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"

1 Corinthians 15:41 (Knowledge of Celestial Bodies in Antiquity)

Greek: ἄλλη δόξα ἡλίου, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα σελήνης, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα ἀστέρων, ἀστὴρ γὰρ ἀστέρος διαφέρει ἐν δόξῃ. (WH)

Rogers and Rogers:
ESV: "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory."

NWT 2013: "The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, one star differs from another star in glory."

NET: "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars, for star differs from star in glory."

David Garland (BECNT): Mentioning the stars might be intended to bring to mind the glorious state of those resurrected from the dead, who are likened to astral bodies (Dan. 12:2–3; Matt. 13:43; Wis. 3:7; 2 Bar. 51:10; so D. Martin 1995: 118–20).[8] Paul’s point is that the resurrection body is not a reanimated corpse but something of a completely different order that is appropriate to celestial existence. Since the Corinthians recognize that heavenly bodies differ from earthly bodies, they should not expect the resurrected body to be a recycled earthly body. 

EGF: The discussion by Anthony Thiselton in his 1 Corinthians commentary merits reading: both he and Garland present some refined points about 1 Cor. 15:41, but hardly anyone I've read says much about Greek astronomy when commenting on the expression, "star differs from star in glory." I sometimes wonder how much Paul knew about ancient Greek astronomy and figures like Aristarchus, Hipparchus or Ptolemy. The work of classifying stars by magnitude was already underway in antiquity: that is one reason why I find Hipparchus to be such a compelling figure.

The works I consulted also point out that 1 Corinthians 15:39-41 likely draws upon Genesis 1. Moreover, notice the syntactical order in verse 41, how Paul goes from sun to moon to stars, and the repeated occurrence of the adjective "one/one sort" or "another."

A.T. Robertson: "The telescope has added more force to Paul's argument."

Isaiah 65:25--The Serpent's Food Will Be Dust (Commentators)

John N. Oswalt (NICOT): The one element here that is not present in 11:6-9 is the snake [will eat]2055 dust for its bread. Some commentators (e.g., Westermann, Whybray) believe that it has been intentionally added because this passage is speaking about the new creation. That is, it is an allusion to Gen. 3. All the sources of weeping that have been detailed in vv. 20-25 are ultimately the result of the snake’s interference in Eden. There God announced that the snake would crawl in the dust forever, and that although he would bite the heel of Eve’s child, that child would crush the snake’s head (Gen. 3:15). Here the snake is finally condemned not only to crawl in the dust but to eat only dust forevermore. When that happens, the curse will be truly broken, and as the Lord says, there will be none to hurt or destroy in all his holy mountain. May God grant it.

Jewish Study Bible (JPS): The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, And the lion shall eat straw like the ox, And the serpent's food shall be earth. In all My sacred mount Nothing evil or vile shall be done-said the LORD

Keil-Delitzsch: We have frequently observed within chapters 40-66 (last of all at Isaiah 65:12, cf., Isaiah 66:4), how the prophet repeats entire passages from the earlier portion of his prophecies almost word for word. Here he repeats Isaiah 11:6-9 with a compendious abridgment. Isaiah 65:25 refers to the animals just as it does there. But whilst this custom of self-repetition favours the unity of authorship, כּאחד for יחדּו equals unâ, which only occurs elsewhere in Ezra and Ecclesiastes (answering to the Chaldee כּחדה), might be adduced as evidence of the opposite. The only thing that is new in the picture as here reproduced, is what is said of the serpent. This will no longer watch for human life, but will content itself with the food assigned it in Genesis 3:14. It still continues to wriggle in the dust, but without doing injury to man. The words affirm nothing more than this, although Stier's method of exposition gets more out, or rather puts more in. The assertion of those who regard the prophet speaking here as one later than Isaiah, viz., that Isaiah 65:25 is only attached quite loosely to what precedes, is unjust and untrue. The description of the new age closes here, as in chapter 11, with the peace of the world of nature, which stands throughout chapters 40-66 in the closest reciprocal relation to man, just as it did in chapters 1-39.

NET Bible: A wolf and a lamb will graze together;^[a] a lion, like an ox, will eat straw,^[b] and a snake’s food will be dirt.^[c] They will no longer injure or destroy on my entire royal mountain,”^[d] says the Lord.

Note c in NET Bible: Isaiah 65:25 sn Some see an allusion to Gen 3:14 (note “you will eat dirt”). The point would be that even in this new era the snake (often taken as a symbol of Satan) remains under God’s curse. However, it is unlikely that such an allusion exists. Even if there is an echo of Gen 3:14, the primary allusion is to 11:8, where snakes are pictured as no longer dangerous. They will no longer attack other living creatures, but will be content to crawl along the ground. (The statement “you will eat dirt” in Gen 3:14 means “you will crawl on the ground.” In the same way the statement “dirt will be its food” in Isa 65:25 means “it will crawl on the ground.”)

John Goldingay (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series): Verse 25 identifies this vision with that in 11:6–9. It also adds the somber line based on Genesis 3:14, but dust will be the serpent’s food. This surprising comment implies that, for all the vision of new creation, the factors that led to the original human act of uncreation have not been re- moved. It seems odd that there was present in God’s good creation a creature who encouraged humanity to do other than God said. In parallel, it seems odd that this creature should also be present in the renewed Jerusalem. Perhaps the implication is that such life is no more designed to be challenge-free than life in Eden was. But here, more clearly than in Genesis 3:14–15, the description concludes with a promise that the serpent’s action will not spoil things (v. 25b). When we set the passage in a broader biblical context, that reference to the serpent also draws our attention to the fact that long, full, ordinary earthly life is designed to be continued as, or succeeded by, or transformed into, eternal life.

Makarios: "Happy" or "Blessed"? (Matthew 5:3 As A Test Case)

How should the Greek word μακάριος be translate in Matthew 5:3? Should it be rendered "happy" or "blessed"?

Latin Vulgate: beati pauperes spiritu quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum

Weymouth NT: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for to them belongs the Kingdom of the Heavens."

Young's LT: "Happy the poor in spirit -- because theirs is the reign of the heavens."

Moffatt's NT: "Blessed are those who feel poor in spirit! the Realm of heaven is theirs."

David Bentley Hart NT: “How blissful the destitute, abject in spirit, for theirs is the
Kingdom of the heavens;"

Bentley Hart Footnote: μακάριος (makarios): “blessed,” “happy,” “fortunate,” “prosperous,” but originally with a connotation of divine or heavenly bliss.

David Turner (BECNT): The word “beatitude” is related to the Latin beatus, which means “blessed.” To be blessed (μακάριος, makarios) is to receive God’s approval, favor, endorsement, congratulations. To be “blessed” is to be so much more than “happy,” since the word “happiness” conveys only a subjective, shallow notion of serendipity, not the conviction of being a recipient of God’s grace. God initiates blessing by graciously condescending to save people. They respond to God’s initiative by blessing God with praise and obedient living. Their present experience of God’s reign in Jesus motivates them to live in light of its future intensification (6:10). The pattern of the Beatitudes is to highlight the character of the blessed person and then to explain the promise of God to such a person.

Louw-Nida defines μακάριος as  “pertaining to being happy, with the implication of enjoying favorable circumstances—‘happy.’”

BDAG: μακάριος, ία, ιον (Pind., Pla., X.+; inscr., pap., LXX, En., Philo, Joseph.) blessed, fortunate, happy, usu. in the sense privileged recipient of divine favor.

μακάριος occurs around 50x in the GNT.

LXX Occurences: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G3107&t=LXX&ot=LXX&word=%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BA%E1%BD%B1%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82

See Psalm 41:1; 128:1 (LXX); 1 Timothy 1:11; Titus 2:11-14.

Arche in the Septuagint (A Link)

See https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G746&t=LXX&ot=LXX&word=%E1%BC%80%CF%81%CF%87%E1%BF%87

Should Christians Practice Tithing (Modified Talk)

One appealing quality of Jehovah is his generosity, and generosity is a quality that God loves in his worshipers. 2 Corinthians 9:7 exclaims that God loves a cheerful giver, but some church members may feel compelled to give beyond their means. Some churches teach that God requires a set amount of money for contributions: this practice is known as tithing, which means giving 10 percent of one's money as a contribution or offering. Does God require a set amount for a contribution? Exactly how much should we donate?

When Jehovah dealt with the nation of Israel, he clearly instructed them about how much they should give to sustain the tabernacle and later, the temple. According to Leviticus 27:30, "every tenth part of the land" belonged to Jehovah. Since Israel was an agricultural nation, much of their tithing consisted of produce from the land. In return, Jehovah promised he would make the nation ‘overflow with prosperity.’​ See Malachi 3:10.

In other instances, God's servants could give little or plenty, depending on their circumstances. For example, when King David planned to build a temple for Jehovah, his subjects donated “gold worth five thousand talents.” That amount today would be equivalent to almost 5 billion dollars. On the other hand, in Luke 21:1-4, Jesus told about a widow, who contributed 2 coins of little value: her donation was only 1/64 of a day's wages. Yet Jesus praised this woman's generosity.

What about Christians? Are we required to give a set amount today for contributions? While giving is a great source of joy for Christians, since we're not under the Mosaic Law, God's people are no longer obligated to tithe or give 10 percent contributions. If we turn to 2 Corinthians 9:7, we'll see why a set amount is no longer required.

[After reading verse]

Paul pointed out that a Christian should give what he's resolved in his heart. Why? Because God loves a cheerful giver. This is why Jehovah's Witnesses offer voluntary contributions to support the worldwide preaching work. While some Witnesses might get help defraying their expenses or to assist with their ministry, most of us work to supply our needs in order to avoid becoming a burden to others. By doing these things, we imitate Jehovah, our generous heavenly Father (Acts 20:35; Ephesians 5:1; James 1:17).

"The Abused Aorist" (Journal Article Link)

See https://www.jstor.org/stable/3263206?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents for this classical article:

John 14:10--Union Between God and Christ?

Greek (WH): οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστιν; τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ λαλῶ· ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένων ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ.

According to this verse, Jesus could do powerful works because he was "in the Father" and the Father was in him.

NWT 2013: "Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works."

It is hard to explain the significance of ἐν when it comes to Johannine and Pauline writings. Is a form of mysticism suggested by such language? Even believers are said to be "in Christ" or receive the peace of God "in Christ Jesus." See Philippians 4:6-7.

Frederic Louis Godet offers one perspective on 14:10. I quote his remarks in full:

Jesus indicates to Philip two signs by which he ought to have recognized and may even at this moment recognize in Him the true appearance of God. He does not say that the Father and Himself are one and the same person. He constantly prays to the Father, saying: Thou. But it is a union by which they live the one in the other (comp. Gess), and this relation has as its background the life of the Logos. The words Believest thou not? show Philip that his prayer must be regarded as inconsistent with his faith.

There are in the union of Jesus with the Father two aspects: I in the Father: Jesus emptying Himself in order to transfer Himself to God; and the Father in me: God communicating to Jesus all His wealth of strength and wisdom. On one side, Jesus making a void in Himself; on the other, God filling this void.

After this, Jesus characterizes each of the two sides of this relation by that one of the manifestations of His life which is most fitted to bring it to light: the first by His words; the second, by His works. Not one of His words that He derives from Himself and does not receive from God! Not one of His works that is not wrought through Him by God Himself! Of His own wisdom, nothing! By the strength of God, everything. The negative clause is better suited to wisdom; the active form, to power. The following verse explains why the words are placed here before the works: comp. the reverse order in John 8:28, where Jesus is speaking to the unbelieving Jews. The first sign of the community of life and action between Jesus and God, for prepared hearts, is His teachings; for those less disposed, it is His works. We may hesitate between the readings λαλῶ and λέγω, in the first clause. In the second, the term λαλῶ, in any case, is perfectly suitable. Jesus is only the organ of the Father: God speaks; Jesus announces.

See https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gsc/john-14.html

Buist Fanning and Revelation 22:3

Greek: καὶ πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι. καὶ ὁ θρόνος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου ἐν αὐτῇ ἔσται, καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ,

On page 555 of his Revelation commentary, Buist Fanning understands the referent of the singular datival pronoun αὐτῷ to be God: he points to Revelation 7:15 as support for this view. Fanning's position makes more sense to me than those who want to posit the two persons/one pronoun view. Fanning still thinks that Christ is God and worthy of worship based on Revelation 5:9-14, but he maintains that the singular pronoun in 22:3 refers to God rather than Christ.

Similarly, David Aune writes that the singular pronoun in Revelation may refer to a) God; b) Christ;
c) less likely, to both God and Christ.

Compare Revelation 3:21.

A Grand Old Place Within A Tiny Space (I.e., The Brain and Its Wondrous Capabilities)

One definition for "wondrous" is "Inspiring a feeling of wonder or delight; marvelous."

See https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/wondrous

The Greek tragedian Sophocles waxed eloquent about the wondrous nature of humanity in the tragic play, Antigone:

"And speech, and wind-swift thought, and all the moods that mould a state, hath he [i.e., man] taught himself; and how to flee the arrows of the frost, when 'tis hard lodging under the clear sky, and the arrows of the rushing rain; yea, he hath resource for all; without resource he meets nothing that must come: only against Death shall he call for aid in vain; but from baffling maladies he hath devised escapes" (lines 332-340).

King David likewise spoke of humanity's wondrous nature, but he lauded Jehovah God while articulating human wonder: "I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well." (Psalm 139:14 NRSV).

Concerning the Hebrew terminology rendered "Wonderful" above, Gesenius has the following:

to be wonderful, Psalms 118:23, 139:14. Pl. f. as a substantive נִפְלָאוֹת things done wonderfully, miracles of God, both in creating and sustaining the world, Psalms 9:2, 26:7 40:6 and in affording aid to his people, Exodus 34:10; Joshua 3:5. It also takes adjectives, as, נִפְלָאוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת Psalms 136:4. Adv. נִפְלָאוֹת wonderfully, Job 37:5. Daniel 8:24. (Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon)

Th. Booij offers these remarks on Psalm 139:14:

The participle niplaim ("wonderful") nicely links up with nipleti, being related to it formally and semantically. That YHWH's works are wonderful is demonstrated in the speaker himself. It is a notion that thoroughly pervades him: "my soul knows right well."

Out of all the things that make humanity "wondrous/wonderful," one thing is the human brain. From the activity of our dendrites and synapses to our capacity for language and memory, the brain is one reason that we can laud the work of God's creative hand: the brain has been compared to a universe within our heads. For example:

"The human brain boasts an estimated 100 billion nerve cells, or neurons, each of which may connect to up to 10,000 other neurons (although not all do). If you could count all those contacts, one per second, you'd need just over 31 trillion years to finish the job."

See https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2018/12/12/computer-memory-a-scientific-team-builds-a-virtual-model-of-a-key-brain-region/

Another article states:

"Your brain has the capacity to retain 4.7 billion books, scientists have discovered, or ten times the number originally thought. On average, one synapse can hold roughly 4.7 bits of information, which means that the human brain can hold one petabyte (1,000,000,000,000,000 bytes)."

Hence, our brain is a grand old place located within a tiny space.

Sources for Further Reading:

Th. Booij, "Psalm CXXXIX: Text, Syntax, Meaning," Vetus Testamentum 55 (2005): 1-19.

Collins, C. John, "Psalm 139:14 - 'Fearfully and Wonderfully Made?' " Presbyterion, 1999.

John 1:1 (Kenneth Wuest's "Expanded Translation")

"In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity." (Wuest)

One of the NIV translators, Ralph Earle, affirms this reading of John 1:1:

"The Logos is not equivalent to 'God'; there is also God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. But he is fully divine. We could translate this clause either literally--'God was the Word'--or as, 'The Word was deity.' It is an emphatic declaration of the deity of the Logos, who in verse 14 is identified with Jesus."

See Earle, Word Meanings in the New Testament, page 81.

This post is simply informational, not designed to refute Wuest or Earle, et al.