The Words Of Agur The Son Of Jakeh (30.1-33).

30.1a

These sayings are introduced by naming the author. Nothing is known of Agur the son of Jakeh, but both names are testified to in cognate Semitic languages. As parallel wisdom literature leads us to expect an introduction naming the author there is no reason to try to translate it otherwise.

It is described as ‘an oracle’, a word elsewhere used to introduce prophetic announcements. In view of his further description of his words as ‘the inspired utterance of the man’ (neum haggeber - used of the prophetic utterances of Balaam and David, e.g. Numbers 24.3; 2 Samuel 23.1), and his later citing of David, this is clearly a claim to be YHWH’s spokesman. That he is a Yahwist comes out in verse 9.

His Claim To Speak Under The Inspiration Of God And What It Had Cost Him (30.1b).

Agur claims to speak under prophetic inspiration, and describes what a hard experience it was. It is never easy to be God’s spokesman. It had been a wearisome task, but he had overcome.

30.1b

His words are described as ‘neum haggeber’, ‘the inspired utterance of the man’. The phrase ‘neum YHWH’ occurs in Scripture around 365 times, signifying His inspired prophetic word, and neum haggeber occurs eight times, firstly in relation to Balaam (who claimed to speak under divine inspiration) and secondly in relation to David (who did speak under divine inspiration - Matthew 22.43; Mark 12.36; Acts 1.16; 4.25). It always has this unique significance. Agur thus clearly saw himself as, and claimed to be, a prophetic figure, in the same way as Solomon did. Solomon also saw himself as speaking the words of YHWH (2.6; 29.18). In Israel the wisdom of men like Solomon and Agur was not just seen as wisdom, but as divine wisdom. His words are spoken to Ithiel. It was a commonplace of ancient wisdom literature that the recipient should be mentioned or named.

Agur then describes how difficult it had been for him to produce inspired words. It had ‘wearied him’. But he had achieved his object and had prevailed. For the idea of being wearied and prevailing in divine matters compare Isaiah 16.12. It is not always easy to be an instrument of God.

It has been traditional to translate the second clause as, ‘To Ithiel and Ucal’. But the first part of this second clause was probably a deliberate play on words on the name Ithiel (a name which is testified to in Nehemiah 11.7), whilst the name Ucal is nowhere attested to, and would be an unusual form (it is a verb). Thus by repointing without changing the consonants, we can obtain the above translation (the original Hebrew text only contained consonants).

The Transcendent God (The Holy One) And Man’s Inability To Know Him Apart From Revelation (30.2-6).

Agur now draws attention to the transcendence of God as ‘the Holy One’, and brings out the inability of man to know and comprehend Him without revelation.

This subsection divides up into three parts:

• Man is unable to comprehend the Holy One (30.2-3).
• God Is Mysterious And Beyond Man’s Knowledge (30.4).
• Man can know God through revelation (30.5-6).

Agur Humbly Admits His Sense Of Utter Ignorance About The Transcendent God (30.2-3).

As he contemplated the transcendent God Agur was made aware of his own ‘brutish’ ignorance, especially as he had not been taught and had not ‘learned wisdom’. When he heard men talking about God, who seemed to know all about God (as so many people think they do), it made him aware of how little he knew.

30.2-3

Note the chiastic arrangement In the first and fourth clauses we have the vivid contrast between the lowest form of life and the highest form of life, the brute beast contrasted with the transcendent Holy One. In the second and third clauses ‘not having understanding’ is paralleled with ‘not having learned wisdom’.

Agur here expresses himself with the deep humility typical of godly men of those days. He did not see himself as fitted to be God’s mouthpiece, because he felt himself as nearer to the level of the beasts than most men when he sought to understand God. He could not believe that anyone could have as little understanding about God as he had. That is why, as he contemplates God, he describes himself as almost on the level of a brute beast (see here Psalm 73.22; Job 25.6), lacking in understanding. Indeed as lacking in the understanding of God that most men appear to have as they talk about God. Job’s comforters knew all about God (even though they were wrong) whilst Job himself was left floundering. Job would have known what Agur was talking about. For such an expression of humility we can compare David’s ‘I am a worm and no man, a reproach of men and despised among the people’ (Psalm 22.6). But this was because his deep awareness of the holiness of God made him feel this way. It was not because it was true. His estimate of himself is to be seen as one of godly humility (in contrast with many) rather than as an apt description. He is seeing himself in the light of his awareness of ‘the Holy One’ and of how little he understands Him.

His claim not to have learned wisdom’ suggests that he was admitting that he was not a trained wisdom teacher (just as the Apostles were described as ‘unlearned and ignorant men’ for the same reason - Acts 4.13). And he was deeply aware of his own lack of understanding about God ‘the Transcendent One’. For the use of ‘the Holy One’ without further definition see Job 6.10; Hosea 11.9; Habakkuk 3.3 and compare Isaiah 57.15. It indicated God’s non-earthliness and uniqueness, emphasising His mystery, His transcendence and His unapproachability.

He Challenges His Readers To Recognise Their Own Ignorance About God (30.4)

Agur brings out the mysteriousness of ‘the Holy One’ by pointing out that He is the God of the mysterious who controls and understands what is beyond man’s purview, (Heaven, the wind and the seas, and the establishing of the whole earth to its farthest extent), and, using rhetorical questions, challenges them as to what they really know about Him.

30.4

Once again note the chiastic arrangement. In the first and fifth clauses we find the idea of God’s incomprehensible nature (He is from Heaven and ascends to Heaven, and His Name and His son’s name are unknowable), In the middle three clauses we have reference to three aspects of creation that men saw as mysterious and incomprehensible.

So he challenges his readers to consider their own understanding of God. (He had referred to men who did give the impression of knowing about God in verse 2). He describes some of God’s achievements and asks them who they know of Who has done these things. He expects the answer ‘no one’ and ‘we don’t know’. Each question refers to things which, at the time, were recognised as either uncontrollable by man or beyond man’s knowledge. He knows that as they consider them their response can only be, ‘there is only One Who knows, the Creator’, and his hope is that it will make them a little more humble in the face of God.

‘Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended?’ Men were fully aware that they could not ascend into the heavens (see Deuteronomy 30.12). In the Ancient Near Eastern myths it was an attempt that some special men sought to make, but they never succeeded (compare Isaiah 14.13 ff.). For all were aware that none could ascend into the heavens and return. Elijah may have ascended into the heavens, but he did not descend again. But it was different with God. He could ascend to Heaven and descend again at will. Indeed, Israel knew that God had descended from the heavens, and had then later ascended again (Genesis 11.5; Exodus 19.11, 18; Judges 13.20; Psalm 68.18), and that He could do so at will. Jesus quite probably had these words in mind when He revealed the mystery of His Being in John 3.13.

‘Who has gathered the wind in his fists?’ The wind was one of the mysterious, invisible forces that man had no control over. The wind blows where it will and men know not from where it comes or where it goes (John 3.7). So the thought that man could gather the wind in their fists was laughable. But what was equally certain was that God could. After all He weighs it (Job 28.25) and created it. And He sends it out as His agents (Exodus 10.19; 14.21; 15.10; Numbers 11.31; Psalm 48.7; 78.26; etc.). It is completely under His control.

‘Who has bound the waters in his garment?’ Another force that was mysterious to Israel was that of the waters (the seas). They knew how soon they could become uncontrolled and uncontrollable. They were to be feared. But they were no problem to God. He could bind them and move them at His will (8.29; Genesis 1.7; Exodus 15.8; Joshua 4.23; Psalm 33.7; 89.9; 104.6; etc.). The thought might be that He put them in the fold of the garment which acted as a pocket, but with the added thought that in order to do so He had controlled them (he was not intending it to be taken literally).

‘Who has established all the ends of the earth?.’ Equally mysterious were ‘the ends of the earth’. They were beyond where any man known to them had ever been, in the mysterious ‘beyond’. Wherever men went there was always a distant horizon. So certainly no man had established ‘the ends of the earth’. But all would know that YHWH knew them and had indeed established them (8.29; Job 28.24; Psalm 65.5; 135.7; Isaiah 40.28; etc.).

‘What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if you know?’ They did, of course, know His Name. It was YHWH. And they could have answered that His son’s name was either the reigning king of Judah/Israel (2 Samuel 7.14; Psalm 2.7) or Israel itself (Exodus 4.23). But the question is rather probably intended to mystify them. Note the final ‘if you know’ (or ‘surely you know’). His point may have been that whilst they knew His Name, they could not plumb the significance of that Name, and the attributes of the One Who bore it.

But it may well have been that by this time the pronunciation of YHWH’s Name was lost to them, and was therefore beyond them. Either way the idea is that they do not really comprehend the wonder of His Name in that they do not understand His character and attributes which are hidden in mystery. His point about ‘His son’ may have been to challenge them as to whether they could even fathom the king’s heart (25.3), or it may well have been in order to make them recognise how little they knew about God, ‘what do you know about His progeny?’.

The Purity And Sacredness Of God’s Revealed Word (30.5-6).

Now he lets us know that God may be unknowable, but that He has revealed Himself. God’s true word, revealed through truly prophetic men, is thoroughly pure, and is a means by which men can take refuge in Him. They may not be able to fully comprehend Him, but they can know Him as a Refuge. But what is revealed about Him in His words revealed to man must not to be added to under any pretext. It is unique. Men should therefore be careful when they claim knowledge about God apart from that word.

30.5-6

Agur must surely have had Psalm 18.30 in mind when he wrote these words, for that Psalm reads, ‘As for God His way is perfect. The word of YHWH is tried (refined), He is a shield to all those who trust in Him,’ And goes on to ask, ‘Who is God but YHWH?’ answering the question which Agur posed in verse 4. Its use here may be as a confirmation that Agur saw his words as words of God which were refined and purified, and through which they could take refuge in God as their shield.

However, it is doubtful if that covers the whole meaning of his words in view of how limited his words here are. It is more probable therefore that he also had in mind the Torah, of which Moses also said, ‘You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor shall you diminish from it’ (Deuteronomy 4.2; 12.32). It is an indication that Israel recognised that the word handed down to them was not to be altered. To add to God’s word would be to face reproof from God, and to be called a deceiver, with the inevitable consequence of death for being a false prophet. Alternately he may have had in mind the Davidic Psalm as being God’s word, or indeed both Torah and Psalm.

Note that one purpose of God’s words was in order to turn men to YHWH so that they would put their trust in Him as their shield, taking refuge in Him. Jesus Himself used Deuteronomy as a shield when He used it to rebut Satan’s temptations (Matthew 4.1-11). Whilst, however, God’s word has to be protected from alteration, and is God’s instrument for our good, it is not to be worshipped (as Muslims do the Quran, even though they would claim not to. The Quran must never be place below another book nor may its pages ever be despoiled).

Lack Of Truth, And Riches Or Poverty, Are At The Root Of Man’s Downfall (30.7-17).

Two basic things are now in Agur’s mind. The first is the danger of being deceived about God and about life, and the second is the deceitfulness of riches and what that can do to men.

This subsection divides up as follows:

• Agur’s prayer to YHWH to be delivered from falsehood and from the effects of both riches and poverty (30.7-9).
• A A man must not take advantage of his status deceitfully to hurt and dishonour those who are of lower standing (30.10).
• B Four examples of those whom God despises who are either perverted by riches or deceived (30.11-14).
• C The one who always wants more (30.15).
• B Four things which never have enough and always want more (30.15-16).
• A The fate of the one who dishonours father and mother for the sake of wealth (30.17).

Agur’s Prayer To YHWH To Be Delivered From Falsehood And From The Effects Of Both Riches And Poverty (30.7-9).

Agur had asked two things of men (what is His Name and what is His son’s name?). Now he asks two things of God. He prays to be delivered both from lies and falsehood, and from the deceitfulness of riches and the debilitating effects of poverty. The two things are then presented twofold, ‘falsehood and lies’ and ‘riches and poverty’ (making four things in all). In both cases the twofold nature probably indicated comprehensiveness. He then explains why he want to be neither rich nor poor.

30.7-9

Agur now turns his thought and his words towards YHWH and addresses YHWH. He asks for two things to be granted to him while he is still alive. Firstly that He keep from him all deceit and falsehood, and that included acting as a liar by adding to God’s words without being under divine inspiration (verse 6). As we have already seen he had a deep concern for truth. And he wants to be true himself. He wants to walk in the straight way, and not the crooked way.

And secondly he asks Him to make him neither too rich nor too poor, but rather to give him the food that is needful for him, (and thus neither a surfeit of food, nor a lack). ‘Food’ probably stands here for all man’s needs (but not his greeds). For he recognises the deceitfulness of riches, and how they can make a man so self-sufficient that he stops trusting in God, and can even demonstrate arrogance and self-sufficiency by asking ‘Who is YHWH?’ because he feels he no longer needs Him. On the other hand he recognises the alternative possibility that, if he is left hungry, he might steal, and curse his lot, and use God’s Name profanely.

There is an important lesson here for our own lives. He could so easily have asked God to help him to be both rich and pious. But he recognised that that would be presumptuous. He sought to overcome temptation by avoiding its source. It is no good praying ‘do not lead us into testing’ if we deliberately walk into it. In the same way Paul exhorted Timothy to ‘flee youthful desires’ (2 Timothy 2.22). Some temptations are best overcome by avoidance rather than by facing up to them.

We may ask, why then did the Prologue tell us that wisdom would give us riches? The answer is that it is one thing for God to give us riches, and take on Himself the responsibility for ensuring that they do not drag us down, it is another for us to seek them for ourselves. Once we are truly wise we will be able to cope with riches (and will not seek them), but as Paul points out to seek them is to put ourselves in the way of temptation (see 1 Timothy 6.6-10, 17).

We may compare with his prayer the Lord’s prayer, ‘give us today tomorrow’s bread, and do not lead us into testing’. It is a prayer for sufficiency, but no more, and an indication of lack of presumption. The Christian is not to seek to be tested. It is quite another thing if God allows him to be tested.

‘Two things have I asked of you (and that two then become four as we have seen)’ Agur is very strong on numbers. Later verse 15 contains the series ‘two -- three -- four’, and this is followed regularly by ‘three things --- and four’ (verse 18, 21, 24, 29). There are also two series of fours which are not specifically numbered (verses 4, 11-14). He may have seen ‘two’ as like two pillars (consider the two pillars outside the sanctuary), providing full support. On the one hand the pillar of truth, on the other the pillar of defence against temptation. Or he may have seen it as indicating comprehensiveness (a twofold witness was a satisfactory witness).

A Man Must Not Take Advantage Of His Status To Hurt Those Who Are Of Lower Standing (30.10).

We now learn that in the eyes of YHWH to take advantage of one’s position for one’s own ends is despicable. Status confers responsibility not license.

30.10

An example of falsehood and lies is now given, that of someone who seeks to bring trouble on a servant by passing on lies. It also warns men that God protects the underprivileged, and demonstrates how unimportant riches are in God’s eyes. Men may have regard for riches, but God does not. A man who feels himself superior, and feels offended by something a servant has done, might well seek to avenge himself by slandering the servant (speaking falsely about him) to his master, in order to get him punished. Agur here warns him against such behaviour. He warns him that God is watching over the servant, and if the servant curse the accuser justly, and God holds the accuser guilty, he can be sure that God will punish him. God defends those who cannot defend themselves.

Alternately ‘servant’ may indicate a ruler’s appointed official. In that case the warning is against slandering men who are only seeking to do their duty in order to get them into trouble, or removed from public office. Of course in the end the condemnation refers to all slander against others, for all slander is obnoxious to God, but it is especially obnoxious when aimed at someone who cannot hit back. The warning is given that they can hit back, and hard, for they can take the matter to God.

This verse connects with what was said previously by the reference to falsehood, and by reference to a man (a servant) who presumably has his needs met, but no more. It connects with the following verse by the reference to a curse.

Four Examples Of Those Whom God Despises (30.11-14).

Four examples are now given of those whom God despises. The four examples given are clearly to be seen in the light of what has already been said about YHWH’s connection with affairs in verse 7, 8 and 9. In verses 7 and 8 he did not want to offend YHWH. In Verse 9 YHWH could be called on to defend the weak. Thus YHWH was very much in his thoughts. After all he saw his very words as having come from YHWH. There may indeed be a deliberate contrast with the fourfoldness in verse 4. There we had the fourfold mystery of the unknowable God, unknowable apart from revelation (verse 5). Here we have the fourfold nature of man’s depravity. .

30.11-14

Agur now lists and describes four types of people who sum up what a particular generation will be like: those who rebel against parental authority, those who are self-righteous, those who are proud and haughty, and those who oppress the poor and needy, all of whom will either be represented in the generation spoken of, or each of which will be especially represented in different generations. But it is noticeable that they are not specifically numbered in a passage where we might have expected it.

‘There is a generation’ probably has in mind the majority of a generation (i.e. of those living at a particular time) in the same way as when Jesus spoke of ‘this generation’ (Mark 8.38; Matthew 12.39). It may indicate that , whilst all generations partake in all these sins, different generations may be prominent at particular times for each of the different types of sin, with a particular sin, like a particular fashion, catching on for a time and then passing. But not all in any one generation would be guilty of all the sins, any more than every fool was responsible for all that was imputed to fools earlier in Proverbs. Indeed, this overall picture would in total be true of every generation, although some more than others (in Elijah’s time there would only be seven thousand who would be faithful to YHWH (1 Kings 19.18). In Jeremiah’s time there was no righteous person in Jerusalem apart from his own circle (Jeremiah 5.1-2)).

‘There is a generation who curse their father, and do not bless their mother.’ To curse father and mother was to be under sentence of death from YHWH (20.20; Exodus 21.17). This is not referring to a swearing at them in temper which is later regretted, but a deliberate attempt to bring down harm on them, and an indication of a heart in rebellion against authority. It could occur through greed (seeking to obtain their inheritance quicker (20.21), or not wishing to maintain them), or through disagreement about lifestyle or religious affiliation (e.g. following Canaanite practises). It would often result in deceit.

Jesus spoke of a time when families would be torn by division because of Him (Matthew 10.35-36). The same would happen because of allegiance or otherwise to YHWH. ‘They do not bless their mother’ probably means that they do not behave in such a way as to satisfy her heart, although it could also mean that they do not provide for her and honour her. There are many examples of men and women today who treat their parents badly, whilst fathers or mothers who become Christians in some Muslim countries experience such treatment from their children. Verse 17 makes clear what will happen to those who do this.

‘There is a generation who are pure in their own eyes, and yet are not washed from their filthiness.’ These are those who practise outward religion, but their hearts are not in it (‘the sacrifice of the unrighteous is an abomination’ - 15.8; 21.27). They put on a show of worship (they seek to deceive others about their attitude to YHWH) but their hearts are set on unrighteousness. This was Jesus’ argument about the Scribes and Pharisees who opposed Him (Matthew 23.27), although we should remember that not all did. Thus the sacrifices and offerings of such people do not avail. ‘Not washed from their excrement’ is to be taken metaphorically and is a vivid but unpleasant reminder of the awfulness of sin. They are still wallowing in their filthy sins. This would especially be seen as true of those who intermingled their Yahwism with debased Canaanite religion. They thought that their rituals were purifying them (including going with cult prostitutes), but they did not. All they did was leave them ‘filthy’. Either way it was because they did not ‘fear YHWH’.

Many today are ‘pure in their own eyes’ but happily go on in sin. This was why Paul emphasised that Christians must ‘cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God’ (2 Corinthians 7.1). Cleansing is through the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, but it is only effective for those whose ultimate aim is for they themselves to become Christlike by God’s effective working (Ephesians 2.10; Philippians 2.13).

‘There is a generation, oh how lofty are their eyes! And their eyelids are lifted up.’ These are the men of haughty eyes who are an abomination to YHWH (6.17). They consider themselves superior to others and look down on them. They also see themselves as superior to God’s wisdom (‘its not very practical, is it? Our way is better’), and it leads them into all kinds of wrongdoing (6.16-19). They consider themselves above the Law, and despise the righteous (29.27). See 21.4, 24; 28.25. But they are self-deceived.

‘There is a generation whose incisors (teeth) are as swords, and their molars (jawteeth) as cleavers, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.’ The picture is vivid depicting such people as biting bits off, and then chewing, the poor and needy, an indication that they use their mouths, through deceitful or vicious words, to destroy their lives. They are both greedy for wealth, and deceitful. They take over the land which was given to each Israelite family by YHWH, by use of the courts (when they should willingly lend to the poor); they withhold wages on a pretext with false arguments; they bring men into bondage without consideration; they make specious excuses for not lending to the poor, or providing food to the needy; they argue against having to leave gleanings; they refuse the tithes to the poor. Thus the poor are left to starve and die, ‘devoured’ by their compatriots.

Things That Never Have Enough (30.15-16).

We now have a numerical progression of ‘two’, ‘three’ and ‘four’ (or even one, two three and four). One horseleech (a leach is never satisfied) has two unsatisfied daughters, leading on to three things, yes four which are never satisfied. The world is full of dissatisfaction with its lot and always wants more.

30.15a

The horseleech was found in still water pools and would attach itself to the nostrils and palates of drinking horses, sucking out their blood. Its ‘two daughters’ may well have been the two suckers, one at either end, by which it attached itself to the horse and drank its blood. They cry ‘give, give’ for they want more and more. This is connected to the previous verse by the idea of the extraction of what gives life to the poor and needy in verse 14. The horse-leech therefore represents the greedy rich, or anyone whose greed makes them prey on others. This is God’s view of them. They are disgusting leeches.

30.15b-16

The writer now refers to four things which are insatiable. ‘Three things, -- yes four’ (compare Amos 1-2) probably represent ‘more than completeness’ (three was the recognised number of completeness throughout the whole of the Ancient Near East, and four was an addition to it). We saw that the daughters of the horse-leech were never satisfied. Now we have four further things that are never satisfied. They never say ‘enough’. The first is Sheol, the grave world. It will go on devouring men and women until the end of time. (As 27.20 also says, it is never satisfied). The second is the barren womb, the womb of a woman who is no longer able to bear children. It cries out to be filled. It longs for more. The third is the earth which always wants more and more water if it is to bear fruit. And the fourth is fire which, unless it continues to consume, will die out. This last may have in mind man’s destructiveness.

Note the connectedness. On the one hand Sheol which swallows the dead, on the other the barren womb which longs to give life and cannot. The earth, with its cry for water for the purpose of producing life, only too often finds that lack of water results in fire which destroys life. So Sheol swallows life, the barren womb refuses life, watered earth gives life, fire destroys life. But none are ever satisfied.

Verse 15a demonstrates that these, whilst being true in themselves, are a picture of man’s greed as he cries out for more and more, and never has enough.

Judgment On Those Who Do Not Honour Their Parents (30.17).

This connects back to verse 11 with its reference to those who curse their fathers and do not bless their mothers. It now describes God’s judgment on such people.

30.17

The main reason why a son would dishonour his father and mother was because he wanted or loved wealth. He wanted his inheritance early and would either cheat for it or demand it on the basis of the father’s love (like the prodigal son). As he took over because of his father’s ill health he did not want to waste his wealth on caring for his ageing parents. So with his eye he mocks his father and scorns to obey his mother, who being somewhat younger than the father, and therefore fitter, may well chide the son on his behaviour. But such sons should recognise what will happen to them. An unpleasant death awaits them, a death which shames them by leaving them unburied, and then their eye, now sightless, will be plucked out by the ravens of the valley, and the young eagles will eat them. The consequences of warfare are described in similar terms in Ezekiel 39.17-18; Revelation 19.17-18.

Four Things Which Are Wonderful And Four Which Make The Earth Tremble (30.18-23).

The write now brings to our attention four wonderful things which bring out the wonder of the Creator, and four things which make men tremble. He had previously brought to men’s attention four mysteries which exalted God (verse 4). Now he wants to glorify the Creator.

The four things which are wonderful are all aspects of nature, and all contain the idea of movement. An eagle’s flight in the air, a snakes sinuous movement on a rock, a ships movement on the sea, and a lover’s courting activity as he courts a maiden. The four are described from the point of view of the watcher. (Thus sexual activity is not in mind. That would not have been seen as observable).

The four things to be trembled at are a servant who has become a king, a wealthy fool, an odious (unlovable) woman who marries, and a bondsmaid who is heir to he mistress. All are out of place.

In between these two groups of four is the unconcerned adulteress who has no conscience. She epitomises both groups. Her eating and wiping her mouth, playing the innocent, is something to be wondered at. Her activity as an adulteress without conscience causes the earth to tremble.

30.18-19

If we take time to visualise the activities described we too will be filled with wonder, Firstly we have the wonder of their movement. The huge, majestic eagle (or vulture), which no one would have expected would be able to fly, floating swiftly through the air on its stately wings or dropping rapidly to seize its prey (2 Samuel 1.23; Lamentations 4.19; Habakkuk 1.8); a snake moving sinuously on a rock, with no hands or legs, and yet in no danger of falling; the swaying, rocking, ship as it ploughs through the sea, defying the grasping waves beneath; and the man courting his beloved, who engages in various activities of courtship, bashful and yet persevering. All four also master the sphere in which they operate. The eagle masters the air, the snake masters the rock, the ship masters the sea, and the romantic man masters the maiden by his courtship.

Some also see in this the wonder that they leave no trace behind. But the observant eye can often see traces of a snake’s movements on a rock; a ship leaves its wake behind it; and the activities of a young man and a maiden certainly leave traces (especially in cases of sexual encounter). It is not an obvious lesson to draw.

There is no reason for seeing the reference to the man and the maiden as indicating sexual activity, and indeed, a young man would not engage in sex with an unmarried maiden (the whole stress of ’alma is that it means unmarried in all clear cases), nor would such activity be observed when they finally married. He would first need to be betrothed, and then in normal circumstances would wait until after the wedding before engaging in sexual activity. And such activity would not be available for people to see. Nor is there anything wonderful about a young man’s first clumsy attempt at lovemaking. Thus there is a clear reference here to pre-betrothal courtship, activity which would be observed and provide onlookers with amusement and appreciation, and not to sexual activity. Nor would a writer in those days draw attention to such sexual activity in an innocent illustration, especially as he is seeing it as something which is observed. It would not be suitable for a young man’s eyes, and certainly not for a young woman’s.

And reinforcing all this is the fact that in the case of all the other foursomes, the first and the fourth in the series are always close parallels. Thus we must see in the young man something of the majestic and swift eagle. It is the eagle’s mastery of its environment that is emphasised, its ‘way in the air’. Thus we would expect the same for the young man and his activities in courtship. Note that in their pure, untainted courtship these two, and especially the pure maiden, are the very opposite of the adulterous woman. The maiden is not luring him to sex, but wooing him to love.

30.20

This verse connects the two groups of four. Its referring to the way of the adulterous woman parallels the previous example, its incongruity connects it with what follows. ‘So is the way --’ here does not have a backward reference to the previous verse (where there would be four ‘ways’ to choose from), but to her own way as she seeks to present herself as innocent. She eats unconcernedly, wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done no wickedness’, or to put it another way, ‘what have I done wrong?’ She is completely without conscience. Her attitude can only make the earth tremble, for nothing is more dangerous to society than an adulterous woman who has no reservations about her activities. Every young man is a prospective victim.

‘Eats and wipes her mouth’ is probably a euphemism for her sexual activity. Having participated in a sexual orgy, she can simply wipe off the traces of what she has done, as though it had never happened. She demonstrates that she feels no responsibility to obey the Torah and to observe the covenant of YHWH (see 2.17).

Its incongruity lies in the fact that a woman, whose concern should be to produce and rear children and to look after her family (31.10 ff.), can so dismiss her role that she lives for sexual gratification and sees no wrong in it. She is the very opposite of what a woman should be.

30.21-23

The next four illustrations refer to things that are incongruous in a similar way to the morally careless adulteress. They make the earth tremble because they are capable of anything. A servant who becomes a king comes to the activity with a servant’s mind. He has never had the training for rulership. Thus he is not fitted for the position and his accession can only introduce concern all round. It is not wise to make a servant your king. He has a servant’s mind. No one knows what he will do.

A fool who has more than sufficient food, indicating his wealth, and giving him time to look around to do mischief, is the second person who is to be feared. No one can be sure what he will do next. Such a person needs to be carefully watched.

An odious woman who marries is totally incongruous. The marriage state is intended to be one of bliss. But there can be no bliss where an odious woman is involved. Who knows what she will do as a consequence? Warnings about odious women have been given earlier (21.9, 19; 27.15). There is a warning here to all men to be careful whom they marry.

The fourth incongruous thing is a bondswoman who is heir to her mistress. Agur may well have had Hagar in mind (Genesis 16.1-4). Such a woman will begin to flaunt herself over her mistress, and cause great dissension in the household. She is capable of any mischief, and like the servant who becomes a king, rises above her station.

Note the parallel between the first and the fourth. The servant and the handmaid both rise above their station. In the second and the third both are basically fools.

The Four Small But Wise Creatures, The Four Stately Creatures, And The Fool (30.24-33).

Note in these examples the contrast between the wise (verses 24-28) and the fool (verse 32). The four wise creatures go busily about their activities, not trying to rise above their station or disturb the order to things, and yet accomplishing great things. They picture man in his activities in the world, as he provides food for his family, builds a secure home, finds strength in being a member of the community, and obtains protection under the king’s umbrella. The four stately creatures rule over their worlds without fear. They picture the king in his supreme authority. But in contrast is the fool who has risen above his station or is in danger of doing so, and needs to consider his position. He is out of his sphere and his way can only produce strife for him. He has lifted himself up, or planned evil, but he must now retract lest he face the consequences. It is a final warning against folly.

Note the point that is brought out in that the fourth example in each case is connected with the king. In the first case the lizard finds its niche in the king’s palace, and can enjoy his protection. In the second the king is unassailable. The fool makes light of both.

The Four Small But Wise Creatures (30.24-28).

The illustrations about smallness combined with wisdom are an encouragement to all who seem insignificant. They can nevertheless do great things. For the wise ensure their food supplies, build their houses securely, ensure that they live and work in an harmonious society, and can even enter king’s palaces. But they keep their place and go wisely about their lives, unlike the incongruous people of the previous foursome, who were not wise at all.

Note how the first and fourth are in parallel in that both ‘use their hands’, the one to store up food, the other to cling to surfaces (emphasised in the case of the lizard). Ants also parallel locusts in that they gather in communities and both have no ruler (compare 6.7)

30.24-28

The stated emphasis here is that these creatures are small and insignificant, and yet wise. It is an indication that wisdom is not limited to the strong and the mighty, but is available to all, however seemingly unimportant. Each of these creatures goes unassumingly about its life and yet accomplishes great things within its own sphere.

The ants are not strong, but they are not indolent. They go busily about their lives, work hard, make the most of their opportunities, and ensure that they have food stored up for the future, just as any wise man will do. They were an example of such activity in 6.6-8. They are the perfect example of the importance of hard work to achieve life’s goals.

Rock badgers (about the size of small rabbits) are not powerful (unlike the creatures depicted in the next foursome), but nevertheless they are secure, for they build their houses among the mighty, inaccessible rocks, revealing their wisdom. They make full provision in order to ensure that they are secure. It is a reminder to the wise to ensure as far as possible their security. It is a reminder to us that we should build our lives upon the Rock, Christ Jesus, for total security.

Locusts also are small creatures and they have no king. And yet they are wise enough to band together and go out into the world as swarms, and thus become fearsome to all. They are examples of the wisdom of being part of a healthy community. And they do it, not because they are overruled, but of their own accord. It is an example to Christians of the importance of unity and working together.

The lizard ‘uses its hands’, with their suction pads, in order to cling to surfaces and to roam freely wherever it wants. It is found in king’s places. There is no limit as to where it can go, no limits as to what it can achieve, as long as it remains within its sphere. In the same way the most insignificant Christian can live in ‘heavenly places’ (Ephesians 1.3, 20; 2.6; 3.10; 6.12), the spiritual world of spiritual blessing (and conflict).

The four together cover different important aspects of a man’s life. The ant works hard to ensure sufficient food, the rock badger ensures a secure home, the locust finds its strength from its community, and the lizard finds shelter under the king’s protection (it is found in king’s palaces).

The Four Stately Creatures (30.29-31).

These are in contrast to the small wise creatures. They are stately and fearsome, and rule their own world, fearing none. The first is the mightiest among beasts, the fourth is the mightiest among men. In between are the strutting cock, and the he-goat, both lords in their own sphere.

30.29-31

The first is the lion, king of the beasts. He is ‘mightiest among beasts’, a ‘creature of heroic status’ (gibbor), and fearful of none. This was certainly true in and around Palestine. (But even lions move out of the way of a herd of elephants, and do not trouble crocodiles). He presents a magnificent appearance and his roar terrifies all creatures in his sphere. He is lord in his own sphere. There are many examples of the fearsomeness of lions in Scripture (19.12; 20.2; 22.13; 28.1, 15; Numbers 23.24; 24.9; 1 Kings 13.24-25; Job 4.10; Psalm 7.2; 104.21; Isaiah 5.29; and often).

The second example is probably the strutting cock (the interpretation of the early versions). The word zarzir occurs only here. We only know that whatever it is it ‘struts’ (uses its loins). The fierce cock, which struts among the hens and fights off all rivals, is a likely example. Cocks are shown on seals of 7th century BC, sometimes in an attacking position. The translation greyhound of some translations does not really tie in with the idea of stateliness combined with mastery. The third example is the he-goat, another example in Scripture of a redoubtable fighter (Jeremiah 50.8; Daniel 8.5).

The fourth is the mighty king against whom there is no rising up. He is secure against revolt. The idea behind these examples is to express the idea of authority, and the importance of responding to it wisely.

30.32-33

This section began with a man who saw himself as brutish and lacking in understanding (30.2-3), it now ends with a man who recognises that he has been a fool. He has either verbally risen up and foolishly set himself against authority, whether local or higher, or has planned to do so, probably in association with others. (He has overlooked the fact that the king is one against whom there is no rising up - verse 31b). But he is advised to put his hand on his mouth. He would be wise to say no more. His words can only bring him trouble, for they will bring him under wrath. A man who tries to force his authority on others when he has authority neither by custom nor popular consent, can only divide a community. And where the overall authority is strong (verse 31) it is totally foolish.

For just as milk when it is churned up produces butter, and a nose wrung produces blood, so will wrath stirred up result in strife. And in the light of the previous verses 29-31 this would be unwise. It would reveal him to be a fool.

It should be noted that Agur was not against the idea of a man rising as a result of his own abilities and achieving status in his community, but against him doing it in the wrong way. To Agur the harmony of the community was important.

The Teaching Of King Lemuel (31.1-31). To separate verse 10-31 from verses 1-9, except of course grammatically and instructionwise, would be inconsistent with the rest of Proverbs where each group of material is introduced by a heading. There is only one heading in this chapter and that is in verse 1. Furthermore verse 3 warns against the wrong kind of women, whilst verses 10-31 repatriates a woman in her proper sphere. This would be consonant with a woman’s teaching, who would see the woman whom a man married as an important aspect of wisdom. There are indications of united authorship. Whilst his ‘son’ is not to give his strength/virtue to women (verse 3), a virtuous/strong woman is revealed to be an ideal helpmeet (verse 10). Both the king’s ‘son’ and the woman ‘open their mouths’ (verses 8, 9, 26), (the only other reference to opening the mouth in Proverbs is in 24.7) and both parts emphasise concern for the poor and needy (verses 9, 20; the only other reference combining the two is 30.14). It is not, however, a matter of crucial importance except as establishing the principle that each section has its own heading.

The section divides into two subsections:

• Instruction to royalty (31.2-9).
• The model wife (31.10-31).

Heading (31.1).

31.1

What follows are ‘the words of King Lemuel’. Compare ‘the sayings of Solomon -- king of Israel’ (1.1); ‘the sayings of Solomon’ (10.1); ‘of the wise’ ( ); and ‘the words of Agur’ (30.1). They are described as ‘an oracle’ (compare 30.1). In 30.1 an oracle was described as a prophetic saying. An alternative is to read is as signifying ‘of Massa’, probably a place in Edom or the Sinai peninsula (Genesis 25.14, 16). But its appearance in 30.1 suggests the first alternative. (Some see both references as referring to Massa, but that requires emendation of the text in 30.1 which should be avoided when the present text makes good sense. Any emendation is necessarily a conjecture (educated guess)).

‘Which his mother taught him.’ This may suggest that his father had died while he was young leaving him in his mother’s charge. Solomon certainly saw mothers as playing an important part in the instruction of ‘sons’ (1.8; 6.20), although only as assisting the father. But Queen mothers were an important influence in the ANE so that it is not unlikely (note how the Queen mother is regularly named in Kings). The ascription suggests that she was an important woman.

Instruction To Royalty (31.2-9).

Instruction to royalty was a common feature of ANE wisdom literature. Here it divides up as follows:

• A Avoid the kind of women who destroy kings (verse 2-3).
• B Avoid strong drink which makes a king FORGET the law and pervert justice (verse 4-5).
• B Succour those who are bitter in heart and in poverty with strong drink so that they can FORGET their poverty (verses 6-7).
• A Speak up on behalf of the dumb and the desolated, judge righteously, and especially provide justice for the poor and needy (verses 8-9).

Note that in A he was to avoid women who would destroy his rule, and in the parallel he was to establish justice which would maintain his rule. In B he was not to become drunk and FORGET the law, and in the parallel he was rather to give it to those who wanted to FORGET their poverty and misery.

31.2

The questions are rhetorical challenging Lemuel to consider carefully what she is about to say. It is the equivalent of ‘listen’. (The Arab equivalent means ‘listen’). He is her son, the son born in her womb, the son concerning whom she has made vows (possibly to her dead husband, or maybe prior to Lemuel’s birth - compare 1 Samuel 1.11). The word for son is Aramaic (bar). There are a number of Aramaisms in this section. But this is a slight indication of non-Israelite connections rather than of age, and may simply indicate an area in Israel where Aramaisms were more common. There were many Aramaisms in the Ugaritic literature (14th century BC). And they are not unknown in the remainder of Proverbs. Solomon had constant contact with Aramaic speakers, and many would be at his court.

31.3

Her first warning is against succumbing to the lures of women and allowing them to influence him. This was a central feature of the Prologue. ‘Give your strength’ may be thinking in terms of sexual intercourse, but it may equally, being in parallel to ‘your ways’, imply being under their control. Kings were often influenced by beautiful women. Consider Solomon and his foreign wives (1 Kings 11), Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings 16.31 ff.), Ahasuerus and Esther (Esther 5.1 ff.). Solomon’s foreign wives certainly brought destruction on his house and on Israel, as indeed did Jezebel on Ahab’s house. So Lemuel was not to allow his ways to be dictated by enticing women.

31.4-5

Nor was he to succumb to wine and strong drink. She was not forbidding the drinking of wine, but the drinking of it sufficiently to dull his senses. He and his princes were not to say, ‘where is strong drink?’ indicating that they had been taken captive by it. And this was lest, in their drunken state they forget the law (what had been decreed), and twist the justice which was due to anyone who was unjustly afflicted. It was important that they ruled and judged with clear heads. Compare 23.29-35.

31.6-7

For wine and strong drink were not be seen as suitable for rulers, but rather for those in danger of death, or filled with bitterness deep within them, in order that they might forget their misery and poverty. In other words it was for ‘losers’. It was not a palliative, but an anaesthetic. Note the connection between forgetting the law and forgetting poverty.

It is doubtful if his mother really meant him to try to solve the misery of the poor and the bitter of soul by making them drunk. What she was really doing was indicating the folly of too much wine and strong drink. He was to recognise that it was only good for losers. Indeed, we see that now her instructions will be to succour the poor and needy by giving them justice. It would be quite cynical to do that whilst at the same time anaesthetising them against life. It might, however, be seen as suggesting that it would be a kindness to help men out in times of bitter distress which was short lived, or to assist those who were facing execution (were ready to perish)

31.8-9

In the final analysis the king’s duty was to maintain righteousness and justice. He was to speak up on behalf of those who were too dumb to help themselves. This would, of course include the literally dumb, who would need all the help that they could get. But it also included those who in court might be dumb through ignorance, lack of intelligence, inability to hire good ‘barristers’ or prepare a proper defence, or because of their low standing. They are seen as ‘those who are left desolate’. In such cases the rich had every advantage. The king was to ensure that the balances were made level. He was to open his mouth on their behalf and judge righteously, ministering justice to the poor and needy. It was not that they were to be favoured, only that justice was to be seen to be done on their behalf. The maintenance of true justice was a prime requirement for a king (16.10, 12; 25.5; 29.4a).

Eulogy To A Model Wife (31.10-31).

In a poem which can only be described as ‘heroic poetry’ outlining her ‘mighty deeds’ the writer views the model wife as being of heroic proportions. The poem can be compared with the song of Deborah (Judges 5), and David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1). Even the language of the poem is designed to bring out the idea of her as a noble warrior. Thus she is a ‘valiant (worthy) woman’ (verses 10, 29), she gathers ‘spoil’ for her family (verse 11), she gives ‘prey’ to her household (verse 15), she ‘girds her loins with strength’ and ‘makes herself strong’ (verse 17); she ‘lays her hand on’ the distaff (verse 19); she laughs in challenge and triumph (verse 25). Nevertheless she is doing it for her husband, her children and her household.

Thus this woman is a model of what it means to be a housewife, a help meet for her husband. He sits in the gate acting as a judge in local affairs, sitting among the elders of the land ((verse 23), and would have responsibility for supervising those who watched their cattle, sheep and goats, and watching over the sowing and reaping of crops (central to any wealthy Israelite family and not mentioned in the eulogy). But he is able to play his full part in the community because he knows that he can rely on his wife to look after things at home, and to conduct certain matters of business.

She is also an example of a woman of wisdom, but as a real woman, not simply as a personification of wisdom (just as the women who represented Folly were real women - 2.16-20; 5.3-14; 6.24-35; 7.5-27). It is true that she is ‘larger than life’ but only because she is the model of an ideal wife as seen through the eyes of Lemuel’s mother. But she is unquestionably there as a model to aim at. It is because she is a woman of wisdom that she reveals the traits of wisdom.

The poem is an acrostic based on the twenty two letters of the Hebrew alphabet each verse commencing with a letter of the alphabet in alphabetical order (verse 10 with aleph, verse 11 with beth and so on with verse 31 commencing with tau. But it is also a chiasmus as follows:

• A A WORTHY WOMAN who can find? For her price is far above coral’ (31.10).
• B The heart of her HUSBAND trusts in her, and he will have no lack of spoil. She does him good and not evil, all the days of her life (31.11-12).
• C She seeks wool and flax, and works willingly with her hands. She is like the merchant-ships, she brings her bread from far. She rises also while it is yet night, and gives food to her household, and their quota to her maidens. She considers a field, and buys it, with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard (31.13-16).
• D She girds her loins with strength, and makes her arms strong (31.17).
• E She perceives that her merchandise is profitable, her lamp does not go out by night, she lays her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle (31.18-19).
• F She stretches out her hand to the poor, yes, she reaches forth her hands to the needy (31.20).
• G She is not afraid of the snow for her household, for all her household are clothed with scarlet (31.21).
• G She makes for herself coverlets, her clothing is fine linen and purple (31.22).
• F Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land (31.23).
• E She makes linen garments and sells them, and delivers sashes to the merchant (31.24).
• D Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come (31.25).
• C She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the law of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness (31.26-27).
• B Her children rise up, and call her blessed, her HUSBAND also, and he praises her, saying, “Many daughters have done worthily, but you excel them all (31.28-29).
• A Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a WOMAN WHO FEARS YHWH, she will be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates (31.30-31).

Note that in A she is a worthy or valiant WOMAN, and in the parallel she is a WOMAN who fears YHWH. In B her HUSBAND trusts her and gains from her activities, and she does him good all his days, and in the parallel her HUSBAND praises her and calls her the wife who excels all others. In C we have outlined all her activities on behalf of the family, and in the parallel she looks well to her household. In D she makes herself strong, and in the parallel strength and dignity are her clothing. In E she works hard at distaff and spindle, and in the parallel she makes linen garments and sashes. In F she shows benevolence to the needy, and in the parallel her husband sits in the gate dispensing justice to the needy. Both fulfil their responsibilities under the Torah. Centrally in G her household are clothed in scarlet and in the parallel she herself makes coverlets, and is clothed in fine linen and purple.

Description Of Her General Overall Value (31.10-12).

The closeness of the relationship between the woman and her husband is brought out by the fact that he ‘trusts in her’. There is between them a oneness of love and purpose. She is always there as his support and stay, contributing to the wellbeing of the family. And she is unfailing. She is totally reliable. She is the family’s champion. And her value lies not in her beauty (verse 30), but in her solid worth.

31.10

The poem opens with a general description of this model wife. She is worthy, valuable and trustworthy. The word for ‘worthy’ can also mean ‘valiant, strong’. It contains the idea of one who overcomes in battle and in life. It is used of Ruth in Ruth 3.11 where the implication is that Ruth was worthy because she had been loyal to Naomi and had overcome her difficulties. This wife too is loyal to her husband and overcomes difficulties. She battles on behalf of her family.

Her value is far above that of red coral, something valuable from the Red Sea area which was prized as jewellery. She is thus of great worth and of a kind very difficult to find (‘who can find?’). She is worth paying a high bride price for. Such a price brings out that while she is certainly a woman of wisdom (3.15; 8.11), she is worth it as a real woman. That she is a real woman, and not just a personification of wisdom, comes out in the chiasmus parallel in that she fears YHWH (verse 30). Wisdom is never said to fear YHWH. Wisdom rather teaches the fear of YHWH.

31.11-12

One reason why she is worthy is because she is totally trustworthy. Her husband trusts her from the heart completely. He relies on her to maintain the household and watch over different aspects of the family’s fortunes. He knows that he can safely leave the affairs of his family in her hands while he fulfils his functions in the community (verse 23). He knows that she will contribute towards the family’s finances, helping to build up their wealth. ‘He will have no lack of spoil’ metaphorically portrays her as the mighty warrior bringing home the spoils of war by dint of great effort. Life is seen as a battle in which the worthy come out on top. And every day of her life she does him good and not evil. She continually contributes towards his wellbeing. Never a cross word, (she is the opposite of the a contentious wife), never a failure, always fulfilling the requirements of a good wife.

The closeness of the relationship between husband and wife comes out here in that usually men are told not to trust in man, but in YHWH (but compare Judges 20.36, a war context). Only YHWH can be wholly relied on. But a wife is man’s helpmeet, his other half. And here she fulfils that role completely. She is constant and reliable, the one person whom he can wholly trust.

Her Activities On Behalf Of The Household (31.13-16).

We now learn how she contributes towards the household. She is diligent, working with her hands (verse 13); she is shrewd, seeking the best prices and the best quality (verse 14); she is not a lay-a-bed, but rises early to ensure all, both family and servants, start the day with a good meal (verse 15); and she can always find time to contribute towards the family’s wellbeing (verse 16). In the words of the chiasmus parallel in verse 27 she ‘looks well to the ways of her household’.

31.13

Diligence, in contrast to indolence, has been an emphasis of Proverbs. See 6.6-11; 10.4-5; 11.27; 12.24; 13.4; etc. The model wife finds wool and flax and works on it willingly (gladly) with her hands, providing clothing for the household. There is nothing indolent about her. She wants her family to be well dressed and presentable, ‘clothed in scarlet’ (verse 21).

The wool comes from the family’s sheep, watched over by her husband and his shepherds, the flax is grown on the family land. Both have to be treated to make them usable on her distaff and spindle (verse 19).

31.14

She is concerned to buy good quality, delectable food at the right price, and so, instead of just visiting the local bazaar, she ranges far and wide in her search, like a merchant ship going to the far corners of the earth looking for what will satisfy men’s needs. She puts great effort into well supplying the family table.

31.15

Having been at great pains to obtain delectable food for the family, she rises before dawn each morning in order to provide food for her household, ensuring that even the servant women receive their due portion. Her menfolk will never have to start work without a good breakfast, her servant girls will never commence their chores hungry. The word for food means ‘prey’. Going forth as a mighty warrior she has seized prey on behalf of her household.

31.16

She does not want to waste any spare time that she has, and so she decides to plant a vineyard, to supplement the family provisions and provide suitable wine for the household ‘which makes glad the heart of man’. She looks for a suitable field on the mountainside, buys it and plants a vineyard. ‘With the fruit of her hands’ could indicate that she found the wherewithal by selling what she had made with her hands in verse 13. See verse 24. But ‘fruit’ may have in mind what the vineyard will produce, and may be indicating that the planting of the vineyard is the fruit of her hands. She would not, of course, do all this on her own. She would have servants to carry out her orders. The process of ‘planting of a vineyard’ is described in Isaiah 5.1-2, ‘he dug it, gathered out the stones, planted it with the choicest vines, built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a winepress’.

She Ensures That She Is Strong Enough And Braces Herself For The Tasks Which Lie Before Her (31.17).

The description here of someone preparing for strenuous action. She has to prepare herself for the ‘war’ in which she is involved. She recognises that it will be no easy task. The process is mental rather than physical.

31.17

To ‘gird the loins’ was to gather up the robe and hold it in place with a kind of belt so that the legs would not be hindered when performing physical activity, such as running and fighting. Here it is metaphorical, for she girds her loins with ‘strength’. She gathers herself together, strengthening herself ready for what lies ahead. ‘She makes her arms strong’, flexing her arms in readiness for action. In the chiastic parallel this is put slightly differently. ‘Strength and dignity are her clothing’ (verse 25). She still remembers that she is a lady.

Recognising the Value Of What She Produces She Works Night And Day Producing More Than Enough For Her Household With A View To Selling It (31.18-19).

Perceiving that what she produces has value she works extra hard into the evening in order to produce enough to sell to the merchants (verse 24).

31.18-19

She is not only hard working but astute. She recognises the value of what she and her maidens produce and determines to produce more so that she can sell the surplus. ‘Her lamp does not go out by night’ indicates that she does not stop work at dusk, but continues working by lamplight through what we would call the evening. Or ‘lamp’ here might indicate her inward vitality. She continues active through the evening. She does not waste valuable time but takes the opportunity to get to work on the doubling spindle, making two or three-ply yarn out of the single strands (the meaning of the word is not certain but it contains the idea of doubling), as well as on the regular spindle. To ‘lay hands on’ something meant determined effort, continuing the picture of the household ‘warrior’. In the chiastic parallel she then proceeds to sell what she has made to the merchants (verse 24).

But like the three-ply yarn the writer weaves many patterns and we should note the emphasis on ‘hands -- palms -- palm -- hands’ in both verse 22 and 23, connecting the two verses in a minor chiasmus. One reason why she lays (shalach) her hands to the doubling spindle is so that she can stretch out (shalach) her hands to the poor and needy.

She Fulfils Her Duty To The Poor And Needy (31.20).

Like her husband, who in the chiastic parallel ‘sits among the elders of the land’, and sits as a judge in the gateway in order to ensure justice for all, she fulfils her responsibilities to the community. She walks in accordance with the Torah and stretches out her hands to the poor and needy.

31.20

The Torah (Law of Moses) laid great stress on having concern for the poor, and thus a good woman would be expected to show concern for the poor and needy. She does this willingly and gladly. The double emphasis is probably intended to indicate that she not only gives to the poor but also reveals her loving concern for them as well. Whilst her husband fulfils his responsibilities to the community, enabled in this by his confidence in his wife’s household management, she fulfils her part in social responsibility by making provision for the poor.

She Clothes Both Her Family And Herself Respectably And Satisfactorily (31.21-22).

These verses form the centre of the chiasmus, demonstrating her responsibility fulfilled towards her own family. She is not too busy to adequately care for their needs and make them proud of her. ‘If any provide not for his own, and especially his own household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever’ (1 Timothy 5.10).

31.21

Snow is not common in Palestine, but occurs at times during the winter months (compare 2 Samuel 23.20; Psalm 147.16). It can thus come as a nasty surprise. But this worthy woman has no fear of the snow for she know that her family are well clothed. Scarlet (or crimson) may be chosen as a warm colour, but it was also an indication of wealth (as is her own clothing). Dyed garments would normally be of wool, confirming this and indicating the warmth of the garments. The plural of scarlet, which is unusual, may well indicate the differing garments. An alternative is to repoint as ‘double’. In other words all her household have two layers of clothing to keep out the cold. But scarlets is a better parallel with the next verse.

31.22

This continues the idea of the adequate protection against the cold. It is not saying that she looks after herself even better, but presenting a continuing picture of sufficient provision. ‘Makes for herself’ does not necessarily imply that it was for her own use, rather it means that she makes them for herself so that she can ensure that her family are well covered. The coverlets would provide warmth at night, as well as being decorative. And she also is well dressed against the snow, wearing fine linen and purple-dyed wool. The white of the fine linen may well be in contrast to the white of the snow (white combats white), whilst the wool again indicates warmth. But both fine linen (from Egypt) and purple dye (from Phoenician sea shells) would be imported, once again indicating wealth. In the good sense wisdom produces wealth (3.16; 8.18) , and we have seen that she works hard for it.

Because Of Her Worthiness Her Husband Is Able To Fulfil His Responsibilities In The Community (31.23).

Her reputation has preceded her so that those who as elders sit in the gateway of the city know of her exploits (verse 31). Thus is her husband’s reputation enhanced as he takes his seat among them. The elders not only sat in the large gateway, they also dispensed advice and acted as local judges. They were approachable by both rich and poor, thus his activity was also a giving to the poor.

31.23

Being freed from household responsibilities by the trustworthiness and efficiency of his wife, her husband gained a reputation among the tribal elders. He was ‘known’ and respected. And he sat there as one whose right it was to be there. He would be called on to sit in judgment on important cases and was there to uphold justice. An example of this is given in Ruth 4.1 ff. Community affairs would be discussed there, and any who felt misused could seek their help. His was, therefore, no idle life, and he would not, of course, sit there all the time. There were his herds and flock to be supervised, and the sowing, reaping and harvesting to watch over. But the point being stressed here is not how hard he worked, but the status he enjoyed, partly as a result of his wife’s ministrations. Like his wife (verse 20) he made his full contribution to the community.

Her Manifold Assets (31.24-27).

More of the worthy woman’s varied assets are now revealed, but now moving to more of an emphasis on her personal attributes. What she is in the first half of the poem is now bearing fruit. She makes luxury garments and sells them (verse 24), she is full of strength, dignity and confidence (verse 25), she speaks with wisdom and kindness (verse 26), and she works hard and looks to the ways of her household (verse 27). Note the mini chiasmus:

• A She makes linen garments and sells them (verse 24).
• B Strength and dignity are her clothing (verse 25).
• B She opens her mouth with wisdom (verse 26).
• A She does not eat the bread of idleness (verse 27).

31.24

Her previously described productivity (verses 18-19) now goes towards building up the family wealth. She makes linen garments and sells them, and delivers sashes to the merchant. She has become involved in the genteel wholesale clothing trade.

31.25

Previously she had ‘girded her loins with strength’ (verse 17) and now that strength is revealed along with dignity. ‘Warrior’ she may be but she is still genteel. And like the ‘warrior’ that she is she laughs triumphantly at the future. She is not afraid of what may come, for she fears YHWH (verse 30) and is versed in wisdom (verse 26), and is thus confident of His watch and protection.

31.26-27

She is not only strong and dignified, but she is also wise, compassionate and diligent. When she speaks it is with wisdom. And she feeds her family with the Torah with its emphasis on covenant love. It is noticeable that when the teaching role of the mother is spoken of it is always as related to the Torah (1.8; 6.22-23). She does not have a free rein like the father. It was her responsibility to instruct their children in the Torah, and to imbue in them the idea of covenant love so that they would see themselves as one with God’s covenant people.

Furthermore she looks well to the ways of her household, not only instructing them in the Torah and watching over them to ensure that they fulfil it, but also in the way described in 31.13-16. She is in no way indolent. (Proverbs has already made clear that indolence is the way of the fool, the way of poverty). Her whole effort is concentrated on being a good wife and mother in every respect, and to work hard at it.

She Is Fully Appreciated By Her Husband And Family (31.28-29).

These verses form an inclusio with verses 11-12. In verses 11-12 her husband was revealed as having full trust in her, here he extols her. There she does him good, here he declares that she has done worthily. But now added to his appreciation is the appreciation of her children.

31.28-29

We now learn of the woman’s reward (in the best sense), the full-hearted appreciation of her children and her husband. Her husband does not come second because the children come first, but because he and his praise for her form an inclusio with the opening of verse 11, within which must come the children. Apart from the summaries concerning the woman herself, her husband embraces the whole. It is as her husband’s wife that she has done what she has.

Notice that she gets a standing ovation. Her children, and possibly especially her sons, ‘rise up’ and call her blessed. They salute her as the champion that she is. It is a declaration of esteem, and an indication that they see her as walking with God, Who is thus blessing her as a representative of true wisdom.

Her husband also praises her, and we are given the details of his praise. He declares that many daughters have done worthily (valiantly), but that she exceeds them all. Such praise from an elder of the people is praise indeed. Note the repetition of the idea of worthiness as in verse 10. She has taken first place in the finals of the best wife contest because she has revealed herself as more worthy than the worthy. She is the champion of champions.

The use of daughters (banoth), only used as a synonym for women in poetry, may be intended to contrast with banim (sons, children) in verse 29. Or it may be that he wishes to emphasise that he puts her above all women both married and with their husbands and unmarried and living at home. It is, of course not to be taken literally, but as the view of a husband about a beloved wife. For the woman in the poem represents many women.

The Summary Of A Perfect Wife (31.30-31).

With these verses forming an inclusio with the opening verse, the poem now sums up the perfect wife. The writer’s search for the worthy and valiant woman has been solved. She is not to be defined in terms of grace or of beauty, but in terms of wisdom and the fear of YHWH (which is the first principle of wisdom - 1.7). It is such a woman who deserves a full reward, and what is more it is attainable by any woman. For it is not a matter of nature but of life choice.

31.30-31

We might almost describe this in terms of what to look for in a wife. The point is not that feminine charms, grace and beauty are to be despised in a wife, but that in terms of true worth they are ‘empty’, ‘a puff of wind’. They do not lastingly deliver. For what is outward will fade. It is not permanent. But what is inward is lasting, and will never fade. The woman whose emphasis is on her charm and beauty is seeking to obtain a man by false pretences. She is offering him false coin. She is in effect being deceitful. For what she looks like may not indicate what she is. But if she is a woman who fears YHWH, then it will make her what she should be. These are either the words of a very wise man, or of a woman (Lemuel’s mother?). For most men are entrapped by charm and beauty.

So what a man should rather look for in a wife is the fear of YHWH. The woman who truly fears YHWH will be constant, trustworthy, a good mother, and a full contributor to the household, for she wants to please the Lord. If she comes with charm and beauty that is a bonus. It is such a woman who will be praised in the way in which the husband in verses 28-29 praised his wife. Anyone else might bring a lifetime of regret (or a quick separation).

And she is to be rewarded by full joint-participation in what she accomplishes (the fruit of her hands) and the full appreciation of the community in which she lives, so that even the elders who rule ‘in the gates’, recognise her worth and praise her.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?