The Hebrew of this verse is problematic because it begins with the personal pronoun “I,” which seems to have no connection with the verse. Some of the versions take the Hebrew as the direct object marker rather than the pronoun. This suggestion has merit, since the king’s command does function as the direct object of the verb Keep. However, if this were the correct reading, we might expect to find the definite article in Hebrew, but it is not present. Another suggestion is that we add the verbal phrase “I said” to the beginning of the verse, making it correspond with 2.1, 15. Gordis points out that there is a rabbinic expression in which the pronoun “I” serves as the phrase “I said.” This allows us to make more sense out of the text without resorting to a change in the Hebrew, so this view is preferred. A footnote similar to that of Revised Standard Version or Good News Translation should be included (see below). In many languages expressions such as “I say” serve as discourse markers indicating a change of subject. In others they are a way of emphasizing a statement or personalizing it. The expression can be rendered literally, or an equivalent expression can be substituted, such as “My advice [to you] is to….”
Keep is the imperative of the verb used previously in 5.1. It calls a person to be cautious and careful about what they do. It can also apply to keeping the Law or obeying other instructions. It is this second sense that is the more appropriate here, illustrated well in Good News Translation, “Do what the king says.” Alternatively we can use the form “Obey….”
The king’s command is literally “[the] mouth of [the] king.” “Mouth” must refer to what the king says (as in Gen 45.21), though in another context it may denote what is eaten (as mentioned in the comments on 5.2). This metaphorical use of the word “mouth” is actually found in many languages, in which case it can be used, thus preserving the form and the meaning of the original. Where kingship is a foreign notion, then “ruler” or some equivalent hereditary leader may be substituted. Command, though singular in form, is a collective noun representing all the king says. It may be rendered as “orders,” “demands,” or we can even use a verbal phrase as Good News Translation does, “what the king says.” This clause can also be expressed as a time clause, “When the king speaks, obey him” or “When the king speaks, be careful to do what he says.”
Because of your sacred oath begins with a late Hebrew expression used only here and in 3.18 (“with regard to”) and Psa 110.4 (“after the order of”). Here it means “for the sake of” and so tells the readers why they should obey the king. Good News Translation includes part of verse 3 in verse 2 and so misses this important logical connection. Your sacred oath is an unusual expression. Traditionally there have been two meanings suggested. The phrase is literally “the oath of God” (with no personal suffix your) and may describe the oath of loyalty given by the people to the king when he was enthroned. In this case the word “God” can be treated as an adjective “divine” or “sacred,” such as “[your] sacred oath.” This view understands the oath as that made by the people before God and in the king’s presence. It is also the view reflected in Revised Standard Version when it adds the pronoun your. The other traditional view is that God has sworn an oath to defend the king. Psa 89.19-21, which speaks of God choosing the king and anointing him as ruler, is evidence of this tradition associated with the kingship of David and his descendants. Although there are difficulties at times in fixing the precise meaning of the Hebrew genitive, of the two proposed meanings only one seems to fit the grammar of the verse comfortably, namely, “the oath that God makes.” In translating the term sacred (Hebrew “of God”), we can suggest “that God has made.” This agrees with the view that it is the promises God made to the family of David (2 Sam 7) that are in mind here. New English Bible “swear by God” seems to suggest that when the vow is made, it is made in God’s name. This is different again from the two meanings suggested above.
An oath is a solemn promise. When making an oath a person requests to be punished by the witnesses if the oath is not kept. See comments on “vow” in 5.4. Here it is God who has made the promise to support the king, so translation possibilities are “the promise God made” or “what God promised.” If the concept of a promise or vow cannot be formally expressed in the translator’s language, then we can use the verb “say”: “because of what God said he would do for the king.”
Following the interpretation we suggest, the translator should try to make this important point clear: God has a special relationship with the king, so he (the king) must be obeyed:
• Obey the king, because God has made an oath to him!
• I say,* when the king speaks, be careful to obey him, because God has made a promise to him.
• I say,* obey the king’s commands, because God has made an oath to him.
We can then add a footnote on the verb “say,” stating:
*The verb “say” is not in the Hebrew text. The pronoun “I” was sometimes used to mean “I say” when introducing a quotation.
Be not dismayed: in Hebrew this negative imperative begins verse 3, but in some texts of the Septuagint it is placed at the end of verse 2. This latter is the text followed by Revised Standard Version. Good News Translation “Do not make any rash promises” also retains it within verse 2. Weight of evidence, however, supports placing it at the beginning of verse 3. See below for discussion.
Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Zogbo, Lynell. A Handbook on the Book of Ecclesiates. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .