Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Proverbs 9:4 - 9:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Now follows the street-sermon of Wisdom inviting to her banquet:
4 Who is simple? let him come hither!”
Whoso wanteth understanding, to him she saith:
5 “Come, eat of my bread,
And drink of the wine which I have mingled!
6 Cease, ye simple, and live,
And walk straight on in the way of understanding.”
The question מִי פֶּתִי (thus with Munach, not with Makkeph, it is to be written here and at Pro 9:16; vid., Baer's Torath Emeth, p. 40), quis est imperitus, is, as Psa 25:12, only a more animated expression for quisquis est. The retiring into the background of the נְעָרוֹת (servants), and the immediate appearance of Wisdom herself, together with the interruption, as was to be expected, of her connected discourses by the אָֽמְרָה לּוֹ, are signs that the pure execution of the allegorical representation is her at an end. Hitzig seeks, by the rejection of Pro 9:4, Pro 9:5, Pro 9:7-10, to bring in a logical sequence; but these interpolations which he cuts out are yet far more inconceivable than the proverbial discourses in the mouth of Wisdom, abandoning the figure of a banquet, which besides are wholly in the spirit of the author of this book. That Folly invites to her, Pro 9:16, in the same words as are used by Wisdom, Pro 9:4, is not strange; both address themselves to the simple (vid., on פְּתִי at Pro 1:4) and those devoid of understanding (as the youth, Pro 7:7), and seek to bring to their side those who are accessible to evil as to good, and do not dully distinguish between them, which the emulating devertat huc of both imports. The fourth verse points partly backwards, and partly forwards; 4a has its introduction in the תקרא of Pro 9:3; on the contrary, 4b is itself the introduction of what follows. The setting forth of the nom. absolutus חֲסַר־לֵב is conditioned by the form of 4a; the מִי (cf. 4a) is continued (in 4b) without its needing to be supplied: excors (= si quis est excors) dicit ei (not dixit, because syntactically subordinating itself to the תקרא). It is a nominal clause, whose virtual predicate (the devoid of understanding is thus and thus addressed by her) as in Pro 9:16.
Pro 9:5
The plur. of the address shows that the simple (inexperienced) and the devoid of understanding are regarded as essentially one and the same class of men. The בְּ after לָחַם and שָׁתָה proceeds neither from the idea of eating into (hewing into) anything, nor from the eating with anything, i.e., inasmuch as one makes use of it, nor of pampering oneself with anything (as רָאָה בְ); Michaelis at last makes a right decision (cf. Lev 22:11; Jdg 13:16; Job 21:25, and particularly לָחַם בְּ, Psa 141:4): communicationem et participationem in re fruenda denotat; the lxx φάγετε τῶν ἐμῶν ἄρτων. The attributive מָסַכְתִּי stands with backward reference briefly for מְסַכְתִּיו. That Wisdom, Pro 9:2, offers flesh and wine, but here presents bread and wine, is no contradiction, which would lead us, with Hitzig, critically to reject Pro 9:4 and Pro 9:5 as spurious; לֶחֶם is the most common, all-comprehensive name for nourishment. Bertheau suitably compares Jahve's invitation, Isa 55:1, and that of Jesus, Joh 6:35.
Pro 9:6
That פְתָאִים is a plur. with abstract signification (according to which the four Greek and the two Aramaean translations render it; the Graec. Venet., however, renders τοὺς νηπίους) is improbable; the author forms the abstr. Pro 9:13 otherwise, and the expression here would be doubtful. For פתאים is here to be rendered as the object-accus.: leave the simple, i.e., forsake this class of men (Ahron b. Joseph; Umbreit, Zöckler); or also, which we prefer (since it is always a singular thought that the “simple” should leave the “simple”), as the vocative, and so that עִזְבוּ means not absolutely “leave off” (Hitzig), but so that the object to be thought of is to be taken from פתאים: give up, leave off, viz., the simple (Immanuel and others; on the contrary, Rashi, Meîri, and others, as Ewald, Bertheau, decide in favour of פתאים as n. abstr.). Regarding וִֽחְיוּ, for et vivetis, vid., Pro 4:4. The lxx, paraphrasing: ἵνα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα βασιλεύσητε. אָשַׁר is related to אֲשׁוּר (אַשׁוּר) is דָּרַךְ to דֶּרֶךְ; the Piel, not in its intrans. (vid., Pro 4:14) but in its trans. sense (Isa 1:17; Isa 3:12, etc.), shows that the idea of going straight out and forwards connects itself therewith. The peculiarity of the פתי is just the absence of character.