Introduction
1. On this expression, see Taylor (1994: 3–9).
2. However, we need to hear Longman’s caution (2002: 159) that ‘if we are quite honest, the authorship and date of the book have little or no impact on our interpretation of it’.
3. See e.g. Murphy (2002: 151–179); Longman (2006: 42–56); Kitchen (1977: 69–114; 2008: 552–566). Most of the texts for Egyptian wisdom can be found in Lichtheim (1973–1976). The Mesopotamian texts can be accessed in Lambert (1996), Foster (1993) and Alster (2005). See also Hallo and Younger (1996–2003).
4. Holmgren (1979: 343) notes, ‘Both of these sayings are true, but it is the wise person who recognizes the situation when it is better to listen to the one proverb rather than the other.’
5. It is also the case in the NT. At one point Jesus says, ‘Let your light shine before others’ (Matt. 5:16), but he also cautions, ‘Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing’ (Matt. 6:3–4). We need to work out when to do one, and when to do the other.
6. Holmgren (1979: 341–342) observes that ‘generally speaking, proverbs are not infallible statements that are valid for every person or situation. Rather they tell us what generally, usually, or often is the case.’
7. Since the 1980s scholars like O’Connor and Kugel have argued that all parallelism is of one sort: ‘A, and what’s more, B’, suggesting that the ‘what’s more’ has a greater number than just three variations. For a survey of this debate as it affects Proverbs, see Heim (2013: 19–32).
8. Often, but not always, the focus is on the final example cited. Sometimes there is no ascending set of numbers, as in 30:15 and 30:24–28.
9. In the later sentence proverbs there is also a higher incidence of this topical clustering, especially in chapters 25 – 27. Here we can find distinct sections dealing with the king (25:2–7), the lazy person (26:13–16) and mischief-making (26:20–28).
10. The title is taken from Prov. 25:11: a word fitly spoken is like grapes or apples of gold set in silver. He uses this analogy to explain the structure of this section. The subtitle of his book is An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1 – 22:16.
11. Heim (2001: 107). He adds, ‘The primary criteria for the delimitation of proverbial clusters are consequently not boundary markers, as commonly thought, but linking devices (the “twiglets” in the grape analogy) . . . The most fundamental such device, of course, is repetition – repetition of sound and sense: consonants, word roots, words, synonyms, etc.’
12. Fox (2009: 480). He gives another worked example on 26:1–12.
13. The lxx, however, places 30:1 – 31:9 at the end of chapter 24.
14. Boström (1990).
15. Treier (2011).
16. Walton (2008: 650–651) also distinguishes between a corporate level retribution theology as a covenant theme, and a retribution principle at an individual level being a wisdom theme.
17. See Boström (1990: 138).
18. This is amplified in Boström (2016: 137–146).
19. Much of this section is lightly adapted from Wilson (2015: 219–222).
20. On this theme in Proverbs and the wider wisdom books, see Wilson (1995: 59–79).
21. Two examples of tracing through the concerns of Proverbs (e.g. on speech) in the light of the NT are given by Lucas (2015: 363–382) and Longman (2002: 145–155). See also the thematic studies in the next section, which need to be developed by reflections on how the coming of Christ and the explicit teaching of the NT enrich and apply the teaching of Proverbs.
22. Several other books will provide topical studies of these and other issues. See Kidner (1964: 31–56); Aitken (1986: 144–231); Farmer (1991: 73–102); Dell (2002: 34–115); Estes (2005: 221–261); Longman (2006: 549–578); Lucas (2015: 232–314). Voorwinde (1996) has helpfully grouped the proverbs without comment into a variety of topics. Another way of grouping the proverbs has been to study the various characters or stereotypes mentioned in the book. On this see Aitken (1986: 93–144); Lucas (2015: 219–232).
23. In relation to 21:9, Dell (2002: 107) rightly notes that ‘This maxim would of course be equally applicable to an autocratic and quarrelsome male, whose wife might prefer to spend a night on the roof!’
24. The common Hebrew word for ‘friend’ (rēa‘) can also mean ‘neighbour’. I have focused on friendship, but it is always wise to keep this alternative meaning in mind.
25. McKane (1970: 399) comments, ‘No man earns more universal detestation or deserves it more than he who . . . supposes it is his mission in life to promote the corrosion of the values by which individuals and society lives.’
26. In relation to 12:13, Alden (1983: 101) cites the rabbinic saying: ‘If you always tell the truth, you don’t have to remember what you said.’
27. On this see Messenger (2015: 155–197). The main contributors to this section of Theology of Work Bible Commentary were Bruce Waltke and Alice Mathews. It helpfully contains the text of all verses in the book related to work (187–197).
28. On the sluggard, see Lucas (2015: 227–228); Waltke (2004: 114–115); Aitken (1986: 116–121).
29. Dell (2002: 43) notes that warnings against being lazy outweigh those that promote hard work. She concludes, ‘Warnings against laziness, then, are more important to the sages than praise of the work ethic itself.’
30. Aitken (1986: 118) comments, ‘Clearly the sages enjoyed poking fun and pouring ridicule on this lazy fellow. They saved some of their best humour and liveliest imagery for him.’
31. Goldingay (2014: 165–167) lists, without comment, a series of proverbs under the heading, ‘The Inner Person (Mind and Heart)’. Longman (2006) has a long appendix on topics in the book, but there is nothing on the heart. However, his subject index outlines where he deals with the idea in the book (also Waltke 2005). Significantly, in Voorwinde (1996: 38–42), the heart is one of the longer entries of the book, larger than topics like parents, friends and neighbours or wealth.
32. Waltke (2004: 90–91) has noted that in the biblical doctrine of humanity, the heart is seen to control the body. It involves ‘the complex interplay of intellect, sensibility, and will’, but also includes the spiritual dimension of trusting God.
33. Long (1989: 53). At fifty-five, he rightly concludes that ‘People need the kind of portable and memorable wisdom of the nuts-and-bolts variety that a proverb is designed to provide.’
34. The principles outlined in ii–v are developed under Literary issues above.
35. Walter Moberly (personal comment) has suggested the NT equivalent of the fear of the Lord is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. While this probably overstates the case (since the fear of the Lord is also used in the NT, e.g. Acts 9:31; 2 Cor. 5:11; 7:1; Col. 3:22; 1 Pet. 2:17; Rev. 14:7), it does point to a clear parallel between the foundations of trust in the book of Proverbs and the message of Jesus. See Moberly (2000).
36. Wright (2015: 250–251) notes that ‘the Wisdom literature is very useful for building contact and relationships with other cultures. The Thai Bible Society, for example, has recently published the book of Proverbs (on its own) in the Thai language because it is such a useful tool for starting conversations with others in that society.’ However, he also observes that we need to cross the bridge and talk of what Christ has done.
37. Goldsworthy (2000: 188) notes that ‘No series of sermons on Proverbs should be attempted without at least making clear reference to the prologue of the book. This passage is important for indicating a purpose for the whole collection.’
38. On 8:22–31, even Goldsworthy (2000: 189) writes, ‘This passage has been traditionally interpreted as a reference to Christ, which of course in the Old Testament it isn’t . . . While this passage . . . is not about Christ directly, it certainly foreshadows the role of Christ as the wisdom of God in creation (Col. 1:15–17).’
Chapter 1
1. Longman (2006: 98) translates it as ‘difficult saying’, Fox (2000: 63–64) as ‘epigram’, and Waltke (2004: 173) as ‘parable’.
2. Fox (2000: 92) outlines a similar structure in more detail. Whybray (1994: 37) notes that there is a brief statement of the theme in v. 10. He sees the warning of v. 15 extending into v. 16.
3. Whybray (1994: 37) notes that mother is not mentioned in Egyptian or Mesopotamian texts, which implies a family setting here.
4. Fox (2000: 79) says that in Proverbs tôrâ like miṣwâ (command, as in 2:1) ‘are basically secular words and carry with them no allusion to divine law’. Steinmann (2009: 66) also notes that tôrâ never has the article in Proverbs, implying that it refers to teaching in general rather than the teaching of the law.
5. The esv translates necklace as pendants, while the niv uses ‘a chain’. Fox (2000: 83) notes that the Hebrew word means ‘chain’ and the plural form here implies an ornament of many chains or multiple strands.
6. Fox (2000: 87) suggests that the failure to specify ‘innocent’ blood, as in the parallel Isa. 59:7, creates this ambiguity.
7. While Clifford (1999: 40–41) views it as merged with v. 23, it is better to view v. 22 as the foundational challenge question addressed to the simple one (second person) and the fool/scoffer (third person).
8. In favour of this view is the presence of then at the beginning of v. 28, which implies that the response of vv. 28–31 occurs after that of vv. 23–27. This would also account for the mention of only two figures (the simple and the fool) in the summary of v. 32. The use of the second person (you) in addressing the simple in v. 22a is developed in the ‘you’ section of vv. 23–27. If the simple have not turned at wisdom’s reproof, then their ongoing refusal to be shaped by wisdom will put them in another camp – the fools and scoffers of v. 22b–c (spoken about in the third person) whose outcome is explained in the ‘they’ section of vv. 28–31.
9. See Wilson (2011: 153). The only time the verb is used without words being in view is in Eccl. 10:1, where it describes ointment ‘giving off’ a bad odour.
10. So Longman (2006: 117); Tan (2008: 84) calls it a ‘pseudo-acrostic’.
11. Steinmann (2009: 89) translates as ‘inside you’ and suggests that it speaks of the inner appropriation of the words by faith.
12. Fox (2000: 114) notes that this verb has the sense of setting something aside for a favoured person, which implies exclusivity.
13. Whybray (1994: 55) notes that in some places (e.g. Job 19:27; also Prov. 14:10; 27:2) it simply means ‘another’ person, not yourself.
14. Fox (2000: 120–121) mentions the two other possibilities of a covenant or marriage guaranteed by a pagan god, or a reference to the Sinai covenant, in which case it may refer to religious unfaithfulness.
15. This leads some to emend the text to read ‘her path leads down or inclines to death’, a description found in 5:5; 7:27; 14:12; 16:25. There is also a disagreement between the masculine noun for house and a feminine verb. For a lengthy evaluation of the problems, see Waltke (2004: 232).
16. However, some structure this chapter differently. Fox (2000: 152) and Garrett (1993: 80), for example, argue that the break should be after v. 12 rather than v. 10.
17. It is often, but not always, used in a covenant context. Fox (2000: 144) asserts that it can only be God’s kindness towards the pupil, not the pupil’s towards others. He thinks that this kindness could not abandon you, but it is not clear why this would be so. In the end it could refer to either or both, and probably has a primary reference to the pupil’s character.
18. Garrett (1993: 80) says the overall image is one of making sound teaching and virtues part of the fabric of your life. Similar language is used in 6:21; 7:3, perhaps recalling Deut. 6:8.
19. Waltke (2004: 244) translates this as ‘in all your ways, desire his presence’, arguing that ‘acknowledge’ does not capture enough of the sense, which includes an intimate experience of another’s reality.
20. Waltke (2005:193) notes there that, although our English versions often translate as ‘the fear of the Lord and humility’, there is no conjunction and the two words are in apposition. The niv translates 22:4a as ‘humility is the fear of the Lord’.
21. BDB gives the meaning as ‘navel-string’ (umbilical cord?). Fox (2000: 151) notes that ‘navel’ never stands for the entire body (although Steinmann 2009: 110 argues that it does), and the notion of health for the navel makes no sense. Fox supports emendation from ‘your navel’ to ‘your flesh’, which is a similar word. Driver, supported by McKane (1970: 293), suggests that ‘healing’ can mean ‘health’ on the basis of cognate languages. Garrett (1993: 81) proposes the translation ‘strength’, implying soundness of body and mind and not just physical health, but it is not clear that mental health is implied by ‘flesh’.
22. Some note that this is the only place in Proverbs where the language of ceremonial worship is used. Waltke (2004: 247) notes that other verses in Proverbs do refer to sacrifice, but only this one refers to cultic sacrifice. However, Garrett (1993: 81) comments that it is not very explicitly cultic, with a bigger focus on demonstrating gratitude.
23. Garrett (1993: 82) says that it is not clear if it means ‘rubies’ (in Lam. 4:7 they are said to be red; see niv) or ‘corals’, but both are expensive, rare and beautiful. Longman (2006: 137) opts for pearls but does not explain why.
24. Garrett (1993: 82) suggests that, in the light of Genesis 3, and the plant of immortality in the Gilgamesh epic, it is surely not just a symbol of happiness, but rather the removal of the curse of death itself and so refers to life beyond the grave. While belief in life beyond death was also a feature of Egyptian religion, there is no indication that this concept came into OT wisdom. Murphy (1998: 22) is probably right in concluding that it is just a metaphor for the happiness associated with the good life.
25. Longman (2006: 137) proposes that ‘those who hold her tight’ is a sexual metaphor of embracing or holding a woman tight to you, which would be clearly understood by young men to whom it was addressed. The root ḥzq in this form means ‘to make strong’, but is commonly used in the sense of ‘to take hold of, seize, grasp’.
26. Waltke (2004: 262) notes that the verb r‘p in its two other occurrences (Job 36:28 and Ps. 65:12[13]) means ‘pour down’, not just trickle, and so refers to the regular watering of the earth.
27. So esv, also Longman (2006) and Murphy (1998). There are a number of textual variants here, but it does not significantly change the meaning. The niv inserts ‘wisdom and understanding’ in the first part, perhaps seeing a reference back to v. 19.
28. Garrett (1993: 83) also opts for ‘grace for your neck’, since the word ‘grace’ is not otherwise used as a noun for an ornament. This would make grace parallel to life.
29. Steinmann (2009: 126) says the equivalent English idiom for v. 23b would be ‘you will not stub your toe’. The verb ngp means ‘to strike’, but is often used of striking your foot against a stone, or stumbling.
30. Waltke (2004: 265) opts for ‘at your side’, and notes a Ugaritic parallel to this.
31. Sheriffs (1996) uses this phrase, which he translates in Ps. 25:14 as ‘the friendship of the Lord’ as the key motif of OT spirituality.
32. Fox (2000: 172) observes that ‘A father is ostensibly speaking to his son, but through him the author is actually addressing all boys.’
33. Indeed, Fox (2000: 173) suggests that the presence of the mother in v. 3 implies here that this is family teaching, rather than the words of a scribe or teacher.
34. Fox (2000: 179) notes that ‘though torah in Proverbs is not law, it is authoritative.’
35. Fox (2000: 183) suggests that ‘light and darkness are metaphors for the happiness and good fortune that grace the righteous life and the misery and disaster that afflict the wicked one, respectively.’
36. Contra Fox (2000: 185), who thinks it refers to your speech, although he concedes that this is the expression of what is inside.
37. Fox (2000: 187) describes it as ‘unswerving directedness towards a goal’.
38. On the debate about whether the woman is foreign, strange, an adulteress or a prostitute, see Tan (2008: 1–43). She concludes that it is not so much a geographical or nationalistic description, but rather connected with the idea of ethnicity. Longman (2006: 124, 159) says the ‘strange woman’ in chapters 5 – 7 as well as 2:16 is ‘strange’ in relation to legal and social customs, acting outside of community norms. This would include both an adulteress and a prostitute. Both seem in view in 6:26.
39. Fox (2000: 191) notes that ‘speech is both the danger and the antidote.’
40. Longman (2006: 159) suggests it has a double meaning, for lips are used for both speaking and kissing, with honey being a metaphor for tasting.
41. Fox (2000: 192) notes parallels between the language of v. 3 and Song 4:11, and between v. 4 and Ps. 55:21.
42. Fox (2000: 194–197) suggests it refers to sexual vigour; Longman (2006: 160) sees it as the life-sapping expending of sexual energy.
43. It could refer to either men connected to this woman, or members of her family. Longman (2006: 160) opts for ‘pimps’; Whybray (1994: 88) proposes family members seeking revenge.
44. Fox (2000: 197) notes that it at least speaks of exhaustion, but may also include a reference to the effects of a sexually transmitted disease.
45. Toy (1899: 113) notes that water is a metaphor for sexual pleasure rather than reproductive power. Garrett (1993: 93) also argues that the springs and streams of water refer to the husband’s sexual affections. Fox (2000: 199) notes that drinking water is a metaphor for sexual pleasure in 9:17, and the language of water and springs has this implication in Song 4:12, 15.
46. Tan (2008: 93) suggests that even the wife is metaphorical, a picture of personified wisdom to whom the man should remain faithful. However, the initial reference is to his literal wife, not just wisdom, just as the immoral woman refers to an adulteress, as well as to folly personified.
47. Lucas (2015: 71) comments, ‘Women can transpose the teaching into their situation by replacing the honey-lipped woman by a sweet-talking man on the prowl for a one-night stand.’
48. An alternative way of understanding these verses is to view the neighbour as the lender, with the stranger as the borrower in v. 1. Fox (2000: 211), for example, argues that this makes better sense of going to the neighbour (i.e. lender) in v. 3. However, the strong parallelism of vv. 1–2 implies that the stranger and neighbour are both borrowers. For further arguments in favour of the reading adopted, see Waltke (2004: 325, 331–332).
49. While it is lit. ‘see her ways’, the verb ‘to see’ (r’h) in Hebrew often means to ‘come to see’, ‘think about’ or ‘understand’.
50. Waltke (2004: 339) notes that this word ‘poverty’ (rêš) is found only in Proverbs (10:15; 13:18; 24:34; 28:19; 30:8; 31:7) and ‘denotes destitution, not merely the state of straitened means’.
51. Fox (2000: 219) points out that the term ‘worthless man’, i.e. man of Belial or the related ‘sons/daughters of Belial’ is used of a wide variety of wrongdoers, including rabble-rousers and rapists (Judg. 19:22), apostates (Deut. 13:14), drunks (1 Sam. 1:16), political dissidents (1 Sam. 10:27) and unattractive, self-focused figures like Nabal (1 Sam. 25:17, 25) and the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:12). This collection seems to sum up those in view here. Garrett (1993: 97) describes him as ‘someone who works to undermine social and personal relationships for his own benefit’.
52. Waltke (2004: 341) also notes the lying mouth/tongue (vv. 12b, 17), the eyes and hands/fingers (vv. 13, 17), feet (vv. 13, 18) and heart desiring evil (vv. 14, 18).
53. The exact translation depends on the translation of two similar small words (‘evil’, rā‘, and ‘neighbour’, rēă‘). The first is found in the Hebrew text, while the Greek version seems to assume the second.
54. Fox (2000: 231) notes that these two actions may not occur at the same time, but that the second may be the consequence of the first.
55. Longman (2006: 179), however, suggests that the lap into which coals are scooped may refer to his genitals, as well as the ‘feet’ in the following verse.
56. Waltke (2004: 357), however, suggests that this might be a metonymy for having sex with her, as in Gen. 20:6. This seems to be reading too much into the word.
57. Fox (2000: 235) notes that the word translated wounds (esv) can include a range of physical afflictions, injuries and diseases, but never refers to corporal or capital punishment imposed by a legal authority.
58. The phrase when he takes revenge (v. 34) is lit. ‘on the day of vengeance’. Peels (1994), followed by Longman (2006: 181), has argued that this better refers to securing legal justice rather than taking personal revenge. This seems to make less sense of v. 35.
59. Longman (2006: 186) suggests that it may have developed from the fact that people can see themselves reflected in miniature form in the pupil of someone else’s eye. It is not clear how this fits with the master’s teaching being the apple of the young man’s eye.
60. Fox (2000: 240) notes that ‘The triad of eyes-fingers-heart represents personality as a whole.’
61. Longman (2006: 187) notes that ‘sister’ is used as an image of romantic intimacy in Song 4:9, rather than as a reference to a sibling, and so is a term of endearment. Alternatively, both ‘sister’ and ‘relative/kinsman’ (as in Ruth 2:1) can be seen as relational terms describing people you are closely committed to.
62. Fox (2000: 252) comments, ‘We are invited to join in the narrator’s voyeurism as he peers out the window on the dark street.’
63. Fox (2000: 242) rightly points out, however, that ‘the fact that she finds it necessary to come out toward him and implore him to enter shows that he had not set out to visit her.’
64. Lit. ‘she turns [him] aside [the causative form of the verb nṭh, to “stretch”, having the sense of “turning aside from something”] by means of her abundant instruction.’
65. Even though it is not a lecture or instruction, Landes (1974: 280) still posits a Sitz im Leben of the teacher-pupil relationship, in which the pupil would be instructed in the nature, function, value and origin of wisdom.
66. Waltke (2004: 392–393) extends the setting to the end of v. 5, but it is better to see that the transition to a first-person speech by wisdom (as opposed to a third-person speech about wisdom in vv. 1–3) begins a new section.
67. Fox (2000: 271) views vv. 12–16 as outlining wisdom’s benefits to society and individuals, with a focus on wisdom’s character in vv. 12–13, and on wisdom’s contribution to statecraft (that it grants power) in vv. 14–16. Waltke (2004: 393) categorizes the entire section here as dealing with wisdom’s role in civil order.
68. The idea of inheritance (esv/niv), derived from the verb nḥl, ‘to grant/bestow an inheritance’ in v. 21, is often used of the gift of the Promised Land as the most valued of all possessions.
69. Steinmann (2009: 219–229), however, argues that a strong connection between this figure of wisdom and Jesus is made as early as the NT and the writings of Ignatius (ad 35–107). In particular, the early church picked up on v. 25 as a text supporting that Jesus was begotten before the creation. The orthodox response to Arius was that v. 22 needs to be read in the light of v. 25, which outlines that Jesus was ‘begotten’ before the creation. Others argued that v. 22 only refers to the creation of Jesus’ human not divine nature. Steinmann gives a strong Christological reading for Prov. 8, seeing parallels between the wisdom attributes of the Spirit in Isa. 11:2 and Prov. 8, as well as between Prov. 8 and Eph. 3:8–10. He argues that vv. 24–25 teach Christ’s eternal generation from the Father.
70. As in 3:19, where the Lord by wisdom founded the earth. Longman (2006: 212–213) helpfully notes the NT’s use of this image of wisdom: ‘Prov. 8 is not a prophecy of Jesus or any kind of literal description of him. We must remember that the text is poetry and is using metaphor to make important points about the nature of God’s wisdom. Indeed, even in its OT setting where Wisdom stands for Yahweh’s wisdom, we would be wrong to press the language of creation literally as if at some point God were not wise and only later became wise just in time to create the world . . . But – and this is crucial – the association between Jesus and Woman Wisdom in the NT is a powerful way of saying that Jesus is the embodiment of God’s Wisdom.’
71. Longman (2006: 204) translates it as ‘begot’, but this is based on a Ugaritic parallel.
72. Fox (2000: 280) describes it as ‘a collectivity of actions – a pattern of behavior or a course of action . . . God’s “way” and “works” include but do not end with the creation of the world’.
73. This is based on the view that the Hebrew root nsk makes little sense here, and could reflect a different root skk, ‘to weave together’ and so ‘form’.
74. Collins (1980: 31–32) asserts that Prov. 8 ‘affirms without qualification that the created order is good’ and that ‘evil is not inherent in the order of creation, but results from human ignorance and the lack of wisdom’. Human sin, as set out in Gen. 3, is a further complication.
75. Waltke 2004: 414 suggests that the sixfold use of ‘when’ (in all cases, the same Hebrew preposition) in vv. 27–29 draws attention to wisdom’s presence during specific acts of creation.
76. On the echoes with Gen. 1, see Landes (1974: 279–293).
77. Longman (2006: 206) opts for there being five acts of creation in vv. 27–29, viewing v. 29b (marking out the foundations of the earth) as simply an expansion of the thought of v. 29a (assigning boundaries to the sea). His five acts are: the establishment of the heavens; the construction of the horizons on the depths; the firming up of the clouds; the intensification of the underground water sources; the setting of the boundaries of the sea.
78. On the linguistic arguments, see Scott (1965), who surveys the main possibilities for the word ’āmôn (a hapax) and notes that all the following can be supported from either the text as it stands, or by just being revocalized: 1. master workman [rsv/nrsv/esv; Longman = ‘craftsman’]; 2. cherished child [Waltke opts for this]; 3. guardian/foster-father [Scott opts for this]; 4. binding, uniting, fashioning [lxx, Syriac, Vulgate]; 5. true or faithful [Alden]. More recently, Fox (2000: 286–287) argues for a variation of ‘little child’, reading it as an infinitive absolute used as an adverbial complement translated ‘growing up’ = ‘I was near him, growing up’.
79. Fox (2000: 287) notes that ‘his’ is supplied in the lxx, but is implicit in the Hebrew, for it is elsewhere used of being a source of delight to another (e.g. Ps. 119:24; Isa. 5:7; Jer. 31:20).
80. Several scholars regard vv. 7–12 as having been inserted into the text, with vv. 9–10 missing from one Hebrew manuscript and vv. 10–12 from another. The Greek version (lxx) even adds a few verses after v. 12, increasing the textual uncertainty. Garrett (1993: 114) rightly argues for the retention of these verses by noting the similarity between them and 1:20–33 and 8:1–36.
81. DCH suggests that it is a plural noun meaning wisdom personified.
82. Others make a slight emendation to the text here, based on the lxx, to read, ‘she has erected/caused to stand’, hence niv: ‘she has set up’. Prov. 14:1 explicitly describes the wise woman who builds her house.
83. McKinlay (1996: 50–51) notes that Israelite houses were pillared and that some large non-royal houses had seven pillars. Skehan (1967: 163 [469]) has argued that it is seven poems of twenty-two verses each which is her house of words, but this is unlikely.
84. The same phrase in Ps. 23:5 of preparing a table for David in the presence of his enemies.
85. Murphy (1998: 57) notes that mĕrōmîm, highest places (esv), is found only here in the sense of heights, but must mean something like ‘from the heights over the city’. DCH suggests that it perhaps means summit, but notes that elsewhere it means ‘body’.
86. Steinmann (2009: 238) notes that elsewhere in Proverbs qālôn, ‘abuse’, means insult (12:16; 22:10), and that receiving for himself dishonour is probably an idiom for ‘invites insults’.
87. Murphy (1998: 60) notes the parallel with the Egyptian Instructions of Ankhsheshonq: ‘Do not instruct a fool, lest he hate you.’
88. While the conjunction is usually translated ‘for’, Waltke (2004: 442) notes that it could be translated more emphatically as ‘surely’, and he thinks this fits better here. In fact, both senses suit the context well, and it is probably just introducing the motivation.
89. There is a textual issue here. The Hebrew text reads, by [means of] me (so esv), as if wisdom is speaking, but it is sometimes emended to read ‘by her’ (underlying the niv), as if wisdom is being described. However, on either reading wisdom is the means through which you gain long life.
90. Steinmann (2009: 243) suggests that it is an epexegetical genitive, i.e. the woman who is foolishness, but it is more likely that folly is an attribute of the woman.
91. E.g. Whybray (1994: 148). Alternatively, Garrett (1993: 116) emends the text to read ‘and seductive’.
92. So Murphy (1998: 56), ‘enthroned on the heights of the city’; Steinmann (2009: 243–244), ‘on a throne’, noting it occurs in Proverbs only in connection with the king.
Chapter 2
1. Whybray (1994: 158) suggests ‘makes his fortune’ and so to give economic security. Fox (2009: 512) adds the sensible observation that ‘the present verse states a principle, not an absolute rule.’
2. See Waltke (2004: 463). This is amplified in the thematic study on ‘Wealth and poverty’ in the Introduction.
3. Goldingay (1994: 81–82) sees a recurring literary pattern at the beginning of collections of sayings in chs. 10 – 15, suggesting that a better group is vv. 23–27. He argues that a new unit beginning in v. 23 makes more sense than one starting in 11:1. However, this seems to be undermined by the theme of speech binding together vv. 17–21, and the righteous/wicked motif suggesting that vv. 27–32 is also a unit.
4. Goldingay (1994: 75–76) points out the high frequency of ‘righteous’ (x19) and ‘wicked’ (x18) in 10:1 – 11:13; a lower but still significant number in 11:14 – 13:25; but thereafter quite thinly until ch. 21. He suggests that the concentration of these moral categories at the outset sets up an ethical context for reflecting on human behaviour.
5. Van Leeuwen (1997: 117) comments that ‘death is God’s final “no” to evil’.
6. Van Leeuwen (1997: 117–118) sees the poetic justice of this proverb illustrated in the lives of Haman and Mordecai (Esth. 5:14; 7:10; 9:1–10) and Daniel (Dan. 6:23–24). See Prov. 26:27; 28:10.
7. Whybray (1994: 180) notes that both vv. 10 and 11 refer to well-being in urban life, noting the other references in the sentence sayings to cities are 10:15; 16:32; 18:11, 19; 21:22; 29:8.
8. Fox (2009: 536) observes that ‘God or his representative is almost always the subject.’
9. Van Leeuwen (1997: 118–119) notes that ḥēn, ‘grace’, often means ‘beauty’ when referring to a woman, as in 5:19; 31:30.
10. The niv translates this as ‘those who are righteous will go free’. This is less likely, and could only be justified if the implication was that the righteous were themselves descendants of other righteous people and so, in a sense, the seed of the righteous. This seems a little convoluted. An alternative is to follow the textual witness of the lxx and Targum to read ‘those who sow righteousness’ as in v. 18. The Hebrew text represents the harder reading, makes sense, and is to be preferred.
11. Whybray (1994: 185) mentions that ‘nose rings were items of feminine jewellery’, citing Gen. 24:47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12. Murphy (1998: 83) comments that rings were worn in the ear as well (25:12).
12. Longman (2006: 263) suggests that the seller might be withholding grain in order to get a higher price in a time of scarcity.
13. Lucas (2015: 100) understands ‘inherit the wind’ as ‘become insolvent’.
14. Longman (2006: 269) points out that the sages’ view was that ‘mistakes provided opportunities for learning’.
15. Clifford (1999: 130) notes that the other objects described as a crown in Proverbs are riches (14:24), grey hair (= long life, 16:31), grandchildren (17:6), as well as the good wife here.
16. Koptak (2003: 340) colourfully comments, ‘Better to be the righteous person’s horse than the wicked person’s neighbor!’
17. There are two possible roots here: 1. spoil, esv; ‘proceeds’, nrsv; and 2. ‘stronghold’, niv, or ‘siegeworks’. Even if the second root is chosen, it may refer to the wealth protected in the stronghold, but could focus on the protection itself.
18. The niv does not read it as a contrast, translating as ‘and so the innocent escape trouble’. This implies that the consequence of the evildoers being trapped is that their innocent victims escape. This is less likely.
19. Clifford (1999: 131) notes that ‘Fools are know-it-alls, certain that their path is straight and their decisions are correct.’
20. Many note the textual difficulties of v. 26a. Fox (2009: 559), with slight emendation, argues for ‘the righteous man is released from misfortune.’
21. The object is not specified; niv ‘on themselves’ is interpretive. The translation brings shame, esv, requires emending the text to a similar-sounding verb, which makes a good parallel with the other verb, meaning ‘bring disgrace/shame’. The niv (1984) chooses not to emend, but uses a different root and translates as ‘makes themselves a stench’ (see Fox 2009: 562–563). On either reading the consequences are strongly negative.
22. Waltke (2004: 558) sees a shift from the previous focus on false riches and poverty to now examine ‘the real advantages of wealth and the factual disadvantage of poverty’.
23. Whybray (1994: 204) notes that Proverbs warns about both hastily gained wealth (20:21; 28:20) and wealth obtained by fraud or other illegitimate means (10:2; 11:4, 18; 21:6).
24. The negative consequences are more woodenly ‘is pledged to himself’. The phrase refers to being pledged to pay the penalty (or bear the consequences) himself.
25. The translation wisest of women (esv) is based on the assumption that the plural is used comparatively, which makes sense since the verb is singular. With a slight emendation, it would be identical with the form of wisdom personified in 9:1, and so would be an allusion to Lady Wisdom. This is made more likely by the use of an abstract noun for folly (i.e. folly personified) in 14:1b.
26. The translation clean (esv) or ‘empty’ (niv) are common renderings. Bār can also mean ‘grain’, adopted by nrsv, ‘there is no grain’ (also Garrett 1993: 141), omitting manger. The same point is being made, regardless of the translation.
27. Longman (2006: 297) concedes that ‘a productive life is messy’, while Kidner (1964: 106) makes the comment that many religious groups need to heed this proverb, and move to the farmer’s perspective (the need for productivity) rather than that of the curator (pristine preservation).
28. The niv adopts a midway position, translating it as ‘making amends for sin’. It would be unusual if it were a reference to a guilt offering, since mention of specific sacrifices is uncommon in the book of Proverbs. However, the concept of sacrifice for sin or guilt before a god was common in the ANE, and so would have been readily understood by those both within and outside Israel.
29. Waltke (2004: 590) sees this as ‘a merism representing the full gamut of emotions’.
30. Whybray (1994: 217) notes that it commonly means ‘cleverness’ in Proverbs, but is used in 12:2 in the sense of ‘wicked scheming’. The context suggests that this possible sense is present here. Clifford (1999: 146) comments that ‘person of mĕzimmôt’ has only a negative sense (12:2; 24:8).
31. Van Leeuwen (1997: 142) suggests that this steadfast love and faithfulness may be from God, but it is not specified and so could refer to receiving these from God or others.
32. Steinmann (2009: 337) notes that this verse is identical to 13:14 except for the first two words. What was asserted there about the teaching of the wise is repeated here about the fear of the Lord, which is central to the teaching of the wise.
33. Verse 30 is an interesting Hebrew sentence containing seven nouns and no verb. It reads lit. ‘life flesh calmness of heart; rottenness of bones jealousy’. Such ellipsis (assuming, but omitting, words) is common in Hebrew poetry, and the relationship between the nouns needs to be supplied. In each half the verb ‘brings’ or ‘results in’: ‘calmness of heart [brings] life [to the] flesh, [but] jealousy [results in] rottenness of [the] bones.’
34. For an alternative reading, based on reading the preposition as ‘in’, see the niv: ‘When [in] calamity comes, the wicked are brought down, but even in [perhaps “in the face of”] death the righteous seek refuge in God.’
35. Clifford (1999: 150) points out the paradox here that a soft answer is hard (i.e. effective) and a hard answer is soft (i.e. ineffective).
36. See Whybray (1990), who describes chs. 15 and 16 as a ‘theological kernel’.
37. Whybray (1994: 237) suggests that v. 30 is the only verse in vv. 25–33 that is thematically isolated. I prefer to see that vv. 25–29 and 31–33 are separate groups.
38. The niv interprets light of the eyes as ‘light in a messenger’s eyes’, which is also possible but more interpretive. It is likely based on a supposed parallel in the second half of the verse, but it overlooks the hinge function. Kidner (1964: 110) thinks that it might refer to the radiant face of a friend, which is equally speculative.
39. Lucas (2015: 121) rightly cautions that ‘It is not saying that God predestines certain individuals to act wickedly so that they will be punished.’
40. So Bartholomew (2001: 11–13); also Van Leeuwen (2005: 638): ‘Prov. 10–15 teaches the elementary pattern of acts and consequences, while chs. 16–29 develop the exceptions to the rules.’
41. Strictly messenger is plural. Fox (2009: 616) suggests that the underlying image is of a king in his wrath sending out many deadly messengers in all directions.
42. Waltke (2005: 39) comments, ‘The proverb instructs the disciple in several ways: (1) to prefer a frugal meal with family concord, not a sumptuous one with discord; (2) to accept a modest lifestyle of having not even sufficient produce and therefore a respect for the produce of others; and (3) to be ready to lower radically his economic expectations, and even his rights, to enjoy a feeling of well-being.’
43. Fox (2009: 626) comments, ‘God cares not only about visible offenses (v 5a) but about unspoken attitudes as well (v 5b).’
44. Whybray (1994: 262) suggests that ‘his attention is always wandering’; Waltke (2005:62) proposes that ‘he orients himself to distant, godless, and unattainable goals instead of on attainable wisdom’.
45. As in Gen. 13:9; esv here translates as isolates himself; niv interprets this as ‘an unfriendly person’. Longman (2006: 354) prefers to translate it as ‘antisocial’, someone who is internally divided, not separated from others.
46. Waltke (2005: 73) comments, ‘The wise person seeks to avoid conflict (cf. 17:1, 14; 20:3; 30:33) or to resolve it (cf. 15:18; 18:17–18; 25:9; 26:17, 21). In 20:3 avoiding controversy is equated with being held in honor (i.e., enjoying social esteem).’
47. Kidner (1964: 129) notes that ‘gift’ (mattān) is a more neutral word than ‘bribe’ (šōḥad) in 17:8, 23. See Gen. 32:20; 43:11; 1 Sam. 17:18.
48. Van Leeuwen (1997: 174), followed by Lucas (2015: 133), suggests that the lot may have been used in legal proceedings when the argument was seen to be evenly balanced, although Lucas notes that there is no explicit example in the rest of the OT where a lot is used to resolve a legal dispute. Goldsworthy (1993: 133) suggests, ‘The lot finds no place in the post-Pentecost church, as Christians today have recourse to the completed canon of Scripture.’
49. Lit. ‘a man of friends’, but the contrast with the exemplary friend in the second half of the verse implies a multitude of friends. Alternatively, the nrsv captures the sense as ‘some friends play at friendship’, as if it refers to those who pretend to be friends, but the translation of the verb is difficult to justify. Lucas (2015: 135) suggests that it requires a textual emendation. niv has ‘unreliable friends’, but this is to make a different kind of contrast. The verb r‘‘ itself is difficult. It commonly means ‘to do harm’ (r‘‘ I); in the hitpolel (as here) it is likely to mean ‘harm oneself/one another’, but it is not found elsewhere in that stem. Others see it as a hitpolel of r‘‘ II (‘to break, shatter’), which could mean ‘shatter one another’, but the only other use in the hitpolel (Isa. 24:19) is not clearly reflexive. On either reading there is at least a possible disastrous outcome, in contrast with the second half of the verse.
50. Clifford 1999: 176 notes that nepeš, which can mean ‘throat’, symbolizes the appetite, while ‘feet’ suggest physical movement, so that together they refer to the inner/thinking and outer/acting aspects of humans.
51. Longman (2006: 365) and Lucas (2015:136) both quote Whybray (1994: 276) with approval, noting that ‘folly and blasphemy are closely linked here’, but it appears to be anger against God rather than blasphemy.
52. Fox (2009: 653) points out that this was ‘enough of a possibility to warrant comment’.
53. Van Leeuwen (1997: 179) suggests it has ‘an anti-revolutionary thrust’, but this is to read too much of contemporary politics back into an ancient text.
54. Some versions of the text have the passive ‘will be killed’, but it is best emended with textual support (qere and the Targum) to read will die, as in most evv.
55. Whybray (1994: 181–182) notes that the five proverbs that deal with generosity, either explicitly or implicitly, promise a reward. In the NT see Luke 14:12–14.
56. Lucas (2015: 139) notes that steadfast love could alternatively come from a rare word meaning ‘shame’ (found only in 14:34 and Lev. 20:17), and desired is taken in a negative sense. This would ground the very different reading of the reb: ‘Greed is a disgrace to a man.’ While this makes a good counterpart to the second half of the verse, it has little to commend it otherwise and misses the focus on character.
57. In its context this verse can be taken to be hypothetical (if you were to cease . . .), rather than an ironic command, the option chosen by many commentators. Longman (2006: 372) notes that this would be the only example of a father ironically instructing a son in chs. 10 – 31.
58. Whybray (1994: 291) notes that it is not stated explicitly whether this discernment is evident to God or to humans. The verb in v. 11a (makes himself known) could alternatively be understood to mean dissemble or ‘disguise their nature’ (see esv footnote), as there are two Hebrew roots nkr. The second stream (nkr II) is found in 26:24. However, even if this was the sense, the point would be similar – even if children tried to disguise their nature, their deeds would show if they were pure and upright.
59. Fox (2009: 671) comments, ‘“Bread of deceit” is bread gained by deceit, but at the same time it is bread that deceives.’
60. Longman (2006: 382) suggests ‘lamp’ = ‘life’s energy’; Murphy (1998: 154) suggests it refers to conscience; Fox (2009: 672) sees it as ‘a symbol of life, prosperity, spiritual illumination, and posterity’.
61. The word commonly translated ‘lamp’ is a defectively written form. The niv sees it as a defective form of the word for ‘untilled ground’, but this does not suit the context.
62. Waltke (2005: 172) notes that elsewhere the contrast is between the diligent and the lazy person, not the one who acts rashly or in haste.
63. Clifford (1999: 191) points out that in Proverbs the righteous do not punish the wicked, but only God does (e.g. 13:6; 19:3).
64. Longman (2006: 389, 399) argues for the sense ‘subdue/destroy them completely’ rather than ‘speak forever’.
65. The ketib refers to what is written in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, while the qere refers to the Masoretic suggestion of what is to be read.
66. Lucas (2015: 148) comments, ‘True wisdom flows from Yahweh, and so any “wisdom” that seeks to oppose him is false and will fail.’
Chapter 3
1. On the textual issues, and the other options of ‘formerly’ or ‘noble things’, see Waltke (2005: 219–220).
2. Whybray (1994: 334) suggests that the vomiting is to be taken figuratively, meaning being revolted by a situation; Alden (1983: 168) similarly notes that ‘the whole course of events is nauseating’.
3. Waltke (2005: 247), with a number of scholars, emends zônâ, prostitute, to zārâ, unchaste wife (strange/married woman). This does not change the thrust of the passage significantly.
4. Alternatively, Koptak (2003: 549) suggests that the wine is personified, and is here described as sparkling or winking its eye in a seductive way.
5. Some scholars, e.g. McKane, Fox and Lucas, have v. 10 as a discrete saying separate from vv. 11–12. This commentary prefers the divisions suggested by Waltke.
6. The second view is a slight modification of Garrett’s structure (he places v. 26 with vv. 23–25). He sees a parallel structure for organizational purposes, with a focus on the law courts in vv. 23–26 and 28–29, with v. 27 concerned with economic priorities, and vv. 30–34 concentrating on laziness.
Chapter 4
1. Van Leeuwen (1997: 217) helpfully distinguishes between proverb creation and proverb collection. Many of the words in this book of Scripture have been shaped over long periods of time.
2. Van Leeuwen (1997: 218) suggests that tappûaḥ is more likely ‘golden apricots’ than apples. Whybray (1994: 364) notes that apples had not yet been introduced into Palestine. Kidner (1964: 158) suggests a quince.
3. Van Leeuwen (1997: 219) comments that ‘the softest organ, the tongue, breaks the hardest organ, the bone’. Fox (2009: 784) notes that ‘Gentle, patient speech is so powerful that it can overcome even a hardened, stubborn official.’
4. Clifford (1999: 225) comments, ‘Too much of a good and delightful thing, honey or friendship, can be a bad thing.’ Waltke (2005: 327) cites the English proverbs, ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ and ‘guests, like fish, stink after three days’.
5. Van Leeuwen (1988: 86) notes that ‘every word in v 27b is derived from vv 2–3’.
6. See Van Leeuwen (1988: 92). Lucas (2015: 168), following Van Leeuwen, comments, ‘The reason for the apparent anomaly of v. 2 not containing the word “fool” is because the pattern of good thing – bad person, bad thing – good person and bad thing – bad person did not allow this.’
7. The ketib reads lō’, ‘not’, which is better than the qere which reads lô, ‘to him’. Murphy (1998: 197) suggests that the qere is obviously to be followed, but gives no reasons.
8. Doors were hung differently in those days. Waltke (2005: 356) suggests a ‘door pivot’ fixed top and bottom in holes in wood or stone. However, this word occurs only here in this sense, so its meaning is uncertain.
9. Whybray (1994: 381); Murphy (1998: 207) sees them describing people who leave their homes and settle elsewhere; Steinmann (2009: 537) suggests it also covers those who fail to appreciate their family, or those who have an arrogant independent spirit.
10. The esv and niv translate similarly (the sweetness or pleasantness of a friend ‘[springs from] their heartfelt advice’, niv; [comes from] his earnest counsel, esv), but the nrsv opts for ‘but the soul is torn by trouble’, which does not fit the flow of thought but is based on the lxx. DCH suggests that ‘counsel/advice of soul’, ‘ăṣat nāpeš, should be ‘a tree of perfume’, reading ‘ēṣ, tree, instead of ‘ēṣâ, counsel, and translating nepeš, ‘soul, life’, as ‘perfume’, a sense used in Isa. 3:20.
11. Finkbeiner (1995: 4), building on Malchow, views the sections as 28:2–11, 13–27; 29:3–15, 17–26, with the ‘refrains’ being transitions. Prov. 28:1 is then an introduction and 29:27 a conclusion, while 29:1, in the middle of the structure, is a key to the theme. These single verses have been added to the surrounding sections in our outline.
12. Finkbeiner (1995: 9–10) notes that they concern ‘extra-personal relationships’, a term he uses to mean ‘one’s relationship to things’, unlike the interpersonal relationships of vv. 23–24.
Chapter 5
1. Koptak (2003: 637) notes that some have interpreted the son as Israel or the king, but he suggests that the context implies ‘any person who learns wisdom’. Garrett (1993: 237), however, suggests we ‘cannot but think of the Son of God here’.
2. However, Fox (2009: 873) sees it as ‘the first interpretation of v. 19’; Waltke (2005: 490) connects them rhetorically, labelling them as ‘four awesome ways and the awful way of the adulteress’.
3. Longman (2006: 532) suggests a different scenario, which is also possible. He envisages a hated woman who gets married and now has a position of power from which she can get her revenge.
4. Another possible translation, e.g. Perdue (2000: 269), is that if oracle refers to the tribe of Massa here and in 30:1, then it could be rendered ‘Lemuel, king of Massa’. While this changes the translation and reinforces the non-Israelite identity of Lemuel, it is not otherwise significant.
5. The noun describes ‘fermented drink’ and it is related to the root ‘to be drunk’. Waltke (2005: 505) notes that it ‘denotes any inebriating drink with about 7–10 percent alcoholic content, not hard liquor, because there is no evidence of distilled liquor in ancient times’.
Chapter 6
1. Cox (1982: 253) describes her as ‘a prototype – the ideal fulfilled’. However, Yoder (2009: 299) cautions that ‘she embodies not one woman but the desired aspects of many’. Garrett (1993: 248–249) suggests that, unlike Ruth, Esther and perhaps Song of Songs, the original audience was not young women (‘this is the kind of wife you should be’) but rather young men (‘this is what kind of wife you should get’). While this is true as far as it goes, there is a wider focus on wisdom itself.
2. The word used is ḥōq, which normally means ‘statute’, but could mean either food or tasks appointed for them. Fox (2009: 894) notes that to ‘give a ḥōq’ ‘is not used of individuals giving verbal orders’, but ḥōq is used in 30:8 of a portion.
3. The lxx and Vulgate appear to read ‘double’ (šĕnayim) instead of šānîm, which might then imply the warmth of two layers (two-ply). However, there is no need to do this, and it would lose the parallel between the end of v. 21 and v. 22. See further Waltke (2005: 512); Fox (2009: 896).