Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 6:1 - 6:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The author warns against suretyship; or rather, he advises that if one has made himself surety, he should as quickly as possible withdraw from the snare.
1 My son, if thou hast become surety for thy neighbour,
Hast given thy hand for another:
2 Thou art entangled in the words of thy mouth,
Ensnared in the words of thy mouth.
3 Do this then, my son, and free thyself -
For thou hast come under the power of thy neighbour -
Go, instantly entreat and importune thy neighbour.
4 Give no sleep to thine eyes,
And no slumber to thine eyelids;
5 Tear thyself free like a gazelle from his hand,
And as a bird from the hand of the fowler.
The chief question here is, whether לְ after עָרַב introduces him for whom or with whom one becomes surety. Elsewhere ערב (R. רב, whence also אָרַב, nectere, to twist close and compact) with the accusative of the person means to become surety for any one, to represent him as a surety, Pro 11:15; Pro 20:16 (Pro 27:13), Gen 43:9; Gen 44:33 (as with the accusative of the matter, to pledge anything, to deposit it as a pledge, Jer 30:21; Neh 5:3, = שִׂים, Arab. waḍ'a, Job 17:3); and to become surety with any one is expressed, Gen 17:18, by ערב לִפְנֵי. The phrase ערב לְ is not elsewhere met with, and is thus questionable. If we look to Pro 6:3, the רֵעַ (רֵעֶה) mentioned there cannot possibly be the creditor with whom one has become surety, for so impetuous and urgent an application to him would be both purposeless and unbecoming. But if he is meant for whom one has become surety, then certainly לְרֵעֶךָ is also to be understood of the same person, and לְ is thus dat. commodi; similar to this is the Targumic עַרְבוּתָא עַל, suretyship for any one, Pro 17:18; Pro 22:26. But is the זָר, 1b, distinguished from רעך, the stranger with whom one has become surety? The parallels Pro 11:15; Pro 20:16, where זר denotes the person whom one represents, show that in both lines one and the same person is meant; זר is in the Proverbs equivalent to אַחֵר, each different from the person in the discourse, Pro 5:17; Pro 27:2 - thus, like רעך, denotes not the friend, but generally him to whom one stands in any kind of relation, even a very external one, in a word, the fellow-creatures or neighbours, Pro 24:28 (cf. the Arab. sahbk and ḳarynk, which are used as vaguely and superficially). It is further a question, whether we have to explain 1b: if thou hast given thine hand to another, or for another. Here also we are without evidence from the usage of the language; for the phrase תָּקַע כַּף, or merely תָּקַע, appears to be used of striking the hand in suretyship where it elsewhere occurs without any further addition, Pro 17:18; Pro 22:26; Pro 11:15; however, Job 17:3, נִתְקַע לְיַד appears the same: to strike into the hand of any one, i.e., to give to him the hand-stroke. From this passage Hitzig concludes that the surety gave the hand-stroke, without doubt in the presence of witnesses, first of all of the creditor, to the debtor, as a sign that he stood for him. But this idea is unnatural, and the “without doubt” melts into air. He on whose hand the stroke falls is always the person to whom one gives suretyship, and confirms it by the hand-stroke. Job also, l.c., means to say: who else but Thou, O Lord, could give to me a pledge, viz., of my innocence? If now the זר, v. 1b, is, as we have shown, not the creditor,
(Note: A translation by R. Joseph Joel of Fulda, 1787, whose autograph MS Baer possesses, renders the passage not badly thus: - “My son, if thou hast become surety for thy friend, and hast given the hand to another, then thou art bound by thy word, held by thy promise. Yet do what I say to thee, my son: Be at pains as soon as thou canst to get free, otherwise thou art in the power of thy friend; shun no trouble, be urgent with thy friend.”)
but the debtor, then is the ל the dat. commodi, as 1a, and the two lines perfectly correspond. תָּקַע properly means to drive, to strike with a resounding noise, cogn. with the Arab. wak'a, which may be regarded as its intrans. (Fl.); then particularly to strike the hand or with the hand. He to whom this hand-pledge is given for another remains here undesignated. A new question arises, whether in Pro 6:6, where נוֹקַשׁ (illaqueari) and נִלְכַּד (comprehendi) follow each other as Isa 8:15, cf. Jer 50:24, the hypothetical antecedent is continued or not. We agree with Schultens, Ziegler, and Fleischer against the continuance of the אִם. The repetition of the בְּאִמְרֵי פִיךָ (cf. Pro 2:14) serves rightly to strengthen the representation of the thought: thou, thou thyself and no other, hast then ensnared thyself in the net; but this strengthening of the expression would greatly lose in force by placing Pro 6:2 in the antecedent, while if Pro 6:2 is regarded as the conclusion, and thus as the principal proposition, it appears in its full strength.
Pro 6:3
The new commencement needs no particle denoting a conclusion; the אֵפוֹא, making the summons emphatic (cf. 2Ki 10:10, frequently in interrogative clauses), connects it closely enough. זֹאת, neut., refers to what follows. The ו before הִנָּצֵל is explanatory, as we say in familiar language: Be so good as tell me, or do me the favour to come with me; while no Frenchman would say, Faites-moi le (ce) plaisir et venez avec moi (Fl.).
(Note: For the right succession of the accents here (three serviles before the Pazer), vid., Torath Emeth, p. 30; Accentuationssystem, xii. §4. According to Gen-Naphtali, Mercha is to be given to the זֹאת.)
The clause כִּי בָאתָ
(Note: The Zinnorith before the Mahpach in these words represents at the same time the Makkeph and rejects the Zinnorith; vid., Torath Emeth, p. 16, and my Psalmencomm. Bd. ii. (1860), p. 460, note 2.)
is not to be translated: in case thou art fallen into the hand of thy neighbour; for this is represented (Pro 6:1, Pro 6:2) as having already in fact happened. On two sides the surety is no longer sui juris: the creditor has him in his hand; for if the debtor does not pay, he holds the surety, and in this way many an honourable man has lost house and goods, Sirach 29:18, cf. 8:13; - and the debtor has him, the surety, in his hand; for the performance which is due, for which the suretyship avails, depends on his conscientiousness. The latter is here meant: thou hast made thy freedom and thy possessions dependent on the will of thy neighbour for whom thou art the surety. The clause introduced with כִּי gives the reason for the call to set himself free (הִנָּצֵל from נצל, R. צל, של, to draw out or off); it is a parenthetical sentence. The meaning of הִתְרַפֵּס is certain. The verb רָפַס (רָפַשׂ, רְפַס) signifies to stamp on, calcare, conclucare; the Kamûs
(Note: el-Feyroozábádee's Kâmus, a native Arabic Lexicon; vid., Lane's Arab. Lex. Bk. i. pt. 1, p. xvii.)
explains rafas by rakad balarjal. The Hithpa. might, it is true, mean to conduct oneself in a trampling manner, to tread roughly, as הִתְנַבֵּא, and the medial Niph. נִבָּא, to conduct oneself speaking (in an impassioned manner); but Psa 68:31 and the analogy of הִתְבּוֹסֵס favour the meaning to throw oneself in a stamping manner, i.e., violently, to the ground, to trample upon oneself - i.e., let oneself be trampled upon, to place oneself in the attitude of most earnest humble prayer. Thus the Graec. Venet. πατήθητι, Rashi (“humble thyself like to the threshold which is trampled and trode upon”), Aben-Ezra, Immanuel (“humble thyself under the soles of his feet”); so Cocceius, J. H. Michaelis, and others: conculcandum te praebe. וּרְהַב is more controverted. The Talmudic-Midrash explanation (b. Joma, 87a; Bathra, 173b, and elsewhere): take with thee in great numbers thy friends (רְהַב = הַרְבֵּה), is discredited by this, that it has along with it the explanation of התרפס by (יד) פַּס חַתֵּר, solve palmam (manus), i.e., pay what thou canst. Also with the meaning to rule (Parchon, Immanuel), which רהב besides has not, nothing is to be done. The right meaning of רָהַב בְּ is to rush upon one boisterously, Isa 3:5. רָהַב means in general to be violently excited (Arab. rahiba, to be afraid), and thus to meet one, here with the accusative: assail impetuously thy neighbour (viz., that he fulfil his engagement). Accordingly, with a choice of words more or less suitable, the lxx translates by παρόξυνε, Symm., Theodotion by παρόρμησον, the Graec. Venet. by ἐνίσχυσον, the Syr. (which the Targumist copies) by גרג (solicita), and Kimchi glosses by: lay an arrest upon him with pacifying words. The Talmud explains רֵעֶיךָ as plur.;
(Note: There is here no distinction between the Kethîb and the Kerı̂. The Masora remarks, “This is the only passage in the Book of Proverbs where the word is written with Yod (י);” it thus recognises only the undisputed רעֶיך.)
but the plur., which was permissible in Pro 3:28, is here wholly inadmissible: it is thus the plena scriptio for רֵעֶךָ with the retaining of the third radical of the ground-form of the root-word (רָעַי = רָעָה), or with י as mater lectionis, to distinguish the pausal-form from that which is without the pause; cf. Pro 24:34. lxx, Syr., Jerome, etc., rightly translate it in the sing. The immediateness lying in לֵךְ (cf. ὕπαγε, Mat 5:24) is now expressed as a duty, Pro 6:4. One must not sleep and slumber (an expression quite like Psa 132:4), not give himself quietness and rest, till the other has released him from his bail by the performance of that for which he is surety. One must set himself free as a gazelle or as a bird, being caught, seeks to disentangle itself by calling forth all its strength and art.
Pro 6:5
The naked מִיָּד is not to be translated “immediately;” for in this sense the word is rabbinical, not biblical. The versions (with exception of Jerome and the Graec. Venet.) translate as if the word were מִפַּח [out of the snare]. Bertheau prefers this reading, and Böttcher holds חַיָּד [a hunter] to have fallen out after מיד. It is not a parallelism with reservation; for a bird-catcher is not at the same time a gazelle-hunter. The author, if he has so written, has conceived of מיד, as at 1Ki 20:42, as absolute, and connected it with הִנָּצֵל: tear thyself free like the gazelle from the hand into which thou hast fallen (Hitzig); according to which, the section should be accentuated thus: הנצל כצבי מיד. צְבִי, Aram. טְבִי, Arab. zaby, is the gazelle (Arab. ghazâl), so called from its elegance; צִפּוֹר, the bird, from its whistling (צפר, Arab. ṣafar, R. צף, cf. Arab. saffârat, the whistling of a bird), Arab. safar, whistler (with prosthesis, 'aṣafwar, warbler, Psalm. p. 794). The bird-catcher is called יָקוֹשׁ (from יָקֹשׁ, after the form יָכֹל, cog. קוֹשׁ, Isa 29:21, נָקַשׁ, R. קש), after the form בָּגוֹד (fem. בָּגוֹדָה), or יָקוּשׁ; one would think that the Kametz, after the form kâtwl (vid., under Isa 1:17), must here be fixed, but in Jer 5:26 the word is vocalized יְקוּשִׁים.