Amsal 12:22-23

12:22 The Lord ¹  abhors a person who lies, ² 

but those who deal truthfully ³  are his delight. ⁴ 

12:23 The shrewd person ⁵  conceals ⁶  knowledge,

but foolish people ⁷  publicize folly. ⁸ 

Amsal 15:2

15:2 The tongue of the wise ⁹  treats knowledge correctly, ¹⁰ 

but the mouth of the fool spouts out ¹¹  folly.

Amsal 21:24

21:24 A proud ¹²  and arrogant ¹³  person, whose name is “Scoffer,” ¹⁴ 

acts ¹⁵  with overbearing pride. ¹⁶ 

Mazmur 112:5

112:5 It goes well for the one ¹⁷  who generously lends money,

and conducts his business honestly. ¹⁸ 

Yesaya 52:13

The Lord Will Vindicate His Servant

52:13 “Look, my servant will succeed! ¹⁹ 

He will be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted ²⁰  –

Matius 10:16

Persecution of Disciples

10:16 “I ²¹  am sending you out like sheep surrounded by wolves, ²²  so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

Roma 16:19

16:19 Your obedience is known to all and thus I rejoice over you. But I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil.

Roma 16:1

Personal Greetings

16:1 Now I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant ²³  of the church in Cenchrea,

Kolose 1:20

1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, ²⁴  whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Efesus 5:17

5:17 For this reason do not be foolish, but be wise ²⁵  by understanding ²⁶  what the Lord’s will is.

[12:22]  ¹ tn Heb “an abomination of the Lord.” The term יְהוָה (yÿhvah, “the Lord”) is a subjective genitive.

[12:22]  ² tn Heb “lips of lying.” The genitive שָׁקֶר (shaqer, “lying”) functions as an attributive genitive: “lying lips.” The term “lips” functions as a synecdoche of part (= lips) for the whole (= person): “a liar.”

[12:22]  ³ tn Heb “but doers of truthfulness.” The term “truthfulness” is an objective genitive, meaning: “those who practice truth” or “those who act in good faith.” Their words and works are reliable.

[12:22]  ⁴ sn The contrast between “delight/pleasure” and “abomination” is emphatic. What pleases the Lord is acting truthfully or faithfully.

[12:23]  ⁵ tn Heb “a shrewd man” (so NAB); KJV, NIV “a prudent man”; NRSV “One who is clever.”

[12:23]  sn A shrewd person knows how to use knowledge wisely, and restrains himself from revealing all he knows.

[12:23]  ⁶ sn The term כֹּסֶה (koseh, “covers; hides”) does not mean that he never shares his knowledge, but discerns when it is and is not appropriate to speak.

[12:23]  ⁷ tn Heb “the heart of fools.” The term לֵב (lev, “heart”) functions as a synecdoche of part (= heart) for the whole (= person): “foolish people.” This type of fool despises correction and instruction. His intent is to proclaim all that he does – which is folly. W. McKane says that the more one speaks, the less likely he is able to speak effectively (Proverbs [OTL], 422). Cf. TEV “stupid people advertise their ignorance”; NLT “fools broadcast their folly.”

[12:23]  ⁸ sn The noun אִוֶּלֶת (’ivvelet, “foolishness; folly”) is the antithesis of perception and understanding. It is related to the noun אֱוִּיל (’evvil, “fool”), one who is morally bad because he despises wisdom and discipline, mocks at guilt, is licentious and quarrelsome, and is almost impossible to rebuke.

[15:2]  ⁹ sn The contrast is between the “tongue of the wise” and the “mouth of the fool.” Both expressions are metonymies of cause; the subject matter is what they say. How wise people are can be determined from what they say.

[15:2]  ¹⁰ tn Or “makes knowledge acceptable” (so NASB). The verb תֵּיטִיב (tetiv, Hiphil imperfect of יָטַב [yatav, “to be good”]) can be translated “to make good” or “to treat in a good [or, excellent] way” (C. H. Toy, Proverbs [ICC], 303). M. Dahood, however, suggests emending the text to תֵּיטִיף (tetif) which is a cognate of נָטַף (nataf, “drip”), and translates “tongues of the sages drip with knowledge” (Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology, 32-33). But this change is gratuitous and unnecessary.

[15:2]  ¹¹ sn The Hiphil verb יַבִּיעַ (yabia’) means “to pour out; to emit; to cause to bubble; to belch forth.” The fool bursts out with reckless utterances (cf. TEV “spout nonsense”).

[21:24]  ¹² tn The word זֵד (zed, “proud”) comes from the verb זִיד (zid, “to boil up; to seethe; to act proudly [or, presumptuously].” Just as water boiling up in a pot will boil over, so the presumptuous person “oversteps” the boundaries.

[21:24]  ¹³ tn The word יָהִיר (yahir) means “haughty,” that is, to be or show oneself to be presumptuous or arrogant.

[21:24]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “proud haughty scorner his name” (KJV similar). There are several ways that the line could be translated: (1) “Proud, arrogant – his name is scoffer” or (2) “A proud person, an arrogant person – ‘Scoffer’ is his name.” BDB 267 s.v. זֵד suggests, “A presumptuous man, [who is] haughty, scoffer is his name.”

[21:24]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “does.” The Qal active participle “does” serves as the main verb, and the subject is “proud person” in the first line.

[21:24]  ¹⁶ tn The expression בְּעֶבְרַת זָדוֹן (be’evrat zadon) means “in the overflow of insolence.” The genitive specifies what the overflow is; the proud deal in an overflow of pride. Cf. NIV “overweening pride”; NLT “boundless arrogance.”

[21:24]  sn The portrait in this proverb is not merely of one who is self-sufficient, but one who is insolent, scornful, and arrogant.

[112:5]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “man.”

[112:5]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “he sustains his matters with justice.”

[52:13]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “act wisely,” which by metonymy means “succeed.”

[52:13]  ²⁰ tn This piling up of synonyms emphasizes the degree of the servant’s coming exaltation.

[10:16]  ²¹ tn Grk “Behold I.” The Greek word ἰδού (idou) has not been translated because it has no exact English equivalent here, but adds interest and emphasis (BDAG 468 s.v. 1).

[10:16]  ²² sn This imagery of wolves is found in intertestamental Judaism; see Pss. Sol. 8:23, 30.

[16:1]  ²³ tn Or “deaconess.” It is debated whether διάκονος (diakonos) here refers to a specific office within the church. One contextual argument used to support this view is that Phoebe is associated with a particular church, Cenchrea, and as such would therefore be a deacon of that church. In the NT some who are called διάκονος are related to a particular church, yet the scholarly consensus is that such individuals are not deacons, but “servants” or “ministers” (other viable translations for διάκονος). For example, Epaphras is associated with the church in Colossians and is called a διάκονος in Col 1:7, but no contemporary translation regards him as a deacon. In 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a διάκονος; Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus, but he obviously was not a deacon. In addition, the lexical evidence leans away from this view: Within the NT, the διακον- word group rarely functions with a technical nuance. In any case, the evidence is not compelling either way. The view accepted in the translation above is that Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a deaconess, although this conclusion should be regarded as tentative.

[1:20]  ²⁴ tc The presence or absence of the second occurrence of the phrase δι᾿ αὐτοῦ (di’ autou, “through him”) is a difficult textual problem to solve. External evidence is fairly evenly divided. Many ancient and excellent witnesses lack the phrase (B D* F G I 0278 81 1175 1739 1881 2464 al latt sa), but equally important witnesses have it (Ì⁴⁶ א A C D¹ Ψ 048^vid 33 Ï). Both readings have strong Alexandrian support, which makes the problem difficult to decide on external evidence alone. Internal evidence points to the inclusion of the phrase as original. The word immediately preceding the phrase is the masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou); thus the possibility of omission through homoioteleuton in various witnesses is likely. Scribes might have deleted the phrase because of perceived redundancy or awkwardness in the sense: The shorter reading is smoother and more elegant, so scribes would be prone to correct the text in that direction. As far as style is concerned, repetition of key words and phrases for emphasis is not foreign to the corpus Paulinum (see, e.g., Rom 8:23, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 12:7). In short, it is easier to account for the shorter reading arising from the longer reading than vice versa, so the longer reading is more likely original.

[5:17]  ²⁵ tn “become wise by understanding”; Grk “understanding.” The imperative “be wise” is apparently implied by the construction of vv. 15-21. See the following text-critical note for discussion.

[5:17]  ²⁶ tc ‡ The best witnesses read the imperative here (so Ì⁴⁶ א A B P 0278 33 81 1739 pc). The participle is found primarily in the Western and Byzantine texttypes (D² Ψ 1881 Ï latt [D* F G are slightly different, but support the participial reading]). But the participle is superior on internal grounds: The structure of v. 17 almost requires an imperative after ἀλλά (alla), for this gives balance to the clause: “Do not become foolish, but understand…” If the participle is original, it may be imperatival (and thus should be translated just like an imperative), but such is quite rare in the NT. More likely, there is an implied imperative as follows: “Do not become foolish, but become wise, understanding what the will of the Lord is.” Either way, the participle is the harder reading and ought therefore to be considered original. It is significant that seeing an implied imperative in this verse affords a certain symmetry to the author’s thought in vv. 15-21: There are three main sections (vv. 15-16, v. 17, vv. 18-21), each of which provides a negative injunction, followed by a positive injunction, followed by a present adverbial participle. If συνίετε (suniete) is original, this symmetry is lost. Thus, even though the external evidence for συνιέντες (sunientes) is not nearly as weighty as for the imperative, both the transcriptional and intrinsic evidence support it.