Post by Lee on Apr 22, 2014 1:33:38 GMT
THE book of Proverbs is divided into more or less distinct parts, which vary in number according to the degree we subdivide it. The simplest and most obvious subdivision, clearly defined in the book, gives 4—
1-24: The Proverbs of Solomon.
25-29; The Proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah copied out
30: The words of Agur.
31: The words of Lemuel.
Who these latter 2—Agur and Lemuel—were, we have no of knowing. They are either symbolic names for Solomon, which seems unlikely and strained, or they are men of whom we know nothing as to time, place and circumstances. Agur means "collector," and Lemuel, "devoted to God."Lemuel was a king, so if he was a real person other than Solomon, he must have been a Gentile, for there were no Hebrew kings so named. This would be a fitting conclusion to such a book for all times. When we think of how Melchizedek, king of Salem in the time of Abraham, so briefly appears and so uickly disappears from the record, and yet is of so great significance in the divine plan, and leaves the indelible mark of the eternal Melchizedek priesthood—when we think of such, we realize how infinitely little we really know of the historical details of the development of God's purpose through the ages. There is room for Agur and King Lemuel and thousands of others equally distinguished in their day, all of whom some day we hope to meet and know.
Rene (1967 Berean)
1-24: The Proverbs of Solomon.
25-29; The Proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah copied out
30: The words of Agur.
31: The words of Lemuel.
Who these latter 2—Agur and Lemuel—were, we have no of knowing. They are either symbolic names for Solomon, which seems unlikely and strained, or they are men of whom we know nothing as to time, place and circumstances. Agur means "collector," and Lemuel, "devoted to God."Lemuel was a king, so if he was a real person other than Solomon, he must have been a Gentile, for there were no Hebrew kings so named. This would be a fitting conclusion to such a book for all times. When we think of how Melchizedek, king of Salem in the time of Abraham, so briefly appears and so uickly disappears from the record, and yet is of so great significance in the divine plan, and leaves the indelible mark of the eternal Melchizedek priesthood—when we think of such, we realize how infinitely little we really know of the historical details of the development of God's purpose through the ages. There is room for Agur and King Lemuel and thousands of others equally distinguished in their day, all of whom some day we hope to meet and know.
Rene (1967 Berean)
