¹ sn 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).

² sn 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.

³ tn The term שְׁאוֹל (sh^eʾol, “Sheol”) in this context probably means “death” (so NIV, NCV, NLT) and not the realm of the departed (wicked) spirits (cf. NAB “the nether world”). In the wisdom of other lands, Ahiqar 6:82 says, “If I strike you, my son, you will not die.” The idea is that discipline helps the child to a full life; if the child dies prematurely, it would be more than likely a consequence of not being trained by discipline. In the book of Proverbs the “death” mentioned here could be social as well as physical.

² tn The verb הוֹדַעְתִּי (hodaʿti; from יָדַע, yadaʿ) is a Hiphil perfect form. The Hiphil is factitive “to make know,” i.e., “to inform.” The Hebrew perfect should be understood either as perfective “I have informed you” or performative “I hereby inform you.” Either is appropriate for “today” since the thirty sayings it refers to have been written down (v. 20), but it appears to be part of introducing the sayings rather than a recap. However if the “thirty [sayings]” mentioned in v. 20 should be understood as the word “day before yesterday” then the perfective translation should be preferred.

¹ tc The MT reads שְׁפָטִים (sh^efatim from שֶׁפֶט, shephet), meaning “penalties; judgments.” The text might be מִשְׁפָּטִים (mishpatim) restoring a mem lost by haplography (the previous word ends with mem), and meaning “judicial decisions” (by extension “penalties”). The LXX reads “scourges,” a gloss it uses for שׁוֹטִים (shotim; cf. Prov 26:3), while some propose emending to שְׁבָטִים (sh^evatim) “rods” (cf. 23:14). Rods might be the instrument of the flogging mentioned in the second half of the verse, but any of the proposals conforms to the convention of parallelism. The main choice is between the MT as it stands and the LXX.

¹ sn The setting is in the ancient world where a servant rarely advanced beyond his or her station in life. But there are notable exceptions (e.g., Gen 15:3 where the possibility is mentioned, 1 Chr 2:35 where it changed through marriage, and 2 Sam 16:1-4; 19:24-30, with the story of Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth). This proverb focuses on a servant who is wise, one who uses all his abilities effectively—a Joseph figure.

³ tn Heb “will give/yield.” The verb נָתַן (natan) is used elsewhere in the phrase to “produce fruit” (e.g. Lev 25:19 of the land; Zech 8:12 of the vine). Yielding fruit can be a natural implication of healthy roots (cf. Ps. 1:3; Isa 11:1; Jer 12:2). The sage has probably left out specific mention of the word “fruit” to heighten the contrast between desiring a goal and receiving a result which is the byproduct of good character. However the omission may imply a text critical problem.

¹ tn Heb “they are thrown down by the hands of a cliff, their judges.” The syntax of the Hebrew text is difficult and the meaning uncertain. The perfect verbal form is understood as rhetorical; the psalmist describes the anticipated downfall of the wicked as if it had already occurred. “Their judges” could be taken as the subject of the verb, but this makes little, if any, sense. The translation assumes the judges are the agents and that the wicked, mentioned earlier in the psalm, are the subjects of the verb.

² tn Heb “he was strong in his destruction.” “Destruction” must refer back to the destructive plans mentioned in v. 2. The verb (derived from the root עָזַז, ʿazaz, “be strong”) as it stands is either an imperfect (if so, probably used in a customary sense) or a preterite (without vav [ו] consecutive). However the form should probably be emended to וַיָּעָז (vayyaʿaz), a Qal preterite (with vav [ו] consecutive) from עָזַז. Note the preterite form without vav (ו) consecutive in the preceding line (וַיִּבְטַח, vayyivtakh, “and he trusted”). The prefixed vav (ו) was likely omitted by haplography (note the suffixed vav [ו] on the preceding עָשְׁרוֹ, ʿoshro, “his wealth”).

¹ tn Heb “their life.” Some emend the text to “his life,” understanding the antecedent of the pronoun as “brother” in v. 7. However, the man and brother of v. 7 are representative of the human race in general, perhaps explaining why a plural pronoun appears in v. 8. Of course, the plural pronoun could refer back to “the rich” mentioned in v. 6. Another option (the one assumed in the translation) is that the suffixed mem is enclitic. In this case the “ransom price for human life” is referred to an abstract, general way.

¹ tn Two different types of shields are mentioned here. See also Ezek 38:4. Many modern translations render the first term (translated here “small shield”) as “buckler” (cf. NASB “buckler and shield”; the order is often reversed in the translation, apparently for stylistic reasons: cf. NEB, NIV84, NRSV “shield and buckler”). The English term “buckler,” referring to a small round shield held on the arm to protect the upper body, is unfamiliar to many modern readers, so the term “small shield” was used in the present translation for clarity.

¹ tn The king is now addressed. One could argue that the Lord is still being addressed, but v. 9 militates against this proposal, for there the Lord is mentioned in the third person and appears to be distinct from the addressee (unless, of course, one takes “Lord” in v. 9 as vocative; see the note on “them” in v. 9b). Verse 7 begins this transition to a new addressee by referring to both the king and the Lord in the third person (in vv. 1-6 the Lord is addressed and only the king referred to in the third person).

¹ tn Heb “these in chariots and these in horses.” No verb appears; the verb “invoke” is to be supplied from the following line. The convention of backward ellipsis can apply to the final word of the 2nd line, as in this verse. In this case the idea would be that some “invoke” (i.e., trust in) their military might for victory (cf. NEB “boast”; NIV “trust”; NRSV “take pride”). Verse 8 suggests that the “some/others” mentioned here are the nation’s enemies.

² tn Heb “I will not pour out their drink offerings of blood.” The third masculine plural suffix would appear to refer back to the people/leaders mentioned in v. 3. However, if we emend אֲחֵר (ʾakher, “another”) to the plural אֲחֵרִים (ʾakherim, “other [gods]”) in v. 4, the suffix can be understood as referring to these gods—“the drink offerings [made to] them.” The next line favors this interpretation. Perhaps this refers to some type of pagan cultic ritual. Elsewhere wine is the prescribed content of drink offerings.

¹ tn Heb “for the one who seeks shed blood remembered them.” The idiomatic expression “to seek shed blood” seems to carry the idea “to seek payment/restitution for one’s shed blood.” The plural form דָּמִים (damim, “shed blood”) occurs only here as the object of דָּרַשׁ (darash, “to seek”); the singular form דָּם (dam, “blood”) appears with the verb in Gen 9:5; 42:22; Ezek 33:6. “Them,” the pronominal object of the verb “remembered,” refers to the oppressed, mentioned specifically in the next line, so the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁶ sn The name “Job” is mentioned by Ezekiel as one of the greats in the past—Noah, Job, and Daniel (14:14). The suffering of Job was probably well known in the ancient world, and this name was clearly part of that tradition. There is little reason to try to determine the etymology and meaning of the name, since it may not be Hebrew. If it were Hebrew, it might mean something like “persecuted,” although some suggest “aggressor.” If Arabic it might have the significance of “the one who always returns to God.”

² sn The spreading of salt over the city was probably a symbolic act designed to place the site under a curse, deprive it of fertility, and prevent any future habitation. The practice is referred to outside the Bible as well. For example, one of the curses in the Aramaic Sefire treaty states concerning Arpad: “May Hadad sow in them salt and weeds, and may it not be mentioned again!” See J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (BibOr), 15, 53. Deut 29:23, Jer 17:6, and Zeph 2:9 associate salt flats or salty regions with infertility and divine judgment.

² tn The translation of this difficult line is speculative because the second word, לָחֶם (lakhem), appears only here. The line in the Hebrew text literally reads, “Then [?] gates.” Interpretations and emendations of the Hebrew text abound (see B. Lindars, Judges 1-5, 239-40). The translation assumes a repointing of the form as a Qal participle לֹחֵם (lokhem) from the verbal root לָחַם (lakham, “fight”) and understands a substantival use (“fighter”). “Fighter” is a collective reference to the military leaders or warriors mentioned in the preceding line and in v. 9. (For other occurrences of the Qal of לָחַם, see Pss 35:1; 56:2-3.)

¹ tn The subjective genitives “milk and honey” are symbols of the wealth of the land, second only to bread. Milk was a sign of such abundance (Gen 49:12; Isa 7:21, 22). Because of the climate the milk would thicken quickly and become curds, eaten with bread or turned into butter. The honey mentioned here is the wild honey (see Deut 32:13; Judg 14:8-9). It signified sweetness, or the finer things of life (Ezek 3:3).

² tn The verse simply says “any sin of a man,” but the genitive could mean that it is any sin that a man would commit (subjective genitive), or one committed against a man (objective genitive). Because of the similarity with Lev 5:22 HT (6:3 ET), the subjective is better. The sin is essentially “missing the mark” which is the standard of the Law of the Lord. The sin is not in this case accidental or inadvertent. It means here simply failing to live up to the standard of the Lord. Since both men and women are mentioned in the preceding clause, the translation uses “people” here.