4<\/strong>. It is not for<\/em> ] or, Far be it from<\/em>.<\/p>\n for princes strong drink<\/em> ] Rather, for princes<\/strong> to say<\/em>, Where is strong drink?<\/strong> This is the corrected Heb. reading for that noticed in R.V., marg., “Another reading is, to desire strong drink<\/em>.”<\/p>\n Some read: nor for princes to say, Where is strong drink? The strong drink Pro 20:1<\/span> was distilled from barley, or honey, or dates.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 4<\/span>. It is <\/B>not for kings – to drink wine<\/B><\/I>] An intemperate man is ill fit to hold the reins of government.<\/P> <\/p>\n To drink wine, <\/B>to wit, to drunkenness or excess, as the next verse explains it. <\/P> <\/p>\n 4, 5.<\/B> Stimulants enfeeblereason, pervert the heart, and do not suit rulers, who need clear andsteady minds, and well-governed affections (compare Pro 20:1<\/span>;Pro 22:29<\/span>). <\/P> pervert . . . afflicted<\/B>Theygive unrighteous decisions against the poor.<\/P><\/p>\n [It is] not for kings, O Lemuel<\/strong>,…. It is not fit for them, it is very unbecoming them; it is dishonourable to them, to such as Lemuel was, or was likely to be; or far be it from kings, let no such thing be do ne by them, nor by thee;<\/p>\n [it is] not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink<\/strong>; it is lawful for kings to drink wine in a moderate manner, and for princes, counsellors, and judges, to drink strong drink; meaning not such as is made of malt, which in those times was not used; but of honey, dates, pomegranates, and such like things; but then it was very unbecoming for either of them to drink any of these to excess; it is very disgraceful to any man to drink immoderately, to make a beast of himself, and much more a king or judge, who, of all men, ought to be grave and sober; both that they may perform their office well, and maintain the grandeur and dignity of it, which otherwise would become useless and despicable, yea, pernicious, as follows. Solomon, notwithstanding this advice, gave himself unto wine as well as women, Ec 2:3<\/span>. The Targum is,<\/p>\n “take care of kings, O Lemuel, of kings who drink wine, and of princes that drink strong drink.”<\/p>\n So the Syriac version, keep no company with them, nor follow their example; see Ec 10:17<\/span>; The last clause may be rendered, “nor for princes [to say], where is strong drink” d? where is it to be had? where is the best? as drunkards do; which is according to the marginal reading; but the “Cetib”, or writing, is , “or” e; but some render it as a noun, “the desire of strong drink” f: it does not become princes to covet it.<\/p>\n d “ubi sechar?” Montanus, Vatlablus; “ubi (est) sicera?”, Cocceius, Michaelis; so Ben Melech. e “siceram”, Cocceius, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Gussetius. p. 20. Schultens. f “Nunc vino pellite curas”, Horat. Carmin, l. 1. Ode 7. v. 31. “Tu spem reducis”, &c. ib. l. 3. Ode 21. v. 17.<\/p>\n Hence there now follows a warning against drunkenness, not unmediated by the reading :<\/p>\n 4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel,<\/p>\n Not for kings to drink wine,<\/p>\n Not for rulers to ask for intoxicating drink;<\/p>\n 5 Lest he drink, and forget what is prescribed,<\/p>\n And pervert the right of all the children of want.<\/p>\n The usual translation of 4a is: non decet reges <\/em>… (as e.g.<\/em>, also Mhlau); but in this is not rightly rendered, which indeed is at times only an , spoken with close interest, but yet first of all, especially in such paraenetic connection as here, it is a dissuasive . But now or , after 2Ch 26:18<\/span>; Mic 3:1<\/span>, signifies: it is not the part of kings, it does not become them to drink, which may also be turned into a dissuasive form: let it not be the part of kings to drink, let them not have any business therewith, as if it belonged to their calling; according to which Fleischer renders: Absit a regibus, Lemuel, absit a regibus potare vinum <\/em>. The clearer expression , instead of , is, after Bttcher, occasioned by this, that the name is here in the vocative; perhaps rather by this, that the meaning of the name: consecrated to God, belonging to God, must be placed in contrast to the descending to low, sensual lust. Both times we write with the orthophonic Dagesh<\/em> <\/p>\n (Note: Vid<\/em>., Luth. Zeitschrift<\/em>, 1863, p. 413. It is the rule, according to which, with Ben-Asher, it is to be written .)<\/p>\n in the following , and without the recompensative Dagesh<\/em>, the want of which is in a certain measure covered by the Metheg<\/em> ( vid<\/em>., Norzi). Regarding the inf<\/em>. constr<\/em>. (cf. , Pro 16:16<\/span>), vid<\/em>., Gesen. 75, Anm. 2; and regarding the sequence of accents here necessary, (not Mercha<\/em>, Dechi<\/em>, Athnach<\/em>, for Dechi<\/em> would be here contrary to rule), vid<\/em>., Thorath Emeth<\/em>, p. 22 6, p. 43 7.<\/p>\n In 4b nothing is to be gained from the Chethb . There is not a substantive , desire, the constr<\/em>. of which would here have to be read, not (Umbreit, Gesenius), but , after the form (Maurer); and why did the author not write ? But the particle does not here also fall in with the connection; for if connect itself with (Hitzig, Ewald, and others), then it would drag disagreeably, and we would have here a spiritless classification of things unadvisable for kings. Bttcher therefore sees in this the remains of the obliterated ; a corrector must then have transformed the which remained into . But before one ventures on such conjectures, the Ker [where?] must be tried. Is it the abbreviated (Herzog’s Real-Wrterbuch<\/em>, xiv. 712)? Certainly not, because would mean: and the princes, or rulers ( vid<\/em>., regarding at Pro 8:15<\/span>), have no mead, which is inconsistent. But does not abbreviate itself into , but into . Not , but , is in Heb., as well as in Ethiop., the word with which negative adjectives such as , not innocent, Job 22:30<\/span>, and in later Heb. also, negative sentences, such as : it is not possible, are formed.<\/p>\n (Note: The author of the Comm<\/em>. to the , c. 6, Geiger and others would read , because is abbreviated from . But why not from , 1Sa 21:9<\/span>? The traditional expression is ; and Elias Levita in the Tishbi<\/em>, as also Baer in the Siddur Abodath Jisrael<\/em>, are right in defending it against that innovation.)<\/p>\n Therefore Mhlau vocalizes , and thinks that the author used this word for , so as not to repeat this word for the third time. But how is that possible? signifies either: not mead, or: there is not mead; and both afford, for the passage before us, no meaning. Is, then, the Ker truly so unsuitable? Indeed, to explain: how came intoxicating drink to rulers! is inadmissible, since always means only ubi <\/em> ( e.g.<\/em>, Gen 4:9<\/span>); not, like the Ethiop. aite , also quomodo <\/em>. But the question ubi temetum <\/em>, as a question of desire, fits the connection, whether the sentence means: non decet principibus dicere <\/em> (Ahron b. Josef supplies ) ubi temetum <\/em>, or: absit a principibus quaerere ubi temetum <\/em> (Fleischer), which, from our view of 4a, we prefer. There is in reality nothing to be supplied; but as 4a says that the drinking of wine ought not to characterize kings, so 4b, that “Where is mead?” ( i.e.<\/em>, this eager inquiry after mead) ought not to characterize rulers.<\/p>\n (Note: The translation of Jerome, quia nullum secretum est ubi regnat ebrietas <\/em> (as if the words were ), corresponds to the proverb: :b , when the wine goes in the secret comes out; or, which is the same thing: if one adds (= 70), (= 70) comes out.)<\/p>\n Why not? Pro 31:5<\/span> says. That the prince, being a slave to drink, may not forget the , i.e.<\/em>, that which has been made and has become , thus that which is lawfully right, and may not alter the righteous cause of the miserable, who cry against their oppressors, i.e.<\/em>, may not handle falsely the facts of the case, and give judgment contrary to them.<\/p>\n (Aquila, Theodotion, Quinta, ) is elsewhere equivalent to ( ). are those who are, as it were, born to oppression and suffering. This mode of expression is a Semitism (Fleischer), but it here heightens the impression of the Arab. colouring. In ( Venet<\/em>. ) it is indicated that, not merely with reference to individual poor men, but in general to the whole class of the poorer people, suffering humanity, sympathy and a regard for truth on the part of a prince given to sensuality are easily thrown aside. Wine is better suited for those who are in a condition to be timeously helped over which, is a refreshment to them.<\/p>\n Warnings Against Strong Drink<\/strong><\/p>\n Verses 4-5 warn against strong drink and drunkenness emphasizing that such dulls awareness of divine law and perverts judgment, Pro 20:1<\/span>; Pro 23:20<\/span>; Pro 23:29-31<\/span>; Ecc 10:17<\/span>; Isa 5:22<\/span>; Hos 4:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n (4) It is not for kings to drink wine.<\/strong>Another of the temptations of kings. (Comp. 1Ki. 16:9<\/span>; 1Ki. 20:16<\/span>; Ecc. 10:17<\/span>.) Perversion of justice as the result of revelry is also noted by Isaiah (Isa. 5:22-23<\/span>). Comp. St. Pauls advice to use this world so as not abusing, or rather using it to the full (1Co. 7:31<\/span>)<\/p>\n 4<\/strong>. <\/strong> Nor for princes strong drink <\/strong> Or, the desire of strong drink. <\/em> , ( shekhar,<\/em>) rendered strong drink, <\/em> usually means any kind of fermented drink other than wine, and sometimes means wine, or is so rendered, as in Num 28:7<\/span>. There is nothing in the etymology of the word requiring our qualifying term strong. <\/em> Nor is the qualifier used as distinguishing it from wine, or as compared with wine; but as distinguishing it from other drinks, as water, milk, etc., which possess no inebriating properties. It is the sikera <\/em> of the Greeks, (see Luk 1:15<\/span>.) Besides wine, which is properly the juice of the grape, the Hebrews and other ancients manufactured drinks possessing exhilarating and intoxicating qualities from other fruits also, as the date and apple; from grain, as barley; from honey, etc. Shekhar, <\/em> or sikera, <\/em> seems to have been a generic term applied to any and all of these drinks. It is generally distinguished from wine, and the poets often use shekhar <\/em> in one member and , ( yayin,<\/em>) wine, <\/em> in the other member of a verse or distich. It is probable that fermented wine was the strongest drink known to the Hebrews, except such as were mixed with drugs to increase their intoxicating properties. These mixed wines, or other mixed beverages, are also sometimes called shekhar. Isa 5:22<\/span><\/em>. Compare Proverbs xxiii, 29, et seq., <\/em> and notes.<\/p>\n Pro 31:4<\/span> [It is] not for kings, O Lemuel, [it is] not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:<\/p>\n Ver. 4. It is not for kings to drink wine,<\/strong> ] i.e., <\/em> To be “drunk with wine, wherein is excess,” Eph 5:18 where the apostle determines excessive drinking to be downright drunkenness, viz., when as swine do their bellies, so men break their heads with filthy quaffing. This, as no man may lawfully do, so least of all princes; for in maxima libertate minima est licentia.<\/em> Men are therefore the worse because they are bound to be better. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Nor for princes strong drink.<\/strong> ] Or, as some read it, Where is the strong drink? It is not for princes to ask such a question. All heady and intoxicating drinks are by statute here forbidden them. Of Bonosus the emperor it was said that he was born non ut vivat sed ut bibat,<\/em> not to live but to drink; and when, being overcome by Probus, he afterwards hanged himself, it was commonly jested that a tankard hung there, and not a man. But what a beast was Marcus Antonius, that wrote (or rather spewed out) a book concerning his own strength to bear strong drink? And what another was Darius King of Persia, who commanded this inscription to be set upon his sepulchre, “I was able to hunt lustily, to drink wine soundly, and to bear it bravely.” a<\/em> That Irish rebel Tiroen, A.D. 1567, was such a drunkard, that, to cool his body when he was immoderately inflamed with wine and whisky, he would many times be buried in the earth up to the chin. b<\/em> These were unfit men to bear rule. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> K , , . – Strabo.<\/em> <\/p>\n b<\/em> Camden’s Elisabeth.<\/p>\n wine. Hebrew. yayin. App-27. <\/p>\n strong drink. Hebrew. shekar. App-27. <\/p>\n Lev 10:9, Lev 10:10, 1Ki 20:12, 1Ki 20:16-20, Est 3:15, Ecc 10:17, Isa 28:7, Isa 28:8, Dan 5:2-4, Hos 4:11, Hos 4:12, Hos 7:3-5, Hab 2:5, Mar 6:21-28 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Num 6:3 – General Pro 20:1 – General Ecc 2:3 – yet Isa 5:23 – justify Isa 56:12 – I will 1Ti 5:23 – General Tit 1:7 – not given to wine<\/p>\n Pro 31:4-7. It is not for kings to drink wine Namely, to excess, as the next verse explains it: Lest they drink and forget the law The laws of God, by which they are to govern themselves and their kingdoms; and pervert the judgment of the afflicted Which may be easily done by a drunken judge, because drunkenness deprives a man of the use of his reason; by which alone men can distinguish between right and wrong, and withal stirs up those passions in him, which incline him both to precipitation and partiality. Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish To faint; for such need a cordial. This is to be understood comparatively; to him rather than to kings, because he needs a liberal draught of it more than they do. Let him drink and forget his poverty For wine moderately used allays mens cares and fears, and cheers the spirits.<\/p>\n 31:4 [It is] not for kings, O Lemuel, [it is] not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes {e} strong drink:<\/p>\n (e) That is, the king must not give himself to wantonness, and neglect of his office, which is to execute judgment.<\/p>\n [It is] not for kings, O Lemuel, [it is] not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: 4. It is not for ] or, Far be it from. for princes strong drink ] Rather, for princes to say, Where is strong drink? This is the corrected Heb. reading for that noticed in … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Proverbs 31:4”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17299","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"