Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 30:7 - 30:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 שָֽׁוְא receives, if Legarmeh, always Mehuppach Legarmeh, while, on the contrary, the poly-syllable אֶשְׂבַּע has Asla Legarmeh. אַל־תִּֽתֵּן־לִי, 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 אַֽל־תִּתֵּן לִי (vid., Baer's Genesis, p. 79, note 3). Also פֶּֽן־אֶשְׂבַּע has (cf. פֶּֽן־יִשְׁתֶּה, Pro 31:5) Makkeph, and on the antepenultima Gaja (vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 32). The perf. consec. וְכִֽחַשְׁתִּי 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 וְאָֽמַרְתִּי 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 וְגָנַבְתִּי וְתָפַשְׂתִּי as toned on the penult. That וְגָנַבְתִּי 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:
אַחַת שָׁאַלְתִּי מֵאִתָּךְ
וּשְׁתַּיִם אַל־תִּמְנַע מִמֶּנִּי בְּטֶרֶם אָמוּת
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. שָֽׁוְא (= שָׁוֶא, from שׁוֹא = שָׁאָה, to be waste, after the form מָוֶת) 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 דְבַר־כָּזָב [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 (רֵאשׁ, vid., Pro 10:4) nor riches, but grant him for his sustenance only the bread of the portion destined for him. The Hiph. הִטְרִיף (from טָרַף, to grind, viz., the bread with the teeth) means to give
(Note: The Venet. translates, according to Villoison, θέρψον με; but the MS has, according to Gebhardt, θρέψον.)
anything, as טֶרֶף, with which, 31:15, נָתַן חֹק is parallel: to present a fixed piece, a definite portion of sustenance. חֹק, Gen 47:22, the portion assigned as nourishment; cf. Job 23:14 חֻקִּי, the decree determined regarding me. Accordingly, חֻקִּי לֶחֶם 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 'כִּחֵשׁ בְּה signifies, in the later Heb. כָּפַר בְּעִקָּר, 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, מִי יהוח, the lxx improperly change into מִי יראה, τίς με ὁρᾶ. Regarding נוֹרַשׁ, to grow poor, or rather, since only the fut. Niph. occurs in this sense, regarding יִוָּרֵשׁ, 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 (קַלֵּל) 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: