Amsal 31:2

31:2 O ¹  my son, O son of my womb,

O son ²  of my vows,

Amsal 30:13

30:13 There is a generation whose eyes are so lofty, ³ 

and whose eyelids are lifted up disdainfully. ⁴ 

Amsal 4:19

4:19 The way of the wicked is like gloomy darkness; ⁵ 

they do not know what causes them to stumble. ⁶ 

Amsal 5:20

5:20 But why should you be captivated, ⁷  my son, by an adulteress,

and embrace the bosom of a different woman? ⁸ 

Amsal 9:13

9:13 The woman called Folly ⁹  is brash, ¹⁰ 

she is naive ¹¹  and does not know ¹²  anything. ¹³ 

Amsal 15:23

15:23 A person has joy ¹⁴  in giving an appropriate answer, ¹⁵ 

and a word at the right time ¹⁶  – how good it is!

Amsal 20:24

20:24 The steps of a person ¹⁷  are ordained by ¹⁸  the Lord –

so how can anyone ¹⁹  understand his own ²⁰  way?

Amsal 22:27

22:27 If you do not have enough to pay,

your bed ²¹  will be taken ²²  right out from under you! ²³ 

Amsal 16:16

16:16 How much better it is to acquire ²⁴  wisdom than gold;

to acquire understanding is more desirable ²⁵  than silver.

Amsal 17:16

17:16 Of what ²⁶  use is money in the hand of a fool, ²⁷ 

since he has no intention ²⁸  of acquiring wisdom? ²⁹ 

Amsal 25:8

25:8 Do not go out hastily to litigation, ³⁰ 

or ³¹  what will you do afterward

when your neighbor puts you to shame?

Amsal 27:1

27:1 Do not boast ³²  about tomorrow; ³³ 

for you do not know ³⁴  what a day may bring forth.

Amsal 30:4

30:4 Who has ascended into heaven, and then descended? ³⁵ 

Who has gathered up the winds in his fists? ³⁶ 

Who has bound up the waters in his cloak? ³⁷ 

Who has established all the ends of the earth? ³⁸ 

What is his name, and what is his son’s name? ³⁹  – if you know!

[31:2]  ¹ tn The form מַה (mah), normally the interrogative “what?” (so KJV, ASV, NAB, NASB) is best interpreted here as an exclamation. Tg. Prov 31:2 has “Woe!”

[31:2]  ² tn In all three occurrences in this verse the word “son” has the Aramaic spelling, ַַבּר (bar), rather than the Hebrew בֵּן (ben). The repetition of the word “son” shows the seriousness of the warning; and the expression “son of my womb” and “son of my vows” are endearing epithets to show the great investment she has made in his religious place in God’s program. For a view that “son of my womb” should be “my own son,” see F. Deist, “Proverbs 31:1, A Case of Constant Mistranslation,” JNSL 6 (1978): 1-3; cf. TEV “my own dear son.”

[30:13]  ³ tn Heb “how high are its eyes!” This is a use of the interrogative pronoun in exclamatory sentences (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 25, §127).

[30:13]  ⁴ tn Heb “its eyelids are lifted up,” a gesture indicating arrogance and contempt or disdain for others. To make this clear, the present translation supplies the adverb “disdainfully” at the end of the verse.

[30:13]  sn The verbs “to be high” (translated “are…lofty”) and “to be lifted up” depict arrogance and disdain for others. The emphasis on the eyes and eyelids (parasynonyms in poetry) is employed because the glance, the look, is the immediate evidence of contempt for others (e.g., also 6:17 and Ps 131:1).

[4:19]  ⁵ sn The simile describes ignorance or spiritual blindness, sinfulness, calamity, despair.

[4:19]  ⁶ tn Heb “in what they stumble.”

[5:20]  ⁷ tn In the interrogative clause the imperfect has a deliberative nuance.

[5:20]  ⁸ tn Heb “foreigner” (so ASV, NASB), but this does not mean that the woman is non-Israelite. This term describes a woman who is outside the moral boundaries of the covenant community – she is another man’s wife, but since she acts with moral abandonment she is called “foreign.”

[9:13]  ⁹ tn Heb “a woman of foolishness.” This could be translated as “foolish woman,” taking the genitive as attributive (cf. KJV, ASV, NRSV). But in view of the contrast with the personification of wisdom, this word probably also represents a personification and so can be taken as a genitive of apposition, the woman who is folly, or “the woman, Folly” (cf. NIV). For clarity and stylistic reasons the word “called” has been supplied in the translation.

[9:13]  ¹⁰ tn The meaning of the word comes close to “riotous.” W. McKane describes her as restless and rootless (Proverbs [OTL], 366).

[9:13]  ¹¹ tn The noun means “foolishness” (cf. KJV “simple”; NAB “inane”). Here it could be classified as a metonymy of adjunct, or as a predictive apposition (when a substantive is used in place of a noun; see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 15, §67).

[9:13]  ¹² tn The ignorance here in Proverbs must be moral ignorance. But see D. W. Thomas for the idea that the verb means “become still,” “be at rest,” yielding here the idea of restless (“A Note on בַל־יָדְעָה in Proverbs 9¹³,” JTS 4 [1953]: 23-24).

[9:13]  ¹³ tc The text of v. 13 has been difficult for translators. The MT has, “The foolish woman is boisterous, simplicity, and knows not what.” The LXX reads, “A foolish and impudent woman comes to lack a morsel, she who knows not shame.” The Syriac has, “a woman lacking in discretion, seductive.” Tg. Prov 9:13 translates it, “a foolish woman and a gadabout, ignorant, and she knows not good.” The Vulgate has, “a woman foolish and noisy, and full of wiles, and knowing nothing at all.”

[15:23]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “joy to the man” or “the man has joy.”

[15:23]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “in the answer of his mouth” (so ASV); NASB “in an apt answer.” The term “mouth” is a metonymy of cause for what he says. But because the parallelism is loosely synonymous, the answer given here must be equal to the good word spoken in season. So it is an answer that is proper or fitting.

[15:23]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “in its season.” To say the right thing at the right time is useful; to say the right thing at the wrong time is counterproductive.

[20:24]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “the steps of a man”; but “man” is the noun גֶּבֶר (gever, in pause), indicating an important, powerful person. BDB 149-50 s.v. suggests it is used of men in their role of defending women and children; if that can be validated, then a translation of “man” would be appropriate here. But the line seems to have a wider, more general application. The “steps” represent (by implied comparison) the course of life (cf. NLT “the road we travel”).

[20:24]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “from the Lord”; NRSV “ordered by the Lord”; NIV “directed by the Lord.”

[20:24]  sn To say that one’s steps are ordained by the Lord means that one’s course of actions, one’s whole life, is divinely prepared and sovereignly superintended (e.g., Gen 50:26; Prov 3:6). Ironically, man is not actually in control of his own steps.

[20:24]  ¹⁹ tn The verse uses an independent nominative absolute to point up the contrast between the mortal and the immortal: “and man, how can he understand his way?” The verb in the sentence would then be classified as a potential imperfect; and the whole question rhetorical. It is affirming that humans cannot understand very much at all about their lives.

[20:24]  ²⁰ tn Heb “his way.” The referent of the third masculine singular pronoun is unclear, so the word “own” was supplied in the translation to clarify that the referent is the human individual, not the Lord.

[22:27]  ²¹ tn The “bed” may be a metonymy of adjunct, meaning the garment that covers the bed (e.g., Exod 22:26). At any rate, it represents the individual’s last possession (like the English expression “the shirt off his back”).

[22:27]  ²² tn Heb “If you cannot pay, why should he take the bed from under you?” This rhetorical question is used to affirm the statement. The rhetorical interrogative לָמָּה (lamah, “why?”) appears in MT but not in the ancient versions; it may be in the Hebrew text by dittography.

[22:27]  ²³ sn The third saying deals with rash vows: If people foolishly pledge what they have, they could lose everything (e.g., 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18; 20:16; there is no Egyptian parallel).

[16:16]  ²⁴ tn The form קְנֹה (qÿnoh) is an infinitive; the Greek version apparently took it as a participle, and the Latin as an imperative – both working with an unpointed קנה, the letter ה (he) being unexpected in the form if it is an infinitive construct (the parallel clause has קְנוֹת [qÿnot] for the infinitive, but the ancient versions also translate that as either a participle or an imperative).

[16:16]  ²⁵ tn The form is a Niphal participle, masculine singular. If it is modifying “understanding” it should be a feminine form. If it is to be translated, it would have to be rendered “and to acquire understanding is to be chosen more than silver” (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB). Many commentaries consider it superfluous. NIV and NCV simply have “to choose understanding rather than silver!”

[17:16]  ²⁶ tn Heb “why this?” The term זֶּה (zeh) is an enclitic use of the demonstrative pronoun for emphasis: “why ever” would this happen?

[17:16]  ²⁷ sn The sense seems to be “What good is money” since what the fool needs cannot be bought? The verse is a rhetorical question stating that money would be wasted on a fool.

[17:16]  ²⁸ tn Heb “there is no heart”; NASB “he has no (+ common TEV) sense”; NLT “has no heart for wisdom.”

[17:16]  ²⁹ sn W. McKane envisions a situation where the fool comes to a sage with a fee in hand, supposing that he can acquire a career as a sage, and this gives rise to the biting comment here: Why does the fool have money in his hands? To buy wisdom when he has no brains? (Proverbs [OTL], 505).

[25:8]  ³⁰ tn Heb “do not go out hastily to strive”; the verb “to strive” means dispute in the legal context. The last clause of v. 7, “what your eyes have seen,” does fit very well with the initial clause of v. 8. It would then say: What you see, do not take hastily to court, but if the case was not valid, he would end up in disgrace.

[25:8]  sn The Hebrew verb רִיב (riv) is often used in legal contexts; here the warning is not to go to court hastily lest it turn out badly.

[25:8]  ³¹ tn The clause begins with פֶּן (pen, “lest”) which seems a bit out of place in this line. C. H. Toy suggests changing it to כִּי (ki, “for”) to make a better connection, instead of supplying an ellipsis: “lest it be said what…” (Proverbs [ICC], 461).

[27:1]  ³² tn The form אַל־תִּתְהַלֵּל (’al-tithallel) is the Hitpael jussive negated; it is from the common verb “to praise,” and so in this setting means “to praise oneself” or “to boast.”

[27:1]  sn The verse rules out one’s overconfident sense of ability to control the future. No one can presume on the future.

[27:1]  ³³ sn The word “tomorrow” is a metonymy of subject, meaning what will be done tomorrow, or in the future in general.

[27:1]  ³⁴ sn The expression “you do not know” balances the presumption of the first line, reminding the disciple of his ignorance and therefore his need for humility (e.g., Matt 6:34; Luke 12:20; Jas 4:13-16).

[30:4]  ³⁵ sn To make his point Agur includes five questions. These, like Job 38–41, or Proverbs 8:24-29, focus on the divine acts to show that it is absurd for a mere mortal to think that he can explain God’s work or compare himself to God. These questions display mankind’s limitations and God’s incomparable nature. The first question could be open to include humans, but may refer to God alone (as the other questions do).

[30:4]  ³⁶ sn The questions are filled with anthropomorphic language. The questioner is asking what humans have ever done this, but the meaning is that only God has done this. “Gathering the wind in his fists” is a way of expressing absolute sovereign control over the forces of nature.

[30:4]  ³⁷ sn The question is comparing the clouds of the heavens to garments (e.g., Job 26:8). T. T. Perowne writes, “Men bind up water in skins or bottles; God binds up the rain-floods in the thin, gauzy texture of the changing clouds, which yet by his power does not rend under its burden of waters.”

[30:4]  ³⁸ sn The ends of the earth is an expression often used in scripture as a metonymy of subject referring to the people who live in the ends of the earth, the far off and remote lands and islands. While that is possible here as well, this may simply be a synecdoche saying that God created the whole world, even the most remote and distant places.

[30:4]  ³⁹ sn The reference to “son” in this passage has prompted many suggestions down through the years: It was identified as Israel in the Jewish Midrashim, the Logos or demiurge by some of the philosophers and allegorical writers, as simple poetic parallelism without a separate identity by some critical scholars, and as Jesus by Christian commentators. Parallels with Ugaritic are interesting, because Baal is referred to as a son; but that is bound up within the pantheon where there was a father god. Some of the Jewish commentators exhibit a strange logic in expressing what Christians would say is only their blindness to the full revelation: There is little cogency in this being a reference to Jesus because if there had been such a person at any time in the past he would have left some tradition about it through his descendants (J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs, 317). But Judaism has taught from the earliest times that Messiah was preexistent (especially in view of Micah 5 and Daniel 7); and the claims of Jesus in the Gospels bear this out. It seems best to say that there is a hint here of the nature of the Messiah as Son, a hint that will later be revealed in full through the incarnation.