Proverbs 23:1-3

CRITICAL NOTES.—

Proverbs 23:1. When thou sittest, etc. Miller here translates “Forasmuch as thou sittest,” and applying the word ruler to God gives to the proverb a meaning entirely different from that generally attached to it. See his remarks in the Suggestive Comments. What is before thee? Rather “Who is before,” etc.

Proverbs 23:2. Put a knife, etc. Zöckler, Ewald, and others translate “Thou hast put,” or “thou puttest.” The meaning may then be “Thou hast virtually destroyed thyself if thou art a self-indulgent man.” Delitzsch, however, gives the verb the imperative form, as in the English version.

Proverbs 23:3. Deceitful meat. Literally “Bread of lies.” Many commentators understand this to mean a deceptive meal, which is not given from motives of hospitality.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH Proverbs 23:1

THE TEMPTATIONS OF THE TABLE

I. The table of a wealthy man is a place of temptation to the sin of overindulgence. At such a table there is a great variety of dishes, and the human appetite, in common with every bodily sense and mental faculty, delights in variety. The eye is best pleased with a diversified landscape, the ear with a diversity of sound, and the mind when it can vary the objects of its contemplation. So man’s appetite is most gratified by a variety of food, and there is much more temptation to excess under such circumstances than when his hunger has to be satisfied from a single dish. Then, again, the food at such a repast is generally of the most tempting kind—all the countries of the world are put under contribution to supply it with dainties, and much skill and time is expended upon the preparation of the food. There is little danger of eating too much when bread is the only fare, but it begins and increases in proportion to the palatable nature of the viands. And the proverb seems to be addressed to those to whom a seat at the rich man’s or ruler’s table was not an every-day occurrence—to those to whom it was not given to feast so sumptuously every day—and this would increase the force of the temptation. The variety and the rarity of the dishes is much more tempting to one unaccustomed to such feasts.

II. It is most degrading and injurious to yield to such a temptation. This is implied in the strong metaphor which Solomon uses. An undue indulgence in the pleasures of the table, even when it does not amount to positive gluttony, is a most fruitful source of disease, and for this cause, if for no other, dainty food well deserves the name which is here given to it. But it is also most injurious to man’s better nature; it is often the first step to habits of intemperance and licentiousness, but if it does not lead to them it is altogether incompatible with intellectual and moral excellence. A man who is not master of his appetite is below the brute and can be neither great nor good. It is well to remember that an appeal to the appetite was one of the elements in the first temptation. An Eastern fable runs thus: “A king once permitted the devil to kiss him on either shoulder. Immediately two serpents grew from his shoulders, which, furious with hunger, attacked his head and attempted to get at his brain. The king tore them away. But he soon saw with horror that they had become part of himself, and that, in wounding them he was lacerating his own flesh.” Such is the deplorable condition of every victim of appetite and lust.

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS

First, thy duty is to be temperate as to the quantity of thy diet.… God gave man food to further, not to hinder him in his general and particular calling, and surely they sin who feed till, like fatted horses, they are unfit for service.… Christians may cheer nature, but they must not clog it. It is a great privilege in the charter granted us by the King of Kings, that we should have dominion over the creatures; but it will be a sordid bondage if we suffer them to have dominion over us. Socrates was wont to say, that evil men live that they may eat and drink, but good men eat and drink that they may live.… Secondly, thy duty is to be temperate as to the quality of thy diet. Though no certain quality of food can be set down, yet in general this must be observed, that we make not provision for the flesh. (Romans 13:12.) We may preserve the flesh, but we must not provide for the flesh. Our enemy is strong enough already, we need not put more weapons into his hands.… The Christian may take his food, but his food must not take him.… It is not unlawful to eat dainties, but it is unlawful to set the mind upon them.… We may eat and digest dainties, but we may not crave and desire dainties. God made man not for fleshly dainties, but for spiritual delights.… Elijah could be content with a raven for his cook. Daniel fed and thrived upon pulse: he looked fairer by it than those that did eat the king’s fare. Brown bread and the gospel are good cheer, said the martyr. John the Baptist could live upon locusts and wild honey. The apostles had some ears of corn for a Sabbath-day’s dinner. Though God is pleased out of mercy to afford us better provision, yet our work must be to mind moderation.—Swinnock.

It is of the Lord that hunger is painful and food gives pleasure; between these two lines of defence the Creator has placed life with a view to its preservation. The due sustenance of the body is the Creator’s end; the pleasantness of food is the means of obtaining it. When men prosecute and cultivate that pleasure as an end, they thwart the very purposes of Providence.—Arnot.

(It will be seen that the following comment is based on Miller’s rendering. See Critical Notes.) Kings like to see their guests eat. At the very utmost, this part of our behaviour is a matter of indifference. But of God nothing could be more exact. We are all eating with Him; in fact, feeding upon Him; as though He were Himself bread. “Forasmuch,” therefore, is just in place. “Discerning well who is before thee,” that also, is perfectly consistent. And then our sin, what is that? Why, fleshly appetite! What is innocent at courts is idolatry in the banquet to the skies.… Serving the creature more than the Creator, Paul expresses it; and gives us ample analogy after a New Testament kind (Romans 1:25, see also James 4:3), for understanding how we have put a knife to our throat, if we be men given to appetite.—Miller.