聖書注解書

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.

The title of this first appendix, according to the text lying before us, is:

“The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, the utterance.”

This title of the following collection of proverbs is limited by Olewejored; and המּשּׂא , separated from the author's name by Rebia, is interpreted as a second inscription, standing on one line with דּברי , as particularizing that first. The old synagogue tradition which, on the ground of the general title Proverbs 1:1, regarded the whole Book of Proverbs as the work of Solomon, interpreted the words, “Agur the son of Jakeh,” as an allegorical designation of Solomon, who appropriated the words of the Tôra to the king, Deuteronomy 17:17, and again rejected them, for he said: God is with me, and I shall not do it (viz., take many wives, without thereby suffering injury), Schemôth rabba, c. 6. The translation of Jerome: Verba congregantis filii Vomentis , is the echo of this Jewish interpretation. One would suppose that if “Agur” were Solomon's name, “Jakeh” must be that of David; but another interpretation in Midrash Mishle renders בן (“son”) as the designation of the bearer of a quality, and sees in “Agur” one who girded ( אגר = חגר ) his loins for wisdom; and in “son of Jakeh” one free from sin ( חטא ועון נקי מכל ). In the Middle Ages this mode of interpretation, which is historically and linguistically absurd, first began to prevail; for then the view was expressed by several (Aben Ezra, and Meîri the Spaniard) that Agur ben Jakeh was a wise man of the time of Solomon. That of Solomon's time, they thence conclude (blind to Proverbs 25:1) that Solomon collected together these proverbs of the otherwise unknown wise man. In truth, the age of the man must remain undecided; and at all events, the time of Hezekiah is the fixed period from which, where possible, it is to be sought. The name “Agur” means the gathered (Proverbs 6:8; Proverbs 10:5), or, after the predominant meaning of the Arab. âjar , the bribed, mercede conductum ; also the collector (cf. יקוּשׁ , fowler); or the word might mean, perhaps, industrious in collecting (cf. 'alwaḳ , attached to, and other examples in Mühlau, p. 36). Regarding בּן = binj (usual in בּן־נּוּן ), and its relation to the Arab. ibn , vid., Genesis, p. 555. The name Jakeh is more transparent. The noun יקהה , Proverbs 30:17; Genesis 49:10, means the obedient, from the verb יקהּ ; but, formed from this verbal stem, the form of the word would be יקהּ (not יקה ). The form יקה is the participial adj. from יקה , like יפה from יפה ; and the Arab. waḳay , corresponding to this יקה , viii. ittaḳay , to be on one's guard, particularly before God; the usual word fore piety regarded as εὐλάβεια . Mühlau (p. 37) rightly sees in the proper names Eltekeh [Joshua 19:44] and Eltekon [Joshua 15:59] the secondary verbal stem תּקה , which, like e.g., תּוה ( תּאה ), תּאב , עתד , has originated from the reflexive, which in these proper names, supposing that אל is subj., means to take under protection; not: to give heed = cavere. All these meanings are closely connected. In all these three forms - יקהּ , יקה , תּקה - the verb is a synonym of שׁמר ; so that יקה denotes

(Note: According to the Lex. 'Gezerî (from the Mesopotamian town of 'Geziret ibn 'Amr), the word wakihon is, in the Mesopotamian language, “the overseer of the house in which is the cross of the Christians;” and accordingly, in Muhammed's letter to the Christians of Negran, after they became subject to him, “a monk shall not be removed from his monastery, nor a presbyter from his presbyterate, ( waḳâhtah ) wala watah wakahyttah ” (this will be the correct phrase), “nor an overseer from his office.” The verbal stem waḳ - ah ( יקהּ ) is, as it appears, Northern Semitic; the South Arabian lexicographer Neshwan ignores it (Wetzstein in Mühlau).)

the pious, either as taking care, εὐλαβής , or as keeping, i.e., observing, viz., that which is commanded by God.

In consequence of the accentuation, המשּׂא is the second designation of this string of proverbs, and is parallel with דברי . But that is absolutely impossible. משּׂא (from נשׂא , to raise, viz., the voice, to begin to express) denotes the utterance, and according to the usage of the words before us, the divine utterance, the message of God revealed to the prophet and announced by him, for the most part, if not always ( vid., at Isaiah 13:1), the message of God as the avenger. Accordingly Jewish interpreters ( e.g., Meîri and Arama) remark that משׂא designates what follows, as דבר נבוּאיּי , i.e., an utterance of the prophetic spirit. But, on the other hand, what follows begins with the confession of human weakness and short-sightedness; and, moreover, we read proverbs not of a divine but altogether of a human and even of a decaying spiritual stamp, besides distinguished from the Solomonic proverbs by this, that the I of the poet, which remains in the background, here comes to the front. This משׂא of prophetic utterances does not at all harmonize with the following string of proverbs. It does not so harmonize on this account, because one theme does not run through these proverbs which the sing. משׂא requires. It comes to this, that משׂא never occurs by itself in the sense of a divine, a solemn utterance, without having some more clearly defining addition, though it should be only a demonstrative הזּה (Isaiah 14:28). But what author, whether poet or prophet, would give to his work the title of משׂא , which in itself means everything, and thus nothing! And now: the utterance - what can the article at all mean here? This question has remained unanswered by every interpreter. Ewald also sees himself constrained to clothe the naked word; he does it by reading together המשׂא נאם , and translating the “sublime saying which he spoke.” But apart from the consideration that Jeremiah 23:31 proves nothing for the use of this use of נאם , the form ( הגבר ) נאם is supported by 2 Samuel 23:1 (cf. Proverbs 30:5 with 2 Samuel 22:31); and besides, the omission of the אשׁר , and in addition of the relative pronoun ( נאמו ), would be an inaccuracy not at all to be expected on the brow of this gnomology ( vid., Hitzig). If we leave the altogether unsuspected נאם undisturbed, המשׂא will be a nearer definition of the name of the author. The Midrash has a right suspicion, for it takes together Hamassa and Agur ben Jakeh, and explains: of Agur the son of Jakeh, who took upon himself the yoke of the most blessed. The Graecus Venetus comes nearer what is correct, for it translates: λόγοι Ἀγούρου υἱέως Ἰακέως τοῦ Μασάου . We connect Proverbs 31:1, where למוּאל מלך , “Lemuel (the) king,” is a linguistic impossibility, and thus, according to the accentuation lying before us, מלך משּׂא also are to be connected together; thus it appears that משׂא must be the name of a country and a people. It was Hitzig who first made this Columbus-egg to stand. But this is the case only so far as he recognised in למואל מלך משׂא a Lemuel, the king of Massa, and recognised this Massa also in Proverbs 30:1 ( vid., his dissertation: Das Königreich Massa [the kingdom of Massa], in Zeller's Theolog. Jahrbb. 1844, and his Comm.), viz., the Israelitish Massa named in Genesis 25:14 (= 1 Chronicles 1:30) along with Dumah and Tema. But he proceeds in a hair-splitting way, and with ingenious hypothesis, without any valid foundation. That this Dumah is the Dumat el-jendel (cf. under Isaiah 21:11) lying in the north of Nejed, near the southern frontiers of Syria, the name and the founding of which is referred by the Arabians to Dûm the son of Ishmael, must be regarded as possible, and consequently Massa is certainly to be sought in Northern Arabia. But if, on the ground of 1 Chronicles 4:42., he finds there a Simeonitic kingdom, and finds its origin in this, that the tribe of Simeon originally belonging to the ten tribes, and thus coming from the north settled in the south of Judah, and from thence in the days of Hezekiah, fleeing before the Assyrians, were driven farther and farther in a south-east direction towards Northern Arabia; on the contrary, it has been shown by Graf ( The Tribe of Simeon, a contribution to the history of Israel, 1866) that Simeon never settled in the north of the Holy Land, and according to existing evidences extended their settlement from Negeb partly into the Idumean highlands, but not into the highlands of North Arabia. Hitzig thinks that there are found traces of the Massa of Agur and Lemuel in the Jewish town

(Note: Cf. Blau's Arab. im sechsten Jahrh. in the Deutsch. Morgl. Zeits. xxxiii. 590, and also p. 573 of the same, regarding a family of proselytes among the Jews in Taima.)

of טילמאס , of Benjamin of Tudela, lying three days' journey from Chebar, and in the proper name (Arab.) Malsā (smooth), which is given to a rock between Tema and Wady el-Kora ( vid., Kosegarten's Chestom. p. 143); but how notched his ingenuity here is need scarcely be shown. By means of more cautious combinations Mühlau has placed the residence of Agur and Lemuel in the Hauran mountain range, near which there is a Dumah, likewise a Têmâ; and in the name of the town Mismîje, lying in the Lejâ, is probably found the Mishma which is named along with Massa, Genesis 25:14; and from this that is related in 1 Chronicles 5:9., 1 Chronicles 5:18-22, of warlike expeditions on the part of the tribes lying on the east of the Jordan against the Hagarenes and their allies Jetur, Nephish, and Nodab,

(Note: Mühlau combines Nodab with Nudêbe to the south-east of Bosra; Blau ( Deut. Morg. Zeit. xxv. 566), with the Ναβδαῖοι of Eupolemos named along with the Ναβατοῖοι . The Kamûs has Nadab as the name of a tribe.)

it is with certainty concluded that in the Hauran, and in the wilderness which stretches behind the Euphrates towards it, Israelitish tribes have had their abode, whose territory had been early seized by the trans-Jordanic tribes, and was held “until the captivity,” 1 Chronicles 5:22, i.e., till the Assyrian deportation. This designation of time is almost as unfavourable to Mühlau's theory of a Massa in the Hauran, inhabited by Israelitish tribes from the other side, as the expression “ to Mount Seir ” (1 Chronicles 4:42) is to Hitzig's North Arabian Massa inhabited by Simeonites. We must leave it undecided whether Dumah and Têmâ, which the Toledoth of Ismael name in the neighbourhood of Massa, are the east Hauran districts now existing; or as Blau ( Deut. Morgl. Zeit. xxv. 539), with Hitzig, supposes, North Arabian districts (cf. Genesis. p. 377, 4th ed.).

(Note: Dozy ( Israeliten in Mecca, p. 89f.) connects Massa with Mansâh, a pretended old name of Mecca.)

“Be it as it may, the contents and the language of this difficult piece almost necessarily point to a region bordering on the Syro-Arabian waste. Ziegler's view ( Neue Uebers. der Denksprüche Salomo's, 1791, p. 29), that Lemuel was probably an emir of an Arabian tribe in the east of Jordan, and that a wise Hebrew translated those proverbs of the emir into Hebrew, is certainly untenable, but does not depart so far from the end as may appear at the first glance” (Mühlau).

(Note: These German quotations with the name of Mühlau are taken from the additions to his book, which he placed at my disposal.)

If the text-punctuation lying before us rests on the false supposition that Massa, Proverbs 30:1; Proverbs 31:1, is a generic name, and not a proper name, then certainly the question arises whether משׂא should not be used instead of משּׂא , much more משׂא , which is suggested as possible in the article “Sprüche,” in Herzog's Encycl. xiv. 694. Were משׁא , Genesis 10:30, the region Μεσήνη , on the northern border of the Persian Gulf, in which Apamea lay, then it might be said in favour of this, that as the histories of Muhammed and of Benjamin of Tudela prove the existence of an old Jewish occupation of North Arabia, but without anything being heard of a משּׂא , the Talmud bears testimony

(Note: Vid., Neubauer's Le Géographie du Talmud, pp. 325, 329, 382.)

to a Jewish occupation of Mesene, and particularly of Apamea; and by the mother of Lemuel, the king of Mesha, one may think

(Note: Derenbourg's Essai sur l'Hist. et la Géog. de la Palestine, i. p. 224.)

of Helena, celebrated in Jewish writings, queen of Adiabene, the mother of Monabaz and Izates. But the identity of the Mesha of the catalogue of nations with Μεσήνη is uncertain, and the Jewish population of that place dates at least from the time of the Sassanides to the period of the Babylonian exile. We therefore hold by the Ishmaelite Massa, whether North Arabian or Hauranian; but we by no means subscribe Mühlau's non possumus non negare, Agurum et Lemuëlem proseytos e paganis, non Israelitas fuisse . The religion of the tribes descended from Abraham, so far as it had not degenerated, was not to be regarded as idolatrous. It was the religion which exists to the present day among the great Ishmaelite tribes of the Syrian desert as the true tradition of their fathers under the name of Dîn Ibrâhîm (Abraham's religion); which, as from Wetzstein, we have noted in the Commentary on Job (p. 387 and elsewhere), continues along with Mosaism among the nomadic tribes of the wilderness; which shortly before the appearance of Christianity in the country beyond the Jordan, produced doctrines coming into contact with the teachings of the gospel; which at that very time, according to historic evidences ( e.g., Mêjâsinî's chronicles of the Ka'be), was dominant even in the towns of Higâz; and in the second century after Christ, was for the first time during the repeated migration of the South Arabians again oppressed by Greek idolatry, and was confined to the wilderness; which gave the mightiest impulse to the rise of Islam, and furnished its best component part; and which towards the end of the last century, in the country of Neged, pressed to a reform of Islam, and had as a result the Wahabite doctrine. If we except Proverbs 30:5., the proverbs of Agur and Lemuel contain nothing which may not be conceived from a non-Israelitish standpoint on which the author of the Book of Job placed himself. Even Job 30:5. is not there (cf. Job 6:10; Job 23:12) without parallels. When one compares Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 13:1, and 2 Samuel 22:31 = Psalms 18:31 (from which Proverbs 30:5 of the proverbs of Agur is derived, with the change of יהוה into אלוהּ ), Agur certainly appears as one intimately acquainted with the revealed religion of Israel, and with their literature. But must we take the two Massites therefore, with Hitzig, Mühlau, and Zöckler, as born Israelites? Since the Bible history knows no Israelitish king outside of the Holy Land, we regard it as more probable that King Lemuel and his countryman Agur were Ishmaelites who had raised themselves above the religion of Abraham, and recognised the religion of Israel as its completion.

If we now return to the words of Proverbs 30:1, Hitzig makes Agur Lemuel's brother, for he vocalizes אגוּר בּן־יקההּ משּׂא , i.e., Agur the son of her whom Massa obeys. Ripa and Björck of Sweden, and Stuart of America, adopt this view. But supposing that יקהּ is connected with the accusative of him who is obeyed, בן , as the representative of such an attributive clause, as of its virtual genitive, is elsewhere without example; and besides, it is unadvisable to explain away the proper name יקה , which speaks for itself. There are two other possibilities of comprehending המּשּׁא , without the change, or with the change of a single letter. Wetzstein, on Proverbs 31:1, has said regarding Mühlau's translation “King of Massa:” “I would more cautiously translate, 'King of the Massans,' since this interpretation is unobjectionable; while, on the contrary, this is not terra Massa , nor urbs Massa . It is true that the inhabitants of Massa were not pure nomads, after 30 and 31, but probably, like the other tribes of Israel, they were half nomads, who possessed no great land as exclusive property, and whose chief place did not perhaps bear their name. The latter may then have been as rare in ancient times as it is in the present day. Neither the Sammar, the Harb, the Muntefik, nor other half nomads whom I know in the southern parts of the Syrian desert, have any place which bears their name. So also, it appears, the people of Uz ( עוץ ), which we were constrained to think of as a dominant, firmly-settled race, since it had so great a husbandman as Job, possessed no קרית עוּץ . Only in certain cases, where a tribe resided for many centuries in and around a place, does the name of this tribe appear to have remained attached to it. Thus from גוּף דּוּמה , 'the low-country of the Dumahns,' or קרית דּוּמה , 'the city of Dumahns,' as also from קרית תּימא , 'the city of the Temans,' gradually there arose (probably not till the decline and fall of this tribe) a city of Dumah, a haven of Midian, and the like, so that the primary meaning of the name came to be lost.” It is clear that, from the existence of an Ishmaelite tribe משּׂא , there does not necessarily follow a similar name given to a region. The conj. ממּשּׂא , for המשּׂא ( vid., Herzog's Encycl. xiv. 702), has this against it, that although it is good Heb., it directly leads to this conclusion ( e.g., 2 Samuel 23:20, 2 Samuel 23:29, cf. 1 Kings 17:1). Less objectionable is Bunsen's and Böttcher's המּשּׂאי . But perhaps המשׂא may also have the same signification; far rather at least this than that which Malbim, after השּׂר המשּׂא , 1 Chronicles 15:27, introduced with the lxx ἄρχων τῶν ᾠδῶν : “We ought then to compare 2 Samuel 23:24, דודו בּית לחם , a connection in which, after the analogy of such Arabic connections as ḳaysu'aylana , Kais of the tribe of 'Ailân ( Ibn Coteiba, 13 and 83), or Ma'nu Ṭayyin , Ma'n of the tribe of Tay, i.e., Ma'n belonging to this tribe, as distinguished from other men and families of this name (Schol. Hamasae 144. 3), בית לחם is thought of as genit”

(Note: In ' העם וגו , Jeremiah 8:5, ' ירושׁ is though of as genit., although it may be also nom., after the scheme of apposition instead of annexion. That it is genit., cf. Philippi's St. Const. pp. 192-195.)

(Mühlau). That בית לחם (instead of בּית הלּחמי ) is easily changed, with Thenius and Wellhausen, after 1 Chronicles 11:26, into מבּית לחם , and in itself it is not altogether homogeneous, because without the article. Yet it may be supposed that instead of משׂא , on account of the appelat. of the proper name (the lifting up, elatio ), the word המשׂא might be also employed. And since בן־יקה , along with אגור , forms, as it were, one compositum, and does not at all destroy

(Note: We say, in Arab., without any anomaly, e.g., Alı̂ju - bnu - Muḥammadin Tajjiןn , i.e., the Ali son of Muhammed, of the tribe (from the tribe) of Tay; cf. Joshua 3:11; Isaiah 28:1; Isaiah 63:11; and Deuteronomy 3:13.)

the regulating force of אגור , the expression is certainly, after the Arabic usus loq., to be thus explained: The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, of the tribe (the country) of Massa.

The second line of this verse, as it is punctuated, is to be rendered:

The saying of the man to Ithîel, to Ithîel and Uchal,

not Ukkal; for, since Athias and van der Hooght, the incorrect form ואכּל has become current. J. H. Michaelis has the right form of the word ואכל . Thus, with כ raphatum, it is to be read after the Masora, for it adds to this word the remark לית וחסר , and counts it among the forty-eight words sometimes written defectively without ו ( vid., this list in the Masora finalis, 27b, Col); and since it only remarks the absence of the letter lengthening the word where no dagesh follows the vocal, it thus supposes that the כ has no dagesh, as it is also found in Codd. (also Jaman.) written with the Raphe. לאיתיאל is doubly accentuated; the Tarcha represents the Metheg, after the rule Thorath Emeth, p. 11. The ל after נאם is, in the sense of the punctuation, the same dat. as in לאדני , Psalms 110:1, and has an apparent right in him who asks כּי תדע in the 4th verse. Ithîel and Uchal must be, after an old opinion, sons, or disciples, or contemporaries, of Agur. Thus, e.g., Gesenius, in his Lex. under איתיאל , where as yet his reference to Nehemiah 11:7 is wanting. איתיאל is rendered by Jefet and other Karaites, “there is a God” = איתי אל ; but it is perhaps equivalent to אתּי אל , “God is with me;” as for אתּי rof sa ”;e , the form איתי is also found. אכל ( אכל ) nowhere occurs as a proper name; but in the region of proper names, everything, or almost everything, is possible.

(Note: Vid., Wetzstein's Inschriften aus den Trachonen und dem Haurangebirge (1864), p. 336f.)

Ewald sees in 1b-14 a dialogue: in Proverbs 30:2-4 the הגּבר , i.e., as the word appears to him, the rich, haughty mocker, who has worn out his life, speaks; and in Proverbs 30:5-14 the “ Mitmirgott ” [= God with me], or, more fully, “ Mitmirgott-sobinichstark ” [= God with me, so am I strong], i.e., the pious, humble man answers. “The whole,” he remarks, “is nothing but poetical; and it is poetical also that this discourse of mockery is called an elevated strain.” But (1) גּבר is a harmless word; and in נאם הגּבר , Numbers 24:3, Numbers 24:15; 2 Samuel 23:1, it is a solemn, earnest one; (2) a proper name, consisting of two clauses connected by Vav, no matter whether it be an actual or a symbolical name, is not capable of being authenticated; Ewald, §274b, recognises in ' גּדּלתּי וגו , 1 Chronicles 25:4, the naming, not of one son of Heman, but of two; and (3) it would be a very forced, inferior poetry if the poet placed one half of the name in one line, and then, as if constrained to take a new breath, gave the other half of it in a second line. But, on the other hand, that איתיאל and אכל are the names of two different persons, to whom the address of the man is directed, is attested by the, in this case aimless, anadiplosis, the here unpoetical parallelism with reservation. The repetition, as Fleischer remarks, of the name Ithîel, which may rank with Uchal, as the son or disciple of Agur, has probably its reason only as this, that one placed a second more extended phrase simply along with the shorter. The case is different; but Fleischer's supposition, that the poet himself cannot have thus written, is correct. We must not strike out either of the two לאיתיאל ; but the supposed proper names must be changed as to their vocalization into a declaratory clause. A principal argument lies in Proverbs 30:2, beginning with כּי : this כי supposes a clause which it established; for, with right, Mühlau maintains that כי , in the affirmative sense, which, by means of aposiopesis, proceeds from the confirmative, may open the conclusion and enter as confirmatory into the middle of the discourse ( e.g., Isaiah 32:13), but cannot stand abruptly at the commencement of a discourse (cf. under Isaiah 15:1 and Isaiah 7:9). But if we now ask how it is to be vocalized, there comes at the same time into the sphere of investigation the striking phrase נאם הגּבר . This phrase all the Greek interpreters attest by their rendering, τάδε λέγει ὁ ἀνήρ ( Venet. φησὶν ἀνήρ ); besides, this is to be brought forward from the wilderness of the old attempts at a translation, that the feeling of the translators strives against the recognition in ואכל of a second personal name: the Peshito omits it; the Targ. translates it, after the Midrash, by ואוּכל (I may do it); as Theodotion, καὶ δυνήσομαι , which is probably also meant by the καὶ συνήσομαι (from συνείναι , to be acquainted with) of the Venet.; the lxx with καὶ παύομαι ; and Aquila, καὶ τέλεσον (both from the verb כלה ). As an objection to נאם הגבר is this, that it is so bald without being followed, as at Numbers 24:3, Numbers 24:15; 2 Samuel 23:1, with the attributive description of the man. Luther was determined thereby to translate: discourse of the man Leithiel.... And why could not לאיתיאל be a proper-name connection like שׁאלתּיאל ( שׁלתּיאל )? Interpreted in the sense of “I am troubled concerning God,” is might be a symbolical name of the φιλόσοφος , as of one who strives after the knowledge of divine things with all his strength. But (1) לאה , with the accus. obj., is not established, and one is rather inclined to think of a name such as כּליתיאל , after Psalms 84:3; (2) moreover, לאיתיאל cannot be at one time a personal name, and at another time a declarative sentence - one must both times transform it into לאיתי אל ; but אל has to be taken as a vocative, not as accus., as is done by J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, Bunsen, Zöckler, and others, thus: I have wearied myself, O God!... The nakedness of הגבר is accordingly not covered by the first Leithiel. Mühlau, in his work, seeks to introduce המשׂא changed into ממשׂא : “The man from Massa,” and prefers to interpret הגבר generically:

(Note: Thus, viz., that הגבר denotes, not the man as he ought to be, but the man as he usually is (the article, as the Arabic grammarians say, “not for the exhaustion of the characteristic marks of the genus,” but for the expression of “the quality mâhîje of the genus”).)

“proverb (confession) of the man ( i.e., the man must confess): I have wearied myself, O God!...” Nothing else in reality remains. The article may also be retrospective: the man just now named, whose “words” are announced, viz., Agur. But why was not the expression נאם אגור then used? Because it is not poetical to say: “the (previously named) man.” On the other hand, what follows applies so that one may understand, under הגבר , any man you choose. There are certainly among men more than too many who inquire not after God (Psalms 14:2.). But there are also not wanting those who feel sorrowfully the distance between them and God. Agur introduces such a man as speaking, for he generalizes his own experience. Psalms 36:2 ( vid., under this passage) shows that a proper name does not necessarily follow נאם . With נאם הגבר Agur then introduces what the man has to confess - viz. a man earnestly devoted to God; for with נאם the ideas of that which comes from the heart and the solemnly earnest are connected. If Agur so far generalizes his own experience, the passionate anadiplosis does not disturb this. After long contemplation of the man, he must finally confess: I have troubled myself, O God! I have troubled myself, O God!... That the trouble was directed toward God is perhaps denoted by the alliteration of לאיתי with אל . But what now, further? ואכל is read as ואכל , ואכל , ואכל , ואכל , ואכל , and it has also been read as ואכל . The reading ואכל no one advocates; this that follows says the direct contrary, et potui ( pollui ). Geiger ( Urschrift, p. 61) supports the reading ואכל , for he renders it interrogatively: “I wearied myself in vain about God, I wearied myself in vain about God; why should I be able to do it?” But since one may twist any affirmative clause in this way, and from a yes make a no, one should only, in cases of extreme necessity, consent to such a question in the absence of an interrogative word. Böttcher's לאיתי אל , I have wearied myself out in vain, is not Hebrew. But at any rate the expression might be אל־אכל , if only the Vav did not stand between the words! If one might transpose the letters, then we might gain ולא אכל , according to which the lxx translates: οὐ δυνήσομαι . At all events, this despairing as to the consequence of further trouble, “I shall be able to do nothing (shall bring it to nothing),” would be better than ואכל (and I shall withdraw - become faint), for which, besides, ואכלה should be used (cf. Proverbs 22:8 with Job 33:21). One expects, after לאיתי , the expression of that which is the consequence of earnest and long-continued endeavour. Accordingly Hitzig reads ואכל , and I have become dull - suitable to the sense, but unsatisfactory on this account, because כּלל , in the sense of the Arab. kall , hebescere , is foreign to the Heb. usus loq. Thus ואכל will be a fut. consec. of כלה . J. D. Michaelis, and finally Böttcher, read it as fut. consec. Piel ואכל or ואכל ( vid., regarding this form in pause under Proverbs 25:9), “and I have made an end;” but it is not appropriate to the inquirer here complaining, when dissatisfaction with his results had determined him to abandon his research, and let himself be no more troubled. We therefore prefer to read with Dahler, and, finally, with Mühlau and Zöckler, ואכל , and I have withdrawn. The form understood by Hitzig as a pausal form is, in the unchangeableness of its vocals, as accordant with rule as those of יחד , Proverbs 27:17, which lengthen the a of their first syllables in pause. And if Hitzig objects that too much is said, for one of such meditation does not depart, we answer, that if the inquiry of the man who speaks here has completed itself by the longing of his spirit and his soul (Psalms 84:3; Psalms 143:7), he might also say of himself, in person, כליתי or ואכל . An inquiry proceeding not merely from intellectual, but, before all, from practical necessity, is meant - the doubled לאיתי means that he applied thereto the whole strength of his inner and his outer man; and ואכל , that he nevertheless did not reach his end, but wearied himself in vain. By this explanation which we give to 1a, no change of its accents is required; but 1b has to be written:

נאם הגּבר לאיתי אל

לאיתי אל ואכל

(Note: The Munach is the transformation of Mugrash, and this sequence of accents - Tarcha, Munach, Silluk - remains the same, whether we regard אל as the accusative or as the vocative.)

return to '

XXX.

8.THE PROVERBS OF SOLOMON END HERE. THE REST OF THE BOOK IS COMPOSED OF THREE APPENDICES: (a) THE WORDS OF AGUR; (b) THE WORDS OF KING LEMUEL; AND (C) THE PRAISE OF A GOOD WIFE (Proverbs 30, 31).

APPENDIX (a).

(1) The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy.—Jewish interpreters have seen in these titles (but apparently without a shadow of reason) a designation of Solomon himself, the “convener” and instructor of assemblies (Ecclesiastes 1:1; Ecclesiastes 12:11), son of the “obedient” man after God’s own heart. But they in all probability belong to some otherwise unknown sage, whose utterances were thought not unworthy of being joined with those of the wise King of Israel himself. In support of this view 1Kings 4:30 may be adduced as a proof of the estimation in which the wisdom of foreign nations was at this time held. The book of Job also, which possibly now was added to the canon of Scripture, is certainly of foreign, probably of Arabian, origin. Some light may be thrown upon the nationality of Agur by the words translated in the Authorised version “the prophecy” (massâ). This is the term constantly employed to express the “utterance,” or, more probably, the message which a prophet “bore” to his hearers, often one of gloomy import (Isaiah 13:1, etc.). But the term is not very appropriate to the contents of this chapter, nor to the “words of King Lemuel,” in Proverbs 31, and the expression, “the prophecy,” standing quite alone, with no other words to qualify it, is very singular. For these reasons it has been proposed to translate the beginning of the verse thus: “The words of Agur the son of Jakeh the Massan,” i.e., a descendant of the Massa mentioned in Genesis 25:14 as a son of Ishmael. This would place his home probably in North Arabia, and Lemuel would be king of the same tribe.

The man spake.—The word translated “spake” is most frequently used of the revelation of God to prophets, rarely (Numbers 24:3 and 2Samuel 23:1) of the utterances of inspired prophets; never of the words of ordinary men.

Unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal.—These most probably were disciples of his. As their names may mean “God with me,” and “I am strong,” a fanciful delineation of their characters, in the style of the “Pilgrim’s Progress,” has been attempted by some writers. And a mystical interpretation of them, “You must have God with you, if you are to be strong,” may be found in Bishop Wordsworth’s Commentary. It has been proposed also, as is possible with a slight change in the pointing, to translate these words thus: “I am weary, O God, I am weary, and am weak,” or, “have made an end,” and to make them an introduction to Proverbs 30:2, which supplies the reason for this weariness, “For I am more brutish,” etc. Thus is described, it has been thought, the sinking at heart of one who has sought after God, and the more he has realised the divine excellence, has become the more conscious of his own nothingness. But this rendering is unnecessary, as the Authorised version gives a good sense.

1. the prophecy] Lit. the burden, as the word is frequently rendered (e.g. Zechariah 9:1; Malachi 1:1, where see notes in this Series). It may mean either burden from its weighty character, as a Divine announcement, or oracle, or prophecy, as being “taken up” (comp. Numbers 23:18) by the speaker.

The reading of R.V. marg. Jakeh of Massa, making Massa a proper name, is however preferred by some scholars. See Proverbs 31:1, note.

the man] a title of excellence (vir), used of himself as a prophet or teacher by Balaam, Numbers 24:3, and by David, 2 Samuel 23:1.

spake] or saith. The word is commonly used of Divine or oracular utterance, as in the frequent phrase, “saith, the Lord.”

lthiel and Ucal] He addresses himself to his favourite disciple, associating with him another scarcely less favoured, and through them to every one that has an ear to hear.

Proverbs 30:1. The words of Agur — Who this Agur was no one has ever yet been able to show: it is probable, however, that both he and Jakeh, his father, were well known in Israel at the time this chapter and the next were added to the preceding parts of the proverbs. Jakeh is thought to have lived either in Solomon’s time or soon after, and to have been famous in his generation for wisdom and piety; even the prophecy — The prophetical instruction; for as prophets were public preachers as well as foretellers of things to come, so their sermons, no less than their predictions, are commonly called their prophecies. Ithiel and Ucal — Two friends and cotemporaries of Agur, who desired his instructions.

Proverbs 30:1. The words of Agur, &c.— According to the signification of the original terms, this might be rendered, The words of him who has recollected himself, the son of obedience. The generality of the fathers and ancient commentators will have it that Solomon describes himself under the name of Agur, the son of Jakeh; others conjecture that Agur, as well as Lemuel, in the next chapter, were wise men who lived in the time of Solomon, and were his interlocutors in the book of Proverbs; an opinion without the least show of probability. This book is nothing like a dialogue. It is most probable that Agur was an inspired author, different from Solomon, whose moral and proverbial sentences (for such is the import of the word rendered prophesy) it was thought most convenient to join with those of this prince, because of the conformity of their matter; for what could ever have obliged Solomon to disguise his name in this place? For what reason could he have changed his style and manner of writing in this chapter only? for it is certain, that this chapter is penned in a way very different from the rest of the book. Besides, could it become Solomon to speak as this author does in the second verse, or to address himself to God as he does in the eighth? Certainly these words are not consistent with the situation of a king like Solomon. But who then was this Agur? When and where did he live? This is what no one yet has ever been able to tell us. See Calmet, and Bishop Lowth's 18th Prelection.

Even the prophecy, &c.— This may be rendered, The man spake a prophesy or sententious discourse to Ithiel, and Ithiel to Ucal. These two persons are supposed to have been scholars and friends of Agur, who came to him to be instructed in the principles of true wisdom. He begins with modestly declaring his own insufficiency for so great an undertaking (I am more dull than the rest of men, and void of human prudence); and recommends, as the foundation of all useful knowledge, an humble temper of mind, sensible of all the natural weakness of human understanding, and of the imperfection of its highest improvements; which he argues, Pro 30:4 from our ignorance of the works of nature. (See the parallel passages in the Book of Job:) And therefore in the two following verses he advises his two pupils to make it their principal study to understand the will of God, which is of all knowledge the most important, and of the greatest use in human life; and in all their inquiries of this kind, to confine themselves to what God has revealed. See Foster's Sermons, vol. 1 serm. 8: and Deuteronomy 30:11-14.

return to '

The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, [even] the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,

The words of Agur the son of Jakeh. — The Vulgate renders, Verba Congregantis filii Vomentis, taking these proper names for appellatives, as if the penman of this chapter meant to tell us that he would here give us his sacred collectanies or miscellanies, such as he had taken up from the mouths of wisest men, who had vomited or cast them up, in a like sense as that painter in Aelian drew Homer vomiting, and all the other poets licking it up. Aelian, Hist. var. This Agur, whether he lived in Solomon’s days or Hezekiah’s, was an excellent man, as the word Gheber here used imports; Vir bonus et prudens, minus tamen clarus (as one saith of Jesse, David’s father), a godly, wise man, though nothing be elsewhere spoken of him in Scripture. Some think that, being requested by Ithiel and Ucal, two of his disciples, to give them a lesson, Socrates-like he answered, Hoc unum scio, quod nihil scio: This one thing I know, that I know nothing: "Surely I am more brutish than any man," sc., of myself, further than taught of God; for every man is a brute by his own understanding, as Jeremiah hath it. Jeremiah 10:8 But I rather incline to those that take Ithiel and Ucal for Christ, whose goodness and power - those two pillars of a Christian’s faith, as Jachin and Boaz were of Solomon’s temple - are by these two names deciphered, and whom he propounds as the matter of his prophecy. Now, because sense of misery must precede sense of mercy, neither can any be welcome to Christ, but "the weary and heavy laden"; therefore he first bewails his own brutishness - fetching it up as low as Adam fallen, Proverbs 30:2 and aggravating it in that he had not yet acquired better abilities. Proverbs 30:3 Next he flees to Ithiel and Ucal, by the force of a particular faith - Ithiel, God with me, and Ucal, God Almighty, through whom I can do all things. This, this was the right ready way of coming to Christ; and him that thus cometh he will in no wise cast out. John 6:37 There is a good interpreter, Muffet. that, paralleling this text with Jeremiah 9:23-24 , reads it thus: A gathering together of the words of Agur, the son of Jakeh. Let the excellent man say, ‘Let God be with me, let God be with me, and I shall prevail.’

return to '

アグルの言葉

¹ ヤケの子アグルの言葉、すなわち預言。その人はイチエルに、イチエルとウカルに語った。 ² 確かに私はだれの人よりも愚かであり、人の悟りを持たない。 ³ 私は知恵を学ばず、聖なる者の知識を持たない。 ⁴ 天に上った者、あるいは下った者がだれか。風をその拳に集めた者は。水を着物に縛った者は。地のすべての端を定めた者は。その名は何か。その子の名は何か。あなたが知っているなら。 ⁵ 神のことばはみな純粋である。彼は彼に身を避ける者への盾である。 ⁶ そのことばに付け加えるな。彼があなたを責め、あなたが偽り者と見出されないために。

ある者はアグルをこの著者の名前ではなく、その品性とみなす。彼は収集者であった（そのように意味する）。集める者。自分で物事を構成するのではなく、他者の知恵ある言葉と観察を集め、他者の書物の要約を作った者。ある者はそれが彼が（箴言30:3で）「自分で知恵を学ばなかったが、他の賢く学んだ人々の書記、あるいは筆記者であった」と言う理由であると考える。観察せよ。たとえ一つであっても自分の才能を埋もれさせてはならない。賜物を受けたように、たとえ他者の書いたものを集めるだけであっても、それをもって奉仕しなければならない。しかしむしろこれを彼の名前と考える。疑いなくその当時はよく知られていたが、聖書の他の場所では言及されていない。イチエルとウカルは言及される。あるいは、一。彼の弟子たちの名前として。彼が教えた、あるいはその知恵と善良さについて高く評価し、彼に託宣として相談した者。おそらく彼らは彼が口述したものを書き記した。バルクがエレミヤの口から書いたように。そしてその手段によって保存された。彼らはそれが彼のものであることを証明する準備ができていた。彼らに語られたから。彼らはその二人の証人であった。あるいは、二。彼の語らいの主題として。イチエルは神は私と共にを意味する。インマヌエル、神は私たちと共にの適用である。ことばは彼を神は私たちと共にと呼ぶ。信仰はこれを適用し、「神は私と共に。私を愛し、私のためにご自身を与え、私がその一致と交わりに導かれた方」と呼ぶ。ウカルは力ある方を意味する。助けは力ある方の上に置かれるからである。それゆえに多くの優れた解釈者はこれをメシアに適用する。すべての預言は彼に証しするからであり、なぜこの預言もそうでないのか。それはアグルがイチエルについて語ったこと、すなわちイチエル（強調が置かれる名前）私たちと共にについてである（イザヤ7:14）。

預言者はここで三つのことをねらう。

一。自分を低くすること。信仰の告白の前に、愚かさと理性の弱さと欠乏の告白をする。それが信仰によって導かれ、治められることを必要とする。救い主について語る前に、救い主を必要とし、彼なしでは無に等しい者として自分自身について語る。私たちはイエス・キリストに入る前に自分自身から出なければならない。一。彼は義を欠き、非常に愚かなことをした者として自分について語る。自分を省みるとき、彼は認める。確かに私はだれの人よりも愚かである。だれもが愚かになった（エレミヤ10:14）。しかし自分の心を知る者は、他者のどれよりも自分自身についてより多くの悪を知り、叫ぶ。「確かに私はだれの人よりも愚かであると思わざるを得ない。確かに私ほど腐った欺きの心を持つ者はいない。私はアダムの悟りを持たない者として行動した。最初に人が造られた知識と義から悲惨なほど退化した者として。いな、人の普通の常識と理性を持たない。そうでなければ、自分のしたようにはしなかったであろう」。アグルは、ほとんどの者よりも賢いとして他者から頼られたとき、だれよりも愚かであることを認めた。他者が私たちについて持つ意見がどう高くても、私たちが自分自身について低い思いを持つことはふさわしい。二。彼は真理と知恵の道において自分を導く啓示を欠く者として自分について語る。彼は認める（箴言30:3）。「私は自分の力で知恵を学ばなかった*（その深みは私の測り鉛で測り得ない）。聖なる者たちの知識をも知らない。御使いたち、最初の無罪の父母、神の聖なる事柄。私はそれらに洞察を得ず、神がそれらを私に知らせられる以上に判断できない」*。自然の人、自然の力は、神の御霊の事柄を知覚せず、いな、受け入れない。ある者はアグルが、アポロンの託宣がかつて問われたように、誰が最も賢い人かと問われたと考える。答えは、自分の無知を自覚する者、とりわけ神の事柄において。私は何も知らないということだけを知っている。

二。イエス・キリストと、彼のうちに父を高めること（箴言30:4）。天に上った者はだれか、等。一。ある者はこれを神とそのわざについて理解する。両方とも比類なく、探り難い。彼は全人類に挑戦する。上の天、風、水、地について説明するように。「天に上って、上の球体を見、そして下って、その描写を与えたと主張できる者がだれか。風を指揮する主張ができ、それを手に握り、神のように治めた者、あるいは神がなされたように海の波を襁褓で縛った者が。地の端を定めた者、あるいはその基礎の強さやその限りの広がりを描写できる者がだれか。神に匹敵する、あるいはその内閣の評議員になろうと引き受ける者の名は何か教えてくれ。あるいは彼が死んでいるなら、この大いなる秘密を遺贈したその者の名は何か」。二。他の者はこれをキリストに帰する。イチエルとウカルに、神の子に。ここで問われるのは子の名も父の名であり、彼に匹敵するいかなる者にも挑戦が与えられるからである。私たちは今、啓示された者としてキリストを高く挙げる。当時は彼らは隠された者として彼を尊んだ。何かを聞いたことがあるが、非常に暗く欠けた観念しか持たなかった者として。私たちは私たちの耳で彼のうわさを聞いたが、彼を描写できない（ヨブ28:22）。確かに風をその拳に集め、水を着物のように縛ったのは神である。しかしその名は何か。それは*「わたしは有るという者である」（出エジプト3:14）。尊ぶべき名であって、理解すべきではない。その子の名は何か。彼がこれらすべてを行うによって。旧約の聖徒たちはメシアが祝福された方の子であることを期待した。そして彼はここで父とは区別された者として語られるが、その名はまだ秘密であった。観察せよ。大いなる贖い主は、その摂理と恵みの栄光において、匹敵されず、完全に見出され得ない。（一）その恵みの王国の栄光は探り難く、比類ない。天に上り、下った者が彼のほかにだれか。両方の世界を完全に知り、両方と自由な交わりを持ち、それゆえに仲介者として、ヤコブのはしごとして、両方の間に交わりを確立するにふさわしい者が彼のほかにだれか。彼は父のふところに天にいた*（ヨハネ1:1,18）。そこから私たちの性質を取るために下った。かつてそのようなへりくだりはなかった。その性質において彼は再び上った（エペソ4:9）。その高められた状態の約束された栄光を受けるために。そしてこれをした者が彼のほかにだれか（ローマ10:6）。（二）その摂理の王国の栄光も同様に探り難く、比類ない。天と地を和解させる同じ方が両方の造り主であり、すべてを治め、処理される。空気、水、地の三つの下位元素に対するその支配がここで特定される。[1]空気の動きは彼の指揮による。サタンは空の権威の君を装うが、そこでもキリストはすべての権威を持つ。彼は風をしかり、風は彼に従った。[2]水の境界は彼の任命による。彼は水を着物のように縛る。ここまで来て、それ以上先には行かない（ヨブ38:9-11）。[3]地の基礎は彼の確立による。彼は最初にそれを建てた。今もそれを支える。もしキリストが介入されなかったら、地の基礎は人の罪のゆえに地へののろいの重荷の下に沈んだであろう。これらすべてをなす力ある彼は誰であり、何であるか。私たちは神を、神の子を完全に見出すことはできない。ああ、その知識の深さよ。

三。神のことばの真実を確かめ、それを私たちに薦めること（箴言30:5,6）。アグルの弟子たちは神の事柄において彼から教えられることを期待する。「ああ」と彼は言う。「私はあなたがたに教えることを引き受けられない。神のことばに行け。そこで彼がご自身とその心と御旨について啓示されたものを見よ。それが教える以上に知る必要はなく、それは確かで十分であるとして頼むことができる。神のことばはみな純粋である。そのうちに偽りと腐敗の最もわずかな混じりもない」。人の言葉は疑いと許しをもって聞かれ、読まれるべきである。しかし神のことばに欠陥を疑ういかなる根拠もない。それは七たび精製された銀のようである（詩12:6）。最もわずかなかりや合金もなく。あなたのことばは非常に純粋である（詩119:140）。一。それは確かであり、それゆえに私たちはそれに信頼し、たまさいをそれに冒険しなければならない。神のことばのうちに、神の約束のうちにいる神は、盾であり、確かな保護である。自分自身をその保護の下に置き、彼に信頼するすべての者に。信仰によって適用された神のことばは、最大の危険のただ中にあっても私たちを安らかにする（詩46:1,2）。二。それは十分であり、それゆえに私たちはそれに付け加えてはならない（箴言30:6）。そのことばに付け加えるな。それらは純粋で完全だからである。これは神のことばに矛盾するいかなるものの前進だけでなく、それとの競争においても禁じる。それを説明するもっともらしい口実の下であっても、もしそれがそれと同等の権威を持つと装うなら、それはそのことばに付け加えることであり、不十分としてそれらに恥を与えるだけでなく、あらゆる誤りと腐敗の戸を開く。というのも、ある人や人々の集まりのことばが神のことばと同じ信仰と畏敬をもって受け入れられるべきであるという一つの不条理が認められるなら、千が従うから。私たちは神がその心について知らせようと喜ばれたもので満足し、書かれている以上に賢くなろうと貪ってはならない。というのも。（一）神はそれをひどい侮辱として憤るであろう。「彼はあなたを責め*、その冠と尊厳に対する反逆者としてあなたと清算し、そのことばに付け加え、あるいはそこから減らす者の重い判決の下にあなたを置くであろう」（申命4:2、12:32）。（二）私たちは限りない誤りに自らを走らせるであろう。「あなたは偽り者、真理のことばの腐敗者、異端の唱導者、最悪の偽造――天の大印章の偽造、神の使命と霊感を装う――として見出されるであろう。それはすべての詐欺である。人はこのように欺かれ得るが、神は侮られることはない」。