Amsal 17:14

17:14 Starting a quarrel ¹  is like letting out water; ² 

stop it before strife breaks out! ³ 

Amsal 18:19

18:19 A relative ⁴  offended ⁵  is harder to reach than ⁶  a strong city,

and disputes are like the barred gates ⁷  of a fortified citadel. ⁸ 

Pengkhotbah 10:12

Words and Works of Wise Men and Fools

10:12 The words of a wise person ⁹  win him ¹⁰  favor, ¹¹ 

but the words ¹²  of a fool are self-destructive. ¹³ 

Matius 12:25

12:25 Now when Jesus ¹⁴  realized what they were thinking, he said to them, ¹⁵  “Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, ¹⁶  and no town or house divided against itself will stand.

Galatia 5:15

5:15 However, if you continually bite and devour one another, ¹⁷  beware that you are not consumed ¹⁸  by one another.

[17:14]  ¹ tn Heb “the beginning of a quarrel”; TEV, CEV “The start of an argument.”

[17:14]  ² tn The verse simply begins with “letting out water.” This phrase is a metaphor, but most English versions have made it a simile (supplying “like” or “as”). R. N. Whybray takes it literally and makes it the subject of the clause: “stealing water starts a quarrel” (Proverbs [CBC], 100). However, the verb more likely means “to let out, set free” and not “to steal,” for which there are clearer words.

[17:14]  sn The image involves a small leak in a container or cistern that starts to spurt out water. The problem will get worse if it is not stopped. Strife is like that.

[17:14]  tc The LXX has “The outpouring of words is the beginning of strife.” This would make it a warning against thoughtless talk.

[17:14]  ³ tn The temporal clause is formed with the prepositional “before,” the infinitive construct, and the following subjective genitive. The verb גָּלַע (gala’) means “to expose; to lay bare,” and in the Hitpael “to disclose oneself; to break out.”

[18:19]  ⁴ tn Heb “brother,” but this is not limited to actual siblings (cf. NRSV “an ally”; CEV, NLT “friend”).

[18:19]  ⁵ tn The Niphal participle from פָּשַׁע (pasha’) modifies “brother”: a brother transgressed, offended, sinned against.

[18:19]  ⁶ tc The LXX has a clear antithetical proverb here: “A brother helped is like a stronghold, but disputes are like bars of a citadel.” Accordingly, the editors of BHS propose מוֹשִׁיעַ (moshia’) instead of נִפְשָׁע (nifsha’, so also the other versions and the RSV). But since both lines use the comparison with a citadel (fortified/barred), the antithesis is problematic.

[18:19]  tn The phrase “is harder to reach” is supplied in the translation on the basis of the comparative מִן (min). It is difficult to get into a fortified city; it is more difficult to reach an offended brother.

[18:19]  ⁷ tn Heb “bars,” but this could be understood to mean “taverns,” so “barred gates” is employed in the translation.

[18:19]  ⁸ sn The proverb is talking about changing a friend or a relative into an enemy by abuse or strife – the bars go up, as it were. And the “walls” that are erected are not easily torn down.

[10:12]  ⁹ tn Heb “of a wise man’s mouth.”

[10:12]  ¹⁰ tn The phrase “win him” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[10:12]  ¹¹ tn Or “are gracious.” The antithetical parallelism suggests that חֵן (khen) does not denote “gracious character” but “[gain] favor” (e.g., Gen 39:21; Exod 3:21; 11:3; 12:36; Prov 3:4, 34; 13:15; 22:1; 28:23; Eccl 9:11); cf. HALOT 332 s.v. חֵן 2; BDB 336 s.v. חֵן 2. The LXX, on the other hand, rendered חֶן with χάρις (caris, “gracious”). The English versions are divided: “are gracious” (KJV, YLT, ASV, NASB, NIV) and “win him favor” (NEB, RSV, NRSV, NAB, MLB, NJPS, Moffatt).

[10:12]  ¹² tn Heb “lips.”

[10:12]  ¹³ tn Heb “consume him”; or “engulf him.” The verb I בלע (“to swallow”) creates a striking wordplay on the homonymic root II בלע (“to speak eloquently”; HALOT 134-35 s.v בלע). Rather than speaking eloquently (II בלע, “to speak eloquently”), the fool utters words that are self-destructive (I בלע, “to swallow, engulf”).

[12:25]  ¹⁴ tc The majority of mss read ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo Ihsous, “Jesus”), which clarifies who is the subject of the sentence. Although the shorter text is attested in far fewer witnesses (̲¹ א B D 892* sy^s,c sa bo), both the pedigree of the mss and the strong internal evidence (viz., scribes were not prone to intentionally delete the name of Jesus) argue for the omission of Jesus’ name. The name has been included in the translation, however, for clarity.

[12:25]  ¹⁵ sn Jesus here demonstrated the absurdity of the thinking of the religious leaders who maintained that he was in league with Satan and that he actually derived his power from the devil. He first teaches (vv. 25-28) that if he casts out demons by the ruler of the demons, then in reality Satan is fighting against himself, with the result that his kingdom has come to an end. He then teaches (v. 29) about tying up the strong man to prove that he does not need to align himself with the devil because he is more powerful. Jesus defeated Satan at his temptation (4:1-11) and by his exorcisms he clearly demonstrated himself to be stronger than the devil. The passage reveals the desperate condition of the religious leaders, who in their hatred for Jesus end up attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan (a position for which they will be held accountable, 12:31-32).

[12:25]  ¹⁶ tn Or “is left in ruins.”

[5:15]  ¹⁷ tn That is, “if you are harming and exploiting one another.” Paul’s metaphors are retained in most modern translations, but it is possible to see the meanings of δάκνω and κατεσθίω (daknw and katesqiw, L&N 20.26 and 88.145) as figurative extensions of the literal meanings of these terms and to translate them accordingly. The present tenses here are translated as customary presents (“continually…”).

[5:15]  ¹⁸ tn Or “destroyed.”