Whosoever is a little one, let him come to me. And to the unwise she said:

“"Whoso is simple, Let him turn to me," she says, alluding manifestly to the holy apostles, who traversed the whole world, and called the nations to the knowledge of Him in truth, with their lofty and divine preaching. And again, "And to those that want understanding she said"-that is, to those who have not yet obtained the power of the Holy Ghost.”

“Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither,.... Into Wisdom's house, so well built and furnished; the church of Christ, as a house of instruction; a school, where such who are "simple", weak, and foolish, may learn. Here are many instructors; saints instruct one another; ministers of the word are teachers; yea, Father, Son, and Spirit, here teach and instruct, and none teach like them. Here many lessons are to be learned concerning themselves, concerning Christ, and concerning their duty to God and men; all sorts of persons may learn here, such who know ever so much or ever so little. Or let him turn in here, as into an inn, into which passengers or travellers turn for accommodations; see Pro 9:15. The saints are travellers here, at a distance from their Father's house, and need refreshment by the way; the church of God is an inn of good accommodations; here is room enough to entertain them; here are good lodgings for rest and safety, and good provisions, and all of free cost. And now these are the words of Wisdom, or Christ, either in person, or by his maidens, his ministers, inviting such who are "simple" to turn in hither, and partake of the provisions in it; that is, not such who are quite stupid and insensible, sottish, incorrigible, and irreclaimable; but who are sensible of their folly and simplicity; who are but of weak capacities, apt to be credulous, and so easily imposed upon and deceived; as for him that wanteth understanding; not the natural faculty of the understanding, nor an understanding of things natural and civil; but of things spiritual and evangelical, as of the grace of God; of salvation by Christ; of the work of the Spirit; of themselves and their state; of the Gospel, and the mysteries of it; and who are sensible of their ignorance and want of understanding; which is the first thing the Spirit of God convinces men of; or who are so in comparison of others, are weak in knowledge and experience. Now these Christ does not despise, but invites them into his house for instruction; and where can they be better? and who so fit and proper to be here, and be with Wisdom, than such as these? she saith to him: as follows.”

“Now follows the street-sermon of Wisdom inviting to her banquet: 4 Who is simple? let him come hither!" Whoso wanteth understanding, to him she saith: 5 "Come, eat of my bread, And drink of the wine which I have mingled! 6 Cease, ye simple, and live, And walk straight on in the way of understanding." The question מי פּתי (thus with Munach, not with Makkeph, it is to be written here and at Pro 9:16; vid., Baer's Torath Emeth, p. 40), quis est imperitus, is, as Psa 25:12, only a more animated expression for quisquis est. The retiring into the background of the נערות (servants), and the immediate appearance of Wisdom herself, together with the interruption, as was to be expected, of her connected discourses by the אמרה לּו, are signs that the pure execution of the allegorical representation is her at an end. Hitzig seeks, by the rejection of Pro 9:4, Pro 9:5, Pro 9:7-10, to bring in a logical sequence; but these interpolations which he cuts out are yet far more inconceivable than the proverbial discourses in the mouth of Wisdom, abandoning the figure of a banquet, which besides are wholly in the spirit of the author of this book. That Folly invites to her, Pro 9:16, in the same words as are used by Wisdom, Pro 9:4, is not strange; both address themselves to the simple (vid., on פּתי at Pro 1:4) and those devoid of understanding (as the youth, Pro 7:7), and seek to bring to their side those who are accessible to evil as to good, and do not dully distinguish between them, which the emulating devertat huc of both imports. The fourth verse points partly backwards, and partly forwards; 4a has its introduction in the תקרא of Pro 9:3; on the contrary, 4b is itself the introduction of what follows. The setting forth of the nom. absolutus חסר־לב is conditioned by the form of 4a; the מי (cf. 4a) is continued (in 4b) without its needing to be supplied: excors (= si quis est excors) dicit ei (not dixit, because syntactically subordinating itself to the תקרא). It is a nominal clause, whose virtual predicate (the devoid of understanding is thus and thus addressed by her) as in Pro 9:16. Pro 9:5 The plur. of the address shows that the simple (inexperienced) and the devoid of understanding are regarded as essentially one and the same class of men. The בּ after לחם and שׁתה proceeds neither from the idea of eating into (hewing into) anything, nor from the eating with anything, i.e., inasmuch as one makes use of it, nor of pampering oneself with anything (as ראה ב); Michaelis at last makes a right decision (cf. Lev 22:11; Jdg 13:16; Job 21:25, and particularly לחם בּ, Psa 141:4): communicationem et participationem in re fruenda denotat; the lxx φάγετε τῶν ἐμῶν ἄρτων. The attributive מסכתּי stands with backward reference briefly for מסכתּיו. That Wisdom, Pro 9:2, offers flesh and wine, but here presents bread and wine, is no contradiction, which would lead us, with Hitzig, critically to reject Pro 9:4 and Pro 9:5 as spurious; לחם is the most common, all-comprehensive name for nourishment. Bertheau suitably compares Jahve's invitation, Isa 55:1, and that of Jesus, Joh 6:35. Pro 9:6 That פתאים is a plur. with abstract signification (according to which the four Greek and the two Aramaean translations render it; the Graec. Venet., however, renders τοὺς νηπίους) is improbable; the author forms the abstr. Pro 9:13 otherwise, and the expression here would be doubtful. For פתאים is here to be rendered as the object-accus.: leave the simple, i.e., forsake this class of men (Ahron b. Joseph; Umbreit, Zckler); or also, which we prefer (since it is always a singular thought that the "simple" should leave the "simple"), as the vocative, and so that עזבוּ means not absolutely "leave off" (Hitzig), but so that the object to be thought of is to be taken from פתאים: give up, leave off, viz., the simple (Immanuel and others; on the contrary, Rashi, Meri, and others, as Ewald, Bertheau, decide in favour of פתאים as n. abstr.). Regarding וחיוּ, for et vivetis, vid., Pro 4:4. The lxx, paraphrasing: ἵνα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα βασιλεύσητε. אשׁר is related to אשׁוּר (אשׁוּר) is דּרך to דּרך; the Piel, not in its intrans. (vid., Pro 4:14) but in its trans. sense (Isa 1:17; Isa 3:12, etc.), shows that the idea of going straight out and forwards connects itself therewith. The peculiarity of the פתי is just the absence of character.”