Some commentators do not think that the word refers to the Mosaic law, but to “instruction” or “teaching” in general (cf. NCV “who disobey what they have been taught”). However, the expression “keep the law” in the second line indicates that it is binding, which would not be true of teaching in general (J. Bright, “The Apodictic Prohibition: Some Observations,” JBL 92 [1973]: 185-204). Moreover, Proverbs 28:9 and 29:18 refer to the law, and this chapter has a stress on piety.


The proverb gives the outcome and the evidence of those who forsake the law – they “praise the wicked.” This may mean (1) calling the wicked good or (2) justifying what the wicked do, for such people are no longer sensitive to evil.


The contrast (and the difference) is between the wicked and those who seek the Lord . Originally the idea of seeking the Lord meant to obtain an oracle ( 2 Sam 21:1 ), but then it came to mean devotion to God – seeking to learn and do his will. Only people who are interested in doing the Lord ’s will can fully understand justice. Without that standard, legal activity can become self-serving.


This chapter gives a lot of attention to the contrast between the poor and the rich, assuming an integrity for the poor that is not present with the rich; the subject is addressed in vv. 6, 8, 11, 20, 22, 25, and 27 (G. A. Chutter, “Riches and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs,” Crux 18 [1982]: 23-28).


This is another “better” saying, contrasting a poor person who has integrity with a rich person who is perverse. Of course there are rich people with integrity and perverse poor people, but that is not of interest here. If it came to the choices described here, honest poverty is better than corrupt wealth.


The companion of gluttons shames his father and his family because such a life style as he now embraces is both unruly and antisocial.


The expression “turn away the ear from hearing” uses a metonymy to mean that this individual will not listen – it indicates a deliberate refusal to follow the instruction of the law.


It is hard to imagine how someone who willfully refuses to obey the law of God would pray according to the will of God. Such a person is more apt to pray for some physical thing or make demands on God. (Of course a prayer of repentance would be an exception and would not be an abomination to the Lord .)


C. H. Toy says, “If a man, on his part, is deaf to instruction, then God, on his part, is deaf to prayer” ( Proverbs [ICC], 499). And W. McKane observes that one who fails to attend to God’s law is a wicked person, even if he is a man of prayer ( Proverbs [OTL], 623).


The image of falling into a pit (a figure of speech known as hypocatastasis, involving implied comparison) is meant to say that the evil to which he guides people will ultimately destroy him.


This proverb is teaching that those who corrupt others will be destroyed, usually by their own devices, but those who manage to avoid being corrupted will be rewarded. According to this proverb the righteous can be led astray (e.g., 26:27 ).


The idiom “in his own eyes” means “in his own opinion,” that is, his self conceit. The rich person thinks he is wise because he is rich, that he has made all the right choices.


“Glory” here may have the sense of elation and praise.


The verse contrasts the consequences of each. The person who refuses to confess will not prosper. This is an understatement (a figure of speech known as tapeinosis); the opposite is the truth, that eventually such a person will be undone and ruined. On the other hand, the penitent will find mercy. This expression is a metonymy of cause for the effect – although “mercy” is mentioned, what mercy provides is intended, i.e., forgiveness. In other passages the verb “conceal” is used of God’s forgiveness – he covers over the iniquity ( Ps 32:1 ). Whoever acknowledges sin, God will cover it; whoever covers it, God will lay it open.


This verse is unique in the book of Proverbs; it captures the theology of forgiveness (e.g., Pss 32 and 51 ). Every part of the passage is essential to the point: Confession of sins as opposed to concealing them, coupled with a turning away from them, results in mercy.


The one who “hardens his heart” in this context is the person who refuses to fear sin and its consequences. The image of the “hard heart” is one of a stubborn will, unyielding and unbending (cf. NCV, TEV, NLT). This individual will fall into sin.


The comparison uses animals that are powerful, terrifying, insensitive, and in search of prey. Because political tyrants are like this, animal imagery of this sort is also used in Dan 7:1-8 for the series of ruthless world powers.


A poor nation under the control of political tyrants who are dangerous and destructive is helpless. The people of that nation will crumble under them because they cannot meet their demands and are of no use to them.


The text has “the blood of a life”; blood will be the metonymy of effect for the murder, the shedding of blood.


The proverb is not rebuking diligent labor. One who is eager to get rich quickly is the opposite of the faithful person. The first person is faithful to God and to the covenant community; the second is trying to get rich as quickly as possible, at the least without doing an honest day’s work and at the worst dishonestly. In a hurry to gain wealth, he falls into various schemes and will pay for it. Tg . Prov 28:20 interprets this to say he hastens through deceit and wrongdoing.


The one who is hasty to gain wealth is involved in sin in some way, for which he will be punished by poverty. The idea of “hastening” after riches suggests a dishonest approach to acquiring wealth.


While the expression is general enough to cover any kind of robbery, the point seems to be that because it can be rationalized it may refer to prematurely trying to gain control of the family property through some form of pressure and in the process reducing the parents’ possessions and standing in the community. The culprit could claim what he does is not wrong because the estate would be his anyway.


The metaphor of “companion” here means that a person who would do this is just like the criminally destructive person. It is as if they were working together, for the results are the same.


Greed “stirs up” the strife. This individual’s attitude and actions stir up dissension because people do not long tolerate him.


The idea of “trusting in one’s own heart” is a way of describing one who is self-reliant. C. H. Toy says it means to follow the untrained suggestions of the mind or to rely on one’s own mental resources ( Proverbs [ICC], 505). It is arrogant to take no counsel but to rely only on one’s own intelligence.


The idiom of “walking in wisdom” means to live life according to the acquired skill and knowledge passed on from the sages. It is the wisdom from above that the book of Proverbs presents, not the undisciplined and uninformed wit and wisdom from below.


The generous individual will be rewarded. He will not lack nor miss what he has given away to the poor.


The text does not specify the nature or the source of the curses. It is natural to think that they would be given by the poor who are being mistreated and ignored. Far from being praised for their contributions to society, selfish, stingy people will be reviled for their heartless indifference.


The stubborn person refuses to listen; he will suddenly be destroyed when the calamity strikes (e.g., Prov 6:15; 13:18; 15:10 ).


Wealth was seen as a sign of success and of God’s blessings, pretty much as it always has been. To be seen as honorable in the community meant one had acquired some substance and kept his reputation. It would be a disgrace to the family to have a son who squandered his money on prostitutes (e.g., Prov 5:10; 6:31 ).


The image of “spreading a net” for someone’s steps is an implied comparison (a figure of speech known as hypocatastasis): As one would literally spread a net, this individual’s flattery will come back to destroy him. A net would be spread to catch the prey, and so the idea is one of being caught and destroyed.


These two verbs express the confidence of the righteous – they have no fears and so can sing. So the proverb is saying that only the righteous can enjoy a sense of security.


The Hebrew word describes the “blameless” or “innocent” who maintain integrity. The bloodthirsty despise people who insist on decency and integrity.


The servants of the monarch adjust to their ruler; when they see that court flattery and deception are effective, they will begin to practice it and in the end become wicked (e.g., Prov 16:10; 20:8; 25:2 ).


The expression gives light to the eyes means “gives them sight” (cf. NIV). The expression means that by giving them sight the Lord gives them the light of life (e.g., Job 33:30 ; Ps 13:3 ). God creates and controls them all. So in spite of their circumstances in life, all people receive their life from God.


The term “throne” is a metonymy of subject; it represents the dynasty, the reign of this particular king and his descendants. The qualification of the enduring administration is its moral character. The language of this proverb reflects the promise of the Davidic Covenant (e.g., Prov 16:12; 20:28; 25:5; 31:5 ).


The Hebrew participle translated “brings shame” is a metonymy of effect; the cause is the unruly and foolish things that an unrestrained child will do.


The focus on the mother is probably a rhetorical variation for the “parent” (e.g., 17:21; 23:24-25 ) and is not meant to assume that only the mother will do the training and endure the shame for a case like this (e.g., 13:24; 23:13 ).


The Hebrew verb translated “see” in this context indicates a triumph: The righteous will gaze with satisfaction, or they will look on the downfall of the wicked triumphantly (e.g., Pss 37:4 and 112:8 ). The verse is teaching that no matter how widespread evil may be, the righteous will someday see its destruction.


The parallelism of this verse is synthetic; the second half adds the idea of “delight/pleasure” to that of “rest.” So a disciplined child will both relieve anxiety (“give…rest”) and bring happiness to the parents.


The law here refers to scripture, the concrete form of revelation. So the two halves of the verse provide the contrast: When there is no prophetic revelation there is chaos, but those who keep the revelation contained in scripture find blessing.


Servants could not be corrected by mere words; they had to be treated like children for they were frequently unresponsive. This, of course, would apply to certain kinds of servants. The Greek version translated this as “a stubborn servant.”


To say “there is no answer” means that this servant does not obey – he has to be trained in a different way.


The focus of this proverb is on someone who is hasty in his words . This is the person who does not stop to think, but acts on the spur of the moment. To speak before thinking is foolishness.


Rash speech cannot easily be remedied. The prospects for a fool are better (e.g., Prov 26:12 ).


The expression shares with a thief describes someone who is an “accomplice” (cf. NAB, NIV) because he is willing to share in the loot without taking part in the crime.


“Snare” is an implied comparison; fearing people is like being in a trap – there is no freedom of movement or sense of security.


The image of being set on high comes from the military experience of finding a defensible position, a place of safety and security, such as a high wall or a mountain. Trusting in the Lord sets people free and gives them a sense of safety and security (e.g, Prov 10:27; 12:2 ).


The idiom seek the face means to try to obtain favor from someone. According to the proverb, many people assume that true justice depends on the disposition of some earthly ruler.


This chapter has a title ( 30:1 ), Agur’s confession and petition ( 30:2-9 ), and a series of Agur’s admonitions ( 30:10-33 ).


The word translated “says” ( נְאֻם , nÿ ’ um ) is a verbal noun; it is also a term that describes an oracle. It is usually followed by the subjective genitive: “the oracle of this man to Ithiel.”


The construction uses repetition to make the point emphatically: “I do not know the knowledge of the Holy One.” Agur’s claim to being “brutish” is here clarified – he is not one of those who has knowledge or understanding of God. C. H. Toy thinks the speaker is being sarcastic in reference to others who may have claimed such knowledge ( Proverbs [ICC], 521).


To make his point Agur includes five questions. These, like –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).


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.


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.”


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.


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 and ); 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.


The text here uses an implied comparison (a figure of speech known as hypocatastasis): It compares the perfection of every word from God with some precious metal that has been refined and purified (e.g., Ps 12:6 ). The point is that God’s word is trustworthy; it has no defects and flaws, nothing false or misleading. The second half of the verse explains the significance of this point – it is safe to trust the Lord .


The line uses two more figures of speech to declare that God can be trusted for security and salvation. “Shield” is a simple metaphor – God protects. “Take refuge” is another implied comparison (hypocatastasis) – God provides spiritual rest and security for those who put their trust in him.


Wisdom literature often groups things in twos and fours, or in other numerical arrangements (e.g., Amos 1:3 –2:6; Job 5:19 ; Prov 6:16-19 ).


Agur requested an honest life (not deceitful) and a balanced life (not self-sufficient). The second request about his provision is clarified in v. 9 .


The next four verses all start with the Hebrew expression translated “There is a generation.” This is a series of denunciations of things that are dangerous in society without mentioning specific punishments or proscriptions. The word “generation” as used in this passage refers to a class or group of people.


The first observation is that there is a segment in society that lacks respect for parents. This uses the antonyms “curse” and [not] “bless” to make the point. To “curse” a parent could include treating them lightly, defaming them, or showing disrespect in general. To “bless” would mean to honor, respect, or enrich in some way, which is what should be done (e.g., Exod 21:17 ; Prov 20:20 ).


Filthiness often refers to physical uncleanness, but here it refers to moral defilement. Zech 3:3-4 uses it metaphorically as well for the sin of the nation (e.g., Isa 36:12 ).


There are two figures used in each of these lines: teeth/great teeth and “swords/knives.” The term “teeth” is a metonymy for the process of chewing and eating. This goes with the figure of the second half of the verse that speaks about “devouring” the poor – so the whole image of eating and chewing refers to destroying the poor (an implied comparison). The figures of “swords/knives” are metaphors within this image. Comparing teeth to swords means that they are sharp and powerful. The imagery captures the rapacity of their power.


The next two verses describe insatiable things, things that are problematic to normal life. The meaning of v. 15 a and its relationship to 15b is debated. But the “leech” seems to have been selected to begin the section because it was symbolic of greed – it sucks blood through its two suckers. This may be what the reference to two daughters calling “Give! Give!” might signify (if so, this is an implied comparison, a figure known as hypocatastasis).


As one might expect, there have been various attempts to identify the “two daughters.” In the Rabbinic literature some identified Alukah (the “leech”) with Sheol , and the two daughters with paradise and hell, one claiming the righteous and the other the unrighteous; others identified Alukah with Gehenna, and the two daughters with heresy and government, neither of which is ever satisfied ( Midrash Tehillim quoted by Rashi, a Jewish scholar who lived a.d. 1040-1105, and in the Talmud, b. Avodah Zarah 17a). J. J. Glueck suggests that what is in view is erotic passion (and not a leech) with its two maidens of burning desire crying for more (“ Proverbs 30:15 a,” VT 14 [1964]: 367-70). F. S. North rightly criticizes this view as gratuitous; he argues for the view of a leech with two suckers (“The Four Insatiables,” VT 15 [1965]: 281-82).


There is a noticeable rhetorical sequence here: two daughters, three things, four (see W. M. Roth, “The Numerical Sequence x / x +1 in the Old Testament,” VT 12 [1962]: 300-311, and “Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament,” VT 13 [1965]: 86). W. McKane thinks the series builds to a climax with the four, and in the four the barren woman is the focal point, the other three being metaphors for her sexual desire ( Proverbs [OTL], 656). This interpretation is a minority view, however, and has not won widespread support.


There is no clear lesson made from these observations. But one point that could be made is that greed, symbolized by the leech, is as insatiable as all these other things. If that is the case, the proverb would constitute a warning against the insatiable nature of greed.


The “eye” as the organ that exhibits the inner feelings most clearly, here represents a look of scorn or disdain that speaks volumes (a metonymy of cause or of adjunct). It is comparable to the “evil eye” which is stinginess ( 28:22 ).


The sternest punishment is for the evil eye. The punishment is talionic – eye for eye. The reference to “the valley” may indicate a place where people are not be given decent burials and the birds of prey pick the corpses clean. It is an image the prophets use in judgment passages.


It is difficult to know for certain what these four things had in common for the sage. They are all linked by the word “way” (meaning “a course of action”) and by a sense of mystery in each area. Suggestions for the connections between the four include: (1) all four things are hidden from continued observation, for they are in majestic form and then gone; (2) they all have a mysterious means of propulsion or motivation; (3) they all describe the movement of one thing within the sphere or domain of another; or (4) the first three serve as illustrations of the fourth and greatest wonder, which concerns human relationships and is slightly different than the first three.


Equally amazing is the insensitivity of the adulterous woman to the sin. The use of the word “way” clearly connects this and the preceding material. Its presence here also supports the interpretation of the final clause in v. 19 as referring to sexual intimacy. While that is a wonder of God’s creation, so is the way that human nature has distorted it and ruined it.


The word clearly indicates that the woman is married and unchaste; but the text describes her as amoral as much as immoral – she sees nothing wrong with what she does.


The acts of “eating” and “wiping her mouth” are euphemistic; they employ an implied comparison between the physical act of eating and wiping one’s mouth afterward on the one hand with sexual activity on the other hand (e.g., Prov 9:17 ).


This is the amazing part of the observation. It is one thing to sin, for everyone sins, but to dismiss the act of adultery so easily, as if it were no more significant than a meal, is incredibly brazen.


The Hebrew verb means “to rage; to quake; to be in tumult.” The sage is using humorous and satirical hyperbole to say that the changes described in the following verses shake up the whole order of life. The sayings assume that the new, elevated status of the individuals was not accompanied by a change in nature. For example, it was not completely unknown in the ancient world for a servant to become king, and in the process begin to behave like a king.


A servant coming to power could become a tyrant if he is unaccustomed to the use of such power, or he might retain the attitude of a servant and be useless as a leader.


The wisdom of the ants is found in their diligent preparation ( כּוּן , kun ) of food supplies in the summer for times in the winter when food is scarce. See S. P. Toperoff, “The Ant in the Bible and Midrash,” Dor le Dor 13 (1985): 179-83. According to this, being prepared ahead of time is a mark of true wisdom.


The Hebrew term means “divided”; they go forward in orderly divisions, or ranks (C. H. Toy, Proverbs [ICC], 535). Joel 1:4 describes their order and uses it as a picture of a coming invasion (e.g., Joel 2:7, 8 ). Therefore the wisdom of the locust is in their order and cooperation.


There is a subtle wordplay here with the word for anger: It is related to the word for nose in the preceding colon.


The analogy indicates that continuously pressing certain things will yield results, some good, some bad. So pressing anger produces strife. The proverb advises people to strive for peace and harmony through humility and righteousness. To do that will require “letting up” on anger.


Nothing else is known about King Lemuel aside from this mention in the book of Proverbs. Jewish legend identifies him as Solomon, making this advice from his mother Bathsheba; but there is no evidence for that. The passage is the only direct address to a king in the book of Proverbs – something that was the norm in wisdom literature of the ancient world (Leah L. Brunner, “King and Commoner in Proverbs and Near Eastern Sources,” Dor le Dor 10 [1982]: 210-19; Brunner argues that the advice is religious and not secular).


The word translated “strength” refers to physical powers here, i.e., “vigor” (so NAB) or “stamina.” It is therefore a metonymy of cause; the effect would be what spending this strength meant – sexual involvement with women. It would be easy for a king to spend his energy enjoying women, but that would be unwise.


The word “ways” may in general refer to the heart’s affection for or attention to, or it may more specifically refer to sexual intercourse. While in the book of Proverbs the term is an idiom for the course of life, in this context it must refer to the energy spent in this activity.


This second warning for kings concerns the use of alcohol. If this passage is meant to prohibit any use of alcohol by kings, it would be unheard of in any ancient royal court. What is probably meant is an excessive and unwarranted use of alcohol, or a troubling need for it, so that the meaning is “to drink wine in excess” (cf. NLT “to guzzle wine”; CEV “should not get drunk”). The danger, of course, would be that excessive use of alcohol would cloud the mind and deprive a king of true administrative ability and justice.


The word is דִּין ( din , “judgment”; so KJV). In this passage it refers to the cause or the plea for justice, i.e., the “legal rights.”


Wine and beer should be given to those distressed and dying in order to ease their suffering and help them forget.


The instruction to “open your mouth” is a metonymy of cause; it means “speak up for” (so NIV, TEV, NLT) or in this context “serve as an advocate in judgment” (cf. CEV “you must defend”).


The instruction compares people who cannot defend themselves in court with those who are physically unable to speak (this is a figure of speech known as hypocatastasis, an implied comparison). The former can physically speak; but because they are the poor, the uneducated, the oppressed, they are unable to conduct a legal defense. They may as well be speechless.


Previously the noun דִּין ( din , judgment”) was used, signifying the legal rights or the pleas of the people. Now the imperative דִּין is used. It could be translated “judge,” but in this context “judge the poor” could be misunderstood to mean “condemn.” Here advocacy is in view, and so “plead the cause” is a better translation (cf. NASB, NIV, NRSV “defend the rights”). It was – and is – the responsibility of the king (ruler) to champion the rights of the poor and needy, who otherwise would be ignored and oppressed. They are the ones left destitute by the cruelties and inequalities of life (e.g., 2 Sam 14:4-11 ; 1 Kgs 3:16-28 ; Pss 45:3-5, 72:4 ; Isa 9:6-7 ).


The book of Proverbs comes to a close with this poem about the noble wife. A careful reading of the poem will show that it is extolling godly wisdom that is beneficial to the family and the society. Traditionally it has been interpreted as a paradigm for godly women. And while that is valid in part, there is much more here. The poem captures all the themes of wisdom that have been presented in the book and arranges them in this portrait of the ideal woman (Claudia V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs , 92-93). Any careful reading of the passage would have to conclude that if it were merely a paradigm for women what it portrays may well be out of reach – she is a wealthy aristocrat who runs an estate with servants and conducts business affairs of real estate, vineyards, and merchandising, and also takes care of domestic matters and is involved with charity. Moreover, it says nothing about the woman’s personal relationship with her husband, her intellectual and emotional strengths, or her religious activities (E. Jacob, “Sagesse et Alphabet: Pr. 31:10-31 ,” Hommages à A. Dont-Sommer , 287-95). In general, it appears that the “woman” of is a symbol of all that wisdom represents. The poem, then, plays an important part in the personification of wisdom so common in the ancient Near East. But rather than deify Wisdom as the other ANE cultures did, Proverbs simply describes wisdom as a woman. Several features will stand out in the study of this passage. First, it is an alphabetic arrangement of the virtues of wisdom (an acrostic poem). Such an acrostic was a way of organizing the thoughts and making them more memorable (M. H. Lichtenstein, “Chiasm and Symmetry in ,” CBQ 44 [1982]: 202-11). Second, the passage is similar to hymns, but this one extols wisdom. A comparison with will illustrate the similarities. Third, the passage has similarities with heroic literature. The vocabulary and the expressions often sound more like an ode to a champion than to a domestic scene. Putting these features together, one would conclude that Proverbs 31:10-31 is a hymn to Lady Wisdom, written in the heroic mode. Using this arrangement allows the sage to make all the lessons of wisdom in the book concrete and practical, it provides a polemic against the culture that saw women as merely decorative, and it depicts the greater heroism as moral and domestic rather than only exploits on the battlefield. The poem certainly presents a pattern for women to follow. But it also presents a pattern for men to follow as well, for this is the message of the book of Proverbs in summary.


The poem begins with a rhetorical question (a figure of speech known as erotesis). This is intended to establish the point that such a noble wife is rare. As with wisdom in the book of Proverbs, she has to be found.


This line expresses that her value ( Heb “her price”), like wisdom, is worth more than rubies (e.g., 3:15; 8:11 ).


The Hebrew word used here for “gain” ( שָׁלָל , shalal ) is unusual; it means “plunder; spoil” of war primarily (e.g., Isa 8:1-4 and the name Maher- Shalal -Hash-Baz). The point is that the gain will be as rich and bountiful as the spoils of war. The wife’s capabilities in business and domestic matters guarantee a rich profit and inspire the confidence of her husband.


The joining of these two words, “good” and “evil,” is frequent in the Bible; they contrast the prosperity and well-being of her contribution with what would be devastating and painful. The way of wisdom is always characterized by “good”; the way of folly is associated with “evil.”


The point of the simile is that she goes wherever she needs to go, near and far, to gather in all the food for the needs and the likes of the family. The line captures the vision and the industry of this woman.


The word for “food” is טֶרֶף ( teref , “prey”; KJV “meat”), another word that does not normally fit the domestic scene. This word also is used in a similar way in Ps 111:5 , which says the Lord gives food. Here it is the noble woman who gives food to her family and servants.


The word חֹק ( khoq ) probably means “allotted portion of food” as before, but some suggest it means the task that is allotted to the servants, meaning that the wise woman gets up early enough to give out the work assignments ( Tg . Prov 31:15 , RSV, NRSV, TEV, NLT). That is possible, but seems an unnecessary direction for the line to take. Others, however, simply wish to delete this last colon, leaving two cola and not three, but that is unwarranted.


The expression “she makes her arm strong” parallels the first half of the verse and indicates that she gets down to her work with vigor and strength. There may be some indication here of “rolling up the sleeves” to ready the arms for the task, but that is not clear.


The line may be taken literally to mean that she is industrious throughout the night (“burning the midnight oil”) when she must in order to follow through a business deal (W. McKane, Proverbs [OTL], 668); cf. TEV. But the line could also be taken figuratively, comparing “her light” to the prosperity of her household – her whole life – which continues night and day.


The parallel expressions here underscore her care for the needy. The first part uses “she spreads her palm” and the second “she thrusts out her hand,” repeating some of the vocabulary introduced in the last verse.


“Snow” is a metonymy of adjunct; it refers to the cold weather when snow comes. The verse is saying that this time is not a concern for the wise woman because the family is well prepared.


The “fine linen” refers to expensive clothing (e.g., Gen 41:42 ), as does the “purple” (e.g., Exod 26:7; 27:9, 18 ). Garments dyed with purple indicated wealth and high rank (e.g., Song 3:5 ). The rich man in Luke 16:19 was clothed in fine linen and purple as well. The difference is that the wise woman is charitable, but he is not.


The idea of clothing and being clothed is a favorite figure in Hebrew. It makes a comparison between wearing clothes and having strength and honor. Just as clothes immediately indicate something of the nature and circumstances of the person, so do these virtues.


This word appears in Ps 111:3 which says that the Lord ’s work is honorable, and here the woman is clothed with strength and honor.


Here “laugh” is either a metonymy of adjunct or effect. The point is that she is confident for the future because of all her industry and planning.


The expression bread of idleness refers to food that is gained through idleness, perhaps given or provided for her. In the description of the passage one could conclude that this woman did not have to do everything she did; and this line affirms that even though she is well off, she will eat the bread of her industrious activity.


The verse shows that “charm” and “beauty” do not endure as do those qualities that the fear of the Lord produces. Charm is deceitful: One may be disappointed in the character of the one with beauty. Beauty is vain (fleeting as a vapor): Physical appearance will not last. The writer is not saying these are worthless; he is saying there is something infinitely more valuable.


This chapter describes the wise woman as fearing the Lord . It is the fear of the Lord that is the beginning of wisdom – that was the motto of the book ( 1:7 ). Psalm 111:10 also repeats that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.


began with the imperative יָה הָלְלוּ ( halÿlu yah , “praise the Lord ”), and this poem ends with the jussive וִיהָלְלוּהָּ ( vihalÿluha , “and let [her works] praise her”). Psalm 111:2 speaks of God’s works, and this verse of the woman’s (or wisdom’s) works that deserve praise.


While 1:1 says only “king in Jerusalem” ( מֶלֶךְ בִּירוּשָׁלָםִ , melekh birushalayim ), 1:12 adds “king over Israel in Jerusalem” ( בִּירוּשָׁלָםִ מֶלֶךְ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל , melekh ’ al-yisra ’ el birushalayim ). The LXX adds “Israel” in 1:1 to harmonize with 1:12 ; however, the MT makes sense as it stands. Apart from David, only Solomon was “king over Israel in Jerusalem” – unless the term “Israel” ( יִשְׂרָאֵל , yisra ’ el ) in 1:12 is used for Judah or the postexilic community. Solomon would fit the description of the author of this book, who is characterized by great wisdom ( 1:13, 16 ), great wealth ( 2:8 ), numerous servants ( 2:7 ), great projects ( 2:4-6 ), and the collection, editing and writings of many proverbs ( 12:9-10 ). All of this generally suggests Solomonic authorship. However, many scholars deny Solomonic authorship on the basis of linguistic and historical arguments.


The form of the title is typical: (1) “the words of [the writer],” (2) his family name or name of his father, and (3) his social/political position in Israel (e.g., Prov 22:17; 24:23; 30:1; 31:1 ). Sometimes, the writer’s qualifications are given in the introduction to an OT book (e.g., Jer 1:1 ; Amos 1:1 ). Qoheleth lists his qualifications at the end of the book ( 12:9-12 ). map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


See the note on “Teacher” in v. 1 .


The Hebrew root עָמָל , (’ amal , “toil”) is repeated here for emphasis: “What gain does anyone have in his toil with which he toils .” For all his efforts, man’s endeavors and secular achievements will not produce anything of ultimate value that will radically revolutionize anything in the world. The term “toil” is used in a pejorative sense to emphasize that the only thing that man obtains ultimately from all his efforts is weariness and exhaustion. Due to sin, mankind has been cursed with the futility of his labor that renders work a “toilsome” task ( Gen 3:17-19 ). Although it was not yet revealed to Qoheleth, God will one day deliver the redeemed from this plight in the future kingdom when man’s labor will no longer be toilsome, but profitable, fulfilling, and enjoyable ( Isa 65:17-23 ).


This does not deny man’s creativity or inventiveness, only the ultimate newness of his accomplishments. For example, there is no essential difference between the first voyage to the moon and the discovery of America (different point of arrival, different vehicles of travel, but the same essential action and results).


The phrase “to see what is good” ( רָאָה , ra ’ ah , “to see” + טוֹב , tov , “good”) is repeated twice in 2:1-3 . This is the key phrase in this section of Ecclesiastes. Qoheleth sought to discover ( רָאָה ) whether merry-making offered any value ( טוֹב ) to mankind.


The expression for myself is repeated eight times in 2:4-8 to emphasize that Qoheleth did not deny himself any acquisition. He indulged himself in acquiring everything he desired. His vast resources as king allowed him the unlimited opportunity to indulge himself. He could have anything his heart desired, and he did.


See 1:17 for the same expression. Throughout 2:1-11 , Qoheleth evaluated the merits of merrymaking ( 2:1-3 ), accomplishing grand things ( 2:4-6 ), amassing great wealth ( 2:7-8 ), and secular acquisitions and accomplishments ( 2:9-10 ). Now, he reflects on the benefit in life in living wisely and not giving oneself over to frivolous self-indulgence.


The common fate to which Qoheleth refers is death.


The phrase the task of amassing wealth ( Heb “the task of gathering and heaping up”) implicitly compares the work of the farmer reaping his crops and storing them up in a barn, to the work of the laborer amassing wealth as the fruit of his labor. However, rather than his storehouse being safe for the future, the sinner is deprived of it.


The three-fold repetition of the Hebrew word translated “give” in the first part of this verse creates irony: God “gives” the righteous the ability to prosper and to find enjoyment in his work; but to the wicked He “gives” the task of “giving” his wealth to the righteous.


In 3:2-8 , Qoheleth uses fourteen sets of merisms (a figure using polar opposites to encompass everything in between, that is, totality), e.g., Deut 6:6-9 ; Ps 139:2-3 (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 435).


This rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “Man gains nothing from his toil!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 949-51). Any advantage that man might gain from his toil is nullified by his ignorance of divine providence.


The Hebrew adjective translated beautifully functions as a metonymy of effect (i.e., to appear beautiful) for cause (i.e., to make it fit): “to fit beautifully.” It is used in parallelism with Qoheleth’s term for evaluation: טוֹב ( tov , “good”) in 5:17 .


Qoheleth lists three approaches to labor: (1) the competitive workaholic in 4:4 , (2) the impoverished sluggard in 4:5 , and (3) the contented laborer in 4:6 . The balanced approach rebukes the two extremes.


Beginning with 5:1 , the verse numbers through 5:20 in the English Bible differ by one from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 5:1 ET = 4:17 HT, 5:2 ET = 5:1 HT, etc., through 5:20 ET = 5:19 HT. Beginning with 6:1 the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible are again the same.


And there are higher ones over them! This may describe a corrupt system of government in which each level of hierarchy exploits its subordinates, all the way down to the peasants: “Set in authority over the people is an official who enriches himself at their expense; he is watched by a more authoritative governor who also has his share of the spoils; and above them are other officers of the State who likewise have to be satisfied”; see A. Cohen, The Five Megilloth (SoBB), 141.


The Hebrew term “silver” (translated “money”) is repeated twice in this line for rhetorical emphasis.


The phrase “to eat and to drink” is a common idiom in Ecclesiastes for a person enjoying the fruit of his labor (e.g., 2:24; 3:13 ).


Instead, someone else enjoys it . A person may be unable to enjoy the fruit of his/her labor due to an unfortunate turn of events that robs a person of his possessions ( 5:13-14 ) or a miserly, lifelong hoarding of one’s wealth that robs him of the ability to enjoy what he has worked so hard to acquire ( 5:15-17 ). Qoheleth recommends the enjoyment of life and the fruit of one’s labor, as God enables ( 5:18-20 ). Unfortunately, the ability to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor is often thwarted by the obstacles described in 6:1-2 and 6:3-9 .


The point of 6:3-6 is that the futility of unenjoyed wealth is worse than the tragedy of being stillborn.


The birth of the stillborn was in vain – it did it no good to be born.


The name of the stillborn is forgotten.


The Hebrew term translated rest here refers to freedom from toil, anxiety, and misery – part of the miserable misfortune that the miserly man of wealth must endure.


So what advantage does the wise man have over a fool? The rhetorical question in Hebrew implies a negative answer: the wise man has no absolute advantage over a fool in the sense that both will share the same fate: death. Qoheleth should not be misunderstood here as denying that wisdom has no relative advantage over folly; elsewhere he affirms that wisdom does yield some relative benefits in life ( 7:1-22 ). However, wisdom cannot deliver one from death.


As in the preceding parallel line, this rhetorical question implies a negative answer (see the note after the word “fool” in the preceding line).


There are two ways to understand this proverb: (1) Happy times (characterized by celebration and “fragrant perfume”) teach us less than hard times (“the day of one’s death”) which can bring about moral improvement (“a good reputation”). (2) It is better to come to the end of one’s life (“day of one’s death”) with a good reputation (“a good name”) than to merely be starting life (“day of one’s birth”) in an auspicious manner in joy and wealth (“fine perfume”). Folly and wickedness could foil a good beginning so that a person ends life as a fool. For example, Solomon began as the wisest man who ever lived, only to end life as one of history’s greatest fools.


The expression the house of merrymaking refers to a banquet where those who attend engage in self-indulgent feasting and riotous drinking.


The other warning . Qoheleth is referring to the two words of advice in 7:16-17 . He is not, as some suggest, urging his readers to grasp righteousness without letting go of wickedness. His point is not that people should live their lives with a balance of modest righteousness and modest wickedness. Because he urges the fear of God in 7:18 b, he cannot be inconsistent in suggesting that his readers offend the fear of God by indulging in some degree of sin in order to counterbalance an overly righteous life. Rather, the proper fear of God will prevent a person from trusting in righteousness and wisdom alone for his security, and it will also prevent indulgence in wickedness and folly.


Except to eat, drink, and enjoy life . Qoheleth is not commending a self-indulgent lifestyle of Epicurean hedonism. Nor is he lamenting the absolute futility of life and the lack of eternal retribution. He is submitting to the reality that in a sin-cursed world there is much of human existence marked by relative futility. Since the righteous man cannot assume that he will automatically experience temporal prosperity and blessings on this earth, he should – at the very least – enjoy each day to its fullest as a gift from God. D. R. Glenn (“Ecclesiastes,” BKCOT , 997) notes, “Each day’s joys should be received as gifts from God’s hands and be savored as God permits ( 3:13; 5:19 ).”


A fool’s lack of wisdom is obvious to everyone, even when he is engaged in the simple, ordinary actions of life.


The terms “beginning” and “end” form a merism, a figure of speech in which two opposites are contrasted to indicate totality (e.g., Deut 6:7 ; Ps 139:8 ; Eccl 3:2-8 ). The words of a fool are madness from “start to finish.”


The phrase you do not know is repeated throughout this section ( 11:2, 5-6 ). Human beings are ignorant of the future. This should motivate a person to invest their financial resources wisely ( 11:1-3 ) and to work diligently ( 11:4-6 ).


This proverb criticizes those who are overly cautious. The farmer who waits for the most opportune moment to plant when there is no wind to blow away the seed, and to reap when there is no rain to ruin a ripe harvest, will never do anything but sit around waiting for the right moment.


Eccl 12:9-12 fits the pattern of a concluding colophon that draws from a conventional stock of ancient Near Eastern scribal practices and vocabulary. See M. A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation , 29–31.


The exhortation may be understood in two ways: (1) to avoid any so-called wisdom sayings beyond those mentioned in vv. 10-11 : “The words of the wise…are given from one shepherd. And of anything beyond these, my son, be warned!” (see RSV, NRSV, NAB, Douay, NIV). This is paraphrased well by Moffatt: “My son, avoid anything beyond the scriptures of wisdom” (Moffatt). (2) The exhortation refers to the concerns of v. 12 b, namely, diligent study is wearisome, i.e., “Furthermore, my son, be warned: there is no end to the making of books, and much study is wearisome to the body” (see NEB, ASV, NASB, MLB).


The term טוֹבִים ( tovim , “pleasing”) refers to what is pleasant to the olfactory senses (BDB 373 s.v. II טוֹב 1.c) (e.g., Jer 6:20 ).


The term שְׁמֶךָ ( shÿmekha , “your name”) may be a metonymy of association for her lover. In Hebrew idiom, the name often represents the person (e.g., 1 Sam 25:25 ).


The similar sounding terms שֵׁם ( shem , “name”) and שֶׁמֶן ( shemen , “perfume”) create a wordplay (paronomasia).


The term עַלְמָה (’ almah , “young woman”) refers to a young woman who is of marriageable age or a newly married young woman, usually before the birth of her first child ( HALOT 835-36 s.v. עַלְמָה ; BDB 761 s.v. עַלְמָה ) (e.g., Gen 24:43 ; Exod 2:8 ; Ps 68:26 ; Prov 30:19 ; Song 1:3; 6:8 ; Isa 7:14 ). The only other use of the term “young women” ( עֲלָמוֹת ) in the Song refers to the young women of Solomon’s harem ( Song 6:8 ). The root עלם denotes the basic idea of “youthful, strong, passionate” ( HALOT 835 s.v. III עלם ). While the term עַלְמָה (“young woman”) may be used in reference to a young woman who is a virgin, the term itself does not explicitly denote “virgin.” The Hebrew term which explicitly denotes “virgin” is בְּתוּלָה ( bÿtulah ) which refers to a mature young woman without any sexual experience with men (e.g., Gen 24:16 ; Exod 22:15-16 ; Lev 21:3 ; Deut 22:23, 28; 32:25 ; Judg 12:12; 19:24 ; 2 Sam 13:2, 18 ; 1 Kgs 1:2 ; 2 Chr 36:17 ; Esth 2:2-3, 17, 19 ; Job 31:1 ; Pss 45:15; 78:63; 148:12 ; Isa 23:4; 62:5 ; Jer 2:32; 31:3; 51:22 ; Lam 1:4, 18; 2:10, 21; 5:11 ; Ezek 9:6 ; Joel 1:8 ; Amos 9:13 ; Zech 9:17 ( HALOT 166-7 s.v. בְּתוּלָה ; BDB 143 s.v. בְּתוּלָה ). The related noun בְּתוּלִים ( bÿtulim ) means “state of virginity” ( Lev 21:13 ; Judg 11:37-38 ; Ezek 23:3, 8 ; Sir 42:10) and “evidence of virginity” ( Deut 22:14-15, 17, 20 ) ( HALOT 167 s.v. בְּתוּלִים ).


The verb מָשַׁךְ ( mashakh , “draw”) is a figurative expression (hypocatastasis) which draws an implied comparison between the physical acting of leading a person with the romantic action of leading a person in love. Elsewhere it is used figuratively of a master gently leading an animal with leather cords ( Hos 11:4 ) and of a military victor leading his captives ( Jer 31:3 ). The point of comparison might be that the woman wants to be the willing captive of the love of her beloved, that is, a willing prisoner of his love.


Normally in the Song, the person/gender of the pronouns and suffixes makes the identify of the speaker or addressee clear. However, there are several places in which there is grammatical ambiguity that makes it difficult to identify either the speaker or the addressee (e.g., 6:11-13; 7:9 b). This is particularly true when 1st person common plural or 3rd person common plural verbs or suffixes are present ( 1:3 [4]; 2:15; 5:1 b; 8:8-9 ), as is the case in the three lines of 1:3 b[4b]. There are four views to the identity of the speaker(s): (1) NASB attributes all three lines to the maidens, (2) NIV attributes the first two lines to the friends and the third line to the Beloved (= woman), (3) NJPS attributes all three lines to the Beloved, speaking throughout 1:2-4 , and (4) The first line could be attributed to the young man speaking to his beloved, and the last two lines attributed to the Beloved who returns praise to him. The referents of the 1st person common plural cohortatives and the 2sg suffixes have been taken as: (1) the maidens of Jerusalem, mentioned in 1:4 [5] and possibly referred to as the 3rd person common plural subject of אֲהֵבוּךָ (’ ahevukha , “they love you”) in 1:3 b[4b], using the 1st person common plural cohortatives in reference to themselves as they address her lover: “We (= maidens) will rejoice in you (= the young man).” (2) The Beloved using 1st person common plural cohortatives in a hortatory sense as she addresses her lover: “Let us (= the couple) rejoice in you (= the young man), let us praise your lovemaking…” (3) The Beloved using the 1st person common plural cohortatives in reference to herself – there are examples in ancient Near Eastern love literature of the bride using 1st person common plural forms in reference to herself (S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite , 92, 99) – as she addresses the young man: “We (= I) will rejoice in you (= the young man).” Note: This problem is compounded by the ambiguity of the gender on בָּךְ ( bakh , “in you”) which appears to be 2nd person feminine singular but may be 2nd person masculine singular in pause (see note below).


The term “dark” does not appear in the Hebrew in this line but is supplied in the translation from the preceding line for the sake of clarity. The poetic structure of this tricolon is an example of redistribution. The terms “black but beautiful” in the A-line are broken up – the B-line picks up on “black” and the C-line picks up on “beautiful.” The Beloved was “black” like the rugged tents of Qedar woven from the wool of black goats, but “beautiful” as the decorative inner tent-curtains of King Solomon (J. L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry , 40; W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry [JSOTSup], 181).


The comparison of her dark, outdoors appearance to the “tents of Qedar” is quite fitting for two reasons. First, the name “Qedar” refers to an ancient Arabian tribe of bedouin who lived in tents and inhabited a region in northern Arabia. Their tents were traditionally woven from the wool of black goats. They were not beautiful to look at; they were rough, rustic, rugged, and weather-beaten. Second, the terms שְׁחוֹרָה ( shÿkhorah , “black”) and קֵדָר ( qedar , “Qedar”) create a wordplay because the root קָדַר ( qadar ) means “dark, dirty” ( HALOT 1072 s.v. קדר ). The point of the comparison is that the Beloved had dark skin and a rugged outdoors appearance because she had been forced to work outdoors, and so her skin had become dark as 1:6 states.


There is debate whether the terms “tents” אָהֳלֵי (’ ahale , “tents”) and יְרִיעוֹת ( yÿri ’ ot , “tent-curtains”) used here as synonyms or antonyms. The term אֹהֶל (’ ohel , “tent”) is often used in reference to an overall tent assembly, with particular emphasis on the external structure (e.g., Gen 4:20; 18:1; 31:33 ; Exod 26:13; 40:19 ; Judg 4:17 ; Isa 54:2 ; Jer 37:10 ) ( HALOT 19 s.v. I אֹהֶל ). The term “tent-curtains” ( יְרִיעוֹה ) is used to refer to (1) inner hanging curtains, such as decorative hangings or tapestries inside a tent (e.g., Exod 26:1-2, 7 ; Num 4:25 ) and (2) a tent as a whole (e.g., 2 Sam 7:2 ; Jer 4:20; 10:20 ; Hab 3:7 ) ( HALOT 439 s.v. יְרִיעוֹת ). The two terms are often used in parallelism as an A-B word pair ( Isa 54:2 ; Jer 4:20; 10:20; 49:29 ; Hab 3:7 ). Like the “tents” ( אֹהָלִים ) of Qedar which were made from the wool of black goats, “tent-curtains” ( יְרִיעוֹה ) also were sometimes made from goat hair ( Exod 26:7 ). If the two are synonymous, the point is that the tents of Qedar and the tent-curtains of Salmah were both black but beautiful. If the two terms are antonyms, the point is that the tents of Qedar are black but the tent-curtains of Salmah are beautiful. In either case, her point is that she is black, but nonetheless beautiful. Rabbinic midrash misses the point; it views the metaphor as contrasting her swarthy outward appearance with her inner beauty: “Just as the tents of Kedar, although from outside they look ugly, black, and ragged, yet inside contain precious stones and pearls, so the disciples of the wise, although they look repulsive and swarthy in this world, yet have within them knowledge of the Torah, Scriptures, Mishnah, Midrash, Halachoth, Talmud, Toseftas and Haggadah” ( Midrash Rabbah 4:54-55).


The verb הָרָה ( harah , “to burn in anger, to be angry”) creates an interesting wordplay or pun on the preceding line: “The sun burned me (= my skin).” The sun burned her skin, because her brothers had burned ( נִהֲרוּ , niharu ) in anger against her. This is an example of a polysemantic wordplay which explains the two basic meanings of הָרָה (“to burn, to be angry”) (W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry [JSOTSup], 241-42).


The noun כֶּרֶם ( kerem , “vineyard”) is used figuratively in this line (see following note on the wordplays in this verse). Some suggest that her “vineyard” refers to her virginity, that is, she lost her virginity. However, this runs contrary to the moral purity accorded to the Beloved throughout the Song (e.g., 4:12; 8:8-10 ). It is better to take the “vineyard” imagery as a reference to her ability to take care of her physical appearance which had been thwarted by being forced to work outside where her skin had been darkened by the scorching rays of the sun, as alluded to throughout 1:4-5 [5-6].


The repetition of the noun כֶּרֶם ( kerem , “vineyard”) and the verb נָטַר ( natar , “to keep, maintain”) creates a series of eloquent wordplays. The first occurrence of כֶּרֶם (“vineyard”) and נָטַר (“to keep”) is literal, the second occurrence of both is figurative (hypocatastasis). Her brothers forced her to work outside in the sun, taking care of the vineyards; as a result, she was not able to take care of her appearance (“my own vineyard I could not keep”).


It was common in ancient love literature to compare a beautiful woman to a sleek filly. For example, Horace likened Lyde to a three year old filly: “She gambols over the spreading plains and shrinks from touch, to wedlock still a stranger, not yet ripe for eager mate” (Horace, Odes iii. xi. 9). Theocritus compared Helen of Troy to a graceful steed harnessed to a chariot: “As towers the cypress mid the garden’s bloom, as in the chariot proud Thessalian steed, thus graceful rose-complexion’d Helen moves” (Theocritus, Idyll xviii. 30-31).


“Nard” ( נֵרְדְּ , nerdÿ ) was an aromatic oil extracted from the Valerian nardostachys jatamansi which was an aromatic drug from a plant which grew in the Himalaya region of India, used for perfume ( HALOT 723 s.v. נֵרְדְּ ). Nard was an expensive imported perfume, worn by women at banquets because of its seductive charms. It was used in the ANE as a love potion because of its erotic fragrance (R. K. Harrison, Healing Herbs of the Bible , 48-49).


The term מֹר ( mor , “myrrh”) refers to an aromatic gum ( Commiphora abessinica resin) which exudes from the bark of the Balsmodendron myrrha tree which was native only to Arabia, Abyssinia, and India ( HALOT 629 s.v. מֹר ). It was an expensive luxury item, which had to be imported into Israel. In liquid form it could be carried in small bottles like nard, but it was also used in solid form in which it was carried in a small cloth pouch or sachet worn next to the body. The myrrh was mixed with fat and shaped into cones and as the fat melted from the body heat, the aroma of myrrh and the anointing oil would perfume a woman’s body. Because it had a very strong aroma which would last for long periods of time, women often wore it to bed to perfume themselves for the next day. Because of its beautiful fragrance, it is associated with romance (e.g., Isa 3:24 ) (R. K. Harrison, Healing Herbs of the Bible , 45-46).


The henna plant ( כֹּפֶר , kofer , “henna”; HALOT 495 s.v. III כֹּפֶר ) is an inflorescent shrub with upward pointing blossoms, that have sweet smelling whitish flowers that grow in thick clusters ( Song 4:13; 7:12 ). Like myrrh, the henna plant was used to make sweet smelling perfume. Its flowers were used to dye hair, nails, fingers, and toes orange.


En-Gedi is a lush oasis in the midst of the desert wilderness on the southwestern shore of the Dead Sea. The surrounding region is hot and bleak; its dry sands extend monotonously for miles. The Dead Sea region is a salty desert covered with a dusty haze and characterized by almost unbearable heat during most of the year. The lush oasis of En-Gedi is the only sign of greenery or life for miles around. It stands out as a surprising contrast to the bleak, dry desert wilderness around it. In the midst of this bleak desert wilderness is the lush oasis in which indescribable beauty is found. The lush oasis and waterfall brings welcome relief and refreshment to the weary desert traveler.


His praise begins with the exclamatory particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh , “behold!”). This is often used to introduce a statement in which the speaker either newly asserts or newly recognizes something (BDB 244 s.v. הִנֵּה b.a).


The term רַעְיָתִי ( ra ’ yati , “my darling”) is from רֵעַ ( re ’ a ) “companion, friend” in general (e.g., Job 2:11; 6:27; 12:4 ; Pss 35:14; 122:8 ; Prov 14:20; 17:17; 19:6; 27:10 ) and “darling, beloved” in romantic relationships (e.g., Job 30:29 ; Jer 3:1, 20 ; Hos 3:1 ; Song 5:1, 16 ) ( HALOT 1253-54 s.v. II רֵעַ ; BDB 945 s.v. II רָעָה II.1). This is the most common term of affection to address the Beloved ( Song 1:9, 15; 2:2, 10, 13; 4:1, 7; 5:2; 6:4 ).


In the ancient Near East there was an unusual emphasis on beauty of a woman’s eyes. This was probably due to the practice of women veiling themselves and wearing long robes so that no portion of their body or face was exposed to sight except for their eyes (e.g., Gen 26:17 ). The only indication of a woman’s beauty was her eyes. There was no better (and no other, in light of the attire) way to praise a woman’s beauty in the ancient Near East (G. L. Carr, Song of Solomon [TOTC], 86).


The statement הִנָּךְ יָפָה רַעְיָתִי ( hinnakh yafah ra ’ yati , “How beautiful you are, my darling”) in 1:15 is virtually mirrored by the Beloved’s statement in 1:16 , הִנְּךְ יָפֶה דוֹדִי ( hinnÿkh yafeh dodi , “How handsome you are, my lover”).


Sharon is a low coastal plain stretching south from Mount Carmel. It is well watered due to the Kurkar ridges running parallel to the shore which trapped the water run-off from the Samaritan hills. The combination of low sandy hills and swampy lowlands produced heavy vegetation and an abundance of wild flowers in the area (M. H. Pope, Song of Songs [AB], 367).


This is an example of emblematic parallelism. An illustrative simile appears in the A-line and the subject of the comparison is in the B-line. The particles כֵּן … כְּ ( cÿ … ken , “like…so”) form an emphatic comparative construction (e.g., Ps 123:2 ), see IBHS 641-42 §38.5a.


Apple trees were not native to Palestine and had to be imported and cultivated. To find a cultivated apple tree growing in the forest among other wild trees would be quite unusual; the apple tree would stand out and be a delightful surprise. Like a cultivated apple tree, the Lover was unique and stood out among all other men. In ancient Near Eastern love literature, the apple tree was a common symbol for romantic love and sexual fertility (S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite , 100-101). The “apple tree” motif is used in the Song in a similar manner (e.g., Song 2:3; 8:5 ). Likewise, the motif of “apples” is used as a symbol of fertility ( Joel 1:12 ) and sexual desire ( Song 2:5, 7, 9 ).


The term צֵל ( tsel , “shade”) is used figuratively to depict protection and relief. This term is used in OT literally (physical shade from the sun) and figuratively (protection from something) ( HALOT 1024-25 s.v. צֵל ): (1) Literal: The physical shade of a tree offers protection from the heat of the midday sun ( Judg 9:15 ; Ezek 17:23; 31:6, 12, 17 ; Hos 4:13 ; Jonah 4:6 ; Job 7:22; 40:22). Similar protection from the sun is offered by the shade of a vine ( Ps 80:11 ), root ( Gen 19:8 ), mountain ( Judg 9:36 ), rock ( Isa 32:2 ), cloud ( Isa 25:5 ), and hut ( Jonah 4:5 ). (2) Figurative (hypocatastasis): Just as physical shade offers protection from the sun, the Israelite could find “shade” (protection) from God or the king (e.g., Num 14:9 ; Isa 30:2; 49:2; 51:16 ; Hos 14:8 ; Pss 17:8; 36:8; 57:2; 63:8; 91:1; 121:5 ; Lam 4:20 ; Eccl 7:12 ). The association between “shade” and “protection” is seen in the related Akkadian sillu “shade, covering, protection” ( AHw 3:1101; CAD S:189). The epithets of several Akkadian deities are sillu and sululu (“Shade, Protector”). The motif of protection, rest, and relief from the sun seems to be implied by the expression וְיָשַׁבְתִּי ( vÿyashavti , “I sat down”) in 2:3 b. During the summer months, the temperature often reaches 110-130ºF in the Negev. Those who have never personally experienced the heat of the summer sun in the Negev as they performed strenuous physical labor cannot fully appreciate the relief offered by any kind of shade! Previously, the young woman had complained that she had been burned by the sun because she had been forced to labor in the vineyards with no shade to protect her ( Song 1:5-6 ). She had urged him to tell her where she could find relief from the sun during the hot midday hours ( Song 1:7 ). Now she exults that she finally had found relief from the scorching sun under the “shade” which he offered to her ( Song 2:3 ). S. C. Glickman writes: “Whereas before she came to him she worked long hours on the sun ( 1:6 ), now she rests under the protective shade he brings. And although formerly she was so exhausted by her work she could not properly care for herself, now she finds time for refreshment with him” ( A Song for Lovers , 40).


The term פִּרְיוֹ ( piryo , “his fruit”) is a figure for the young man himself or perhaps his kisses which the young woman delights to “taste” (e.g., Song 4:11; 5:13 ). It is possible to take the imagery of the young woman tasting his “fruit” as kissing. Likewise, the imagery of the gazelles grazing among the lilies is probably a picture of the young man caressing and kissing his beloved ( Song 2:16; 6:3 ).


The term מָתוֹק ( matoq , “sweet”) is used literally and figuratively. When used literally, it describes pleasant tasting foods, such as honey ( Judg 14:14, 18 ; Prov 24:13 ; Ps 19:11 ) or sweet water ( Num 33:28 ; Prov 9:17 ). Used figuratively, it describes what is pleasant to experience: friendship ( Job 20:12 ; Ps 55:15 ; Prov 27:9 ), life ( Eccl 11:7 ; Sir 40:18), sleep for the weary ( Eccl 5:11 ), eloquence in speech ( Prov 16:21, 24 ), and scripture ( Ps 19:11 ). Those who adopt the “hyper-erotic” approach opt for the literal meaning: his “fruit” tastes sweet to her palate. The nonerotic approach takes the term in its figurative sense: The experience of his love was pleasant.


The term אֲשִׁישׁוֹת (’ ashishot , “raisin cakes,” from אֲשִׁישָׁה , ’ ashishah ) refers to an expensive delicacy made of dried compressed grapes ( HALOT 95 s.v. אֲשִׁישָׁה ; BDB 84 s.v. אֲשִׁישָׁה ; Jastrow 128 s.v. אֲשִׁישָׁה ). Raisin cakes were used as cultic offerings by many ancient Near Easterners, and were especially prominent in ancient Near Eastern fertility rites (e.g., Isa 16:7 ; Hos 3:1 ). In ancient Israel they were eaten during festive celebrations, being viewed as enhancing sexual fertility ( 2 Sam 6:19 ; 1 Chr 16:3 ). Scholars regard the “raisin cakes” as (1) literal food viewed as an aphrodisiac to “cure” her love-sickness; (2) a figurative expression (hypocatastasis) for sexual passion or lovemaking; or (3) double entendre referring to the literal food as an aphrodisiac and her desire for lovemaking.


Frequently, when oaths were taken in the ancient world, witnesses were invoked in order to solemnize the vow and to act as jurists should the oath someday be broken. Cosmic forces such as the “heavens and earth” were often personified to act as witnesses to an oath (e.g., Deut 32:1 ; Isa 1:2 ; Mic 1:2; 6:1-2 ; Ps 50:2 ). In this case, the “witnesses” are the “gazelles and stags of the field” ( 2:7; 3:5 ). These animals were frequently used as symbols of romantic love in the OT ( Prov 5:19 ). And in Egyptian and Mesopotamian love literature and Ugaritic poetry the gazelle was often associated with sexual fertility. For instance, in the following excerpt from a Mesopotamian incantation text the stag is referred to in the context of sexual potency in which a woman urges an ailing male: “With the love-[making of the mountain goat] six times, with the lovemaking of a stag seven times, with the lovemaking of a partridge twelve times, make love to me! Make love to me because I am young! And the lovemaking of a stag…Make love to me!” (R. D. Biggs, Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations [TCS], 26, lines 4-8).


What does the expression to “arouse or awaken love” mean? There are three major views: (1) to force a love relationship to develop prematurely rather than to allow it to develop naturally; (2) to interfere with the experience of passionate love; or (3) to stir up sexual passion, that is, to become sexually active. As noted above, אַהֲבָה (’ ahavah , “love”) probably denotes “sexual passion” ( DCH 1:141 s.v. I אַהֲבָה ; HALOT 18 s.v. I אַהֲבָה ) and עוּר (’ ur , “awaken…arouse”) probably denotes “to stir up, excite” ( HALOT 802-803 s.v. II עוּר ). Likewise, the verb עוּר (“awake”) is used in Song 4:16 and Hosea 7:4 in reference to stirring up sexual passion to excitement. tn Alternately, “arouse…awaken….” The root עוּר (’ ur ) is repeated twice in 2:7 for rhetorical emphasis. The first is the Hiphil imperative (“do not awake/excite…”) and the second is the Polel imperative (“do not awake/start to move…”). The Hiphil depicts a causative action (causing love to initially awaken) and the Polel depicts an intensive action (repeated efforts to awaken love or to set love into motion). On the other hand, G. L. Carr ( Song of Solomon [TOTC], 94) writes: “The meaning is not stir up , i.e., a repetition of the same act, but is rather first the act of awakening or summoning something, and then doing what is necessary to sustain the activity already begun, i.e., being so fully awakened that sleep becomes impossible (e.g., 5:2 ).” The terms ָתּעִירוּ ( ta ’ iru , “arouse”; Hiphil imperative from עוּר ) and תְּעוֹרְרוּ ( tÿ ’ orÿru , “awaken”; Polel imperative from עוּר ) are probably figurative expressions (hypocatastasis) rather than literal, because the object does not refer to a person (her lover) but to an emotional state (“love”). The Hebrew root עוּר has two basic meanings: (1) to wake up and (2) to excite ( HALOT 802 s.v. II עוּר ). These two nuances are paralleled in the related Semitic roots: Ugaritic `r and `rr “to be excited” ( UT 19.1849; 19.1926; WUS 2092) and Akkadian eru “to awake” ( AHw 1:247) ( HALOT 802 s.v. II). The Hiphil stem has a four-fold range of meanings: (1) to wake up someone/something, (2) to excite, put into motion, start to work, (3) to summons, (4) to disturb ( HALOT 802-803 s.v. II). When used literally, the Hiphil describes waking up a sleeper ( Zech 4:1 ) or stirring up a fire ( Hos 7:4 ). When used figuratively, it describes stirring up ( Isa 50:4 ; Pss 57:9; 108:3 ) strength ( Dan 11:25 ), anger/wrath ( Ps 78:38 ), jealous/zeal ( Isa 42:13 ), and love/sexual passion ( Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4 ). The Polel stem has a three-fold range of meanings: (1) to awake, start to move, (2) to agitate, disturb, (3) to set in motion ( HALOT 802-803 s.v. II). The expression “arouse or awaken love” is figurative (hypocatastasis). It draws an implied comparison between the literal action of arousing a person from sleep and stirring him/her up to excited action, with the figurative picture of a lover sexually stirring up, arousing and exciting the sexual passions of his beloved.


Gazelles are often associated with sensuality and masculine virility in ancient Near Eastern love literature. Gazelles were often figures in Hebrew, Akkadian, and Ugaritic literature for mighty warriors or virile young men (e.g., 2 Sam 1:19; 2:18 ; Isa 14:9 ; Zech 10:3 ). In ancient Near Eastern love literature gazelles often symbolize the excitement and swiftness of the lover coming to see his beloved, as in an ancient Egyptian love song: “O that you came to your sister swiftly like a bounding gazelle! Its feet reel, its limbs are weary, terror has entered its body. A hunter pursues it with his hounds, they do not see it in its dust; It sees a resting place as a trap, it takes the river as its road. May you find her hiding-place before your hand is kissed four times. Pursue your sister’s love, the Golden gives her to you, my friend!” (“Three Poems” in the Papyrus Chester Beatty 1 collection).


The dove was a common figure for romantic love in ancient Near Eastern love literature. This emphasis seems to be suggested by his use of the term “my dove.” Just as the young man heard the voice of the turtledove in 2:12 , so now he wants to hear her voice. Doves were often associated with timidity in the ancient world. Being virtually defenseless, they would often take refuge in crevices and cliffs for safety ( Jer 48:28 ). The emphasis on timidity and the need for security is undoubtedly the emphasis here because of the explicit description of this “dove” hiding in the “clefts of the rock” and in “the hiding places of the mountain crevice.” Fortresses were sometimes built in the clefts of the rocks on mountainsides because they were inaccessible and therefore, in a secure place of safety ( Jer 49:16 ; Obad 3 ). Perhaps he realized it might be intimidating for her to join him and communicate with him freely. She would need to feel secure in his love to do this. It would be easy for her to hide from such emotionally exposing experiences.


The term “foxes” is used metaphorically. Foxes are always spoken of in a negative light in the OT and in the ancient world were particularly associated with their destructive tendencies with regard to vineyards ( Judg 15:4 ; Neh 4:3 ; Ps 63:10 ; Lam 5:18 ; Ezek 13:4 ). The description of these foxes as being destructive here seems to confirm that this is the point of comparison in mind.


In ancient Near Eastern love literature it was common to use wild animals to symbolize potential problems which could separate lovers and destroy their love. For instance, in Egyptian love songs it is the crocodile, rather than the foxes, which were used as figures for obstacles which might threaten a couple’s love. Here the “foxes” are probably used figuratively to represent potentially destructive problems which could destroy their romantic relationship and which could hinder it from ripening into marriage.


The term “vineyard” is also a figure. In 1:6 she used the vineyard motif as a metaphor for her physical appearance, but here it is “our vineyards” which is probably a figure for their romantic relationship. The phrase “in bloom” makes the metaphor more specific, so that the phrase “our vineyards are in bloom” means that their romantic love relationship was in its initial stages, that is, before it had ripened into marriage.


This line may be translated either as “the one who grazes among the lilies” or as “the one who feeds [his flock] among the lilies.” The latter would picture him as a shepherd pasturing his flock among a bed of flowers which they were eating, while the former would be picturing him as a gazelle feeding among a bed of flowers. Because of the occurrence of the gazelle motif in the following verse, it is most likely that this motif is present in this verse as well. Although it seems likely that he is therefore being pictured as a gazelle eating these flowers, it is far from clear as to what this figurative picture denotes. It is possible that it conveys the peaceful nature of his relationship with her because she was earlier portrayed as a lily (e.g., 2:1 ).


Heb “until the day breathes,” which is figurative (personification) for the morning, that is, the time when the day begin its “life” (e.g., Song 4:6 ). Likewise, “the shadows flee” is figurative (personification) for the dawn, i.e., the time when the dark shadows of the night disappear, or the shadows of the evening which lengthen and are just as fleeting.


Scholars offer three interpretations of her figurative request: (1) The Beloved desires her Lover to embrace her breasts, like a gazelle romping over mountains (mountains are figurative); (2) The Beloved entreats her Lover to leave and go back over the hills from whence he had journeyed (mountains are literal); and (3) As her Lover prepares to leave her country village, the Beloved asks him to return to her again in the same way he arrived, like a gazelle bounding over the mountains in 2:8-10 (mountains are literal). tn The expression הָרֵי בָתֶר ( hare bater , “mountains of Bethar”) is difficult because there is no known mountain-range which was ever called by this name. The meaning of the noun בֶּתֶר ( beter ) is uncertain. DCH distinguishes between three homonymic nouns: (1) בֶּתֶר I noun “part, piece” ( Gen 15:10 ; Jer 34:19 ) related to the verb בֶּתֶר “to cut in two” ( Gen 15:10 ); (2) בֶּתֶר II noun “gorge” ( Song 2:17 ); and (3) בֶּתֶר III place name “Bether” in Judah and 6.5 miles (11 km) SW of Jerusalem ( Josh 15:59 ; 1 Chr 6:44 ; perhaps Song 2:17 ) ( DCH 2:291 s.v. בֶּתֶר ). Thus, הָרֵי בָתֶר might mean “mountains of gorge[s]” or “mountains of Bether” ( DCH 2:291 s.v. III). The Hebrew root בָּתַר ( batar , “cut in pieces, cut in half”) is related to Arabic batara “to cut off” ( HALOT 167 s.v. בתר ; BDB 144 בָּתַר ). The word does not appear in Ugaritic, Akkadian, or Syriac. Aramaic בָּאתַר ( ba ’ tar , “after, behind”) was used frequently in Northwest Semitic ( DISO 45-46) and Late Hebrew (Jastrow 201 s.v. בָּאתַר ); however, it offers little to this problem. Many scholars take בֶּתֶר as a genitive of description functioning as an attributive adjective. For example, BDB suggests that בֶּתֶר means “mountains of cutting,” that is, “cleft mountains” (BDB 144 s.v. בֶּתֶר ), while Koehler posits “ravine,” that is, mountains with a ravine ( HALOT 167 s.v. II בֶּתֶר ). This is reflected in the LXX’s κοιλωμάτων ( koilwmatwn, “hollow places, basin, cavity”): ὄρη κοιλωμάτων ( orh koilwmatwn ) “mountains with many ravines.” This approach is adopted by several translations, e.g., “rugged mountains” (NLT). On the other hand, Vulgate, Aquila, and Symmachus took it as a place name referring to the town of Bether (LXX Βαιθηρ = Mishnaic Hebrew בִּיתֵּר ) located 6.5 miles (11 km) southwest of Jerusalem ( Josh 15:59 ; 1 Chr 6:44 ). This approach is adopted by several translations: “mountains of Bether” (KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV margin, TEV). Theodotion takes it as a figurative expression, reading θυμιαματων ( qumiamatwn, “incense”) which reflects a variant Hebrew reading of בְּשָמִים ( bÿshamim , “balsam, perfume”) which also appears in Song 8:14 . This approach is taken in a Jewish-English translation: “hills of spice” (NJPS). The botanist Löw connects Hebrew בֶּתֶר to Greek μαλαβάθρον ( malabaqron ) which was an Indian spice plant imported to Judah. See I. Low, Die Flora der Juden , 2:117-118. The expression “cleft mountains” ( הָרֵי בָתֶר ) might refer simply to a rugged and jagged mountain-range (NLT “rugged mountains”; NIV “rugged hills”). However, this may be a figurative description of the woman’s cleavage because similar imagery is used in Song 4:6 to describe her breasts. The name “Tihamah” (literally “the Great Deep”) was applied to the low-lying coastland between the mountains of Yemen and the Red Sea as well as to the depression of Djauf (Dumah) because of fresh-water springs which oozed up from below (Hebrew “Tehom” and “Tehomot,” Ugaritic “Tihamaten” or “Tahamatum,” Akkadian “Tiamat”). And it appears that in an Ammonite inscription that an area near the mountainous region of Rabbath-Amman is referred to by the name “Tymtn” (literally “The Two Depressions”), rather than by its real name (W. F. Albright, “Some Comments on the Amman Citadel Inscription,” BASOR 198 [April 1978]: 38-39).


Three 1st person common singular cohortatives appear in verse 2 : אָקוּמָה (’ aqumah , “I will arise”), אֲסוֹבְבָה (’ asovÿvah , “I will go about”), and אֲבַקְשָׁה (’ avaqshah , “I will seek”). These cohortatives have been taken in two basic senses: (1) resolve: “I will arise…I will go about…I will seek” (KJV, NIV) or (2) necessity: “I must arise…I must go about…I must seek” (NASB, NJPS). There is no ethical or moral obligation/necessity, but the context emphasizes her intense determination (e.g., 3:4 b). Therefore, they should be classified as cohortatives of resolve, expressing the speaker’s determination to pursue a course of action. The three-fold repetition of the cohortative form emphasizes the intensity of her determination. tn The emphatic particle of exhortation נא appears in the expression אָקוּמָה נָּא (’ aqumah nah , “I will arise…”). This particle is used with 1st person common singular cohortatives to emphasize self-deliberation and a determined resolve to act (BDB 609 s.v. נָא b.3.a) (e.g., Gen 18:21 ; Exod 3:3 ; 2 Sam 14:15 ; Isa 5:1 ; Job 32:21 ).


There is a consonantal wordplay in 3:2 between the roots בּקשׁ and בּשׁק , that is, between אֲבַקְשָׁה (’ avaqshah , “I will seek [him]”) and בַּשְּׁוָקִים ( bashshÿvaqim , “streets”). The wordplay emphasizes that she searched in every nook and cranny.


The statement בִּקַּשְׁתִּיו וְלֹא מְצָאתִיו ( biqqashtiv vÿlo ’ mÿtsa ’ tiv , “I sought him but I did not find him”) appears twice in 3:1-2 . In both cases it concludes a set of cola. The repetition depicts her mounting disappointment in her failure to locate her beloved. It stands in strong contrast with 3:4 .


There is debate about the reason why the woman brought her beloved to her mother’s house. Campbell notes that the mother’s house is sometimes referred to as the place where marital plans were made ( Gen 24:28 ; Ruth 1:8 ). Some suggest, then, that the woman here was unusually bold and took the lead in proposing marriage plans with her beloved. This approach emphasizes that the marriage plans in 3:4 are followed by the royal wedding procession ( 3:6-11 ) and the wedding night ( 4:1-5:1 ). On the other hand, others suggest that the parallelism of “house of my mother” and “chamber of she who conceived me” focuses on the bedroom of her mother’s house. Fields suggests that her desire was to make love to her beloved in the very bedroom chambers where she herself was conceived, to complete the cycle of life/love. If this is the idea, it would provide a striking parallel to a similar picture in 8:5 in which the woman exults that they had made love in the very location where her beloved had been conceived: “Under the apple tree I aroused you; it was there your mother conceived you, there she who bore you conceived you.”


It is not certain whether the speaker here is the Beloved or not.


Song 4:1-7 is often compared to ancient Near Eastern wasfs songs sung by the groom to his new bride, praising her beauty from head to foot. Examples have been found in Egyptian, Syrian, Sumerian, and Arabic love literature. The wasfs song is a poetic celebration by the groom of his bride’s physical beauty. The typical form has three parts: (1) introductory words by the wedding guests, (2) invitation by the bride to the groom to celebrate her physical beauty, and (3) the groom’s poetic comparative praise of his bride’s beauty from head to foot – comprising the bulk of the song. The groom’s praise typically is characterized by three movements: (1) introductory summary praise of his bride’s beauty, (2) lengthy and detailed figurative description of her physical beauty, and (3) concluding summary praise which reiterates the introductory words of the song. Although the introductory words of the wedding guests and the invitation by the bride are absent, the form of the Lover’s praise of his bride is identical, as are the types of comparative praise. His song falls into the same three movements: (1) introductory summary praise of his bride’s beauty in 4:1 a, (2) lengthy and detailed figurative description of her beauty in 4:1 b-6, and (3) concluding summary praise in 4:7 . See K&D 18:174-76; S. Krauss, “The Archaeological Background of Some Passages in the Song of Songs,” JQR 32 (1941-42): 125.


The introductory demonstrative particle הִנֵּךְ ( hinneh , “Behold!”) is repeated for rhetorical effect. This particle is often used with verbs of seeing or discovering, making the narrative graphic and vivid. It enables the reader to enter into the surprise, wonder, and delight of the speaker (BDB 243 s.v. הִנֵּךְ c).


The repetition of יָפָה רַעְיָתִי ( yafah ra ’ yati , “You are beautiful, my darling”) in 4:1 and 4:7 forms an inclusion, marking off the song of descriptive praise in 4:1-7 .


The expression “your eyes [are] doves” is a metaphor (implied comparison). Like most of the other metaphors in 4:1-7 , this is probably a comparison of sight rather than sense: (1) the shape of a woman’s eyes, especially in Egyptian art, resemble the shape of a dove, and (2) the white color of the eyeballs resemble the white color of a dove’s body. On the other hand, many Jewish and Christian interpreters have suggested that this is a comparison of sense, usually suggesting that the dove is a symbol for purity and that the eyes of a person are the windows of their soul or character, that is, the bride has a pure character as can be seen through her eyes.


It is clear from Song 8:1 that the young man and his bride were not physical brother and sister, yet he addresses his bride as אֲחֹתִי (’ akhoti , “my sister”) several times ( 4:9, 10, 12; 5:1 ). This probably reflects any one of several ancient Near Eastern customs: (1) The appellatives “my sister” and “my brother” were both commonly used in ancient Near Eastern love literature as figurative descriptions of two lovers. For instance, in a Ugaritic poem when Anat tried to seduce Aqhat, she says, “Hear, O hero Aqhat, you are my brother and I your sister” (Aqhat 18 i. 24). In the OT Apocrypha husband and wife are referred to several times as “brother” and “sister” (Add Esth 15:9; Tob 5:20; 7:16). This “sister-wife” motif might be behind Paul’s perplexing statement about a “sister-wife” ( 1 Cor 9:5 ). (2) In several Mesopotamian societies husbands actually could legally adopt their wives for a variety of reasons. For instance, in Hurrian society husbands in the upper classes sometimes adopted their wives as “sisters” in order to form the strongest of all possible marriage bonds; a man could divorce his wife but he could not divorce his “sister” because she was “family.” At Nuzi a husband could adopt his wife to give her a higher status in society. See M. Held, “A Faithful Lover in Old Babylonian Dialogue,” JCS 15 (1961): 1-26 and S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite , 103-5; T. Jacobsen, “The Sister’s Message,” JANESCU 5 (1973): 199-212; E. A. Speiser, “The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Oriental and Biblical Studies , 15- 28; G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends , 111.


The twin themes of the enclosed garden and sealed spring are highlighted by the wordplay (paronomasia) between the Hebrew expressions גַּן נָעוּל ( gan na ’ ul , “a garden locked up”) and גַּל נָעוּל ( gal na ’ ul , “an enclosed spring”).


The noun פַּרְדֵּס ( pardes , “garden, parkland, forest”) is a foreign loanword that occurs only 3 times in the Hebrew Bible ( Song 4:13 ; Eccl 2:5 ; Neh 2:8 ). The original Old Persian (Avestan) term pairidaeza designated the enclosed parks and pleasure-grounds which were the exclusive domain of the Persian kings and nobility in the Achaemenid period ( HALOT 963 s.v. פַּרְדֵּס ; LSJ 1308). The Babylonian term pardesu means “marvelous garden,” in reference to the enclosed parks of the kings ( AHw 2:833.a and 3:1582.a). The term passed into Greek as παραδείσος ( paradeisos, “enclosed park, pleasure-ground”), referring to the enclosed parks and gardens of the Persian kings (LSJ 1308). The Greek term was transliterated into English as “paradise.”


There is no little debate about the identity of the speaker(s) and the audience addressed in 5:1 b. There are five options: (1) He is addressing his bride. (2) The bride is addressing him. (3) The wedding guests are addressing him and his bride. (4) He and his bride are addressing the wedding guests. (5) The poet is addressing him and his bride. When dealing with this issue, the following factors should be considered: (1) the form of both the exhortations and the addressees are plural. This makes it unlikely that he is addressing his bride or that his bride is addressing him. (2) The exhortation has an implicitly sexual connotation because the motif of “eating” and “drinking” refers to sexual consummation in 5:1 a. This makes it unlikely that he or his bride are addressing the wedding guests – an orgy is quite out of the question! (3) The poet could be in view because as the writer who created the Song, only he could have been with them – in a poetic sense – in the bridal chamber as a “guest” on their wedding night. (4) The wedding guests could be in view through the figurative use of apostrophe (addressing an audience that is not in the physical presence of the speaker). While the couple was alone in their wedding chambers, the wedding guests wished them all the joys and marital bliss of the honeymoon. This is supported by several factors: (a) Wedding feasts in the ancient Near East frequently lasted several days and after the couple had consummated their marriage, they would appear again to celebrate a feast with their wedding guests. (b) The structure of the Song is composed of paired-dialogues which either begin or conclude with the words of the friends or daughters of Jerusalem ( 1:2-4, 5-11; 3:6-11; 5:9-16; 6:1-3, 4-13; 7:1-10 ) or which conclude with an exhortation addressed to them ( 2:1-7; 3:1-5; 8:1-4 ). In this case, the poetic unit of 4:1-5:1 would conclude with an exhortation by the friends in 5:1 b.


The physical love between the couple is compared to eating and drinking at a wedding feast. This is an appropriate figure of comparison because it would have been issued during the feast which followed the wedding and the consummation. The term “drink” refers to intoxication, that is, it compares becoming drunk on wine with enjoying the physical love of one’s spouse (e.g., Prov 5:19-20 ).


The noun קוֹל ( qol , literally, “sound, noise, voice”) is used as an exclamation: “Listen!” or “Hark!” (e.g., Gen 4:10 ; Isa 13:4; 40:3; 52:8 ; Jer 3:21; 4:15; 10:22; 31:51; 50:28; 51:54 ; Mic 6:9 ; Zeph 1:14; 2:14 ; Song 2:8; 5:2 ) ( HALOT 1085 s.v. קוֹל 8b; BDB 877 s.v. קוֹל 1.f; Joüon 2:614 §162.e; GKC 467 §146. b ). The term often refers to a loud or unexpected sound that arrests the attention of a character in a narrative. The speaker/writer uses it as a rhetorical device to dramatically portray his/her own startled reaction to an unexpected sound that called his/her attention. The Beloved is startled from her sleep by the unexpected sound of him loudly knocking at her bedroom door late at night.


The phrase קוֹל דּוֹדִי ( qol dodi , “Listen! My lover …!”) that introduces this scene in 5:2-8 is the exact same phrase used in 2:8 to introduce the courtship section 2:8-11 . In 2:8-11 , the Beloved was excited about his unexpected arrival; however, in 5:2-8 she is apathetic about his unexpected approach. One should not miss the dramatic contrast between the Beloved’s eagerness to see her lover in 2:8-11 and her apathy about his approach on this evening in 5:2-8 . The repetition of קוֹל דּוֹדִי (“Listen! My lover …!”) in 2:8 and 5:2 is designed to draw out the parallels and contrasts between 2:8-11 and 5:2-8 .


The participle דוֹפֵק ( dofeq ) connotes present progressive or iterative action. The verb דָּפַק ( dafaq , “to knock, pound, beat”) occurs only three times in biblical Hebrew, twice in reference to knocking at a door ( Judg 19:22 ; Song 5:2 ) and once of beating cattle in order to drive them along ( Gen 33:13 ). The Qal stem depicts the normal action of knocking at a door, while the Hitpael denotes a more intensive pounding, e.g., Qal: “to knock at the door” ( Song 5:2 ) and Hitpael: “to beat violently against the door” ( Judg 19:22 ) ( HALOT 229 s.v. דפק ; BDB 200 s.v. דָּפַק ). The same connotations are seen in Mishnaic Hebrew, e.g., the verbs דָּפַק and דְּפַק ( dÿfaq ), “to knock at the door” (Jastrow 317 s.v. דָּפַק ), and the nouns דּוֹפֵק “door frame (= what someone knocks on), movable tomb stone,” and דּוֹפְקָנִין ( dofÿqanin , “knockers”; Jastrow 287 s.v. דּוֹפְקָנִין ). The collocation of the verb פתח “to open” a door ( HALOT 986-87 s.v. פתח ; BDB 835 s.v. פָּתַח ) clearly suggests that he is at the Beloved’s bedroom door.


The three-fold repetition of the verb פָּתַח ( patakh , “to open”) ( Song 5:2, 5, 6 ) indicates that it is a key word ( Leitwort ) in this section. While it is clear that the verb describes her action of opening the door of her bedroom chamber in 5:2 , some suggest that in 5:5-6 it is used figuratively (hypocatastasis: implied comparison) of the Beloved “opening” her female genitalia for sexual intercourse (but see study notes below). tn Heb “Open to me!” Alternately, “Let me in!” The imperatival form of פִּתְחִי ( pitkhi , “ to open”) connotes a polite, but earnest request. The verb פָּתַח ( patakh ) refers to the action of opening various objects, e.g., sack ( Gen 42:27 ), skin bottle ( Judg 4:19 ), hamper ( Exod 2:6 ), pit ( Exod 21:33 ), mouth of a cave ( Josh 10:22 ), grave ( Ezek 37:12, 13 ), city gates ( Neh 13:19 ; Isa 45:1 ), gate of a land ( Nah 3:13 ), window ( 2 Kgs 13:17 ). When used with the accusative דֶּלֶת ( delet , “door”), it refers to opening a door (e.g., Judg 3:25; 19:27 ; 1 Sam 3:15 ; 2 Kgs 9:3, 10 ; 2 Chr 29:3 ; Job 31:32 ) ( HALOT 986-87 s.v. פתח ; BDB 835 s.v. פָּתַח ). Although the object דֶּלֶת (“door”) is here omitted, a bedroom door is clearly in mind in 5:2 , as indicated by the collocated verb דָּפַק ( dafaq , “to knock on a door”) in the preceding line. Translators have often rendered this line woodenly: “Open to me!” (KJV, NASB, NIV); however, NJPS nuances it well: “Let me in!”


The Beloved’s praise of his appearance follows the typical literary structure of the ancient Near Eastern wasfs song: (1) introductory summary praise ( 5:10 ), (2) detailed descriptive praise from head to foot ( 5:11-16 a), and (3) concluding summary praise ( 5:16 b). There are several striking features about this song that are unique from the typical wasfs . (1) The ordinary setting of the ancient Near Eastern wasfs songs was the wedding night. (2) They were ordinarily sung only by a man in praise of his bride. (3) Normally, the wasfs song will conclude with the feet after the legs; however, the Beloved concludes by praising his mouth after his legs.


The term צַח ( tsakh , “dazzling”) is ordinarily used to describe the shining surface of jewelry or of smoothed rocks ( Ezek 24:7-8; 26:4, 14 ; Neh 4:7 ). Likewise, אָדֹם (’ adom , “ruddy”) can describe the redness of rubies ( Lam 4:7 ). Throughout 5:11-15 she compares his appearance to valuable jewels, gems, and precious metals.


In the genitive construct phrase עֲרוּגַת הַבֹּשֶׂם (’ arugat havvosem , literally, “beds of balsam”) the term בֹּשֶׂם ( bosem ) is a genitive of composition, identifying what these gardens were composed of. The term עֲרוּגַת (“garden-beds”) refers to a private garden terrace or garden bed, a rare luxury in Palestine and very expensive to own ( Ezek 17:7, 10 ) (BDB 788 s.v. עֲרוּגָה ). The term בֹּשֶׂם ( bosem , “balsam”) refers to balsam trees which yielded sweet-smelling oils from which perfumes were produced. The balsam trees should be identified either as Astragalus tragacantha which grew everywhere in Palestine and exude resin from its thorns, or as Commiphora opobalsamum which was not native to Israel but to South Arabia from whence it had to be imported at great cost ( 2 Chr 9:1 ) ( Fauna and Flora of the Bible , 177-78). She is comparing the beautiful scent of his cologned cheeks to fragrant beds of spice.


The term גַּן ( gan , “garden”) is used six other times in the Song. In five cases, it is used figuratively (hypocatastasis) to describe her body or the sexual love of the couple ( 4:12, 15, 16 a, 16b; 5:1 ). There is only one usage in which it might refer to a real garden ( 8:13 ). Thus, this usage of “garden” might be figurative or literal: (1) He went to a real garden for repose. Solomon did, in fact, own a great many gardens ( Eccl 2:4-7 ; 1 Chr 27:27 ). (2) The “garden” is a figurative description referring either to: (a) the young woman, (b) their sexual love, or (c) Solomon’s harem.


The phrase כַּעֲרוּגַת הַבֹּשֶׂם ( ka ’ arugat havvosem , “flower-beds of balsam”) is used elsewhere in the Song only in 5:13 where it is a simile comparing his cheeks to a flower-bed of balsam yielding perfumed spices. The term הַבֹּשֶׂם (“balsam-spice”) by itself appears five times in the Song, each time as a figure for sexual love ( 4:10, 14, 16; 5:1; 8:14 ). Thus, the two options are: (1) the term refers to a real flower-bed of balsam to which Solomon had gone or (2) this term is a figure for sexual love.


The term שׁוֹשַׁנָּה ( shoshannah , “lily”) or שׁוֹשַׁנִים ( shoshanim , “lilies”) appears eight times in the Song ( 2:1, 2, 16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2, 3; 7:2 ). Of these five are unequivocally used figuratively as descriptions of a woman or women ( 2:1, 2 ), the color and softness of her breasts ( 4:5 ), the attractiveness of his lips ( 5:13 ), and her waist ( 7:2 ). The closest parallel to 6:2 is the description “the one who grazes among the lilies” ( 2:16; 6:3 ) which is a figurative expression comparing his romancing of his Beloved with a sheep feeding on lilies. However, this still leaves a question as to what the lilies represent in 2:16; 6:2, 3 . The phrase “to gather lilies” itself appears only here in the Song. However, the synonymous phrase “to gather myrrh and balsam spice” is used in 5:1 as a figure (euphemistic hypocatastasis) for sexual consummation by the man of the woman. There are three basic options as to how “lilies” may be taken: (1) The lilies are real flowers; he has gone to a real garden in which to repose and she is picking real lilies. (2) The term “lilies” is a figure for the young woman; he is romancing her just as he had in 2:16 and 5:1 . He is kissing her mouth just as a sheep would graze among lilies. (3) The term “lilies” is a figure expression referring to other women, such as his harem (e.g., 6:8-9 ). Two factors support the “harem” interpretation: (1) Solomon had recently departed from her, and she was desperate to find him after she refused him. (2) His harem is mentioned explicitly in 6:8-9 . However, several other factors support the Beloved interpretation: (1) She expresses her confidence in 6:3 that he is devoted to her. (2) The immediately following use of “lilies” in 6:3 appears to refer to her, as in 2:16 and 5:1 . (3) He praises her in 6:4-7 , suggesting that he was romancing her in 6:2-3 . (4) Although his harem is mentioned in 6:8-10 , all these women acknowledge that he is disinterested in them and only loves her. (5) Her exultation “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine; the one who grazes among the lilies” ( 6:3 ) is a statement of assurance in their relationship and this would seem quite strange if he was cavorting with his harem while she said this.


This is the second occurrence of the poetic refrain that occurs elsewhere in 2:16 and 7:11 . The order of the first two cola are reversed from 2:16 : “My beloved is mine and I am his” ( 2:16 ) but “I am my beloved’s and he is mine” ( 6:3 ). The significance of this shift depends on whether the parallelism is synonymous or climactic. This might merely be a literary variation with no rhetorical significance. On the other hand, it might signal a shift in her view of their relationship: Originally, she focused on her possession of him, now she focused on his possession of her.


The literary unity of 6:4-10 and boundaries of his praise are indicated by the repetition of the phrase אֲיֻמָּה כַּנִּדְגָּלוֹת (’ ayummah kannidÿgalot , “majestic as bannered armies/stars in procession…”) in 6:4 and 6:10 which creates an inclusion. His praise includes his own personal statements ( 6:4-9 a) as well as his report of the praise given to her by the maidens, queens, and concubines ( 6:9 b-10). His praise indicates that he had forgiven any ingratitude on her part.


The sequence “sixty…eighty…beyond number” is an example of a graded numerical sequence and is not intended to be an exact numeration (see W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry [JSOTSup], 144-50).


The term עַלְמָה (’ almah , “young woman”) refers to a young woman who is of marriageable age or a newly married young woman, usually before the birth of her first child ( HALOT 835-36 s.v. עַלְמָה ; BDB 761 s.v. עַלְמָה ) (e.g., Gen 24:43 ; Exod 2:8 ; Ps 68:26 ; Prov 30:19 ; Song 1:3; 6:8 ; Isa 7:14 ). The only other use of the term “young women” ( עֲלָמוֹת ) in the Song refers to the young women of Solomon’s harem ( Song 6:8 ). The root עלם denotes the basic idea of “youthful, strong, passionate” ( HALOT 835 s.v. III). While the term עַלְמָה may be used in reference to a young woman who is a virgin, the term itself does not explicitly denote “virgin.” The Hebrew term which explicitly denotes “virgin” is בְּתוּלָה ( bÿtulah ) which refers to a mature young woman without any sexual experience with men (e.g., Gen 24:16 ; Exod 22:15-16 ; Lev 21:3 ; Deut 22:23, 28; 32:25 ; Judg 12:12; 19:24 ; 2 Sam 13:2, 18 ; 1 Kgs 1:2 ; 2 Chr 36:17 ; Esth 2:2-3, 17, 19 ; Job 31:1 ; Pss 45:15; 78:63; 148:12 ; Isa 23:4; 62:5 ; Jer 2:32; 31:3; 51:22 ; Lam 1:4, 18; 2:10, 21; 5:11 ; Ezek 9:6 ; Joel 1:8 ; Amos 9:13 ; Zech 9:17 ; HALOT 166-7 s.v. בְּתוּלָה ; BDB 143 s.v. בְּתוּלָה ). The related noun בְּתוּלִים ( bÿtulim ) means “state of virginity” ( Lev 21:13 ; Judg 11:37-38 ; Ezek 23:3, 8 ; Sir 42:10) and “evidence of virginity” ( Deut 22:14-15, 17, 20 ) ( HALOT 167 s.v. בְּתוּלִים ).


This rhetorical question emphasizes her position among women (e.g., Mic 2:7 ; Joel 2:1 ).