(0.22) | (Psa 5:9) | 5 tn Heb “they make smooth their tongue.” Flattering, deceitful words are in view. See Ps 12:2. The psalmist’s deceitful enemies are compared to the realm of death/Sheol in v. 9b. Sheol was envisioned as a dark region within the earth, the entrance to which was the grave with its steep slopes (cf. Ps 88:4-6). The enemies’ victims are pictured here as slipping down a steep slope (the enemies’ tongues) and falling into an open grave (their throat) that terminates in destruction in the inner recesses of Sheol (their stomach). The enemies’ קֶרֶב (qerev, “inward part”) refers here to their thoughts and motives, which are destructive in their intent. The throat is where these destructive thoughts are transformed into words, and their tongue is what they use to speak the deceitful words that lead their innocent victims to their demise. |
(0.20) | (Luk 1:64) | 3 sn The mention of both mouth and tongue here is a figure called zeugma and emphasizes that the end of the temporary judgment came instantly and fully upon Zechariah’s expression of faith in naming the child. He had learned to trust and obey God during his short period of silence. He had learned from his trial. |
(0.20) | (Mar 7:33) | 3 sn After spitting, he touched his tongue. It was not uncommon in Judaism of the day to associate curative powers with a person’s saliva. The scene as a whole reflects Jesus’ willingness to get close to people and have physical contact with them where appropriate. See W. L. Lane, Mark (NICNT), 267 n. 78. |
(0.20) | (Ecc 1:8) | 4 sn The statement no one can bear to describe it probably means that Qoheleth could have multiplied examples (beyond the sun, the wind, and the streams) of the endless cycle of futile events in nature. However, no tongue could ever tell, no eye could ever see, no ear could ever hear all the examples of this continual and futile activity. |
(0.20) | (Pro 28:23) | 4 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. |
(0.20) | (Pro 26:28) | 2 sn The verse makes it clear that only pain and ruin can come from deception. The statement that the lying tongue “hates those crushed by it” suggests that the sentiments of hatred help the deceiver justify what he says about people. The ruin that he brings is probably on other people, but it could also be taken to include his own ruin. |
(0.20) | (Pro 25:15) | 3 tn The “tongue” is a metonymy of cause; and so the expression here refers to soft or gentle speech. This fits well with the parallel idea of patience (“long of anger”)—through a calm patient persuasion much can be accomplished. Some English versions relate this figure directly to the persuasion of a ruler in the previous line (cf. TEV “can even convince rulers”). |
(0.20) | (Pro 18:20) | 1 sn Two harvest images, fruit (from trees) and produce (from field crops), are applied to speech, represented by the mouth and lips. The “mouth” and the “lips” are metonymies of cause, with both lines indicating that speech is productive. The following verse about harvest of the tongue may be part of this proverb. |
(0.20) | (Pro 13:3) | 3 sn Tight control over what one says prevents trouble (e.g., Prov 10:10; 17:28; Jas 3:1-12; Sir 28:25). Amenemope advises to “sleep a night before speaking” (5:15; ANET 422, n. 10). The old Arab proverb is appropriate: “Take heed that your tongue does not cut your throat” (O. Zockler, Proverbs, 134). |
(0.20) | (Pro 12:19) | 1 tn Heb “a lip of truth.” The genitive אֱמֶת (ʾemet, “truth”) functions as an attributive adjective: “truthful lip.” The term שְׂפַת (sefat, “lip”) functions as a synecdoche of part (= lip) for the whole (= person): “truthful person.” The contrast is between “the lip of truth” and the “tongue of lying.” |
(0.20) | (Pro 10:20) | 1 tn Heb “the lips of the righteous.” The term “lips” functions as a metonymy of cause for speech. This contrasts the tongue (metonymy of cause for what they say) with the heart (metonymy of subject for what they intend). What the righteous say is more valuable than what the wicked intend. |
(0.20) | (Psa 55:9) | 1 tn Traditionally בַּלַּע (balaʿ) has been taken to mean “swallow” in the sense of “devour” or “destroy” (cf. KJV), but this may be a homonym meaning “confuse” (see BDB 118 s.v. בַּלַּע; HALOT 135 s.v. III *בֶּלַע). “Their tongue” is the understood object of the verb (see the next line). |
(0.20) | (Psa 37:30) | 1 tn Heb “The mouth of the godly [one] utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice.” The singular form is used in a representative sense; the typical godly individual is in view. The imperfect verbal forms draw attention to the characteristic behavior of the godly. |
(0.20) | (Job 41:1) | 3 tn The verb שָׁקַע (shaqaʿ) means “to cause to sink,” if it is connected with the word in Amos 8:8 and 9:5. But it may have the sense of “to tie; to bind.” If the rope were put around the tongue and jaw, binding tightly would be the sense. |
(0.20) | (Jdg 13:17) | 1 tn Heb “Who your name? For [when] your word comes [to pass], we will honor you.” Manoah apparently gets tongue-tied and uses the wrong pronoun (“who” instead of “what”). He starts to say, “Who are you?” But then he switches to “your name” as if he began the sentence with “what.” See R. G. Boling, Judges (AB), 222. |
(0.20) | (Jos 18:19) | 2 tn Heb “to the tongue of the Salt Sea to the north, to the end of the Jordan to the south.” The word “River” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity (also in the following verse). |
(0.20) | (Exo 4:14) | 4 sn Now Yahweh, in condescending to Moses, selects something that Moses (and God) did not really need for the work. It is as if he were saying: “If Moses feels speaking ability is so necessary (rather than the divine presence), then that is what he will have.” Of course, this golden-tongued Aaron had some smooth words about how the golden calf was forged! |
(0.18) | (1Jo 3:18) | 1 sn The noun truth here has been interpreted in various ways: (1) There are a number of interpreters who understand the final noun in this series, truth (ἀληθείᾳ, alētheia) in an adverbial sense (“truly” or “in sincerity”), describing the way in which believers are to love. If the two pairs of nouns are compared, however, it is hard to see how the second noun with tongue (γλώσσῃ, glōssē) in the first pair can have an adverbial sense. (2) It seems better to understand the first noun in each pair as produced by the second noun: Words are produced by the tongue, and the (righteous) deeds with which believers are to love one another are produced by the truth. |
(0.18) | (Isa 30:28) | 1 tn Heb “his breath is like a flooding river.” This might picture the Lord breathing heavily as he runs down his enemy, but in light of the preceding verse, which mentions his lips and tongue, “breath” probably stands metonymically for the word or battle cry that he expels from his mouth as he shouts. In Isa 34:16 and Ps 33:6 the Lord’s “breath” is associated with his command. |
(0.18) | (Sos 8:9) | 5 sn An interesting semantic parallel involving the “door/bar” motif in ancient Near Eastern texts comes from an Assyrian charm against an enemy: “If he is a door, I will open your mouth; but if he is a bar, I will open your tongue.” Obviously, the line in the Song is not an incantation; the formula is used in a love motif. Cited by J. Ebeling, “Aus dem Tagewerk eines assyrischen Zauberpriesters,” MAOG 5 (1931): 19. |