Bible Commentaries

Verses 1-33. - Part VII. FIRST APPENDIX TO THE SECOND COLLECTION, containing "the words of Agur." A short introduction, teaching that the Word of God is the source of wisdom (vers. 1-6), is followed by apothegms on different subjects (vers. 7-33). Cornelius a Lapide offers the following opinion concerning this appendix, which no one can hesitate to say is well founded, if he attempts to give it a spiritual interpretation, and to discern mysteries under the literal meaning: "Quarta haec pars elegantissima est et pulcherrima, aeque ac difficillima et obscurissima: priores enim tres partes continent Proverbia et Paraemias claras, ac antithesibus et similitudinibus perspicuas et illustres; haec vero continet aenigmata et gryphos insignes, sed arcanos et perdifficiles, turn ex phrasi quae involute est et aenigmatica, tum ex sensu et materia, quae sublimis est et profunda." Verse 1. - The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy. This seems to be the correct rendering of the passage, though it has been made to bear very different interpretations. It is plainly the tide of the treatise which follows Wire Agur and Jakeh were is utterly unknown. The Jewish interpreters considered that "Agur son of Jakeh" was an allegorical designation of Solomon - Agur meaning "Gatherer," or "Convener" (see Ecclesiastes 1:1; Ecclesiastes 12:11); Jakeh, "Obedient," or "Pious," which thus would indicate David. St. Jerome somewhat countenances the alle gorical interpretation by translating, Verba Congregantis, filii Vomentis, "The words of the Collector, son of the Utterer." But what follows could not apply to Solomon; he could not say, "I have not learned wisdom" (ver. 3), or ask blindly after the Creator (ver. 4). Many have endeavoured to find Agur's nationality in the word that follows, translated "the prophecy" (חַמַשָּׂא, hamassa). Massa "burden," is usually applied to a solemn prophetical speech or oracle, a Divine utterance (Isaiah 13:1; Isaiah 15:1, etc.), and as this designation was deemed inappropriate to the character of this appendix, it has been thought that allusion is here made to a land of Massa, so called after a son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:14), who dwelt in the country of Edom or Seir, and whose inhabitants were among those children of the East whose wisdom had become proverbial (1 Kings 4:30). Others find Massa in the Hauran, or on the north of the Persian Gulf. The Venetian Version gives, Λόγοι Ἀγούρου υἱέως Ἰακέως τοῦ Μασάου. But we have no satisfactory account of a country thus called, and its existence is quite problematical; therefore the ingenious explanations founded on the reality of this terra ignota need not be specified (see Introduction, pp. 21, etc.). Gratz has suggested that in place of hamassa should be read hammoshel, "the proverb writer;" but this is a mere conjecture, unsupported by any ancient authority. If, as seems necessary, we are compelled to resign the rendering, "of Masse," or "the Massan," we must fall back on the Authorized Version, and consider the term "oracle" as applied loosely and abnormally to these utterances of wisdom which follow. That they are not of the nature of Divine communications can be seen at once by consideration of their contents, which are mainly of human, and not of the highest type, and, though capable of spiritual interpretation, do not possess that uniqueness of purpose, that religious character and elevation of subject, which one expects in the enunciations of an inspired prophet. This view does not militate against their claim to be regarded as Holy Scripture; their place in the canon is secured by other considerations, and is not affected by our suspicion of the inappropriateness of the term applied to them; and, indeed, it may be that the very human element in these utterances is meant to be unsatisfying, and to lead one to look for the deep spiritual truths which underlie the secular surroundings. Agur is some poet or moralist, well known in Solomon's time, probably one of the wise men referred to in Proverbs 24:23 (see below). The rest of the paragraph is of greater obscurity than the former portion. The man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal. According to this rendering, the man is Agur, who is introduced as uttering what follows in ver. 2, etc., to Ithiel and Ucal, two of his sons, pupils, or companions. The name Ucal occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament; Ithiel is found once, in Nehemiah 11:7, as the name of a Benjamite. Wordsworth regards the names as symbolical of the moral character of those whom the author designs to address, explaining the former as equivalent to "God with me," and the latter as denoting "consumed" with zeal, or "strong," "perfect." It is as if the writer said, "You must have God with you; yea, you must have God with you, if you are to be strong. You must be Ithiels, if you are to be Ucals." He refers to 1 Corinthians 15:10; 2 Corinthians 3:5; Philippians 4:13. That the Masorites regarded these words as proper names is evident; אֻכָל, indeed, can have no other application. The Syriac takes this view of the words; to the same opinion lean, more or less, the Jewish translators Aquila and Theodotion, Aben Ezra, Vatablus, Pagninus, and others, and it is the simplest and easiest solution of the difficulties which have been seen in the clause. But many modern commentators have declared against it; e.g., Hitzig, Zockler, Detitzsch, Bottcher, Nowack. The repetition of Ithiel seems unmeaning; one sees no reason why it should be repeated more than Ucal. The second verse begins with כִּי, which, as Hebraists agree, cannot stand abruptly at the commencement of a discourse, but rather establishes something that has preceded. But if we take the words in dispute as proper names, no statement to be confirmed has been made. We are, then, constrained to take them in another sense. St. Jerome translates them, writing, Visio quam locutus est vir, cum quo est Deus, et qui Deo secum morante confortatus. The LXX. (which in troduces vers. 1-14 of this chapter after Proverbs 24:23) gives, "Those things saith the man to those who believe God, and I cease;" τοῖς πιστεύουσι Θεῷ being the translation of the doubled Ithiel, equivalent to "God with me," and ואכל (παύομαι) being considered to be a formation from the root כלה. Ewald takes the two words to be the name of one man, equivalent to "God with me, so I am strong;" in his own language, Mitmirgott - sobinich stark; but his idea of a dialogue between the rich mocker (vers. 2-4) and the humble believer (ver. 5-14) is not well founded, though a late editor, Strack, agreeing, considers that the only possible interpretation of these verses (2-4) is to make the speaker utter them as the outcome of his unbelief and scoffing, to which Agur answers in ver. 5. Under all circumstances, it has seemed to many scholars best to surrender the notion of proper names, and, altering the vocalization, to interpret, "The oracle of the man, 'I have wearied myself, O God, I have wearied myself, O God,'" or, as others say, "about God." The utterance commences here, and not at ver. 2. The repetition forcibly expresses the laborious and painful investigation of the seeker after truth. The final word, vocalized וָאֵכִל, is rendered, "And I have withdrawn;" or, as Bickell, quoted by Cheyne, gives, v'lo ukal, "I have not prevailed." We arrive thus at this interpretation: first comes the superscription, "The words of Agur," etc., "the oracle of the man;" then begins the utterance, which opens with the melancholy avowal that, though he had longed and striven to know God, his nature, his attributes, his working, he had failed in this object, and expended his labour in vain. Both Agur, and Lemuel who is named in Proverbs 31:1, seem to have been persons not of Israelitish nationality, but dwelling in the neighbourhood of Palestine, and acquainted with the religion and sacred literature of the chosen people (see ver. 5). It is by no means unlikely that they were of the race of Ishmael, from which stock many wise men had risen, and where wisdom was so cultivated as to have become proverbial (see Jeremiah 49:7; Obadiah 1:8). In what follows Agur shows himself as a philosopher and a critic, but at the same time a firm believer.

Verses 2 and 3 confirm what is said in ver. 1 concerning the fruitlessness of the investigation there mentioned; the more he sought and studied, the more conscious he became of his own ignorance and of God's incomreprehensibility. Verse 2. - Surely I am more brutish than any man "Surely" (ki) should be "for" (see note on ver. l). Cheyne, "I am too stupid for a man;" I am a mere irrational beast (comp. Proverbs 12:1; Psalm 73:22). And have not the understanding of a man. I am not worthy to be called a man, as I possess not the intellectual faculty which a man ought to have. This is not ironical, as if he did not desire the statement to be taken in its full sense, and meant to say, "Of course it is my own stupidity that is in fault;" but it is a genuine confession of incompetence to investigate the subject matter, which is too mysterious for his mental powers to penetrate. Thus Solomon acknowledges that he is but a little child, nod prays for an understanding heart (1 Kings 3:7, 9; comp. Wisd. 9:5; Matthew 11:25).

Verse 3. - I neither learned wisdom. With all my eager longing and striving I did not attain to such wisdom, that I should have the knowledge of the Holy One (Revised Version margin); k'doshim, plural of "excellence," like elohim (Proverbs 9:10; Hosea 12:1 (Hebrew); see note on Proverbs 1:20; and comp. Ecclesiastes 5:8; Ecclesiastes 12:1). The knowledge of the all holy God was beyond his grasp (Job 11:7, etc.). Theology is a higher science than metaphysics, and cannot be reached by that ladder. The LXX. gives an affirmative sense to this verse, "God hath taught me wisdom, and I know the knowledge of the holy (ἁγίων)."

Verse 4. - The questions contained in this verse are such as compelled Agur to acknowledge his ignorance and nothingness before the thought of the glory and power of the great Creator. We may compare Job 38, etc. Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who is he that hath his seat in heaven, and doeth works on earth? Who is he whose universal providence is felt and experienced? Where is this mysterious Being who hides himself from human ken? Christ has said something like this, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (John 3:13); and St. Paul (Ephesians 4:9). In biblical language God is said to come down from heaven in order to punish, to aid, to reveal his will, etc. (Genesis 11:7; Psalm 18:9, etc.); and he returns to heaven when this intervention is finished (Genesis 17:22; Genesis 35:13). Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath the control of the viewless wind, so as to restrain it or release it at his pleasure? (Psalm 135:7; Amos 4:13). Septuagint, "Who hath gathered the winds in his bosom (κόλῳ)?" Who hath bound the waters in a garment? The waters are the clouds which cover the vault of heaven, and are held, as it were, in a garment, so that, in spite of the weight which they contain, they fall not upon the earth. As Job says (Job 26:8), "He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them." And again (Job 38:37), "Who can number the clouds by wisdom? or who can pour out the bottles of heaven?" So the psalmist, "Thou coveredst it [the earth] with the deep as with a vesture" (Psalm 104:6). (See above, Proverbs 8:27, etc.) Who hath established all the ends of the earth? Who hath consolidated the foundations, and defined the limits, of the remotest regions of the earth? (comp. Job 38:4, etc.). The answer to these four questions is "Almighty God." He alone can order and control the forces of nature. What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? or, if thou knowest. It is not enough to acknowledge the power and operation and providence of this mysterious Being; Agur longs to know more of his nature, his essence. He must have personality; he is not an abstraction, a force, a quality; he is a Person. What, then, is his name, the name which expresses what he is in himself? Men have different appellations for this Supreme Being, according as they regard one or other of his attributes: is there one name that comprehends all, which gives an adequate account of the incomprehensible Creator? The question cannot be answered affirmatively in this life. "We know that if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is" (1 John 3:2). The further question, "What is his son's name?" has given some difficulty. The LXX. has, "What is the name of his children (τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτοῦ)?" as if there was reference to Israel, the special children of God. But the original does not bear out this interpretation, which is also opposed to the idea of the enigma proposed. The inquiry might mean - Are we to apply to the Supreme Being the same notion of natural relationship with which we are familiar in the human family? But this seems a low and unworthy conception. Or the "son" might be primeval man (Job 15:7) or the sage; but the answer would not be satisfactory, and would not tend to solve the great question. There are two replies which can be made to Agur's interrogation. Looking to the marvellous description of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22, etc., we may consider Wisdom to be a denotation of the Son of God, and the inquirer desires to know the name and nature of this personage, of whose existence he was certified. Or he may have arrived at a knowledge of the only begotten Son of God, as the idea of the Logos is more or less developed in the Book of Wisdom, in Philo's treatises, and in the Alexandrian school; and longs for more perfect knowledge. This, indeed, is hidden: "He hath name written, which no one knoweth but he himself" (Revelation 19:12). It is useless to put such question to a fellow man; no human mind can fathom the nature of the Godhead, or trace out its operations (Ecclus. 18:4, etc.).

Verse 5. - Every word of God is pure. "Word" is here imrah, which does not occur elsewhere in our book, which is the case also with Eloah, the term used for "God." Every declaration of God in the inspired record, the Torah, is pure, as if refined in the fire (Psalm 18:30). Vulgate, Omnis sermo Dei est ignitus; Septuagint, "All the words of God are tried in the fire (πεπυρωμένοι)." God's words are true, sincere, with no mixture of error, certain of accomplishment (comp. Psalm 12:6; Psalm 119:140). He is a shield. He is perfect protection to all those who, relying on the word of revelation, fly to him for refuge (see on Proverbs 2:7). The knowledge of God is obtained in two ways - by his revelation in his Word, and by the experience of those who trust in him.

Verse 6. - Add thou not unto his words. God's will, as announced in revelation, is to be simply accepted and acted upon, not watered down, not overstrained. This injunction had already been given in the old Law (Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32); it is repeated in the New Testament with awful emphasis (Revelation 22:18, 19). No human speculations or traditions may be mingled with God's words; the glosses and explanations and definitions, affixed by rabbinical ingenuity to plain enactments, and proved to be false in morality and fatal to vital religion, are a commentary on the succeeding sentence, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. The reproof is found in the consequences of such additions; the results to which they lead are such as show that no who asserts that these things are contained in the Word of God is a liar.

Verses 7-9. - A mashal ode, containing two requests, and a rationale of the latter. The matter of the two prayers connects it with ver. 6, whether we consider that the limitation of man's desire follows naturally the limitation of his knowledge (Plumptre). or that the warning against being reproved as a liar is corroborated by the prayer against vanity and lies (but see below, on ver. 9). It is the first of Agur's numerical proverbs. Verse 7. - Two things have I required of thee. The personal pronoun applies to God, who, according to our interpretation, has been invoked in ver. 1; otherwise it stands without reference to anything preceding. Deny me not before I die; i.e. grant me these two things for the rest of my life. Septuagint, "Take not grace (χάριν) from me before I die."

Verse 8. - Here is the first request: Remove far from me vanity and lies. Shay, "vanity," is inward hollowness and worthlessness, and "lies" are the expression of this in words. The prayer might indeed be taken as an entreaty against being polluted with the companionship of the evil, like "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil;" but it is best taken subjectively, as a supplication for personal truthfulness and sincerity in all relations both towards God and man. Give me neither poverty nor riches. Both extremes are deprecated: the mean is the safest and the happiest, Horace, 'Carm.,' 3:16. 424

"Multa petentibus Desunt multa; bene est, cui deus obtulit Parca, quod satis est, manu."

"The 'ever craving' is Want's slave and thrall; The gods most wisely thus their gifts accord, Giving 'enough,' they amply give to all."

(Stanley.) Theognis, 'Patron.,' 1155 -

Οὐκ ἔραμαι πλουτεῖν οὐδ εὔχομαι ἀλλὰ μοι εἴη Ζῇν ἀπὸ τῶν π᾿λίγων μηδὲν ἔχοντι κακόν

"I want not wealth; I only ask to live On frugal means without corroding care." Feed me with food convenient for me; literally, give me to eat the bread of my portion; that which by God s providence is determined for me (comp. Genesis 47:22, which speaks of the portion assigned for the support of the priests; Job 23:14; and below, Proverbs 31:15). It is natural to refer to τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν ἐπιούσιον of the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:11); but the idea is not the same. In the latter, bread for the needs of the coming day is meant; in our passage it is more indefinite, a casting one's self on the Divine love, in readiness to take what that love assigns. "Having food and covering," says St. Paul (1 Timothy 6:8), "we shall be therewith content." Septuagint, "Appoint for me what is necessary and what is sufficient (τὰ δεόντα καὶ τὰ αὐτάρκη)."