How to Study and Understand the King James Bible - From a Workman Approved unto God by His Grace
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.
Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.
For the same cause also do ye joy, and rejoice with me.
- Retired US Naval Officer 3100 designator, Supply Corps, Submarine Warfare, Cryptology, Language Interpreter and Translator. Licensed Teacher, Spanish, Certified Instructor English as a Second Language. Over 30 years teaching English and Spanish.
- Education: BA Economics and Spanish, Inter-American University of Puerto Rico; Graduate of Defense Language Institute. Successfully completed 2 of 6-week Cambridge University ELS certification - before they showed me the "front door exit" after foolishly telling my University of Cambridge tutor the British Empire was irrelevant when he failed my practical exam. Received American TESL certification.
- My basic, working knowledge of modern and ancient biblical Greek is all self-taught and would classify myself as a novice but feel comfortable with most aspects of Greek grammar. My knowledge of Hebrew is also self-taught although extremely limited, thereby relying heavily on tutorials when needed. I feel comfortable in using both Bible Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and Concordances.
2 Timothy 2:15: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
To be a Good Soldier for Jesus We have to Know our Authority and Responsibility in order to Strive Lawfully (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
Why would God use the words, "a workman approved?" We are ambassadors - servants - laboring for Christ as he places each of us in this world for his glory and eternal purpose.
Philippians 3:12 KJB.
“Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.”
Oxford English Dictionary hard copy page: 3,108... "zealous - pain staking application apply oneself to something. A desire a passion felt in something - a state of mental anxiety - mental perplexity
Perplexity: inability to deal with or understand something complicated or unaccountable.
synonyms: confusion · bewilderment · puzzlement · bafflement · incomprehension ·
Thought ... to meditate on a subject directed toward the accomplishment of something. The deliberate action - aim and mental labor to read reflect for acquisition by careful examination.
BOTTOM LINE: Study means TO WORK.
"The test of the authenticity of a rhema from God is how it compares to the whole of Scripture. Orthodoxy says that God will not speak a word that contradicts His written Word, the Scriptures, so there is a built-in safeguard to prevent misinterpretation. The obvious danger is that one who is not familiar with the logos can misinterpret or misunderstand what he or she perceives to be a rhema."
Active Voice: When an activity performed by the subject is communicated by the action word, it is an active voice. Dynamic voice is utilized when a more clear connection and lucidity are needed between the subject and the action word.
Passive Voice: When the activity communicated by the action word is gotten by the subject, it is a passive voice. Passive voice is utilized when the practitioner of the activity isn’t known and the focal point of the sentence is on the activity and not the subject.
She delivered the letters. Active Voice
.png)
The letters were delivered by her. Passive
.png)
Passive Voice
What is the passive voice?
In general we tend to use the active voice. That is when a subject does an action to an object.
- Somebody stole my laptop. (subject = Somebody / action(verb) = stole / object = my laptop)
The passive voice is used when we want to emphasize the action (the verb) and the object of a sentence rather than subject. This means that the subject is either less important than the action itself or that we don’t know who or what the subject is.
- My laptop was stolen. (The object – now the subject = My laptop / action= was stolen)
- Passive: Napa Valley is known for its excellent wines.
- Active: [Many people] know Napa Valley for its excellent wines.
- Passive: Twenty civilians were killed in the bomb explosion.
- Active: Someone killed twenty civilians in the bomb explosion
Oxford English Dictionary hard copy page: 3,108... "zealous - pain staking application apply oneself to something. A desire a passion felt in something - a state of mental anxiety - mental perplexity
Perplexity: inability to deal with or understand something complicated or unaccountable.
synonyms: confusion · bewilderment · puzzlement · bafflement · incomprehension ·
Thought ... to meditate on a subject directed toward the accomplishment of something. The deliberate action - aim and mental labor to read reflect for acquisition by careful examination.
BOTTOM LINE: Study means TO WORK.
A concordance offers precise searches for specific words. A Bible concordance is a concordance, or verbal index, to the Bible. A simple form lists Biblical words alphabetically, with indications to enable the inquirer to find the passages of the Bible where the words occur.
The Concordance is your best friend when it comes down to that inevitable need for sleuthing. MYSTERY SOLVING. and when it comes down the inevitable need to be a PROSECUTING ATTORNEY and slam dunk your case with the preponderance of SOLID BIBLICAL EVIDENCE.
looking for strange and different usages. Finding the similarities. etc. More detail below when we actually solve a mystery.
Example:
Strong's Greek: 4100. πιστεύω (pisteuó) -- to believe, entrust (biblehub.com)
BDB CONCORDANCE EXAMPLE discounting KJB
they lead you to believe that the King James Bible is in error because they
personally, subjectively like another translation for the word Amon is better translated as Master Craftsman vs Brought up with. Why? the answer I believe is twofold. First they are hell bent on subverting the King James and secondly they must bolster the NASB which is the hallmark of Theological Conventional Wisdom. If you look at the NASB translation for Proverbs 8:30, you'll find this odd, out of place word, "Master Craftman." Hopefully you will ask yourself where in the world does Master Craftsman fit in this context. I'm sure the answer may be found in the same way "he" replaced them referring to God's word in Pslam 12:6,7. does not even coming close to the correct translation. Wisdom is the Master Craftsman. If you carefully study the meaning of "brought up with" it means established, originate, to bring into the presence of authority. Oxford page
Examing the word LOVE taken from John 3:16: G25: ἀγάπη agápē, ag-ah'-pay; from G25; love, i.e. affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-feast:— (feast of) charity (-ably), dear, love. Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?] (Jump to Scripture Index) STRONGS G26:
Example from a Hebrew Lexicon:
Examining the word LOVE taken from Genesis 22:2
STRONGS H157:Abbreviations אָהֵב 216 verb love —
Qal Perfect אָהֵ֑ב Genesis 27:9 + 7 times; אָשֵהבּ Genesis 27:14; אָהַב Genesis 37:3 + 3 times; אֲֵֽֽֽהבָךָ Deuteronomy 15:16; 3rd person feminine singular אָֽהֲבָה Songs 1:7 +, etc.; Imperfect (־הָ֑ב) יֶאֱהַב Proverbs 3:12 +; 1st person singular אֵהָ֑ב Proverbs 8:17 (compare Ew§ 192 d Ges§ 68. 1); וָֽאֹהַב Malachi 1:2; וָאֹהֲבֵהוּ Hosea 11:1; אֹהֲבֵם Hosea 14:5; וָאֹהֲבֵם Psalm 119:167; 2nd person masculine plural תְּאֵהֲבוּ Proverbs 1:22 (compare KöI p. 394 Ges§ 63 R 2); תֶּאֱהָ֑בוּ Zechariah 8:17; תָּאֱהָבוּן Psalm 4:3; Imperative אֱהַב־ Hosea 3:1; אֱהָבֶהָ
Here's a perfect example of how Satan can lead an unknowing Christian down the wrong path. These so called Bible Study Tools are heavily laden with Philosophical ramblings, perverted Bible translations, and historical accounts that leave the student full of questions.
Another perfect example of the apostasy in our bible institutions is BIBLE ARCHELOGY. I've had a 2 year subscription to this organization. There are some valuable historical studies, but they are honestly completely on the fence and often on the wrong side of the fence in full apostasy.
LOGOS Greek Speculation, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Philo etc. le using Philosophy and the Pagan philosophers. Heed Paul's dire warning: Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Note: I've found it helps to pray with specific purpose: No recipe or special prayer but a very personal individual pray for a particular scripture you're struggling with or working on.
I will take two completely random scriptures, one from the Old Testament (Hebrew) and one from the New Testament (Greek). Genesis 22:1,2 and John 21:15-17.
.png)
Regarding LOVE, in the King James Bible, LOVEST is considered more SERIOUS and FORMAL than LOVE.
John 21: 15-17
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him,
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT
Asking yourself the Wh? questions:
Who, what, when, where, why and how???
Now go over the entire Chapter 21 of John to find the BACKGROUND and large scope of the Context, the setting.
Background can be very detailed IF that's what you're looking to extract from your study.
I do have to pause here regarding SETTING. The sense of the setting must be carefully considered. Here's an excerpt from an obvious secular script director discussing setting and narrative. But it merits a look I believe:
A setting in a story is a time and place where narrative exists; a single story can include numerous times and places — but it’s not possible for a story to exist without a setting. Because of this, we regard setting as a foundational aspect of storytelling. But what is a setting? For more information:Understand the Wide scope - big picture of the Context and then narrow it down to a specific narrow context.
After where we must get deeper into "who" "why" ...
Often I find myself researching KJB Commentary while searching for background information. There are times I look for KJB Commentary after I go through the grammar. In this case I find some good KJB Commentary from a few sources. Here:
A great look into how to gain background and broad context and narrow into a close context is to take the advice of Dr. John Hinton. There's serious commentary regarding this passage that needs to be introduced ahead to give us clarity to not only understanding John 21:15-17, but in understanding all scripture.
Dr. John Hinton a brilliant linguist has a great perspective on this scripture
Publications Lovest Thou Me? – King James Bible Believers Website (kjv-asia.com)
Matthew Henry, early 18th Century scholar Complete: Warning (often in these online tools, PopUp Ads come up... don't open them but click_click x- to get out of them\ and then proceed. )
Note: If you bother to get a paid utility like one of the ones I use SWORD SEARCHER you won't get pop ups and all the commentary and tools are at your fingertips. No need to pay, there are multiple free resources. I'm only making a suggestion, not a recommendation.
I love Matthew Henry Complete. Old School, King James before the apostasy of the church set in. Notice how Matthew uses LOVEST ...Yes it's so long but you can really gain a rich overview. (This is only a short excerpt).
When Christ entered into this discourse with Peter.—It was after they had dined: they had all eaten, and were filled, and, it is probable, were entertained with such edifying discourse as our Lord Jesus used to make his table-talk. Christ foresaw that what he had to say to Peter would give him some uneasiness, and therefore would not say it till they had dined, because he would not spoil his dinner. Peter was conscious to himself that he had incurred his Master's displeasure, and could expect no other than to be upbraided with his treachery and ingratitude. "Was this thy kindness to thy friend? Did not I tell thee what a coward thou wouldest prove?" Nay, he might justly expect to be struck out of the roll of the disciples, and to be expelled the sacred college. Twice, if not thrice, he had seen his Master since his resurrection, and he said not a word to him of it. We may suppose Peter full of doubts upon what terms he stood with his Master; sometimes hoping the best, because he had received favour from him in common with the rest; yet not without some fears, lest the chiding would come at last that would pay for all. But now, at length, his Master put him out of his pain, said what he had to say to him, and confirmed him in his place as an apostle. He did not tell him of his fault hastily, but deferred it for some time; did not tell him of it unseasonably, to disturb the company at dinner, but when they had dined together, in token of reconciliation, then discoursed he with him about it, not as with a criminal, but as with a friend. Peter had reproached himself for it, and therefore Christ did not reproach him for it, nor tell him of it directly, but only by a tacit intimation; and, being satisfied in his sincerity, the offence was not only forgiven, but forgotten; and Christ let him know that he was as dear to him as ever. Herein he has given us an encouraging instance of his tenderness towards penitents, and has taught us, in like manner, to restore such as are fallen with a spirit of meekness.
2. What was the discourse itself. Here was the same question three times asked, the same answer three times returned, and the same reply three times given, with very little variation, and yet no vain repetition. The same thing was repeated by our Saviour, in speaking it, the more to affect Peter, and the other disciples that were present; it is repeated by the evangelist, in writing it, the more to affect us, and all that read it.
(1.) Three times Christ asks Peter whether he loves him or no. The first time the question is, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? Observe,...
full commentary in link:
John 21 Commentary - Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete) (biblestudytools.com)
Another favorite is
(15) Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas.—The better text here and in Joh 21:16-17, is, Simon, son of John. The contrast of the name by which the Evangelist denotes, and with that by which the Lord addresses Peter, at once strikes us as significant, and the more so because it comes in a context containing several significant verbal contrasts. Our Lord's words would seem to address him as one who had fallen from the steadfastness of the Rock-man, and had been true rather to his natural than to his apostolic name. (Comp. Note on Joh 1:42, and Mt 16:17.)
Lovest thou me more than these?—i.e., than these disciples who are present here with thee. It seems unnecessary to add this explanation, but not a few English notes on this verse explain the word "these" of the fishes, or of the boats and nets, as though the question was, "Lovest thou Me more than thy worldly calling? Art thou willing to give up all for Me?" The obvious reference is to Peter's own comparison of himself with others in the confidence of love which he thought could never fail. (Comp. Mt 26:33; Mr 14:29.)
The thrice-asked question has been generally understood to have special force in the restoration of him who had thrice denied his Lord, and now thrice declares his love for Him, and is thrice entrusted with a work for Him; and we feel that this interpretation gives a natural meaning to the emphasis of these verses. It may not be fanciful to trace significance, even in the external circumstances under which the question was asked. By the side of the lake after casting his net into the sea had Peter first been called to be a fisher of men (Mt 4:19). The lake, the very spot on the shore, the nets, the boat, would bring back to his mind in all their fulness the thoughts of the day which had been the turning-point of his life. By the side of the "fire of coals" (see Note on Joh 18:18, the only other place where the word occurs) he had denied his Lord. As the eye rests upon the "fire of coals" before him, and he is conscious of the presence of the Lord, who knows all things (Joh 21:17), burning thoughts of penitence and shame may have come to his mind, and these may have been the true preparation for the words which follow.
Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.—Peter uses a less strong expression for love than that which had been used by our Lord. The question seems to ask, "Dost thou in the full determination of the will, in profound reverence and devotion, love Me?" The answer seems to say, "Thou knowest me; I dare not now declare this fixed determination of the will, but in the fulness of personal affection I dare answer, and Thou knowest that even in my denials it was true, 'I love Thee.'"
He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.—More exactly, little lambs.
My Personal look:
We narrow down to the face to face very uncomfortable dialogue between Jesus and Peter. We are all on trial here as believers. Not regarding our Salvation but our relationship and how we will reign with Christ at the BEMA regarding truly who we truly are as in our relationship. I pray we can all see this clearly. If we get too stuck in the details of grammar and analysis without really finding the KEY WORDS to help us truly understand what is happening here in scripture we're really cheating ourselves.
I pray here sincerely you do not mock me for highlighting and parsing the VERB from the NOUN in examining this scripture. We must FOCUS on what WORD this scripture is all about. LOVE and not just love but a SACRIFICIAL LOVE unto death. A LOVE so strong there is nothing else that is like it. So strong we are unwilling to part with. it is Profoundly tender, passionate affection that lays down ones life for without question. All will be proven with scripture. I don't make these words up from my own private interpretation but I have the LOGOS written word of God and the RHEMA revelation of the Spirit of Jesus Christ within me bearing witness to what my spirit knows of him and my mind through study - it can be revealed,. Amen ! Praise God! I have done my study and research. My King James bible and my Oxford English dictionary have shown me these truths I write. I reprove the Greek and Hebrew Scholars and even the English scholars who tell me these scriptures mean different from the evidence shows clearly here.
Continue:
John 21 is a tremendously powerful type and shadow of the SAINTS and who we are in Christ by beginning the setting here we see Jesus standing on the shore instructing the Disciples in their miracle catch of exactly 153 fishes. Another subject connecting the 3rd Day Prophecy. See my study on the Sign of Jonah for our End Times
The Sign of Jonah for our Time #EndTimes #Rapture #Tribulation (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
And we find Peter swimming and running - most likely embarrassed that John recognized Jesus first in his resurrected body before he ascended into heaven.
So after Jesus offered the bread and fish to the disciples, Jesus address Peter.
Here we have sharp close focus on Peter and Jesus:
Jesus knows Peter very well of course. This is the rough, tough, foolish fisherman. A man that seemed to always stick his foot in his mouth. But worse here we see a man that had betrayed Jesus not once but 3 times just as Jesus had prophesied. Hint to why Jesus Asks 3 times:
Asking why the 3 times Jesus asked Peter if he loved him, and 3 times Peter replied that he loved Jesus fits with the 3 times Peter denied Jesus
Jesus sees Peter's tremendous zeal and "soulical" "carnal" "in the flesh" emotional, buddy, friend, affection for his Master." We will prove this by breaking down the scripture. However, Jesus wants to break Peter down and set him up before Jesus is resurrected and to show Peter how shallow his love really is.
Will find in Acts 2 at Pentecost that Peter after receiving the Holy Spirit becomes a mighty Lion.
EXEGESIS
2 Recommended study sources on using exegesis in Bible study
Now that we have a very good understanding of our context and background let's proceed:
Allowing scripture to interpret scripture by analyzing the grammar in piecemeal and regrouping it
Oxford Compact Hardcopy English Dictionary
Strong's Concordance (strongsconcordance.org)
John 21 (KJV) - So when they had dined, (blueletterbible.org)
John 21: 15-17
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
I have identified the key words highlighted in yellow and green. Red for when Jesus is speaking. Blue for when Peter is speaking.
I trust the reader will see the centerpiece word here in the Passive is LOVE. This grammar demands we focus on this word and not Peter or Jesus as the subject of focus, but rather on Jesus sharply focusing on LOVE and the superlative (of the highest) degree of love in his entire dialogue with Peter and not what the Greek scholar points out.
.png)
Jumping ahead in commentary from my Sword Searcher software we see the main idea is to get Peter to see that in order to minister to God's children whom Peter is commissioned to attend to, Peter must first understand it will take a superlative love that literally will be his martyrdom. see commentary attached.
We see Lovest. Conventional Wisdom of Apostate Scholars tell you that Lovest is an old fashioned archaic (ancient) used old word we no longer use, therefore we must use modern words and Bibles. I plead guilty to being archaic. Here's what the Oxford Dictionary says about archaic: Primitive, The Early Christian Church in its earliest and PUREST form. Page 2301.
Notice the stark difference between when Jesus speaks and when Peter speaks. Jesus uses, "Lovest". Peter uses "Love" Also see the word knowest connected to Jesus knowing.
But what does Lovest vs Love really mean? Notice in verse 17 Peter uses LOVE and not lovest.
I begin with my Oxford English Dictionary.
Since we've all been fed so many lies about the King James language, we assume that Lovest actually means love (2nd person present indicative conjugation of the verb TO LOVE). But on closer look we find a series of significant disconnects. First what screams out to me is: WHY is the KJB using the archaic lovest and then love together?
I read the definition carefully and something even more disturbing gets my attention. On page 1670 Oxford Compact Dictionary:
Lufian (verb) Found in John 12:25; John 21:14-17 equivalent to LOVETH
LEAVE - BELIEVE - not associated with desire. Beloved - in Love - OF ME.
Strongly attached unwilling to part with; to have great affection and regard for; To be strongly attached with and unwilling to part with; unwilling to allow to perish. Life, Honor, etc.
John 12:25 He that LOVETH his life shall lose it, and he that hateth his life in this World shall keep it unto Life eternal.
I soon find that LOVETH is set apart from LOVE that applies directly to our response to Jesus Christ, God. Before I go into the insanity of the Greek translators trying to tell us that AGAPE is actually LOVETH and that AGAPE changes to Phileo, let's proceed with my flow here.
This sets me on another search:
Why are we being told that ETH suffixing is the natural progression from Old English to 2nd Person indicative, but deeper research proves this is actually a 3rd person verb?
The confusion likely stems from the historical development of English verb forms. In Old English, the suffix "-eth" was used for the third-person singular present indicative. For example, "he goeth" (he goes). Over time, as the language evolved into Middle English and then Modern English, the second-person singular form "thou" and its corresponding verb endings (like "thou goest") fell out of common usage, and the third-person form became more standardized.
So, while it might seem like "eth" suffixing was directly linked to the second person, it was actually a third-person verb form that persisted and became more prominent as the second-person forms declined.
During the Early Modern English period, the 2nd person singular suffix disappeared and the -th suffix in the third person was replaced by another suffix, -s, which spread from dialects in the northern parts of the country. Other conjugations, such as -e in the first person singular from Middle English, had already been lost.
The point here is there definitely seems to be a difference and distinctions in types of LOVE in The KJB.
To bolster my idea the KJB distinguishes CHARITY from the word LOVE.
In the second insert photo of the Oxford Dictionary page 1669 We see Charity defined as God’s affection to us (not clear if us in the sense of John 3:16 or to Saints) and that same affection so far as it is prompted by the sense of their common relationship to God.
The Oxford dictionary further defines the distinction: as Love of Complacency - A shared as opposed to the Love of Benevolence. Charity appears to be for Christians to show and share with other Christians? And Benevolence is what Christians have to the unsaved? Apparently, this comes from Jonathan Edwards.
Jonathan Edwards distinguished between two kinds of love: love of benevolence and love of complacence. (The Nature of True Virtue, 1765) Benevolence he defined as “that affection or propensity of the heart to any being, which causes it to incline to its well-being, or disposes it to desire and take pleasure in its happiness.” Love of complacence, on the other hand, is “no other than delight in beauty, or complacence in the person or being beloved for its beauty.”
I’m not necessarily a Jonathan Edwards fan, and I’m not sure I agree with his thinking here since I don’t believe Paul is talking to only the Saints in how they react to each other, but to ALL… In essence, it seems Charity is A superlative level of love exercised in TRUTH.
Strong's Concordance (strongsconcordance.org)
John 21 (KJV) - So when they had dined, (blueletterbible.org)
Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online (bosworthtoller.com)
Commentary: Using a Bible Scholar, Expert in Greek tells us what most of commentary says: Jesus used agape (godly love) me? Peter responded with phileo (brotherly love) you Lord. However, why did the KJB use Lovest thou me 3 x and Peter used I love you..?
Greek Bible scholar tells us we have to know Greek to really understand God's word and without this knowledge we really do not understand. Do we see a major problem here ??? Do you know what percentage of the world speaks Greek: How about these Charlatan wolves like the Judaizers - Messianic Jews who tell dumbed down Evangelicals they really have to understand Hebrew to really know God's word. Do we see a major problem here? What are the actual numbers of humans in this world that speak Hebrew fluently? This should set off every alarm bell in your persona... NICOLAITAN! Please fully understand the meaning of this word and why Jesus HATES THEM. hint: word means to conquer the people. I have links in this article.
“Lovest Thou Me?” in Greek – BibleMesh
See full study in Note 6 below on why I believe the Greek scholar has this all mixed up in his translation.
Blueletter Bible tells us it's translated AGPAE, AGAPE, PHILEO.
LOVEST 11 uses in the Bible only Strong's numbers 1 OT 1 NT
2 lexicon words
0157 אַהֵב 'ahab
5368 φιλέω phileo
Search for additional clues:
Blueletter Bible tells us it's translated AGPAE, AGAPE, PHILEO.
H157 - 'āhaḇ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: phileó
Phonetic Spelling: (fil-eh'-o)
Definition: to love
Usage: I love cherish;
Revelation 3:19 V-PSA-1S
GRK: ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ
NAS: Those whom I love, I reprove
KJV: As many as I love, I rebuke
INT: as many as if I love I rebuke and
In the sense of
We see an ezran
Revelation 22:15 V-PPA-NMS
GRK: καὶ πᾶς φιλῶν καὶ ποιῶν
NAS: and everyone who loves and practices
KJV: and whosoever loveth and maketh
INT: and everyone who loves and practices
The King James Bible clears up the confusion of pronouns: Thou, Thee, Ye, You, Thy, Your.
We know that in English we use YOU as either singular or plural in the second person. Example: You need to bring the book to school. I could be addressing one student or ten. All we have is context to know the difference. But in the early modern English (King James Bible) taken from the Middle English, pronouns were a serious matter regarding gender, number, and in this case of this study I’m doing, FORMAL VS INFORMAL = PERSONAL - INTIMATE VS IMPERSONAL and DISTANT.
KJV pronouns into the specified categories using the verb “to love”.
Examples:
First Person Singular:
Nominative: "I love my neighbor."
Objective: "Thou shalt love me."
Possessive: "This is my love." / "This love is mine."
Second Person Singular:
Nominative: "Thou lovest the truth."
Objective: "I will always love thee."
Possessive: "Thy love is unending." / "This love is thine."
Third Person Singular:
Nominative: "He loveth wisdom."
Objective: "She doth love him."
Possessive: "His love never fails." / "This love is his."
First Person Plural:
Nominative: "We love our family."
Objective: "They will love us."
Possessive: "Our love is strong." / "This love is ours."
Second Person Plural:
Nominative: "Ye love one another."
Objective: "We always love you."
Possessive: "Your love endures." / "This love is yours."
Third Person Plural:
Nominative: "They love their children."
Objective: "We should love them."
Possessive: "Their love is pure." / "This love is theirs."
John 3:7 KJV:
Jesus says to Nicodemus:
“Marvel not that I said unto THEE, YE must be born again.”
THEE (singular you) refers to the individual Nicodemus. YE (plural you) refers to everyone who wants to be saved.
Luke chapter 22 verses 31-32:
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not: and when THOU art converted, strengthen THY brethren.
If you don’t know the distinctions in the pronouns you won’t know who Jesus is talking to. You could easily believe that Jesus is telling Simon Peter that Satan wants to sift him (Peter) like wheat. But He is not. The YOU in the first verse is plural, so Jesus is telling Simon Peter that Satan wants to sift the GROUP of apostles like wheat, not just Peter. In the second verse THEE, THY and THOU are used. These are all singular pronouns so we know that Jesus is speaking directly to Simon Peter.
We could render this in our less perfect English of today as:
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU ALL, that he may sift ALL of YOU as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for YOU (Simon), that YOUR faith fail not: and when YOU are converted, strengthen YOUR brethren.
The Greek Context
In John 21, the conversation between Jesus and Peter involves different Greek words for love. Jesus uses agape (a selfless, unconditional love), while Peter initially responds with phileo (a brotherly love). This nuanced use of Greek words emphasizes the depth and seriousness of Jesus’ question.
Agape (ἀγάπη)
Nature: Agape is often described as the highest form of love. It's selfless, unconditional, and sacrificial.
Characteristics: This love is given freely without expecting anything in return. It is enduring, consistent, and remains even in difficult circumstances.
Biblical Context: Agape is frequently used in the New Testament to describe God's love for humanity and the kind of love believers are encouraged to show others.
Example: John 3:16 - "For God so loved (agape) the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Meaning: It represents a love that is rooted in the will and commitment, more than emotions or affection. It seeks the best for others and is rooted in moral and spiritual principle.
Phileo (φιλία)
Nature: Phileo is a brotherly or friendship love. It is affectionate, warm, and companionable.
Characteristics: This love involves mutual respect, shared interests, and emotional connection. It is often based on personal relationships and familiarity.
Biblical Context: Phileo is used to describe the love between friends or close companions.
Example: John 21:17 - "He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (phileo) thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest (phileo) thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love (phileo) thee."
Meaning: It represents a love that is emotional and reciprocal, grounded in shared experiences, feelings, and connections.
Deepest Meaning of the Difference:
Agape is an unchanging, self-giving love that comes from the will and spirit, and is often associated with divine love or the love humans are called to have for one another without conditions.
Phileo is a tender, affectionate love that is responsive and emotional, often found between friends or family members, characterized by shared bonds and mutual care.
Lovest in the KJV
While -est is a grammatical marker for the second person singular, its usage in John 21 could be seen as carrying a more formal and serious tone, especially in the context of Jesus’ profound question. The use of "lovest" may heighten the gravity and formality of the interaction, aligning with the use of agape to signify the highest form of love.
___
Add following after the 11 lovest examples in the blog
It is important to examine both the Hebrew and Greek meanings of LOVEST.
In Hebrew the Strongs H1094 - to ancient Hebrew Lexicon literally means: GIFT - the pictograp.h representing one who is looking at a great sight with his hands raised as when saying behold. This is used in combination with “look toward the house” One does not choose the household which one is born into, including ribe, parents, children and (even) wife - as marriages were often arranged by the father, it is a gift from God. These gifts are seen as privilege and are to be cherished and protected. In the Greek we see of course the Agape
Also interesting is Agape is only used in the context of the King James Bible
Biblical/Ecclesiastical Use:
Agape (ἀγάπη): In the Bible and church writings, "agape" refers to a very specific, high form of love. It is unconditional, selfless, and sacrificial, often representing God's love for humanity and the love that believers are called to show toward others. It carries a deep, spiritual significance and moral imperative.
Secular Use:
Agapēsis (ἀγάπησις): In secular texts, such as those by Aristotle and Plutarch, a different form of the word "agape" is often used (e.g., "ἀγάπησις"). While it still denotes love, the emphasis and connotations might not reach the same spiritual and sacrificial heights as in Biblical contexts. It could be more general, encompassing affection, fondness, or regard in a broader, more human sense.
In summary, while both usages describe love, the Biblical agape is portrayed as the purest, most selfless love, embodying divine qualities and a call to altruism. In contrast, secular agapēsis might encompass a broader range of affectionate feelings without necessarily carrying the same spiritual weight or moral emphasis.
there has to be a deep reason why middle english added the suffix est to verbs in the second person especially in the context of love and this must be related to the distinction in pronouns of the second person
morphological leveling isn't a random phenomenon.
In this link you’ll find that as English evolved (was more and more diluted from so many cultures changing and adapting to make it more simple and less to memorize who were learning the language, it was frankly dumbed down over time and is more and more perverse - farther from the actual true meaning.
As a language teacher, one of the most difficult tasks was for me to teach this concept among the gender of nouns etc. But it all boils down to FORMAL vs INFORMAL Second Person Pronouns and how their associated verbs are conjugated.
Example Spanish: You Formal = usted ama. You love.
You Familiar/Informal = tu amas. You love.
Languages with formal and informal distinctions, the formal second person often conveys distance, respect, or social formality.
In Spanish, the formal second person pronoun "usted" is used to show respect, politeness, or social distance. It's typically used in professional settings, with strangers, or with individuals of higher social status. The verb conjugation for "usted" aligns with third person singular forms, which further emphasizes the formality and distance compared to the informal second person "tú":
Informal (Tú): "Tú hablas español." (You speak Spanish.)
Formal (Usted): "Usted habla español." (You speak Spanish.)
Using "usted" can indeed feel more distant and impersonal, as it creates a boundary between the speaker and the listener. This phenomenon is not unique to Spanish; many languages with formal/informal distinctions, such as French (with "tu" and "vous") and German (with "du" and "Sie"), follow a similar pattern.
Therefore it really comes down to the PERSONAL YOU. YOU. Yes whenever God deals with us it gets very personal on a ONE on ONE Basis.
There are several instances, for example Zacchaeus up in the tree and Paul on the road to Damascus. Jesus called out the individual by name.
In an upcoming study I will explore this deeper using this scripture in Luke 22:32
Luke 22:32 (KJV) says:
"But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
and comparing it to Romans 8:28:
"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
And:
John 15:16, where Jesus says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."
In conclusion there is also a strong case regarding the EST suffix for adjectives was indeed conveyed as the superlative for the VERB structures:
The evolution of language often intertwines various grammatical elements, so it's conceivable that the superlative "-est" influenced other aspects of language, including second person pronouns and verb forms in Middle English.
Middle English, spoken roughly between the 12th and 15th centuries, had a more complex system of pronouns and verb conjugations compared to Modern English. The distinction between singular and plural forms, as well as formal and informal address, was more pronounced. For instance, "thou" (singular informal), "thee" (singular object), "ye" (plural or formal), and "you" (plural object) were all in use.
The use of the superlative "-est" could be seen as part of a broader trend of expressing degrees of comparison and respect. However, direct evidence linking the superlative "-est" specifically to second person pronouns and verb forms is not well-documented. The development of pronouns and verb forms was likely influenced by a variety of factors, including social hierarchies, contact with other languages, and internal linguistic changes.
5 lexicon words
Dear Heavenly Father we all stand before our Kinsman Redeemer Jesus Christ, our master, the author and finisher of our faith, as did Peter. Each one of us. As Jesus ask us, "Do you Love me?" I pray we answer the call, Yes Lord we love you unto death, more than life itself. Thank you for forgiving our sins, for the remission of our sins on the cross. we are now standing before you declaring ourselves by grace through faith to be crucified with you. It is not we who live, but you in us. May we grow and increase in our knowledge of you and love you more each day in a more profound way. Thank you, Amen! Even so come soon. For your Glory. Amen! Maranatha!
Ephesians 3:20
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
Romans 8:37
“Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.”
NOTES
- If you don’t know what they doubt, how are you going to change their world view?
- You must know **them* to predicate what they might say. *
- Every community has it’s own code.
- You must know what each one values. *
- Identify the people with power in your community.
- Give them what they want (i.e. build them up) *but* challenge them inside the terms of their code.
- Only scholars can interpret scripture. How a Phd is taught about peer review the doctrinal thesis or dissertation in Europe.
- It must be accepted by conventional wisdom or prove
- Nothing will be accepted as knowledge or understanding until it has been challenged by people who have the competence to challenge this determines the readers of our writing
- Every research communities have their own code to communicate VALUE
- Why does it take 5-6 years to get a PhD? 50% of the time is used to know the readers in the field
- Using these words to show that you are aware of the research communities: widely, accepted, and reported
Disturbing - but not surprising Comment:
Thank you for acknowledging there are some immoral/unethical issues with how papers are written today... I felt really alone since no one talks about them in my lab or department.
Perverted (MODERN) Bibles are the CONVENTIONAL WISDOM of Academia,.
See my background study on The History of the King James Bible
The True History of the King James Bible - all modern Bible Translations are Satanic (thethirdheaventraveler.com)
Ask yourself why the NICOLAITANS (conquer the people) has always held that only the scholars are qualified to translate and interpret Bible scripture
Biblical Greek Nouns Second Declension - GREEK FOR ALL
See the extraordinary connection to English from the Anglo Saxons to Greek
Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online (bosworthtoller.com)
Read the lost reasoning with the archaic kjv
Research eth suffix meaning in old English.
Nouns ending in the suffixes -oþ, -dōm, -end, -els, -uc, -ling, -ere, -hād, and -sċipe are all masculine, nouns ending in -ung, -þu, -nes, -estre, -rǣden, and -wist are all feminine, and nouns ending in -lāc, -et, -ærn, and -ċen are all neuter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Old English grammar -
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Old_English_suffixes
Old English suffix
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Old_English_suffixes
A BIG List of Prefixes and Suffixes and Their Meanings (myenglishteacher.eu)
Old English Suffixes
Making new words creation: Old English Freedom of forming new words from SUFFIXES
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-eth
Dec 27, 2021
-eth
(archaic) Used to form the third-person singular present indicative of verbs.
goeth, playeth
LOVE in the 3rd Person NEUTER
-eth
(archaic) Used to form the third-person singular present indicative of verbs.
goeth, playeth
The English language can be divided into three basic periods called Old English, Middle English, and Modern English. Old English is the Anglo-Saxon language used from 400s to about 1100; Middle English was used from the 1100s to about 1400s, and Modern English is the language used from 1400 onwards. Although Middle English developed out of Old English, there were drastic differences between the two in terms of grammar, pronunciation, and orthography. The main difference between Old English and Middle English can be described as the simplification of grammar; in Middle English, many grammatical cases of Old English saw a reduction and inflections in Old English were simplified.
What is Old English
Old English is the earliest historical form of the English language, which was spoken in England and some parts of Scotland during the early Middle Ages. It was brought to England by the Anglo-Saxon settlers during the 5th century. It was used in Britain from 400s through the 1100s.
Old English has four main dialectal forms: Northumbrian, Kentish, Mercian, and West Saxon. Its closest relatives are Old Saxon and Old Frisian. The grammar of Old English is somewhat similar to modern German. The word order is much freer, but nouns, pronouns, adjectives and verbs have many inflectional forms and endings. Like any other old language, it is very different from its modern version; therefore, speakers of Modern English find it very difficult to understand it without study. Old English vocabulary mostly contained Germanic words; most of these words do not exist in the Modern English vocabulary as these words were later replaced by Latin and French words. Words with Latin origins such as cleric, abbot, nun, hymn, temple, silk, purple, beet, lentil, pear, radish, doe, oyster, cannon, ark, alter, and alms entered into the English vocabulary during the later Old English period
Difference Between Old and Middle English
History
Old English is the earliest historical form of the English language.
Middle English developed out of Old English after the Norman Conquest in 1066.
Who were the Normans?
Connection to Rome - Vatican
Intriguingly enough, the Normans, with their very name being derived from the Latin Nortmanni – denoting the Northmen (or Norsemen) raiders from Scandinavia, were descendants of the Vikings who settled in the north-western French province of Neustria (later termed as Normandy, after the Normans). But in a twist of history, in spite of their pagan heritage, future generations of Norman knights turned out to be the ‘sword arm’ of Christianity, with their conquests and influence reaching the far-flung corners of Europe and even the Levant.
Interestingly, the Normans also established a long-standing yet transparent relationship with the Papacy, as is evident from William the Conqueror’s alliance with the Vatican. In that regard, many of the ecclesiastical leaders of the church came from the Norman aristocracy, while secular Norman lords quite freely founded medieval monasteries in their realms. Many of these ‘church lands’ owed military service to their Norman overlords and as such resource-rich abbeys probably funded the first knights.
A Condensed History of Britain.
43 CE to ~400 CE: Brittania (Part of the Roman Empire)
The isle of Britain in 43 AD was under Roman occupation. During that era, it was known as Brittania, where Brittonic (a Celtic language) was the common tongue. Though Brittonic remained a Celtic language in its origins, the presence of Roman culture influenced it with Latin. We have yet to find written evidence of this language.
The end of this era came with a withdrawal of the Roman rule in Brittania, as an influx of Germanic tribes established settlements on the isle: Jutes, Angles, and Saxons.
By 450 AD it became official: the Anglo-Saxon culture and language was to prevail in the coming years.
~450 CE to 1066 CE: Anglo-Saxon England
450 CE: The Germanic culture started to gain influence from eastern edges of the isle until it grew westward through Britain (except for Cornwall). The combination of language from the Angles and Saxons, with a bit of the local Brittonic, gave birth to a new language. However, this was not to be the complete loss of Roman influence in the isle. In the year 600 CE, Irish christian monks introduced the Latin script. However, instead of using it for writing in Latin, they’d modify it for use to write in the emerging language of the time: Old English (Anglo-Saxon). This Germanic era continued until it ended with The Battle of Hastings at 1066. The Anglo-Saxons resisted, but were defeated in the hands of the Norman-French conquerers.
1066 CE: Anglo-Norman England
With their victory, Normandy established an Anglo-Norman era in the isle. A heavy influence of French loan words entered the vernacular of Anglo-Saxon within a century after the Norman conquest. It was during that period that Old English (which was already Germanic, with some Celtic Brittonic, and sprinkles of Latin words from the Roman period) blended with the French of that time period. This era was to mark a gradual shift of language on the isle, from Old English and into Middle English.
love | Etymology, origin and meaning of love by etymonline Old High German connection to English - to the suffixing of eth
The English language can be divided into Greek Nouns Second Declension - GREEK FOR ALL
See the extraordinary connection to English from the Anglo Saxons to Greek
Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online (bosworthtoller.com)
Read the lost reasoning with the archaic kjv
Research eth suffix meaning in old English.
Nouns ending in the suffixes -oþ, -dōm, -end, -els, -uc, -ling, -ere, -hād, and -sċipe are all masculine, nouns ending in -ung, -þu, -nes, -estre, -rǣden, and -wist are all feminine, and nouns ending in -lāc, -et, -ærn, and -ċen are all neuter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Old English grammar -
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Old_English_suffixes
Old English suffix
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Old_English_suffixes
A BIG List of Prefixes and Suffixes and Their Meanings (myenglishteacher.eu)
Old English Suffixes
Making new words creation: Old English Freedom of forming new words from SUFFIXES
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-eth
Dec 27, 2021
-eth
(archaic) Used to form the third-person singular present indicative of verbs.
goeth, playeth
LOVE in the 3rd Person NEUTER
-eth
(archaic) Used to form the third-person singular present indicative of verbs.
goeth, playeth
three basic periods called Old English, Middle English, and Modern English. Old English is the Anglo-Saxon language used from 400s to about 1100; Middle English was used from the 1100s to about 1400s, and Modern English is the language used from 1400 onwards. Although Middle English developed out of Old English, there were drastic differences between the two in terms of grammar, pronunciation, and orthography. The main difference between Old English and Middle English can be described as the simplification of grammar; in Middle English, many grammatical cases of Old English saw a reduction and inflections in Old English were simplified.
Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online (bosworthtoller.com)
Lufian (verb) Found in John 12:25; John 21:14-17 equivalent to LOVETH
Oxford English Dictionary Compact page 1670
LEAVE - BELIEVE - not associated with desire. Beloved - in Love - OF ME.
Strongly attached unwilling to part with; to have great affection and regard for;
To be strongly attached with and unwilling to part with; unwilling to allow to perish. Life, Honor, etc.
During the Early Modern English period, the 2nd person singular suffix disappeared and the -th suffix in the third person was replaced by another suffix, -s, which spread from dialects in the northern parts of the country. Other conjugations, such as -e in the first person singular from Middle English, had already been lost.
This sort of change is known as paradigm leveling. There is no particular reason per se that this kind of change happens, but it is not uncommon in the languages of the world.
stranger According to the online Strong's Concordance there are inexplicable gaps in LOVETH in reference to John 21:15-17: Why?
Strong's Concordance (strongsconcordance.org)
John 21 (KJV) - So when they had dined, (blueletterbible.org)
Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary online (bosworthtoller.com)
King James Bible - Strongs No. G25 (thekingsbible.com)
Let's say you Google: Lovest vs Love for help. Well... Sorry you'll find garbage, pages of garbage on Love Lust how to find Love (in all the wrong places).
Let's then try Googling defining by Greek : We get the standard listings:
Agápe ( ἀγάπη, agápē) means "love: esp. brotherly love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God". ...
Éros ( ἔρως, érōs) means "love, mostly of the sexual passion". The Modern Greek word " erotas " means "intimate love". ...
Philia ( φιλία, philía) means "affectionate regard, friendship", usually "between equals". It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. ...
Storge (στοργή storgē) familial love refers to natural or instinctual affection, such as the love of a parent towards offspring and vice versa.
Commentary: Using a Bible Scholar, Expert in Greek tells us what most of commentary says: Jesus used agape (godly love). Peter responded with phileo (brotherly love) you Lord. Then this Greek scholar says that Jesus shifts to Phileo even though the King James Bible and the Oxford English dictionary prove otherwise.
A compelling why did the KJB use Lovest thou me 3 x and Peter used I love you in each instance demands investigation.
“Lovest Thou Me?” in Greek – BibleMesh
Excerpt:
Jesus asks Peter, ἀγαπᾷς με; agapas me? “Do you love me?” He asks this question twice, both times using the verb ἀγαπῶ agapo (15, 16)—the verb also used in John 3:16:
When Jesus asks Peter a third time, He switches to Peter’s verb: φιλεῖς με; filis me? It is as though Jesus were saying, “Even so, Peter, do you care for me?”
There is little doubt that in Peter’s ears each question Jesus asks has a ring of forgiveness and acceptance. But at the ring of the third question, Peter sees Jesus once again willing to not only accept him as he is but to also stoop down to his level of unworthiness and lift him up. Overwhelmed, Peter feels grieved.
The difference between ἀγαπῶ agapo and φιλῶ filo is not allowable in English, nor in Aramaic.[1] This lack of distinction leads to the assumption that Peter was grieved because Jesus asked him the same question three times, once for each of the three times the disciple had denied his Master. And, admittedly, some contemporary New Testament scholars claim the two words convey no difference of meaning in this passage.[2]
And here are the links I always used to believe as this Greek Scholar has written:
Greek Concordance: ἀγαπᾷς (agapas) -- 2 Occurrences (biblehub.com)
Original Word: ἀγαπάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: agapaó
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ap-ah'-o)
Definition: to love
Usage: I love, wish well to, take pleasure in, long for; denotes the love of reason, esteem.
ἀγαπᾷς (agapas) — 2 Occurrences
Οτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; λέγει αὐτῷ, Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ, Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου.
John 21:15 V-PIA-2S
GRK: Σίμων Ἰωάννου ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον
NAS: [son] of John, do you love Me more
KJV: [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me
INT: Simon [son] of Jonah love you me more
John 21:16 V-PIA-2S
GRK: Σίμων Ἰωάννου ἀγαπᾷς με λέγει
NAS: [son] of John, do you love Me? He said
KJV: [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me?
INT: Simon [son] of Jonah love you me He says
Textus Receptus:
21:15 15 οτε ουν ηριστησαν λεγει τω σιμωνι πετρω ο ιησους σιμων ιωνα αγαπας με πλειον τουτων λεγει αυτω ναι κυριε συ οιδας οτι φιλω σε λεγει αυτω βοσκε τα αρνια μου
Strong's Greek: 5368. φιλέω (phileó) -- to love (biblehub.com)
λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον, Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με; ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον, Φιλεῖς με; καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], Βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου.
John 21:17 V-PIA-2S
GRK: Σίμων Ἰωάννου φιλεῖς με ἐλυπήθη
NAS: [son] of John, do you love Me? Peter
KJV: [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me?
INT: Simon [son] of Jonah have you affection for me Was grieved
21:17 λεγει αυτω το τριτον σιμων ιωνα φιλεις με ελυπηθη ο πετρος οτι ειπεν αυτω το τριτον φιλεις με και ειπεν αυτω κυριε συ παντα οιδας συ γινωσκεις οτι φιλω σε λεγει αυτω ο ιησους βοσκε τα προβατα μου
The problem is the source used for the Greek Translation can not be authenticated as the TEXTUS RECEPTUS used in the 1611 AV King James Bible. In searching the "supposed" Textus Receptus is a hilarious and frankly disgusting. First the 1550 of Stephens were not used by the King James translators. Secondly, all modern pervsions were started in 1880 by the so called "modern" manuscripts from Alexandria and are courrupt. See my detailed study in my King James Links.
Here's how trecherously evil these so called modern day bible scholars are.
Definition of the manuscript this Greek Scholar is using.
Greek New Testament: Textus Receptus (1550/1894) The Textus Receptus; base text is Stephens 1550, with variants of Scrivener 1894.
The King James Translation committees used The Erasmus manuscripts. 1598.
The Bible (Greek New Testament: Textus Receptus (1550/1894)) (newchristianbiblestudy.org)
I am unable to match up the Modern day greek manuscripts with a good translation to what the KJB shows.
I'm calling FOUL...
I have emailed the Greek Scholar and asked him to verify precisely which Greek manusdcript he's usingand to provide me a precise translation of the the Textus Recptus 1598 Erasmus manuscripts rend.
Blueletter Bible tells us it's translated AGPAE, AGAPE, PHILEO exactly as this Greek Scholar tells us. If this were the case, why does Strongs search tell me that Lovest uses only Strongs G5368 φιλέω phileo?
LOVEST 11 uses in the Bible only Strong's numbers 1 OT 1 NT
2 lexicon words
0157 אַהֵב 'ahab
5368 φιλέω phileo
I encourage you to look at each of these many nuances of love in Hebrew and Greek. The amazing discovery is the King James Bible translators more than adequately translated these words into English with the proper context. According to my diligent study and in hours on the phone with Dr. Hinton I'm more than ever convinced that these are tremendously misleading. I've shown you clearly in the example of trying to tell us that Jesus was using agape love and then changed to brotherly love while Peter used brotherly love. 5368 PHILEO. In the end, there is truly NO DISTINCTION in trying to determine by Greek. We see the same in HEBREW,. 0157 AHAB.
LOVE 281 times used
25 lexicon words
0157 אַהֵב 'ahab
KJV: [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee
02836 חָשַׁק chashaq
Deuteronomy 7:7
HEB: מִכָּל־ הָֽעַמִּ֗ים חָשַׁ֧ק יְהוָ֛ה בָּכֶ֖ם
KJV: The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose
5360 φιλαδελφία philadelphia
1 Thessalonians 4:9
GRK: δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας οὐ χρείαν
KJV: as touching brotherly love ye need
7. Sample Grammar Analysis EXEGESIS exercise
Example of a Pastor using the perverted New English Translation and breaking down a scripture using both exegesis and exposition.
Excerpt from, "Exegesis and Exposition of 2 Thessalonians 3:16 (New English Translation)
Pastor William E. Wenstrom Jr. WENSTROM BIBLE MINISTRIES Norwood, Massachusetts 2021 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries
TRANSLATE
2 Thessalonians 3:16 Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times and in every way. The Lord be with you all. (NET) “Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times and in every way” is composed of the following: (1) nominative third person masculine singular form of the intensive personal pronoun autos (αὐτός), “himself” (2) conjunction de (δέ), “now” (3) articular nominative masculine singular form of the noun kurios (κύριος), “the Lord” (4) articular genitive feminine singular form of the noun eirēnē (εἰρήνη), “of peace” (5) third person singular aorist active optative conjugation of the verb didōmi (δίδωμι), “may give” (6) dative second person plural form of the personal pronoun su (σύ), “you” (7) articular accusative feminine singular form of the noun eirēnē (εἰρήνη), “of peace” (8) preposition dia (διά), “at” (9) genitive masculine singular form of the adjective pas (πᾶς), “all times” (10) preposition en (ἐν), “in” (11) dative masculine singular form of the adjective pas (πᾶς), “every” (12) dative masculine singular form of the noun tropos (τρόπος), “way.
INTERPRET” The post-positive conjunction de means “now” since it is functioning as a marker of transition, which means that it is marking a transition from the contents of 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 to the closing of the letter in 2 Thessalonians 3:16-18. In the emphatic position of the sentence, we have the nominative third person masculine singular form of the intensive personal pronoun autos means “he himself” which is referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, which is indicated by the expression ho kyrios (ὁ κύριος), “the Lord,” which modifies it. The intensive personal pronoun autos functions as the nominative subject which means that it is performing the action of the third person singular aorist active optative conjugation of the verb didōmi (δίδωμι), “may give.” Therefore, this indicates that the Lord Jesus Christ performs the action of giving each member of the Thessalonian Christian community peace at all times and in every way. The use of the personal pronoun is often unnecessary in Greek since the form of a finite verb in this language indicates the person, number and gender of the subject. This is what makes the Greek of the New Testament an “inflectional” language. Therefore, when the personal pronoun autos is used in conjunction with a verb, it is significant. It may serve to clarify the subject or contrast the subject with someone else or for emphasis. Here in 2 Thessalonians 3:16, the word is used to emphasize Paul, Silvanus and Timothy’s Spirit inspired desire that the Lord Jesus Christ would give peace to 2021 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 2 each member of the Thessalonian Christian community at all times and in every way.
8. Contextual analysis
Contextual analysis asks how the biblical section to be preached or taught fits into or contributes to the larger message or to the theology of the author. It includes the process of looking at the most helpful parallel passages and verses (not necessarily all of them) to discover how the texts relate to one another and how they provide insights. Parallel passages should be worked through exegetically to make certain that conclusions are valid. (The need to work through multiple passages exegetically in the preparation of a topical sermon is a major factor in the increased time required to do such a study correctly and well.) Be aware that a biblical concept or doctrine may be present in a passage even when a specific word is not used. For example, a concordance search for sacrifice may not help you find verses that include references to propitiation or expiation, even though such verses can be helpful in a study of sacrifice.
Analyzing vocabulary.
Lexical study is the study of words. It has several dimensions, but in this booklet, lexical study deals primarily with the vocabulary of the passage. What are the key words in the passage? What words or concepts are repeated? Are the words used in the same way in this passage as in other biblical texts? A concordance will help you find other occurrences of a word. You can use good lexicons and word study books to understand the basic uses and meanings of Bible words. All of the areas mentioned above can be included in a broad, general area called linguistics.
Full Article by Dr. John Hinton, M.T.T. Harvard Defending English and the King James Version
Authorized Version Defence
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction,for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:15 & 16
Thy word is true from the beginning:
and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Psalm 119:160
The preservation of God’s holy and inspired words is self-evident as promised within the covers of the Holy Bible. It is in fact, quite amazing for Christians to believe that the only inspired Holy Bible is an invisible Bible because most of them believe that only the original autographs are inspired and yet they can still discuss Bible doctrines and be dogmatic on many issues pertaining to the Christian faith.
It is therefore, questionable as to on what basis do these Christians form their convictions on Biblical issues. Since they believe that a translation cannot be inspired, how can they be sure what they believe are indeed Bible truths as they do not have a physical inspired Holy Bible to begin with? They claim that believing that a translation is also the inspired word of God would be tantamount to imputing double inspiration to the version concerned which is a heresy of the highest order.
But is such a claim justifiable and supportable by Scriptures? Who is the author of languages? Is Almighty God bound by the original Biblical languages when revealing Bible truths to His people? If the perfect inspired Holy Bible is only found in the original Bible languages, should not all Christians learn these original Bible languages to know the perfect meanings of His words and to live according to God’s perfect will?
Should not all Christians discuss Bible truths in these original languages since Biblical truths can be lost during the process of translation? They claim that only the originals in the original languages from which they were written are pure and that a translation can never attain to the same status of these originals. Why then only a select class of Christians is given the privilege to learn these languages and become master and custodian of Bible truths? So when these highly privilege Christians discuss and share Bible truths to those who are less privilege, can they ensure that what they disseminate are indeed perfect and true since exact meanings are lost during the process of translation as they so claim?
So if God did not preserve for us His pure, living, inspired and holy words, there is no basis for us to discuss Bible truths and doctrines. Then we will not be able to obey Ephesians 4:14; That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
But we know for sure this is not the case as God has promised in Proverbs 22:20 & 21, Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?
Yes, indeed God has not only written to us excellent things in counsel and knowledge, He has also promised to preserve them for us!
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalm 12:6 & 7)
This page contains articles and links to articles in defense of the Authorized Version. Search the Scriptures and see whether these testimonies are true.
MORE GRAMMAR NOTES:
STEP ONE CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT:
What is the real meaning of Context and how do we truly understand the context of our subject?
The process is iterative, involving close reading and critical synthesis, as outlined in resources like Literary Analysis: The Basics and guides from the University of Wisconsin and Texas A&M.
Here's a detailed, step-by-step description of the method:
Initial Close Reading and Textual Engagement: Begin by reading the chapter multiple times—first for an overall gist, then for deeper comprehension, and finally with annotations. Track linguistic features (e.g., grammar, syntax, vocabulary) to understand how they convey meaning. Halliday's approach highlights how grammatical choices (e.g., active vs. passive voice, nominalization) reflect the text's field (content), tenor (relationships), and mode (structure). Identify patterns in word choice, sentence structure, and rhetorical devices like repetition or parallelism, which provide clues to the chapter's internal logic.
Internal Literary Context: Examine the chapter within the book's structure. Consider its position relative to preceding and following chapters—does it introduce themes, resolve conflicts, or pivot the narrative? Analyze key elements like setting (time/place), characters (development and motivations), plot (sequence of events), themes (recurring ideas), and literary devices (e.g., symbolism, foreshadowing, irony). For instance, Frye's archetypal criticism encourages viewing the chapter as part of mythic patterns (e.g., creation, fall, redemption). Assess how the chapter contributes to the book's overall unity or contrasts with other sections.
Linguistic and Grammatical Analysis: Delve into English grammar specifics to unpack meaning. Scholars like Halliday emphasize contextual grammar: Analyze clause structures (e.g., transitive verbs indicating agency), cohesion (how sentences link via pronouns or conjunctions), and discourse markers (e.g., "and" for chronological flow). In narrative texts, tense shifts (e.g., past to present) can signal emphasis or timelessness. This step reveals how grammar shapes interpretation, such as in poetic vs. prose styles.
External Contexts: Widen the lens to historical, cultural, social, and biographical factors. Research the author's background, the era's influences (e.g., political events, philosophical ideas), and intertextual links (references to other works). Barthes' "death of the author" suggests prioritizing the text over authorial intent, but historical critics like those in Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews advocate synthesizing quantitative and qualitative data from sources. Consider audience reception and genre conventions (e.g., is it myth, history, or allegory?).
Synthesis and Interpretation: Integrate findings into a cohesive analysis. Evaluate purposes (e.g., didactic, aesthetic) and potential ambiguities. Use evidence-based claims, comparing with scholarly interpretations for depth. This step often uncovers tensions, like contradictions or evolving themes, leading to broader insights about the work's significance.
This method ensures a thorough, evidence-driven analysis, adaptable to any text.
Application to Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)
Applying the above method to Genesis 1 from the King James Version (KJV), we analyze its context as the opening chapter of the Bible's first book, setting a foundational cosmological narrative.
Close Reading and Textual Engagement: The chapter is structured poetically with repetitive phrases like "And God said... and it was so" and "And the evening and the morning were the [nth] day," creating a rhythmic, formulaic style. Grammatically, it uses imperative verbs ("Let there be") for divine commands, emphasizing agency, and simple past tense for actions, conveying order and completion. Vocabulary draws on Hebrew roots translated into archaic English (e.g., "firmament" for expanse), evoking majesty.
Internal Literary Context: Within Genesis, this chapter introduces the book's themes of creation, order from chaos, and divine sovereignty. It precedes Genesis 2's more intimate focus, forming a broad overview before zooming in. Themes include separation (light/dark, waters/land) and blessing ("be fruitful"). Literary devices: Parallelism in days 1-3 (forming realms) and 4-6 (filling them), culminating in the seventh day's rest. It contrasts with later chapters' human-centered fall narrative, establishing an ideal pre-sin world.
Linguistic and Grammatical Analysis: Cohesion via "and" connects verses chronologically, while plural "us" in verse 26 ("Let us make man") hints at divine plurality. Nominal groups like "the greater light" avoid direct naming (sun/moon), possibly avoiding pagan connotations. This functional grammar underscores a transcendent, systematic creator.
External Contexts: Historically, Genesis 1 reflects ancient Near Eastern cosmology (e.g., parallels to Babylonian Enuma Elish, but subverting polytheism with monotheism), dated to the Priestly source (P) around 6th-5th century BCE during Babylonian exile, affirming God's control amid chaos. Culturally, it counters pagan myths by portraying God (Elohim) as transcendent, creating by word alone. Biographically, attributed to Mosaic tradition but compiled later. Genre: Often interpreted as theological poetry or framework narrative, not literal science, per scholars like John Walton, who see it as establishing cosmic order and function rather than material origins. Interpretations vary: Literal 6-day creation (young-earth creationists) vs. symbolic (accommodating evolution).
Synthesis and Interpretation: Genesis 1's context portrays a structured, good creation, emphasizing God's sovereignty and humanity's dominion (imago Dei). It sets the Bible's arc from perfection to redemption, with tensions like the "days" framework inviting debate on historicity vs. theology.
Application to Genesis Chapter 2 (KJV)
Now applying the method to Genesis 2 (KJV), which shifts to a more anthropological narrative, detailing humanity's origins and Eden.
Close Reading and Textual Engagement: The style is narrative prose, less formulaic than Chapter 1, with vivid details (e.g., "dust of the ground," "rib"). Repetition of "LORD God" (Yahweh Elohim) emphasizes personal involvement. Grammatically, it uses sequential "and" clauses for storytelling, with dialogue introducing commands and names.
Internal Literary Context: This chapter complements Genesis 1 by focusing on Day 6's details, transitioning to human relationships and the garden. It introduces themes of stewardship, companionship, and prohibition (Tree of Knowledge), foreshadowing the Fall in Chapter 3. Contrasts with Chapter 1: Here, man precedes plants/animals in the garden sequence, highlighting topical rather than chronological order.
Linguistic and Grammatical Analysis: Anthropomorphic language (God "formed," "breathed," "planted") uses active verbs for intimacy. Cohesive devices like "therefore" in verse 24 link etiology (origins of marriage). Wordplay (e.g., "adam" from "adamah" – man from ground) reflects Hebrew puns preserved in KJV.
External Contexts: From the Yahwist source (J, ca. 10th-9th century BCE), it echoes Mesopotamian myths (e.g., Atrahasis for human creation from clay) but emphasizes monotheism and ethics. Culturally, it addresses human purpose in agrarian societies. Scholarly interpretations: Not contradictory to Chapter 1 but complementary—one cosmic, one human-focused; differences in order (e.g., humans before vegetation in 2 vs. reverse in 1) reflect distinct emphases, per Documentary Hypothesis. Conservative views see harmony (Chapter 2 as recap), while critical theories highlight source compilation.
Synthesis and Interpretation: Genesis 2's context humanizes creation, stressing relationality (man-woman, God-humanity) and sets up sin's entry. Together with Chapter 1, it forms a dual account: Structured theology vs. intimate story, unified in affirming origins and divine intent, though debates persist on literalism vs. myth.
Relationship Between Genesis 1 and 2: Scholarly Consensus
Critical scholarship (Documentary Hypothesis) views Genesis 1 (Priestly) and 2 (Yahwist) as separate traditions edited together, explaining differences (e.g., order of creation, God's name: Elohim . Chiastic/parallel patterns in each affirm unity of redaction but not single authorship.
Some propose Genesis 2 as a "chiastic continuation" of Genesis 1's parallelism, but this is minority; most see self-contained structures, with 2:4 as a hinge/toledot formula transitioning to human-focused narrative.
Theologically, together they present complementary portraits: Genesis 1 (cosmic, majestic, ordered) and Genesis 2 (intimate, relational, anthropocentric), unified in affirming one Creator and humanity's role.
In summary, Genesis 1 excels in parallel triads and micro-chiasms for theological emphasis on order and Sabbath, while Genesis 2 features its own chiasms for relational depth. These literary devices, common in Hebrew Bible, enhance memorability and point to divine intentionality without requiring strict chronology.
Key Literary Devices and Exegetical Examples Throughout ScriptureExegesis involves a step-by-step process: establishing the text (textual criticism), analyzing grammar/syntax, considering historical-cultural context, identifying literary features, and synthesizing theological application.
biblicaltraining.org
Below is a synopsis of prominent devices, with historical hermeneutical insights and exegetical illustrations showing how they elucidate God's message.Parallelism (Poetic Structure): Common in Hebrew poetry (e.g., Psalms, Proverbs), this device repeats or contrasts ideas for emphasis, elucidating divine wisdom without rhyme.
answersingenesis.org +1
Types include synonymous (repetition), antithetic (contrast), and synthetic (progression).
In the context of Genesis 1 and 2, God repeats (or more precisely, revisits) the creation of mankind not as a second, separate event, but to elucidate—to provide deeper clarity, detail, and theological emphasis—on what happened on Day 6 (Genesis 1:26–31). This is a common ancient literary technique: first a broad, panoramic overview (Genesis 1), then a focused, intimate elaboration (Genesis 2) on the most important aspect—humanity's origin, purpose, and relationship with God.
Why This Repetition/Elucidation Occurs (Scholarly Consensus on Complementary Accounts)
Genesis 1 gives the cosmic, majestic overview of creation: structured in six days, emphasizing order from chaos, God's sovereign word ("Let there be"), and humanity's creation as the climax ("male and female he created them" in 1:27). It uses the name Elohim (God as transcendent Creator) and portrays humanity collectively in God's image with dominion over creation. The account is poetic, repetitive, and theological, declaring everything "very good" (1:31).
Genesis 2 zooms in on Day 6, providing detailed elaboration rather than a new creation sequence. It uses YHWH Elohim (the personal, relational covenant God) to show God as intimate and hands-on: forming man from dust (2:7), breathing life into him, planting the Garden of Eden specifically for him (2:8–9), and creating woman from man's rib (2:21–22). The apparent differences in order (e.g., man before plants/animals in Genesis 2) are topical, not strictly chronological—they highlight humanity's relational and stewardship role, not a restart.
This is not a contradiction but a deliberate literary strategy of progressive elucidation:
The first account sets the big picture (transcendent God, ordered cosmos, humanity as pinnacle).
The second illuminates the personal dimension (God's intimate involvement, humanity's purpose in relationship with Him, the Garden as a place of blessing and testing, and the foundation for marriage in 2:24).
Many evangelical and conservative scholars (e.g., from sources like GotQuestions.org, Ligonier Ministries, Answers in Genesis, and BioLogos discussions) affirm this: Genesis 2 is a recap and expansion of Day 6, using common ancient Near Eastern literary practice of general summary followed by specific details. This approach preserves the text's unity and divine inspiration without forcing contradictions.
Theological Purpose of This Elucidation
God repeats/revisits the creation of mankind to deepen understanding of humanity's unique identity:
We are imago Dei (image-bearers, Genesis 1) with royal dignity and responsibility.
We are formed intimately by a personal God (Genesis 2), dependent on Him for life, purpose, and companionship.
This sets the stage for the entire Bible's story: humanity's fall (Genesis 3), the need for redemption, and restoration through Christ (who recapitulates Adam as the perfect image of God).
In short, the "repetition" is God's way of elucidating—clarifying and illuminating—the profound truth that humanity is the crown of creation, made for intimate relationship with Him, not as an afterthought but as the purposeful climax of His work. This dual perspective enriches our grasp of who we are before God.
The Role of Literary Devices in Elucidating Divine Truths
In hermeneutics, literary devices are not mere stylistic flourishes but divinely orchestrated tools that elucidate theological realities, engaging readers' intellect, emotions, and imagination. Exegesis requires recognizing these devices within their genres—narrative, poetry, prophecy, epistle, apocalyptic—to avoid misinterpretation.
Exegesis of Genesis 1:26 (KJV): Grammar and Vocabulary
Genesis 1:26 in the King James Version reads: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
This verse is a pivotal moment in the Priestly (P) creation account, introducing humanity's creation as the climax of the sixth day. To exegete it thoroughly, we examine the underlying Hebrew grammar and vocabulary, drawing on linguistic analysis to uncover layers of meaning. The Hebrew text is: וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכׇל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכׇל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
Grammatical Analysis
Structure and Syntax: The verse begins with a waw-consecutive imperfect (wayyo'mer, "And [God] said"), a common narrative connector in Hebrew prose, linking this to prior acts of creation and maintaining the rhythmic, formulaic style of Genesis 1. This is followed by a cohortative verb form (na'aseh, "let us make"), which is first-person plural imperfect from the root 'asah (to do/make). The cohortative expresses volition or exhortation, implying deliberate intent. The sentence then shifts to a jussive (weyirdu, "and let them have dominion"), a third-person plural form from radah (to rule/subdue), granting authority. This grammatical progression—from divine speech to creative act to bestowed purpose—mirrors the chapter's pattern of command-fulfillment.
Pronouns and Number: The plural pronouns "us" and "our" (-nu suffix) are notable, as the subject 'Elohim (God) is a plural noun but typically takes singular verbs, indicating majestic or intensive singular usage in monotheistic contexts. Scholarly interpretations of the plural include: (1) a "plural of majesty" (royal we, emphasizing sovereignty); (2) God addressing a heavenly council (e.g., angels); or (3) intra-divine deliberation (e.g., Trinitarian foreshadowing in Christian exegesis). However, the Hebrew does not explicitly include "us" as a separate entity; it's embedded in the verb and pronouns, avoiding polytheism by focusing on 'Elohim's unified action. The shift to third-person plural "them" (-hem in weyirdu) refers to humanity collectively, emphasizing corporate responsibility.
Prepositions and Clauses: Prepositions like be- (in/according to) in betsalmenu ("in our image") and ki- (like/after) in kidemutenu ("after our likeness") indicate manner or resemblance. The list of dominions uses repetitive be- (over/in) for emphasis, creating parallelism that underscores comprehensiveness. Cohesion is achieved through conjunctions (we- prefixes), tying creation to its purpose without subordinate clauses, reflecting the text's declarative style.
Vocabulary Analysis
Key Terms:
'Elohim (God): A plural form denoting power and transcendence, used consistently in Genesis 1 to portray a sovereign creator, contrasting with the more personal YHWH in chapter 2.
'Adam (man): From the root 'adamah (ground/earth), it functions as a collective noun here, meaning "humankind" or "humanity" rather than an individual male (as in chapter 2). This broad sense aligns with the verse's plural "them," encompassing male and female (clarified in 1:27).
Tselem (image): Often means "statue" or "representation" in Semitic contexts, implying humans as visible representatives of God's rule on earth, like royal images in ancient Near Eastern cultures.
Demut (likeness): Suggests similarity in form or function, possibly intellectual/moral capacity, but not ontological equality. The pair tselem and demut may be synonymous parallelism for emphasis, highlighting humanity's unique role in reflecting divine attributes.
Radah (have dominion): Connotes stewardship or benevolent rule, not exploitation, over creation's categories (fish, birds, cattle, earth, creepers). The verb implies authority derived from the creator, tying back to humanity's imaged role.
This exegesis reveals 1:26 as theological poetry: God's intentional, plural-addressed decree elevates humanity as vice-regents, setting the stage for creation's completion.
Focus on the Finality of Creation in Genesis 1:30-31
Verses 1:30-31 conclude the sixth day: "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
These verses emphasize creation's finality through provision, evaluation, and closure. Grammatically, the waw-consecutive (wayhi-ken, "and it was so") affirms fulfillment, a refrain throughout chapter 1. Vocabulary like tob me'od ("very good")—an intensification of the "good" (tob) repeated earlier—declares holistic perfection: functional, moral, and aesthetic. The comprehensive "every thing" (kol 'asher 'asah) underscores totality, with no omissions. The day formula seals the sequence, portraying a complete, harmonious cosmos where all elements (including humanity from 1:26) are integrated and sustained. This finality counters chaos myths, affirming God's sovereign order.
Concluding with Genesis 2:1-2 and the Relationship to Chapter 2
Genesis 2:1-2 states: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."
These verses provide ultimate closure: kalah ("finished/ended") and shabat ("rested/ceased") emphasize cessation, not exhaustion, but completion and sanctification. The repetition of "work which he had made" (melakhto 'asher 'asah) echoes 1:31's totality, framing creation as a temple-like order where God dwells in rest.
Regarding chapter 2, scholarly consensus views it not as a second, independent creation of man but as a complementary narrative, often from the Yahwist (J) source, focusing anthropologically on details omitted in chapter 1's cosmic scope. Key evidence against a "new" creation:
Chronological Harmony: Genesis 2:4-25 recaps or expands the sixth day (1:26-31), detailing humanity's formation (yatsar, "formed" from dust, vs. bara, "created" in 1:27 for origination). The sequence in 2 (man, then garden/plants/animals for him) is topical, not strictly chronological, addressing relational origins (e.g., marriage in 2:24).
Linguistic Links: Both use 'adam (humanity/man), but 2 personalizes it. No "beginning again" language; 2:1-3 bridges as a hinge, with 2:4's toledot ("generations/account") introducing a focused retelling.
Thematic Unity: Chapter 1's finality (everything "very good" and "finished") precludes restarts; divergences (e.g., order of plants/animals) reflect genre—poetic framework in 1 vs. narrative etiology in 2—rather than contradiction. Conservative views see seamless integration, while critical scholarship (Documentary Hypothesis) attributes to edited sources but affirms unified theology: one creation, dual perspectives.
Thus, God does not "begin again" in chapter 2; it elucidates 1:26's humanity within Eden, preserving the finality of the seven-day structure.
a rigorous exegetical and hermeneutical examination of Genesis chapters 1 and 2, focusing on grammar (both English translations and original Hebrew), to demonstrate that Genesis 2 functions as a literary interlude or flashback providing detailed elaboration on the events of day 6 from Genesis 1. Specifically, this analysis aims to prove: (1) the creation of humanity (male and female) was fully completed on day 6 as described in Genesis 1; (2) Genesis 2 does not introduce a new or separate creation event; and (3) Eve was formed on the same day as Adam, within the timeframe of day 6. This interpretation resolves apparent tensions by viewing the chapters as complementary: Genesis 1 offers a broad, chronological overview of creation week, while Genesis 2 zooms in on the anthropocentric details of day 6 without advancing the timeline.
Hermeneutically, this follows principles of biblical interpretation such as the unity of Scripture (no genuine contradictions), contextual reading (literary genre as historical narrative with poetic elements), and grammatical-historical exegesis (considering original language, syntax, and cultural context). Sources from conservative evangelical, Reformed, and scholarly perspectives support this view, emphasizing complementary accounts rather than conflicting ones. Liberal "critical theory" approaches (e.g., Documentary Hypothesis) posit separate sources (P for Gen 1, J for Gen 2), leading to alleged contradictions, but this is rejected here as it ignores internal literary unity and Hebrew grammatical cues.
All references use the King James Version (KJV) for English, with Hebrew from the Masoretic Text (MT). Key Hebrew terms and grammar will be analyzed using transliteration for accessibility.
Hermeneutical Framework: Literary Structure and Complementary Accounts
Hermeneutically, Genesis 1–2 employs a common ancient Near Eastern literary device: a broad summary followed by a detailed inset or "zoom-in" (sometimes called a "literary interlude" or "flashback"). Genesis 1 is structured as a chronological hymn-like overview (days 1–7, with formulaic "and God said... and it was so... evening and morning"), emphasizing God's sovereignty over creation. Genesis 2 shifts focus to humanity's role in Eden, using a different style (narrative prose with dialogue) to elaborate without chronological progression.
No advancement beyond day 6: Genesis 2 lacks the "day" formula of chapter 1 and begins with a recapitulation (Gen 2:4: "These are the generations..."), a toledot formula signaling a new section that traces origins or details prior events (used 11 times in Genesis, e.g., Gen 5:1 for Adam's line).
Complementary, not contradictory: Apparent differences (e.g., order of plants/animals/man) are resolved by viewing chapter 2 as non-sequential detail. This avoids forcing contradictions and aligns with the Bible's self-attestation as unified (2 Tim 3:16).
Genre considerations: Poetic parallelism and chiastic structures in Gen 1 (e.g., days 1–3 form realms, days 4–6 fill them) contrast with Gen 2's intimate narrative, indicating purposeful stylistic shift for theological emphasis (e.g., man's dominion, relationship with God).
Exegesis of Genesis 1: Overview of Creation Week
Genesis 1 provides a panoramic view, culminating in humanity's creation on day 6 as the pinnacle.
Day 6 summary (Gen 1:24–31): "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind... And God made the beast of the earth... And God said, Let us make man in our image... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them... And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply... And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
Humanity (adam, collective for mankind) is created male and female simultaneously in summary form, given dominion and the mandate to multiply.
Hebrew: Bara (create, often ex nihilo) is used three times in v. 27 for emphasis, marking uniqueness. Asah (make, fashion) in v. 26 implies purposeful design. No details on process—focus on divine fiat.
Completion (Gen 2:1–3): "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished... And on the seventh day God ended his work... and he rested." Wayyiqtol chain (sequential narrative: "and he finished... and he rested") closes the week, implying no further creation acts. This seals day 6 as the endpoint for humanity's creation.
Exegesis of Genesis 2: Detailed Flashback to Day 6
Genesis 2:4–25 shifts to a close-up on day 6, detailing man's formation, placement in Eden, naming animals, and Eve's creation. It is not sequential to chapter 1 but an interlude elaborating prior events.
Transition (Gen 2:4): "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created..." Toledot introduces a genealogical or historical recap, flashing back to creation's details.
Man's formation (Gen 2:7): "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..." Yatsar (form, as potter shapes clay) details the bara/asah of Gen 1:26–27. No new creation—expands on day 6.
Animals and plants (Gen 2:5–6, 8–9, 19): "There was not a man to till the ground... And the LORD God planted a garden... And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast..." These are not pre-man creations but flashbacks; e.g., v. 19's wayyiqtol (vayyitser, "formed") can function as pluperfect ("had formed") in disjunctive contexts, indicating prior action. This resolves apparent order differences (animals before man in Gen 1, seemingly after in Gen 2).
Eve's creation (Gen 2:18–25): "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam... and he took one of his ribs... And the rib... made he a woman..." This occurs after Adam names animals (v. 20), all fitting day 6's timeframe. The sequence (Adam alone briefly, then Eve) elaborates Gen 1:27's "male and female created he them," emphasizing unity (v. 24: "one flesh"). No indication of days passing—narrative compression allows all on day 6. Objections (e.g., too much for one day) overlook divine efficiency and narrative telescoping.
Grammatical Considerations: English and Hebrew
English grammar (KJV): Gen 1 uses simple past ("created," "made") for direct sequence. Gen 2 employs pluperfect in some translations (e.g., NIV: "had formed" in 2:19) to indicate flashback, though KJV uses simple past ("formed"), allowing interpretive flexibility. This supports interlude reading without contradiction.
Hebrew grammar:
Verbs: Bara (Gen 1:1,21,27; 2:3–4) for divine creation; asah (Gen 1:7,16,25–26,31; 2:2–4,18) for making/doing; yatsar (Gen 2:7–8,19) for forming/shaping. No conflict—yatsar details bara/asah.
Wayyiqtol (waw-consecutive imperfect): Dominant in Gen 2 (e.g., vayyitser in 2:7,19—"and he formed"). Typically sequential, but in disjunctive clauses or recaps, it can denote pluperfect (background action: "had formed"). Scholarly debate exists, but context favors pluperfect in 2:19 to align with Gen 1's order.
Syntax: Gen 2:5–6 uses disjunctive clauses (no waw-consecutive) for setting (e.g., "no shrub... no man"), indicating background conditions before the main narrative resumes. This signals flashback, not new chronology.
Conclusion
Through grammatical, exegetical, and hermeneutical lenses, Genesis 2 emerges as a literary interlude flashing back to day 6 details from Genesis 1. Humanity's creation (male and female) concludes on day 6, with no new events in chapter 2—only elaboration. Eve's formation fits the same day, emphasizing relational theology. This unified reading upholds Scripture's integrity, countering claims of contradiction.
26 web pages
Analyze toledot formula in Genesis
Compare with Enuma Elish creation
ALSO GIVE AND COMPARE AT LEAST 3 OTHER BIBLE BOOKS IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT THAT USES FLASHBACK AND WHAT IS THE LITERAL ACADEMIC GRAMMAR TERM FOR FLASH BACK
Thought for 41s
Academic Literary Term for Flashback
The literal academic term for flashback in literary theory and narratology is analepsis. This term, coined by French literary theorist Gérard Genette in his work Narrative Discourse (1972), refers to a narrative interruption where the story shifts to events that occurred earlier in the timeline, providing backstory, context, or deeper insight. It contrasts with "prolepsis" (flash-forward). In biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, analepsis is often used interchangeably with terms like "recapitulation," "retrospective narrative," or simply "flashback," but "analepsis" is the precise grammatical and structural term in academic discourse. It emphasizes how the device disrupts linear chronology for thematic or theological emphasis, much like in Genesis 2's elaboration on Genesis 1.
Examples of Flashback (Analepsis) in Other Bible Books
Biblical narrative frequently employs analepsis to provide historical context, theological reflection, or explanatory depth, enhancing the main storyline without creating contradictions. This mirrors Genesis 1–2, where chapter 1 offers a broad chronological overview of creation, and chapter 2 uses analepsis to "zoom in" on day 6's details (e.g., Adam's formation from dust, naming animals, and Eve's creation from his rib) for anthropocentric emphasis on humanity's relationship with God and creation. Below, I analyze and compare at least three examples from the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT), drawing from narrative books like those in the historical sections. I've selected four for broader coverage (two OT, two NT), focusing on clear instances of chronological disruption via grammatical cues (e.g., transitional phrases like "in those days" or retrospective verbs).
1. Old Testament: Deuteronomy (Entire Book as Extended Analepsis)
Description: Deuteronomy is structured as Moses' farewell speeches to Israel on the plains of Moab, just before entering the Promised Land (Deut 1:1–5). The bulk of the book (chapters 1–11, 12–26, 27–34) recounts past events from Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, including the Exodus from Egypt, wilderness wanderings, Sinai covenant, and rebellions (e.g., Deut 1:6–3:29 recaps the journey from Horeb to Moab; Deut 9–10 flashbacks to the golden calf incident in Ex 32).
Grammatical and Exegetical Considerations: Hebrew uses wayyiqtol verbs (waw-consecutive imperfect, e.g., "and he said" in Deut 1:9) for sequential retelling, but the introductory "these are the words" (Deut 1:1) signals a disjunctive shift to retrospective mode. Analepsis is marked by phrases like "at that time" (Deut 1:9, 3:4) or "remember" (Deut 5:15, 7:18), functioning as pluperfect recollections. Hermeneutically, this is not linear history but theological recapitulation, emphasizing covenant renewal and obedience.
Comparison to Genesis 1–2: Like Genesis 2's flashback to day 6 for intimate details (e.g., Eden's garden, man's role), Deuteronomy uses analepsis to elaborate on prior events (from Exodus-Numbers) with added commentary, shifting from broad historical narrative to covenantal application. Both employ toledot-like transitions (Genesis' "generations" in 2:4; Deuteronomy's "words" in 1:1) for thematic depth, resolving apparent repetitions (e.g., law recaps) as complementary, not contradictory. Deuteronomy's scale is larger (book-length vs. chapter-length), focusing on national history rather than creation, but both highlight God's relational intent.
2. Old Testament: Genesis (Chapter 38: Judah and Tamar as Interlude Analepsis)
Description: Embedded within the Joseph story (Gen 37–50), chapter 38 interrupts Joseph's sale into Egypt (Gen 37:36) to recount Judah's separation from his brothers, marriage, sons, and encounter with Tamar (his daughter-in-law), leading to Perez's birth. This flashbacks to events occurring during Joseph's enslavement, providing genealogical context for David's lineage (Ruth 4:18–22).
Grammatical and Exegetical Considerations: The chapter begins with a disjunctive waw (vayhi, "and it came to pass at that time" in Gen 38:1), signaling a temporal shift backward. Wayyiqtol chains narrate the sequence internally, but the lack of connection to Joseph's timeline indicates analepsis. Hermeneutically, it's an interlude highlighting themes of redemption and covenant continuity amid family dysfunction.
Comparison to Genesis 1–2: Both use analepsis as an "inset" narrative: Genesis 2 details day 6 within chapter 1's overview, while Genesis 38 insets Judah's story within Joseph's arc. Grammatically, both rely on disjunctive transitions (Gen 2:4's toledot; Gen 38:1's vayhi) to pause chronology for thematic elaboration. Unlike Genesis 1–2's creation focus, Genesis 38 emphasizes messianic lineage, but both resolve "order" issues (e.g., apparent timeline jumps) through complementary reading, underscoring God's providence in human affairs.
3. New Testament: Mark (Chapter 6:14–29: Herod's Analepsis to John the Baptist's Death)
Description: Amid Jesus' ministry (Mark 6:1–13), news of his miracles reaches Herod, triggering a flashback to Herod's imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist (vv. 17–29), explaining Herod's guilt and fear that Jesus is John risen.
Grammatical and Exegetical Considerations: Greek uses aorist tenses for past events (e.g., "had sent" in v. 17; "had married" in v. 17), with gar ("for") in v. 17 introducing explanatory analepsis. The narrative shifts from present (Herod hearing) to past (John's fate), resuming in v. 30. Hermeneutically, this device builds tension, linking John's martyrdom to Jesus' mission.
Comparison to Genesis 1–2: Mark 6's analepsis provides backstory for current events (Herod's reaction), similar to Genesis 2's elaboration on day 6 for understanding humanity's role. Both use simple past tenses (Hebrew wayyiqtol/Greek aorist) in disjunctive contexts to indicate flashback without advancing the main plot. Mark's is shorter and character-driven (psychological insight into Herod), while Genesis 1–2 is cosmological, but both serve theological purposes: foreshadowing rejection (Mark) vs. relational origins (Genesis).
4. New Testament: Acts (Chapter 7: Stephen's Speech as Historical Analepsis)
Description: During Stephen's trial (Acts 6:8–7:1), his defense (Acts 7:2–53) flashbacks through OT history—from Abraham's call (Gen 12) to Moses' Exodus, wilderness, and prophets—culminating in accusations against his accusers.
Grammatical and Exegetical Considerations: Greek employs historical aorists (e.g., "appeared" in v. 2; "said" in v. 3) and transitional phrases like "in those days" (v. 41), creating a retrospective survey. The speech is framed as response (v. 1: "Are these things so?"), making it embedded analepsis. Hermeneutically, it defends Christianity by recapping salvation history.
Comparison to Genesis 1–2: Acts 7's analepsis recaps foundational events for apologetic emphasis, akin to Genesis 2's detail-oriented flashback to creation's origins. Both use sequential verbs in a non-chronological frame (wayyiqtol/aorist) to unify narrative. Acts 7 spans centuries for Christological ties, while Genesis 1–2 is concise for creational theology, but both highlight continuity (God's faithfulness in history vs. order in creation).
In summary, these examples demonstrate analepsis as a common biblical tool for depth and unity, much like in Genesis 1–2. OT instances (Deuteronomy, Genesis 38) often recap for covenantal or genealogical focus, while NT ones (Mark 6, Acts 7) explain present conflicts through past events, all enhancing theological coherence without linear disruption.
Analepsis (Flashback) in the Book of Psalms
While the Psalms are primarily lyric poetry (songs, prayers, laments, and praises) rather than extended narrative prose like Genesis, Deuteronomy, or Mark, they frequently employ analepsis—retrospective references to past events—to ground present worship, lament, or thanksgiving in Israel's salvation history. This literary device serves theological purposes: reminding God and the worshipper of His past faithfulness, invoking covenant promises, or contrasting past deliverance with current distress.
In poetic form, analepsis often appears as historical recitals or allusions rather than full narrative interruptions, but it functions similarly to prose flashbacks: disrupting the "present" moment of the psalm to evoke earlier events for rhetorical and devotional impact. Below, I compare several clear examples of analepsis in Psalms, analyzing their structure, grammatical cues, and theological role, with comparisons to the prose analepsis discussed previously (e.g., Genesis 1–2, Deuteronomy, Mark 6).
1. Psalm 136: The Great Hallel – Extended Historical Analepsis
Description: The entire psalm is structured as a liturgical antiphon: "His mercy endureth for ever" repeated 26 times. Verses 4–25 flashback through creation (vv. 4–9), the Exodus (vv. 10–15), wilderness journey (v. 16), conquest (vv. 17–22), and ongoing providence (vv. 23–25).
Grammatical/Literary Features: Hebrew uses participles and perfect verbs for timeless divine acts (e.g., "To him who alone doeth great wonders," v. 4), shifting to qatal (perfect) verbs for completed historical events (e.g., "smote Egypt in their firstborn," v. 10; "brought out Israel," v. 11). The refrain anchors the analepsis in present worship.
Theological Role: Recapitulates salvation history to affirm God's enduring hesed (covenant love) amid any current situation.
Comparison to Prose Analepsis:
Like Deuteronomy (Moses' extended historical recap), Psalm 136 is a large-scale analepsis for covenant renewal and instruction.
Unlike Genesis 1–2 (focused zoom-in on one day), it surveys centuries, but both use retrospective review to deepen understanding of God's character.
2. Psalm 78: Didactic Historical Psalm – Narrative Analepsis
Description: A maskil of Asaph, this is the longest historical psalm (72 verses). It recounts Israel's history from the Exodus (vv. 12–16), through wilderness rebellions (vv. 17–31), judges period (vv. 56–64), to David's election (vv. 65–72), with the explicit purpose: "That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God" (v. 7).
Grammatical/Literary Features: Begins with a prologue (vv. 1–8) framing the analepsis, then uses wayyiqtol-like sequencing in poetic form (e.g., "He divided the sea," v. 13; "He smote the rock," v. 20). Shifts between past events and present moral application (e.g., "Yet they sinned still more," v. 17).
Theological Role: Teaches future generations by contrasting God's faithfulness with Israel's unfaithfulness.
Comparison:
Closest to Acts 7 (Stephen's speech) and Deuteronomy—a pedagogical historical survey using analepsis to make a present theological point.
Differs from Genesis 1–2 in scope (national history vs. primordial creation) but shares the function of grounding present faith in past divine acts.
3. Psalm 105 & 106: Companion Historical Psalms
Psalm 105: Joyful recital of covenant history from Abraham (vv. 8–11), Joseph (vv. 16–22), plagues and Exodus (vv. 23–38), to conquest (vv. 44), ending with "that they might observe his statutes" (v. 45).
Psalm 106: Contrasting lament—recalls the same events (Red Sea, wilderness, Canaan) but emphasizes Israel's repeated sin (e.g., golden calf v. 19–23, Baal-peor v. 28), ending with plea for deliverance.
Grammatical/Literary Features: Both use qatal verbs for completed acts and imperative calls to praise (105:1–5; 106:1–3, 47–48) that frame the analepsis. Psalm 106 frequently inserts evaluative commentary (e.g., "Nevertheless he saved them," v. 8).
Comparison:
Together they form a diptych similar to how Genesis 1 (orderly creation) and Genesis 2 (detailed human focus) complement each other—one positive, one confessional.
Like Mark 6:14–29 (Herod's flashback explaining present fear), these psalms use history to interpret the community's current spiritual state.
4. Psalm 77: Personal Lament with Analepsis
Description: The psalmist cries in distress (vv. 1–9), then pivots: "I will remember the years of the right hand of the most High" (v. 10). Verses 11–20 flashback to the Exodus (Red Sea deliverance, vv. 16–20).
Grammatical/Literary Features: Sharp turn at v. 10 (zākhartî, "I remembered"); shift from first-person lament (imperfect/cohortative verbs) to declarative perfects about God's past deeds ("Thou hast with thine arm redeemed," v. 15).
Theological Role: Personal crisis resolved by meditating on redemptive history.
Comparison:
Most similar to individual use of analepsis in narrative—provides emotional and theological resolution, much like Mark 6 uses John's death to explain Herod's reaction.
Contrasts with Genesis 1–2 in being experiential rather than cosmological, but both use flashback to move from broad distress/chaos to ordered hope.
Summary Comparison Table
Conclusion
Though Psalms are poetic rather than strictly narrative, analepsis is one of their most characteristic devices. Historical recitals anchor present worship, lament, or hope in God's past acts of creation and redemption. This mirrors prose analepsis (Genesis 1–2, Deuteronomy, NT examples) in function—providing depth, context, and theological coherence—while adapting to lyric form through participles, perfect verbs, and refrain structures. The psalmists repeatedly "remember" (zākar) the past not as mere nostalgia but as a hermeneutical key to understanding the present and trusting God for the future.
Greek Equivalents in the New Testament for Sequential Retelling and Retrospective Analepsis
Building on the Hebrew grammatical analysis (e.g., wayyiqtol for sequential narrative with disjunctive shifts for analepsis via phrases like "at that time" or "remember"), the New Testament (NT) employs Koine Greek verb tenses and constructions to achieve similar effects. NT Greek prioritizes aspect (kind of action: completed, ongoing, or stative) over strict time, but in narrative contexts, tenses convey temporal relationships. Sequential retelling often uses chained actions for forward momentum, while retrospective analepsis (flashback) employs tenses that reference prior completed actions or background settings.
Hermeneutically, these serve theological recapitulation—much like Deuteronomy's emphasis on covenant renewal—focusing on God's faithfulness in history for present application (e.g., in speeches or insets). Below, I outline key Greek verb forms, their roles in narrative, and examples from NT books using analepsis (e.g., Mark 6, Acts 7), comparing to the Hebrew model.
Key Greek Verb Forms and Their Functions
NT narratives (e.g., Gospels, Acts) use these tenses for structure:
Aorist Indicative (Simple Past Aspect):
Role in Sequential Retelling: Equivalent to Hebrew wayyiqtol, the aorist denotes punctiliar (point-in-time) or summary actions, often chained with kai ("and") for sequential progression (kai-aorist chains mimic waw-consecutive). It advances the story linearly, focusing on completed events without duration.
Role in Analepsis: In flashbacks, aorist can appear in subordinate clauses or with temporal markers (e.g., tote "then," en ekeinō tō kairō "at that time") to recount past sequences retrospectively.
Comparison to Hebrew: Like wayyiqtol's sequential chain, but more flexible for aspect; disjunctive shifts occur via particles or phrases (e.g., gar "for" introducing explanation).
Imperfect Indicative (Progressive Past Aspect):
Role: Describes ongoing, habitual, or background actions in the past, setting the scene for main events. In sequential retelling, it provides descriptive "color" (e.g., "was walking" amid aorists). In analepsis, it evokes extended past states leading to a flashback's focus.
Comparison: Parallels Hebrew disjunctive clauses (non-wayyiqtol) for background, contrasting with sequential advancement.
Pluperfect Indicative (Past Perfect Aspect):
Role in Retrospective Analepsis/Flashback: The primary "proof" tense for flashbacks, indicating actions completed before another past event (e.g., "had done"). It functions like Hebrew pluperfect recollections (via "remember" phrases), marking prior completion with ongoing relevance. Rare in NT (due to preference for aorist), but emphatic for temporal depth.
Comparison: Directly mirrors Deuteronomy's "pluperfect recollections" (e.g., via "at that time"), signaling disjunctive shifts to earlier events.
Historical Present (Present Tense in Past Contexts):
Role: Uses present indicative for vivid, "immediate" retelling of past events, heightening drama in sequential narratives or flashbacks. Not a tense per se, but a stylistic device for engagement.
Comparison: Adds vividness absent in Hebrew wayyiqtol's formality; akin to "remember" imperatives for lively recollection.
Phrases like en ekeinais tais hēmerais ("in those days," Matt 3:1) or tote ("then," Matt 2:7) mark analepsis, similar to Hebrew "at that time."
Examples from NT Books Using Analepsis
Here, I compare two NT instances (Mark 6 and Acts 7) to Deuteronomy's model, highlighting Greek verbs for sequential retelling and analepsis.
Mark 6:14–29 (Herod's Flashback to John the Baptist's Death):
Analepsis Structure: Herod hears of Jesus (present narrative, v. 14), triggering a flashback (gar "for" in v. 17 introduces explanation). The inset recounts John's arrest/beheading (analepsis to prior events).
Greek Verbs:
Sequential Retelling: Aorist chain for progression (e.g., epempsen "sent" [v. 17]; ekleisen "shut up" [v. 17]; epoiei imperfect for ongoing "was doing" miracles, setting background).
Retrospective Analepsis: Pluperfect ededeto ("had bound," v. 17 KJV: "had put [him] in prison") marks action completed before Herod's hearing; aorists in the flashback (apelusen "released," but negated; apekephalisen "beheaded" [v. 27]) recount sequence retrospectively.
Hermeneutical/Theological Role: Like Deuteronomy's theological recapitulation (covenant obedience), this analepsis emphasizes prophetic continuity and guilt, linking John's fate to Jesus'.
Comparison to Deuteronomy: Aorist/kai chains parallel wayyiqtol for internal sequence; pluperfect and gar provide disjunctive shift, akin to "these are the words" or "at that time" for retrospective mode.
Acts 7:2–53 (Stephen's Speech as Historical Analepsis):
Analepsis Structure: Stephen's defense recaps OT history (Abraham to prophets), flashing back from his trial (present) to foundational events.
Greek Verbs:
Sequential Retelling: Aorist dominants for historical chain (e.g., eipen "said" [v. 3]; exēgagen "brought out" [v. 45]; apesteilen "sent" [v. 12]).
Retrospective Analepsis: Pluperfect egegonei ("had come," v. 52 implied in context); imperfects for background (e.g., ēsan "were" dwelling [v. 2]); phrases like tote ("then," v. 26) and en tais hēmerais ekeinais ("in those days," v. 41) mark shifts, functioning as pluperfect recollections.
Hermeneutical/Theological Role: Mirrors Deuteronomy's covenant emphasis—recapitulates history for obedience/apologetics, accusing listeners of repeating past sins.
Comparison to Deuteronomy: Aorist for sequential retelling echoes wayyiqtol; pluperfect and temporal phrases (tote) signal disjunctive analepsis, like "remember" or "at that time," for theological application.
In summary, the NT's aorist (with kai) proves sequential retelling, while pluperfect (and supporting phrases) evidences retrospective analepsis, enabling theological depth without linear disruption—paralleling Hebrew's wayyiqtol/disjunctive model but with aspectual nuance.
1 web page
Compare to Luke 1:1-4 analepsis
Analepsis in Old Testament Greek Septuagint
kai ("and") for sequential progression (kai-aorist chains mimic waw-consecutive)No, the copulative (connective) function of kai ("and") in Greek does not prove that "God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" refer to one person rather than two distinct persons.
The use of kai in greetings such as those found in Paul's epistles (e.g., "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" — repeated in Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Phlm 3; and similarly in 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2) is a standard Greek construction that distinguishes two entities while linking them in a common action or role. This is the normal, unremarkable copulative use of kai, equivalent to English "and."
The pattern in Genesis 1–2—where Genesis 1 provides a broad, chronological summary of creation (including humanity's creation in 1:26–27 as the climax of day 6, completed by the chapter's end with God's blessing and rest), followed by Genesis 2 as a detailed recapitulation or "zoom-in" on the anthropocentric events of day 6 (e.g., Adam's formation from dust, the garden, naming animals, and Eve's creation)—is a distinctive narrative structure known as recapitulation or analepsis (flashback with elaboration). This is not a "duplicate" implying contradiction but a complementary literary device common in ancient Near Eastern and biblical storytelling, where a summary establishes the big picture, and the detail adds theological depth, focusing on relationships and purpose.
While no "exact duplicate" exists elsewhere in Scripture (as Genesis 1–2's cosmic-to-human shift is unique to the creation account), the closest parallels appear within Genesis itself via the toledot ("generations" or "account") formula. This recurring structure (used 11 times in Genesis) often begins with a brief summary or recap of prior events, followed by detailed developments or narratives stemming from that summary. It mirrors the Genesis 1–2 pattern by providing an overview then elaborating for emphasis on lineage, covenant, or human drama. Below, I outline key examples from Genesis and other books, drawing from conservative scholarly views that see these as unified divine recounting (not conflicting sources). These demonstrate how God "recounts events" to reveal progressive revelation, covenant faithfulness, and the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16 KJV)—a unified perspective emphasizing redemption history.
Examples in Genesis (Toledot Structure as Recapitulation)
The toledot headings act like chapter transitions, recapping a figure or event from earlier narratives before detailing outcomes, much like Genesis 2 recaps the creation of humanity (from 1:26–27) then details the process.
Genesis 5:1–2 (Toledot of Adam)
Summary/Recap: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." This directly recapitulates Genesis 1:26–27 (humanity made in God's image, male and female, blessed)—a concise overview of day 6's completion.
Detailed Elaboration: Verses 3–32 then provide the genealogy from Adam to Noah, focusing on descendants, ages, and the line leading to redemption (e.g., Seth's birth after Cain/Abel). No new creation; it expands on the "be fruitful and multiply" mandate from Genesis 1:28.
Parallel to Gen 1–2: Exact structural duplicate—summary of man's creation, then detailed "developments" (genealogy as outgrowth). Theologically, it recounts God's sustaining work amid sin (post-Fall), showing divine mind in preserving a godly line.
Genesis 6:9–10 (Toledot of Noah)
Summary/Recap: "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth." This recaps Noah's righteousness and family (echoing the "male and female" and blessing themes from Gen 1).
Detailed Elaboration: Verses 11–9:29 detail the corruption of earth, flood instructions, events, covenant, and Noah's post-flood life—expanding without contradicting prior summaries.
Parallel: Like Gen 2's focus on human roles (tilling garden, naming), this elaborates Noah's role in salvation amid judgment, recounting God's renewal pattern.
Genesis 11:27–32 (Toledot of Terah)
Summary/Recap: "Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot... And Terah took Abram his son..." A brief family overview, recapping lineage.
Detailed Elaboration: Leads into chapters 12–25, detailing Abraham's call, journeys, covenant, and tests—expanding on the "blessing" theme from Gen 1.
Parallel: Summary of origins, then narrative depth on covenant fulfillment, mirroring Gen 1's cosmic summary to Gen 2's relational focus.
Other Genesis toledot follow suit (e.g., Gen 10:1 nations summary then table; Gen 25:12 Ishmael recap then genealogy; Gen 36:1 Esau summary then Edom details), creating a book-wide pattern of recapitulation to trace God's redemptive plan.
Examples Elsewhere in Scripture
Beyond Genesis, similar "double narratives" or recapitulations appear, where an event is summarized then retold in detail for emphasis—recounting to highlight God's sovereignty and human response.
Exodus 20 (Ten Commandments Summary) vs. Deuteronomy 5 (Detailed Recapitulation)
Summary: Exodus 20:1–17 gives the Decalogue as direct divine speech during the Sinai theophany—a concise overview.
Detailed Elaboration: Deuteronomy 5:6–21 retells it with slight expansions (e.g., added reasons for Sabbath observance tied to Egypt deliverance), as Moses recounts the event to the new generation.
Parallel: Like Gen 1's formal structure to Gen 2's intimate narrative, this recounts the covenant for renewal, showing God's mind in adapting truth for application (Deut as "second law").
Acts 9 (Paul's Conversion Summary) vs. Acts 22 and 26 (Detailed Retellings)
Summary: Acts 9:1–19 narrates Paul's Damascus road encounter linearly—a straightforward account.
Detailed Elaboration: Paul retells it in speeches (Acts 22:6–21 adds personal dialogue and Ananias' role; Acts 26:12–18 emphasizes divine commission)—flashbacks with added details for apologetic purposes.
Parallel: Mirrors Gen 1–2's summary-to-detail, recounting salvation history to defend faith, revealing Christ's mind in transformative encounters.
Psalm 105–106 (Paired Recapitulations of Israel's History)
Summary in Psalm 105: A positive overview of God's acts from Abraham to conquest.
Detailed Elaboration in Psalm 106: Retells the same events with focus on Israel's failures (e.g., golden calf, wilderness rebellions)—adding confessional depth.
Parallel: Like Gen 1's "good" creation to Gen 2's "not good" (man's aloneness), these recount history thematically, showing God's faithful mind amid human sin.
nderstanding Recapitulation in the Book of Revelation
The Book of Revelation, often seen as a complex apocalyptic text, employs a narrative technique known as recapitulation (or "progressive parallelism"), where events are retold or revisited from multiple angles rather than unfolding in a strictly linear chronology. This method allows the author (John) to emphasize different theological aspects of the same period—typically the time between Christ's ascension and second coming—building layers of meaning for encouragement, warning, and worship. Recapitulation is not unique to Revelation but aligns with broader biblical patterns (e.g., complementary accounts in Genesis 1–2 or historical psalms like 105–106), reflecting God's recounting of events to reveal His sovereign plan and the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16 KJV) through intensified imagery and judgment cycles.
Scholars argue this structure prevents a rigid timeline interpretation, instead portraying escalating spiritual realities: God's protection of His people amid tribulation, Satan's defeat, and ultimate victory. Critics of strict sequential views note that each cycle (seals, trumpets, bowls) ends with cosmic judgment imagery (e.g., thunder, earthquakes), suggesting overlap rather than progression. Below, I'll explore its key features, examples, scholarly history, and theological implications, drawing from amillennial, postmillennial, and idealist perspectives that favor this approach.
What is Recapitulation in Revelation?
Recapitulation involves summarizing and restating narratives with new emphases or perspectives, often using symbolic cycles to revisit the church age's tribulations and triumphs. In Revelation, it manifests as parallel visions:
Seals (Rev. 6–8:1): Focus on human suffering and divine sovereignty.
Trumpets (Rev. 8:2–11:19): Emphasize warnings and partial judgments on the world.
Bowls (Rev. 15–16): Depict total, escalating wrath on the unrepentant.
These are not consecutive but overlapping descriptions of the inter-advent period, each culminating in end-time consummation (e.g., the seventh seal/trumpet/bowl signals Christ's return or final judgment). Interludes (e.g., Rev. 7, 10–11, 12–14) provide "zoom-ins" on the church's preservation, akin to Genesis 2's elaboration on day 6.
This structure echoes Old Testament prophetic patterns (e.g., Daniel's visions repeating empires under different symbols) and Jesus' Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24), where tribulation signs recur without strict sequence.
Key Examples of Recapitulation in Revelation
The Seven Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls (Rev. 6–16)
Each series starts with heavenly scenes (throne room, altar) and progresses through six judgments, with the seventh ushering in the end (e.g., silence in heaven for seals; kingdom proclamation for trumpets; "It is done!" for bowls).
Recapitulation evidence: Similar motifs recur (e.g., earthquakes in 6:12, 11:13, 16:18; hail in 8:7, 11:19, 16:21), suggesting the same era viewed differently—seals from earth's perspective, trumpets as warnings to repent, bowls as final outpouring. This recounts tribulation to assure believers of God's control.
The Woman, Dragon, and Beasts (Rev. 12–14)
Chapter 12 flashbacks to Satan's defeat at Christ's birth/resurrection (vv. 1–6), then elaborates cosmic war (vv. 7–17)—recapitulating the church's persecution from Genesis 3:15 onward.
Chapters 13–14 retell this through beasts (antichrist figures) and harvest judgments, overlapping with prior cycles.
Parallel: Like Genesis 1's summary to 2's detail, this recounts spiritual warfare to emphasize victory (Rev. 12:11: overcoming by the Lamb's blood).
The Battle of Armageddon and Millennium (Rev. 19–20)
Rev. 19:11–21 depicts Christ's warrior return and beast's defeat; Rev. 20:1–10 retells Satan's binding, millennial reign, and final battle—often seen as recapitulating the same eschatological climax from different vantage points (e.g., church's protection vs. Satan's doom). This structure recounts judgment to highlight eternal security.
Scholarly History and Views
Recapitulation theory traces to early church fathers like Victorinus of Petovium (3rd century), who saw parallels in the visions, but gained prominence in post-Reformation amillennialism.
19th Century: William Hendriksen (More Than Conquerors, 1940, but rooted in earlier Reformed works) popularized it as "progressive parallelism," where cycles intensify toward consummation, reflecting God's recounting for hope amid persecution.
20th Century: G.K. Beale (The Book of Revelation, 1999) defends it exegetically, noting chiastic structures and OT allusions (e.g., Ezekiel's influence) to show unified divine mind. Dennis E. Johnson (Triumph of the Lamb, 2001) emphasizes how it mirrors Christ's victory, recounting events cyclically for pastoral encouragement.
Critiques: Premillennialists (e.g., Robert Thomas) argue for sequence, seeing recapitulation as forced, but acknowledge overlaps. Recent studies (e.g., Brian Tabb, All Things New, 2019) integrate it with intertextuality, viewing God's recounting as echoing biblical history.
Theological Implications: Revealing the Mind of Christ
Recapitulation shows God's timeless perspective—events "already but not yet" fulfilled in Christ (Rev. 1:19). It recounts tribulation not to predict timelines but to unveil spiritual realities: Satan's rage, church's sealing, and Lamb's triumph. This mirrors Christ's teachings (e.g., parables retelling kingdom truths) and fosters endurance (Rev. 1:3), aligning with the "mind of Christ" as patient, victorious wisdom amid chaos.
Comments
Post a Comment