About How The LIT Was Produced
By Hal Dekker
2019.01.16
Last page update: 2024.10.05
The Abundance Of Ellipses In The Biblical Texts
- Mat. 16:21-23
- Mat. 24:7
- Acts 10:1-9
- Rom. 1:13
- Rom. 8:22
- Rom. 11:25
- Mat. 6:2-4
- Mat. 5:30
- Mat. 12:22
- Mat. 22:12b
- Heb. 11:1-4
- 1 Cor. 2:1-9
- John 15:1-8
----- : -----
Introduction to Ellipses
When quoting a source, especially quoting the writers of the biblical Hebrew and Greek texts, since what those writers wrote is believed to be the Word of the God to his creation, to insure truth in translation of those words I believe there must be an accounting made for the exact meaning of each one of them. Although the exact meaning of any word may depend largely upon the context in which it is used, we can see that each word does have an essential root meaning traditionally assigned to it from the culture out of which it became used.
I produced the LITAGL to serve as the authority and resource for the word meanings used in the LIT. Many roots have many inflected forms. Showing specific word meanings by inflected form presents comparisons between and among them to demonstrate that inflected forms are still constrained and confined in their meanings to stay within the boundaries of their essential root word meaning. Exceptions to this rule could be colloquialisms, but would be idioms and other figures of speech. Because the LIT uses no paraphrases in its production, but is simply a word for word literal translation, legitimate colloquialisms, idioms and other figures of speech used by the biblical writers, are more conspicuously noticeable while reading the LIT.
Using the LITAGL to translate the biblical Greek texts, the bare bones meanings of the words of a sentence in a biblical text can be laid down to begin a translation. This then begins the next step in my translation process which is an analysis of what I think of as the continuity of context. In the biblical Greek texts the proper order of the words as they are read in Greek is not the same order as used in English, whether spoken or read. And so a translator must look very carefully at the exact parts of speech and their exact inflected forms of each word in the Greek biblical texts, in order to determine how those words must be reordered into proper sentences in English.
Paying very close attention to the actual parts of speech and inflected forms of the words in the biblical Greek texts is the critical step in determining:
1. the order in which those words should be presented in English,
2. the individual meanings presented for each and every one of those words,
3. and the collective meaning those words present when combined into phases, clauses and sentences.
Preparation for translation is where I've spent most of my time producing the LIT. First, determining a Greek word's exact part of speech, then determining its historically assigned meaning from its cultural usage, and then determining the exact inflected forms of each and every one of those words (thank you Fribergs!), is how I built the LITAGL.
An assumption I made, which is built into the LITAGL, is that biblical Greek words which all share the same root, should all more or less share that essential root meaning in the definitions of their specific inflected form meanings, in order to produce an evidence-based translation. This explains a translation methodology which is based very closely upon the actual meanings of the words the biblical writers wrote in the biblical texts, and in which translation methodology opinionated paraphrasing has no place whatsoever. I have found that when I follow this process it sets up a bare bones English translation which lends itself very well to the next translation process I use, which is analysis and verification of the continuity of context.
In my analysis and verification of continuity of context I look for the writer's subject matters to flow and conjoin to and from one another smoothly, logically, with each word's meaning falling within the boundaries of common sense of meaning, given that passage's continuity of context up to that point in a verse.
But one day, years ago while deep in study of the biblical texts, I suddenly realized something about which I had been unconsciously struggling. I realized that the biblical writers were deliberately leaving words out of their writings at peculiar intervals. The time soon came when I decided I needed to understand what these apparent omissions were all about, to justifiably continue to make a legitimate translation of the biblical texts. As I dug deeper into the biblical texts to try to discover the biblical writers' purposes for using these apparent anomalies, these (apparent to only me?) omissions appeared to run in patterns throughout contexts, which patterns then caused me to believe these omissions were deliberate and methodical.
On account of its uniqueness, a book having been on my shelf for decades, before desktop PCs, I thought of the work by the great 19th century biblical scholar E. W. Bullinger, in his work titled Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. His essay on Ellipses, out of dozens of other figures explained, is conspicuously the very first figure of speech which Bullinger presents. From my own translation experience I believe it is the most used figure of speech in the NT biblical texts, among the use of dozens of others which Bullinger presents.
Readers of my translation, the LIT, obviously may question some of the selections I made to supply ellipses in my translation. Finding and supplying the correct antecedents for subsequent ellipses is mostly a subjective process, although there are some rules implied in the texts for how they can be found and determined, based upon the ways they've been used by the biblical writers already. I expect the readers of the LIT to critically examine my work for themselves. That's the only way anyone can form any level of trust in my work or anyone's work. I encourage and welcome readers to critically examine my work in the LIT and pass on to me any suggestions they may have which could help me improve the quality and completeness of the LIT.
I'm no where near perfect in my quality of work in the LIT, and I make mistakes all of the time. Thank you heavenly Father for your firstborn Son Christ Jesus teaching me how to overcome my imperfections and for your forgiveness of my sin. Every reader of the biblical Greek texts, using his own critical eye, should search for and supply any required ellipses for himself.
If any of the ellipses Hal Dekker has supplied in his LIT don't seem to be a meaningfully fit with the immediate context in your opinion, by all means please search through the contexts for yourself to find the antecedents which seem to supply the most continuity of context for those ellipses. Each and every believer of adult age is responsible to the God for his own beliefs. The elliptical references I supply in the LIT are based upon my level of comprehension of the beliefs of the biblical writers. Others' levels of comprehension of the meanings in the biblical texts may be more or less. And so I welcome any suggestions anyone may have as to how I can improve my own knowledge and/or quality and completeness of the LIT. Helpful feedback is always welcome.
Now try this for yourself: If you have biblical studies resources at hand, look at the contents of any of the Greek grammar or vocabulary books or apps you may have, and determine whether any of those books/apps, by any expert or scholar, at any skill level, basic, intermediate or advanced, mention anything about the Greek biblical writers use of ellipses in their writings. In those books or apps, look in their tables of contents or in their indexes for any mention of ellipsis (sing.) or ellipses (plur.). How can any scholar's books, especially about biblical Greek grammar, not mention ellipses? On account of the apparent importance of ellipses to the biblical writers, readers must understand the importance of ellipses as well, important to both the writer to make his points, and important to readers to be able to "see" and understand those points.
From my experience examining the NT biblical texts, ellipses are very often used as a method of writing to draw a reader's attention into staying on track with key meanings in the local and immediate contexts, which meanings build the overall meaning of the whole context of a passage. In the texts, very often the biblical writers would conspicuously leave a word out of a sentence, thusly leaving a blank in the sentence, with the word immediately preceding the blank being used as a prompt, and possibly serving as a clue as well. I discovered that in order to be able to determine the correct previously used word or words needed to fill in a blank a reader must go back and examine more closely the immediate and local contexts, to discover the word or words previously used which meanings could now possibly fit in with the immediate contextual meaning surrounding the blank. Each reader should decide which previously used word in a closely related context should be carried forward to be used to fill in an apparent suspicious blank in a subsequent phrase, clause or sentence in that context.
In a few minutes I'll show you several examples in the Greek biblical texts.
I understand the essence of an ellipsis to be the suggestion of, or the implicit use of, a meaning used earlier in the associated context. Very seldom do I find an ellipsis for which its prompt's succedent is found in a later context. I found that ellipses are solved similarly to how pronouns are solved. Pronouns are usually solved through referring back to their closest associated nouns. Likewise, the succedents necessary to solve ellipses are intended to be supplied from among logical antecedents in the previous local or immediate contexts.
In my studies in the biblical texts, while first gaining an understanding of each word's meaning, and then while trying to assemble those Greek words into the correct grammatical order into which they could be read and understood in English, I thought I noticed words used in ways which would normally require succedents. I found that the parts of speech which are used most often to form ellipses are usually;
1. adjectives - both regular and ordinal
2. definite articles
3. demonstratives
4. prepositions
5. transitive verbs
When these parts of speech are used by biblical writers while using blanks for their arguments, I now consider them to be elliptical prompts, indicators of instances of the use of ellipses by the biblical writers. Ellipses are so pervasive throughout the biblical texts that when I read the Greek texts hardly one single verse can go by without me noticing a deliberate elliptical prompt used in that verse by its biblical writer.
But is there any evidence from other independent scholarly sources to legitimize all of this talk about how important was the the use of ellipses to the biblical writers?
As I said a moment ago, arguably one of
the most important Biblical scholars of the nineteenth
century was the late Dr. E. W. Bullinger (died June 6,
1913). In his work titled "Figures of Speech Used
In The Bible", the very first figure he explains is
Ellipses. From my examination of Bullinger's
listings of all of the possible figures of speech used
in the biblical texts, why Bullinger hits this figure
hard, first, doesn't appear to be out of numerical or
alphabetic considerations, but because it's the figure of
speech most often used by the apostles/writers of the
new covenant books of the Bible.
But what I see in the biblical Greek texts causes me to disagree with Dr. Bullinger on one point he made based upon his opinion of the writers' purpose for their use of ellipses.
Dr. Bullinger stated:
"The omission arises not from want of thought, or lack of care, or from accident, but from design, in order that we may not stop to think of, or lay stress on, the word omitted, but may dwell on the other words which are thus emphasized by the omission." - Bullinger, Dr. E.W.. Figures of Speech Used In The Bible - Explained And Illustrated. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968, 1.
I fully agree with the first part of his statement, "The omission arises not from want of thought, or lack of care, or from accident, but from design."
But I believe a biblical writer's purpose for using ellipses is just the opposite of what Dr. Bullinger states in the second part of that statement. I believe ellipses are used in order that we may stop to think of and especially dwell upon, the meanings of the words omitted, and thereby the contributions those supplied ellipses make to the meaning of a verse, and subsequently to the meaning of the whole passage.
I believe biblical writers had to be very careful to write the biblical texts in such a way so as not to stoke the ire of the rulers and authorities, both Roman and others, by allowing their writings to appear as criticisms or mockeries of elements of their governmental framework or policies. Ellipses gave the biblical writers a way to hide the possible volatility of the things they wrote about if their writings were to be misunderstood by those in authority.
Reading the biblical writings chocked full of grammatical blanks, without the correct knowledge and application of the succedents to satisfy the elliptical prompts, gave the writings enough obfuscation at a glance to prevent the rulers in authorities from misunderstanding or misinterpreting the writings to be about their own authority, rulership and kingdoms. The very last thing any disciples of Jesus wanted was to be beaten, thrown in jail and/or killed, from being accused of inciting rebellion against those in authority. From Jesus' disciples watching what happened to Jesus, they apparently learned this lesson well (Luke 11:53-54).
I believe the ellipses are the points in a narrative which are designed to capture the attention and focus of our thoughts as we read through narratives. From my own observations of how the biblical writers wrote, ellipses are intended to steer us in our minds into the thinking patterns of the thoughts of Jesus Christ, through showing to us, using ellipses, those specific or general meanings upon which we should dwell, and think through thoroughly.
Dr. Bullinger stated that it is the remaining words, which were not omitted, which carry the most importance in meaning. Whereas I demonstrate out of the biblical texts, through actual translated passages, that it's those ellipses which are the guiding keys of meanings which guide a reader into properly and thoroughly understanding the overall meaning of an entire context. Unrecognized ellipses cause passages to appear to be vague and/or nonspecific, obfuscated. But when ellipses are detected by their prompts, and their succedents are properly supplied from antecedents in the local context, then clarity of the writers' points and intended meanings comes to whole passages.
Here's a passage in Matthew 1. See if you can spot
the ellipses and their prompts which I "saw".
While
translating the LIT, when I found an apparent ellipsis used by
a writer, I marked the apparent blank in the text using
brackets, [ ], into which succedent positions I would
place my choice of contextual antecedents.
Mat. 1:20 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) of him (autou) having been made inwardly passionate (enthumēthentos) of these things (tauta), behold (idou), down according to (kat’) [a] dream (onar) [a] messenger (angelos) of [the] Lord (kuriou, Adonai/YHWH) was shown (ephanē) to him (autō), saying (legōn), "Joseph (Iōsēph), son (huios) of David (Dauid), do not be made fearful (mē phobēthēs) to take alongside (paralabein) Mariam (Mariam), the (tēn) female (gunaika) of you (sou)!
Because (gar) the (to) [Christ, v18, RE] having been generated (gennēthen) in (en) her (autē) is (estin) [generated, ER] out (ek) of holy (hagiou) Spirit (pneumatos)!
Mat. 1:21 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) she shall cause herself to bear (texetai) [a] son (huion).
And (kai) you shall call aloud (kaleseis) the (to) name (onoma) of him (autou) Jesus (Iēsoun), because (gar) he (autos) shall make whole (sōsei) the (ton) people (laon) of him (autou) from (apo) the (tōn) sins (hamartiōn) of them (autōn)."
Mat. 1:22 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) this (touto) whole (holon) [origin of the Jesus Christ, v18, RE] has come to pass (gegonen) in order that (hina) the (to) [prophecy, AE] having been stated (rhēthen) under (hupo) [authority, AE] of [the] Lord (kuriou, Adonai/YHWH) through (dia) the (tou) prophet (prophētou), may be fulfilled (plērōthē), saying (legontes),
Mat. 1:23 (LIT/UBS4) "Behold (idou), the (hē) [female, v20, RE] in virginity (parthenos) shall hold (hexei) in (en) belly (gastri), and (kai) she shall cause herself to bear (texetai) [a] son (huion)!
And (kai) [the people of him, v21, RE] shall call aloud (kalesousin) the (to) name (onoma) of him (autou) 'Emmanuel (Emmanouēl)', which (ho) is (estin) being with interpretation (methermēneuomenon), 'The (ho) God (theos) of us (hēmōn) [is] with (meth’) [us, RE]'."
In the last part of verse 20 I "saw" a definite article with an apparently missing succedent, "the (to) [Christ, v18, RE] having been generated (gennēthen)." I found the antecedent "Christ" back in verse 18, which makes the ellipsis a Relative Ellipsis (RE), which antecedent appears to fit the flow of the meaning of the entire context.
Each reader should determine and verify for himself what is an elliptical prompt, and then to determine from the possible antecedents in the previous local context which word or words could be used to supply the prompt's succedent.
In verse 22 did you "see" the Greek adjective holon, meaning whole, as a prompt for an ellipsis?
In the biblical Greek text of Mat. 1:22, here's exactly what Matthew actually wrote in Greek in verse 22, although I present the word order in English for obvious reasons.
Mat. 1:22
(LIT/UBS4) But this whole
_________ has
come to pass in order that the ________ having been
stated under _________ of [the] Lord,
through the prophet, may be fulfilled, saying,
...
As you can see, I identified three ellipses in Matthew's sentence, which sentence ends in v23. This is what ellipses look like to me when reading the Greek texts. The Greek adjective holon, meaning whole, calls for a succedent, and the definite article to, meaning the, requires a succedent, and the preposition hupo, meaning under, I believe requires a succedent as well. Once all of the ellipses for a verse or passage have been identified and supplied, the verse's meaning can't help but be more or less different than any supposed obfuscated meaning it may have had from leaving the ellipses blank!
I'm curious as to how some biblical scholars who, while reading the biblical texts, can't "see" ellipses used abundantly by the biblical writers about 2,000 years ago, but they can "see" "deponent verbs" based upon a relatively recent theory invented, which is an impossibility. Something which actually exists in the biblical texts, ellipses, they can't "see", while something which doesn't exist in the biblical texts, deponent verbs, they say they can "see"! That's truly amazing.
1. The first ellipsis in Mat. 1:22, which seemed apparent to me, was signaled by the adjective "whole", which ellipsis suggests the question, "whole what?" The Greek adjective holon appears to require a noun to complete the ellipsis in the sentence. Any reader can find for himself a word or words needed to supply an ellipsis from the immediate and/or local contexts. The context is about the origin of the Jesus Christ (Mat. 1:18), over the sake of which her espoused Joseph is now having a dream, over the sake of how he was going to treat his espoused wife Mariam, who was having a mysterious pregnancy.
When I "saw" the ellipsis based upon the Greek adjective holon meaning whole, I determined that whatever that whole thing was, that it "has come to pass...". So I looked back earlier into the context and saw the word origin in v18, earlier in the context, and determined that it was the origin of the Jesus Christ which had come to pass, because Mariam was already holding in her belly. Now we have:
Mat. 1:22
(LIT/UBS4) But this whole
[origin of the Jesus Christ,
v18, RE] has
come to pass in order that the ________ having been
stated under _________ of [the] Lord,
through the prophet, may be fulfilled, saying,
...
In my opinion, when a reader is challenged by an apparent ellipsis in the biblical texts, it is incumbent upon the reader to supply the ellipses for himself, which ellipses are usually supplied by the biblical writer of the text, in the immediate and/or local contexts. While reading the LIT, the LIT being the only Bible translation which shows ellipses to readers, a reader can always look back earlier in the present context to see if he can find a more likely or logical antecedent to fill the succedent position of an ellipsis.
2. The second ellipsis which seemed apparent to me was signaled by the nominative case definite article the (to), which ellipsis again suggests a question, "the what?", which definite article appears to require a nominative case noun to complete the nominative case ellipsis in the sentence. Whatever that noun may be, it was something that was "having been stated under...", which is yet another clue which we must follow. Another clue is the remaining context of v22 and on into v23. From which information common sense tells us that prophets state prophecies. So I determined that the word prophecy would fill the definite article ellipsis very nicely.
In addition, the nominative case verb rhēthen, meaning "having been stated", appears to me to be looking for its missing antecedent, the apparent missing nominative case subject noun for the definite article, to which the passive voice action of the verb was caused to occur, making this ellipsis prompted by both the need of the definite article and the need of the verb. Now we have:
Mat. 1:22
(LIT/UBS4) But this whole
[origin of the Jesus Christ,
v18, RE] has
come to pass in order that the
[prophecy, AE] having been
stated under ________ of [the] Lord,
through the prophet, may be fulfilled, saying,
...
3. The third ellipsis which seemed apparent to me was signaled by the preposition hupo meaning under, which ellipsis suggests the question, "under what?", which preposition appears to require a noun to complete it. Throughout the biblical Greek texts the preposition under (hupo) is often used by the biblical writers to indicate a hierarchy order of authority within the context, in which something is shown to be subordinate to something else. Examples are subordinations are usually among people, people within the genus of a family, and within governmental, military and religious structures as well. For an example see 1 Cor. 11:3-13.
Now we have all three ellipses supplied for how Matthew wrote Mat. 1:22, and this is how the verse reads, fitting the words together based upon their parts of speech, and very carefully following the highly important inflected forms of each and every word in the verse into the translation.
Mat. 1:22
(LIT/UBS4) But this whole
[origin of the Jesus Christ,
v18, RE] has
come to pass in order that the
[prophecy, AE] having been
stated under
[authority, AE] of [the] Lord,
through the prophet, may be fulfilled, saying,
...
You may ask why readers don't see ellipses in other Bible translations. The reason is, more or less, but at least half, of the wordage in most popular Bible translations are paraphrases, which are simply other mortals' opinions. There are no other new testament Bible translations in English, that I know about, which simply quote the biblical writers.
----- : -----
The Abundance Of Ellipses In The Biblical Texts
In essence, an ellipsis is an apparent missing word in a sentence. All the various biblical writers of the new covenant books of the Bible used, more or less, the grammatical mechanism of ellipsis to not only make their important points, but to draw-in a reader to pay closer attention to what they wrote, through how they wrote it. Figures of speech are used by the biblical writers to impress upon their readers what are the most important points about the subject matter which they are trying to convey.
A writer's
intentional usage of a blank in a sentence in place of
a critically important word draws the reader's
attention into pondering upon what the writer has
already written in the immediate and/or local contexts, among which words one or more can be
selected to fill
in an elliptical blank. The missing word is usually a noun
or a verb, or a phrase, which word's meaning is a
necessary key to properly understanding
the passage.
The Greek texts
of the new covenant books of the Bible abound with
ellipses of at least three basic kinds which Dr.
Bullinger has identified. Rather than get into the
laborious task of explaining here all of the various
sub-forms of those three different kinds of ellipses, if
you get a chance to obtain a copy of Dr. Bullinger's
book you will add to your library an indispensable
foundational stone of reference material.
Dr. Bullinger
spoke of three basic kinds of ellipses:
"- an
absolute ellipsis, in which the omitted word or
words are to be supplied from the nature of the subject
alone,
- a
relative ellipsis, in which the omitted word or
words are to be supplied from, and are suggested by, the
context,
- an
ellipsis of repetition, in which the omitted word or
words are to be supplied by repeating them from a clause
which precedes or follows." - Dr. Bullinger, E. W. Figures Of
Speech Used In The Bible - Explained And Illustrated.
Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1968, 2.
Relative ellipses (RE) and ellipses of repetition (ER) seem to me, after translating the new testament texts from the UBS4 texts into the LIT, to be the most common kinds of ellipsis, with RE being the most common form. The identification of absolute ellipsis (AE) is more challenging to determine, and therefore calls for a somewhat more subjective solution to fill in the blank.
All three basic
kinds of ellipses are based upon the use of omitting
words in phrases and clauses, and so I have adopted the
term word puzzles to describe ellipses; because
the deliberate omission of a word calls for the reader
to hunt through the preceding immediate, local, and
sometimes remote contexts of the discrete topic to find
the correct word or words, or missing "piece", to fill
in the blank of the word puzzle.
In the LIT
wherever I've identified an ellipsis of some kind I mark
it with the appropriate abbreviation of its kind, so the
reader can be alerted as to the possible existence of an
ellipsis, and from where I found the "piece" to fill-in
the blank of a writer's word puzzle.
Citing
definitions of how ellipsis is used today in the English
language is not much help in explaining how radically,
in comparison, ellipsis was used in the Koiné Greek
language about two thousand years ago. However,
The Oxford English Grammar makes a good statement about
the fundamental similarities of how ellipses were done
in the biblical Koiné Greek and in English now.
"Ellipsis - the
omission of material that can be recovered by the hearer
or reader - plays a significant role in grammatical
cohesion when the part to be recovered is indicated in
the previous text." - Greenbaum, Sidney. The Oxford
English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford, 1996
From my
experience that statement is absolutely true. But
here's a definition of ellipsis from the New Oxford American
Dictionary:
"... the omission
from speech or writing of a word or words that are
superfluous or able to be understood from contextual
clues." - New Oxford American Dictionary
The definition
of ellipsis from the New Oxford American Dictionary may
be true for modern English, but it is absolutely wrong
about how many of the ellipses were done in biblical
Koiné Greek. What's wrong with that statement
concerning the biblical writer's use of ellipsis is the
part about the omitted words being superfluous, meaning
unnecessary. Just the opposite is true of how the
biblical writers used ellipses Koiné Greek most of the time.
In their uses of ellipses the omitted words were very
often absolutely critical to the proper understanding of
the meaning of a sentence. In many ellipses it is
impossible to understand the meaning of a sentence until
the correct word or words are discovered to fill in the
blank, the word or words themselves being the crucial
keys to keeping up with the writer's flows of thought
and meaning.
Now let's
examine more examples of the biblical writer's common uses of
ellipses.
Again, an absolute ellipsis is:
"... the
omission of words or terms which must be supplied only
from the nature of the subject. The omitted word
may be a noun, adjective, pronoun, verb, participle,
adverb, preposition." - Dr. Bullinger, E. W. Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible -
Explained And Illustrated. Grand Rapids, Baker
Books, 1968, 4.
Dr. Bullinger
doesn't use the phrase implied absolute ellipsis,
but only absolute ellipsis. In my own
thinking, from my experience with the Greek texts and
how the biblical writers wrote, I add the word
implied to his phrase because the missing word or
words in an absolute ellipsis is/are implied
from the nature of the subject. Dr. Bullinger uses
the word "subject" in his definition. But for the
sake of eliminating possible ambiguities when speaking
about a subject, I like the terms
discrete topic or unique event much better,
because they're a bit more specific in meaning.
Dr. Bullinger uses the word "nature" also in his
definition of an absolute ellipsis. In place of
"nature", I like the term situational context
much better because it's a bit more descriptive and
specific in meaning.
And so when Dr.
Bullinger states an absolute ellipsis "...is the
omission of words or terms which must be supplied only
from the nature of the subject", it means to me
that an absolute ellipsis is the omission of words or
terms which must be supplied from, and are implied from,
only the situational contexts of a discrete
topic or a unique event. This is the
definition along with its wording and terms, which I'll use
to describe absolute ellipsis.
For example in
Mat. 16:22:
Mat. 16:21
(LIT/UBS4) From (apo) then
(tote) the (ho) Jesus (Iēsous)
caused himself to start (ērxato) to thoroughly
show (deiknuein) to the (tois) disciples
(mathētais) of him (autou) that (hoti)
it is required (dei) of him (auton) to go
away (apelthein) into (eis) Jerusalem
(Hierosoluma) and (kai) to suffer (pathein)
many things (polla) from (apo) the (tōn)
elders (presbuterōn), and (kai) chief
sacrificial priests (archiereōn), and (kai)
writers (grammateōn), and (kai) to be
killed (apoktanthēnai), and (kai)
to be
awakened (egerthēnai) the
(tē) third (tritē) day (hēmera).
Mat. 16:22
(LIT/UBS4) And (kai)
<one
having caused himself to take> him (auton) to himself (proslabomenos),
the (ho) Peter (Petros) caused himself to
start (ērxato) to epitomize (epitiman) him
(autō), saying (legōn), “[The Father,
v17, RE] [is] [an] auspicious one (hileōs) to you (soi),
lord (kurie).
No
(mē), absolutely not (ou),
<shall> this (touto) cause itself to be done (estai)
to you (soi)!"
Mat. 16:23
(LIT/UBS4) But (de) the
(ho) [Jesus, v21, RE] having been turned (strapheis),
he enunciated (eipen) to the (tō) Peter
(Petrō),
“Get underway
(hupage) behind (opisō) me (mou), Satan
(Satana).
You are
(ei) [a] scandal (skandalon) to
me (emou), because (hoti) you absolutely
do not think (ou phroneis) the things (ta)
of the (tou) God (theou), BUT (alla),
[you think, RE] the things (ta) of the (tōn) mortals (anthrōpōn)!”
What Matthew
quoted Peter as saying in verse 22 was actually
"__________ [an] auspicious one (hileōs) to you
(soi), lord (kurie).
No
(mē), absolutely not (ou),
shall this (touto) cause itself to be done (estai)
to you (soi)!"
What Matthew
wrote in verse 22 was an relative ellipsis of the
nominative, since the subject (nominative case) is
missing along with an implied to be verb, "is".
Matthew's elliptical word puzzle here required not only
a subject/nominative, The God, but a to be
verb as well, is. A to be verb can be
omitted by a writer, and its omission is not always an
ellipsis, because in their expressions to be verbs are
very often assumed or implied in the Greek.
Although the lack of to be verbs in the texts may not
always be a deliberate omission by a writer, I treat
their omissions the same as ellipses by enclosing them
in brackets to show the reader that its' Greek
counterpart is missing in the text.
For apparent
occurrences of absolute ellipses a reader must read the
immediate context very closely for what may be implied
by a writer. Typically there are no local and
remote contexts through which a reader can go searching
for the missing "piece" to fill in a blank.
To verify a
writer's use of absolute ellipses, typically I'll do
word searches using a topical word, and/or a word
closely related, from the immediate context, to find
other occurrences of that word or words in the biblical
texts, which other uses could be in related contexts
from which I may get a clue of how to fill in the blank
of an apparent absolute ellipsis. Two things
generally occur from a word search: I find no
related contexts from which to acquire a word candidate
to fill in the apparent absolute ellipsis blank, or I do
find other topic-related or event-related contexts, in
which case then the apparent absolute ellipsis is
generally not an AE, but a relative ellipsis, RE.
I did a word
search based upon a word's Strong's numbers, hileōs,
Strong's # 2436, meaning auspicious (Mat.
16:22), and I found one other use of that root in
the text in Heb. 8:12. In Heb. 8:8-12
the writer is quoting Jer. 31:31-34. The
prophet Jeremiah quotes the God speaking, and saying
that he shall be auspicious to the unrighteousness of
his people. But if Jesus did not sin (John
8:46; 1 Pet. 2:22; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 7:26; 1 John 1:35),
then the God wasn't being auspicious toward Jesus Christ
on account of Jesus' unrighteousness, which he didn't
do. If the God was being auspicious toward Jesus
Christ then it must have been for the opposite reason,
because Jesus Christ was doing righteousness, which
doing righteousness is the will of his and our heavenly
Father, for which works we are rewarded.
Why did Jesus
Christ scold disciple Peter in Mat. 16:23?
Peter could have known about the Jer. 31:31-34
prophecy at the time Peter spoke in Mat. 16:22.
Peter could have known about the Isa. 53 prophecy
also, if Jesus taught them to his disciples. If
Jesus had already taught his disciples these prophecies,
then in this Mat. 16:21-23 context Jesus may be
scolding Peter for having forgotten what he was taught,
and for allowing his mind to be driven by fear of other
men rather than by the Word of God.
My point is
that if Peter's statement in Mat. 16:22 was based
upon his knowledge of the Jer. 31:31-34 prophecy
then both the Jeremiah prophecy and the passage in
Heb. 8:8-12 are remote contexts to the discrete
topic of God's auspiciousness toward his people.
Then that would make what disciple Peter said in Mat.
16:22 a Relative Ellipsis rather than
an Absolute Ellipsis. Yes, this is
how apparent ellipses in the texts are worked out, one
ellipsis at a time. And this is how our heavenly
Father, and Christ Jesus, and his apostles intended for
us to not just read God's Word, Truth, but to study it
hard (2 Tim. 2:15), to eat it (Jer. 15:16),
to gnaw on it (John 6:53-58).
As I said
before, what makes absolute ellipses (AE) more
challenging than relative ellipses (RE) and ellipses of
repetition (ER), is that AEs require more subjective
thinking and research work on the part of the reader/translator than the other two. AEs are the most
difficult to determine, then REs come next, they being a
little less difficult to determine, then come ERs, the
easiest kind of ellipses to determine and fill in the
blanks. Both AEs and REs require multiple searches
through the biblical texts to determine them, and then
to determine for REs what are all of the other related,
or closely related, local and remote contexts.
Generally
speaking, AEs have no local and/or remote contexts
directly related to the discrete topic or unique event.
However, indirectly related contexts can be valuable is
resolving an AE, as I've shown searching on hileōs,
meaning auspicious, which landed me in the
Heb. 8:8-12 passage.
Here's another
example of AE in Mat. 24:27, where the biblical
Koiné Greek conciseness, or economy of language, doesn't
translate well into English. Additional, but
necessary, words are needed in translation in order for
the meaning to be explicit enough to be understandable
in English. Unlike unnecessary paraphrasing,
brackets are used in the LIT to indicate to the reader
that words have been supplied by the translator to solve
various apparent ellipses.
Mat. 24:27
(LIT/UBS4) Because
(gar) as (hōsper)
the (hē) starlight (astrapē) is caused to
come out (exerchetai) from (apo) risings395
(anatolōn) [of the sun, AE] and (kai)
causes itself to shine (phainetai) until (heōs)
sinkings1424 (dusmōn) [of the sun,
AE], thusly (houtōs) the (hē) presence
(parousia) of the (tou) Son (huion) of
the (tou) Mortal (anthrōpou) shall cause
itself to be (estai).
In Mat.
24:27 I supply "[of the sun, AE]" in the verse to
indicate to the reader that the phrase "from risings...
until sinkings" was a common way of speaking, which to
the writers obviously implied that it was the sun which
did the risings and sinkings each day. To the
writer, Matthew, according to his knowledge and use of
the common Koiné Greek language, actually writing in the
words "of the sun" into the verse would have been
redundant to the common use of that language in his
time. To our modern Western English it's not
redundant at all, because we say "sunrises" and
"sunsets".
Here's another
example of absolute ellipsis in Acts 10:1-9:
Acts 10:1 (LIT/UBS4)
But
(de) [a] certain (tis) male
(anēr) in (en) Caesarea (Kaisareia),
Cornelius (Kornēlios) by name (onomati), [a]
centurion (hekatontarchēs) out (ek) of the
(tēs) cohort (speirēs) being called (kaloumenēs)
'Italian’ (Italikēs),
Acts 10:2
(LIT/UBS4)
[a] pious one
(eusebēs), and (kai) one
causing himself to fear (phoboumenos) the
(ton) God (theon) together with (sun)
all (panti) the (tō) house (oikō)
of him (auton), he doing (poiōn) both
(te) many (pollas) acts of mercy (eleēmosunas)
for the (tō) people (laō) and (kai)
causing himself to beg (deomenos) of the (tou)
God (theou) through (dia) everything (pantas),
Acts 10:3
(LIT/UBS4)
he saw
(eiden) manifestly (phanerōs)
in (en) [a] vision (horamati), as if (hōsei)
around (peri) [the] ninth (enatēn) hour
(hōran) of the (tēs) day (hēmeras),
[a] messenger (angelon) of the (tou) God
(theou) having entered in (eiselthonta) to
(pros) him (auton), and (kai) having
enunciated (eiponta) to him (autō),
"Cornelius” (Kornēlie)!
Acts 10:4
(LIT/UBS4)
But
(de) the (ho) [Cornelius, v3,
RE], having gazed intently at (atenisas) him
(autō), and (kai) having caused himself to
become (genomenos) one in fear (emphobos),
he enunciated (eipen), "What (ti) is (estin)
[it], lord (kurie)!?"
Here in verse
4
we can see definite article the (ho), an
antecedent, looking for its missing subject (nominative)
noun, which is obviously Cornelius from verse 3.
As I've mentioned briefly before, this is a typical and
common relative ellipsis. We'll get into more
examples of relative ellipses in the next section.
The writer of Acts, Luke, puts the emphasis, or
spotlight, through the use of the ellipsis, not upon the
messenger, but upon Cornelius, which causes the reader
to now stare or fix one's attention upon Cornelius, and
what about him.
But
(de) he enunciated (eipen) to
him (autō),
"The
(hai) prayers of you of
well-thankfulness to4335 (proseuchai
sou) [God, AE], and (kai) the (hai)
acts of
mercy (eleēmosunai) of you (sou)
have
went up (anebēsan) into (eis)
[a]
remembrance (mnēmosunon) in front
(emprosthen) of the (tou)
God (theou)!
Luke's ellipsis
directs the reader to pay attention to what Cornelius
has done, to his prayers of well-thankfulness toward
God, and to the merciful things he has done for others.
Luke is implying through the ellipsis, "Look at the
righteousness of Cornelius, and now how the God is
responding to him on account of it. The God will
respond to you also, as he is responding to the
righteous works of Cornelius, if you also do them."
The ellipsis
here is in the missing direct object (accusative),
God. The verb proseuchai (pros-euchomai),
especially with the preposition pros prefixed to
it, meaning to or toward, causes the
reader to look to or toward whom is
receiving the action of the verb euchomai?
Whom is receiving Cornelius' prayers of
well-thankfulness? From the nature of the flow of
thought of the passage, and from the meaning of the
prefixed verb, it's obvious that the God is the one to
whom Cornelius is praying, and for whom he is doing
righteous works for others. In this sentence, Luke
uses absolute ellipsis to put the spotlight on God, to
clue the reader into watching what's going to happen
next about what God does.
Through Luke
first putting the spotlight on Cornelius (10:4a),
and then putting the spotlight on God (10:4b),
with back-to-back ellipses, he's pointing out the
fellowship between them, and especially the wealthy
aspect of reciprocity under God's new covenant.
Acts 10:5
(LIT/UBS4)
And
(kai) now (nun)
send (pempson) males (andras)
into (eis) Joppa (Ioppēn)
and (kai) cause yourselves to send
(metapempsai) for Simon (Simōna),
who (hos) is called
upon aloud (epikaleitai), ‘Peter’
(Petros).
Acts 10:6
(LIT/UBS4)
This
(houtos) [Peter, RE] is lodged (xenizetai)
alongside (para) to [a] certain
(tini) Simon
(Simōni), [a] tanner (bursei), to whom
(hō) is (estin) [a] house
(oikia) alongside (para)
[the] sea (thalassan)."
Here in verse 6
there's an apparent missing definite article, which
absolute ellipsis puts the spotlight on the sea, which
ellipsis Luke is using to steer the reader to watch
closely for what happens next in Joppa alongside the
sea. We look at more examples of apparent missing
definite articles later in the section about the use of
articles in biblical Koiné Greek.
Acts 10:7
(LIT/UBS4)
But
(de) as (hōs) the (ho)
messenger (angelos) went away (apēlthen),
the one (ho) speaking (lalōn) to him (autō),
[Cornelius, v3, RE] having sounded (phōnēsas) for
two (duo) of the (tōn) householders (oiketōn),
and (kai) [a] pious (eusebē) soldier (stratiōtēn)
of the (tōn) ones persevering toward (proskarterountōn)
him (autō),
Here in verse
7
we have the verb phōnēsas, meaning having
sounded, in the nominative case, singular in number.
Where's its missing antecedent, the subject (nominative)
noun, the person or thing producing the action of the
verb? Luke left a blank there in front of the verb
which produces a relative ellipsis, because from the
immediate context and flow of thought it's obvious that
Cornelius is the one who's getting ready to send men to
Joppa. Thereby Luke throws the spotlight back onto
Cornelius for a moment.
Acts 10:8
(LIT/UBS4)
and
(kai) he having caused himself to
lead out1834 (exēgēsamenos) to them
(autois) absolutely all things (hapanta),
he sent (apesteilen) them (autous) into
(eis) the (tēn) Joppa (Ioppēn).
Acts 10:9
(LIT/UBS4)
But
(de) upon the morrow (tē
epaurion), they going the ways (hodoiporountōn)
of those (ekeinōn) [into the Joppa, v8, RE], and
(kai) they coming near1448 (engizontōn)
to the (tē) city (polei), Peter (Petros)
stepped up (anebē) upon (epi) the (to)
roof (dōma) to cause himself to be well-thankful
to4336 (proseuxasthai) [God, AE],
around (peri) [the] sixth (hektēn)
hour (hōran).
Here in Acts
10:9 we can see three apparent ellipses, one
relative and two absolute. So now in this verse
Luke is throwing the spotlight on three things, Joppa,
God, and the sixth hour. Luke is implying to the
reader to now watch closely what happens to peter in
Joppa, by God, about the sixth hour. This
passage in Acts 10:1-9 is a great example of how
figures of speech, but especially ellipses, can help a
reader keep on track with the writer's flow of thought.
I'll not go
further, here at this time, to explain to you what
happens next in Luke's narrative, but you can read it
for yourself in the LIT, where I've identified, using
brackets [ ], all of the ellipses I have found while
quoting the apostles into English. Next we'll look
at more examples of relative ellipses.
Here are some
other passages containing absolute ellipses where
the "...omission of words or terms which must be supplied only
from the nature of the subject." - Dr. E. W. Bullinger
Rom. 1:13
(LIT/UBS4) But (de) I desire
(thelō) you (humas) absolutely not (ou)
to be ignorant (agnoein), brothers (adelphoi),
that (hoti) many times (pollakis) I caused
myself to plan before (proethemēn) to come (elthein)
to (pros) you (humas), (and (kai) I
was cut off (ekōluthēn) until (achri) the
(tou) next (deuro) [time, AE]);
in order that
(hina) I may have (schō) some
(tina) produce (karpon) among (en)
you (humin) also (kai), as down (kathos)
among (en) the (tois) remaining (loipois)
ethnic groups (ethnesin) also (kai)!
[time, AE]
- The adjective deuro, meaning
next, appears to be an antecedent adjective
looking for a noun to modify. From this sentence,
and from the immediate context around it, the flow of
thought of the writer implies that he, apostle Paul,
keeps planning a time to return again to see the
believers in the area of Rome, but every plan he makes
gets blocked some how. I think we know how, and
why. And so he keeps on waiting for a time in the
future, the sooner the better.
Rom. 8:22
(LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) we
have seen (oidamen) that (hoti) all (pasa)
the (hē) creation (ktisis) groans
altogether (sustenazei), and (kai) spasms
altogether (sunōdinei), until (achri) the
(tou) [time, AE] now (nun).
[time, AE] - The definite article tou,
meaning the, appears to be an antecedent looking
for a noun. From this sentence, and from the
immediate context around it, the flow of thought of the
writer implies that the groans and spasms of all of the
creation has been going on for at least as long as human
history.
Rom. 11:25
(LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) I
absolutely do not desire (ou thelō) you (humas)
to be ignorant (agnoein), brothers (adelphoi),
to the (to) Mystery (mustērion) to this
(touto);
in order that
(hina) you may not be (mē ēte)
thoughtful ones (phronimoi) [compared, AE]
alongside (par’) to yourselves (heautois)!
[compared, AE] - There are other passages similar to
this which suggest and/or imply that mortals tend to
compare their levels of thoughtfulnesss and compassion
for others to worldly standards rather than the
standards given in God's Word for how we are to love and
care for one another.
Because
(hoti) hardness (pōrōsis)
from (apo) part (merous) has come to pass
(gegonen) to the (tō) Israel (Israēl),
until (achris) of which (hou) [time, AE]
the (to) fullness (plērōma) of the (tōn)
ethnic groups (ethnōn) may enter in (eiselthē).
[time, AE] - The pronominal adjective hou,
meaning of which, appears to be an antecedent
looking for a noun to modify. From this sentence,
and from the immediate context around it, the flow of
thought of the writer implies the coming of a unique
event at some time in the future.
Again, a
relative ellipsis is an ellipsis
"Where the omitted word must be supplied from the words
actually related to it and employed in the context
itself." - Dr. Bullinger, E. W. Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible -
Explained And Illustrated. Grand Rapids, Baker
Books, 1968, 56.
The following
example is a relatively easy ellipsis to figure out.
In Mat. 6:3,
I see at least two ellipses, the two adjectives "left"
and "right" calling for a missing noun, "hand" v5:30,
RE:
Mat. 6:3
(LIT/USB4) But
(de) of you
(sou) doing (poiountos) [an] act of mercy
(eleēmosunēn), <do not let>
the (hē) left (aristera) ______ of you
(sou)
know
(mē gnōtō) what (ti) the (hē) right (dexia)
______ of you (sou) does (poiei);
The adjectives
left
(aristera)
and
right
(dexia)
each call for a noun to modify, which nouns appear to be missing.
The partial sentence alone without the apparent ellipses
being supplied wouldn't make much sense, without knowing
what Jesus meant those nouns to be.
But a solution
to Jesus' elliptical word puzzle in Mat. 6:3 can
be discovered in the immediate context of Jesus'
presentation, back in Mat. 5:30, where Jesus
previously spoke of one having a
right
(dexia) hand
(cheir).
The reason why
Dr. Bullinger refers to this kind of ellipsis in Mat.
6:3 as a relative ellipsis, is because the word
needed to fill in the blank in the ellipsis/word
puzzle, may be found back in Mat. 5:30, in the
immediate related context.
Mat. 5:30
(LIT/UBS4) And
(kai) if (ei)
the (hē) right (dexia) hand
(cheir) of you (sou) scandalizes (skandalizei)
you (se), cut her out (ekkopson autēn)
and (kai) throw (bale) [the right hand,
RE] from (apo) you (sou)!
Because
(gar), is it mutually
beneficial (sumpherei) for you (soi) that
(hina) one (hen) of the (tōn)
members (melōn) of you (sou) may lose
itself (apolētai), and (kai) not (mē)
the (to) whole (holon) body (sōma)
of you (sou) may go away (apelthē) into
(eis) Gehenna (Geennan)?
In the biblical
texts, the right hand is the hand of authority and power
(Luke 20:42-43, 22:69; Eph 1:20-21) and the hand
of blessing (Gen 48:14; Psa. 73:23; Isa. 41:13; Acts
3:7; Gal. 2:9). Being on the left hand is
sometimes being on the side being cursed (Mat.
25:31-46; Ecc. 10:2), but according to the texts the
left hand is not always a hand of cursing.
If a person's
right hand, the hand which God is using to bless
both the person as well as others, is not doing its job,
not blessing but instead cursing, then it has become not
only useless to the person, but to others, and to God
also.
On the face of
the text Jesus seems to be saying that if anyone's right
hand scandalizes him or her, that he or she should
literally cut it off and throw it away. But it is
left up to everyone, for each one, to interpret Jesus'
meaning for himself or herself, as it should be, as to
whether Jesus spoke literally or figuratively about a
hand.
At a glance
Mat. 6:3 appears to be a wayside saying, a proverb.
On the face of this passage of Jesus' wayside saying or
proverb, he appears to be speaking figuratively.
If the word
hand in Mat. 5:30 is the correct "piece" to
fill in the blank of Jesus' elliptical word puzzle in
Mat. 6:3, then it is upon literal of figurative
meaning of the word hand in Mat. 6:3 to
which Jesus, through his ellipsis, is throwing the
spotlight. The fact that Jesus stated this proverb
in an ellipsis tells us that Jesus places a high level
of importance on his disciples understanding the
spiritual meaning and significance of this proverb.
In Mat.
25:31-46 Jesus gives us the answer about the meaning
of the left hand and the right hand.
The young goats on Jesus' left hand were
unrighteousness ones, and the sheep on Jesus' right
hand were righteous ones. The righteous ones
are not to tell the unrighteous ones about the merciful
deeds which the righteous ones do, else the righteous
ones can loose the wage or reward coming to them from
the God, their heavenly Father, for doing those
righteous deeds (Mat. 5:10 - 11, 44 - 48, 6:1- 21,
10:40 - 42, ). Those wages and rewards must be
fairly great, on account of Jesus chose to use an
elliptical word puzzle with which to grab and focus our
attention upon them (Luke 6:22 - 23).
So now with the
"pieces" of Jesus' elliptical word puzzle filled in, we
can see the meaning of what Jesus said in Mat. 6:1-4.
Mat. 6:2
(LIT/USB4)
Therefore
(oun), when
perhaps (hotan) you may do (poiēs) [an]
act of mercy (eleēmosunēn) do not trumpet (mē salpisēs) [it,
AE] in front (emprosthen) of
you (sou), as (hōsper) the (hoi)
actors (hupokritai) do (poiousin) in
(en) the (tais) synagogues (sunagōgais)
and (kai) in (en) the (tais) lanes
(rhumais);
it so being that
(hopōs) they may be glorified (doxasthōsin)
under (hupo) [authority, AE] of the (tōn)
mortals (anthrōpōn).
Truly
(amēn), I say (legō) to you
(humin), they hold away from (apechousin)
the (ton) wage (misthon) of them (autōn)!
Mat. 6:3
(LIT/USB4) But
(de) of you
(sou) doing (poiountos) [an] act of mercy
(eleēmosunēn), <do not let>
the (hē) left (aristera) [hand, v5:30, RE]
of you (sou)
know
(mē gnōtō) what (ti) the (hē)
right (dexia) [hand, v5:30, RE] of you (sou)
does (poiei);
Jesus' teaching
implies that the sheep, the righteousness ones, should
not let the young goats, the unrighteousness ones, know
what they are doing, because this would cause the
righteous ones to lose their reward or wage, both now on
earth (Mat. 6:1-5, 10:41; Luke 6:35-38; Rom. 4:8;
Heb. 11:6; 1 Tim. 5:18) and in heaven at Christ
Jesus' return (Mat. 5:12, 10:41-42; Luke 6:23; John
4:36; 2 John 1:8; Rev. 11:18, 22:12).
Mat. 6:4 (LIT/UBS4) it so being that
(hopōs) the (hē) act of mercy (eleēmosunē)
of you
(sou) may be (ē) [done, v3, RE] in (en) the
(tō) hidden place (kruptō).
And
(kai) the (ho) Father (patēr)
of you (sou), the one (ho) looking
(blepōn) in (en) to the (tō) hidden
place (kruptō), he shall give away (apodōsei)
[the wage, v2, RE] to you (soi).
Do you see the
RE here in verse 4? So why does Jesus want to
direct the attention of his disciples to the discrete
topic of God paying rewards/wages to those who do
righteous works? Please see verses Luke 6:38;
John 10:9-10.
One rule I've
discovered about all of the biblical writer's various
usages of ellipses, is that for relative ellipses the
reader must always look back through what a
writer has already written, never forward, to find the
word or words to fill in the blank of a subsequent
ellipsis. Yes, I understand that this statement
contradicts other's beliefs about the biblical writer's
cataphoric use of pronouns. From a close
examination of the texts, the reader will notice that as
a rule the biblical writers most often name the person,
the discrete topic, or unique event, up front in the
beginning of the context of their narrative. And
then throughout the remainder of the narrative
constantly refer back to that noun with the appropriate
pronouns and desired ellipses.
Seldom, if
ever, have I translated passages where a writer has used
a pronoun cataphorically, before stating the noun or
proper noun to which it refers. Because of this, a
huge danger of looking forward in a narrative to find a
pronoun's relative can easily lead a reader out of the
context of a narrative and into the context of another
unrelated narrative, which co-mingling of unrelated
narratives and their contexts can create
misunderstanding and subsequently misinterpretation.
In another
example of relative ellipsis, Matthew records Jesus
giving us another elliptical word puzzle in Mat.
22:12b. The Greek text shows us:
Mat. 22:12b
(LIT/UBS4)
But (de) the
(ho) ______ was muzzled (ephimōthē).
Again, here we
have a definite article looking for a noun, which would
be the subject (nominative), to present it to us, but
the noun is missing. Matthew quotes Christ Jesus
deliberately leaving the subject out of his statement.
He gave us a blank instead, a part of an incomplete
sentence onto which he throws a
spotlight, into which we must determine what is the
correct word based upon what Jesus has previously
stated in the context, to fill in that blank. This
is a deliberate omission of a word in the sentence to
draw our attention to the missing word itself, and since
it would be the subject, then to the subject itself.
And then thereby, to draw our attention to the important
truth in the context to which that particular word
relates. Here's the contextual setup which this
grammatical mechanism, a relative ellipsis, presents to
us:
In this next
example, in Mat. 22:12b, in the parable the
marriage is between the bridegroom and the bride, Christ
Jesus and his one body, at his return for his one body.
If I, the reader, who may believe myself to be a born
from above part of the one body of Christ, and when he
comes he doesn't choose me to be taken with him, what
would I say to Christ Jesus to try to persuade him to
take me with him? If he chose to leave me behind,
I would be stunned, to the point of being muzzled!
What could I say? What could you say? That's
what I believe that blank represents in Christ Jesus'
parable, and his use of ellipsis! If you're
regularly receiving dreams in the night on account of
your discipleship to Christ Jesus, and he is
disciplining you with doctrine, reproof and correction,
isn't this just like in your dreams he's giving you at
night?
We can arguably
determine that looking back through the immediate
related context that the word mortal is very highly
likely to be the correct word to fill in Jesus'
elliptical word puzzle in verse 12b.
Mat. 22:12b
(LIT/UBS4)
But (de) the
(ho) [mortal, v11, RE] was muzzled (ephimōthē).
So if Jesus is
putting a high importance upon the word mortal
through focusing our attention upon it through the use
of an ellipsis, then who or what is that mortal to us?
Why is Jesus causing his disciples to look hard at and
focus in on that word mortal, in the meaning of
the context? Could that mortal be a type for us in the
future, at Christ's return? Could it be about some
of Jesus' disciples, maybe us, who think we've received
a new birth above in the God's gift of his holy Spirit,
but we actually haven't yet? Maybe some of us
actually haven't really repented to the God about our
sin, and subsequently we really haven't been clothed in
righteousness yet. Could it be that some of us are
like the children in the marketplace, we're only playing
at mortal-made religion rather than actually following
and doing the true teaching of the God, the teaching
which he taught Jesus Christ to teach us?
See Mat.
7:13-15 and Jesus' parable about most of his
followers being on a wide way going toward and through a
wide gate leading to their own destruction, i.e.,
following false Christianity.
Now that I've
shown and explained to you several examples of both
absolute ellipses and relative ellipses, let's examine
closely a very important passage in Hebrews about what
apostle Paul refers to as the new covenant Law of Belief
(Rom. 3:27-28), and how the writer used a mixed
batch of both AE, RE, and ER to lead a reader along with
his flow of thought. Hebrews is most likely the
most difficult book to translate of the twenty-seven new
testament books of the bible. The writer,
apparently for the sake of brevity, uses ellipses
sometimes so often that a translator can barely follow
the writers flow of thought. However, most of the
discrete topics, and the wordage used to describe them,
sound very much like Paul's letters. The style is
very similar if not almost identical to Paul's style.
I believe the writer of Hebrews is Paul, writing in his
later years.
Now let's
examine Heb. 1:1-4 closely, to discover how
the writer chose to lead a reader along through his flow
of thought.
Heb. 11:1
(LIT/UBS4) But (de)
belief (pistis) is (esti) an understanding
(hupostasis) of practical issues (pragmatōn)
being hoped for (elpizomenōn);
an evidential
proof
(elegchos) [of practical issues, ER]
absolutely not (ou) being seen (blepomenōn)!
When an
ellipsis appears in the same verse or sentence I don't
provide a verse reference, since it's obvious.
Most of the usages of ellipsis throughout the new
covenant writings are presented this way by their
writers.
Here in verse
1
the RE is a little more difficult to determine, and so
we must watch carefully the grammatical number of the
nouns and verbs to notice the ellipsis. If "an
evidential proof (elegchos)", in the singular, is
the noun which the writer was saying is "absolutely
not (ou) being seen (blepomenōn)", then the
genitive, neuter, plural verb blepomenōn would
have been in the singular and not in the plural.
So we can see that the plural verb blepomenōn is
expecting a plural antecedent. So then, what noun
in the sentence is in the plural? It is the
genitive, neuter, plural noun pragmatōn, meaning
of practical issues. "of practical issues"
in the second clause is the writer's use of an Ellipsis
of Repetition, which I'll explain in the next
section.
The writers
flow of thought, starting in Heb. 10:35, leads
the reader from being encouraged to have more
boldness (a discrete topic) toward God (Heb.
10:35), to needing to have more endurance (a
discrete topic) (Heb. 10:36), which can be solved
through having more belief (a discrete topic)
toward God (Heb. 10:38), and that we are ones of
belief (Heb. 10:39), which belief can resolve
our needs for practical things (a discrete
topic) in our lives (Heb. 11:1), into beginning
to state in Heb. 11:4 how this formula worked so
well for the elders of the children of Israel.
So how does the
writer suggest the God shall be invited into intervening
in our lives about our practical issues needs?
Heb. 11:2
(LIT/UBS4) Because (gar)
the (hoi) elders (presbuteroi) were
witnessed to (emarturēthēsan) [being] in (en)
this (tautē)
Heb. 11:3
(LIT/UBS4) belief (pistei)!
The elders of
the children of Israel were being in belief
toward God in their hearts! Under God's new
Covenant/Law of Belief (Rom. 3:27-28) belief in
a person's heart is required to receive
anything form God, just like under the old Mosaic
Law of Works. But, under the old covenant
salvation/wholeness was not available to be received
through belief. The promised coming redeemer,
Jesus Christ, had not come yet to shed his sinless blood
and die for our wholeness, but only monthly atonement
for sin through the shed blood of animals was available.
You probably
noticed the word "[being]" in brackets in verse
2. It could be a to be verb ellipsis, but I
believe it's more of a grammatically implied to be
verb, which implied uses have been given a name, a zero
copula, about which I'll explain in the section titled
Implied To Be verbs - Zero Copula.
Heb. 1:3 continued...
We perceive
(nooumen) the (tous) ages (aiōnas) to have been
made fit (katērtisthai) [through, AE] [a] statement
(rhēmati) of God (theou);
into
(eis) the (to) [belief, v3,
RE] of the (to) [age, RE] being seen (blepomena)
not (mē) to have come to pass (gegonenai)
out (ek) of shining things (phainomenōn).
From a quick
brief survey of Heb. 11 a reader can see that the
writer of Hebrews is about to give us a list of elders
who believed God's Word. These are ones who,
through their belief in their hearts, invited the God
into their lives, to work in their lives to help them
with their necessary needs. This list with
explanations is intended by the writer to not only
encourage us to believe, but to show us practical
examples of how the elders fellowshipped with the God
themselves, which examples of patterns of belief and
fellowship we also can follow.
Heb. 11:4
(LIT/UBS4) Abel (Habel)
brought to (prosēnenken) the (to) God
(theō) [a] greater (pleiona) sacrifice (thusian),
belief (pistei), beside (para) [[a]
sacrifice, ER] of Cain (Kain);
In the first
part of verse 4 the writer used another ellipsis of
repetition to put a spotlight on Cain's unacceptable
sacrifice, a sacrifice made not out of belief.
Sacrifices, or perfunctory genuflections, not done out
of belief receive nothing back from God, especially
under his new covenant, the Law of Belief (Rom.
3:27-28), which covenant is based upon a believer's
belief which triggers our heavenly Father's reciprocity.
Abel brought his own belief in his heart to God
as a sacrifice, which was a greater sacrifice than
Cain's.
So what was
wrong with Cain's sacrifice? Was it a sacrifice
done out of fear, an appeasement sacrifice? What
are we doing in our lives? Are we doing things
habitually to appease our heavenly Father, or are we
doing things spontaneously out of belief and love, to
please and fellowship with our heavenly Father?
You'll notice
verse 3 the writer used the demonstrative "this"
to point out to us exactly what the elders did to love,
please and fellowship with God to receive anything from
him, which was they had "belief!" A person
can walk on their knees the last mile to church, eat
this but not eat that, wash their hands a thousand
times, light a thousand candles, and all of that means
nothing to God. He's going about looking for
"belief!" in people's hearts (John 1:23; Heb.
11:6).
through
(di’) which (hēs) [belief,
ER] he was witnessed (emarturēthē) to be
(einai) a righteous one (dikaios), upon
(epi) a witnessing (marturountos) of the
(tou) God (theou) to the (tois)
offerings (dōrois) of him (autou).
Here in the
second half of the first sentence in verse 4, the writer
again used an ellipsis of repetition to put the
spotlight on, and keep the reader's minds focused upon
"belief!"
And
(kai) through (di’) [the
sake, AE] of her (autēs), [Abel, ER] having died
away (apothanōn), [the God, ER] yet speaks
(eti lalei).
God yet speaks,
because the record of Abel's belief is recorded for
evermore by the writer Moses, in his first book of
Genesis, chapter 4.
God yet speaks
of Abel's acceptable sacrifice to him, which sacrifice
was the belief in Abel's own heart about the God,
through the writers of God's Word writing about Abel.
Where the omitted word or words is, or are to be
supplied out of the preceding or following clause, in
order to complete the sense." - Dr. Bullinger, E. W. Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible -
Explained And Illustrated. Grand Rapids, Baker
Books, 1968, 70.
Ellipsis of
repetition is the most often used ellipses among the
writings of the apostles and other new testament writers
(Mark and Luke were disciples). Although this
section is about ER it's nearly impossible to find
contexts containing multiple verses in which only one
kind of ellipsis is used by its writer. So as we
go down through 1 Cor. 2:1-9 I'll explain the
other kinds of ellipses as well to demonstrate apostle
Paul's flow of thought and meaning.
As I've
demonstrated in the two previous sections on AE
and RE, I'll point out the discrete topics and unique
events which constitute the path which we are to follow
in our minds as we read Paul's letter and try to follow
his flow of thought.
From a survey
of 1 Cor. 1 we can see that the first three
verses are Paul's salutation to the believers in the
area of Corinth. I've identified for myself in
1 Cor. 1 what I believe are the logical parts of
apostle Paul's flow of thought, which should flow
us into chapter 2.
1 Cor. 1:1-3 - Apostle Paul's salutation to the
believers in the area of Corinth. The discrete
topic is the believers in Corinth.
1 Cor. 1:4-8 - The discrete topic is the grace
of the God having been given to them.
1 Cor. 1:9 - The purpose for them being called
and given the grace of the God is so they can have
fellowship with Christ Jesus. Fellowship is
the discrete topic.
1 Cor. 1:10 - The discrete topic now changes to
schisms among them.
1 Cor. 1:11-16 - The discrete topic of schisms
broadens to include rivalries also.
1 Cor. 1:17-25 - The purpose for apostle Paul being
sent to the Corinthian believers was to evangelize the
wisdom of the God. The wisdom of the God is
the next discrete topic.
1 Cor. 1:26-29 - Apostle Paul next brings up the
calling of God for the believers in Corinth. The
next discrete topic is the calling of the God.
1 Cor. 1:30-31 - Now that Paul has accosted their
erroneous thinking which was causing schisms and
rivalries, causing them to boast about following other
mortals, now they should boast in the God who called
them, and in his son Christ Jesus who became the wisdom
of the God for them. The discrete topic now
switches back to the wisdom of the God.
So as we can
see, we flow into chapter 2 with apostle Paul's
spotlight shining upon the discrete topic of the
wisdom of the God. Now that apostle Paul has
chastised some of the believers in the area of Corinth
for their erroneous thinking, now what does he write to
them to encourage them to keep on believing and
fellowshipping with Christ Jesus?
1 Cor. 2:1
(LIT/UBS4) And I (kagō)
having come (elthōn) to (pros) you (humas),
brothers (adelphoi), I came (ēlthon)
absolutely not (ou) down according to (kath’)
superiority (huperochēn) of word (logou),
or (ē) of wisdom (sophias), reporting down
(katangellōn) to you (humin) the (to)
mystery (mustērion) of the (tou) God (theou)!
Apostle Paul
appears to be characterizing the wisdom from God, which
Christ Jesus was caused to become for them (1 Cor.
1:30), as the mystery of the God. This
makes the mystery of the God to be a discrete
sub-topic of the wisdom of the God. Apostle Paul
appears to be starting to explain what are the component
parts of the discrete topic of the wisdom of the God,
the first characterizing component being that it is
the mystery of the God.
So far we have:
The Wisdom of
the God is:
- the mystery of the God
1 Cor. 2:2
(LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) I
determined (ekrina) to have known (eidenai)
absolutely not (ou) anything (ti) among
(en) you (humin) if (ei) not (mē)
Jesus (Iēsoun) Christ (Christon), and
(kai) this (touton) [Jesus, RE] having been staked
(estaurōmenon)!
1 Cor. 2:3
(LIT/UBS4) And I (kagō), in
(en) [a] disability (astheneia), and
(kai) in (en) fear (phobō), and
(kai) in (en) much (pollō) trembling
(tromō), caused myself to become (egenomēn)
toward (pros) you (humas).
1 Cor. 2:4
(LIT/UBS4) And (kai) the
(ho) Word (logos) of me (mou), and
(kai) the (to) preaching (kērugma)
of me (mou), [was] absolutely not (ouk) in
(en) persuasive (piethoi) words (logois)
of wisdom (sophias), BUT (all’), in
(en) [an] appointment (apodeixei) of Spirit
(pneumatos), and (kai) [in, ER] [a] work of
inherent power (dunameōs);
Apostle Paul
now gives an example of proper boasting, boasting of
there being nothing great about him as a man, he even
having a disability of some kind (partial blindness?
2 Cor. 12:5-10), and being full of fear and
trembling on his itineraries, and that he doesn't use
mortal-made wisdom and persuasive wording to make known
the wisdom of the God. But he boasts about God's
Spirit in him inherently powering him through it all.
The first
ellipsis I see in 1 Cor. 2 is an ER of the
preposition en, meaning in. Paul's
use of an ER for the preposition in puts the
spotlight on the inherent power of God's Spirit working
in him, which makes the words of the Word apostle
Paul evangelizes, the wisdom of the God, an
appointment of Spirit, and a work of
inherent power, two more discrete sub-topics and
components of the wisdom of the God.
Now we have:
The Wisdom of
the God is:
- the mystery of the God
- an appointment of Spirit
- a work of inherent power
So far I read
apostle Paul's flow of thought as describing/characterizing the discrete topic of the wisdom of
the God as being the mystery of the God, and
as being a work of inherent power of the God,
being energized by God's Spirit working in Paul so God's
wisdom can be preached and evangelized.
1 Cor. 2:5
(LIT/UBS4) in order that (hina)
the (hē) belief (pistis) of you (humōn)
may not be (mē ē) in (en) wisdom (sophia)
of mortals (anthrōpōn), BUT (all’), in
(en) [the] inherent power (dunamei) of God
(theou)!
Now apostle
Paul makes a purpose statement, that the wisdom of the
God which he evangelizes is an appointment of the God,
and a work of inherent power of the God which they see
working in and through him, which should convince the
Corinthian believers to believe in the wisdom of the God
instead of the wisdom of mortals.
1 Cor. 2:6
(LIT/UBS4) But (de) we speak
(laloumen) wisdom (sophian) among (en)
the ones (tois) complete (teleiois).
But
(de) [we speak, ER] wisdom (sophian)
absolutely not (ou) of the (tou) age (aiōnos)
of this (toutou), but absolutely neither (oude)
of the (tou) chief ones758 (archontōn)
of the (tou) age (aiōnos) of this (toutou),
the ones (tōn) being idled down2673
(katargoumenōn)!
In verse 6 I
see an ellipsis based upon a missing verb. Wisdom
(sophian) is in the accusative, but with an apparent
missing antecedent verb, "[we speak, ER]". This
ER from the previous sentence again puts the spotlight
on the discrete topic of the wisdom of the God.
Dr. Bullinger
states that in an ellipsis of repetition the omitted
word or words are to be supplied by repeating them from
a clause which precedes or follows. But we can
clearly see from the texts that the word or words which
are to be supplied can, in the immediate context, come
from a preceding sentence or sentences also.
1 Cor. 2:7
(LIT/UBS4) BUT (alla), we
speak (laloumen) of God’s (theou) wisdom
(sophian), in (en) a mystery (mustēriō),
the (tēn) [wisdom in a mystery, ER] having been
hidden away (apokekrummenēn);
which
(hēn) [wisdom in a mystery, ER] the
(ho) God (theos) predetermined (proōrisen)
before (pro) the (tōn) ages (aiōnōn)
[to be] into (eis) [the] glory (doxan) of
us (hēmōn);
Here in verse 7
there are two missing accusative nouns. The second
ER is necessary to remove the possible ambiguity over
what the God predetermined before the ages, for the
"[wisdom in a mystery, ER]" to be hidden away, or
for it to be for the glorification of all believers?
Hiding something for the sake of hiding it, seems
meaningless. So I believe the text supports the later
purpose. Apostle Paul shines the spotlight back
onto the discrete sub-topical component of the wisdom of
the God, onto it being the mystery of the God; a
mystery having been hidden away for some reason, which
Paul states as being for the glory of us (all
believers). The next verse states the purpose for
the God hiding his wisdom in a mystery.
1 Cor. 2:8
(LIT/UBS4) which (hēn)
[wisdom in a mystery ER] absolutely not one (oudeis)
of the (tōn) chief ones758 (archontōn)
of the (tou) age (aiōnos) of this (toutou)
has known (egnōken)!
Because
(gar) if (ei) they knew (egnōsan)
[[the] wisdom in a mystery, ER] perhaps (an) they
absolutely would not have staked (ouk estaurōsan)
the (ton) lord (kurion) of glory (doxēs)!
Apostle Paul
uses another ER for the apparently missing noun and its
antecedent article. Paul's use of an ER here
shines a powerful spotlight upon the situational
context, the spiritual situation in Israel at the time
of Jesus Christ's earthly ministry. There are
scattered prophecies in the old testament biblical texts
about God's hidden wisdom in a mystery, but not enough
collective information in those texts for anyone to
connect the dots with all of them to determine their
meaning with absolute certainty (Exod. 15:17; 2 Sam.
7:5-16; Psalm 118:22-23; Isa. 59:20-21, 62:8-12, 66:1-2;
Ezek. 11:16-20, 36:25-27, 37:5-10, 39:17-20; Joel
2:28-29; Amos 9:11-12; Zech. 6:12-15, 8:3; John 2:18-22;
Acts 7:47-50, 15:14-17; 1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16;
Eph. 2:21; Rev. 21:3, 22).
Paul states
that if the God would not have hidden his wisdom in a
mystery about the promised redeemer's whole purpose for
coming into the cosmos, they would not have killed him.
I believe this deserves a little explanation before we
continue.
The chief
ones of the age in Israel during Jesus' earthly
ministry were the religious leaders, as well as the
leaders of the Roman occupation. But it was the
religious leaders, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the
scribes, and most all of the top echelon of leadership
in Israel who wanted Jesus Christ either destroyed or
dead.
In John 8
we can see, probably more vividly than in any other
gospel record, the verbal assaults, the contentions, and
friction the leadership of Israel brought against Jesus,
whom they believed was not the promised coming messiah,
but a bastard child, and a fraud, in spite of their
repeated witnessing of his signs, miracles and wonders.
You may ask yourself, how can anyone witness the
greatness of Jesus' life, and all the things he did, and
not wonder what's up with this guy? The
contentious relationship was not because of what was up
with Jesus so much, he just trying to be the promised
coming messiah. But, what was up with the
leadership that they could be so blind not to "see"
Jesus?
In John
8:19-47 Jesus sums it all up for us. Abraham
may have been the physical father, according to the
flesh, of the children of Israel and its leadership, but
the devil, Satan, was the spiritual father of the
leadership of Israel; meaning that many of the
leadership had received the devil's seed, his spirit,
into themselves, and that is why they refused to
recognize Jesus as the promised coming messiah for
Israel, and why they lied to the people about him, and
why they wanted Jesus Christ dead. Jesus Christ
was a powerful threat to them, who could expose them as
being false ones, actors, ones really not in God's
favor. And he did expose them many times.
Which is why they hated him even more and more.
If they would
have known that Jesus Christ's shed blood and death
would cause to come to pass God's promised new covenant,
under which anyone among all mortalkind could believe to
receive the God's gift of a new birth above in his
paternal seed, his gift of holy Spirit, and then no
longer be slaves to sin, and slaves to its penalty,
death, and then, while still on earth before their
deaths, become more than conquerors over the
devil and his demon spirits (Please see all of these if
you have a minute: Mat. 10:25; Acts 1:4-8; Rom.
8:9-11, 37; 1 Cor. 12:6; 2 Cor. 2:14, 13:3-5; Gal. 1:16;
Eph. 1:19-20, 4:13, 6:13-18; Phil. 2:13, 4:13; Col.
1:27-29; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:7; 1 John 4:4, 5:4-5),
the devil and his leadership puppets would never
have allowed for Jesus Christ to have been killed!
The death of Jesus Christ began the countdown for the
final eradication of the devil and his demon spirits.
1 Cor. 2:9
(LIT/UBS4) BUT (alla), down
according to as (kathōs) it has been written
(gegraptai), “Things which (ha) [an] eye (ophthalmos)
absolutely did not see (ouk eiden) and (kai)
[an] ear (ous) absolutely did not hear (ouk
ēkousen), and (kai) [things which, ER]
absolutely did not come up (ouk anebē) upon (epi)
[a] heart
(kardian) of [a]mortal (anthrōpou) ,
[are] things which (ha) the (ho) God (theos)
made ready (hētoimasen) for the ones (tois)
loving (agapōsin) him (auton)!”
(See
Isa. 64:4)
Christ Jesus
called Saul, an enemy of him on the road to Damascus one
day, to be the apostle of him, to whom Jesus would begin
to reveal the hidden wisdom of the God about his new
covenant, God's wisdom in a mystery, which is what Paul
here is writing about to the believers in the area of
Corinth.
Next, beginning
in 1 Cor. 2:10, apostle Paul begins to spotlight
the discrete sub-topic of the wisdom of the God as an
appointment of Spirit. But this is as far as
we'll go for now in this passage, which shows another
good example of apostle Paul's use of ellipses to signal
a reader of how to stay on the path of his flow of
thought.
In this next
passage, John 15:1-8, we'll examine how apostle
John quoted Jesus Christ, John using various ellipses to
help his readers stay on the path of Jesus' flow of
thought.
John 15:1 (LIT/UBS4) I
(egō) am
(eimi) the (hē) vine (ampelos), the
(hē) true one (alēthinē).
And
(kai) the (ho) Father
(patēr) of me (mou) is (estin) the
(ho) land worker (geōrgos).
John 15:2
(LIT/UBS4)
Every
(pan) graft
(klēma) in (en) to me (emoi) not
(mē) bearing (pheron) produce (karpon),
he removes (airei) it (auto).
To me it's
obvious that the word "graft" in this parable means a
believer who has become one with, and a part of, the one
body of Christ. A "graft" is one who has
received a new birth above in the God's gift of his holy
Spirit, which new birth places/grafts that believer
into the one body of Christ, the true vine.
And
(kai) every (pan) [graft, ER]
bearing (pheron) the (to) produce (karpon),
he cleanses (kathairei) it (auto), in
order that (hina) it may bear (pherē) more
(pleiona) produce (karpon).
Apostle John,
quoting Jesus Christ, uses an ellipsis of repetition to
put the spotlight on a "graft", which
figuratively could be you or me, or any
believer. The God, the "land worker", will
keep on cleansing every one of us from the effects and
penalty of our sin if we stay into Jesus Christ.
You know the old 60's saying, "I'm really into it."
That's straight from the Koiné Greek colloquialism of
being "into" something.
A "graft"
which bears produce is a believer who is
manifesting the God's gift of holy Spirit within him or
her (1 Cor. 12), who is manifesting one or more
of the nine manifestations to do good works for others,
to show and deliver God's Word and love to
others. When a believer manifests God's Spirit
within him or her, then that believer not only produces
the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22) for others,
but for that believer as well. And both the
manifestations and the fruits produced glorify God.
John 15:3
(LIT/UBS4)
You
(humeis) are (este) cleansed
ones (katharoi) already (ēdē), through
(dia), the (ton) Word (logon)
which (hon) I have spoken (lelalēka) to
you (humin).
(For believers
be cleansed/washed in the Word of the God, see Eph.
5:26; John 13:10; 1 Cor. 6:11; Tit. 2:14; Heb. 9:14; 1
John 1:7-9; Rev. 1:5)
John 15:4
(LIT/UBS4)
Stay
(meinate) in (en) to me (emoi),
and I (kagō) [shall stay, ER] in (en) to
you (humin).
In verse 4
apostle John uses an ER to put the spotlight on our own
assessment of our spiritual staying power.
How self-disciplined are we to keep on walking
spiritually. The answer to that question may be
related to how well and for how long can we keep our
minds focused on the things of God, especially his Word.
Jesus' conditional statement implies the wealthy nature
of God's grace and reciprocity built into our heavenly
Father's new covenant with us, the Law of Belief (Rom.
3:27).
Down according to
as
(kathōs) the (to) graft (klēma)
can absolutely not inherently power itself (ou
dunatai) to bear (pherein) produce (karpon)
from (aph’) of itself (heautou) if
perhaps (ean) it may not stay (mē menē) in
(en) to the (tē) vine (ampelō),
thusly (houtōs) but absolutely not (oude)
[can, AE] you (humeis) [inherently power yourself
to bear produce from yourself, ER] if perhaps (ean)
you may not stay (mē menēte) in (en) to me
(emoi)!
Apostle John
puts the spotlight upon the discrete topic of God's
Spirit working in believers. What can we do of
ourselves? The who are believers, the
grafts. The what is to inherently power
ourselves. The where is in our daily lives
everyday. The when is now, or at any time.
The how is us staying in Christ Jesus.
John
15:5
(LIT/UBS4)
I
(egō) am (eimi) the (hē)
vine (ampelos), you (humeis) [are] the
(ta) grafts (klēmata).
The
(ho) [graft, RE] staying (menōn) in
(en) to me (emoi), and I (kagō) in
(en) to him (autō), this (houtos)
[graft, RE]
bears (pherei) much (polun) produce (karpon).
Because
(hoti) without (chōris) me
(emou) you can absolutely not inherently power
yourselves (ou dunasthe) to do (poiein)
absolutely not one (ouden) [work, v14:12, RE]!
In the Greek
texts, as opposed to what Christianity teaches nowadays,
Jesus Christ stated, several times, that he could do
absolutely not one [work, v14, RE] (using the emphatic
particle of negation, ou, in ouden) if it
was not for the Spirit, the God, in him, working
in and through him (John 14:28, 8:28,
14:10-11). The Greek texts say that the
Spirit-based being, the God, was dwelling in the
soul-based being, Jesus Christ, one being living inside
of another being, and it was the God doing all of
the things Jesus said and did. Please read closely
in the LIT the wording of the Greek texts for (Col.
2:8-10, "...the fullness of the godliness [of
God, AE] bodily.").
Jesus Christ
said he could do absolutely not one thing without
God's Spirit in him, and Jesus says that we
can absolutely not (using ou, the emphatic particle
of negation also) inherently power ourselves to do
absolutely not one work (John 15:5) without
God's Spirit working in and through us.
And we must stay in Christ Jesus (i.e., believe and
obey) if God's Spirit is to work in and
through us also.
John 15:6
(LIT/UBS4)
If perhaps1437
(ean) anyone (tis) may not stay (mē menē)
in (en) to me (emoi), he is thrown
(eblēthē) out (exō) as (hōs) the
(to) graft (klēma).
Grafts are
supposed to produce fruit. That's their purpose.
If a graft stops producing fruit/produce, the
implication is that it will be replaced by a graft the
will produce fruit/produce.
And
(kai) [the graft, ER] was dried out
(exēranthē).
Apostle John's
ER shifts his spotlight from shining on the broader
discrete topic of God's Spirit working in believers,
onto a little more specific topic of the believer/graft continuing to allow God's Spirit to work in it.
The graft itself is now upon who Jesus' focuses.
A graft/disciple of Jesus Christ which stops producing fruit is
"dried out", i.e., God's Spirit can no longer work in
and through that disciple. This can be for
a number of reasons, but mostly because of a habitual
sin of some kind has occurred in the life of a disciple.
Constant demon spirit attacks can sometimes weaken a
disciple, more or less experienced, for a moment.
Jesus Christ personally will address it with that
disciple, usually through warnings and instructions in
dreams at night, but through other means as well, Word
of knowledge, Word of wisdom, and discerning of spirits
during the days (1 Cor. 12). And when that
disciple has risen back up again in knowledge and belief
in his or her heart, to the point of once again being a
believable disciple, that disciple will be
grafted back in as a graft which is expected to produce
fruit once again.
One of the
major types in God's Word for a disciple who has
momentarily lost his or her spiritual footing on the
path, is that they've allowed their house, i.e., their
mind, to become unclean to some extent, and the God
can't remain living in that house until it gets itself
cleaned up and back in order. Jesus' cleansing of
the temple is that great type and example for us (Mat.
21:12-13), the physical temple being the type for
our own house, our own being. We're expected to
keep our own house/temple of God, clean enough for
him to live in it.
Its totally
unrealistic, and contrary to the scriptural evidence in
the texts, to expect that once a disciple becomes a
disciple of Christ Jesus, that he or she from that
moment on is going to walk a perfect spiritual walk.
We learn to walk spiritually like we learned to walk
physically from a baby, through falling down and picking
ourselves back up and trying it again, until we get it
right. Scripturally this is referred to as
spiritual growth, and we grow until we become
"...into (eis) a complete (teleion) male
(andra), into (eis) [the] measure
(metron) of the (tou) fullness
(plērōmatos) of maturity (hēlikias) of the
(tou) Christ (Christou); ..." (Eph.
4:13). It's up to each believer as to how fast
he or she desires to grow (Mat. 7:7), or whether
he or she desires to grow at all, but remain a perpetual
baby disciple, producing no fruit/produce.
And
(kai) they bring them together (sunagousin
auta), and (kai) they throw (ballousin)
[the grafts, ER] into (eis) the (to) fire
(pur).
And
(kai) [the graft, ER] is burned (kaietai).
The "fire" is
the possible public humiliation among the body of
believers, which humiliation for failure, "burns" for
awhile. There should be no condemnation among
believers for one another falling at various times, but
love and compassion should be extended by all to assist
and encourage believers as they try to stand again.
This process is what makes grafts stronger and more
mature over time.
John 15:7
(LIT/UBS4)
If perhaps1437
(ean) you may stay (meinēte) in (en) to
me (emoi), and (kai) the (ta)
statements (rhēmata) of me (mou) may stay
(meinē) in (en) to you (humin),
cause yourselves to request (aitēsasthe) if
perhaps (ean) whatever (ho) you may desire
(thelēte), and (kai) [whatever, RE] shall
cause itself to come to pass (genēsetai) for you
(humin),
Now Jesus
Christ shifts his spotlight to shine upon the discrete
topic of the God paying wages and rewards.
The God is very wealthy in his grace to believers under
authority of his new covenant through Jesus' shed blood
and death. Jesus taught this in the context of
Mat. 7:7, and the apostle John presents this topic
abundantly in several chapters of his letter to the
believers.
Apostle John
uses his ER to draw our attention to that it can be
whatever we may desire! Of all of you here who
literally believe Jesus' statement, let's see a show of
hands. If you see a hand raised rather hesitantly,
then you can see that that graft/believer has some
growth to do about the level of conviction and belief in
their own heart over the Truth and veracity of the God's
Word, and trust in Jesus to tell the Truth. If the
God is temporarily not living in his "house", his new
temple, you, then those requests are not going to be
answered with anything. But in this case you
should be believing, asking, and thanking the Father and
Christ Jesus to teach you how to continue to grow and
recover from a stumble. That prayer will be
answered very swiftly.
John 15:8 (LIT/UBS4)
(in
(en) this
(toutō) the (ho) Father (patēr) of me
(mou) [is] glorified (edoxasthē)),
in order that
(hina) you may bear (pherēte)
much (polun) produce (karpon), and (kai)
you may cause yourselves to become (genēsthe)
disciples (mathētai) to me (emoi)!
When God's
children are glorified, then the God is glorified,
because the glorification of his children is a witness
to the greatness of God's love and grace which he is
giving to them, thanks to Christ Jesus putting through
the new covenant for his Father and us.
So, how much fruit/produce are we bearing for our heavenly Father and others (Gal. 5:22-25)?