Michael Fox and Proverbs 2:6 (Fear of God)

From Michael V. Fox, "The Pedagogy of Proverbs 2," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 113, No. 2 (Summer, 1994): pp. 233-243.

"(2:6) 'For the Lord grants wisdom,/ at his behest come knowledge and good sense.' Verse 6 alludes to a stage prior to v. 5: the finding of wisdom, which produces the understanding promised in v.5. Wisdom engenders mature piety because God is the source of wisdom, and in seeking it you are in effect seeking him. Modern commentators agree that v. 6 does not imply verbal revelation, for God is never quoted in instructional wisdom literature.'2 The verse refers either to the granting of wisdom to the world as a divine gift or (more likely) to the bestowal of the faculty of wisdom on an individual. Wisdom both starts with fear of God (1:7;9:10)and leads to it. If the child does his part- the other parties will obviously do theirs- his fear of God will move to a higher stage, as described in this chapter. The simple fear of divine anger that prompted the first juvenile steps toward wisdom matures into a reasoned, cognitive conscience. Hence fear of God at this stage is the object of understanding (2:5a) and is defined by the parallel as a form of knowledge (2:5b).'3 With wisdom, fear of God becomes conscience, an inner sense of right and wrong and a desire to do what is right. (The history of the word 'conscience'-it derives from Latin conscientia, 'deep knowledge,' and originally meant consciousness or inner, unverbalized, thought-nicely points to the cognitive basis of conscience and suggests how the fear and the knowledge of God can be parallel, as in 2:5.) The fear of God, in Dermot Cox's words, is 'a form of conscience that calls for an intellectual adhesion to a principle, the divine order, the concept of goodness of life, and this is a guarantee of 'success'. . .. [I]t is a state of mind, not an action; it is almost synonymous with knowledge (especially in Prov 1-9)'14 Cox's definition is valid for the advanced stage of development."

Short Note on Michael the Archangel

The ancient texts of Judaism generally depict Michael as one of the holy angels of God, in fact, an/the chief angel. And Darrell L. Bock's book Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism provides sufficient evidence to buttress this idea on pp. 165-169. He supplies evidence that Michael was generally thought to be an angel (i.e., spirit being).

Interestingly, Michael is called ARXISTRATHGOS in 3 Bar. 11-16. See also TAbr 1:4A; TMos 10:2.

Isaiah 53 and the Suffering Servant of YHWH

In Matt. 8:14-17, Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law, then he expelled demons and "cured all who fared badly." After reporting these events, Matthew applied Isa. 53:4 to Jesus: "He himself took our sicknesses and carried our diseases" (Matt. 8:17 NWT).

"Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isa. 53:4 KJV).

"But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men; [he was] a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for his face is turned from [us]: he was dishonoured, and not esteemed. He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction" (Isa. 53:3-4 LXX).

"by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear
their iniquities" (Isa. 53:11 KJV).

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus bore the sicknesses and sorrows of humanity when he cured infirm persons. His bearing their sicknesses did not mean that he literally took their pains upon him; he simply relieved them of their spiritual and physical burdens. I think the same principle can apply to 1 Pet. 2:24.

"The theme of one suffering on behalf of the sins of others is repeated in
Isa. 53:4, 5, 11, 12. Matthew interprets Isa. 53:4 LXX ('He bears our sins
and is pained for us') as referring both to spiritual and physical sickness
(Matt. 8:17), and Peter is adopting a similar line [in 1 Pet. 2:24]. In the
Talmud, Isa. 53:4 is taken to mean that Messiah is "the Leprous One" and the 'Sick One' (b. Sanh. 98b) . . . In the OT, to 'bear iniquity' (Lev. 5:17; Num. 14:34 RSV) means to suffer the penalty of its consequences" (Scott, James. 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 90).

I might need to correct the reference to James Scott. Someone else might have penned the commentary I quote.

Yes, John 17:3 Does Define "Everlasting Life" (W. Hall Harris)

After researching the matter, and consulting a number of sources, I would say that it seems that John 17:3 defines everlasting life. Here is one commentary on the passage:

"to introduce an explanation is typical Johannine style; it was used before in 1:19, 3:19, and 15:12. The Evangelist here defines 'eternal life' for the readers. It is not just unending life in the sense of prolonged duration. Rather it is a quality of life, with its qualitativeness derived from a relationship with God. Having eternal life is here defined as being in relationship with the Father, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. Cristov is not characteristically attached to Jesus' name in the Fourth Gospel; it occurs elsewhere primarily as a title and is used with Jesus' name only in 1:17. But that is connected to its use here: the statement here in 17:3 enables us to correlate the statement made in 1:18 of the Prologue, that Jesus has fully revealed what God is like, with Jesus' statement in 10:10 that he has come that people might have life, and have it abundantly. These two purposes are really one, according to 17:3, because (abundant) eternal life is defined as knowing (being in relationship with) the Father and the Son. The only way to gain this eternal life, that is, to obtain this knowledge of the Father, is through the Son (cf. 14:6). Although some have pointed to the use of ginwvskw here as evidence of Gnostic influence in the Gospel, there is a crucial difference: for John this knowledge is not intellectual, but relational. It involves being in relationship."

While I'm not endorsing his comments as a whole here, a number of commentators and Johannine scholars would agree that Jesus (through John's writing) is defining everlasting/eternal life in this verse. On the other hand, Witnesses also say that John 17:3 stipulates how one might obtain life eternal, namely, by knowing Jehovah and his Son.

See https://bible.org/seriespage/20-exegetical-commentary-john-17

Matthew, Luke and Birds/Ravens

"Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?" (Matthew 6:26 ESV)

"Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds!" (Luke 12:24 ESV)

Interesting how Luke specifically mentions "ravens" in his account of Jesus' exhortation. A word study of the term "raven" (as used in the Bible) is also enlightening. Furthermore, Matthew here calls God "heavenly Father," but Luke just uses "God."

See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003651?q=ravens&p=par

http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/R/raven.html

Cry of Dereliction

In his commentary on Acts, Professor Richard Longenecker makes this comment about Acts 2:25:

"It should be remembered that only Luke among the synoptists omitted the cry of dereliction from the cross: 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34); and only Luke has included the more filial, final word: 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit' (Luke 23:46). Both the omission and the inclusion are in line with the quotation of Ps 16:8 here [in Acts 2:25]: 'I saw the Lord always [DIA PANTOS] before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken'" (Longenecker 77-78).

It is possible that Jesus' cry of dereliction could be understood in the light of Ps. 22:1ff; John 8:29; 16:32. Based on the Johannine passages, it seems highly unlikely that the Father was ever spiritually separated from His beloved Son as some claim. For example, "In these words Christ, when hanging on the cross, complained, that he was deprived, for a time, of the loving presence and comforting influence of his heavenly Father" (Benson Commentary)

Moreover, one should not infer that Jesus was mistaken in his cry--the key to what Jesus meant is echoed in Ps. 22:1:

"My God, my God . . . why are you far from saving me?" (NWT)

According to this fateful OT writing, God Jehovah forsook the Son in that he allowed his enemies to kill the Messiah. God did not intervene when His Son was being put to death though it undoubtedly pained the Father greatly to see His Son executed as a common criminal (Isa. 63:9). Prophetically the Son said, "O my God, I keep calling by day, and you do not answer" (Ps. 22:2 NWT). Additionally he prayed:

"I am a worm, and not a man, A reproach to men and despicable to the people" (Ps. 22:6).

Psalm 22 indicates that the Son was "abandoned" in the sense that Jehovah did not deliver Christ from his [the Son's] adversaries; He lovingly allowed the Son to die so that Christ might taste death for every man and woman (Heb. 2:9). Yet while God allowed the Messiah to suffer, He was still with the Son by empowering and supporting him through an extremely ignominious and painful trial (John 16:32).

When commenting upon the "cry of dereliction," William Barclay posits three possible meanings:

(1) Jesus repeated the words of the Psalm as a "song of trust and confidence" (a view held by Dibelius and others). In support of this view, read Ps. 22:3-5, 20-31.

(2) The weight of the world's sins came upon Jesus (2 Cor. 5:21). I would be glad to elaborate upon 2 Cor. 5:21 later to show why I tend to disagree with this possibility.

(3) Jesus was showing his communion with humans. Just as we may sometimes feel that God has forsaken us, even when He clearly has not, so Jesus descended to the proverbial "depths of despair" and felt that God had abandoned him. Cf. Heb. 5:7, 8, however.

While all of these views are quite possible, I find the previous explanation to be most compelling. In light of Ps. 22 and the Gospel of John, the Father only forsook Jesus by allowing him to be put to death. That's my "humble opinion."

More Johannine Comma Quotes

In the original Interpreter's Bible, which can be found in about any county library, the following is stated concerning 1 John 5:7ff:

"This verse in the KJV is to be rejected (with RSV). It appears in no
ancient Greek MS nor is it cited by any Greek fathers; of all the
versions only the Latin contained it, and even this in none of its most
ancient sources. The earliest MSS of the Vulg. do not have it. As [CH]
Dodd (Johannine Epistles, p. 127n) reminds us, "It is first quoted as a
part of 1 John by Priscillian, the Spanish heretic, who died in 385,
and it gradually made its way into MSS of the Latin Vulgate until it
was accepted as part of the authorized Latin text." The mention in the
true text (vs. 8) of the three witnesses which agree naturally led to
an interpretation along trinitarian lines, and this occasioned the
present gloss which appears in various forms in MSS and quotations from
the fifth century onward" (293-294).

One of the translators of the NIV also writes the following about 1
John 5:7:

"Anyone who uses a recent scholarly version of the NT will see that
these words on the Trinity are not in verse 7. This is because they
have no basis in the Greek text. Under Roman Catholic pressure, Erasmus
inserted them from the Latin Vulgate. They are not a part of the
inspired Bible" (Ralph Earle, Word Meanings in the NT, p. 452).

Another authority states:

"We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words
were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into
Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a
pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into
two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek
text, a place to which they had no rightful claim" (A Plain
Introduction to the Criticism of the NT. Cambridge: 1883, 3rd Ed. P.
654. Comments made by FHA Scrivener).

Robert M. Grant makes this comment about 1 John 5:6-8:

"To this mysterious but not theologically useful passage a Spanish
Pricillianist in the late fourth century added explicitly trinitarian
language so that it would mention three witnesses 'on earth' and end
thus: 'And there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Spirit, and these three are one.' The addition is suitable in a
Johannine context, for it refers to the Logos as John does and is
ultimately based on 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30).
Unfortunately it is not genuine, since it appears in no old manuscript
or versions or in any early [church] fathers" (Gods and the One God, p. 151).

I would also advise you to read William Barclay's commentary on 1 John and Raymond Brown's extensive treatment of the subject in his Anchor Bible Commentary.

BDAG on Genea

I'm just comparing what different lexicons say about genea.

Augustine's City of God XIII.1 (Duncan)

Duncan writes:

In City of God, Book XIII, Ch. 1, Augustine wrote,

Having disposed of the very difficult questions concerning the origin of our world and the beginning of the human race, the natural order requires that we now discuss the fall of the first man (we may say of the first men), and of the origin and propagation of human death. For God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that, even though they had sinned, they could none the more die. He had so made them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence—which, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book.

Any scriptural basis for these types of conclusions?

Reply: I disagree with Augustine on many levels (Trinity, predestination, ecclesiology, etc.) and don't try to defend his theology. However, I wonder which part of this quote raises questions in your mind. That the world originated by means of divine creation and that the human race had a start is not controversial to me, and Genesis 3 details the Fall while Paul confirms this position in the NT (Romans 5:12ff; 1 Cor. 15).

Angels are possibly differentiated from men in Ps 8:4-5ff, but the Bible never predicates immortality of the angels, to my knowledge, unless someone interprets Lk 20:34-6 that way. As for human eternality upon obedience, that could be an implication from Gen 2:16-17 and the last portion of Gen. 3.

Older Short Book Reviews on David Hill and Francis A. Sullivan--Biblical Semantics and Ecclesiology

Two more book recommendations include:

(1) Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the
Semantics of Soteriological Terms. Cambridge
University Press, 1967. (Author) David Hill.

(2) From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the
Episcopacy in the Early Church. New York/Mahwah, N.J.:
Newman Press, 2001. (Author) Francis A. Sullivan.

Hill's main thesis is that biblical Greek (both LXX
and NT) changed the meaning of certain ancient Greek
terms or at least added a new meaning to these words.
Hill attempts to demonstrate this general thesis in
his well-documented work and does a fairly decent job,
it seems. One point that I find of interest in Hill's
study is his willingness to make words the proper
objects of semantic inquiry, "since the word is a
semantic marker, a pointer to a concept or field of
meaning which must be clarified and understood" (Hill,
p. 18). Nevertheless, he also stresses the
importance of taking both the "immediate context" and
the "historical context" of any given word or text
into consideration when performing exegesis or word
studies. In order to understand the terminology of the
GNT, one must also "deal with the meaning of their
[i.e., Greek words] Old Testament Hebrew equivalents"
(ibid, 19).

Francis A. Sullivan's study should interest those who
wonder about apostolic succession or the development
of bishops in the ancient church. Was the transition
from apostles to bishops a deviant move or one
that was faithful to the original intentions of Christ
and his designated apostles? Sullivan, who is Roman
Catholic, looks at the issue quite fairly and makes
concessions that are surprising at times.
Whether one agrees with his conclusion or not, it
seems that Sullivan is a careful, erudite and fair
scholar.

At one point in his study, Sullivan writes:

"As we have seen, the 'great commission' in Matthew
28:19-20 included the command to 'make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' Scholars
generally agree that the trinitarian formula reflects
a later development of baptismal liturgy. On the other
hand, it would be difficult to explain the importance
the New Testament attributes to baptism and its role
as a distinctive sign of Christian initiation if it
were not based on a command given by the risen Christ"
(Apostles to Bishops, p. 35).

In the context of his discussion, Sullivan is
examining the alleged primordiality of the Church's
so-called "sacramental ministry." But the point that I
want to draw attention to now, is what Sullivan says
about the "trinitarian formula" found in Mt 28:19-20.
Of course, I do not agree with this description of the
language found in the Matthean text, but what really
strikes me, however, is Sullivan's view that the
words found in Matthew 28:19-20 are based on
subsequent baptismal practices. I've noticed that
Protestant scholars also tend to believe that 28:19-20, as
it now appears in modern Bibles, is not an authentic
representation of words, which the "historical Jesus" might
have uttered. The words are sometimes not considered ipsissima
verba Christi.

I've never been able to find solid textual evidence that discounts
the originality of the "Great Commission" contained at Matthew 28:19-20.
Yet there have been many who have doubted its genuineness or originality.
I have no problem with the text, as it now stands; maybe some reader has
researched this issue before.

Proverbs 2:5-6ff (Brief Observations from Commentaries)

"then you will understand how to fear the Lord, and you will discover knowledge about God. For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding" (Proverbs 2:5-6 NET Bible).

From Lange's Commentary:

Proverbs 2:5. Then wilt thou understand the fear of Jehovah.— “Understand” is here equivalent to taking something to one’s self as a spiritual possession, like the “finding” in the second clause, or like δέχεσθαι [“receiveth”] in 1 Cor. 2:14. The “fear of Jehovah” (comp. 1:7) is here clearly presented as the highest good and most valuable possession of man (comp. Is. 33:6), evidently because of its imperishable nature (Ps. 19:9), and its power to deliver in trouble (Prov. 14:26; Ps. 115:11; Ecclesiast. 1:11 sq.; 2:7 sq.).—And find knowledge of God.—Knowledge of God is here put not merely as a parallel idea to the “fear of Jehovah” (as in Proverbs 9:10; Is. 11:2), but it expresses a fruit and result of the fear of Jehovah, as the substance of the following causal proposition in Proverbs 2:6–8 indicates. Comp. the dogmatical and ethical comments. [Is the substitution of Elohim for Jehovah (in clause 6) a mere rhetorical or poetical variation? WORDSWORTH calls attention to the fact that this is one of five instances in the Book of Proverbs in which God is designated as Elohim, the appellation Jehovah occurring nearly ninety times. The almost singular exception seems then to be intentional, and the meaning will be, the knowledge of “Elohim—as distinguished from the knowledge of man which is of little worth.” In explaining the all but universal use of Jehovah as the name of God in our book, while in Eccles. it never occurs, WORDSWORTH says, “when Solomon wrote the Book of Proverbs he was in a state of favor and grace with Jehovah, the Lord God of Israel; he was obedient to the law of Jehovah; and the special design of the Book of Proverbs is to enforce obedience to that law,” etc. (see Introd. to Eccles., p. 78)—A.].

Here is the Cambridge Bible comment on Proverbs 2:6

6. For] Maurer rightly insists that this and two following verses are not a parenthesis, but an integral part of the main argument; q.d. I said that by diligent search after wisdom thou shouldest attain to the fear of Jehovah and the knowledge of God; and I said so because that knowledge involves the true conception of God, as the Fountain of all wisdom, and the right attitude towards Him of reverent expectation, which like the prophet’s “golden pipes” (Zechariah 4:2) brings your earnest desire to receive into contact with His readiness to give. Comp. James 1:5.

Now here is Peter Pett's observation on Proverbs 2:6-11:

The passage can be presented chiastically:

A For YHWH gives wisdom, out of his mouth comes knowledge and understanding (Proverbs 2:6).

B He lays up sound wisdom for the upright, He is a shield to those who walk in integrity (Proverbs 2:7).

C That he may guard the paths of justice, and preserve the way of his saints (holy ones) (Proverbs 2:8).

B Then will you understand righteousness and justice, and equity, yes, every good path (Proverbs 2:9).

A For wisdom will enter into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul, discretion will watch over you, understanding will keep you (Proverbs 2:10-11).

Note in A the emphasis on wisdom, knowledge and understanding repeated in the parallel. In B He lays up sound wisdom for the upright, and in the parallel that sound wisdom is described. Centrally in C YHWH guards His people’s way.

See http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pet/view.cgi?bk=19&ch=2

Thanks for Reading This Blog

Just want to take a moment to thank all who read this blog, and those who provide comments or send links/sources behind the scene. I hope to post more about text-critical issues (primarily Greek) and deal with arguments that substantiate God's existence. My hat is off to those who give me energy to continue doing research and writing.

Best,

Edgar

Romans 6:9 (YLT)

"knowing that Christ, having been raised up out of the dead, doth no more die, death over him hath no more lordship" (Romans 6:9 YLT)

Another scripture that would indicate some important change occurred when Christ was raised from the dead. His everlasting Father bequeathed immortality to him.

Divine Foreknowledge and Disparate Kinds of Necessity

If God foreknows that a man named Saul will persecute Jesus' followers, but later he will repent, turn around, and then become a zealous Christian himself--does God's knowledge of Saul's future actions mean that Saul necessarily carries out such activities?

While it's conceptually possible that we could say Saul will necessarily persecute Christians, but subsequently become a Christian himself--Boethius shows that we cannot rightly conclude God will cause Saul to persecute Christians, etc. For if I behold a man walking or sitting, it does not mean that the man's walking or sitting is necessary in a simple sense (i.e., it does not mean that the man's sitting or walking is caused by my visual activities or that the man's ambulatory movements cannot not happen).

If I watch an oval-track race on a hot Sunday afternoon, I do not cause the cars to travel incessantly around the track by watching the race. Similarly, even though God beholds certain future events, it seems that we cannot justly infer that His foreknowledge causes Pharaoh to act recalcitrantly or influences Peter to deny Jesus. Some might say that both Peter and Pharaoh still have the power to bring about different outcomes although God knows that they will not: He does not cause such events.

Boethius' explanation works beautifully in some ways; however, I disagree with his delineation of God's atemporality. But the distinction between conditional and simple necessity is helpful.

On the other hand, it's also difficult to understand how Boethius' explanation preserves libertarian free will. I have a similar criticism of Calvin's account.

See Boethius' work The Consolation of Philosophy 5.

Thayer's Entry for "Genea"

Various Translations of Proverbs 2:4

"and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure" (NIV)

"If you seek her as silver And search for her as for hidden treasures" (NASB)

"if you seek it like silver, and search for it like hidden treasure" (NET Bible)

"If you keep seeking for it as for silver, And you keep searching for it as for hidden treasures" (NWT 2013 Rev.)

Does the Trinity Doctrine Transcend Human Reasoning? (Aquinas)

"There is a twofold mode of truth in what we profess about God. Some truths about God exceed all the ability of the human reason. Such is the truth that God is triune. But there are some truths which the natural reason also is able to reach. Such are that God exists, that He is one, and the like. In fact, such truths about God have been proved demonstratively by the philosophers, guided by the light of the natural reason" (Summa Contra Gentiles 1.3).

"Est autem in his quae de Deo confitemur duplex veritatis modus. Quaedam namque vera sunt de Deo quae omnem facultatem humanae rationis excedunt, ut Deum esse trinum et unum. Quaedam vero sunt ad quae etiam ratio naturalis pertingere potest, sicut est Deum esse, Deum esse unum, et alia huiusmodi; quae etiam philosophi demonstrative de Deo probaverunt, ducti naturalis lumine rationis."

Translation by Anton C. Pegis.

Proverbs 2:3-5 (NET Bible Notes)

2:3 indeed, if 10 you call out for 11 discernment 12 – raise your voice 13 for understanding –

2:4 if 14 you seek 15 it like silver,16 and search for it 17 like hidden treasure,

2:5 then you will understand 18 how to fear the Lord,19 and you will discover 20 knowledge 21 about God. 22

NET:

Notes 18-22

18 tn The verb בִּין (bin, “to perceive; to understand; to discern”) refers to ability to grasp, discern or be sensitive to what it means to fear the Lord.

19 tn Heb “the fear of the Lord.” The noun is an objective genitive; the Lord is to be the object of fear and reverence.

20 tn Heb “find” (so KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV).

21 tn The term דַּעַת (da’at, “knowledge”) goes beyond cognition; it is often used metonymically (cause) for obedience (effect); see, e.g., Prov 3:6, “in all your ways acknowledge him,” and BDB 395 s.v. This means that the disciple will follow God’s moral code; for to know God is to react ethically and spiritually to his will (e.g., J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs, 18).

22 tn Heb “knowledge of God.” The noun is an objective genitive.

Proverbs 2:1 (NET Bible)

"My child, if you receive my words, and store up my commands within you," (NET)

There has been some debate about the protasis and apodosis in Proverbs 2. The NET Bible note here states:

sn Verses 1-11 form one long conditional sentence in the Hebrew text: (1) the protasis (“if…”) encompasses vv. 1-4 and (2) the apodosis (“then…”) consists of two parallel panels in vv. 5-8 and vv. 9-11 both of which are introduced by the particle אָז (’az, “then”).

On the other hand, Lange's Commentary explains:

[Proverbs 2:1 sq. DE WETTE and NOYES conceive of the first two verses as not conditional, but as containing the expression of a direct and independent wish: Oh that thou wouldest receive, etc. The LXX, Vulg., LUTHER, etc., make the first verse conditional, but find the apodosis in Proverbs 2:2. MUENSCHER finds in Proverbs 2:2 an independent condition, and not a mere sequence to the preceding; so HOLDEN, with a slightly different combination of the parts of Proverbs 2:2: If by inclining thine ear…thou wilt incline thine heart, etc. M., H., STUART and others find the apodosis of the series of conditional clauses in Proverbs 2:5, agreeing in this with the E. V. These diverse views do not essentially modify the general import of the passage. ZÖCKLER it will be observed finds the apodosis in Proverbs 2:5 and 9, Proverbs 2:6–8 being parenthetical.—A.].

Heb 11:1--A Response Once Given to a Questioner (Edited for Clarity and Content)

There are some who make a sharp distinction between faith and reason, but I question that approach. Heb. 11:1 reads: Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων· (WH 1881)

Based on the Greek of this text, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that faith is somewhat synonymous with the evidence that buttresses unseen realities. Faith is therefore the same as conviction (ἔλεγχος) and it's based on strong and certain evidence. So I would provisionally define faith (and this does not encompass the whole of πίστις) as a rational acceptance of and continual trust and belief in God, His Son, and God's self-revelation. I.e., Christian faith involves human thinking that harmonizes with divine reason and godly purposes. James E. White sums up the view of Carl Henry in this matter quite well, when he pens the following words: "Truths must not contradict each other, and derived theorems must be self-consistent. Rational consistency as a test for truth is necessary for presuppositionalism to avoid lapsing into fideism" (White 103).

Authentic divine revelation must not have contradictory elements, and fideism should not be mistaken for genuine faith. If Jehovah's self-disclosure is true--in an absolute sense--then His self-disclosure should not/must not violate the law of non-contradiction.

Since writing this reply, I now understand the statement about "derived theorems" much better than I once did; the derivation of theorems from axioms is an interesting study in se. I believe Euclid derived thirteen volumes of theorems known as the Elements from just five axioms. One desideratum of logic and faith, it appears, is to derive only self-consistent theorems.