the ſonnes of men. Scipio having ſet Carthage on fire, [non-Latin text not transcribed] and beholding the burning, foreſaw and bewailed the deſtiny of Rome: which as it hath been often burnt already, ſo it ſhall be ſhortly to purpoſe: the Kings, mariners, and merchants, ſtanding aloof and beholding the ſmoke of her burning, Rev. 17.16. and 18.8, 9. God will caſt this rod of his wrath into the fire, burn this old whore, that hath ſo long burnt the Saints for Hereticks, and refuſed to be purged by any other nitre or means whatſoever: therefore all her droſs and traſh ſhall paſs the fire. This is ſo plain a truth, that even the Papiſts themſelves ſubſcribe to it. Hear what Ribera a learned Jeſuite ſaith,Ri[illegible: 1 letter] in loc. Roma[illegible: 1 letter] non ſolum o[illegible: 1 letter] priſtinam impietatem, &c. That Rome as well for its ancient impiety, as for its late iniquity, ſhall be deſtroyed with an horrible fire, it is ſo plain and evident, that he muſt needs be a fool that doth but go about to deny it.

Verſ. 17. The eye that mocketh at his Father] As Ham did at Noah. And deſpiſeth to obey his mother, or, despiſeth the wrinkles of his mother, as ſome read it, that looks upon her with diſdain, as an old withered fool.

The Ravens of the valley ſhall pick it out] God takes notice of the offending member, and appoints puniſhments for it:Horat. paſcere in cruce corvo[illegible: 1 letter] pro ſuspendi poſſuit. Ep 7. [non-Latin text not transcribed] By the Law ſuch a childe was to be put to death, and here is ſet down what kind of death, hanging upon a tree, which the Greeks alſo call a being caſt to the crows or ravens. Thus the Scripture is both Text and gloſs: one place opens another; the Prophets explain the Law, they unfold and draw out that Arras that was folded together before. The ravens of the valleys or brooks are ſaid to be moſt ravenous;Corvi fluviatiles. and the young Eagles or Vultures ſmell out carcaſes, and the firſt thing they do to them, is to pick out their eyes. Effoſſos oculos voret atro guiture corvus. Will[illegible: 1 letter]t on Levis. They are curſed with a witneſs whom the holy Ghoſt thus curſeth in ſuch emphatical manner, in ſuch exquiſite terms. Let wicked children look to it, and know, that Vultu ſaepe laeditur pietas, as the very Heathens obſerved: that a proud or paltry look caſt upon a parent, is a breach of piety puniſhable with death, yea with a ſhameful and ignominious death. Let them alſo think of thoſe infernal ravens and vultures, &c.

Verſ. 18. There be three things which are too wonderful] The wiſeſt man that is, cannot give a reaſon of all things: as of the ebbing and flowing of the ſea, of the colours in the rain-bow, of the ſtrength of the nether chappe, and of the heat in the ſtomack, which conſumeth all other things, and yet not the parts about it. Agur here confeſſeth himſelf gravelled in four things at leaſt, and benighted.

Verſ. 19. And the way of a man with a maid] That is, either with a cloſe and chaſt virgin, that is kept cloſe from the acceſs of ſtrangers, and goes covered with a veyl; or elſe with a maid, that though defloured, yet would paſs for a pure virgin, and is ſo taken to be till her lewdneſs is diſcovered. It is expreſly noted of Rebecca to her commendation, that though fair to look upon, yet ſhee was a virgin, neither had any man known her, Gen. 24.16. there are that paſs for virgins, and yet it cannot be ſaid of them, that man never knew them.

The ſaurum cum virgo tuum vas fictile ſervet, Ʋt fugias quae ſunt noxia, tuta time.

Verſ. 20. So is the way of an adulterous woman] The ſtrumpet when ſhe hath eaten ſtolen bread, hath ſuch dexterity in wiping her lips, that not the leaſt crumme ſhall ſtick to them, for diſcovery. So that Agur here ſhews it to be as hard to find it out, as the way of an Eagle in the air, the way of a ſerpent on a rock, &c. Unleſs taken in the manner, ſhe ſtoutly denyes the action. And if ſo taken, yet —nihil eſt audacins illis,Juvenal Saty[illegible: 1 letter]. 6. Deprenſis, iram atque animos a crimine ſumunt.

Verſ. 21. For three things the earth is diſquieted] Such trouble-towns are odious creatures, the places where they live, long for a vomit to ſp[illegible: 1 letter]e them out. As they live wickedly, ſo they dye wiſhedly, there is a good worlds-riddance of them, as there was of Nabai, and of thoſe in Job 27.23. with 15. who were buried before half-dead; being hiſſed and kickt off the ſtage of the world, as Phocas was by Heraclius.

And for four which it cannot bear] The very axle-tree of the world is even ready to crack under them, the earth to open and ſwallow them up.

Verſ. 22. For a ſervant when he reigneth] As Jeroboam, Saul, Zimri, Herod, Heliogabalus, Phocas. See the Note on chap. 19.10. Veſpaſian only of all the Emperours, is ſaid to have been better for his advancement.

For a fool when he is filled with meat] When his belly is filled with Gods hid treaſure, Pſal 17.14. when he proſpers and hath what he will. Proſperity is hard meat to fools,Luxuriant animi rebus plerunque ſecundis. Ovid. they cannot digeſt it. They grow giddy (as weak heads doe after a cup of generous wine) and lay about them like mad-men: the folly of theſe rich fools, is fooliſhneſſe with a witneſſe, Prov. 14.24. See the Note there.

1 Sam. 1.6.Verſ. 23. For an odious woman when ſhe is married] Such an one was Peninnah, who vexed good Hannah, to make her to thunder, as the Original hath it. Such was Jeſabel, Herodias, Meſſalina Wife to the Emperour Claudius, who was her Agent to effect her ſinful purpoſes, and her Patient to ſuſtain her lewd conditions.Dio in Claudio. She compelled alſo other Roman Ladies to bee as lewd as her ſelf, and thoſe that would not, ſhe hated, and baniſhed them from the Court

And an hand-maid that is heir to her miſtris] That ſucceeds her in the Marriage-bed: her good and her bloud will riſe together, as we ſee in Hagar. Hence that counſel of the Greek Poet: [non-Latin text not transcribed]. Never make thy Maid thy Miſtreſſe.

Such Hens will bee apt to crow, ſuch Wives to breed diſturbance in the Family.

Verſ. 24. There be four things] made up thus in quaternions (as the 119. Pſalm is in octonaries, and thoſe in an Alphabetical order) for help of memory.

Which are little upon the earth, but exceeding wiſe] God is maximus in minimis, very much ſeen in the ſmalleſt Creatures. In formicis major anima quàm in Elephantis, in nanis quàm in gigantibus. The ſoul is more active in Ants than Elephants, in Dwarfes than in Giants. Who hath deſpiſed the day of ſmall things? Zech. 4.10.

Ovid.A can[illegible: 1 letter] non magno ſaepè tenetur aper.

The Creatures, next to the Scriptures, are the beſt Lay-mans-Books; whereby we may learn to know God and our ſelves ſavingly. Ask now the beaſts, and they ſhall teach thee; and the Fowls of the Heaven, and they ſhall tell thee, Job 12.1.

Verſ. 25. The Ants are a people not ſtrong] A feeble folk, but notable for their fore-caſt. See chap. 6.6, 7. Let us be ſo, but ſpecially in Spirituals.

Verſ. 26. The Conies are but a feeble folk] But what they want in ſtrength, they have in wiſdome, whiles they work themſelves holes and burroughs in the earth,Martial. Gaudet in effoſſis habitare cuniculus antris, ſecures her ſelf in the rocks and ſtony places; It ſhall bee our wiſdome to work our ſelves into the rock Chriſt Jeſus, where we ſhall be ſafe from helliſh hunters.

Verſ. 27. The Locuſts have no King] They are all belly, which is joyned to their mouthes, and endeth at their tayls: hence they make ſuch havock where they come in thoſe Eaſtern-countries. See Joel 2. where they are called Gods great army. For though they have no King to command them, yet they goe forth by bands, and march all in a company, to teach men concord and combination in lawful affairs and attempts. For, Conjuncti pollent etiam vehementer inertes.

Thoſe Locuſts in the Revelation (whereby is meant the Popiſh Clergie) have their King Ahaddon, the Pope, Revel. 9.11. to whom they appeal from their lawful Soveraign; yea the rebellion of a Clergie-man againſt his Prince, is not treaſon ſaith Sa the Jeſuite, quia non eſt Principi ſubjectus, becauſe he is the Popes ſubject. And when the Engliſh Clergie whipped King Henry the ſecond for a Penance for Beckets death, one of the Popes Legats ſaid unto him, Domine, noli minari, &c. Sir, never threaten us,Jacob. Revin. de vit. Pontif. for wee fear no menaces of men, as being of ſuch a Court as uſeth to command Kings and Emperours.

Verſ. 28. The Spider taketh hold with her hands] Some render it the Ape: and the Hebrew Semamith is ſomewhat like the Latine Simia, a Creature that is very witty, active, and imitative, taking hold with his hands (ſuch as they are) and doing ſtrange feats; being therefore much in Kings Palaces, who delight to look upon them, as Salomon did for recreation. If wee take it for the Spider, ſhe doth her work painfully and curiouſly, ſpins a finer thread than any woman can doe, builds a finer houſe than any man can doe, in manner and form like to the tent of an Emperour. This baſe Creature may teach us this wiſdome, ſaith one, not to be bunglers or ſlubberers in our works, but to bee exact in our Trades, and labour ſo to excel therein, that our doings may bee commendable and admirable.

Verſ. 29. There be three things that goe well] And all for our learning, to teach us in our ſeveral ſtations to deport our ſelves in all gravity, maintain our dignity, and ſhew our magnanimity. Only let your converſation bee as becometh the Goſpel of Chriſt, ſaith Paul, Phil. 1.27. There is a [non-Latin text not transcribed], a comlineſſe and ſuitableneſſe of carriage belongs to every calling, and this muſt be carefully kept. Vellem ſi non eſſem Imperator, ſaid Scipio to one that offered him an Harlot, I would, if I were not a General. And remember that thou art a Kings Son, ſaid Menedemus to Antigonus: that will be a retentive to thee from unſeemly practices. Should ſuch a man as I fly? Neh. 6.11. — & Turnum fugientem haec terra videbit? It is a puſilanimity to yeeld ſo much to men: The Lion will not alter his gate, though he dye for it. We ſhould learn regnum in pectore gerere, to be of noble reſolutions. It is a common ſaying amongſt us, Such a man underſtands himſelf well, that is, hee underſtands his place, worth, dignity, and carries himſelf accordingly.

Verſ. 32. Lay thy hand upon thy mouth] That is, better bethink thy ſelf, commune with thine own heart, and be ſtill. Repent thee, as Job did in like caſe, chap. 39.37, 38. Quem paenitet peccaſſe, penè eſt innocens. Senec. Agram. It is not the falling into the water that drowns one, but the lying in it.

Verſ. 33. So the forcing of wrath] Too much ſtirring in an offenſive matter bringeth forth brawling, lawing, warring, fighting. Patientia laeſa fit furor. The moſt patient that is may bee put beyond all patience if much provoked. Abner bare long with Aſahel, but ſped him at length. Abuſed mercy turns into fury. See Prov. 15.1.