Bruce Waltke writes of the reference to land in these verses:

Were this the law and the prophets, it would undoubtedly refer to the LORD’s land grants to his covenant people in Canaan. But in the wisdom literature, which treats humanity apart from Israel’s historic covenants, ‘eres more likely refers to the ground in general with its fatness (Gen. 27:28), in- crease (Lev. 26:4, 20), and fruit (Num. 13:20); as such it is a metonymy for life.83 The good earth stands in striking contrast to the grave with the dead (2:18-19). [Waltke, NICOT, 1:234]

Walkte’s rationale for distinguishing this passage from the law and the prophets is not sound. Verse 16 referred to the Jewish adulteress (note that v. 17 refers to the true God as her God) as a foreign woman (using two different terms for foreign) as a way to indicate that her adultery was contrary to the covenant expectations that marked out the Israelites. Given this context, the reference to the land should be seen as a link between Proverbs and the Law and the Prophets. This does not mean that the connection between land and life is incorrect. The land promises anticipated eternal life in the land.

Bered Schipper is more correct when he’s sees clear connections between this passage and Deuteronomy (something that characterizes these opening chapters in Proverbs):

These people are now told that they will inhabit (שׁכן) the land or “remain” (יתר niphal) in it. It was noted above … that the topic of dwelling in the land is a central part of Deuteronom(ist)ic theology (see Deut 4:1; 5:16; 25:15; and 2:22: Commentary).121 If Israel keeps the commandments, it may dwell in the land (cf. Exod 20:12). [Schipper, Herm., 120]

He also notes connections to the prophets:

the combination of the verb יתר niphal (“to remain”) and the preposition בְּ (“in”), which also occurs in Isa 4:3 and Ezek 14:22.122 Both of these texts connect the verb יתר niphal (“to remain”) with the concept of the “remnant” of Israel. The statement in Prov 2:21 is also similar to Isa 60:21, where the “righteous” (צַדִּיקִים) are promised that they will possess the land (ירשׁ אֶרֶץ) in perpetuity.123 Thus, it is quite possible that Prov 2:21 contains eschatological overtones, as has sometimes been suggested. [Schipper, Herm., 120]

Proverbs 2 consists de facto of a single sentence that can be divided into six smaller units. The text has a conditional structure that, following the invocation “my son” (בְּנִי), begins with a protasis introduced by אִם (“if”), followed by two apodoses and three concluding statements, the first two of which have an identical structure, being introduced by the preposition לְ (“to”) and an infinitive of the verb נצל hiphil (“to save”). The last concluding statement constitutes the focal point   p 103  of the text; it is introduced by לְמַעַן (“so that”) and contains a justification introduced by כִּי (“for”):

(I)	vv. 1–4	Protasis (introduced by אִם, “if”)
(II)	vv. 5–8	First apodosis (introduced by אָז, “then”)
(III)	vv. 9–11	Second, shorter apodosis (also introduced by אָז, “then”)
(IV)	vv. 12–15	First purpose (introduced by לְהַצִּילְךָ, “in order to save you”; לְ + inf.)
(V)	vv. 16–19	Second purpose (introduced by לְהַצִּילְךָ, “in order to save you”)
(VI)	vv. 20–22	Concluding statement, introduced by לְמַעַן (“so that”) and followed by a justification introduced by כִּי (“for”)

Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1–15 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2019), 102–103.

The ESV obscures the parallelism of verses 12 and 16 with its translation of verse 12. It also translates כִּ֤י as for in v. 18, which does not make good sense.

The LSB translates כִּ֤י consistently as for, which does not make good sense in vv. 3 and 18.

The NIV 2011 does the best job of translating כִּ֤י, in this chapter, recognizing when for is the best translation (vv. 6, 10, 22) and when indeed or surely make better sense (vv. 3, 18, respectively).

These opening verses of Proverbs 2 clearly link to Proverbs 1:20–33. The father calls on the son to receive his words (2:1, אֵ֫מֶר), and words (1:23, דָּבָר) are what wisdom speaks (1:21, אמר) and offers to those who turn at her reproof. It is Wisdom who cries out in 1:20-33, and it is to wisdom that the son is to make his “ear attentive” in 2:2). In 1:24 Wisdom “stretched out” [נטה] her hand, “and no one … heeded.” In 2:2 the son is instructed to incline [נטה] his heart to understanding. Wisdom cried out [קרא] to the simple (1:21, 24), and the son is told to “call out [קרא] for insight.” The simple called to Wisdom after the calamity that resulted from not heeding wisdom came upon them (1:28), but the son is to call to Wisdom ahead of time in 2:3. Wisdom raised her voice in calling to the simple (1:20), and the son is to raise his voice in calling for understanding (1:3). In 1:28 those who seek Wisdom only after rejecting her and suffering calamity will not find wisdom, but in 2:4, the son is encouraged to seek for wisdom as silver. Note the prologue’s link between the simple and the youth. The son as a youth is starting off simple, but he can become wise if he does what 2:1-4 lay out for him.

Notice also that Proverbs 2:5–11 contains numerous verbal connections with Proverbs 1:1–7.

Proverbs 2:12–16 looks back to Proverbs 1:8–19. Wisdom will deliver the son from the kind of men warned about there. Proverbs 2:17–19 looks forward to the forbidden woman who will be warned about in Proverbs 5–7.

Proverbs 2 is thus a key hinge chapter in the opening of the book.

“I will pour out my mind to you” (Geneva Bible)

“I will pour out my spirit to you” (ESV)

“I will pour out my thoughts to you” (NIV 2011)

The key debate is whether, if they respond to wisdom, there is held out a promise that I will pour out my Spirit to you, or whether it simply refers to my ‘thoughts’ (NIV) or spirit (ESV). The main clue is in the use of the words pour out, a different verb from the one in Joel 2:28. It is used eleven times in the OT, all but one in Psalms and Proverbs, and the overwhelming image is of pouring out words or what comes out of the mouth (Pss 19:2; 59:7; 78:2; 94:4; 119:171; 145:7; Prov. 15:2, 28; 18:4). [Wilson, TOTC, 69]

Wilson’s observation combined with the parallel to “I will make my words known to you” and with the fact that ל is more naturally translated to (rather than upon) argues for a translation like, “I will utter to you my mind.” (See Geneva Bible for the translation mind and Ps. 78:2 for the translation utter.”)

These verses form the first section of Proverbs after the Prologue. It begins with the words “Hear, my son,” and the phrase “my son” is repeated three times in this section: vv. 8, 10, 15. Thus Proverbs opens with instruction from a father and mother to a son. More particularly, it opens with instruction from the Davidic king to the Davidic son.

Steinmann argues that there are ten of these “my son” sections in Proverbs 1–9: “(1) 1:8-19; (2) 2:1-22; (3) 3:1-20; (4) 3:21-35; (5) 4:10-19; (6) 4:20-27;(7) 5:1-23; (8) 6:1-19; (9) 6:20-35; and (10) 7:1-27” (Steinmann, ConcC, 61). He excludes 4:1–9 from this count on the grounds that sons, plural, are addressed. I don’t find this entirely convincing. And yet, there is something different about 4:1–9. Much of this section is a quotation of the father’s father’s instructions. Also, the latter verses of the section are similar to a personified wisdom section (e.g., “love her, and she will guard you,” “She will honor you if you embrace her,” etc.). Perhaps Steinmann is correct, and perhaps these ten addresses are intended to evoke the Decalogue.

In any event, the command not to murder is the first command of the second table of the law after the transitional command about obedience to parents. Thus, it is notable that after an exhortation to obey the fifth commandment (1:8-9), the father speaks to his son regarding the sixth commandment.