2

The word panaq is used only once in scripture, in Proverbs 29:21, and thus has caused some head-scratching as is seen in the question on this site which asked if it were good to turn a 'slave' into a son.

The Wycliffe, in 1382, translating from Jerome's Vulgate, seems to have started a trend :

He that nurschith his seruaunt delicatli fro childhod; schal fynde hym rebel aftirward,

rendering panaq as 'delicately' and then finding the word 'rebel' from I don't know where, the interlinear stating only 'and in the end will have him as a son'.

Panah is 'to look' or 'to face' and is so translated in the KJV 86 times out of about an hundred (see Young's Concordance Lexicon).

Panim is 'face', 'countenance', 'presence' or 'sight', usually in the KJV, or shades of meaning such as 'open' or 'person' (see Young's Concordance Lexicon) .

Thus, without any other information to process, I would see panaq as being 'in the sight of' or 'before the face of'.

(I do not know where the 'delicately' or 'pamper' meanings are got from.)

And if so, I would see a meaning that, with such a single use word, and with such a hinted meaning, might well be the lifting of a veil for a momentary glance at that which was to be revealed, in detail, at a later stage of revelation.

Thus to Galatians, chapter 4 :

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come . . . . . .

So, would the servant brought up 'before the face of' someone, who, thus, at length, becomes a son, be the prophecy of the New Testament wherein the heir, not yet seen as such but only as a servant in bondage as are all, once the time appointed of the Father is at hand, is revealed as one of the sons of God, an heir of the inheritance of the world to come ?

2

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6445.htm Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance says of the form, מְפַנֵּ֣ק מפנק mə·p̄an·nêq mefanNek məp̄annêq

  • bring up - A primitive root; to enervate - bring up.

Upbringing with a purpose would be done by a master with an eye to the future of a child servant. Perhaps an orphan who (in Roman times) could be adopted into the master’s household as one of his own. When that was done legally, the adopted child would have all the rights of any natural-born child. No more would the position of servant apply!

Jesus spoke of servants who have to do their day’s work for their master, then get ready and serve his evening meal to him. They are not invited to share it with him! They must wait till he has finished eating before clearing away and, only then can they eat themselves. That shows the accepted roles of servants and master (see Luke 17:7-10).

Yet Jesus told his faithful followers this astounding reversal of accepted norms:

“Greater love has no man than this, than that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I no longer call you servants, for the servant does not know his master’s business. But I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” (John 15:13-15).

Not many rich or wise are called by Christ. Those once poor and lowly people, now his friends, are also called to sit at the banqueting table of the King of Kings. They served him on earth, and were despised by many, but he gently and purpousfuly brought them up to become heirs, with a glorious inheritance, kept for them in heaven (1 Peter 1:4 & Acts 20:32).

I once had a letter from my friends who ministered in India, working among poverty-stricken people (the 'untouchables - the Dallits) who had to literally work in the cesspits of Indian sewage systems, clearing them out and sometimes dying as a result. They quoted 1 Samuel 2:8 -

"He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory."

How that marries with Proverbs 29:21 as well as Galatians 4:1-7 regarding adoption as sons of the King! And also with Revelation 19:9 – “Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” So, there we have Old Testament hints, then Jesus’ clear words, and the final prophecy about this future banqueting table in heaven, where one-time poor, labouring servants in the sight of this world are viewed differently by their master, Jesus. They have been carefully brought up, viewed by him as children of the King, adopted into his heavenly family (Romans 8:14-17). The simple answer to your question is that, yes, those two scriptures are both related to each other, and have relevance, one for the other.

0

When I looked up the word PANAQ it gave the meaning as to indulge or to pamper which makes sense in context of the proverb.

In other words if you indulge and pamper a servant he'll end up thinking he's your son instead of your servant. He becomes thankless for all the indulgences you gave him. You no longer have a servant now because you have someone who thinks he's your son.

In Galatians it is the opposite. Here is a true son who is an heir. Even though he's an heir he is still subjected to tutors and governors Until the time appointed by his father. It is only when he is no longer a child thar his time has come to rule.

So the servant in Proverbs is cuddled and becomes spoiled even though he's a servant. It's not good to treat a servant that way otherwise they will grow up thinking they are your son and be thankless and lazy and worthless as a servant.

On the other hand you have someone who is a child and he's being bossed around just like a servant would be, even though he is a son and an heir.

He benefits by these tutors and governors and when the father thinks he's ready then he comes into his inheritance. His life is one of bondage when he is a child and is very much like a servant.

And I say, now as much time as the heir is a child, he differs nothing from a servant, [though] being lord of all,

He would never know it though because he's young and he is under tutors and governors. He is actually lord of all of them. In other words he owns all of them and is there master when he is grown-up, No longer a child.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.