Proverbs 8:35-36

35, 36. That sinneth against me חשׂאי , misses me, taking the word in its primitive sense, which best suits the context, as it stands opposed to those finding or meeting her in the preceding verse.

Wrongeth his own soul חמס נפשׁו , does violence to his own life, commits suicide.

All they that hate me love death That is, their conduct will be their destruction. They love their own evil way which leads to death, and hence, by a bold metaphor, they are represented as loving death itself, as if bent upon their own ruin.

We may appropriately close our notes on this part of the allegory by quoting a writer of the New Testament who, perhaps more than any other writer thereof, wrote in the spirit and style of this book: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men [who ask] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” James 1:5.

ADDENDA. The importance attached to some portions of this chapter justifies a few additional remarks. From the time of the great Arian controversies (4th century) the theologians on both sides generally assumed that the Hhokmah, or Wisdom, of the Proverbs was the same as the Logos of John 1:0. Accordingly, the meaning of the terms in which the Hhokmah was spoken of (Proverbs 8:22, et seq.) became a matter of great moment, of careful scrutiny, and of excited controversy. The Arians, who held that the Son was not properly God, but only the first of creatures, favoured that translation of kanah (Proverbs 8:22) which seems to support their theory, while the orthodox, on the other side, contended for the rendering most accordant with their creed. As usual, each had some authorities on their side. The Arians could appeal to the Septuagint, Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic, all of which translated the word by a term corresponding to our word created, founded, etc., while Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Vulgate, rendered it by possessed. Modern criticism is about as much divided as was the ancient. There is, however, this difference, that modern critics and theologians do not all think the Hhokmah and the Logos identical. And some, who believe in the supreme divinity of our Lord, as Stuart, do not hesitate to translate the word by created. Nor were the ancients entirely unanimous in regarding the Hhokmah and the Logos as the same, for some of them identified the Hhokmah with the Holy Spirit. Many very sound modern divines regard the Hhokmah as simply the personification of wisdom, considered first in its more general sense, and, secondly, as an attribute of Jehovah. Others, without identifying the Hhokmah and the Logos, regard the poetic pictures of Solomon as the shadowing forth of the New Testament doctrine of the divine Word. “The error of our English exegetical and theological literature,” says Aiken, (in notes on Zockler,) “has been the attempt to force upon it more distinctness and precision in the revelation of the mysteries of the divine nature than is disclosed by fair exegesis. Sometimes it is the doctrine of the Logos that is made to stand out with all the clearness of New Testament announcement; sometimes it is the eternal generation of the Son that Solomon is made the Spirit’s mouthpiece to reveal… We can go no farther than our author (Zockler) has done in discovering here the pre-shadowings of the doctrine of the Logos. We are induced to prefer the still more guarded statement of John Pye Smith, that this beautiful picture cannot be satisfactorily proved to be a designed description of our Saviour’s person; or that of Dr. John Harris: “At all events, while, on the one hand, none can demonstrate that Christ is here directly intended, on the other, none can prove that he is not contemplated, and, perhaps, both will admit that, under certain conditions, language such as that in our text may be justifiably applied to him. One of these conditions is, that the language be not employed argumentatively, or in proof of any thing relating to Christ, but only for the purpose of illustration; and another is, that when so employed it be only adduced to illustrate such views of the Son of God as are already established by such other parts of Scripture as are admitted by the parties addressed.”

The difference of gender between the Hhokmah and the Logos, the former being feminine and the latter masculine, is noteworthy, and, theologically, of deep significance.