Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary

But more than this, wisdom makes its possessor in all situations of life confident in God: 23 Then shalt thou go thy way with confidence, And thy foot shall not stumble. 24 When thou liest down, thou are not afraid, But thou layest thyself down and hast sweet sleep. 25 Thou needest not be afraid of sudden alarm, Nor for the storm of the wicked when it breaketh forth. 26 For Jahve will be thy confidence And keep thy foot from the snare. The לבטח (cf. our "bei guter Laune" = in good cheer), with ל of the condition, is of the same meaning as the conditional adverbial accusative בּטח, Pro 10:9; Pro 1:33. Pro 3:23 the lxx translate ὁ δὲ πούς σου οὐ μὴ προσκόψῃ, while, on the contrary, at Psa 91:12 they make the person the subject (μήποτε προσκόψῃς τὸν κ.τ.λ.); here also we retain more surely the subject from 23a, especially since for the intrans. of נגף (to smite, to push) a Hithpa. התנגּף is used Jer 13:16. In Pro 3:24 there is the echo of Job 11:18, and in Pro 3:25 of Job 5:21. Pro 3:24 is altogether the same as Job 5:24 : et decumbes et suavis erit somnus tuus = si decubueris, suavis erit. The hypothetic perf., according to the sense, is both there and at Job 11:18 (cf. Jer 20:9) oxytoned as perf. consec. Similar examples are Pro 6:22; Gen 33:13; Sa1 25:31, cf. Ewald, 357a. ערבה (of sleep as Jer 31:26) is from ערב, which in Hebr. is used of pleasing impressions, as the Arab. ‛ariba of a lively, free disposition. שׁנה, somnus (nom. actionis from ישׁן, with the ground-form sina preserved in the Arab. lidat, vid., Job, p. 284, note), agrees in inflexion with שׁנה, annus. אל, Pro 3:25, denies, like Psa 121:3, with emphasis: be afraid only not = thou hast altogether nothing to fear. Schultens rightly says: Subest species prohibitionis et tanquam abominationis, ne tale quicquam vel in suspicionem veniat in mentemve cogitando admittatur. פּחד here means terror, as Pro 1:26., the terrific object; פּתאם (with the accus. om) is the virtual genitive, as Pro 26:2 חנּם (with accus. am). Regarding שׁאה, see under Pro 1:27. The genitive רשׁעים may be, after Psa 37:18, the genit. subjecti, but still it lies nearer to say that he who chooses the wisdom of God as his guiding star has no ground to fear punishment as transgressors have reason to fear it; the שׁאה is meant which wisdom threatens against transgressors, Pro 1:27. He needs have no fear of it, for wisdom is a gift of God, and binds him who receives it to the giver: Jahve becomes and is henceforth his confidence. Regarding ב essentiae, which expresses the closest connection of the subject with the predicate which it introduces, see under Psa 35:2. As here, so also at Exo 18:4; Psa 118:7; Psa 146:6, the predicate is a noun with a pronominal suffix. כּסל is, as at Psa 78:7; Job 31:24, cognate to מבטה and מקוה, (Note: According to Malbim, תּקוה is the expectation of good, and כּסל, confidence in the presence of evil.) the object and ground of confidence. That the word in other connections may mean also fool-hardiness, Psa 49:14, and folly, Ecc 7:25 (cf. regarding כּסיל, which in Arab. as belı̂d denotes the dull, in Hebr. fools, see under Pro 1:22), it follows that it proceeds from the fundamental conception of fulness of flesh and of fat, whence arise the conceptions of dulness and slothfulness, as well as of confidence, whether confidence in self or in God (see Schultens l.c., and Wnsche's Hosea, p. 207f.). לכד is taking, catching, as in a net or trap or pit, from לכד, to catch (cf. Arab. lakida, to fasten, III, IV to hold fast); another root-meaning, in which Arab. lak connects itself with nak, nk, to strike, to assail (whence al-lakdat, the assault against the enemy, Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitsch. xxii. 140), is foreign to the Hebr. Regarding the מן of מלכד, Fleischer remarks: "The מן after the verbs of guarding, preserving, like שׁמר and נצר, properly expresses that one by those means holds or seeks to hold a person or thing back from something, like the Lat. defendere, tueri aliquem ab hostibus, a perculo." (Note: Hitzig rejects Pro 3:22-26 as a later interpolation. And why? Because chap. 3, which he regards as a complete discourse, consists of twice ten verses beginning with בּני. In addition to this symmetry other reasons easily reveal themselves to his penetration. But the discourses contained in chap. 1-9 do not all begin with בני (vid., Pro 1:20); and when it stands in the beginning of the discourse, it is not always the first word (vid., Pro 1:8); and when it occurs as the first word or in the first line, it does not always commence a new discourse (vid., Pro 1:15 in the middle of the first, Pro 3:11 in the middle of the fourth); and, moreover, the Hebr. poetry and oratory does not reckon according to verses terminated by Soph Pasuk, which are always accented distichs, but they in reality frequently consist of three or more lines. The rejected verses are in nothing unlike those that remain, and which are undisputed; they show the same structure of stichs, consisting for the most part of three, but sometimes also only of two words (cf. Pro 3:22 with Pro 1:9, Pro 1:10), the same breadth in the course of the thoughts, and the same accord with Job and Deuteronomy.)