Psalm 55:22 (LXX) and 1 Peter 5:7

Psalm 55:22 (54:23 LXX): ἐπίρριψον ἐπὶ κύριον τὴν μέριμνάν σου καὶ αὐτός σε διαθρέψει οὐ δώσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα σάλον τῷ δικαίῳ

1 Peter 5:7:  πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρίψαντες ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν ὅτι αὐτῷ μέλει περὶ ὑμῶν

EF: The preceding verse (1 Peter 5:6) uses the wording, τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ θεοῦ, suggesting that the referent of 1 Peter 5:7 is Jehovah God, the same personal entity mentioned in Psalm 55:22.

Thomas R. Schreiner (NA Commentary on 1, 2 Peter, Jude): "Peter's words here remind us of Jesus' exhortation to avoid anxiety (Matt 6:25–34), and  some even see an allusion to Jesus' words.⁹⁸ More probably, the allusion is to Ps 55:22. Psalm 55 fits nicely with Peter's theme, for the psalmist implored God to help him because the wicked were attempting to destroy him,  and even his close friend had turned against him. Verses 4–8 express the  anguish and torment he felt in the midst of such opposition. Again we see evidence that Peter considered the thematic context of the Old Testament when he alluded to it. We find the allusion in v. 22 (Ps 54:23, LXX), “Cast your anxiety upon the Lord, and he will sustain you” (epiripson epi kyrion ten  merimnan sou, kai autos se diathrepsei)."

Mark Dubis (1 Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text):

πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρίψαντες ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν. This portion of verse 7 derives from LXX Ps 54:23 (ET 55:22): ἐπίρριψον ἐπὶ κύριον τὴν μέριμνάν σου

Dubis continues:

πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν. Accusative direct object of ἐπιρίψαντες.
Fronted for emphasis (along with ὑμῶν).

ὑμῶν. Subjective genitive.

ἐπιρίψαντες. Aor act ptc masc nom pl ἐπιρίπτω. This participle is best taken as attendant circumstance, taking on the imperatival force of ταπεινώθητε (RSV, NIV, TEV; see also 2:1 on Ἀποθέμενοι and 1:14 on συσχηματιζόμενοι). Alternatively, some take it as a participle of means (NET; Wallace, 340, 630).

Is Genesis 1:1 An Example of the Construct State? (A Screenshot)

 

Matthew 26:29 (Comments)

Matthew NAC by Craig Blomberg: "Verse 29 anticipates both Jesus’ departure and his return. He warns the disciples that he will not again be drinking (or eating or performing any other part of this Passover liturgy) in the immediate future, but he looks forward to rejoining them for the messianic banquet (recall the imagery of 22:1-14, and cf. Rev 19). The kingdom which is now inaugurated will then be consummated in all its fullness. Jesus’ words may suggest that he refused to drink the fourth and final cup of this particular meal."

Matthew (Baker ECNT by David Turner): "Some MSS read 'blood of the new covenant,' but 'new' may be an interpolation from Luke 22:20 (cf. 1 Cor. 11:25; the additional note on Matt. 26:28). At any rate, in Matt. 26:29 Jesus does speak prophetically of drinking new wine with his disciples in the future kingdom. The institution of the Lord’s Supper is closely tied to the Passover as well as the new covenant (Jer. 31:31–34). It also anticipates the ultimate eschatological feast that inaugurates the future kingdom (Matt. 26:29; cf. 8:11; 22:2; 25:10; Rev. 19:7–9)"

The Gospel of Matthew by R.T. France: "There is a striking contrast between vv. 26-28, with their focus on imminent death, and this final pronouncement which, while it recognizes the end of Jesus’ earthly life (no more drinking of wine), looks forward to a triumphant future for Jesus and his disciples together in “the kingdom of my Father.” Their companionship, which will so soon be broken by death, is to be restored. The wine which is a symbol of death will also be the focus of future rejoicing. New wine is a powerful OT symbol of joyful well-being (e.g., Gen 27:28; Deut 33:28; Prov 3:10; Amos 9:13). Jesus has used it in 9:17 as a symbol of the new life his disciples enjoy in contrast with the old wine-skins of religious tradition. Here it speaks of the life of the kingdom of God, understood perhaps (as in 8:11-12; see comments there) as the messianic banquet. This saying does not specify when this future drinking of wine will take place, but 'new' is a word often used in connection with the messianic fulfillment and ultimate salvation. It is therefore unlikely that Jesus is looking forward only to the forty days during which he will be with them again on earth before his ascension (Acts 1:3; 10:41)."

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: "Positively, wine becomes an important image of joy, celebration and festivity, often expressive of the abundant blessing of God. The presence of wine at the wedding at Cana in John 4 is well known. The psalmist declares, 'You have filled my heart with greater joy than when their grain and new wine abound' (Ps 4:7 NIV [NIV NIV. New International Version] ). The Preacher of Ecclesiastes encourages his readers, 'Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart' (Eccles 9:7 NIV [NIV NIV. New International Version] ). Such imagery, along with that of eschatological blessing, informs Jesus’ statement at the Passover meal that 'I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes' (Lk 22:18 NIV [NIV NIV. New International Version] )."

EF: I encourage you to read the entire entry on wine in the DBI.

1 Corinthians 15:12 (Considering the Setting)

1 Corinthians 15:12 (SBL): Εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς κηρύσσεται ὅτι ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγήγερται, πῶς λέγουσιν ἐν ὑμῖν τινες ὅτι ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν;

ESV: "Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

One of the most impressive, beautiful and thought-provoking biblical accounts is 1 Corinthians 15:1-58: the account is replete with interesting details, analogies, and observations as well as rhetorical turns (tropes). Paul feels the need to defend one of the Christian a, b, c's when he pens these words, namely, he defends the resurrection from the dead--including the resurrection of Christ.

But I've often wondered what made some anointed Christians in Corinth doubt the resurrection. Paul alludes to problematic association in 1 Corinthians 15:33, and that probably influenced their doubts. However, if we stop and think about it, these Christians had the hope of everlasting life in heaven with God, Christ, the angels, and others with the same hope. So how did these Christians begin to doubt the resurrection of Christ, and by extension, their own hope of resurrection to an immortal and incorruptible plane of existence?

One issue that Paul addresses is, what sort of body will the resurrected ones have? He uses an agricultural analogy to show the reasonableness of believing that God can provide a suitable resurrection body, even though our current bodies decay or decompose. Paul also points to heavenly bodies like the sun, moon and stars in order to demonstrate that just as physical bodies exist, it's not out of the realm of possibility for a spiritual body to exist. He appeals to the resurrection of Christ as the paradigm for others; if God raised Christ, then surely he can raise others from the dead.

Regardless of what ultimately caused the Corinthians to question the resurrection, including their own prospective resurrection, it serves as a warning about how subtle Satan can be, causing even the chosen ones to doubt their well-founded hope that is fulfilled by the God who raises the dead.

Jehovah "Alone" Is Holy?

In Jude 4, we read that Jesus Christ (I am aware of variant readings and interpretations) is "our only Owner and Lord" (TON MONON DESPOTHN KAI KURION hHMWN).

If Jesus is the proper referent discussed in this passage, then Jude's use of "only" may seem somewhat problematic since (as subordinationists generally understand the matter) Jesus is not the "only" Lord for Christians.

Assuming a subordinationist understanding of matters, I would like to ask whether the word "only" excludes others from serving as lords for Christian followers of Jesus. In other words, does MONOS have to mean that there is no other Lord for the Christian congregation but Jesus Christ? I think the question is fitting in light of what Revelation 15:4 says about God:

TIS OU MH FOBHQHi KURIE KAI DOXASEI TO ONOMA SOU hOTI MONOS hOSIOS

Yet we also read that an "overseer" (TON EPISKOPON) must be hOSION (Titus 1:8). Furthermore, Christians are exhorted to lift up "holy hands" (hOSIOUS XEIRAS) in prayer to God (1 Ti 2:8).

So it seems that the doxological exclamation MONOS hOSIOS (in Revelation 15:4) does not mean others cannot be hOSIOS or possess the quality of hOSIOTHS.

For the record, one dictionary defines the English word "only" in this way:

"unquestionably the best--PEERLESS; alone in its class or kind: SOLE <an only child>"

So Jehovah's quality of holiness that belongs to him alone can be understood in more than one sense. Compare 1 Samuel 2:2.

The Levites Who Served at the Tabernacle (A Modified Talk on Numbers)

Jehovah has long used men to serve in responsible positions. While Israel had 12 tribes that composed the nation, one particular tribe that supplied men to work at the tabernacle, and later at the temple was the tribe of Levi. Numbers 3:11-13 explains why Jehovah used these men:

Read the verses, then:

Jehovah saved the firstborn sons of Israel when he executed Egypt's firstborn males. Because Jehovah saved the firstborn males of Israel, he could have demanded that all firstborn males serve at his sanctuary. But instead of using all firstborn Israelite males, Jehovah allowed certain non-Levite males to be redeemed for a ransom price of 5 shekels each, then he designated Aaron's family (Moses' brother) to serve in the priesthood: the other Levites assisted at Jehovah's sanctuary (the tabernacle and later, at the temple in Jerusalem).

The Levitical privileges are discussed in Numbers 3:25, 26, 31, 36-37. (Read)

The Levites were composed of 3 families and Jehovah designated a place for each family of Levi's tribe. One family camped in front of the tabernacle to the east, whereas other Levite families camped to the south, west, and north sides of the tabernacle. In this way, we not only learn about the privileges that the tribes held, but also how organized they were. This organized arrangement was all due to Jehovah's backing and spirit. What a God of order he is.

As part of their assigned duties, the Levites would set up, dismantle, and carry the tabernacle through the wilderness. Each family of the tribe had the responsibility to carry parts of the tabernacle. The Levitical tribe stayed busy, but just how long were their duties carried out? Let's read Numbers 4:46-48.

The males in Aaron’s family did priestly duties while the rest of the Levites assisted them: these servants of Jehovah cared for their full duties between 30-50 years of age before retiring from mandatory services. Likewise, in the Christian congregation today, some responsible men care for weighty spiritual concerns, while others perform necessary matters to help the overseers.

Consider the two pictures in the workbook.

Judges 9:8 Septuagint and EPI

Judges 9:8-Use of Epi

Greek LXX: πορευόμενα ἐπορεύθησαν τὰ ξύλα τοῦ χρῗσαι ἑαυτοῗς βασιλέα καὶ εἶπον τῇ ἐλαίᾳ βασίλευσον ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν

Brenton: "The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said to the olive, Reign over us."

NETS: "Going out, the trees went out to anoint a king over themselves. And they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us.'"

Revelation 5:11 (Its Structure and Intertexuality)

Greek (THGNT): Καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἀγγέλων πολλῶν κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν ζώων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων

Translation (RSV): "Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,"

Moffatt NT: "Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels round the throne and of the living Creatures and of the Presbyters, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,"

Analysis: Καὶ εἶδον-Common formula in Revelation. The translations above seem to prefer "Then I looked" for this construction. NET Bible follows the same practice--its note for this verse explains:

"Here καί (kai) has been translated as 'then' to indicate the implied sequence of events within the vision." On the other hand, David Aune calls Καὶ εἶδον a "vision-narrative formula" and he translates, "then I saw" while noting that Revelation 5:1-14 continues the account in Revelation 4:1-11. Aune also observes that 5:11 contains another less frequent formula: εἶδον καὶ ἤκουσα.

The influence from Daniel 7:10, Ezekiel 1:1-28 and 10:1-22 is obvious, and one sees elements of Ezekiel throughout the book of Revelation.

Daniel 7:10 LXX states: ποταμὸς πυρὸς εἷλκεν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν αὐτῷ κριτήριον ἐκάθισεν καὶ βίβλοι ἠνεῴχθησαν

G.K. Beale (The Book of Revelation): "It is generally recognized that the description 'myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands' is taken from Dan. 7:10 (cf. also 1 En. 40:1; 60:1; 71:8, which also allude to Dan. 7:10; cf. further 1 En. 14:22; Num. 10:36). That such a clear picture from Dan. 7:10 should arise here is not surprising in the light of our preceding observations of Daniel 7 influence in 5:2–10. The repeated mention of Ezekiel’s cherubim is now in v 11a combined with the scene in Dan. 7:10."

Semantics/Semantic Neutrality in Silva's "Philippians"

This post contains quotes from an electronic version of Moises Silva's Philippians commentary in the Baker series. I have only included some of the quotes where Silva discusses the importance of semantic neutrality. He begins:

One question that arises generally in the Pauline corpus, but pointedly in Philippians, is whether the apostle intends clear semantic distinctions when similar terms are grouped together.[12] Many commentators, persuaded that Paul could not be guilty of redundancy, look for these distinctions and emphasize them. It is unfortunate, however, that the term redundancy continues to be viewed in a purely negative light. Linguists, drawing on the work of communication engineers, have long recognized that redundancy is a built-in feature of every language and that it aids, rather than hinders, the process of communication.

Though Paul is certainly not thoughtless in his choice of vocabulary, this commentary will argue that lexical distinctions are often neutralized in specific contexts and that many variations result from a need for stylistic reinforcement rather than from a desire to make an additional substantive point. Even some of the controversial terms in the Christ-hymn, I believe, are better understood if we resist sharp distinctions among them (see comments on 2:6–8). What is true of individual lexical items may also be reflected in longer linguistic units, such as the emotive phrases in 2:1, which Lightfoot (1868: 67) perceptively described as a “tautology of earnestness.”

[Philippians] 2:7. μορϕὴν . . . ὁμοιώματι . . . σχήματι: The literature dealing with these words (and such related terms as δόξα, εἶδος, εἱκών, etc.) is very extensive and covers a wide range of problems.[38] Whatever distinctions may be posited are subject to contextual adjustments, including semantic neutralization, which is most likely what we have here. It would be difficult to prove that if these three terms were interchanged, a substantive semantic difference would result. No doubt μορϕή was chosen first to provide an explicit contrast with μορϕὴ θεοῦ in verse 6; ὁμοίωμα (a close synonym to ἴσος, cf. ἴσα in v. 6) serves to delimit more precisely the range of μορϕή (that is, although μορϕή covers a very wide semantic range, only that area that overlaps with ὁμοίωμα is in view); finally σχῆμα, which has an even greater range than μορϕή, is perhaps the most useful term available to provide a general summary of what the two previous clauses have stated.

Joshua Blau on Connective and Conversive Waw (Image)

 

                                            Translating Waw with "and" or "then"