Proverbs 2:6-7

2:6 For ¹  the Lord gives ²  wisdom,

and from his mouth ³  comes ⁴  knowledge and understanding.

2:7 He stores up ⁵  effective counsel ⁶  for the upright, ⁷ 

and is like ⁸  a shield ⁹  for those who live ¹⁰  with integrity, ¹¹ 

Proverbs 8:6

8:6 Listen, for I will speak excellent things, ¹² 

and my lips will utter ¹³  what is right.

John 17:3

17:3 Now this ¹⁴  is eternal life ¹⁵  – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, ¹⁶  whom you sent.

John 17:2

17:2 just as you have given him authority over all humanity, ¹⁷  so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. ¹⁸ 

Colossians 4:6

4:6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer everyone.

Philippians 3:8

3:8 More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things – indeed, I regard them as dung! ¹⁹  – that I may gain Christ,

[2:6]  ¹ tn This is a causal clause. The reason one must fear and know the Lord is that he is the source of true, effectual wisdom.

[2:6]  ² tn The verb is an imperfect tense which probably functions as a habitual imperfect describing a universal truth in the past, present and future.

[2:6]  ³ sn This expression is an anthropomorphism; it indicates that the Lord is the immediate source or author of the wisdom. It is worth noting that in the incarnation many of these “anthropomorphisms” become literal in the person of the Logos, the Word, Jesus, who reveals the Father.

[2:6]  ⁴ tn The verb “comes” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and smoothness.

[2:7]  ⁵ tc The form is a Kethib/Qere reading. The Kethib וְצָפַן (vÿtsafan; Qal perfect + vav consecutive) is supported by the LXX and Syriac. The Qere יִצְפֹּן (yitspon; Qal imperfect) is supported by the Aramaic Targum of Prov 2:7 (the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures were called Targums) and Latin Vulgate. Internal evidence favors the imperfect; another imperfect appears in v. 6a with a similar sense. The Qere is normally preferred; the scribes are indicating that the received reading is corrupt. The Kethib reflects orthographic confusion between י (yod) and ו (vav). As in v. 6a, this Qal imperfect functions as a habitual imperfect describing a universal truth in past, present and future.

[2:7]  ⁶ tn The noun תּוּשִׁיָּה (tushiyyah) has a two-fold range of meanings: (1) “sound wisdom” (so KJV, NRSV); “effective counsel” and (2) result (metonymy of effect): “abiding success” (BDB 444 s.v.; W. L. Holladay, Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 388; cf. NIV “victory”). It refers to competent wisdom and its resultant ability to achieve moral success (W. McKane, Proverbs [OTL], 80).

[2:7]  ⁷ sn The Hebrew word translated “upright” (יָשָׁר, yashar) is one of the terms used for the righteous. It points to the right conduct of the believer – that which is right or pleasing in the eyes of God. It stresses that the life of the individual is upright, straightforward, and just. It is paralleled with “those who walk in integrity.”

[2:7]  ⁸ tn The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.

[2:7]  ⁹ tn The word can be taken as in apposition explaining the subject of the first colon – the Lord is a shield, the Lord stores up. The word then is a metaphor for the protection afforded by the Lord.

[2:7]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “walk.” The verb “to walk” (הָלַךְ, halakh) is an idiom (based upon hypocatastasis: implied comparison) for habitual manner of life (BDB 234 s.v. 3.e).

[2:7]  ¹¹ tn Heb “those who walk of integrity.” The noun תֹם (tom, “integrity”) functions as a genitive of manner.

[8:6]  ¹² tn Heb “noble” or “princely.” Wisdom begins the first motivation by claiming to speak noble things, that is, excellent things.

[8:6]  ¹³ tn Heb “opening of my lips” (so KJV, NASB). The noun “lips” is a metonymy of cause, with the organ of speech put for what is said.

[17:3]  ¹⁴ tn Using αὕτη δέ (Jauth de) to introduce an explanation is typical Johannine style; it was used before in John 1:19, 3:19, and 15:12.

[17:3]  ¹⁵ sn This is eternal life. The author here defines eternal life for the readers, although it is worked into the prayer in such a way that many interpreters do not regard it as another of the author’s parenthetical comments. It is not just unending life in the sense of prolonged duration. Rather it is a quality of life, with its quality 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. Christ (Χριστός, Cristos) is not characteristically attached to Jesus’ name in John’s 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 know (γινώσκω, ginwskw) here as evidence of Gnostic influence in the Fourth Gospel, there is a crucial difference: For John this knowledge is not intellectual, but relational. It involves being in relationship.

[17:3]  ¹⁶ tn Or “and Jesus the Messiah” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed”).

[17:2]  ¹⁷ tn Or “all people”; Grk “all flesh.”

[17:2]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “so that to everyone whom you have given to him, he may give to them eternal life.”

[3:8]  ¹⁹ tn The word here translated “dung” was often used in Greek as a vulgar term for fecal matter. As such it would most likely have had a certain shock value for the readers. This may well be Paul’s meaning here, especially since the context is about what the flesh produces.