Wisdom and the fear of YHWH: Rethinking their relationship in Proverbs 1–9

Introduction

It is difficult to overstate the significance of the fear of YHWH in the theology of the book of Proverbs. The phrase appears in 1.7 and 31.30, creating a frame around the book, and numerous times throughout. ¹ The claim that it constitutes the beginning of wisdom/knowledge is widely regarded to stand as the motto of the book in general and its first collection (chs. 1–9) in particular, ² where it stands as the climax of its introduction (1.1–7) ³ and reappears in 9.10 to create a frame around it. ⁴ It is this first collection that will be the focus of the present study. ⁵

The fear of YHWH has been defined variously, from that which ‘contains in a nutshell the whole Israelite theory of knowledge’ (von Rad, 1972: 67), ⁶ to more general senses of obedience and allegiance, ⁷ along with affective connotations of reverence, ⁸ humility ⁹ and wonder. ¹⁰ In all this, it has been widely assumed that, as Whybray (1995: 136–37, cit. 136) puts it, ‘The concept of the fear of Yahweh (or of God) in the wisdom literature is at a considerable remove from that which is generally to be found elsewhere in the Old Testament.’ ¹¹

At the same time, however, it must be reckoned with that Prov. 1–9 shares a great deal in common with Deuteronomy, wherein the fear of the YHWH also holds a significant place. Both urge their readers to turn neither right nor left (Deut. 2.27; 5.32; Prov. 4.27) ¹² and to treat their neighbors appropriately, for not to do so is ‘an abomination to YHWH’ (תועבת יהוה; Deut. 25.13–16; Prov. 3.27–35). ¹³ They also agree on the consequences: the faithful can expect long life in the land with full barns (Deut. 4.40; 28.8; Prov. 3.10), ¹⁴ whereas the wicked and perverse (תהפכות; Deut. 32.20; Prov. 2.12, 14; 8.13) ¹⁵ will be uprooted from it (נסח; Deut. 28.63; Prov. 2.21–22). ¹⁶ Both are concerned with the heart, ¹⁷ calling for loyalty ‘with all your heart’ to YHWH (Deut. 6.5; Prov. 3.5). ¹⁸ The details of this are spelled out in YHWH’s instruction through Moses, which I will argue below is called to mind in Prov. 1–9’s use of critical terms like תורה and מצות. Both instruct their readers to bind things to themselves as reminders (Deut. 6.8; Prov. 3.1–4; 6.20–22; 7.1–3) ¹⁹ and give concomitant instructions about walking (הלך), lying down (בשׁכב), and waking up (בקומך in Deut. 6.7; a cognitive variant, קיצות in Prov. 6.22). ²⁰ And, to come full circle, much of this is in the context of detailing what it looks like to fear YHWH.

In what follows I will argue firstly that, in light of the abundance of parallels between Deuteronomy and Prov. 1–9, the assumption of Whybray and others is open to question and that the fear of YHWH in Prov. 1–9 should be understood in light of its use in Deuteronomy as denoting exclusive allegiance to YHWH. ²¹ This, secondly, should prompt us to reconsider the relationship between the fear of YHWH and wisdom in Prov. 1–9. It is virtually unanimously agreed that in Prov. 1–9, the fear of YHWH forms the theological grounding of wisdom. ‘In its shadow’, von Rad (1972: 67) contends, ‘wisdom is assigned its place; it is, therefore, the prerequisite of wisdom and trains a man for it’. In Deuteronomy, however, the reverse is true: attention to YHWH’s instruction, which is associated with wisdom (Deut. 4.6), leads to the fear of YHWH. In what follows, I will argue that Prov. 1–9 presents this same movement: wisdom in Prov. 1–9 is not theologically grounded, but theologically oriented—that is, wisdom leads to the fear of YHWH. ²²

Though it is beyond the scope of the present essay to argue for such, I am assuming for present purposes an early post-exilic date for Prov. 1–9, written for Judeans in the Persian era, seeking to reconstitute and safeguard their identity as YHWH’s covenant people. ²³ In those days, Israel had no king and, as Gerstenberger (2011: 113) notes, their economic situation ‘seems to have been at times precarious’. Although Persia’s foreign policy was such that the nations under its control were permitted to rebuild their homelands and reconstitute their cults—and were even funded to do so—they nevertheless remained under Persian control and were subject to Persian tax. ²⁴ Within the Judean community this resulted in and was exacerbated by cases of social injustice, as the wealthy failed to offer sufficient support for the poor, and in some cases the wealthy even took advantage of the situation of the poor (cf. Prov. 1.10–19). ²⁵ This led to an accumulation of debt, making it necessary for some to mortgage their land and others to sell their children into slavery to survive (cf. Neh. 5.2–5). ²⁶

Possibly related to this was a concern around intermarriage with foreign women (נכריה/אשׁה זרה; cf. Prov. 2.16–19; 5.1–6; 6.20–35; 7.1–27). ²⁷ Laird (2016: 139–44) notes that the returned exiles, at least at first, may not have been so strongly characterized by the separatism seen particularly in the foreign-wives debate of the early post-exilic period (cf. Isa. 56.3–8). But as the population grew and resources did not, the question of who had a rightful claim upon the land gained a new sense of urgency. ²⁸ More significant, however, were the questions this raised about identity: intermarriage with foreigners threatened to water down the identity of the community as the people of YHWH and lead them down the road to apostasy. ²⁹

In the face of these challenges, social cohesion was maintained by a strong orientation toward the family and inter-familial relations. ‘The family’, explains Gerstenberger (2011: 104–5), ‘was the social unit in which people lived as willed by God and, as a matter of course, worked for their support, received security and care, fulfilled their obligations, received and nurtured their worldview and faith’. Any attempt to reconstitute the community around Torah happened first in the family.

This, I contend, is just the setting envisioned in Prov. 1–9. This is evidenced, firstly, by the address from father and mother—even grandparents, albeit indirectly (Prov. 4.3–4)—to ‘my son/s’ (בנים/בני). ³⁰ But secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the parallels noted above between Deut. 6.7–9 and Prov. 6.20–23 suggest what Schipper (2020: 27–28, cit. 28) has referred to as ‘an implementation of Deuteronomy’, and the familial instruction there envisioned. ³¹

With this backdrop in place, we might return to an issue raised earlier: Prov. 1–9’s use of the terms תורה and מצות ‎ (3.1; 6.20, 23; 7.2). While these terms are indeed reminiscent of Deuteronomy, it has been objected that in Prov. 1–9, there is no mention of Moses addressing the nation of Israel; it is the parents addressing the individual, without the legal connotations present in Deuteronomy. ³² But this, as Brown (2005: 278) points out, is an argument from silence, and ‘an unnecessarily narrow criterion’. Both the lack of Moses’ mention and the difference in audience can be explained by the adjustment of setting: the familial transmission of instruction, teaching one’s children to walk in the fear of YHWH, which is precisely what is commanded in Deut. 6.7–9. Moreover, if Prov. 1–9 was written in a post-exilic context, it is unlikely that תורה and מצות would have been heard without resonances of Torah being called to mind, whether or not this was intended. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that in Prov. 1–9 these terms are associated with other covenantal and Deuteronomic concepts ³³ as well as the fact that תורה, even in Deuteronomy, is more fittingly translated ‘teaching’ rather than the usual translation ‘law’. ³⁴

Dell (2006: 174) likewise questions the tendency to see a disjunction between these terms in Prov. 1–9 and the rest of the HB, though with the caveat that תורה ‘had not yet developed into a formal description of the Pentateuch or even into the formal lawcodes within that corpus’. Whether, or to what extent, this was the case in the post-exilic period—and here we differ with Dell, who has indicated more of an inclination towards an earlier date ³⁵ —Prov. 1–9 does appear to envision something slightly different to Deuteronomy’s ‘lawcodes’. I suggest, rather, that in its references to תורה or מצות, Prov. 1–9 does not have in mind a verbatim repetition of Deuteronomy but a re-enactment of the familial educational setting and the transmission of tradition it envisions. In this way, the תורה and מצות remain that of the parents while nevertheless carrying the weight and significance of the תורה and מצות of Deuteronomy.

This is strengthened by the alignment of the parents’ teaching with the ‘instruction of YHWH’ (מוסר יהוה; cf. Deut. 11.2). In Prov. 3.11, the usual formula for the exordium ³⁶ is inverted in that the vocative בני is preceded by its object, namely the instruction of YHWH. This inversion has led numerous scholars to downplay the structural significance of v. 11, seeing 3.1–12 as a unit, the next section beginning in v. 13 with Wisdom’s appraisal. ³⁷ However, given that virtually every other occurrence of the vocative בני serves to indicate the beginning of a new instruction, ³⁸ this is unlikely. To be sure, the inversion is significant, but for another reason. Fronting ‘the instruction of YHWH’ serves to emphasize that which sets this exordium apart from the others: while the father usually uses these opening appeals to endorse his own teaching, here he makes a point of emphasizing YHWH’s instruction and reproof. ³⁹ This has the effect of aligning the teaching of the parents with the instruction of YHWH, which further bridges the gap that has previously been seen between law and instruction in Deuteronomy and Prov. 1–9, respectively.

It is with the foregoing in mind that we now turn to what is arguably the most significant link between Prov. 1–9 and Deuteronomy: the fear of YHWH—what Block (2017: 283) refers to as ‘the theological tie that binds these books’.

The fear of YHWH in Deuteronomy

The Hebrew root ירא exhibits a spectrum of meaning, from terror on one end to allegiance and obedience on the other. ⁴⁰ Both ends of the spectrum are applied to YHWH in Deuteronomy; however, while fear in the former sense may be found, it is primarily fear in the latter sense that YHWH calls for from his people.

In this sense, ירא bears a close relation to אהב, with which it is strongly associated in Deuteronomy. In 10.12, ירא and אהב are grouped as stances of reverence and adoration, respectively, interleaved with responses of obedience expressed with הלך and עבד (cf. 13.4–5 [3–4]). ⁴¹ In ch. 6, ירא and אהב are used virtually interchangeably: the command to love YHWH (vv. 4–5) is given so that they will fear YHWH (vv. 2, 13). This is strengthened by the parallel between loving and fearing YHWH exclusively (vv. 4–5, 13) and reinforced by the same command of exclusive allegiance to YHWH given in Josh. 24.14 where ירא is used instead of אהב‎. ⁴² As is well known, comparisons with ANE vassal treaties have shown that אהב in this context carries affective connotations, but cognitive ones too, denoting a stance of loyalty and allegiance. ⁴³ It is in this latter sense that its meaning overlaps with ירא, evidenced by their virtual interchangeability in ch. 6 and their close association elsewhere in the book.

Given this, it comes as no surprise to find the fear of YHWH in Deuteronomy closely associated with, and even expressed in, obedience (Deut. 5.29; 6.1–2; 10.12–13; 13.5 [4]; 17.19; 31.12–13). ⁴⁴ Therefore, it can be learned (למד) by listening to YHWH’s commands (4.10; 6.1–2; 31.12–13). ⁴⁵ In 4.10, the Israelites are assembled to hear YHWH’s ‘words’ (דבר), so as to learn to fear YHWH. ⁴⁶ These ‘words’ are clarified in v. 13 as the Ten Words (cf. 5.1–22), which were given when he established his covenant with the Israelites (ברית ;4.13). ⁴⁷ They are elaborated on in the decrees and judgments (החקים והמשׁפטים; v. 14), obedience to which was earlier connected with wisdom (חכמה; vv. 5–6). ⁴⁸ In 6.1–2, the people are taught to obey ‘the command’ (המצוה)—a singular noun, probably referring to the Shema in vv. 4–5, which calls for exclusive allegiance to YHWH ⁴⁹ —so that (למען) the people would fear YHWH. Similarly in 31.9–13, the people are gathered to listen to the תורה so that (למען) they would hear (שׁמע), learn (למד) and fear YHWH (vv. 11–12). In each of these instances, fearing YHWH is contingent upon listening to the commands of YHWH. Therefore, it is the instruction of YHWH that is prior, to which the fear of YHWH is an appropriate response.

Before moving on, it would be worth noting how ירא and אהב are distinct. ירא and אהב are alike in that they entail both cognitive and affective aspects, and in the former, they overlap significantly in meaning. The latter aspect, however, sets love and fear apart. To illustrate, the ordinary citizen does not typically love a king as they do their spouse or sibling; conversely, fear denoting a sense of reverence would be inappropriate between spouses or siblings but is expected before a king. Both relationships entail loyalty of a sort, but they differ in the affections that accompany it. Yet this need not imply that fear and love are contradictory; as Arnold (2011: 567) explains, ‘Ancient Israel has here learned that “love” and “fear” are not, in fact, mutually exclusive, but complement each other, so that love prevents terror and fear prevents irreverent familiarity’.

The fear of YHWH in Proverbs 1–9

Turning to Prov. 1–9, scholars have tended to define the fear of YHWH using similar words to what we have seen in Deuteronomy: reverence, allegiance and ethical behavior. Even so, there is widespread agreement that the meaning of ירא in Proverbs is qualitatively different from elsewhere in the HB. ⁵⁰ This understanding rests on two assumptions. The first is an emphasis on the cognitive elements of ירא over the affective. As Perdue (2000: 74) notes, the pyrotechnics of Sinai are conspicuous by their absence in Proverbs, along with the expected response of terror. Fox (2000: 70) resists this, arguing that there is ‘no indication that the concept has become so bland in Proverbs or that it has lost the connotation of real fear’. However, when he comes to explaining what fear does mean in Proverbs, he pits the affective against the cognitive in a movement from fear of punishment at the beginning of one’s education to a fear that essentially amounts to knowledge as one matures, which he refers to as ‘conscience’ (cf. Prov. 2.5). Longman (2017: 12) more ably holds the affective and cognitive aspects of the fear of YHWH together when he argues that it is not sheer terror, but nor is it mere respect. Rather, it ‘is the sense of standing before the God who created everything, including humans whose very continued existence depends on him. … Such fear breeds humility and signals a willingness to receive instruction from God’. Defined this way, ירא retains both its affective and cognitive aspects in one’s disposition before God.

If the first assumption is that Proverbs has little interest in the Sinai theophany; the second is that it has little interest in the Sinai covenant. ⁵¹ As noted above, Proverbs is famously thought to be silent on matters pertaining to Israel and its history; the response of fear, rather, is to the creator God. But, while the fact that Prov. 1–9 sees God as creator and sustainer is incontrovertible (see esp. Prov. 8), in light of the sheer abundance of parallels between Prov. 1–9 and Deuteronomy, this argument loses its force. ⁵²

In sum, it seems likely that the fear of YHWH in Prov. 1–9 ought to be read in light of its use in Deuteronomy, denoting allegiance to YHWH, and associated with covenant obedience. As we have seen, in Deuteronomy these are learned from listening to and learning from YHWH’s words, mediated through Moses. In what follows, I will argue that Prov. 1–9 follows this same movement from YHWH’s instruction—mediated through the instruction of the parents, in the manner outlined above—to the fear of YHWH qua allegiance and obedience.

Wisdom and the fear of YHWH in Proverbs 1–9

The relationship between wisdom and the fear of YHWH is encapsulated in the book’s motto: the fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom. Traditionally, the debate has revolved around what is meant by ‘beginning’. Three main meanings have been argued for, namely, a temporal meaning (‘start’), ⁵³ logical meaning (‘principle’ or ‘basis’) ⁵⁴ or some combination of these. ⁵⁵ Common to them all, however, is the more basic assumption that the fear of YHWH is the source of wisdom. ⁵⁶ In what follows, I will argue that closer attention to the Hebrew words for ‘beginning’ (ראשׁית in 1.7; תחלה in 9.10) and to the relationship between wisdom and the fear of YHWH in the rest of Prov. 1–9 shows this assumption to be open to question and that the reverse is in fact true: wisdom gives rise to the fear of YHWH.

This reading is a priori excluded by the logical meaning. Yet, despite its popularity, evidence for this reading is in fact quite thin. Indeed, the logical meaning is excluded by תחלה, which only ever takes a temporal meaning. ⁵⁷ For this reason, proponents of this view—exclusively, or in combination with the temporal view—tend to argue on the basis of 1.7, which uses the more ambiguous term, ראשׁית. The problem is that nowhere else does ראשׁית mean anything like ‘principle’ or ‘basis’. ⁵⁸ Blocher (1977: 15) cites Prov. 4.7, where the ראשׁית of wisdom is the acquisition of wisdom; but this is more easily explained with the temporal meaning. With respect to the logical meaning, the fear of YHWH is implied to be a presupposition or ever-present foundation for wisdom. But acquiring wisdom is not like this. Once one has acquired wisdom, one has it and presumably goes on to use it; its acquisition does not persist as its basis.

The temporal meaning, then, offers the more plausible reading. Scholarly consensus has been that this too indicates that the fear of YHWH is a prerequisite for wisdom. ⁵⁹ Recently, however, Weeks (2007: 113–19) has questioned this consensus, proposing that the fear of YHWH is not the source, but first instance of wisdom. ⁶⁰ This, he argues, is in fact the more straightforward reading of the Hebrew. תחלה usually refers to the first event in a series. Taken this way, we might understand Prov. 9.10 as saying something like: ‘The first event in one’s journey of wisdom is the fear of YHWH’. Similarly, ראשׁית typically refers to ‘something that comes first in a temporal sense, like the beginning of a season or the first-fruits of a harvest’ (p. 118), in which case we might read 1.7 as saying: ‘The fear of YHWH is the first moment…’ or perhaps ‘the first indicator of knowledge’. The fear of YHWH is the first-fruit indicating that the harvest of wisdom is underway.

Schwáb (2013a: 657–59) concedes this but objects that in the case of wisdom and the fear of YHWH, there is an important difference: while there is an awkwardness about referring to the first-fruits as the source of the harvest, such awkwardness is not present with wisdom and the fear of YHWH, as two abstract nouns are in view here. Schwáb admits that this goes beyond the evidence available in the HB; nevertheless, his point is valid: ‘it cannot be ruled out with any certainty that Prov. 9:10 refers to the fear of the Lord as the basis [i.e. source] for wisdom’ (p. 659). ⁶¹ Yet while this reading is possible, does it follow that it is probable?

For two reasons it seems unlikely. The first is that the revised reading proposed above, where wisdom is prior to the fear of YHWH, is more consistent with how the relationship between these concepts is presented in the rest of Prov. 1–9. Nowhere else is the fear of YHWH said to give rise to wisdom. By contrast, wherever else the fear of YHWH appears in the collection, it is wisdom that is prior. This is clearest in Prov. 2, which is all the more significant given how, as Meinhold (1991: 43–46) has observed, the chapter appears to serve as a sort of table of contents for the collection, summarizing the collection’s major ideas. ⁶² In this chapter, attention to wisdom, clustered with several other wisdom- and instruction-related words, is said to lead to understanding the fear of YHWH (vv. 1–5).

A more ambiguous case is Wisdom’s call in Prov. 1.20–33. Wisdom bemoans those who do not listen to her counsel but persist in their simplicity:

Instead, because they hated knowledge [דעת]

and the fear of YHWH they did not choose—

they did not want my advice [עצה],

they spurned all my reproof [תוכחת]—

they will eat from the fruit of their way

and with their own advice [מועצה] they will be full (vv. 29–31).

This could be read as saying that, because they rejected the source of Wisdom—namely, the fear of YHWH—they forfeit the right to call on her (vv. 26–28). ⁶³ However, this is unlikely. Already in vv. 22–25, not only are עצה and תוכחת used to describe Wisdom’s teaching, but also דעת, which is placed in parallel with the fear of YHWH in v. 29. This suggests that Wisdom is prior to the fear of YHWH, not the other way around. ⁶⁴ A similar case can be made for Prov. 8.13, which identifies the fear of YHWH with the hatred of evil (so also 3.7), a position Wisdom is portrayed to also be promoting. ⁶⁵ In sum, for every occurrence of the fear of YHWH in Prov. 1–9, wisdom is prior. It thus seems reasonable to suppose that 1.7 and 9.10 would share the same perspective.

At this point one might object that, consistency may not be an ideal to which Prov. 1–9 aspires. O’Dowd (2017: 79) suggests that what Prov. 1–9 presents is an upward spiral: ‘we begin the search for wisdom with the fear of the Lord (1:7), which leads to greater understanding of God, who then increases our wisdom (2:6)’. ⁶⁶ Heim (2013: 59–60) suggests different stages along the reader’s journey through Prov. 1–9 where they are invited to consider different perspectives on the relationship between wisdom and the fear of YHWH. Fox (2000: 111) suggests different stages of one’s education, where wisdom first arises from the fear of YHWH qua punishment but later leads to the fear of YHWH qua conscience.

While not impossible, I suggest that militating against this is the fact that the sections in which the motto falls (1.1–7; 9.7–10, 12) are widely agreed to be later additions. ⁶⁷ Affinities between these sections may indicate that they were added around the same time. Given this, it seems more likely that the motto would be included to summarize, not subvert the teaching of the collection.

The second reason for doubting Schwáb’s proposal above comes from the close relationship I have sought to highlight between Prov. 1–9 and Deuteronomy. Again, this is clearest in Prov. 2: in the protasis in vv. 1–4, paying attention to the father’s words and commands—associated with wisdom, which is itself frequently associated with other wisdom-related terms elsewhere in the collection (4.1–7; 5.1–7; 7.1–4) ⁶⁸ —leads to the fear of YHWH (v. 5), just as attention to YHWH’s words and commands lead to fearing YHWH in Deuteronomy. This is strengthened by the connection noted above between the parents’ teaching and YHWH’s instruction, along with the association between the latter and wisdom in Deut. 4.6.

One final point to consider is how the reading proposed here might be challenged by other verses that appear to equate wisdom with the fear of YHWH or some such notion. A prime example can be found in Job 28.28: ‘The fear of the Lord [אדני], this is wisdom’. It should be noted, however, that nothing in this verse necessarily entails that the fear of YHWH is the source of wisdom, as is claimed for Prov. 1.7 and 9.10. Taken on its own, v. 28 merely appears to associate the two, as Deut. 4.6 does with obedience to YHWH’s commands, in which case we might read Job 28.28 as saying, ‘The fear of the Lord: this is a prime example of wisdom’. Schwáb (2013a: 659) notes that earlier verses provide a context by emphatically asking, ‘Where shall wisdom be found?’ (vv. 12, 20), which he suggests naturally raises the question of the source of wisdom, not the fear of the Lord. But while wisdom’s location is considered, it is not entirely clear that its source is. Verse 12 asks of its whereabouts, not its origins. And while v. 20 could be read this way, it is not entirely clear from the answers in vv. 21–27 that this is the point of the question. In any case, the more natural answer to the question of wisdom’s origins is God (cf. Prov. 2.6; 8.22–31), not the fear thereof.

Proverbs 15.33 says, ‘The fear of YHWH is the instruction [מוסר] of wisdom / and before glory, humility’. Waltke (2005: 3) reads מוסר in this verse as a genitive of effect and renders it as such: ‘The instruction that gives wisdom is the fear of the Lord’ (emphasis added). However, מוסר here could just as easily be read as an objective genitive, which is to say that the (content of the) instruction of wisdom is the fear of YHWH, implying again that it is wisdom that is prior. ⁶⁹

Conclusion

We began by noting that, particularly in the 20^th century, scholars tended to define the fear of YHWH in Prov. 1–9 in a way which was diametrically opposed to its use elsewhere in the HB. And yet Prov. 1–9 has a great deal in common with Deuteronomy, which likewise clearly emphasizes the fear of YHWH, a feature I have suggested calls this diametric opposition into question.

In an early post-exilic context, at a time when the community was seeking to reconstitute and safeguard their identity as YHWH’s covenant people, the family setting, along with the worldview-forming role it would have played, presented the best opportunity to do so. And it is just such a setting that Prov. 1–9 presents, modeled to a significant degree on how it is presented in Deuteronomy (esp. 6.7–9).

This being the case, it seems most likely, first of all, that the fear of YHWH in Prov. 1–9 should be defined as it is in Deuteronomy, in terms of exclusive allegiance to YHWH, as an appropriate response of obedience to the instruction of YHWH. This prompts a re-examination of the relationship between the fear of YHWH and wisdom in Prov. 1–9, wherein wisdom is not grounded in the fear of YHWH but oriented towards it. This reading, firstly, makes better sense of the Hebrew: the words usually translated ‘beginning’ in the collection’s motto (ראשׁית in 1.7; תחלה in 9.10) typically refer to the first thing in a series. Secondly, it matches the perspective of the rest of the collection on the relationship between wisdom and the fear of YHWH: wisdom is consistently prior. Finally, in light of the way Prov. 1–9 appropriates the teaching of Deuteronomy in general, it seems likely that the movement would be the same and that the teaching of the parents and the instruction of YHWH would have the same goal—for, as Deut. 10.12 poses the question, ‘What does YHWH your God ask of you but to fear YHWH your God?’