Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 5:15 - 5:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The commendation of true conjugal love in the form of an invitation to a participation in it, is now presented along with the warning against non-conjugal intercourse, heightened by a reference to its evil consequences.
15 Drink water from thine own cistern,
And flowing streams from thine own fountain.
16 Shall thy streams flow abroad,
The water-brooks in the streets!
17 Let them belong to thyself alone,
And not to strangers with thee.
One drinks water to quench his thirst; here drinking is a figure of the satisfaction of conjugal love, of which Paul says, 1Co 7:9, κρεῖσσόν ἐστι γαμῆσαι ἢ πυροῦσθαι, and this comes into view here, in conformity with the prevailing character of the O.T., only as a created inborn natural impulse, without reference to the poisoning of it by sin, which also within the sphere of married life makes government, moderation, and restraint a duty. Warning against this degeneracy of the natural impulse to the πάθος ἐπιθυμίας authorized within divinely prescribed limits, the apostle calls the wife of any one τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος (cf. 1Pe 3:7). So here the wife, who is his by covenant (Pro 2:17), is called “cistern” (בוֹר)
(Note: The lxx translate ἀπὸ σῶν ἀγγείων, i.e., מִכְּוָרֶיךָ (vid., Lagarde).)
and “fountain” (בְּאֵר) of the husband to whom she is married. The figure corresponds to the sexual nature of the wife, the expression for which is נְקֵבָה; but Isa 51:1 holds to the natural side of the figure, for according to it the wife is a pit, and the children are brought out of it into the light of day. Aben-Ezra on Lev 11:36 rightly distinguishes between בור and באר: the former catches the rain, the latter wells out from within. In the former, as Rashi in Erubin ii. 4 remarks, there are מים מכונסים, in the latter חיים מים. The post-biblical Hebrew observes this distinction less closely (vid., Kimchi's Book of Roots), but the biblical throughout; so far the Kerı̂, Jer 6:7, rightly changes בור into the form בַּיִר, corresponding to the Arab. byar. Therefore בור is the cistern, for the making of which חָצַב, Jer 2:13, and באר the well, for the formation of which חפר, Gen 21:30, and כרה, Gen 26:25, are the respective words usually employed (vid., Malbim, Sifra 117b). The poet shows that he also is aware of this distinction, for he calls the water which one drinks from the בור by the name מים, but on the other hand that out of the באר by the name נוֹזְלִים, running waters, fluenta; by this we are at once reminded of Son 4:15, cf. 12. The בור offers only stagnant water (according to the Sohar, the בור has no water of its own, but only that which is received into it), although coming down into it from above; but the באר has living water, which wells up out of its interior (מִתּוֹךְ, 15b, intentionally for the mere מן), and is fresh as the streams from Lebanon (נָזַל, properly labi, to run down, cf. אָזַל, placide ire, and generally ire; Arab. zâl, loco cedere, desinere; Arab. zll, IV, to cause to glide back, deglutire, of the gourmand). What a valuable possession a well of water is for nomads the history of the patriarchs makes evident, and a cistern is one of the most valuable possessions belonging to every well-furnished house. The figure of the cistern is here surpassed by that of the fountain, but both refer to the seeking and finding satisfaction (cf. the opposite passage, Pro 23:27) with the wife, and that, as the expressive possessive suffixes denote, with his legitimate wife.
Pro 5:16
Here we meet with two other synonyms standing in a similar relation of progression. As עַיִן denotes the fountain as to its point of outflow, so מַעְיָן (n. loci) means water flowing above on the surface, which in its course increases and divides itself into several courses; such a brook is called, with reference to the water dividing itself from the point of outflow, or to the way in which it divides, פֶּלֶג (from פָּלַג, Job 38:25), Arab. falaj (as also the Ethiop.) or falj, which is explained by nahar ṣaghayr (Fl.).
(Note: The latter idea (vid., under Psa 1:3) lies nearer, after Job 38:25 : the brook as dividing channels for itself, or as divided into such; falj (falaj) signifies, according to the representation Isa 58:8, also like fajr, the morning-light (as breaking forth from a cleft).)
We cannot in this double figure think of any reference to the generative power in the sperma; similar figures are the waters of Judah, Isa 48:1, and the waters of Israel flowing forth as if from a bucket, Num 24:7, where זרעו is the parallel word to מים, cf. also the proper name מוֹאָב (from מוֹ = מוֹי from מָוָה, diffluere), aqua h.e. semen patris, and שָׁגַל, Deu 28:30, = Arab. sajal (whence sajl = דְּלִי, situla), which is set aside by the Kerı̂. Many interpreters have by חוּצָה and בָּֽרְחֹבוֹת been here led into the error of pressing into the text the exhortation not to waste the creative power in sinful lust. The lxx translates יָפֻצוּ by ὑπερεκχείσθω; but Origen, and also Clemens Alexandrinus, used the phrase μὴ ὑπερεκχείσθω, which is found in the Complut., Ald., and several codd., and is regarded by Lagarde, as also Cappellus, as original: the three Göttingen theologians (Ewald, Bertheau, and Elster) accordingly make the emendation אַל־יָפֻצוּ. But that μή of the lxx was not added till a later period; the original expression, which the Syro-Hexapl. authorizes, was ὑπερεκχείσθω without μή, as also in the version of Aquila, διασκορπιζέσθωσαν without μή (vid., Field). The Hebrew text also does not need אל. Clericus, and recently Hitzig, Zöckler, Kamphausen, avoid this remedy, for they understand this verse interrogatively - an expedient which is for the most part and also here unavailing; for why should not the author have written אִם יפצו? Schultens rightly remarks: nec negationi nec interrogationi ullus hic locus, for (with Fleischer and von Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. 2, 402) he regards Pro 5:16 as a conclusion: tunc exundabunt; so that he strengthens the summons of Pro 5:15 by the promise of numerous descendants from unviolated marriage. But to be so understood, the author ought to have written וְיפצו. So, according to the text, יפצו as jussive continues the imper. שְׁתֵה (15a), and the full meaning according to the connection is this: that within the marriage relation the generative power shall act freely and unrestrained. חוּץ and רְחֹבוֹת denote (Pro 1:20) the space free from houses, and the ways and places which lead towards and stretch between them; חוּץ (from חוּץ, Arab. khass, to split, seorsim ponere) is a very relative conception, according as one thinks of that which is without as the contrast of the house, the city, or the country. Here חוץ is the contrast of the person, and thus that which is anywhere without it, whereto the exercise of its manly power shall extend. The two figurative expressions are the description of the libero flumine, and the contrast, that restriction of self which the marriage relation, according to 1Co 7:3-5, condemns.
Pro 5:17
That such matters as there are thought of, is manifest from this verse. As זרע comprehends with the cause (sperma) the effect (posterity), so, in Pro 5:16, with the effusio roboris virilis is connected the idea of the beginnings of life. For the subjects of Pro 5:17 are the effusiones seminis named in Pro 5:16. These in their effects (Pro 5:17) may belong to thee alone, viz., to thee alone (לְבַדְּךָ, properly in thy separateness) within thy married relation, not, as thou hast fellowship with other women, to different family circles, Aben-Ezra rightly regards as the subject, for he glosses thus: הפלגים שׁהם הבנים הבשׁרים, and Immanuel well explains יִהְיוּ־לְךָ by יתיחסו לך. The child born out of wedlock belongs not to the father alone, he knows not to whom it belongs; its father must for the sake of his honour deny it before the world. Thus, as Grotius remarks: ibi sere ubi prolem metas. In ואין the יהיו is continued. It is not thus used adverbially for לא, as in the old classic Arabic lyas for l' (Fl.), but it carries in it the force of a verb, so that יהיו, according to rule, in the sense of ולא היו = ולא יהיו, continues it.