“The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him. What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows?Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings. It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.”  (Proverbs 31:1–9 KJV)

Sometimes, I think that we read the Bible in a very isolated manner.  It is not that we can’t get something good out of such a practice.  I have certainly benefited from such isolated readings.  However, when we put Scripture with Scripture, the Scriptures really sizzle.

For example, here is an e mail exchange with a class I am teaching right now:

“Dear Fellow Students,

Concerning the matter of vows that we were trying to get at with Accordance yesterday:  I thought that, perhaps, the fact that King Lemuel’s mother referred to him as “son of my vows” (Proverbs 31:2) might suggest that she had been unable to conceive a child, and had made vows to God, as did Hannah, the mother or Samuel (1 Samuel 1).  You will recall that I couldn’t get the “key number search” to work in the ESV with Strong’s number.  This morning, I tried the same thing with the KJV with Strong’s number, and it went through just fine.

And, sure enough, 1 Samuel 1:11 does have the same Hebrew word for “vow” as is found in Prov. 31:2!  This doesn’t prove that King Lemuel’s mother had been barren before he was born, but it does strengthen the case for this.

How might this interpretation change the way we read King Lemuel’s mother’s instructions to him?  Or would it?

Reply to this e mail with a brief response, and I will give you a few extra-credit points—even if all you say is “I have no idea!”

Here is my e mail reply to a student who replied, but had no idea:

“Well done!  You demonstrate that you actually read my e mails.  I can tell you from bitter experience that not all students do that.

Here is what I suspect:

IF King Lemuel’s mother was indeed (like Hannah) barren before she had her son, and IF she conceived him after she made those vows (as Hannah did), THEN her advice to him about not boozing it up or being a lady’s man takes on an added urgency.  Also, in a positive vein, what King Lemuel is supposed to do (speaking up for those who can’t speak up for themselves and judging fairly) also takes on an added urgency.

It is as if she is saying, “Son, you almost didn’t even exist!  Had it not been for my vows and God’s intervention, you wouldn’t even be around—much less, king!  So, listen to my words well:  Kings don’t need to be self-indulgent, sexually immoral, boozers.  No!  They need to be fair, especially to those who are the most vulnerable.

Make sense?”

Now, of course, the word IF above needs to be given its full value.  Interpretation is not an exact science.  Scholars who pretend it is are not scholars—just pretenders.  But putting these Scriptures together might make sense.

God’s Written Word is wonderful, even in isolation. However, perhaps we should introduce Scriptures to one another, and let them at least date.  Who knows?  They may end up getting married, and having children.  Ultimately, the Bible is both a library of books and one book.