Proverbs 30:1 - Exposition

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" ( Proverbs 30:3 ), or ask blindly after the Creator ( Proverbs 30:4 ). 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 ΄ασάου . 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. 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 Proverbs 24:2 , 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 verses 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 (verses 2-4) and the humble believer (verse 5-14) is not well founded, though a late editor, Strack, agreeing, considers that the only possible interpretation of these verses (verses 2-4) is to make the speaker utter them as the outcome of his unbelief and scoffing, to which Agur answers in verse 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 verse 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 Proverbs 31:5 ). 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.