Proverbs 10:13

10:13 Wisdom is found in the words ¹  of the discerning person, ² 

but the one who lacks wisdom ³  will be disciplined. ⁴ 

Proverbs 13:2

13:2 From the fruit of his speech ⁵  a person eats good things, ⁶ 

but the faithless ⁷  desire ⁸  the fruit of violence. ⁹ 

Proverbs 14:3

14:3 In ¹⁰  the speech ¹¹  of a fool is a rod for his back, ¹² 

but the words ¹³  of the wise protect them.

Proverbs 16:23

16:23 A wise person’s heart ¹⁴  makes his speech wise ¹⁵ 

and it adds persuasiveness ¹⁶  to his words. ¹⁷ 

Proverbs 26:23

26:23 Like a coating of glaze ¹⁸  over earthenware

are fervent ¹⁹  lips with an evil heart. ²⁰ 

Proverbs 28:23

28:23 The one who reproves ²¹  another ²²  will in the end ²³  find more favor

than the one who flatters ²⁴  with the tongue.

[10:13]  ¹ tn Heb “on the lips” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV). The term “lips” is a metonymy of cause for the words spoken by the lips.

[10:13]  ² tn Heb “the one who is discerning.” The term “discerning” describes someone who is critically perceptive and has understanding. He can be relied on to say things that are wise.

[10:13]  ³ tn Heb “the one lacking of heart.” The noun לֵב (lev, “heart”) functions as a genitive of specification: “lacking in respect to heart.” The term לֵב functions in a figurative sense (metonymy of association) for wisdom because the heart is viewed as the seat of common sense (BDB 524 s.v. 3.a).

[10:13]  ⁴ tn Heb “a rod is for the back of the one lacking heart.” The term שֵׁבֶט (shevet, “rod”) functions figuratively: synecdoche of specific (= rod of discipline) for general (= discipline in general). The term גֵו (gev, “back”) is a synecdoche of part (= back) for the whole (= person as a whole). The back is emphasized because it was the object of physical corporeal discipline. This proverb is not limited in its application to physical corporeal punishment because the consequences of foolishness may come in many forms, physical corporeal discipline being only one form.

[13:2]  ⁵ tn Heb “lips” (so NIV); KJV “mouth.” The term “lips” is a metonymy of cause for what the lips produce: speech.

[13:2]  ⁶ tn Heb “he eats [what is] good.”

[13:2]  ⁷ tn Heb “the desire of the faithless.” The noun “faithless” is a subjective genitive: “the faithless desire….”

[13:2]  ⁸ tn The noun נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, traditionally “soul”) has a broad range of meanings, and here denotes “appetite” (e.g., Ps 17:9; Prov 23:3; Eccl 2:24; Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5; BDB 660 s.v. 5.c) or (2) “desire” (e.g., Deut 12:20; Prov 13:4; 19:8; 21:10; BDB 660 s.v. 6.a).

[13:2]  ⁹ tn Heb “violence.” The phrase “the fruit of” does not appear in the Hebrew but is implied by the parallelism. The term “violence” is probably a metonymy of cause: “violence” represents what violence gains – ill-gotten gains resulting from violent crime. The wicked desire what does not belong to them.

[14:3]  ⁹ tn The preposition בְּ (bet) may denote (1) exchange: “in exchange for” foolish talk there is a rod; or (2) cause: “because of” foolish talk.

[14:3]  ¹⁰ sn The noun פֶּה (peh, “mouth”) functions as a metonymy of cause for what is said (“speech, words, talk”).

[14:3]  ¹¹ tc The MT reads גַּאֲוָה (ga’avah, “pride”) which creates an awkward sense “in the mouth of a fool is a rod of pride” (cf. KJV, ASV). The BHS editors suggest emending the form to גֵּוֹה (“disciplining-rod”) to create tighter parallelism and irony: “in the mouth of a fool is a rod for the back” (e.g., Prov 10:13). What the fools says will bring discipline.

[14:3]  ¹² tn Heb “lips.” The term “lips” is a metonymy of cause, meaning what they say. The wise by their speech will find protection.

[16:23]  ¹³ tn Or “mind” (cf. NCV, NRSV, NLT).

[16:23]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “makes wise his mouth,” with “mouth” being a metonymy of cause for what is said: “speech.”

[16:23]  ¹⁵ sn Those who are wise say wise things. The proverb uses synthetic parallelism: The first line asserts that the wise heart ensures that what is said is wise, and the second line adds that such a person increases the reception of what is said.

[16:23]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “to his lips.” The term “lips” functions as a metonymy of cause for what is said.

[26:23]  ¹⁷ tn The traditional translation of “silver dross” (so KJV, ASV, NASB) never did make much sense because the parallel idea deals with hypocrisy – “fervent lips with an evil heart.” But silver dross would not be used over earthenware – instead it is discarded. Yet the MT clearly has “silver dross” (כֶּסֶף סִיגִים, kesef sigim). Ugaritic turned up a word spsg which means “glaze,” and this found a parallel in Hittite zapzaga[y]a. H. L. Ginsberg repointed the Hebrew text to k’sapsagim, “like glaze,” and this has been adopted by many commentators and recent English versions (e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). The final ם (mem) is then classified as enclitic. See, among others, K. L. Barker, “The Value of Ugaritic for Old Testament Studies,” BSac 133 (1976): 128-29.

[26:23]  ¹⁸ tn The word translated “fervent” actually means “burning, glowing”; the LXX has “flattering lips” (as if from חָלַק [khalaq] rather than דָּלַק [dalaq]).

[26:23]  ¹⁹ sn The analogy fits the second line very well. Glaze makes a vessel look beautiful and certainly different from the clay that it actually is. So is one who has evil intent (“heart”) but covers it with glowing speech.

[28:23]  ²¹ tn Or “rebukes” (NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV).

[28:23]  ²² tn Heb “a man,” but the context does not indicate this should be limited only to males.

[28:23]  ²³ tn There is a problem with אַחֲרַי (’akharay), which in the MT reads “after me.” This could be taken to mean “after my instructions,” but that is forced. C. H. Toy suggests simply changing it to “after” or “afterward,” i.e., “in the end” (Proverbs [ICC], 504), a solution most English versions adopt. G. R. Driver suggested an Akkadian cognate ahurru, “common man,” reading “as a rebuker an ordinary man” (“Hebrew Notes,” ZAW 52 [1934]: 147).

[28:23]  ²⁴ tn The construction uses the Hiphil participle מַחֲלִיק (makhaliq, “makes smooth”) followed by the adverbial accusative of means, the metonymy “tongue” – he makes what he says smooth. This will be pleasing for the moment, but it will offer no constructive help like the rebuke would.