Példabeszédek 30:29 Kommentár

This and the following chapter are an appendix to Solomon's proverbs; but they are both expressly called prophecies in the first verses of both, by which it appears that the penmen of them, whoever they were, were divinely inspired. This chapter was penned by one that bears the name of "Agur Ben Jakeh." What tribe he was of, or when he lived, we are not told; what he wrote, being indited by the Holy Ghost, is here kept upon record. We have here, I. His confession of faith (Pro 30:1-6). II. His prayer (Pro 30:7-9). III. A caution against wronging servants (Pro 30:10). IV. Four wicked generations (Pro 30:11-14). V. Four things insatiable (Pro 30:15, Pro 30:16), to which is added fair warning to undutiful children (Pro 30:17). VI. Four things unsearchable (Pro 30:18-20). VII. Four things intolerable (Pro 30:21-23). VIII. Four things little and wise (Pro 30:24-28). IX. Four things stately (Pro 30:29 to the end).

Here is, I. An enumeration of four things which are majestic and stately in their going, which look great: - 1. A lion, the king of beasts, because strongest among beasts. Among beasts it is strength that gives the pre-eminence, but it is a pity that it should do so among men, whose wisdom is their honour, not their strength and force. The lion turns not away, nor alters his pace, for fear of any pursuers, since he knows he is too hard for them. Herein the righteous are bold as a lion, that they turn not away from their duty for fear of any difficulty they meet with in it. 2. A greyhound that is girt in the loins and fit for running; or (as the margin reads it) a horse, which ought not to be omitted among the creatures that are comely in going, for so he is, especially when he is dressed up in his harness or trappings. 3. A he-goat, the comeliness of whose going is when he goes first and leads the flock. It is the comeliness of a Christian's going to go first in a good work and to lead others in the right way. 4. A king, who, when he appears in his majesty, is looked upon with reverence and awe, and all agree that there is no rising up against him; none can vie with him, none can contend with him, whoever does it, it is at his peril. And, if there is no rising up against an earthly prince, woe to him then that strives with his Maker. It is intended that we should learn courage and fortitude in all virtuous actions from the lion and not to turn away for any difficulty we meet with; from the greyhound we may learn quickness and despatch, from the he-goat the care of our family and those under our charge, and from a king to have our children in subjection with all gravity, and from them all to go well, and to order the steps of our conversation so as that we may not only be safe, but comely, in going. II. A caution to us to keep our temper at all times and under all provocations, and to take heed of carrying our resentments too far upon any occasion, especially when there is a king in the case, against whom there is no rising up, when it is a ruler, or one much our superior, that is offended; nay, the rule is always the same. 1. We must bridle and suppress our own passion, and take shame to ourselves, whenever we are justly charged with a fault, and not insist upon our own innocency: If we have lifted up ourselves, either in a proud conceit of ourselves or a peevish opposition to those that are over us, if we have transgressed the laws of our place and station, we have therein done foolishly. Those that magnify themselves over others or against others, that are haughty and insolent, do but shame themselves and betray their own weakness. Nay, if we have but thought evil, if we are conscious to ourselves that we have harboured an ill design in our minds, or it has been suggested to us, we must lay our hand upon our mouth, that is, (1.) We must humble ourselves for what we have done amiss, and even lie in the dust before God, in sorrow for it, as Job did, when he repented of what he had said foolishly (Job 40:4, I will lay my hand upon my mouth), and as the convicted leper, who put a covering upon his upper lip. If we have done foolishly, we must not stand to it before men, but by silence own our guilt, which will be the best way of appeasing those we have offended. 2. We must keep the evil thought we have conceived in our minds from breaking out in any evil speeches. Do not give the evil thought an imprimatur - a license; allow it not to be published; but lay thy hand upon thy mouth; use a holy violence with thyself, if need be, and enjoin thyself silence; as Christ suffered not the evil spirits to speak. It is bad to think ill, but it is much worse to speak it, for that implies a consent to the evil thought and a willingness to infect others with it. 2. We must not irritate the passions of others. Some are so very provoking in their words and conduct that they even force wrath, they make those about them angry whether they will or no, and put those into a passion who are not only not inclined to it, but resolved against it. Now this forcing of wrath brings forth strife, and where that is there is confusion and every evil work. As the violent agitation of the cream fetches all the good out of the milk, and the hard wringing of the nose will extort blood from it, so this forcing of wrath wastes both the body and spirits of a man, and robs him of all the good that is in him. Or, as it is in the churning of milk and the wringing of the nose, that is done by force which otherwise would not be done, so the spirit is heated by degrees with strong passions; one angry word begets another, and that a third; one passionate debate makes work for another, and so it goes on till it ends at length in irreconcilable feuds. Let nothing therefore be said or done with violence, but every thing with softness and calmness.

The words of Agur the son of Jakeh,.... Here begins, according to Aben Ezra, the fourth part of this book; though, according to others, it is the fifth; See Gill on Pro 22:17; Who this Agur was is a matter of doubt; some of the Jewish writers, as Jarchi and Gersom, and likewise some Christian writers (f), take him to be Solomon himself, who calls himself Agur, which is said to signify "a gatherer"; and so the Vulgate Latin version renders it, "the words of the gatherer, the son of the vomiter"; just as he calls himself Koheleth, or "the caller", or "preacher", Ecc 1:1. The reason given of this name is, because he gathered wisdom and the law (g); or, as Jarchi, he gathered wisdom, and vomited it; that is, delivered it out to others; so he did, he sought after and attained to more wisdom than any before him, for he was wiser than all men; and it may be added, that he "gathered" silver and gold, and the treasure of kings, and increased in riches more than any before him, Ecc 1:13. But then all this does not agree with the person whose words these are; for he speaks of himself as being very ignorant, and as not having learned wisdom, Pro 30:2; and desires neither poverty nor riches, Pro 30:8; besides, the word "Agur" signifies not "a gatherer", but "gathered", as Hillerus (h) renders it; and so Cocceius, who thinks also that Solomon is meant, yet not for the above reasons, but translates the clause thus, "the words of the recollected son of the obedient"; as if it described Solomon the son of David, the obedient one, the man after God's own heart, when he was restored by repentance; but it seems better, with Aben Ezra, to understand this of some very good, knowing, and worthy man, who lived in those times, either before the times of Solomon, or in the same, whose pithy sayings and sentences he had a great regard for, and joined them to his own; or who lived in the times of Hezekiah, or before, whose proverbs were collected by his men, and added to those of Solomon's they had copied in the preceding chapters; see Pro 25:1; even the prophecy; or "burden" (i), as many of the prophecies are called; it designs something received from the Lord, taken up and carried to others; so Balaam is said to "take up his parable", Num 23:7. Here it does not design a prediction of future events, unless it can be thought that there is in the following words a prophecy of the Messiah; but an instruction, a declaration of things useful and profitable; so preaching in the New Testament is called prophesying often, Co1 14:1. This is a part of the word of God, of the prophecy which came not by the will of man, but by the inspiration of God, Pe2 1:19; which prophecy the man spake, this excellent good man Agur, who was divinely inspired; see Num 24:3; unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal; who were either the children of Agur, whom he instructed in the knowledge of divine things; or they were, as Aben Ezra, either his companions with whom he conversed about sacred things, or his disciples who inquired of him about these things, and learned them of him. Some think (k) these are titles of God himself, to whom Agur directs his speech, and acknowledges his ignorance of the divine Being, whom he might justly call Ithiel and Ucal, that is, "God with me", and "the mighty One"; and certain it is that Agur does direct a prayer to God, Pro 30:7; And some read these words themselves as a prayer, "let God be with me, and one shall prevail" (l), that is, over all mine enemies; for, if God is on the side of his people, who shall be against them? or, "I shall be able" to do all things through the Lord's strength, Rom 8:31; But I rather think the words should be read, as Jarchi observes, "concerning Ithiel and Ucal" (m); that is, concerning the Messiah, to whom these names agree. Ithiel, or "God with me", is very similar to a phrase used by Christ himself in the days of his flesh, Joh 8:29. God was with him as the eternal Word, and his only begotten Son, from all eternity, which denotes his co-existence, nearness of union, equality of nature, and distinction of persons; he was with him as Mediator before the world began, in the council of peace, which was between them both; in the covenant of grace made with him, in which all things were agreed upon respecting the salvation of his people; he was with him in the beginning of time down to his incarnation; he was with him in the creation of all things, in the sustentation of them; in the works of providence, and in the government of the church; he was with him during his state of humiliation; in his infancy, to protect him from the malice of Herod; he was with him when disputing with the doctors in the temple, to direct him; he was with him at his baptism, transfiguration, and other times; he was with him throughout his public ministry, from the beginning to the end of it; he did good and healed all manner of diseases, and wrought amazing miracles, God being with him, Joh 3:2, Act 10:38; and he was with him in his sufferings and at his death; and so he is with him in his exalted state; he raised him from the dead, set him at his own right hand, and ever attends to his prevalent intercession; and will be with him in raising the dead and judging the world. "Ucal", which has the signification of being able, strong, mighty, and powerful, agrees with Christ, who is the mighty God the most mighty, the Almighty; and which appears by the works he did before his incarnation, as the creation of all things out of nothing, the preservation of all things, and the several wonderful events in which he was; concerned, as the confusion of languages, the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, the conducting the children of Israel through the wilderness, with others; also what he did when here on earth, the mighty works and miracles done by him, and especially the great work of man's redemption, and also the raising of himself from the dead: moreover, what he now does and will do for his people show him to be the mighty One; taking the care of all the churches and providing for them; supplying all the wants of his people, bearing all their burdens, supporting them under all their temptations, and delivering them out of them; strengthening them for his service, protecting them from their enemies, keeping them from falling, raising their dead bodies, and bringing all the sons of God to glory: or if the word should be rendered, as it may, "eaten" or "consumed" (n), it is true of Christ, whose zeal ate him up, Psa 69:9; and who is the antitype of the sacrifice consumed by fire. (f) De Dieu, Cocceius, Teelman. Specimen. Explicat. Parabot. p. 378. (g) Jelammedenu apud Buxtorf. Lex. Rab. col. 26. (h) Onomastic. Sacr. p. 39. (i) "onus", Mercerus; "prophetia gravis", Tigurine version. (k) Jermin in loc. (l) See Trapp in loc. (m) So Junius & Tremellius, Aamama, Calovius, Cartwright. (n) Vid. Teelman. Specimen. Expliicat. Parabol. p. 391.

There be three things which go well,.... In a very orderly and composed manner; with constancy and cheerfulness, with great stateliness and majesty, intrepidly, and without fear; yea, four are comely in going; very beautiful and lovely to look at as they walk.

"There be three things which go well, and the fourth which is comely in going; "that is, the angels in heaven, the saints upon earth, and the souls of the righteous under the earth. And the fourth, viz. God, the Word Incarnate, passed in honour through the Virgin's womb; and creating our Adam anew, he passed through the gates of heaven, and became the first-fruits of the resurrection and of the ascension for all. "The whelp of the lion is stronger than the beasts: "i.e., Christ as prophesied of by Jacob in the person of Judah. "A cock walking with high spirit among his dames: "such was Paul, when preaching boldly among the churches the word of the Christ of God. "A goat heading the herd: "such is He who was offered for the sins of the world. "And a king speaking among the people: "so Christ reigns over the nations, and speaks by prophets and apostles the word of truth.

There are three things which go well, etc. In this place, a lion is introduced, about whom it is written, "The lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered" (Revelation 5). He is called the mightiest of beasts, because in him what is weak of God is stronger than men (1 Corinthians 1); he fears no encounter; for he says, "The prince of this world is coming, and he has nothing in me" (John 14). The rooster girded with loins, that is, the holy preachers announcing the true dawn among the darkness of this night; who are girded with loins, because they restrain the flowing of luxury from their members. And a ram, and there is no king who resists him. Whom else do we accept in this place as the ram, if not the order of priests first within the Church? About whom it is written, "Bring to the Lord the sons of rams" (Psalm 29), who lead the flock of sheep following them by their examples; to whom, living spiritually and rightly, no king at all can resist, because any persecutor who confronts them cannot impede their intention. And because after these, even the Antichrist will appear, he adds this fourth saying:

(Pro. 30:1-33) This is the title of this chapter (see Introduction). the prophecy--literally, "the burden" (compare Isa 13:1; Zac 9:1), used for any divine instruction; not necessarily a prediction, which was only a kind of prophecy (Ch1 15:27, "a song"). Prophets were inspired men, who spoke for God to man, or for man to God (Gen 20:7; Exo 7:14-16). Such, also, were the New Testament prophets. In a general sense, Gad, Nathan, and others were such, who were divine teachers, though we do not learn that they ever predicted. the man spake--literally, "the saying of the man"; an expression used to denote any solemn and important announcement (compare Sa2 23:1; Psa 36:1; Psa 110:1; Isa 1:24, &c.). Ithiel and Ucal were perhaps pupils.

Another numerical proverb with the cipher 4 = 3 + 1: 29 Three things are of stately walk, And four of stately going: 30 The lion, the hero among beasts, And that turneth back before nothing; 31 The swift-loined, also the goat; And a king with whom is the calling out of the host. Regarding היטיב with inf. following (the segolated n. actionis צעד is of equal force with an inf.), vid., under Pro 15:2. (Note: In 29a, after Norzi, מיטיבי, and in 29b, מיטבי, is to be written, and this is required by the little Masora to Sa1 25:31, the great, to Eze 33:33, and also the Erfurt little Masora to the passage before us.) The relation of the members of the sentence in 30a is like that in 25a and 26a: subj. and apposit., which there, as here, is continued in a verbal clause which appears to us as relative. It deserves to be here remarked that לישׁ, as the name for a lion, occurs only here and at Job 4:11, and in the description of the Sinai wilderness, Isa 30:6; in Arab. it is layth, Aram. לית, and belongs to the Arameo-Arab. dialect of this language; the lxx and Syr. translate it "the young lion;" the Venet. excellently, by the epic λῖς. בּבּהמה has the article only to denote the genus, viz., of the beasts, and particularly the four-footed beasts. What is said in 30b (cf. with the expression, Job 39:22) is described in Isa 30:4. The two other beasts which distinguish themselves by their stately going are in 31a only briefly named. But we are not in the condition of the readers of this Book of Proverbs, who needed only to hear the designation זרזיר מתנים at once to know what beast was meant. Certainly זרזיר, as the name for a beast, is not altogether unknown in the post-bibl. Heb. "In the days of Rabbi Chija (the great teacher who came from Babylon to the Academy of Sepphoris), as is narrated in Bereschith rabba, sect. 65, a zarzir flew to the land of Israel, and it was brought to him with the question whether it were eatable. Go, said he, place it on the roof! Then came an Egyptian raven and lighted down beside it. See, said Chija, it is unclean, for it belongs to the genus of the ravens, which is unclean (Lev 11:15). From this circumstance there arose the proverb: The raven goes to the zarzir because it belongs to his own tribe." (Note: This "like draws to like" in the form: "not in vain goes the raven to the zarzir, it belongs just to its own tribe," came to be often employed, Chullin 65a, Baba Kamma 92b. Plantavitius has it, Tendlau more at large, Sprichwrter, u.s.w., Nr. 577.) Also the Jer. Rosch ha-schane, Halacha 3: "It is the manner of the world that one seeks to assist his zarzir, and another his zarzir, to obtain the victory;" and Midrash Echa v. 1, according to which it is the custom of the world, that one who has a large and a little zarzir in his house, is wont to treat the little one sparingly, so that in the case of the large one being killed, he might not need to buy another. According to this, the zarzir is a pugnacious animal, which also the proverb Bereschith rabba, c. 75, confirms: two zarzir do not sleep on one board; and one makes use of his for contests like cock-fights. According to this, the זרזיר is a bird, and that of the species of the raven; after Rashi, the tourneau, the starling, which is confirmed by the Arab. zurzur (vulgar Arab. zarzur), the common name of starlings (cf. Syr. zarzizo, under zrz of Castelli). But for the passage before us, we cannot regard this as important, for why is the starling fully named זרזיר מתנים? To this question Kimchi has already remarked that he knows no answer for it. Only, perhaps, the grave magpie (corvus pica), strutting with upraised tail, might be called succinctus lumbos, if מתנים can at all be used here of a bird. At the earliest, this might possibly be used of a cock, which the later Heb. named directly גּבר, because of its manly demeanour; most old translators so understand it. The lxx translates, omitting the loins, by ἀλέκτωρ ἐμπεριπατῶν θηλείαις εὔψυχος, according to which the Syr. and Targ.: like the cock which struts about proudly among the hens; (Note: Regarding the Targum Text, vid., Levy under אבּכא and זרכּל. The expression דּמזדּרז (who is girded, and shows himself as such) is not unsuitable.) Aquila and Theodotion: ἀλέκτωρ (ἀλεκτρυὼν) νώτου; The Quinta: ἀλέκτωρ ὀσφύος; Jezome: gallus succinctus lumbos. Ṣarṣar (not ṣirṣir, as Hitzig vocalizes) is in Arab. a name for a cock, from ṣarṣara, to crow, an onomatopoeia. But the Heb. זרזיר, as the name of a bird, signifies, as the Talmud proves on the ground of that history, not a cock, but a bird of the raven order, whether a starling, a crow, or a magpie. And if this name of a corvinus is formed from the onomatopoeia זרזר, the weaker form of that (Arab.) ṣarṣar, then מתנים, which, for זרזיר, requires the verbal root זרז, to girdle, is not wholly appropriate; and how strangely would the three animals be mingled together, if between לישׁ and תישׁ, the two four-footed animals, a bird were placed! If, as is to be expected, the "Lendenumgrtete" [the one girded about the loins = זרזיר מתנים] be a four-footed animal, then it lies near, with C. B. Michaelis and Ziegler, after Ludolf's (Note: Ludolf gave, in his Hist. Aethiop. i. 10, and Commentarius, p. 150, only a description of the Zecora, without combining therewith זרזיר; but vid., Joh. Dietr. Winckler's Theol. u. Philol. Abhand. i. (1755) p. 33ff.: "A nearer explanation of what is to be understood by זרזיר מתנים, Pro 30:31, along with a statement from a hitherto unpublished correspondence between the learned philologists Hiob Ludolf and Matthai Leydecker, a Reformed preacher in Batavia." With Ludolf, Joh. Simonis also, in the Arcanum Formarum (1735), p. 687f., decides in favour of the zebra.) example, to think of the zebra, the South African wild ass. But this animal lay beyond the sphere of the author's observation, and perhaps also of his knowledge, and at the same time of that of the Israelitish readers of this Book of Proverbs; and the dark-brown cross stripes on a white ground, by which the zebra is distinguished, extend not merely to its limbs, but over the whole body, and particularly over the front of the body. It would be more tenable to think of the leopard, with its black round spots, or the tiger, with dark stripes; but the name זרזיר מתנים scarcely refers to the colour of the hair, since one has to understand it after the Aram. זרז חרציהּ = שׁנּס מתניו, Kg1 18:46, or אחר חלציו, Job 38:3, and thus of an activity, i.e., strength and swiftness, depending on the condition of the loins. Those who, with Kimchi, think that the נמר [leopard] is thus named, ground their view, not on this, that it has rings or stripes round its legs, but on this, that it דק מתנים וחזק במתניו. But this beast has certainly its definite name; but a fundamental supposition entering into every attempt at an explanation is this, that זרזיר מתנים, as well as לישׁ and תישׁ, is the proper name of a beast, not a descriptive attribute. Therefore the opinion of Rosse, which Bochart has skilfully established in the Hierozoicon, does not recommend itself, for he only suggests, for choice, to understand the name, "the girded about the loins," in the proper sense of straps and clasps around and on the loins (thus e.g., Gesenius, Fleischer, Hitzig), or of strength, in the sense of the Arab. habuwk, the firmly-bound = compact, or ṣamm alṣlab, the girded loin (thus e.g., Muntinghe). Schultens connects together both references: Utrumque jungas licet. That the by-name fits the horse, particularly the war-horse, is undeniable; one would have to refer it, with Mhlau, to the slender structure, the thin flanks, which are reckoned among the requisites of a beautiful horse. (Note: Vid., Ahlwardt, Chalef elahmar's Qasside (1859), and the interpretation of the description of the horse contained therein, p. 210ff.) But if succinctus lumbos were a by-name of a horse, why did not the author at once say סוס זרזיר מתנים? We shall give the preference to the opinion, according to which the expression, "girt about the loins" = "with strong loins," or "with slender limbs," is not the by-name, but the proper name of the animal. This may be said of the hunting-hound, lvrier (according to which the Venet., incorrectly translating מתנים: λαγῳοκύων ψοιῶν), (Note: Thus reads Schleusner, Opusc. Crit. p. 318, and refers it to the horse: nam solebant equos figuris quibusdam notare et quasi sigillare.) which Kimchi ranks in the first place. Luther, by his translation, Ein Wind = Windhund [greyhound], of good limbs, has given the right direction to this opinion. Melanchton, Lavater, Mercier, Geier, and others, follow him; and, among the moderns, so also do Ewald and Bttcher (also Bertheau and Stuart), which latter supposes that before זרזיר מתנים there originally stood כבל, which afterwards disappeared. But why should the greyhound not at once be called זרזיר מתנים? We call the smaller variety of this dog the Windspiel [greyhound]; and by this name we think on a hound, without saying Windspielhund. The name זרזיר מתנים (Symmachus excellently: περιεσφιγμένος, not περιεσφραγισμένος, τὴν ὀσφύν, i.e., strongly bound in the limbs) is fitted at once to suggest to us this almost restless, slender animal, with its high, thin, nimble limbs. The verbal stem זרר (Arab.) zarr, signifies to press together, to knit together; the reduplicative form זרזר, to bind firmly together, whence זרזיר, firmly bound together, referred to the limbs as designating a natural property (Ewald, 158a): of straight and easily-moveable legs. (Note: The Aram. זרז is shortened from זרזר, as כּרך from כּרכּר; the particip. adj. זריז signifies nimble, swift, eager, e.g., Pesachim 4a: "the zealous obey the commandment - as soon as possible hasten to fulfil it.") The hunting-hound (salki or salki, i.e., coming from Seleucia) is celebrated by the Arab. poets as much as the hunting-horse. (Note: Vid., Ahlwardt, Chalef elahmar's Qasside, p. 205f.) The name כּלב, though not superfluous, the author ought certainly to have avoided, because it does not sound well in the Heb. collocation of words. There now follows תישׁ, a goat, and that not the ram (Jerome, Luther), which is called איל, but the he-goat, which bears this name, as Schultens has already recognised, from its pushing, as it is also called עתּוּד, as paratus ad pugnam; the two names appear to be only provincially different; שׂעיר, on the contrary, is the old he-goat, as shaggy; and צפיר also perhaps denotes it, as Schultens supposes, with twisted, i.e., curled hair (tortipilus). In Arab. tays denotes the he-goat as well as the roebuck and the gazelle, and that at full growth. The lxx (the Syr. and Targ., which is to be emended after the Syr.) is certainly right, for it understands the leading goat: καὶ τράγος ἡγούμενος αἰπολίου. The text, however, has not ותישׁ, but או תישׁ, ἢ τράγος (Aquila, Theodotion, Quinta, and the Venet.). Bttcher is astonished that Hitzig did not take hold of this או, and conjectures תּאו־תישׁ, which should mean a "gazelle-goat" (Mhlau: dorcas mas). But it is too bold to introduce here תּאו (תּוא), which is only twice named in the O.T., and תאו־תישׁ for תּאו זכר is not the Heb. style; and besides, the setting aside of או has a harsh asyndeton for its consequence, which bears evidence to the appearance that תאו and תישׁ are two different animals. And is the או then so objectionable? More wonderful still must Sol 2:9 appear to us. If the author enumerated the four of stately going on his fingers, he would certainly have said ותישׁ. By או he communicates to the hearer, setting before him another figure, how there in the Song Sulamith's fancy passed from one object to another. To the lion, the king of the animal world, the king אלקוּם עמּו corresponds. This אלקום Hitzig regards as mutilated from אלהים (which was both written and pronounced as אלקום by the Jews, so as to conceal the true sound of the name of God) - which is untenable, for this reason, that this religious conclusion ["A king with whom God is"] accords badly with the secular character of this proverb. Geiger (Urschrift, p. 62ff.) translates: "and King Alkimos corresponding to it (the lustful and daring goat)" - he makes the harmless proverb into a ludibrium from the time of the Maccabeo-Syrian war. The lxx, which the Syr. and Targ. follow, translates καὶ βασιλεὺς δημηγορῶν ἐν ἔθνει; it appears to have changed אלקום עמו into קם אל עמו (standing with his people and haranguing them), like the Quinta: καὶ βας. ἀναστὰς (ὃς ἀνέστη) ἐν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ. Ziegler and Bttcher also, reading עמּו and אל without any transposition, get ומלך אל־קוּם עמּו t, which the former translates: "a king with the presence of his people;" the latter, "a king with the setting up of his people," - not accordant with the thought, for the king should be brought forward as מיטיב לכת. For the same reason, Kimchi's explanation is not suitable: a king with whom is no resistance, i.e., against whom no one can rank himself (thus e.g., also Immanuel); or more specially, but not better: who has no successor of his race (according to which the Venet. ἀδιάδεκτος ξὺν ἑαυτῷ). Rather this explanation commends itself: a king with whom (i.e., in war with whom) is no resistance. Thus Jerome and Luther: against whom no one dare place himself; thus Rashi, Aben Ezra, Ralbag (שׁאין תקומה עמו), Ahron b. Josef (קום = ἀντίστασις), Arama, and others; thus also Schultens, Fleischer (adversus quem nemo consistere audet), Ewald, Bertheau, Elster, Stuart, and others. But this connection of אל with the infin. is not Heb.; and if the Chokma, xii. 28, has coined the expression אל־מות for the idea of "immortality," then certainly it does not express the idea of resistlessness by so bold a quasi compositum. But this boldness is also there mitigated, for יהי is supplied after אל, which is not here practicable with קוּם, which is not a subst. like מות. Pocock in the Spec. historiae Arabum, and Castellus in the Lex. Heptaglotton (not Castellio, as the word is printed by Zckler), have recognised in אלקום the Arab. âlkawm; Schultens gives the lxx the honour of this recognition, for he regards their translation as a paraphrase of ὁ δῆμος μετ ̓ αὐτοῦ. Bertheau thinks that it ought to be in Arab. kawmuhu, but אלקום עמו = âlkawhu ma'ahu is perfectly correct, âlkawhu is the summons or the Heerbann = arriere-ban; (Note: Wetzstein's Ausgewhlte Inschriften, p. 355: "The word ḳawm signifies people, not in the sense of populus, but in the sense of the Heb. קים (Job 24:7) = muḳawim abrajul, he who breaks with or against any one." Incorrect in Gesenius-Dietrich's Heb. Wrterbuch.) in North Africa they speak in their language in the same sense of the Gums. This explanation of אלקום, from the Arab. Dachselt (rex cum satellitio suo), Diedrichs in his Arab.-Syr. Spicilegium (1777), Umbreit, Gesenius, and Vaihinger, have recognised, and Mhlau has anew confirmed it at length. Hitzig, on the contrary, remarks that if Agur wrote on Arab. territory, we could be contented with the Arab. appellative, but not with the article, which in words like אלגּבישׁ and אלמגּים is no longer of force as an art., but is an integ. component part of the word. We think that it is with אלקום exactly as with other words descriptive of lordship, and the many similar that have passed over into the Spanish language; the word is taken over along with the article, without requiring the Heb. listener to take the art. as such, although he certainly felt it better than we do, when we say "das Alkoran" [the Alcoran], "das Alcohol," and the like. Blau also, in his Gesch. der Arab. Substantiv-Determ., (Note: In the "Alt-arab. Sprachstudien," Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. xxv. 539f.) regards it as certain that Agur borrowed this אלקום from the idiom of the Arabians, among whom he lived, and heard it constantly spoken. By this explanation we first reach a correspondence between what is announced in lines first and second and line sixth. A king as such is certainly not "comely in going;" he can sit upon his throne, and especially as δημηγορῶν will he sit (Act 12:21) and not stand. But the majesty of his going shows itself when he marches at the head of those who have risen up at his summons to war. Then he is for the army what the תישׁ he-goat is for the flock. The או, preferred to ו, draws close together the רישׁ e and the king (cf. e.g., Isa 14:9).